City Council - Regular Meeting

Hello. Thank you. Uh councilors, thank you. Uh we are kicking off our Tuesday night budget meeting. We're we're Oh, sorry. We're we're we're trying to have a meeting. Counselors, please. Thank you. Uh we have uh director Roy here joined by administrator Canrath. Administrator Canrath, please kick us off.

All right. Uh good evening everyone. Um we are back. So as we discussed at our meeting last Thursday, um our plan was to come back with a few scenarios for additional uh amounts of savings. Um we had talked about doing three different levels of savings. Um so there's a document that's in front of you was also emailed to you earlier today. Uh we just finished up this analysis uh midday today. So there's going to be a tier one, a tier two, and a tier three uh savings we're going to present. Uh I do just want to start off by repeating again that just so you know everyone is aware and everyone watching, we have already cut $4.1 million out of this budget. Um these savings would be in addition on top of that. So between 4.1 and then another million or up to two million with what you see here. Just a programming note, there's been obviously a lot of attention on the reval. We did just in the last hour or so get information back from Tower Technologies on the phased in reval, what that could look like, associated costs, um, and a lot of other numbers. So, what we're going to do is we're going to have Bill Healey here on Thursday to give a presentation and a total overview of the phased in process, how it'll work, what it would look like, and there are a couple different options for potential costs. There are costs associated with this. So, I'll just give you a a small preview. Um, it does range anywhere from 50 upwards of $400,000 to to do this phased in approach. So, we'll go through that whole analysis uh and all of that on Thursday. U Bill will be able to join us um on that night. But, I think the the real goal for tonight is to get through um these savings proposals. Um so you'll see uh just one other note we just today had um we got fuel bids back. There was as you can imagine a bit of an increase um or a fuel bid we are at uh

better than expected but 298 a gallon for diesel 249 a gallon for gas. Uh so considering today's prices out there at the gas station um not horrible but still an increase for us. So that is costing us another $116,000 um on that. So when we did this, we had another $116,000 to absorb a couple hours ago. So the figures you see were set back $116,000 because of that. Okay. So um the sheet you have here in front of you, um there's a couple different scenarios. Uh so we have tier one. We'll start there. This is to achieve $1 million in savings. So in the lefth hand column, you'll see that is without the police take-home vehicles proposal. The right hand column is with the police take-home vehicles proposal. Um, so you'll see the bottom line on the lefth hand column is a million44,442 in savings. So how this was achieved, you'll see at the top uh fixed charges. So the homeless tiff, this is $106,000 additional that was identified that could be applied toward our payment for the uh shelter um out of tiff funds. $50,000. Uh that's the LATC bus vehicles. Um they have other monies they're going to be able to use this year, so that's not going to impact them. The next is a workers compensation uh item gap for reserves. We've reduced $150,000. Uh the following items after that are all regarding the police take-home vehicle proposal. So those would be removed without the take-home. Below that, uh there were some adjustments to revenues. So the first as we talked about the last meeting is state revenue sharing uh booking at 100% instead of 95% that totals $580,000. You see that there. We did also go back with director Connor's guidance and re-examined some um revenues in the codes department with inspector fees uh

and he is uh feeling comfortable that we can increase uh those revenues $150,000 um and still be uh in a safe area. So, uh, you'll see with all that and then, um, we have you'll see the gas bit I just talked about and also adding in 10 police vehicles because we wouldn't be doing the take-home proposal. So, left-hand column, tier one, we'd save a,44,000. And the righth hand column, uh, you'll see a little bit of a different scenario. The bottom line savings is just over a million dollars. A,2,515. Um, I don't know if you want to go through every single one of these. Um, do you want me to go through every single one? I think you've had time to examine this. So, so that's basically where we are for tier one. Uh, tier two, uh, is a different scenario in that, as we talked about, this adds, uh, layoffs. These are there are positions with current people in seats. Um, you'll see there are three positions in the tier 2. Uh, as we talked about the last meeting, our charge was to come up with a bottom line dollar figure um for positions. We're not talking about which positions. We're not talking about specific names. These are people in seats right now. These are their jobs. These are their livelihoods. And uh I think it would be an extremely poor idea to sit here in public session uh and debate the merits of them losing their job or not losing their job. So that would be incredibly difficult. So, as we talked about last time, um that's why we have positions listed with an associated dollar figure, but just know that it's three positions um in tier 2 for savings of uh 1,431,993 without the take-home. With the take-home a little bit less, 1,30845. So, moving to tier three, without the take-home, we are adding in another five positions that would be laid off. Uh total savings 1,886,475

again without take-home vehicles with take-home vehicles slightly less 1,762527. Uh at the bottom uh Tracy I don't know if you want to touch on this. So this is the one of the other big areas with the take-home vehicles is uh the bond and future principle and interest there. So you'll see those numbers on the bottom of the sheet. Tracy, do you want to add anything about about that? So, I touched base with our uh bond council today and requested the current interest rate. So, as I mentioned below, the current interest rate is 3.5. That's not to say that that's what we would receive, but I just kind of wanted an estimate for you. And again, we don't bond until two years out. So, two years out, we would bond this and then for three years. So, already those vehicles would be five years. So, I just wanted you to know that. So the total interest to be paid on this is 275,298.

