City Council - Regular Meeting

all over the place. I believe we are now live. Good evening, Lewon. This is the Lewon City Council meeting on uh April 23rd workshop to discuss once again the budget. Um Administrator Canrath, do you have any introductory words that you'd like to share with us? Any late breaking news?

Uh nothing particular. uh you know, we left off the last meeting uh kind of looking for a consensus on uh the tier three cuts and I think we were at that time lacking the five votes that would be necessary to to move that forward. Um so I think we have another um we have some other points tonight we certainly want to get some consensus on hopefully. One is the take-home vehicles uh for the police department. Um but uh as of right now we have nothing new or further to present. Um, you know, I think we certainly have uh a four and a three kind of split on the council for how to pursue layoffs or not pursue layoffs and the tiers one, two, and three. So, um I think we have some discussion and uh hopefully tonight we can get some clear consensus on the takeoff vehicles at least though

that certainly is on the agenda. One of the things that I would like to do uh in the absence of the mayor is run this meeting in such a manner that we each have an opportunity to lay those things on the table that we would like to hold for discussion. I would advise us not to have those discussions immediately but just put those topics out. We can put them in so-called parking lot and then come back to them. I would also like very much to have a consensus if we can on a couple of three items. One is a police take-home vehicles. Another is the use of fund balance and the third is nonprofit nonprofit funding.

Nonprofit funding. Uh we've had a number of requests uh as we always do for nonprofit funding. So if we can dispense with those three things, obviously we cannot take any action tonight at a workshop, but if we can get the council uh to have consensus on those three items, I will consider it a meeting well worthwhile. Um, having said that, I would like to open it up to anyone who has particular items they would like to address either later on this meeting or at a subsequent meeting for discussions on how to reduce the tax rate, lower the expenses, or increase the revenues. Councelor Roy.

Um, thank you, Councelor Chidum. um looking at um maybe overtime spending. I do know some um parts of the city come with built-in overtime, but I would like to see I know what I'm looking at right now was uh almost $3 million in overtime for the city. I am also thinking like if we do have to cut positions, then you're looking at more overtime going up. But right now, we're looking at $2,779,454 in overtime. So, I'm thinking I'm I'm challenging us to look at ways to reduce the overtime spending. Also, [snorts] um I was looking at maybe um we do know like we're already stripping a lot of things from parts of the city right now, but maybe trying to get a 15% reduction in like just costs around. What can we do? Instead of ordering five cases of paper, maybe ordering three cases of paper. I mean, every little bit helps, right? So, just little items like that. But those are a couple of things that I want to look at hopefully tonight.

Thank you, councelor. Other ideas for revenue enhancement or expenditure reduction? Councelor Nijene,

one of the suggestions I had made recently was to extend the vehicle replacement schedule by 20%. Um, I would [clears throat] move uh to strongly discourage with the exception of the take-home cars, which I'll talk about separately, purchase of any vehicles uh this year unless they're absolutely met necessary. Just remove them completely from the budget. Um, and look at a 20% uh increase on our vehicle replacement schedule for all departments. Um, that that's one piece. Um, I am concerned about overtime. It is a large expenditure. I do realize the majority of that expenditure is coming from uh PD and fire department. Um I do know that the fire department is fully staffed. So possibly there are ways that we could work to figure out how to staff the department, the fire department without relying on overtime. I know we use o um overtime to cover uh vacations sometimes um in in several departments and you know I know that we are also contractually obligated in some cases to have a certain amount of people on duty at given times. So I think that's a bit of a challenge but not one that I don't I think we can't overcome. Um, I also think that I've made some suggestions about parks and open spaces. It's $1.7 million of the budget. Um, and I would really like to see at least initial conversations about moving park maintenance under uh the recreation program. So parks and wreck would become one department as opposed to having it within um public works and allowing RFPs for neighborhood park maintenance. So

requesting um that neighborhood associations and even private contractors come in with bids to figure out if we can um cut the cost of services for what is essentially not a four-season position. And I realize that's offset by the plowing, but I think that's a that's a further discussion that we have to have as well. Um, so those are a few position a few things I would like to put forward. Some of the crazier ideas would be we're not going to cut positions. I know that we are contractually obligated um to pay steps and colas to workers within the unions, but could we ask for a 5% reduction in pay uh for those not within the union for this year um as one consideration? I also know that there are several employees that are planning retirement um in the upcoming year and I would strongly suggest that we do not replace those employees within this this calendar year especially depending on what we do with the with the fund balance especially because um if those positions are unfilled but budgeted that money will be available in the fund balance following year. Um, so those are some suggestions. Um, and I have more, but I'll start there.

