City Council - Regular Meeting

A bar thing. Okay. A what?

I don't know. All right.

Yeah, don't share that, please.

We ready to get started?

We're all here.

We're all here. 1230. Let's do it. All right. I'd like to call this June 1st, 2026 budget work session. This is continued from the May 20th, 2026 budget work session. The only thing on the agenda is to continue to review the proposed budget. So Megan, I will recognize you. And it's my understanding we're just going through the questions identified last time.

That is my understanding as well. So these may not be in the order in which they were brought up. But you have on the screen up here, and we'll upload it to SharePoint. at the end of the meeting. Your first item requested is your year-to-year comparison. It's important to note that these are the numbers as originally adopted for 24-25 and 25-26. It does not include budget amendments that occurred throughout the year.

Do we have those numbers, too, for the budget amendments? They're not captured on, like, year-end audit or anything?

They could be, but this is not in here.

Okay. Okay.

What I'm telling you is these are comparing July 1 of each year as adopted.

Is there any way to get this?

It's already in SharePoint from prior years.

The broken out one is? Or just the main headlines? I'm interested in seeing the broken out.

The details have been in SharePoint for years. Yep.

But it's not side by side? Or it is. Sorry, I'm just trying to follow what's in SharePoint.

What you have for 26-27, you also have in SharePoint for 25-26, 24-25. Okay, so I'll be able to go and do a side-by-side. Okay, awesome. So the first chart's your general fund. Your second chart is your utilities fund. Drug fund dollars. Again, it's important to note, as I stated at the last budget workshop, that your drug funds cannot be used to supplant the budget. So if anything is removed from the proposed 26-27 budget, it would be ineligible for drug funds unless we want to forfeit participation in the program and risk going to jail. Personally, I do not. So I just think it's important to note that as well. Your carryover balance and then your current balance for federal which is fund 20, and state, which is fund 21. Changes from the budget work session, governing body had two changes. Your telephone and postage was reduced by $1,500. Your travel was reduced by $2,000, which brings you to the amount that you began this year with, which is $7,000. Information technology was missing a zero, had 3,000 instead of 30, so it has an increase of 27,000. That was the 34,500 line item.

This 4,500 that you see depicted here? Yeah.

Recreation was decreased by 60,000 pending community survey. It's to be considered for a mid-year budget amendment dependent upon survey results. Sales tax collected year-to-date 6.882. Development fees year-to-date 589,000. Davenport paid year-to-date 77,299. Questions regarding the Hall River coordinator. The total funding for that included Hall River coordinator, which was only 5,000. 17,000 was for athletic officials. So only 5,000 of the money in that 106,200 account was for the Hall River coordinator.

And can you, I think last time we were speculating on what they did, can you, they do maintain the trails in Graham?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Retirement expense increase, it would be unlawful for the city to contribute more than the statutory required amount. Your recommendation was for general service employees contribution to match that of LEO. The retirement orbit confirmed that that would be unlawful and they would reject all of our files.

There's other towns that I know that are doing that. Is there... Can you send me a little bit more context on that?

I can send you exactly what they told us, and it is unlawful for us to do that.

Okay. Yeah, if you could send me that, that would be great.

I'll send it to full council. Yeah. Updated suppressor quotes. This was not in the manager's recommended 27 budget, so the $30,000, I think, was the amount that was proposed. It was dropped and not recommended for funding. Therefore, we didn't get updated quotes on that. That was to Council Member Young's point. Tree lighting is a total of $7,000. $4,500 of that's for fireworks. $2,500 is for sound equipment. John Boat rental fees. Sorry, can you go back? We don't have the sound equipment.

We have to rent it?

Not to carry that sort of sound. No, we don't.

Okay. How often do we use? Once a year.

Where we need that big of a scope, once a year.

We don't use it at any of the other festivals?

We use some sound equipment, but not where we need to carry like we do for the tree lighting. John Boat rental fees. The majority of local jurisdictions do the daily rentals. It was the state parks who will do the hourlies.

We had asked if there was a reason why it was so low, too, because somebody had mentioned Brian. We have a chart. Aaron, you can pull that up, please.

Okay. So Lake McIntosh solo kayak is $25, tandem kayak canoe is $30, rowboat $25. You can see the amounts for Greensboro Lake solo kayak is $25, tandem kayak, I'm sorry, solo kayak is $15, tandem kayak is $25. You can see our prices down here, $15. And then in the middle with that kind of rust color is the state parks who do it per hour.

And is that amount per day or per hour or what is that?

For the local jurisdictions, it's per day.

Per day.

Yeah, so our fee structure is consistent with theirs.

So we're on the low side, he says, of the rental rates, though.

Low side compared to Lake McIntosh. One of ours with Greensboro Lakes is close and the other is low.

And I don't know how y'all feel about do we need to raise those rates, you think? Anybody have any opinion on it besides me?

I think, you know, judging what the rest of the state's doing, you know, we could go up at least $5.

For each, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, I think we could, too, and still be well below McIntosh and the, you know, so, I mean, I think, my opinion, I don't know.

How do y'all feel about it? Does Brian have any thoughts on if this is cost prohibitive for our community? Because I know we've just got a little bit of a different demographic socioeconomic versus Greensboro and some parts of Burlington. He didn't weigh in one way or the other.

I'm good with the $5 increase. Say again. I'm good with the $5 increase.

Turn on your mic, Bobby. There you go. So is council consensus to increase those four listed from $15 to $20? Yes, ma'am. Just for me, yeah.

Yeah. We need a motion.

No. Just consensus. What was your? What did you say?

I don't know if I would want to raise them all five but y'all have consensus with four of them. With four of your nods.

Which one would you not want to raise?

I liked the way that we were talking about it last time where we had the $15 for a couple hours and then if you wanted the John Boat for all day you could pay $30 and that's still I'm not saying $5 will break somebody but if you're We've got a lower socioeconomic community, and I want to make sure that recreation is accessible for them.

Is there a minimum? That John Boat Reynolds, that's $15 for the day, correct?

Correct.

Do they have what they consider a day? Is that like eight hours or however long?

I would say depending on their hours of operation for that day.

I mean, because if we changed it and made it an hourly rate of $15 per hour, then... they'd hit $30 in two hours.

Yeah, last time we were talking like $15 for four hours, $30 for the whole day or something like that. We didn't really land on anything, but that was along the lines. It wasn't an hourly rate. It was just a half day, full day.

Does anybody else have hourly rates? State parks. State parks, that's it?

Mm-hmm.

When you start doing something like that, you're adding a level of accountability. True.