Thanks. So uh you'll see attached to this you have the associated analysis of where uh everything would fall depending on the tier and depending on whether we do take-home vehicles or not. Um so with tier one again we're at 6.1% for the city operating expenses overall increase. Tier two without take-home vehicles drops to 5.4. With take-home vehicles, 5.6. And then in tier three, uh, without take-home vehicles, we go down to 4.5% city operating budget increase. And with take-home vehicles, 4.8. Um, I will just say, you know, I mentioned we have found 4.1 million in savings. We found an additional 1 million in savings with the tier one. Um, you know, I think it's certainly uh our preferred option uh to go with tier one. Um, layoffs are are are never a fun thing. Obviously, you know, we understand that, you know, times are tight. Um, but we have laid out three scenarios here. Um, tiers two and three. Again, we are talking about people uh and their jobs and their livelihoods and people in seats and that's um, you know, it's very difficult for us. We haven't done it in a while. Of course, we can do um you know, whatever we need to do, but I think it's certainly our preferred option to uh take the 4.1 million savings we already have, add uh tier one um you know, which we can do without laying people off. Um but there are other two other options also. So, I think that's in a nutshell our presentation. Uh happy to take questions um or dig further into this.

Thank you, Minister Kenwrath. Uh Director Roy, is there anything else you'd like to add at this time? No. Okay. Uh so, you know, in an effort to sort of like come together around what option um you know, we receive majority support around the table um days here. Um maybe we'll just uh start with the council form 111 and then we'll just swing on down and uh thoughts, questions. Yeah.

Well, first uh Mr. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, first administrator and uh, director, I appreciate the presentation. Um, I'm a little confused as to the tier three proposal because ultimately what I'm what I'm looking at and I just want to verify this. The total savings uh, as far as the budget is concerned is 1.8 million, but that does not take into account like part of that is offset by accounting for full revenue sharing. So that's not 1.7 million on top of the revenue sharing. Uh it

no that's included if you look at the calculations above on the very first tier one you'll see the the reductions in expenses and then the increase in the revenues and then the increase in expenses that gives a savings between the decreases in expenses and the increases in revenues of a million44. So these amounts are all included. So tier one's amounts are included in tier 2. So if you decide to do tier two, it would be everything in tier one and tier two. And so ultimately none of the proposals in front of us reduced the operating expense increase to 3 to 3.5%. It's 4.8% is what I'm showing. Correct.

Right. That's that's the lowest we got and as we talked I think when we left the last meeting the the uh sort of you know direction was 1 million 1.5 million and two uh you can certainly go beyond two that's not you know out of the question but this is what we presented here but uh if there are other scenarios you want to work up we we can certainly uh do the same thing and come back with uh you know deeper cuts but obviously once you go past you know because we're already talking about laying off um eight positions at tier three So obviously, you know, there's going to be much deeper cuts beyond that. Well, that's another thing I wanted to talk about. So the two different columns have actually different cuts, right?

Right. Tier one and tier two. So I'm wondering why we couldn't consolidate all of the cuts into one tier. Well, so it's really the take-h home vehicle proposal if we want to keep that in or we want to or we want to put it out. Whether we keep it in or put it out, we could take all of the same cuts, right? because I'm showing that like the repairs to buildings for instance that's and the miscellaneous services for coaches and community forum those are uh and the salaries move to utilities like those don't speak to the take-home vehicle expenses correct

right so we're just trying to get to that that figure we're trying to get to a million dollars of savings so it's it's different depending on if we want to include the cars for the PD the take-home or or or not so that was you know the first piece of analysis was getting to a million um and obviously the expenses are a little bit different depending if we do the cars or not for the PD. Okay. And and just as as a point of if we're reducing the TIF uh that we're giving to Alter 207, how does that actually affect our bottom line for the tax base since that is money that is set aside anyways?

