City Council - Regular Meeting

Hello and welcome to our Tuesday evening uh no th Thursday evening sorry Thursday evening budget workshop. Thank you all for being here. Uh we have uh director Roy joined by administrator Krath. Thank you. Uh first up uh we want to talk about the reval. Uh been in discussions with administration uh conversations with Tyler Tuck about a plan and strategy for the reval. I'll let you take it away from here administrator Kanrath.

Yeah. All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, so as I mentioned there, uh, it looks like there will be a few options available to us, you know, on the reval. Option one, obviously, is to proceed as is. I think option two that's been discussed is to do a one-year delay to allow people time to prepare uh for next year. Uh and the third option that we're currently talking with Tyler on um is a phased in approach where we could over a period of you know say two or three or even four but probably three is more reasonable years phase it in uh break up that uh rate of increase over the three years. Um and you could also on top of that to give people time to prepare do a one-year uh hold uh delay and then do a phase in approach. So the phased in approach it is uh extremely rare. We talked to Tyler. Um it was an extremely unusual request. Uh they are gathering more information on just how it could be implemented. They don't have all that information yet. It would also involve some reconfiguration uh of our software on our end from UNUNICE as far as tax billing. So there would obviously be probably some additional expenses incurred from Tyler to do this. Um there is uh I guess there are some towns in Connecticut that have done this before um a phased in reval but uh in the state of Maine I'm not aware of any that have and I guess they aren't either in any recent memory. So this would be something that's uh very new. Um but to be fair we also haven't done a reval in 38 years. So if there is a case to look at doing a phased in approach I think this is probably it. So um we're working with Tyler. We hope to have more information back from them just on the technical pieces of how it could work uh the phased in approach but we can do it. It is a legal thing to do this process. Um and so I think we probably should strongly look at doing a phased in approach. Um it would lessen the burden

on a number of obviously uh residents and families and property owners across the city. And I think you're hearing a lot of feedback as well as as well as we are um that we're going to need to do something I think to make this a little more palatable for our residents. And so um that's where we are with that. Um we're still talking with Tyler. Hope to have more information back. But I think we are looking to get, you know, some consensus or some idea from the council of if you like the idea of a phased in approach. Um or you could also talk about a one-year delay or proceed uh as is. Um, so I think we're looking for some feedback on that, but we are ready to pursue uh any of those options, but I think the phased in approach really makes a lot of sense.

I appreciate that, Administrator Krath. We also have Director Healey in the audience. Uh, thank you for all uh your help. Uh, or do we have No, I don't think Director Hill is here tonight, but you're seeing things. Okay, it's late in the day. Uh, I was looking at Director Star. All right. Uh but I appreciate where if you're out there, Director Healey, thank you for your help. Um yeah, I mean in my mind, I think we do need to give uh you know, given the fact that it'll uh the increase could be jarring, I think a uh a one-year delay followed by Yes. a two or three year uh phase in makes some makes some sense to allow residents to to plan. Yeah. If I could just add one more thing,

administrator came after you. And just one more note, I I mentioned this earlier, but we do have some good news in this process. So, um it looks like our our total valuation is going to be about 5 billion, up from 4.4 billion that was originally estimated. And that's going to allow us um looking at the new numbers to adjust the mill rate down about another $2. Um which is significant. So, just looking at these are the new numbers. Um, a house currently assessed $100,000 um would be 238,000 and the the increase and this is an average. It depends on location, it depends on quality, it depends on a lot of things, type of property, but the average would be about $780 uh in that case, which is better. Um, $150,000 current valuation would go to 357 uh and that increase would be $1,200. So, uh, definitely better numbers than we were talking about, but I think despite that, the phase in approach still might may make a lot of sense. But, you know, if you take that, you know, say you do a three-year phase in, um, $1,200 over three years, much more palatable than some of the numbers we were talking about before.

Uh, thank you, Administrator Kenrath. It looks like we're probably are going to want to weigh in here. So, we're just going to start with uh, councelor from Ward One and then move on to

um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, thank you, Administrator. Uh this is welcome news that the mill rate's going to drop a little bit. Um I do think that we actually need to know what the budget is going to be in order to determine whether or not um we want to look at a one-year block and then the phased approach or if we accept a phased approach. I'd also like to understand the additional cost uh as well. Um because I mean one possibility as well would be that we have a one-year um non- increase and then we accept the full increase depending on all of the factors at play. Uh it's just that ultimately um I don't have all the information to make that decision. I'm very glad that we we could look at a phased approach though because I think it's incredibly important for some of our folks on fixed incomes and renters and Yeah. Thank you. Council Longs.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I would like to see the one-year hold personally. Um, and I'd like to see uh after that a two to three year um,

you know, uh, span it out between uh, the two to three years, whatever we choose. But I definitely think, you know, it's been 38 years that people have been used to doing things uh, one way. Some would say, well, it was coming. Everyone knew. Uh but I think again it's been 38 years. Um there are a lot of people here that live on a fixed income. I think that two to three years with the one-year hold will give people enough time to start uh really figuring out their new budget. So that that's that's my thought. Uh councelor Roy, did you have something?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I too like council long champs would like to see a one-year hold and you know two to three year phase out. I think that gives people enough time to figure out if there are some other credits that they can go for like a senior discount and all that stuff. I think, you know, right now I don't think we've we've tried to get it out there and people have known about it, but I think the time limit is just it's it's it's crunched and I I don't like that. But what I what I wanted to say is I think in order to help the school budget along and all that stuff, if we could get the information from Tyler Technologies quicker before we have to get into that school budget and before the vote is and all that stuff or if we could make a decision on where we're going with um you know either a hold and a phase and all that stuff, that's going to help the school budget a lot I think. So if we could get some of this information quicker then that would be better. So

yeah. So, and again, the only thing we're still waiting for from Tyler is really just the technical aspects of implementation on their end and how much it will cost us to do this this process instead of just the current process. So, um I mean, as far as other impacts on the budget, I'm not sure. That's what we're really waiting for. So, we can do it. Um but they need to give us the mechanics of just how it would work because it's extremely rare. Um and we're we believe me, we put absolutely ASAP on them for getting this information. So, we're hoping to have it as soon as possible and we'll share that as soon as we we can. Appreciate that. Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead, D. I I was just saying I appreciate that. Thank you. Because we need to get that out.