And y'all had consensus without me. Yeah, but I still wanted to hear from you. I appreciate that.

Your thoughts? Yeah. I mean, it would add a level of accountability to the folks in the rec department that are keeping track, you know, so it would add up an extra level of difficulty.

Well, then the question will be as how do you count a full hour?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. I'm still okay with $5 across the board.

If you guys are any John boats, primarily a fishing boat.

Bobby, can you speak into your mic, please? Mike.

Thank you.

The John boat is primarily a fishing boat.

I'm good with the $5. Okay.

Design work for phase one of Graham Regional is estimated to be around $2.3 million. That's for the design work of phase one? Northwest quadrant. I think it was northeast.

Yes. You said 2.1. 2.3, 2.3. Thank you.

Wow.

That's just for design work?

Just for design work.

I think Ricky had brought it up about steering that towards the fire station. Am I right? Yes.

Yeah, I had asked for the actual number before we moved it out completely.

I agree. We should move it. We need the fire station more than the park. The park right now. I mean, there's a park already there. There isn't a fire station. We definitely need that fire station.

One's a necessity, one's a luxury. So I say the same. I agree.

I agree 100%.

I think we've identified how we can do all of them. And so I would like to still, especially since this is almost half of what was allocated in Davenport, Davenport was trying to get us to spend 4.1 million on the design service. So I think we should keep it in there, especially since we've already identified the funding mechanisms. We've got to start somewhere for this park or else it'll never come to fruition. I don't think it'll slow down the fire station, but that's my opinion.

That's less money than we'll have to borrow.

It is.

If we don't do the $2.8 million.

Correct.

I think the priority needs to be the fire station.

I agree.

Yeah. That's the direction we're growing.

And we're only talking one year, putting it off for a year or so.

So it appears that's four to redirect that 2.3 and one not to. Is that correct in my understanding? Okay, because we'll be bringing a budget, I mean a project ordinance back to City Council in July once the new budget is in effect to earmark that 3.1 or 3.4 in the PAYGO. All right. Maximum return check fee per general statute is $35. Our existing in the fee schedule is $25.

Didn't we check into that? I think return check fees are close to like $125 or something, aren't they?

Statute says $35.

Statue's wrong.

Talk to the General Assembly.

I'm in agreement with the $35. I'm good with that.

Is that council consensus? Yeah.

That's fine.

What bank is that? I'm moving to them.

All right, fee schedule page 15. Council Member Chen pointed out that the word weekly as a footnote in some of the recreation fee schedules did not have the strikethrough, so that has been stricken on that one. It was in your budget message, but the fee schedule didn't show that. Discussion, I believe, by Mayor Dickey regarding the hotel study. Chamber of Commerce said it would cost approximately $70,000 and we, as a city, would have to contract with an outside firm. This would take time and money but would provide a substantial amount of data. The other option that was suggested involved the city identifying areas where we would like a hotel to negotiate the purchase of that land for advertisement with national brands. This option obviously comes with tremendous risks as the interest may not be available and the property could sit vacant for years or days. Who knows?

Yeah, I think that was more of a discussion just as a partnership with the chamber. It's good information to have that that would be on us to purchase, but I'm not ready to try to integrate that into the budget. I appreciate you getting that information, though.

Looking at the true cost of sanitation, there was discussion among council at the last meeting regarding the B-1 district and what it costs to pick up sanitation in that area. So using the last completed fiscal year, 24-25, the cost per house per month for solid waste, yard waste, bulk brush, bulk pick up, And street sweeping, not including recycling, was $15.70. Obviously, this amount has varied anywhere from $15 to $22 based on fuel costs, tonnage, capital, and other items. Per the last DEQ solid waste report, comparing 30 peer municipalities, the solid waste averaged $248.82, $20.74 per month. Only two municipalities in the report had fees lower than Graham. Mebane, obviously our neighbor, and Reedsville. But their penny tax value, their tax rate, bring in significantly more in ad valorem than that of Graham. Moving, if there's...

Hold right there, if that's okay. So we had the rate... Trying to find a... Where were you trying to put the rate for the sanitation? Trying to find it.

I think the combined is around $1,650 maybe.

Sounds right.

And you're saying that $1,570? No, that's not the combined. That's just? That's just sanitation. Okay.

What is the combined? The amount we charge for recycling is fairly close to the true cost. So the $1,750 per unit is combined.

$1,750 per unit per month says recycling on it on page 21. Is that just recycling or is that combined?

What page 21 are you talking to?

The 21 in our budget books under fees under Appendix A. It says user fees, recycling, sanitation, compost bin. Yeah, recycling shows $750, not $1,750. Right. $750. Correct. But you're saying that $750 is the correct, that covers recycling fees. It's very close. Okay. And so this $9 is about $6 less than what it covers. Correct. Okay.

So we're going in the hole every month, $6 per can?

Per, yeah, per house. Not just per can, really per house, because it's more than just the weekly pickup. It's yard waste, bulk brush, bulk junk, street sweeping that all go into our sanitation costs, where recycling is just a strict every other week, empty your cans.

Did our costs go up really quickly, or we just haven't looked at these fees in a while?

Every year, the city council has approved an increase in sanitation fees, and every year there's been an acknowledgement that it is taxpayer subsidized. That's been discussed consistently year over year.

Every year we get yelled at for it. Okay. Okay.

I would like to see us move closer to actual costs on the trash pickup.

What number are you thinking?

Like $10 or $11. Would that help us out, Megan?

Yeah, anything that gets closer to the actual cost means it's less subsidy from other revenue sources.

So you're saying our actual cost is about $20?

For the last completed fiscal year, $15.70. $15.70. Obviously, we know what fuel has done in the current fiscal year. Those trucks, I think, get about two and a half miles per gallon fuel efficiency. So they're fuel efficient. They are not.

They're not looking for prices of diesel to go down anytime soon.

I couldn't hear what you said. What'd you say?

The price of diesel is not going down anytime soon. Let's make it an even 12. Oh.

From 750 to 12, is that what you're saying?

I think I'm comfortable with 750 to 10. Like you said, I think we're going to have to ease it up.

Yeah, 12 is, I don't know, it's a lot. I understand.

Increasing costs is primarily due to fuel.

Fuel was certainly a factor in it.

The county went up on their tipping fees.

Well, it says due to fuel it could go up to 22. I think 1570 is maybe without the fuel because this is back 24-25 year. This is not looking into the current year.

So the county went up on tipping fees. Yes, sir.