Sorry, which tiff? like the the homeless tiff that's mentioned the fixed charges the 106 666 that's coming from tiff funds that don't affect that I mean they do affect our tax rate but they but they're not reducing that money does not reduce the the the tax rate correct

that expense is in the miscellaneous expense so on your very last page I think on page 70 you'll see um we had the homeless shelter in there for 425 so we've reduced that 106 from the prior and then we can reduce it another 106 looking at the CMP tiff so we can take 206 so in your actual original budget we had budgeted the full 400 so we're going to reduce that line we're going to put it in the tiff so it reduces the tax rate

okay so so what you're saying is that the amount that we're um awarding to alter 207 is not reduced, but we're shifting where it's coming from. Is that correct? We're still going to give them the 400,000. Correct. We're just shifting it from to tiff so it doesn't because it can be covered by tiffs. Gotcha. Okay. Those are my preliminary questions. Um thank you. Uh councelor um Nene. So, at at this point, I guess what um uh what tier are you um inclined to support? At this point,

I wanted to see a reduction in operating expenses to hold to three to three and a half%. My expectation was that we would cut the budget by 1.7 million, not accounting for the for the full uh um oh, revenue sharing. Revenue sharing, right? And so, for me personally, I'm not happy with any of these. Um, and so, uh, that's my personal position, but I I want everybody to have a chance to go around and we can see if we can find any common ground anywhere. Uh, and and we will. Yes. Thank you. Uh, councelor Longs, what are your thoughts? Thank you, Mayor. Um, sorry, can you move the mic a lot closer to you? Thank you.

Yes. Thank you. Um, the money that we're giving to nonprofits Um, can we take that out also or is that not So the nonprofits who came and and presented in front of you are not in your budget. There is only Liberty um festival for 10,000 um and I believe one other the balloon festival for 10,000

the balloon festival for 10,000. The rest of them are not in the budget. the ones that you had approved last year were removed when we did the budget this year. Okay. Thank you. Um and then how many frozen positions do we have not within the police department? Do we have any? Yes. Believe it's we have a number of frozen positions. So at public works we have one, two, three, nine in public works. Is that correct? I think seven.

There are nine positions. Uh two in police. That would make that 11. And then there's one unfunded in the fire department. So how many not in the police? Seven. 10. Oh, 10. Nine public works and one fire. Is that correct? Yes. Y.

Now, could we do anything with those to help the budget? You mean freeze additional open positions, right? Um, yes, we could. So, what we have, you know, available to us is at this point, I'm going to say freezing additional positions of public works is really going to lead to operational challenges. They have nine frozen positions already, right?

Um, I I think it's incredibly difficult to freeze more for public works uh police. Um, we have a few more open. We've talked about one of our top priorities though is recruiting police officers and dealing with public safety challenges. So I think it's exceedingly difficult to freeze all the positions we do have. Uh we may have more obviously opening up, but um and then uh we could potentially um freeze one more in fire, but fire department's also

really critical service to the city. So there's not a lot of room there. Um, so really the options are we could potentially freeze a few more in police um or potentially one more in the fire department. I don't think that's smart uh to do uh to our fire department or our police department as uh they are critical and lifesavers. So, we're we're going to have a tough time with this, but uh we're up for the challenge and I think we just have to be very careful um how we do it, but cuts clearly we have to continue making them. I would like to just uh touch upon the take-home vehicles. Again, most of you know um I'm very passionate about the police department. My daughter's a police officer. Uh but for this for the police cars uh the take-home vehicles, what I'm hearing from a lot of officers and uh police officers that recruit other officers is Lewon is a very challenging city. It's a great city, but it's it's very challenging and has a lot of uh crime. So we have to do something to really entice people to come here to want to work as a police officer because quite honestly they can go to other cities with way less crime and make a lot more money. So most of our officers are either from here uh you know it's very personal for them to work and um protect our city. So, I do hope that we can pass uh at least put in those take-home vehicles because it is definitely going to attract um officers to come. We we

have to have some sort of tool that says that sets us aside because right now um we have positions. People aren't applying for Lewon Police Department for many reasons. It's a large city. There's a lot of crime. the pay is not the best. Um, so the take-home vehicles I think would be really um, attractive. So, I don't have much to say anymore. I I really don't know which tier. Um, I would love to just go with tier one. Uh, I think that's an extra million dollars uh that you have managed to uh save taxpayers, but but I'm not completely sold on that one at this moment. Thank you.

Uh, thank you, Council Roy. We're up to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First off, thank you for doing all this hard work. Um, it's it's really awesome. Um, it's sad in a lot of ways that we actually had to come here in it like this. Um, so remind me again, how much uh is a penny for the mill rate? Is it like 32 grand? 375.