Yeah. I mean, already uh Director Healey has had many conversations with Tyler Tech, but the takeaway tonight is that uh we can do it technically and it is legal to do. Uh director councelor Noble, did you have something? I definitely like a phased in idea. Um, but I want to get some feedback from the people in my ward first before I make a definite decision on that. I want them to have some feedback. Councelor Chin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I don't know enough about a phased in approach. I'm assuming that would be if we're targeting 100% then we would say we're going to target onethird of the difference, 40 to 60% for the first year, 80% the third. Yeah. Okay. Um the one-year delay, I have some concerns about that. Um I wonder about the liability that the city might be exposed to if the new assessments are put out and those folks who are going to be seeing a reduction in their share of the local tax burden do not see that reduction. Does that expose the city to any action or liability?

Yeah, it's a fair question. And just, you know, on that point, so the average uh residential homeowner uh is seeing uh I think the average numbers I got was 178% increase in assessed value over the current, but the commercial properties are only 140%. So you can see and the average I think in total was 173% increase. So you can see the difference there between the commercial side and the residential side and where that burden is shifting. So, it's a fair question because you're going to have a number of um you know, commercial or industrial property owners out there um that only rose 140% and the average is 173. So, obviously that difference is you know on them.

So, that would be an argument against a delay um but not necessarily against a phasing in approach because that phased in approach would apply equally across the board to all tax classes. Um so for that reason I would favor a phased approach over a delay. Um and we can get some legal guidance on that also because that that is an important question. Yeah. Thank I I think we should. Thank you. Uh we do have a couple of counselors absent, but um you know, while we're waiting for uh final final details from Director Healey, it sounds like um at least some of us are in favor of a a delay andor a phased in approach. I guess we'll revisit this when we have more details.

Yeah, that's great. So, we will Yeah, we will proceed. It seems like there is consensus that there's interest in a phased in approach. So, we will continue to pursue that um and have more information as soon as we can.

Excellent. Uh okay. Well, there's that. And um I want to talk about two things tonight. We're going to be talking about the city budget and then the school budget. And I want to remind councilors that really for both budgets uh well with the school budget, it's very clear we only have uh control over the bottom line number. So I think discussions about what departments uh should be affected of the school budget are not appropriate here. Um if we want to see cuts of the school budget, we need to be talking about uh just simply numbers um rather than where those cuts should take place. And uh and then here we need to have a discussion about where we're headed with the city budget. And uh I also wanted to remind the council that you know while we do set uh policy and direction for the city it's our city administrator who we have here administrator Kenrath who um decides the day-to-day operations. So what would be most appropriate is for us to like come to some conclusion. Do are we okay with the budgets at do we want cuts? What you know how much do we want to cut? And then you know whatever that number is or isn't um we will be giving to administration to figure out where those cuts uh should come from to um you know in an effort to uh lessen the impact on on residents. Uh so let's start first with the city budget. Uh how are we feeling about the city budget and where it's at?

Councelor Chidum. Uh the city budget is regrettably and unfortunately too high. Um I I believe we need to make further cuts in that and those cuts obviously going to be painful. I think that the administration has done what it can uh and taken all of the fat out of the budget. Um there are a few drippings left, but I think we need to see a reduction in the budget. Previously, the council has targeted a percentage increase. That's not in our toolbox this time around because we don't have enough information to say we want to hold the taxes at 3%. So, we really can't do it that way. However, we can based on the information we do have say that either we're happy with the budget, which I'm not, or well, I wouldn't be happy anyway, but that that we like to see reductions. I I don't know that any counselors want to see increases, but I would certainly vote for or approve or encourage uh further reductions. Uh the mayor's comments notwithstanding, I have some suggestions which I'll get into upon request.

Mr. Mayor, uh yeah, and then councelor Nijing. Yeah, just briefly and just just so everyone knows, general public watching, we did pass out some updated uh summary sheets here. And so the city uh budget currently stands at a 6.6% 6% uh increase over last year. That's incorporating some of the changes that director really talked about um in our last meeting. So just for for everyone's information, we're currently at 6.6% uh over last year. County 20%, debt service 13.3 and the school budget 11% over last year.

Uh thank you for that. And yeah, sorry. Is there anything else uh either administrator Kenworth or Dr. Roy you want to say about the sheet before we continue? You'll notice the assessment value is at the five billion. That was also changed from the 4.4. Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Nene. Yes.

Um yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I also encourage us to do further cuts. I do want to point out that um the increase in the county tax uh of $1.3 million and also the um red reduction in revenue sharing of $800,000 which I'm not quite sure how that happened but I'm wondering if that's still the case. Have we gone back to the state to say why is our revenue share dropped? They put the estimate out um early I don't Can you move the mic closer to

early um March they put the estimate out. There should be another one coming out. I don't know if there'll be any changes um to that. As I said, I did only budget 95% to be on the conservative side because of course this isn't the final number. As we get closer to the end, um we'll have a better estimate.

Okay. Thank you. Um, so if those numbers stand, um, that's $2.1 million that that we don't really have a way to make up for, one from revenue and one from a increase tax that is just present. And I just want to point that out. Um, so cutting to like a 0% increase would mean that we would be cutting services that we are currently offering um, to compensate for both the county tax and the lack of revenue sharing. Um, but I do think that we can do a lot better as far as the finished product. And I do realize that much of what we're putting forward is um um staff time and costs like our steps and colas and the employees that we have consume a good portion of our budget. So we have small pieces to move around. Um uh further comments from counselors councelor Longamps. Yes.