They may have gone up the current fiscal year. It's my understanding that they are not proposing an increase for the upcoming fiscal year.

That's good.

But I do know in years past, I think often they would kind of do a mid-year implementation, maybe January of tipping fee increases. But I don't believe for the upcoming fiscal year they've proposed.

Jim, do you have thoughts on this?

I think it does need to go up.

Never going down. I agree with Ricky.

You want 12? Bonnie and I are sitting back at 10.

I mean, I can go with 12, too. That's fine. Oh, goodness.

Well, let's split the difference 11.

Yeah, we could do that.

I mean, I hate this feeling like we're just... It feels like we're... I know, right? Crapshoot with the taxpayers' money, but I mean... throughout this whole thing, it's like Graham is getting the short end of the stick on everything.

We like, we haven't developer fees and everything else. Yep.

Um, you know, hopefully when, when Graham becomes this flush with money paradise, so we can, you know, revisit this and lower everything for everybody. But,

I mean, I hate it, too, but, I mean, that's not even going to bring us up to where we were last year, you know? I'm with 11, if that's what you guys want. 11. I can agree to that. 11.

11 it is.

Chelsea, what was your vote on that?

I mean, it's a consensus. It's not a vote. It still matters. I don't know what you think. I agree with Jim. It does kind of feel like a dollar here, a dollar there, but I like the $10. Just... But... So you're a no, then.

Okay.

But it's a consensus, so we have consensus.

It still matters. I just wanted to know what your vote was. For the record, for our clerk, you know, she needs to know. She's got to have names, so...

All right, downtown sanitation discussed the possibility of two separate rate structures. To give you a little context, residential pickup is once a week. The cans weigh approximately 40 pounds, generating a little over one ton per year per house.

Can you share how we know the 40 tons? Do our trucks measure it?

It's daily tip and fees based on number of pickups. Cool. The average pounds per cart per week downtown is 112, which would be just splitting it, 56 per pounds per cart for the last six months. That's around 2.9 tons per year per cart in the B1 district. Residential trash service is provided by an automated truck with one employee servicing around 100 carts per hour. Downtown is serviced with a rear-loading truck, I think some people refer to as stinky, with two employees at around 50 carts per hour. So the collection costs per cart are close to triple that of the residential carts. Businesses outside of the B-1 district, providing they can be accommodated while they're running a residential route, are allowed to have one cart serviced once per week and asked to be set out to the right away the day of service for collection by an automated truck. Those are the facts surrounding residential versus downtown pickup.

And right now we don't have any kind of different rate. They're paying the current $750 a month. Correct. For that triple the service. Do you want to double the old rate? Guys, can y'all talk into your mics, please?

Thank you. It's crazy to think that it's that much more for the downtown. I don't want to put a burden on small businesses, but the small businesses are kind of being a burden on the The sanitation service.

So the residential moved up to $11. And Ricky has proposed that the downtown be $14 or $15. Is that correct, Ricky?

Yeah. I mean, there's usually three people in the truck when they come to get it on Mondays and Thursdays. The majority of the time, there's three people. And they're hustling to get it done. I think Ricky's right. I think 14 is a good number to land on.

Bonnie, Bobby?

Ken, are you with it?

I can't either. I'm all right with 14.

Okay. That's going to almost double what they're paying right now. Not get close to covering costs, but put a dent in it. Bobby, did you have thoughts? You're good? I'm good. Okay. So consensus is 14 for B1 district. Megan, do we have an idea of if... How many of the businesses take advantage of the twice a week can? Like, do the offices and stuff, too? I would say the majority of them take advantage of it.

Okay. Were you a yes or no?

I didn't... Yeah, I can go along with that. It's three times the amount of service, and it's only three more dollars than the residential new fee. So I think it is going to be a sticker shock, but it also is going to People don't like stinky, and this is going to get us closer to getting new trucks. I understand every dollar in small business counts. One we're using now leaks like a sieve.

It stinks, too, every time it comes through here. Golly.

Y'all have any other thoughts on sanitation?

No, I'm good.

Okay. All right. And Aaron, if you would pull up the development fee comparison. So there are obviously a lot of different categories here and pretty close to, um, an infinite number of ways you could split this. We have before you Graham, Burlington, Mebane, and Gibsonville and what they charge for the different fees.

Can we get printouts of these for this conversation? Sure. Thank you.

I'm printing them, Renee.

Okay. Would that be helpful, guys, or just me?

No, no, absolutely. No, no. Thank you. Yeah.

It's a lot of numbers to compare. Yeah. I mean, top line, we're in line with Gibsonville, but significantly behind Burlington and Mebane.

Gibsonville, they're considerably smaller than us, aren't they?

They're about 10,000. Yeah.

So it's about half. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

They're seeing a ton of growth, but they are about half.

I'm sorry. I think the meat of what you're going to look at probably would be this area right here. That's generally anything that would come to council. And we made an increase a few years ago. to get to that number there. But as you can see, we're still lagging behind because of what the cost is.

Can you speak into your mic, Ricky?

Let's start at the top. Let's start at the top, that major subdivision preliminary plan. I'd like to see it move closer to 20.

20 per lot?

Yes, ma'am.

Do you want to move that minimum? Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Aaron, did you have any other commentary as far as?

I think Megan summed it up pretty well. I mean, there's so many ways you can look at these fees. Some of them are looked at from a per lot standpoint. We went with a flat fee. because it was just an easier way to kind of set the rate for us for what we were trying to definitely cover with. I mean, obviously the administrative fee plus the advertisement fee, we kind of lumped it all together into the flat fee amount. It's really what comfort level council has as far as If you want to go up to any number, really, I guess from the flat fee amount, that's where the benefit is, is that if you want to go up, it's not like you have to parse out like Maven where it's 25 per lot, you know, two different numbers at the same time.

So is Burlington, is theirs all per lot? I can't tell because it doesn't really say after a major subdivision preliminary flat. Then they just give numbers after that. I don't know. Yeah, it would be flat fee. Is that a flat fee? It would be flat fee. Okay.

Fourth line down under Graham. It says $5 per acre, 200 minimum, 500 question mark. What is 500?

500 max. 500 max is what it says. Yeah, that's what it says in our book.

Yeah, but that's for a PUD.

Yeah.

I was just trying to clarify.

On page six of the development fees, it says max.

All right. Ricky, you said you wanted to start at the top.

Yes, ma'am.

All right. So you wanted to see this $10 go to $20? Yes, ma'am. Per lot?

Minimum $400.

How does everybody feel about that? I'm good with him. Nodded. Bobby's good. Bobby, indifferent.