37. That was pretty close. All right. So 37. So the way I'm looking at this is I know every penny counts to be honest with you. Um I I had said it before last meeting. I really don't want to cut any positions. I I I know right now the economy, the way things are, you know, nobody can be without their job. Um, and that's really hard for me. I do think if you're looking at tier one, the the um difference is like 32,000. That's like that's like one penny on the mill rate if you keep the cars in. So, if we were going to go with tier one, I'd be inclined to keep the cars in. My my struggle here is this. I really want to give the fire department, the police department all the tools that they need to get their job done and to protect everybody. That is my goal here. I've always tried to do that, but at the at the at at the expense of cutting positions, that's where I have a hard time with. Um, and if you move down to tier two where you're looking at cutting three positions and you keep the cars in, that's 123,000 about and that right there is one position. So, this is a hard decision for me because again, like I said, I I wouldn't I I Yeah. Um, and as far as going all the way down to, you know, tier three, you're you're talking that's that's still one position, but uh for the cars, but yet you're cutting five positions. Um, I mean, if I had to make a decision right now, I mean, we just got handed this this afternoon, so it's not like I've had a whole lot of time to look at this and really kind of see where we could maybe make more cuts. I mean, I myself would be looking at tier one

right now because that means that there are no positions cut, but I am not opposed to looking at maybe tier two. I don't think I can go to tier three because I do not want to discuss five positions. There's just no way in my brain that I can wrap my head around that. Um, but at this point, I also do owe the taxpayers the relief. And I mean, I think we've discussed that with trying to uh maybe talk about uh the re re-evaluation to talk about a lot of things like that. So again, we're trying to to put other things in here for relief for the taxpayers. I just, you know, and if that comes into fruition, then I'm looking at, you know, staying with tier one and then redoing everything else. So, for right now, subject to change, I'd be more inclined to do tier one and then maybe talk about a tier 2 if we really absolutely have to. But I I am also inclined to say that I do want to keep the cars in here if possible. But again, I'm I don't want to cut positions over it. That that's my goal here. So, that's what I got.

Mr. there. Uh yes, deputy minister, just for a point of clarification, council Roy, if you did go tier three, that's eight positions total. It's three from tier two and and five from and yeah, thank you for that. Yeah, there's just I can't wrap my brain around that. Uh councelor Noble, um I um I'm sorry, you're going to have to move the mic a lot closer than that.

Deciding I'm sorry. I'm unsure. That's why. Um, I'm siding more with Mike. I don't want to cut any jobs. I definitely want the take-home um, vehicles for the officers. Um, it doesn't seem like there's a big difference there as far as the money goes. Um, but I want to be able to think about it and I want to look more into it, talk to my peers. Just to be clear, there's not a decision point tonight. So, this is hot off the press. We just finished this analysis. So, I don't think we're asking for a decision right now. I think we're just in discussion mode. So,

Okay. All right. Um, so, yeah, if I had to pick right now, I guess it would be um tier one with the take-home vehicles. Uh, yes, thank you. And to administrator Ken's point, we are um uh yes, not voting on anything tonight. We won't be uh for a little bit here, but we are, you know, trying to gauge if we provide any more uh direction to staff. um other than what they've already done. Uh councelor Chidum. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh couple of questions. We have about 370 city employees full-time.

Okay. Um while the other counselors have been looking at the budget, I have been looking at the total tax levy. um the the the worst case with no take-home and with tier three cuts, we still are looking at an 11.3% increase in the taxes that every homeowner in the city and presumably all renters will be facing. Um I'm so I'm looking at this from a little different perspective. I I am not eager to cut any positions. Um, but if you look at eight positions cut for a tier three, um, that's a little over 2% of our workforce. That's eight people versus, uh, 12, well, 8,000 homes, 8,000 taxpayers or thereabouts. Um, and I'm looking at the revenues that these taxpayers, many of whom, like myself are uh on fixed income, who had a a relatively small cost of living increase in our pensions, uh, certainly nowhere near uh 11%. So, my perspective, as much as I regret and do not want or don't advocate for removing positions, um I think we have to trim the budget. I have I think we have to to uh give a lot of credence to the burden that we're asking the taxpayers of Lewon to pay. And when I look at an 11% and this is, by the way, um I assume with no reference at all to the revaluation. This is the overall tax burden and bear in mind the general knowledge is that the tax burden is going to shift from industrial and commercial slightly to residential people. So, the homeowners, the folks who can least afford to pay

out of that group of three entities are going to be hit with presumably more than uh 11 whatever 11.3% which is the stripped down leanest model that you presented to us. And I do want to reiterate that I appreciate very much the the pairing that administration has done. Administrator Canrath, Director Roy, um Deputy Director, uh Deputy Administrator Omali, uh you've all done Yman's work, and it's a very difficult process. But again, my perspective is I was asked earlier, which tier do you prefer? And my off-the-cuff answer was tier six. So, that's where I'm coming from.