Thank you, Mayor. Um sorry, councelor Longs. You guys have done, you know, a great job um with doing the best you could, you know, with this uh budget that you have presented. I do think we have to make, you know, lower it. Um, I don't know how you'll do that or if it's possible. Um, I think now it's going to be positions and I hate to say that. Um, but I would like to see it uh lowered a little bit more. Thank you. Uh, yes, Councelor Roy.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I too am going to jump on that bandwagon. I I don't like the word cuts. I don't like positions going away. I don't like that. Um, but I at this point I also know like um you know everything's going up and uh yeah, I'm just on board with everybody else. I think I I don't know where it's going to come from, but we do have to really maybe have to go line by line. I don't I don't know. But uh yeah, I mean I do not think it's within our purview to go line by line. Uh that is the administrator's discretion. I think we need to come up with a a bottom line number either percentage or just an absolute number to cut and then uh uh you know our administration will work towards um achieving that while um you know affecting uh residents uh and services to residents the least. Uh councelor Noble, do you have uh anything to say at this point? Uh it does sound like we will be um at least discussing uh layoffs unfortunately. Uh so if that is the if that is the case um we do need to recognize um revenue sharing 100%. Uh this is being booked at 100% at other municipalities like Portland and we cannot be leaving money on the table uh and then u at this while simultaneously making staff cuts. It's like I cannot support that at all.

Uh, councelor Chidum, thank you. To that point, Mr. Mayor, uh, do we do you have at hand the actual revenue sharing versus projected? I know in prior years we have bumped up more closer to the 100% than you had recommended, but if memory serves, the final numbers have come in even higher than the initial estimates. So that That's an area that we need to explore and one of the decisions I think the council can make as to whether to uh accept the finance director's recommendation of budgeting to 95% 95% it was right

of expected state revenue sharing versus 97 100 or even perhaps 110 based on historical values. So that's an area of consideration. Um when I said earlier about 3% I was meaning the entire tax burden which includes obviously the county and the school county at 20% uh school at uh I'm sorry county at 20% of our budget right now the increase looks like 8.3% according to the information that was just handed out to us. uh if we were to target four-way for example u limiting the increase of the total tax burden on our taxpayers to the cost of living let's say 3% uh we would be taking such massive cuts in the municipal side which is the only area we have control over that it would render the city essentially non-functional so I don't think it's reasonable to look at a 3% we are going to have to absorb the 20.4% 4% increase. That's just under a million dollars uh according to this sheet. There's nothing we can do about that. We've done everything that we can. So that's that's a cost that's going to have to be absorbed. And the only way we can do that here on this council is to either direct the school department to lower its bottom line or u in the mayor's view direct administrator to lower the city's line. in in my view make suggestions as to where those cuts, painful as they may be, should be made.

Uh, councelor Long Champs, thank you. If we were to leave um this budget as is, how much dollar amount uh would taxes go up? How much would that be? And you would just be talking about on average for median valued home. I mean, um, so using the new numbers and I don't know what the bill would help us give give us the actual average valuation for the city, but as I said, 150,000 uh, currently valued house would go to 357. This is the new numbers. I know we want to talk about the old numbers, too, but that's this is the current budget. That's $1,200.

Now, I don't know if 150 that's probably somewhere around our our median. Um it might be a little bit high. Um but we get the exact numbers from assessor. Sorry I'm acknowledging that you'll be next but uh councilor that's sorry still thinking. Um so at this point if we lower this number that you have presented us with it's jobs right? Yes. Further cuts will almost undoubtedly involve layoffs of current personnel and positions. How long has that been since we've done that?

I believe we did it in 2008. I'm looking around the room for someone who's been here almost as long as I think 2008 was the last time we had to do um major layoffs of people who were actually employed. Over the in the past, we have as we're doing this year, you know, open positions were frozen or we haven't filled them. Um, but if the cuts that you folks are talking about are going to be bodies and it will affect the services that we're able to provide to uh the the citizens of Lon

and I feel like I know I just said that that's what we'd have to do because it seemed like that's our only option, but I think for me as a counselor uh sitting up here the last uh two and a half years, we worked really hard to fill positions to make um departments more desirable. So, I'm I'm not sure that we should really be cutting cutting jobs. Um I don't I don't think there's anything else we can do, but I I'll take back what I said originally. Um I mean, you're probably going to have to do it anyway, but I I don't think it's a good idea. it is going to definitely cut services and things are already difficult enough uh to meet needs. I I just don't think it's a good idea for the city of Leon. So, I just want to share that.

Councelor Naene, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just doing some math here on my Okay. Um, so I realize that we're not supposed to uh go line by line through the budget, but I am going to point out some areas in which I think that we should consider before we consider cutting positions. One thing that I So, can I uh Yeah. Can I just speak to that for a quick second? Sure.

So, I um Yeah, I don't know. I think we need to have a conversation about like if we're going to I I Yeah. I mean, do I have ideas about where the budget can be cut? Sure. Absolutely. Um, you know, is that uh my role as a member of the council? Like it is not. We have an administrator uh to do that work for us. I I think that's kind of getting into the weeds. And I think when we're when we're talking about cutting potentially cutting positions, uh I think us politicizing it up here is going to be counterproductive. Uh in and it's going to be bad for the council. It's going to be bad for administration. it's just going to create all kinds of like unnecessary expectations and I just I'm very very very hesitant to, you know, to allow us to to do that up here.