Well, $400 minimum, that's for a major.

Major subdivision.

Can I jump in real quick on that one? Major would be obviously anything that's not minor. Minor is... I think we changed the wording to where it was five or less, I think.

Yes.

You essentially could have a major starting at six or whatever that number that we changed to to one lot more than that. The 200 minimum, you're looking at that's still 35-ish, even on that. I guess what I'm saying is 400 can take you pretty high per lot. If you're talking about most of the ones that we see, which would probably be, you know, lower number.

So maybe keeping the first number at 20, but keeping the $200 minimum might be a better.

I'd like the idea of going up for sure on the per lot.

Would y'all be okay with $20 minimum or $20 per lot, $200 minimum? Yes, ma'am. Yes. Megan, you got that? Or Aaron, whoever's writing it down.

Am I reading the Burlington one right? That's 500 plus 40 per lot?

Yeah, so they basically said their minimum is that they have a flat rate. And then they go up. It'd be a nice jump to go there, but I think that's a much higher jump.

Nothing to it but to do it. That's a little high.

Whatever council is comfortable with it.

Preliminary commercial review. Mebane charges for this. Nobody else does. Y'all want to do anything about it?

I'd like to see us add $10 to meet what Mebane's doing.

$10 per 100 square foot?

Yes, ma'am.

Aaron, do you have anything context to say about that? Love to hear it, if it's going to impact. Yeah, it's hard to say.

I mean, generally speaking, whenever someone comes through with an idea or to ask preliminary questions, we sit down with them and we discuss what they're looking to do. And something may or may not materialize. That's the only thing. Usually it's the kicking tires. You may or may not have the next step happen. We never charged in the past only because you just didn't know if it was going to go to that next step.

Because we're in a position that it would be beneficial to recruit commercial and industrial, I would like to keep these at zero just to be a very open door policy to be able to recruit or explore these options. I think it would be more profitable for us to be have those conversations at any level without the cost stacking up.

Certainly. And keeping anybody from moving to Mevin. No, I agree with you. Um, I mean, industrial, that's a bit different, but, um, you know, just for somebody to come in and that would include, um, that would be like small business as well. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Um, Let's keep that zero.

If it gets to the TRC review, that's usually because before we weren't charging anything for TRC review, which thankful to y'all for putting that in play because we were reviewing a lot and obviously you see the the cost to review, you know, engineering review. So we are getting some of that back. But generally speaking, whenever someone comes through for some next level discussion, we're going to get the TRC review fee for that.

Okay. Is everybody okay with keeping zeros for commercial and industrial?

Yep.

Yes. Okay. All right. $5 per acre, $200 minimum, $500 max.

Should we even keep that rate in there since we have a non-chance of overcoming ?

Because it's in our development ordinance, until we change it to take it out because it's woven in, I would say you'd be fine to keep it. No one's doing those because we've got the conditional zoning, which is the better way to do it. But until we get it out in the development ordinance, there has to be some path of payment on it.

OK. Rezoning 200 flat.

I think we should go up to 300 on that.

I'm agreeable. Yeah, I agree too. Yeah, just be consistent.

Okay. I can go along with that. 300 on rezoning. Conditional rezoning 300. If we're keeping it consistent, does that mean that one stays at 300? Yep. Okay.

Is 300 covering all the reviews that a conditional zoning requires?

It's definitely covering the advertisement costs. That's it? I mean, I think the initial fees were set up to cover advertisement costs, which I think at the time was like $100. But to say that it's a cover and review, it's hard to say because we just don't know how many reviews we would have. maybe i guess it would be the answer i hate to say it like that but it really depends on how well the submittal is uh we have some that run several times through before you know it makes its way to the to the planning board and council and i guess the we had to also look at the scale because you talk about conditional zoning that can be um for example the to the hair salon here that we looked at here off. Big Ulysses to Riley's Meadows, 400 homes. So I'm saying it's hard to say.

I would like to add $50 to that.

To the conditional rezoning?

Yes, ma'am. That way we're collecting some fees for all the work that Aaron and the planning department has to do.

The $300 per property that Mebane has, so if that was applied to the Riley's Meadow would be multiplied times the houses that they have, or is that property counted as one property?

I'm assuming it's for the property because the property is wet.

Before subdivided. Okay. Okay.

I guess nobody charges per lot or anything like that, do they, for that?

We don't have it set up like that, and the other ones didn't have it set up like that either. And some of it, I guess, is to keep the headache of trying to not get confused whenever applications come in. because you have to calculate a lot of this stuff ahead of time before it ever gets to whatever board. So I know Debbie and the front end folks, when they get that stuff in, they're having to say, well, it's going to cost this amount for whatever. It just keeps it easy to have the flat rate.

Right. Okay.

And the review to me, once you get the TRC type stuff, that's That's probably where a lot of fees are going to be more substantial, I guess you would say.

I'm fine with leaving it at 300. Jim, Bonnie, and Bobby, do you all have thoughts?

Right now, are we talking conditional rezoning?

That's the only one we're talking about right now.

Yeah, I think that's...

I mean, I'm okay with leaving it at 300. Mebane's got both of them at 300, and we'll be consistent with them. I'm fine with that.

Jim?

Just leave it the way it is. I'm good with that.

Special use permit?

I think that one should go up to 400.

I agree with that.

Yeah. That is consensus. I like it at 300, but you have consensus to move forward at 400? Yep. Major subdivision, final review, 50 flat rate, and we are significantly under everybody.

We're even lagging Gibsonville on that one. Good lord. You want to double it? Go up to 100? I think you should go higher than that, quite frankly.

Let's go 125.

125 everybody okay with 125 yes okay minor 100 you say leave it 100 100 um i like gibsonville's that it's half so i would like to stay between 50 and 75 for yeah i think maybe 75 75 is good for me 75 works for me okay Um, 25 flat fee. Gibsonville does not charge for the smuppins at 50. I'm fine to leave this.

Aaron, what is an exempt subdivision?

So certain subdivisions that they're over a certain acreage owned by the same person and get split or It has it has certain criteria that is different than what your other subdivisions criteria we read out the read that be to be in a split, even though it's being split. And those can sound kind of confusing. But even though it's being split, it may be that the size of the lot is of a certain size. And therefore, they're looking at it differently because it's under the same ownership versus me splitting it off for smaller lots.

I'd like to see it go to 50.

It's still a review. It just meets a threshold that's higher than your smaller lot sizes.

Is it an easier review? It's still a review. Is it the same review as a minor subdivision?

Yeah, it just may be larger track.