Uh, councelor Martell. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, administrator, director. Um, yeah, I agree. Uh, I think it's unfortunate. I think, uh, we're going to have to to cut you just move the Sorry.

I do think it will become necessary to cut some staffed positions, as unfortunate as that is, and I wouldn't want that to be my position if I was working here. But, um, we've got thousands and thousands of homeowners and I fear that more than eight homeowners could be put out of their homes wi with this with this tax burden. Um, it's it it just feels like so there's not a lot of fat left to cut. I think you've done a great job with that. I don't think there was a whole lot there to begin with. I think we're into um ugly but necessary territory. Uh, I am kind of hard steadfast on the take-home cars because we need public safety. Public safety is uh a stated priority of this council and the administrator. And I just would like to try to put it in perspective for the the taxpayers and the people at home. We are not sitting up here like Oprah saying, "You get a car, you get a car, you get a car." Uh there's reasons for this and correct me if I'm wrong, please, uh Director Roy, but I believe if we do the take-home cars, it's less on the budget this year. It's less on the budget next year, and over the term of the five years, it actually saves the city money. Not a lot. I believe the last number I saw was 100 grand a year and somewhere between five and 600 grand on the the the whole spread. And then when we put in the debt financing of about 300,000, we still come out a couple hundred grand ahead. And that is if recruiting wasn't an issue, which it is. Is that does that sound somewhat close?

So just a reminder, um the maintenance is unknown. The insuranceances could go up due to if there's a lot of accidents. Um so there's a lot of unknowns on that piece. Um, and then how long cars will last because like I said, we don't bond for 2 years. Mhm. And then you got a three-year bond. So by then the the vehicles of 5 years, what's the current uh life of a a cruiser right now doing it the way that we are? Only three years. I believe a chief is here or Yeah. And I mean I think it are these questions better directed.

Yeah. At this point, if we're talking about um police cars, I mean, right now the cars are driven 24/7, right? Right. That's what I'm saying is with less use, we'd like to think they'd last longer theoretically. Yes. And no. Oh, sorry. No, no, after you. When you say maintenance, uh shouldn't these cars be under warranty if they're brand new? So, is maintenance like oil changes and tires, brake pads, stuff like that that wouldn't be covered under the the manufacturer's warranty for all these new vehicles? We would have to find out how long of a maintenance contract that they usually go with. Uh do you Yeah. Uh councelor Martell, I think at this point we'll have uh uh Police Chief Connley uh speak to some of these questions.

I can answer some of those questions for you. And um in the original proposal um that we submitted for this, it breaks down pretty much everything where it comes down to maintenance. Um like a typ a cruiser lasts typically and I might have Joey step in because he handles our fleet two to three years. Um what we're looking at the studies we've seen um we're seeing vehicles go seven to sometimes 10 years depending on like if they're a C car uh um that that lasts a lot longer than a typical patrol car. So the lifespan of the vehicle is is largely increased with this. Mhm.

Do we know the warranty on these new cars that we're getting in? Is it like a 560 or 336? He's he's done all the research on this. So

So it does depend on which vehicles. Obviously the Fords is what we're looking at. Ford warranties are 5 years. Uh mileage wise, I'm not 100% sure. I think it's 75. I think that comes off uh GM, which is Chevys, are 3 year 36. Dodge 3ear 36. So that's where we run into a lot of issues with our Dodges. They don't make them anymore, but the ones we do have now, um they're obviously they stopped making them in 2023. We're in 2026. A lot of them are out of warranty. Motors, um drivetrains, transmissions are going like crazy and they're costing us a lot of money. We just fixed one that was $4,200 and that came out of our maintenance budget.

So, let's just for example sake, say we go with Fords. Say we go with Fords and we end up at the 560 575 that you were talking about. Uh, how long do you expect with these take-home cruisers being used less often before we would surpass that uh, say bumper-to-bumper warranty where we're accountable for more than tires and oil changes and wear and tear?