I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. Two years ago, we went through the budget line by line. Um, I'm going to just mention some places where I think that we have some issues and it has nothing to do with uh departments. it is suggestions that I think we should look at. Um, and so one piece is 2.8% of our budget is our new is our new Cassella contract. Um, I don't know if we've gone back to figure out what cost we could get if we changed it back to the old the old system, which the new system isn't even in place right now, but that was a that was a a 100% increase on the new contract that um again 2.8% of our budget. Um, one thought that I had was whether or not we could um ask all of the departments to extend their vehicle replacement out like maybe 15 20%. Um, I think also um when we're looking at the vehicle replacement for the police department currently they're looking at Taho. I think the Explorers are about 25 $35,000 cheaper. These are just things that like I've come across. What I would like is to have um the administration team go back to the different departments and be like, you know, at the end of the day, we possibly will lose bodies. Can everybody look at their budgets and figure out if there's any place that we can make sharper cuts in places that don't affect bodies. And that would be, you know, my my suggestion and hope. You know, I know that usually collective bargaining agreements are not reopened, but when we start talking about losing people, is it possible to ask different uh uh unions to consider um adjustments on colas um especially for this year where it's going to be tough. Um and so those are my those are my general suggestions. I have other ones that I will I guess

share in private um for the the um time um and also to not upset um the mayor.

Yeah, if I could just respond quickly. Uh no, thank you for that. Absolutely appreciate that. And depending on um what the target number is for cuts from the council, we are going to absolutely look at everything and pull out all the stops before we start cutting uh people in positions. That's absolutely going to be the case. That's the commitment we've made uh to our employees that we're going to look for any and all areas of savings before going to positions. So, uh 100% agree on that. That will absolutely be what we do. Um and depending on what the the target number is and how uh significant the cuts are, um we are still hopeful that we can avoid layoffs, but it's going to depend on what that bottom line number and that directive looks like. um you know, we'll see where where it lands. But so your point is well taken and we are going to be looking at any and all areas for uh other potential savings no matter how small across all departments uh in order to avoid layoffs and you know we'll see if we can get there but it's going to depend on uh how much we're talking about for sure.

Uh I appreciate your consideration councelor Nene enjoy working with you and the rest of the council as we work through these difficult times. Uh, councelor uh Roy, did you have your hand up?

Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, we don't want to cut people. We're sitting here saying we don't want to. So, I think, you know, letting a counselor say, "Hey, I think there's an area that we should really look at before we even consider. Nobody wants to take anybody's job, you know." So, I I think, you know, when counselor Nene said that he had some things, I know you kind of got nervous, but let him talk, man. He's he's not going to say anything bad. So I really I would really appreciate that and I thank you guys because you know nobody wants to take anybody's job. That's not what we want. But if we can first consider like if we say we want you know a bottom line of like maybe a 3.5% before we cut any jobs come back and say this is this is it. We can only get to 4.2 before we start cutting people. I would like to have that buffer there because I don't want to cut people's jobs.

Uh thank you councelor Roy. Uh, councelor Chidum, did you have your hand up?

Yes, I did virtually. Um, I agree. The last resort is laying people off. Um, does this budget contemplate people who are retiring over the course of the next year? Um, if so, while the position isn't frozen now, if an individual retires this year, could the indiv could that position be frozen and would that have any significant effect on the budget? the largest component of which is salaries. I grant that. So I've been looking for highhanging fruit uh as opposed to salaries and and in deference to the mayor. Again, I do have a number of suggestions which I can share in private or in public. Um they are not department specific. Um but there are areas where it would be painful but less painful than saying goodbye to fellow workers and and cutting our services in terms of uh personnel resources. Uh now that we've all um you know had a chance to speak on this and nobody has really offered a bottom line number uh the suggestion has been made that perhaps uh you go back to department heads and you know kind to uh you know squeeze some more dollars from budgets that don't involve staff and then come back to us uh after that. What do you think about that administrator Kane?

I think it would be helpful for us to have you know a target uh you know We're basically and and director Roy can speak to this also. We are just about there as far as cuts and and positions. Um there are yes there are some small areas to kind of you know find some some small savings but I think we need to get a general idea of you know what is the target. You know we can do some math right now. You know a penny on the mill rate is 37,500. you know, we can if we have some ideas of where we'd like to end up with this budget, um that may be helpful for us when going back and figuring out, you know, what else can we sort of cobble together. Um you know, we can certainly do another look through and come up with, I think, some very small areas of savings, but uh we just don't want this to be a feudal exercise if we're going to come back and we found another $60,000 and that's that's going to be two cents on the mill rate and it does nothing for us. I think we need to understand uh you know where we want to end up and it also involves you know the school budget also and and the city and where overall do we want to end up but so again 375 is is one penny on the mill rate. Um we can do some math here. Um, so if there's if there's some general consensus or general desire of where we like to see the, you know, the budget come in, city and school side, or at least give us some direction on the city side. Um, I think that would be generally helpful. I mean, we can we can certainly go back and look for any and all, you know, quarters in the couch cushions, we can we can find for sure. Um, but if we're going to go through this exercise, I think we need to have a goal in mind of where we're where we're going.

Understood. Um, I guess to that end, uh, councilors, I guess if we can, uh, and I'd rather than conflate the two, I'd rather just talk about city budget right this second. Uh, what kind of, uh, decrease from where we're already at, do we want to see for the city budget? Um, numbers or percentages? If it's a percentage, we can have director Roy turn that into a number. Uh, councelor Nene. Yes.

So, looking at the city's expenses, we're looking at an increase of 3.6 6 uh 3,672,000 for operating expenses. County tax is incre increasing actually 93 uh 5554 which is non-negotiable and uh debt service is most probably non-negotiable as well. There's no way to to uh renegotiate our interest or balance owed. So uh really we're talking about three 3,672 uh,000590. I'd like to see that reduced down u myself personally somewhere between two million and 2.5 2.25 million.

So we can get about another 1.1 million or so for you. 1.2. I mean I would be really happy if we could take let's say $1.7 million off of that. If we could do that that would be low. I realize that. Okay. So 1.7 is kind of your vote. That's my goal. Go. Uh, or is it going to go uh down the row? I guess with numbers. Um, councelor Long Champs, what are your thoughts? If we did the 1.7, can you move the mic closer to you? If we did the 1.7, that just seems like a lot of positions that would have. It'll be significant staff cuts.