I'd say we go to 50.

I'm fine with that. Everybody else okay? Okay. Next. This one we're actually competitive with Medbin and Gibsonville. Is it okay to keep it at 300 flat? 300 flat.

I'm fine.

Okay. Next. Next. Y'all jump in if you got thoughts.

I'd like to see it go up 50.

I agree. 50 is good.

Aaron, can you talk about how much it usually costs to go through the TRC review process? Would 300 get us closer to covering costs or is it?

Yeah, again, I think it has to average out over looking at a whole year and what the project is. It's really hard to say.

It's a variable.

Yes.

Changing.

If you use Raleigh's Meadows, is that, how many reviews have y'all gone through on that?

I mean, some of them we've, I know I didn't name any names of certain projects in the past, but I didn't want to offend anyone that was active here in town. But we've had some that have gone through six to eight reviews. I don't think it's out of the question, depending on what the product is. You're not going to get approved on the first one. Generally, about that third or fourth, you should be pretty close on TRC approval. So I would say your average good plan would get you about three or four reviews.

I noticed Mebane has a unit fee.

Yeah.

What does that entail? Do you know?

I'm not sure what it is because it drops off once you go past the second one because it's on first and second. I don't know what that means for them on that.

Since you're talking about having to do two or three reviews, I'd like to see it go up $100. I mean, coming in the door, they should pretty much know what we require and not having to sit there and tie up a lot of people's time and energy to sit down and review something. And, you know, if they didn't fix it the first go around and they don't fix it the second go around, I mean, it should cost you, cost you money to tie up somebody's time.

So you're saying the 350, is that what you're saying?

Aaron, do you think this is going to dissuade any developers or projects or is it just going to make them come to the table more seriously?

Probably come with a better product.

More prepared.

We do have those red lines that weren't adhered to and we see the same issues at the next TRC and What we don't want is for the city, and we've had this happen on numerous occasions, we'll end up engineering the plan. And that's what we try to avoid because the city in turn is now paying our engineer to do the engineering work for who someone has hired to do the work for them. And that does happen.

I do agree with Ricky. We've had this conversation almost every year how they come to the table and they're really not prepared. They really want you to do the work for them in a sense. Then they end up coming back over and over and over again trying to see what they can basically get away with. We had raised the fees for that reason to make them a little bit more serious. I'm okay with going up $100 on this.

I agree.

Okay. 350 is consensus for first and second. Yep. 100 is third and up right now.

We need to get it on, like, two and a quarter on that one. Don't you tell me you've come back for the third. We're at that point where we're re-engineering whatever your screw-ups are.

Anybody else want to weigh in?

That still keeps us under what Burlington is charging.

It seems to me the more reviews that you do or that you require, it seems the price should go up to me. it seems almost backwards to me to have the first and second one at 350 and then the third and fourth only at 100.

Let's make it 375 then.

I mean, what do you think, Aaron? What are your thoughts?

Yeah, I think typically, I think the reason why it goes down is that review gets shorter when you come more and more because you're not looking at the overall plan, the later you are. You're starting to focus in on these key issues that are having you come back for review. So a lot of what you look at in that first one or two, the first and second one, are now no longer being pinpointed at that third or fourth or whatever.

Okay. That makes sense.

I'm okay to keep that one lower at $100 or $150. I go $150 with that one. $150 for third and up review. The next one is only how Mebane structures theirs with a unit fee. Annexation $250 per request is what we're at now. Mebane and Gibsonville don't have anything. Burlington's at $300. I feel like I'm okay to keep that one where it is.

Aaron, how much office time do you guys have in annexation?

It's pretty involved because you have to, you know, collect obviously the meets and bounds, review all those, caution plaques, got to review to make sure, I mean, looking at your surrounding zoning area. So it does require review and As you know, it's a two-step process. There's a lot that can get messed up when you're doing an annexation because if you mess up on a step, then you have to start all the way back over again. I do think the $250 is a fair number right now because I think obviously with the advertisement costs being covered, most of the reviews done by staff, you don't have to engineer looking at that one. for the most part. Those generally are staff looking at to make sure that we have all the pieces we need to be able to put it into the council packets. The other ones, obviously, you would have staff and engineers look at. All right.

Okay.

All right.

Does Burlington have, for the next one, the admin amendment? There's nothing in that box.

We couldn't find anything. Okay.

It was not that it's a zero. We just don't know what it is.

And even with Medman's annexation, we just couldn't find where it was listed out. Not to say it wasn't there or wasn't somewhere. It just wasn't in their schedule.

Okay. So we're at $100 flat fee right now. I'm fine with leaving it there.

Yeah.

Okay. Aaron, you're working on a reboot up there. Nope.

Definitely don't want that to happen.

Wireless telecommunications facility. How much does a legal review cost for us to complete for this?

It really depends because of where it may go. The 500, I think, gets us where we need to be, because you're going to have the engineer review most of that. So I would say that's probably a good number to be at.

Is Burlington not charged for fire flow, TUSB?

Not sure. I mean, they may do it in-house.

Are we staying at 500 for the wireless telecommunications? Is that what we're doing?

Aaron advised us to, but if y'all have different thoughts.

I agree. Is everybody okay with 500? Okay.

So we have to contract this out and it is pretty much covering our costs.

Okay. Okay. Is everybody okay with 1200 covering costs? Yes. Yeah.

Zoning re-inspection, zero. Mevin likes to charge, no, 50 after first inspection. Okay. I'm okay to keep it zero, I think. How much does this run down staff time?

Routine.

So it's fine. Okay.

I'm okay with that.

We're the only one that charges for site development.

Well, it's because of how we structured it. It's covered by others in other ways. This was a new fee that we had added whenever we looked at it a couple years ago. Other people get theirs on the front end. We structure this. We're the only one who has it written out this way. That's actually probably a deal, to be honest with you. This is one of those where whenever something is being inspected by our public works department, public utilities when they're out there looking around and they had to come back. So yes, that's a fee that other people do have. It's just absorbed.

Differently associated.

Okay. We specifically called because we didn't have anything like it to cover it at all. Mr. Burke, come in and definitely ask for this one itself. And it's held. We've had still our favorite ones out there that tend to keep us busy, whatever, but we also charge them. And they're happy to pay because they want us there, which is always the which is always the problem that we were having before. They would call up even when they weren't ready because they wanted us there so that they can keep us there and have stuff looked at so they can move their stuff along. But I will say it has helped us to have a fee in place.

Okay. Y'all good with this one? Yes. Okay. $20 flat fee for development ordinance.