I think you would see the majority of that 5 years before that mileage becomes an issue. And that's kind of on the extreme side of things. That's if somebody lives, let's say, outside of the city or outside of the county and they're driving in to work and they happen to work a outside beat, so the areas of outer Lisbon Street, out of Sabata Street. So, they're putting on a significant amount of miles between traveling to and from work and driving the outside of the city, which uses a lot more miles on vehicles that those that cover those areas. Um, however, we can also rotate. You know, somebody that lives in the city that is working at Downtown Beat that puts on very minimal miles, we can do an assessment after a couple of years and say, "Hey, this vehicle's got no issues. It's got less miles. Let's swap it out with the person that's putting on miles." And that way, we're kind of even throughout the whole process. And the same thing goes for patrol vehicles. If they've been in patrol for say 5 years and they're starting to get towards the end or the try get a little more expensive, we can transition that to an administrative vehicle, put that into CD. Take a C car that's going to be brand new that may have 10,000 miles on it and outfit that into a patrol vehicle with maybe a couple of days downtime for our fleet manager to swap it over because the majority of the lights, sirens, uh the guts of the vehicle will be in there. It's just a matter of changing out the cages and the camera systems and maybe putting a computer in there.

When you first brought us that proposal, I think you were using numbers that you put together from like- sized uh municipalities and stuff. Didn't we send you back to get more like say case sensitive numbers here in Lewon and you brought those back to us? Okay. I I don't have those numbers on the top of my head, but I do think it's important to highlight that the numbers have been gone through for a case-pecific basis here for Lewon. Um, and thank you for all the work that you've done answering our questions and supplying that for us. Um, I know I was at a meeting earlier today and I had someone point out that we have these beautiful wide crosswalks that have uh inlays and stuff like that and the individual just joked that they saw like five or six different people jaywalking and they say you've got these wonderful crossings with these signs and um they they made a joke about, you know, where are your police to to police this jaywalking? And I couldn't help but chuckle that, you know, we would love to have enough officers out there to police parking and moving violations and jaywalking type crimes, but we're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to satisfy the the public safety concerns and demands of this community if if we don't have staffing and the officers to answer those calls. And I think that this program independently looked at on its own aside from recruitment stands as at least neutral, if not a cost benefit to the taxpayer in the long run. Uh and when you add in the recruitment, it just seems like something that we really need to leave in, especially with the nominal differences between savings on each of the tiers. Uh I I just see too much of a value ad there. Uh, and I I don't want to see people's jobs cut either, but um, you know, people need public safety and taxpayers are going to be taxed out of their homes. If if we've got to find

places to cut, I would hate to see it be for these cruisers. Um, that's what I've got for you right now. Thank you. I just have one more quick thing to add and that is the uh under the with take-home under the tier one uh and tier two where it says add in 10 vehicles minus tradein um I don't know if it's a typo but it says $367,000 uh that's not the number it's actually uh 526,336 for a difference of approximately $159,000 which puts the savings under the without take-home under tier one at $885,16 and under tier 2 without takehome

uh 1.272657.

Uh thank you Sergeant Droy. Do you have any comments? So those numbers came off of the very first sheet that we received from PD um where they had the savings that was sent to you. So those calculations came off of the very first sheet that was given. Um, so there was a memo that went out to you um from the chief the very first time when there were questions asked and they talked about um if I can find it, it's in here somewhere. They talked about tradeins. The tradeins were at 89,000 for 10 tradeins vehicles.

Uh, Director Roy numbers is what I I calculated that from. Yeah, I believe the number you're referring to is probably the 14 car um fleet upgrade, the original one we sent. On Monday, I was asked to put together a 10 car budget. Uh, and that was the number on the 10 car budget, I believe. The 14 car budget was around 630,000 uh total and that had the 10 tradeins at 80 something thousand. So were they different tradeins than what you had on the original 10 tradeins? Well,

wouldn't they be the same vehicles? No, because we can't trade in We don't have enough cars as it stands. So, I can't afford to trade in 10 cars and only get 10 cars. So, I had to whittle it down to only trading in eight cars. Um, which again, the less cars I trade in, that means they're on the road for another year, which means the cost of maintenance is going to go up. So, I have to account for that. As well as some of the cars that we're trading in uh are Dodges. They don't make Dodges anymore. So, I have to go either buy Fords or Taho. I'm gonna probably go with the Fords because they're cheaper and I have to outfit those Fords with all new all new equipment.

All right. Uh perhaps at this point um staff could uh between the police station and we'll sort out the discrepancy confer uh uh at not this meeting and then we can uh go from there. Or sorry. Yes. Finish. Sorry. Uh one more question. Uh, I think I've touched on this before, but uh, it takes roughly 18 months to get from application to like a dispatchable officer. And that's if there's only two classes a year that we can get them into. So, if we had POS applicants for all these positions, we're looking at 18 months from now before they're dispatchable officers. Yeah, that's a good estimate.