Yeah, that seems almost impossible. I I I love that number, but I I don't think I I don't know. a lot of people would lose their jobs. Um, yeah, that that doesn't sound like a a doable number to me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs. I think you guys have cut in all the areas um that you possibly could. I know before you brought this to us, we've had discussion before regarding um how tight this budget was going to be. I do think if we can delay or phase out uh the property taxes that is going to take a big burden off taxpayers. Um so it'll lessen uh the fear of this going up and having to increase uh those taxes as well. So I think maybe you could squeeze out a little more uh as far as uh not bodies but other things. I think you can do exactly what you're going to do and go back to every line and see if there's anything else that you can um do away with. I have confidence in that. So, I don't see how we can change the number to be honest uh at this point without letting go of people.

Uh is that does that make sense? Yes, it does. Just uh sorry, one second, administrator. Um, so councelor Long Champs, just to be clear, you're uh declining to provide a number to cut at this point in time. Yeah, I think I just don't see how we go any lower without bodies leaving and I'm just not comfortable doing that. Yeah, if I could just respond there. There are a couple. I mean, one is we we talked about the state revenue sharing earlier. So, I believe the difference between 95 and 100% is approximately $600,000. significant $580,000.

Um so if we were to book 100% that's $580,000 right there. Um and that would bring our mill rate down to 1715. Yeah.

So uh so that is is one area we can look at and that's significant money when when in the position we're in $58,000 is significant money. If we're trying to get to say a goal of a million, that's more than halfway there when that's not not without cutting any bodies, which is, you know, a positive. So, um, so there is that. Uh, and there are a couple other, you know, small areas we can we can find some savings. Um, I would say generally, um, you know, director Roy, correct me if I'm wrong. If we're talking about more than a million dollars from here, I think we're certainly talking about positions and current positions, bodies and seats. Correct.

Correct. Unless, again, um just a reminder, and I know it's it's your decision on the take-home vehicles. Um that was one one area we did not touch. Um all the others we looked at, like I said, we removed a lot of capital out of everybody's um budget. So, besides the take-home vehicles, I think at that point it would be looking at positions. Uh, how much is that adding to the budget? The take-h home vehicles? 490,948. So, if we didn't if we recognize all revenue sharing and didn't do take-h home vehicles, we'd be at nearly a million at this point. Okay. All right. Uh,

I wasn't finished. Sorry. Uh oh, sorry. Please continue. My apologies.

That's okay. Um, so you could probably get to 600,000. fair to say without uh it being too critical. I would just like to sh to say um as far as the take-home vehicles uh we have heard several times that that is going to be a key tool to filling positions. Um, I know that there was just a some sort of fair at one of the colleges um with the police officers trying to recruit um officers to our great city. Um, and we have a lot of issues here. We need we need uh police presence everywhere. Um, and one of the things that was shared with me was the take-home cars um, as a real we'd love to go there. So, as much as I think that would be a large cost um, off our budget, I just don't think it's a smart idea uh, in the time that we're living in um, as far as recruiting uh, tools. So, I guess I would like to see 600,000 shaved off. I think that's much more doable. And I I would really hate to see those take-home cars um eliminated from this budget as I think it is a great tool to fill the positions that are needed. Thank you,

Councelor Roy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so I think councelor Nine had some good ideas about relooking at some contracts. I think, you know, the Cassella contract is a good one to look at. I think maybe start there. Um, I think that could shave some money off of um, you know, our burden right there. I also think like I was willing to sit here and vote for those take-home cars because I really, really want to, but at the cost of cutting positions, I can't. So, with that being said, I mean, if it comes up next year, I' and if I'm here, I don't know, whatever, but I would definitely vote for that because I think that is a great tool. But for right now, if we can come up with almost $1.1 million with those take-home cars and what you just said, I mean, I'm happy to go down, you know, at least a million. If you can get lower without cutting positions, great. But I'm looking at, you know, at least a million, which would be good. I think we can get to a million without cutting positions.

Okay. So, and is I mean I'd even if I'd push that and go 1.25 if you could do that without cutting per uh positions, that's where I would go. Okay. Councelor Noble.

So, I don't have any numbers, but what I will say is I'm with Susan. My ward specifically has a lot of crime and a lot of safety issues where people are not feeling safe in their own homes. They're dealing with unhoused, sleeping on their porches. They're being assaulted. I agree that the cars are important for us to be able to recruit good officers. Um, and I want what I would like to see is for you to go as low as you can go before you have to start having people cut positions because it's really really difficult in the job market right now. I know this personally. Um, and it's taking people like at least what I was told is eight to eight months to a year to get back into the workforce after losing their jobs. So, I don't have a number, but that's where I'm at. I'll accept anything that doesn't involve, you know, people being put out of work, and that also includes the vehicles for the police officers to take home.

Councelor Chidum, thank you. I'd just like to remind council that we can form the budget by removing $600,000 by increasing the uh anticipated state revenue shar $580,000. That's a nice piece of change. However, um that's just paperwork. That's just playing with the numbers because the final number is going to be the final number. It's it's a gamble. It really is a gamble. If we if we decide to book a 100% of the anticipated and it actually comes in at 95%, we're right back where we started because that money is not going to suddenly appear. It it will not appear. So, I think uh Director Roy is being prudent and conservative and cautious in recommending a 95% booking. I just want us to be aware that we're playing we're playing some cards that we don't really know. There's a whole card we don't see. So be aware of that. We we simply can't take that money away without understanding what the risk is. Um as far as numbers, I would prefer to look at a net increase in the re in the the tax burden. I appreciate the sentiment that's been raised about not cutting positions. I truly do and I don't want to do that. It would be the last resort for me. However, against that has to be weighed the cost of keeping those positions on to the taxpayer. We've learned tonight that we might be able to phase these tax increases or fa I'm sorry, phase the the uh revaluation in unless I'm sadly mistaken, that's not going to have one iota of effect on the budget.