I don't think I've ever charged that. It's there, but typically... We just point people to the website and they can go there. This is an old line, but I don't think I've ever printed a zoning ordinance except for myself for that anymore.

Raise it to 150 and a whole lot of people will be coming in to get them.

I'm good to leave it at 20. Are you actually proposing for 150? I just... Making sure. Is everybody okay to leave it at that?

Yes.

Okay. Future land use plan printed.

So we really don't charge anything to print that out for someone? I think we need to charge something. We're using ink. We're using paper.

Yeah, I would definitely say.

Why are we not charging for this?

It should be.

And it's thick, too. That's a big. How many pages?

It's like 75 or 80 pages.

At least a minimum of $25. Yeah.

Yeah, minimum.

$25. Yeah. All right. Yep. Next line. Measure QA application. Keeping it at zero?

That's a certificate of approval. Let's make it $10.

Aaron, if we do any of these, so like $10 isn't a lot of money, but is it putting any admin burden on people to keep up with these fees that have not typically been a fee? Does that make sense?

I would say if there's any fee that's been added or increases that have been put in play, I mean, our folks are pretty good at keeping up with it.

Would you charge for this line item?

Sometimes I say, yeah, because it just depends on, you know, what the COA is asking for. Generally speaking, they're typically people wanting to change a color or add a new sign or whatever. It's not approved by staff. But a lot of the heavy lifting, I guess, really is on the board once you get all the package stuff. Obviously, staff has to get the package together and then get it to the board. I could see something being in that line. 10 is a small number. I mean, I hate to go with 50, but, you know, obviously 10 is a small number.

25?

Whatever the council is comfortable with.

I'd like to propose it at 25.

I think I'd like to keep this one zeroed out.

Which one?

We're on the major COA application. So if anybody else has thoughts.

I do think we should charge something for it, but I mean, I was okay with $10.

We'll go with $10.

Okay. Notice of appeal. Aaron, you have thoughts on this one?

It's always been the philosophy that if someone wants to challenge staff, then they should have that without any charge.

Do we have to advertise for an appeal?

I would have to check on that one. Part of me says no, but I have to look. I mean, we don't do them that often.

Okay. Can you check on that and just follow up with us? Okay. We'll leave that one zero for now, if y'all are okay with it. Temporary use permit?

I think $25. I agree. Okay.

How many of those do we deal with on an average errand?

Not many. If it's for the temporary outdoor sales type, probably a handful a year.

I'd like to keep this at zero.

What does temporary use permit require in inspections?

No, usually if we're talking about the temporary outdoor sales, it's tied to, say, someone wants to sell something out here in the parking lot, we'll hit a dollar general. They would generally fill out an application. It's like a little form. You have to have permission of whoever owns the property that they can be there. They would have to meet the distance requirements if they have, say it's a food truck. They have to make sure that they're not within a certain distance of similar type restaurants. Or say they're selling Valentine's Day flowers and teddy bears. You know, they would feel a thing out there.

This would also apply to, if it's not a city-sanctioned event, any vendors on the sidewalks downtown, too.

Yeah, there's no inspections involved. It's really more of a permission to do what I'm doing.

What you've got, though, is people coming in, and we've got small businesses here that are paying taxes, they're paying rent, they're paying more for their garbage service, and these you know, vendors come in and they just basically do it for free. I don't agree with that. I think there should be a use permit for those things. I mean, if somebody wants to get into a small business and they want to have a little kiosk, one of the things that you're going to find out is it costs money. It's never going to be free. And, you know, if it's $25 or whatever, it should not be free because you've got all these small businesses around here paying rent and leasing buildings and paying for advertising and all this. I feel the same way with food trucks. They shouldn't be able to come in for free when you've got all these brick and mortar restaurants around. I think at least $25. I agree. If you have somebody selling crystals or jewelry or something and they can't afford to pay $25, then maybe they need to rethink their business plan. I mean, it should be expected. I look at Burlington, somebody comes in and $50 to $100, we should have a fee for that.

I agree. I agree with 25.

You have consensus with 25. I would like to see it at zero, but you do have consensus with 25, Renee. Local historic landmark designation.

That, I think, should be zero.

Yeah, I agree. Okay. Development ordinance text.

What does that?

Can you explain what that is?

Yeah, I don't. Send somebody a development ordinance.

Yeah, I'm not even sure what that is. Put it at zero. Yeah.

Can you follow up with that?

Let's make it 100.

Is that if somebody requests a change to an ordinance? Is that what that is? I don't...

Hold on one second.

...

Aaron, if you want us to come back, we can.

Yeah, because I don't want to confuse it with some of these are some of these are permits that other people have that we don't. And that's why I don't want to get We don't need to put a fee on something we don't have. Right. It's like even with like because what made me think about, well, hold on one second, would be the fact that we have the has fence permit. We don't have a fence permit. That's not part of our fee schedule at all. So I would say all those that have zeros really aren't. Those are what other people may have and we don't.

Okay. So we need to look at zoning permit and sign permit for the rest of the document and everything else doesn't apply to us.

Correct.

Okay.

So basically those top ones that are zero down, because we have variants, a fee for variances, which I don't see on here. So I would say I wouldn't worry about those, because those aren't anything that we deal with for those top zeros. Pick up at the zoning permit, sign permit, future land use plan amendment, we don't really have those. So I would hate to put a charge on that, because that's not anything. That's what other people may have, but that's not what we have. And it looks like has them, but no, not us.

So I'm going to pick up at zoning permit. We've got $60 new business inspection to the inspections department. And we are the highest one on this chart. Yay.

I think we should leave it alone. Yeah, I think we should too.

All right. And sign permit. $60 per sign to the inspections department. I think this one's good to stay as well.

Yeah.

I agree. All right. Anybody else have anything you want to go back to? Aaron, I have follow-up notice of appeal for whenever you want to shoot us an email about that.

Yeah, we don't charge for a notice of appeal. So that zero, we don't have it.

Okay.

And for the COA, we don't charge for that.

They put $10 on that. Is that something that can stay?

That's what I was saying. That's something, y'all, if y'all want to add it, but it's one of those where we don't have it. It would be something we would have to add in.

Is that what council wants to do?

It's zero because we don't have it as part of our fee. We want to add it to our fees.

All right, if we're done with the development fees, we can move on to other fees. Page 9, inspection fees. It is recommended to move the minimum permit fee from $60 to $75. This would bring us in line with Burlington and the county, and we would be slightly above Mebane's current minimum of $60.

I'm good with that.

What page are we on again?