Okay. And conservatively, how many bluepin ready to serve, day one, experienced ready to go officers can we expect if we implement this program, say in the first 12 months coming to the city? So, we're told um internally that there's at least four or five, but again, that's that's what you know, I don't want to say rumor mill, but that's that's the word that we're getting that there are a lot of officers that are watching this and if this comes to fruition that um they'll be coming over and it could be more, but you're confident that's a conservative number, four or five. I think we could at least see four.

Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. Um my other question uh administrator Canrath is uh this was just one line item that I remember we were discussing with the library security. They wanted to leave in 50k that security might not be necessary due to the warming shelter and it being frequented less. I I remember them suggesting that it it's too soon to pull that and it'd be nice to keep it in the budget. I'd like to visit that um and and see if we could take that off the roll and maybe add it back next year should it become necessary. We're just looking to claw every every penny we can right now. And then are there any repairs or upgrades anywhere that we've looked at that we could potentially postpone that might be nonm missionritical which I know kicking the can is never ideal but you know we're trying to solve problems creatively here.

Yeah. Uh, Director Roy, you can chime in also, but I I think we've done a pretty thorough job of scraping through this budget and finding um any and all areas in that regard. Um, you know, I think some of it is up to opinion and interpretation whether it's absolutely necessary now or later, but anything there's we've looked through everything. Um, we kept the critical stuff in like the library that needs the fire um under the stairwell. We kept this the stuff that was critical um that needed to be done.

Okay. U that's what I've got for right now. Again, thank you guys for all the work you've you've been doing as a new counselor. All the work you've done, councelor, uh director Roy has been super helpful and I really appreciate it. Uh thank you, Council Martell. So, um which tier are you inclined to support at this moment? I hate to say this and it's not going to make me a a popular counselor, but three and maybe more with leaving the cruisers in.

Okay. Thank you. Um so at this point um you know it's kind of split evenly between uh cuts at three or more uh and then at one uh uh you know we can go round and round all night. I'm not sure that that is um anyone's minds is going to change tonight. We are planning to meet on Thursday, correct? Billy. Yeah, we're going to have a presentation from Director Healey on the phase then reval process. Okay. And then

uh sorry, one second. And then my my thinking too is that you know this budget passes with a a simple majority. Correct counselors? And so um at that point um uh hopefully we will this got uh councelor Herman excused absence this evening. I'm hoping that perhaps we can uh see him uh on Thursday and get his thoughts and then at that point we would have a um you know at least um one way or the other figure out where where we should uh send staff or what direction to provide staff. Yeah, go ahead.

You know, we're happy to work out, you know, whatever scenarios you'd like to see. Um these were the three we discussed last time. Obviously, others could be could be presented. Um, you know, I will say, you know, if you just look at tier three, I know we talked about the tax levy. That's a very important number, but as far as us scraping through this budget again, you know, right now the city is up, if you look at tier three, that's 4.8% in the city side, 20% on the county side, 13% on the school side. So, I I guess I am saying we don't have a lot more to give. Um, you know, everything else we have to give is is people in positions. Um, and you know, I will say we've been combing through this and, uh, we're trying to minimize certainly impacts to the taxpayers and to services. Uh, but the deeper we go, uh, there's no way around that. So, um, you know, we're certainly going to put together whatever scenarios like to see. Um, but I think from beyond tier three, um, we're really getting into an area where we're talking about significant cuts, curtailment of services, uh, and things that taxpayers will definitely see, uh, on a daily basis. And that's, you know, that's a policy decision, you know, for the for the budget. Um, but, uh, I guess I'm just saying is, you know, this budget is pretty lean. Um, we don't have a lot to give. You'll even notice up in, you know, in the tier one, we've cut, you know, so coaching, that's that's staff development and training. So, we're eating at um, you know, training for our staff. The 10,000 for community forum, that was for us to put on um these community mixers and forums that we're doing with the public. So, we're even chipping in 10,000, you know, and eliminating that. So, and we're really getting into territory where we're not having a lot left to offer for our staff or for, you know, some of these other initiatives. Um, so it is what it is. Um, we're certainly going to uh do the best we can. We're going to put together a budget that's responsible for the for

the taxpayers of Lewon. Um, but I think beyond tier three, um, we don't have a lot more to give. It is just people. Um, and you know, when you look at all the totals, obviously we can't, you know, do anything with the uh the county and obviously the school department, there's a lot of strong opinions on, but they're still sitting at 13.3% also. So, um, you know, we have some challenges ahead of us for sure, but we appreciate it.