What it will do is instead of giving us a 17 mil tax rate, it will give us a 22 mil tax rate. The burden on the individual taxpayer won't change. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but if if we say we're only going to assess at 70% this first year, then the mill rate's got to go up because the the city is going to collect or needs to collect at this current budget uh the money it needs to operate. So, our decision up here isn't really whether to phase it in or not. Uh, our decision is whether to assess the full or to to uh levy the full um $45 million that's listed here uh for taxpayer burden on the cost of operating the city. The other number, the other point I'd like to make is that this total levy, including those things over which we have no control of the county and minimal control over the school, represents a 13.7 increase in the amount of revenue that is collected from the taxpayers. Now, some taxpayers are going to pay 20%, 50%, 80%, 100% more than they did last year. Others may end up actually paying less. But the total amount of revenue collected from the city has under this budget will grow by close to 14%. Average salaries and income if you look at the consumer price index are hovering around 3 three and a half%. So there's the stone and we're trying to get blood from it. Our options are protect all jobs in this city at the cost of burdening the taxpayer or

protect the taxpayer by keeping the tax rate as low as possible. I'm not suggesting this is an easy decision, but I think it's wrong to say I will not cut jobs. I think the proper approach is to say I will cut jobs only as a last resort. And I think there's an important distinction there. So we need to decide how much pain we want to inflict on the taxpayer. That's our primary goal. And that pain can come in the in the course of what they pay in April and September. It also can come in the in the form of not being able to drive on the roads in the winter because they're not plowed. uh not having a a police force that can address the the crime which is principally in the downtown area. Uh not having a fire department that can go out to College Street and put out a fire that's roaring at the moment or I guess it's out at the moment. I hope. Um so those are the kinds of things the taxpayer is going to feel pain. Our job is to say is that going to be a financial pain or is it going to be a loss in services pain? Uh thank you councelor Chinim. Did you have uh a final number that you wanted to provide administration?

I don't. I will be happy to provide it. I'm looking at 13.7% and I've just said that it would be ideal if we could make that cost of living 3.5%. But that's that's undoable. Um, I think with the increases that we've had in the school and the county, if somebody wants to do the math quickly, by the way, I'm going to put a plug in here. I brought my laptop for one of the first times to this council meeting. And when I turned it on just now, it told me for the first time in 27 months that I have to change my password. So, I have no laptop. I had a lot of this stuff all figured out. Um, if someone can tell me what what effect reducing 13.7 to 3.5 would have on the city tax levy of $45 million. That would help.

Well, and obviously the county can't be touched that 20.4%. So there's a 13.7 will be coming off of the city and school. Uh yeah. Okay. Um we're kind of going back around but um councelor Nene and then councelor lung chimps. Okay. One piece is if we don't know what the revenue sharing formula what what the actual number is going to be that is a hard part. We just basically said, "Hey, Shazam, we created $600,000 or $580,000," which changes my my cut number to 2.2 million. Um, ultimately, what I would like to see is to hold the operating expenses budget to somewhere between 3 and 3 and a.5% increase. And I realize that people are saying that this is going to be jobs that we're cutting, but I don't necessarily agree with that. Uh I think that going back to the directors to say how can you figure out ways to save I I'm thinking about like even when we talk about the LCIP we have a bunch of bond spending that we never ever spend in a given year. Um and it just falls into these into these categories that and so instead of borrowing from you know writing new bond funds to to fund some of the things in the LCIP do we do we talk about making sure that all the money that we allocated previously is actually spent from the LCIP accounts. Um, you know, the the challenge that I'm seeing here is that like we've run government a particular way as far as both the way that we account and the way that that we perform services. And I think like if we can get leaner and slimmer and more efficient on a department level, then that saves overall. I'm I'm comfortable with saying uh that 6.6%

becomes 3 point uh 3.0 or 3.5. Um that that's my position. Councelor Long Champamps. Yeah, final thought. Uh I just want to clarify that I do care about the taxpayers. Um and I'm not just thinking about city staff, although a lot of our city staff do live and pay taxes here in Lewon. Um so that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Uh based on all the feedback from us, do you have what you uh need for the uh city budget administrator Kra?

Yeah, I think we have some general framework and I think we can come back next week um maybe with a couple scenarios of this is what it looks like with a million cut. This is what it looks like with a million five. This is what it looks like with 2 million. And these are the potential impacts at those at those levels. And maybe we can go from there if that sounds reasonable. Sounds good. Thank you. Uh now for the uh school budget uh uh what what guidance do we want to give the school budget uh and give the school committee in terms of uh just a number of further cuts and uh yeah if any uh councelor Nene

so I am going to speak to something quickly uh I am reticent to lose uh studentf facing positions that is that is absolutely the case. I am reticent to lose student facing positions especially in uh in some of the burden school um uh buildings. I know the dean of of students is very important. I know the middle school uh health uh mental health counselor is very important. I do think that um some cuts should be made. I trust that the school committee knows what those are. Um, I would uh I would ask that uh I'm not gonna I'm not gonna assign a number. I'm very nervous about losing uh um studentf facing positions. If there's places that can be cuten otherwise that don't affect the function in the schools, then that's what they should do. Um, and obviously because it's voted, um, the these tax increases are going to be very hard, I think, for um, the community and and we know how how much they struggle already through the referendums. And so, um, I'm not going to pile on to that in any way, shape, or form. I support the school budget that was put forward with the exception of losing those those those uh, student facing positions.

Uh, anything you want to uh, do you want to chime in on this? Uh, councelor Long Champs. Sure. Thank you. Um, I'm not for losing teachers. Um, we have a lot of kids in our schools. We have a lot of kids um with different unique challenges. Um, I think I think our school committee does a great job. Um, they've come up with their budget. I I hope it's passed and I I really am not going to tell them. um where they should cut. Thank you.