Page nine. Inspection fees.

In appendix A.

And then it's still in the inspections department. to add a note that the fee for renewal of expired permits within 180 days of expiration shall be 50% of the original permit fee. Expired permits beyond 180 days will be required to resubmit for a new permit at full cost.

That makes sense.

I'm good with that. I do like to keep the minimum permit fee at 60. Council, do you all have thoughts?

What did you say Mebane was? 60.

Mebane is 60. The county in Burlington, it says it would bring us in line with them.

60 is fine.

Keep it at 60. 60 is fine with me.

Yeah.

And the note for expired permits? I'm okay with that one.

Yeah.

You see the COLA index that was here?

You mentioned sending that full report from the league. If you could do that, that would be awesome.

I believe it was the COG, but we'll send it nevertheless.

Oh, okay.

Future action agenda items. Consider a mid-year budget amendment for Marshall Street dependent on the survey results. Remove restrictions on the facade and beautification grants once new guidelines are in place. The $15,000 for each remain budgeted but are unable to be spent. And then reconsider parking ticket structure for multiple offender fee schedule revisions once the new software has been implemented. Did we ask the questions of the software reps if that would be possible? Yeah, that's why we have it under future action to reconsider it.

Okay, so we haven't touched base with the software reps. We have. And they said it was doable.

No, we did not get a definitive answer, which is why we have it under future action items.

Okay. And the Marshall Street, that was for the playground? Correct. Okay.

Just making sure. I read about the Marshall Street playground.

Yeah, I did too.

And some of the equipment out there is pretty rough.

Yeah, we've been looking at it year after year after year, and we keep... And?

Yeah, but so...

Is that all you have, Megan? Correct. Okay. I've got probably about 10 or 15 that haven't been answered. We talked about getting the number right. The dollar amount impact for the pay schedule being upped from the 29 shifted upgrade. And then the utilities compliance manager, deputy utilities director, going from 29 to 30, the police chief and utilities director proposed from 34 to 36. i didn't have that noted did we talk about follow-up item i had asked for the the dollar the financial impact of these pay grades moved up during our first meeting yeah i don't i don't recall that being added i remember answering an open session that we would follow the personnel policy language with those you had said that it was a five percent upgrade and i had asked for the the actual amount

At least approximately.

So if we could get those numbers and then can I get the unassigned fund balance total? It would be in our last audit report. Okay. The one from the previous year, not the one that we're waiting on.

Yeah, we can't do this one until the fiscal year has closed. Right.

Or The one that they presented on that said that it hasn't been released yet. Is that the one that you're referring to?

The one that Patricia presented this year is the most recent audited we have. We're still in the current fiscal year, so it'll be months before we have this one.

Are there any other nonprofits that we're funding as a city?

What line item would that be under? To my knowledge, we're not funding any nonprofits to date.

All right. We talked about the inspections vehicle that had requested another vehicle, and we're going to get mileage for that.

Yeah. Was it the mileage on the one that Jamie had?

Like the 10-year-old?

So, yeah. So it's about 10 years. His has about 35,000 miles on it. But it was to be passed down to Jenny, who's 17 years old.

So it's really... How many miles does Jenny's have? So we were going to get a new car for Jimmy that has 35 miles. And then that one's going to shift to Jenny. Right. And that mileage is.

Why is hers that much higher?

She gets the hand-me-downs.

Hers isn't a daily driver. She may be in the office a couple of days a week. And then the other day she's out in the field, whereas inspections is daily. Constant.

Yeah.

Yep.

Okay. I would probably have to go and get that number. I don't know if I saw Jenny today or not.

You said it's what, 17 years old?

OK. You had mentioned that you would get what account our investment funds are sitting in, Megan.

Yeah, I named most of those when we were in here. We have a financial report that will be uploaded in the next couple of days.

Okay, to SharePoint. Correct. Okay.

Could you explain why you're interested in the pay plans for those individuals? It was just...

Because those were the ones that were getting reallocated in the pay plan. Everybody is going up a certain percentage, but there's a couple that are being flipped around, and I was interested in the financial impact. That is on page 14 of 113 on the big document. It's page 10. I have it pulled up in here. But it's part of the initial letter, the budget message.

Are you wanting to nix it or what? What are you wanting?

I have no way of knowing what the impact is. I'm interested also in knowing why, so like all of 29 is being moved up a grade and it's not necessarily explained or expounded upon in this note.

So if Megan can provide any, that would actually be incorrect because I stated the council that what we've seen through implementation of the pay plan, the certification plan and the education policy has created compression where employees and supervisors are either leapfrogging the department head or getting so close that there's basically zero incentive to be the leader of a department.

Okay. Um, Yeah, if I could get the number of the financial impact of that.

It'll be such a full council.

Would be awesome. Thank you. And we've got mileage coming from Jenny. The library roof was a discussion last time. I would love to pull that back. into the budget, especially if we are pushing off the Marshall Street Park, um, and potentially pushing off the inspections car. Um, does Council have thoughts on that and then pulling the remaining remaining out of, um, the fund balance?

We didn't, we didn't, um, And then you had to allocate anything yet for that. Did we?

No, we didn't. Was yesterday or tomorrow your library? Cause you were talking about grants. Okay. Yeah. Keep going.

Well, we didn't officially, I don't think assign any number to that. We just said that we were going to revisit a revisit that I thought. So what, what is it that you're asking? I'm not sure what you're asking.

My question is if we want to revisit it now, so it's in the budget or if you guys want to see it as a budget amendment down the road.

I would rather look at it as a budget amendment down the road.

I think that's what we had said we were going to do, right?

Yeah. Isn't that what we said?

I didn't have it noted as a follow-up for this meeting. Yeah, I didn't, yeah, me either.

I didn't have it as a note as a budget amendment, but I have it as a note now. The water fee development schedule, I was under the impression that we were going to revisit this after the Hazen and Stewart. Is that correct? Sawyer. Sawyer. Thank you. Presentation. Did we get those slides before the June meeting?

At a minimum, they'll be presented at the meeting. They may be available in advance.

If you can see if we can get them in advance, that would be awesome because it'd be nice to be able to review them in contrast with the proposed fee schedule. Megan, were you able to follow up with the county commissioners for the SRO increase?

It wouldn't be the county commissioners. It would ABSS. Right now, the additional 10,000 is proposed in there. It's far from being definitive, and we probably won't know by the time that the city council adopts the grand budget. Okay.

Water dev schedule. Can I get the full what we spend in legal, engineering, and then any city council consulting fees? Is there any way to pull those line items and send to council as well?