Yeah. And, um, yeah, so at this point, I I recommend that we, you know, kind of hold tight until Thursday, then, uh, see where counselor Herman is at. I'm hesitant to pro uh uh I'm hesitant to ask you to do more work that may or may not be necessary without a majority of the council uh behind it and whereas right now we're kind of split kind of evenly. Uh additional thoughts from counselors councelor Nene. Thank you very much Mr. Mayor. Um I just want to cover a few things. I'm wondering if uh it has ever been done where we institute a hiring freeze as of today. For instance, we said any position that's that becomes available, we freeze that position unless you have council approval to replace it. Is that something that is that is done?

Uh I think it could be. But going back to the list of open positions, uh it's police, it's fire, we have an economic development director, and we have a few in public works. Um and public works is already in tough shape with the nine frozen positions already. So uh the areas to maneuver there are not great. Uh certainly we could uh you know freeze hiring and and not hire some of these positions. Um but it's those are the areas we have to work with. Well the economic development director his salary or her salary their salary would be covered by tiff funds. Correct.

Correct. Um, and also if we had said don't freeze the police positions, but freeze anything else that is either available right now or becomes available before this budget goes into place. Um, that's something that we do have the power to do. Uh, yes, we could freeze those positions, but again, that's fire and public works at that point.

Okay. One of the things I just want to comment on quickly with the with with the take-home cars when I had suggested that we extend our vehicle um replacement schedule out by 20%. This proposal actually extends it out by 40 to 50% for the police. Um, if we if we get the take-home cars, I am hesitant uh to support um vehicles outside of Crow and Patrol um simply because that's the feedback I've gotten from from uh my constituency. Um but at the same time, if this is uh if it's an all or nothing model um and it's going to actually reduce costs, I think that's okay. I'd just like to say also that our pay scale is actually pretty pretty decent um so you know in comparing communities of size uh

for the police department yeah the steps one through five are are under um what we pay in other communities but certainly when I look at the numbers for um um staffing that is seven years and over it is in line with every other community. Um so um do you want to speak to that at all? I would just say we just recently did a wage study. Um, and we're on average probably $4 an hour below several communities near us. Do you mind sending me that, please? Okay, I appreciate it. The information I get is just public information and who knows if it's Yeah. Yeah, I can forward that along.

Okay. Um, you know, this the simple fact is when we're looking at a four like just on the operational budget alone, right? If we looked at uh tier three with a 4.8% increase, um it's just not it's not sustainable. Uh it's not sustainable short-term or long-term without expanding the tax base. Uh ultimately, we have to we can't keep going back to the same pool of people and being like it's 4% more, it's 8% more. It's it's in this case when we come to the end of it 11% more, right? Um it's we need to be able to expand that tax base or we need to reduce the size of the city government. That's it. Those are the only two choices. And so um I just want I I just want to paint that because it's desperate at this point. We we put um some investment in new positions over the past couple of years hoping that we would see a return on investment and it hasn't materialized at this point in time. And I'm not criticizing anyone for it. I'm just simply saying this is the situation we're in. Um so um it's concerning to me because we have like no matter what happens we're going to see a fiscal cliff every year especially when we're giving colas that don't even align with that with the rate of inflation um without reducing staff. It's it's a serious problem and so we need to either figure out how to expand that tax base or reduce the cost of government. Um, so you know, I and I appreciate everything you all are doing. Like I know that you're doing everything you can. I'm just pointing that out because that is the message that almost universally I'm being told by the constituency.

Thank you. Yeah, I I couldn't agree more. I think the single biggest thing we have before us is we need more revenue and that requires investment in the city, requires the expansion of our tax base. Uh, it's our our single biggest challenge. Absolutely. And it does absolutely feel like chicken and egg because we know that if we invest in one space, it's more it's more spending that doesn't necessarily return an investment immediately. But we have to get to a place where we're either again reducing the overall cost of of government which means less services for everybody um or expand that tax base. There's no there's no other there's no option C. So

yeah. Uh further thoughts uh from counselors before we call it a night? Uh anything further from uh either administrator Kenrath or director Roy? No. So again, we'll be back here to discuss the the phased and reval process and costs with director Healey. Uh and then I think we'll we'll take it from there. Uh of course, any other questions in the interim, please feel free to reach out to to one or both of us. um we're here and uh hopefully we can uh revisit some of this again on on Thursday and the following week and get some clear direction. Sounds great. Thank you both. Uh thank you for all the department heads and staff uh for being here. Thank you. Have a wonderful evening, Louis.