Uh yeah, and just for you know, I guess all of us and the and the public, we we cannot tell them where they should cut, but we do have say over the final the final number. In fact, we vote on it and then the public gets to vote on it. Uh councelor Roy, did you have any thoughts?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um my thoughts are exactly what the other counselors have said. I do not want to lose any studentf facing positions at this point. I think the cuts that are proposed some of those schools cannot absorb the cuts that are going to be happening and I am not in favor of that. Um I am in favor of education and I think in the long run that is best for our city is educating our kids and we need to continue doing that. Um as far as a number and all that stuff obviously I'm not a I'm I'm not a professional in that area. I don't know what numbers uh I would be throwing out there, but I would say like the other counselors before me, save the positions and and go with that number and try to find other things that can be cut other than student facing positions. Uh that's that's the way I look at that.

Uh thank you. Uh councelor Noble. Um same. I got a lot of emails talking about the dean of students and a truency officer too. Um, I don't remember exactly what the position was. I trust that the city of Lewon will be able to vote and figure that out. Uh, councelor um Chinam, do you have any thoughts?

Thank you. Yes, I do. Um, I hold out very little hope that this referendum, the school budget referendum will pass on the first ballot because of circumstances beyond the school committee's control. uh partially because the county has imposed a significant burden on us this year. Partially because uh we have assumed a burden ourselves in uh the the payroll and the costs and the salaries uh and expenses beyond our control. One thing to look at and I'm playing with these numbers here in my head. Um, if the city and the school both suffer the same pain, that might seem to be an equitable solution. And I I guess I would measure that pain by keeping the percentage increase in both organizations identical. Um there has been a huge cry or a a cry for the city to absorb the excess school costs which are as much under the city the school uh committee's control as our budget is under ours. Um but if we make that equitable so that both the school department and I am not an advocate at all of cutting school budgets. I am not an advocate of cutting studentf facing positions. But the hard reality is that if we want our cake, we have to pay for it. And the concerns I have are we're growing increasingly unable to pay for that. So one solution would be to say let the school and the city suffer the same pain

and equalize that so that each budget is increased by the same amount and that amount be as low as possible. I know that's already been done by the school committee, by the superintendent, by administration here, excuse me, on the city side, but if we can equalize those, that will take away a lot of the argument that um this is an unfair uh situation and it I think in my mind will increase the chances that the school budget would pass on the first or second uh referendum ballot. Bear in mind that every time we have another one of these referendums, it costs us what 68,000 $10,000 uh in polling costs. So, if we don't get it passed in the first one, we're just adding to our own financial burdens.

Uh I'm not sure I'm quite on board with the arbitrary goal, but I absolutely agree with you that uh where the school budget at is at right now, uh it will not pass referendum. And so, yeah, they have some work to do. Um, I definitely do not want to see uh positions cut. Uh, but yeah, I just have a hard time believing it's it's passing in its curtain form. Uh, yeah, final thoughts about the school budget. Councelor Ning,

I just wanted to point out the differences, too. Um, right now the school budget we we're looking at this one number is uh um and uh sorry, give me just one second. Uh am I reading this correct? That that's that's we're looking at uh Can can you point to me on the on the school budget line where where the total expenses are? It's the 122 million 98, right? School operating expenses, which does not show the municipal side, right? Which is only 37 million. Is that correct? I thought it was 39, but yeah. or 39

for the municipal side if you look up top is 59,139305 right but the but the city portion of the of the school budget is not reflected here that's the total budget correct for the tax levy is so down you see proposed tax levy school 35 million47 so it's only 35 million for 417 okay right their total budget is the 122 million and ours is the 59

right um And also, we're not using any fund fund balance this year. They're they're applying $9 million of their fund balance to to their budget. If we if we ask uh a significant reduction on the school budget on the school side, that is all staff. That's all that is. Um they have 600 uh 600 plus employees within the the the school. Um I mean, possibly they could re

I think it's more like00,200 or so. Sorry, 1,200. Yes, 1,200. So, like when we're talking about these reductions, like I want the budgets to be as tight and clean as they possibly can. That that's what I want to see. Um, and at the end of the day, I think on the city side, if we cannot get to a 3% or to or or 3 and a half% increase, then then we need and that's on the operating expenses, then we need to consider whether or not we are going to to let people go. that but I'm not going to make that decision for the schools.

Uh unless our final thoughts I think um the school committee has some some feedback from the council. Uh any final thoughts from you two? So for that number to get down to 3.5% we would have to cut seven $7.8 million to get to 3.5%. of the tax that's on the operating budget for the city. That's on the the tax levy because you had mentioned you wanted 3.5% for the tax levy because it's currently at that 13.7. Um so between city and school that's 7.8 million. Correct.

Okay. Thank you. That that that's a good number to have but not necessarily a target. Thank you. Any final thoughts from uh or councelor Chidum? Yes,

I have a specific question um not a wrap-up or a final thought and that pertains to the water increases. Um, as I was going through the budget, I noticed that the hydrant rental has increased significantly. And again, without my laptop, um, the number that appeared in the budget appeared to be different than the number that was proposed as a 10% increase in water of our hydrant rentals. And can you address that?

Correct. So, when the budget was put together, um originally there was going to be no water increase until we put together the water budget and notice that it would be if you look at on your sheet, it would bring way down um leaving therefore no fund balance if there was some major issue that happened. So, we then decided to do the 10% increase, therefore increase in the hydrants. It doesn't automatically increase it 10% because there's a the the way it is increased it's like a partial a 3/4. Um so that's why it didn't go up a full 10%.

It seems to me it went up more than 10%. If if I can get my photographic memory back, we're paying $108,000 a year for hydrant rental now. And the increase would take it to I'm sorry 1.08 million is what we're paying for hydrant rental. It's proposed in the budget that that go to 1.3 million or I'm sorryund 130,000. Again I I'm I'm missing a decimal point here but the increase that was shown in the budget is a great deal more than 10%. The main point I'm trying to get to is that this is simply a transfer from the taxpayer to the rateayer. The taxpayers are paying the hydrant rental bill. Everybody, all the folks out in W 6 who have about 27 hydrants in their entire ward are paying for this hydrant rental. And that money is being transferred into the account that benefits the rateayer, the water user. So my question is, does the PUC permit a municipality to give itself free hydrant rentals from its own utility?