What do you mean by legal and consulting fees?

Just how much the city spends in legal fees. Aside from the attorneys? Just all of the attorneys, all of our contracted attorneys, any legal expense would be $1,000. One piece of the question, all the engineering costs that we have, these would mostly be internal that I'm asking, not necessarily on behalf of projects for other developers. And then any city council consulting. So I know you got us the Davenport project. number, but the consultant that worked with us in January and any other consulting that happens for city council.

I'm the only one who received an email from the city manager prior to the first budget work session. If we had any questions about the budget to email them in and they would get back to us and have them answered by the time that meeting happened. I took advantage of that and Megan answered all those questions. I don't understand why you can't, you couldn't have emailed all this stuff to Megan and have this because it's, it's, it feels a little bit nitpicky. Yeah.

Most of these questions were discussed last meeting, and I talked to Megan earlier, and she said that a report wasn't emailed out. We were just going to go back through the questions from last meeting, and so I'm following what was put together by Megan.

I'm just curious if it has anything to do with whether or not you're going to approve the budget. Are these questions going to impact that, or are they just... things you'd like to know.

I think it's really good context to have, especially as a newly elected official. And it's also my understanding that this is a big part of our job is passing the budget. And so understanding all the moving pieces is something that I would like to acknowledge and fully comprehend before trying to pass a budget. Again,

We were told to email our questions, and I guess everybody but you did that.

If the past two years of the audit of our books is any illustration of how well we were operating, I mean, our last audit, we came in within budget. The auditor had no issues. In my mind, you're asking questions of almost looking for a gotcha or something.

I'm not looking for a gotcha. There's a lot of moving pieces in this budget, and I'm trying to understand.

I agree. Some of these questions, though, Chelsea, you could have emailed to Megan and had them answered prior to coming to the meeting, which would have eliminated some of the questions that you have. It just feels like a little showboaty, you know, for whatever reason. Uh, and because some of the questions are just, they could have been answered prior to the first budget meeting and which I, if I'm not mistaken, did it only take one meeting? Previous budgets was one meeting, you know, just, and I understand you're new. I'm new as well, which is why I emailed the questions I had prior to the first meeting. Um, But, you know, have at it. It just seems a little ridiculous, honestly.

I've got a couple more questions. Y'all good to keep going? Okay. We had talked last time. I had brought forth from the Police Benevolent Association their desires for the family health benefits and the affordability I know that this is something that is much bigger than this budget, but I would like to start talking about and maybe see if our staff can do a survey about how many individuals would take part in this, what it could look like to offer a flat dollar rate or offer HSA or something to our employees, because we do want our employees to be able to live and work in Graham and be able to thrive on what we're providing them. And so I don't think that this is anything that we can work magic in the next month and get into the budget. But I am interested in furthering this conversation, especially around what it looks like to help alleviate some burden with the health benefits for our employees' families. Can we have a conversation about this?

I would, if I may, I mentioned this at the last one and I'll stress it again. I think any employee who has a dependent, a spouse, a family, you would automatically assume that at 100%. What I would hate to do is survey employees, ask for interest when There's something right now that we have zero funding mechanism for. The cost for this, in my opinion, would be significant that I believe we'd be asking the taxpayers to cover. And I hate for employees to think that this is a possibility for us to come up at the end and say it's too big and we can't fund it. And then we as staff here me, Aaron, department heads are left to try to manage the blow that that has had on internal staff and resources because it would take a significant amount of time and effort. You're just going to go ahead and assume that everyone who has a qualifying individual would go for that. The cost would be astronomical. If we're looking at a 6% that we already had to negotiate and restructure for the upcoming fiscal year in addition to the changes I can't imagine what the dollar amount would be, and we have zero funding mechanism for it that I'm aware of.

Is this a conversation that we can start with our NSHIP rep to see the possibilities moving forward of how those rates can be brought down? We've had those.

I mean, that's just it. Until we have a healthier workforce and we can get our claim data down, we really don't have a lot of room unless we want to weaken the plan. We can't offer an HSA until we have what they call a high deductible plan which we've already explored. And at the end of the day, that's going to end up hurting the employees who make less because they're going to have a higher deductible. They're going to see this this incentive to join the HSA. But at the end of the day, they're going to be paying more out of pocket and it's going to hurt them. And we've had these individual conversations with employees who have brought this forth to let them understand you know, what that looks like. It looks good and shiny on paper until you realize the dollar impact of it. And it definitely has a very hard impact on our employees who are paid the least. So it has an inverse effect of what I think people are generally trying to accomplish.

If we had a stipend of something as low as $100 a month or something like that, you know,

Why are we throwing out any kind of stipend and such? That's money that the taxpayers are going to have to pay. Why are we talking about adding stipends when let's address the budget? And we've got a health plan in place. And what you're mentioning, you're tinkering with a health plan

that we're still trying to get our... Can you talk into your mic?

You're tinkering with an existing health plan that we've only had for two years now, right, Megan?

So we look at changes to it on a year-to-year basis. We have to be locked in by February for the upcoming fiscal year. So we basically start once the new fiscal year has begun looking at the next fiscal year, but we've got to be locked in, we'll just say February 1st for simplicity's sake, for the upcoming fiscal year. This... Year we're in today is our fourth in NSHIP, which is the North Carolina Health Insurance Pool, which has significantly reduced our premiums. We had double digits, 16, 20, 20 plus percent premium increases year over year before we went to NSHIP. four years ago. So that has helped lessen what we would be paying every month, every year for health insurance. That savings, per se, is very quickly eaten up with a higher cost of doing business. I mean, you can look back at what we paid for items, you know, five and six years ago, and it's nowhere near the cost that we're paying today. So had we not switched to NSHIP, or made some other change where we kind of realize that savings i don't know what our tax rate would be but it certainly is highly unlikely to be what it is today through the reval and the revenue neutral and all that that's happened over the last few years bobby to your question i'm not trying to just add experience expenses willy-nilly but this is something that

through the Benevolent Police Association that staff is requesting. And this would add to retention and recruitment if we were able to provide something. So I think this strengthens our employment capabilities, but also creates a better work environment. And that's why I'm asking. I'm not asking just willy-nilly, I'm asking because I've been asked to.

This is something that's on the hearts of... We get that, but it doesn't really have anything to do with why we're here today. I mean, because it's not going to affect the upcoming budget that we're looking at right now. Sure, we can look at that down the road, but it's not going to be something that's going to be included on this budget. So I don't know why we're talking about it right now.

I do know that it's a bigger conversation.