I believe not. I believe it's it's the law. and I can look that up and and email you all of that information on the hydrant rentals. Oh, okay. Thank you. I'd appreciate that. I can do that myself, too. And in fact, Director Roy, why don't you let me do that because you certainly have enough on your plate right now. Um, Director G is here and and yeah, I thank Thank you, Councelor Chidum. Yes, we have Director Kanye here, our hygien rental expert, uh, director of public works. Please, please enlighten us, sir.

Uh, thank you. To add on to what Director Roy said, um, the reason why there's an equation that you're required to use for hydrant rental and hydro fees is for the explicit reason that there needs to be a shared burden in a city that the hydrants are in. So, if we were a district, that puts the burden on the city that's being served by the district to pay for fire protection. So there's no waiverss that we can get to be able to of all the years we've been doing rate fees. That's the equation that's used and there's no allotment to say you get a pass. Thank you director. Um sorry for the bad news. Just to put a pin in that, what that is doing is taking the taxes from W six and applying them to WS one through five and seven because we have very few hydrants in W six. So the the equation actually isn't based on the number of hydrants that factors in. But if we add 100 hydrants, our rate is not going up to that. Our rate is based and I do not know the equation. Uh that is done by by our finance staff that that do that equation. It is based on the amount of protection in the city and it's not based on the amount of hydrants in a in a ward or in an area.

Okay. I appreciate that. Um, I will do my homework and and I will get additional details on what that equation is. But I know in talking with uh uh Deputy Lenfesty that that's that's how the equation works because I've heard from uh the fire department in the past, stop putting in new fire hydrants. It's not based on the number of fire hydrants that are in the city. It's it's based on a different equation. I understand that. My point being that a vast section of the city that does not benefit from hydrants is being charged for hydrants. Duly noted. I think it's accurate. Uh, is there anything else that you need from us? Uh, administrator Ken with Director Roy at this point. No, I think we'll be back next week. Appreciate it.

Sounds good. All right, councilors, are we good? Councelor Ning, did you have something?

Just really quickly, this is the third budget that I've gone through. Um, and this one is vastly different in in the process that we've taken than either of the other two, which were both also different from each other. Um, I'm I'm fine with uh some of this. I'm not fine with having conversations about where I think that I should make adjustments in private. Um, and so, you know, it's just one of those things that at at the end of the day, I think that like there's an expectation from the public that as protectors of the of the purse strings, we're accountable to the public in a public way. Um, and so, um, I appreciate that we're putting our faith and trust in our paid staff, which I don't have a problem with. Um, but at the same time, uh, there is an expectation that we perform our duties as well. That's all. And I just wanted to point that out.

Uh, I I appreciate that. Um, you know, I I do not think that it's appropriate for us to be providing that input to our administrator either, uh, here publicly or or privately. like um the details of the budget and the weeds of um you know getting into the weeds about you know where cuts need to happen are most certainly what we pay our uh city administrator for and I think we should uh leave that to him while we set policy and determine uh the final number. Uh yes, councelor Chidum.

So if I could summarize your argument, Mr. Mayor, we have the same amount of control over the city budget that we do the school budget. Uh that's one I mean that's one way to look at it like we can certainly provide feedback but I as I you know without you know continuing to repeat myself I think it'll be counterproductive to start to name positions that we feel that we should cut while we all have ideas I I think we can let our administration team uh come back to us with their ideas they're going to prevent they're going to present it sounds like several proposals administrator Kra

yeah some different dollar amounts and I'll just say, you know, this is not to comment on your process here, but whatever we bring back uh will be itemized as to what the savings are at this number. It will not include specific positions and names, of course, we don't want to be doing that. Uh if it does involve positions, it may include a total uh uh savings achieved with a number of positions, but we'll not include the people's names certainly or what the actual positions are for obvious reasons. Um, but we'll we'll plan on providing that. But again, whatever process you use is um is fine with us. We'll comply with um but I just want to be clear that we're going to be coming back with an itemized list of where all these cuts are and um and associated dollar figures.

Uh yes, councelor should have. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, could I ask pursuant to my earlier question whether or not the department heads or HR can provide a list of people who are anticipating retiring over the course of the next fiscal year? And again, to follow that up, was was that anticipation factored into the budget?

So, I think short answer is no. We don't know their retire potential retirement dates. They're obviously midyear. Um, so I don't think we could, you know, budget for just, you know, they're going to be here for only four months of the year. So I think that becomes difficult. Uh, I'm sure we have, you know, some knowledge of some anticipated retirements, but others we don't. People don't always give 6 months or a year notice of when they intend to retire. It's sometimes it's relatively short. So I think that's a much more uh, you know, nebulous target um, just based on potential retirement dates. We certainly wouldn't want to give a actual list of names again as we as we talked about. So, uh I think undoubtedly there will be retirements over the next year. Uh when they're occurring and in what departments, I think that's, you know, pretty murky.

Thank you. Uh yes, councelor and a back to you. Um, so one of those things and I believe we have quite a few employees in the city who are uh at or past retirement age at this point. And so when we're having discussions with department heads, I think it might have some value to say, you know, I don't know if I'm not I'm not suggesting that the city do this, but in certain cases, I know that um other municipalities have offered um um some type of retirement package uh in order to get that position vacated and then not fill it. And I don't know if that's a possibility, but I just wanted to put it forward.

Any further thoughts from um Director Roy or Administrator Krath? Thank you. Okay. Uh Deputy Administrator Mali, appreciate you being here and all the department heads, appreciate you being here. Uh I think we're calling it a night. We're going to be back here uh Tuesday at 6 PM. Is that correct, Administrator Kenra? That's correct. Okay, you all have a wonderful weekend. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Sorry.