Thank you, Councelor Nine. Councelor Longam, you had your hand up. I think I'll just wait until those topics come up and then because they're all things that I would like to discuss, but I'll wait until we're having that discussion. Okay. I appreciate that. Yes. The the goal here is to get these things just out so that we can be thinking about them. I want to talk about fund balance and the cars and and all of that stuff, but I'll wait until those topics come up. Thank you, Council Martell.

Thank you. Uh over time, I concur with Councilman Nene about vehicles outside of take-home. Uh I'd like to look at every single non-essential service spending. Uh a discussion we raised several workshops ago was 25 or 30 grand for a sidewalk art competition. Is that a great huge amount? No. But if you look at every single non-essential dollar that we could cut, everything adds up. And if it means getting rid of a weekend art competition, so be it. I don't think we should fund any of the nonprofits. I'm looking at the balloon festival and the fireworks. Those are traditions here in Lewon. Everything else, uh, sorry, we don't have it. Uh, as far as let's see, fund balance, take-home, that's all stuff we're going to talk about. Um, some departments I don't want to get into individuals, but there are departments that are lacking that may be able to be absorbed. We need to look at um, we're faced with correcting years of overspending and trying to fix this all in one budget. So, it's going to be painful and it's going to seem unfair in certain situations, but we're challenged with a difficult task this year. So, I think it's time to get creative or extreme about what uh we're willing. No more murals, no more sidewalk art, no more rocks cut in half in Candy Park. Every single dollar that isn't first responder plowing, trash service, stuff like that, we've got to look at. As difficult and as undesirable as it might be, we got to start there if we're going to start somewhere other than positions.

Thank you, counselor. Councelor Herman, did you have anything that you wanted to put on the plate for discussion? Um, I did have a it's a department though and a position and I I guess we're not allowed to suggest those. What we're doing right now is putting ideas on the table for future discussion. and we're not going to discuss those now. Um, but if you've got an area that you feel could be addressed in terms of reducing expenditures,

um, we're not going to be choosing people or names or positions, but if you have a general area that that's fair game. I mean it it is it is it would have to be talking about a position. Um which are we allowed to do that to make suggestions?

I would say at this point no um we may get to that point later on down the road but I think at this point that's really an administrative decision. Our goal is to give back to him this is the target that we need to reach. These are areas that we feel you could be looking at. Um but for us to sit here and dictate specifics I think is inappropriate certainly now and maybe always. Okay. I just have concerns about particular operations in the city and I found it difficult to bring those forward during this process.

Okay. Thank you. Um I have a couple that I wanted to add myself. Uh, one thing is we've just uh we will be in the finance committee looking at endorsing or ratifying the fuel bids. Um, and I believe we've got about a $370,000 saving there. Is that correct, Director Roy? The fuel bids came in higher.

We have uh $1.49 million in the budget for fuel. And if I multiply the quantities by the prices that we've just received, it's 1.1 million. We did the calculations and we have to add back in 116,985. You have to remember that sixmonth increments. So, um Allan Ward, the purchasing agent, went through and did a spreadsheet showing all of what would be at what cost and how much of an increase we would need. So, we'll be increasing that line 116,000.

Okay. Uh we can talk about that perhaps offline. Uh, all right. I have a list here that folks have come up. Uh, several people mentioned overtime spending. Uh, nonprofit donations. Uh, the take-home vehicle program is one. Uh, vehicle replacement in general. And I think the suggestion was that instead of replacing vehicles on average every seven years, we do it every eight years. Is that the gist of the thought? Councelor Nene, depends on the the actual schedule, but yes. Um the different departments have do have a different schedule and so ultimately I I want to extend that out 20%. Whatever the whatever the schedule is, make it 20% longer.

All right. Uh we've got discussion about using more of the fund balance than the recommended 10%. Our window is 8 to 12. Um there may be some money there uh that we could use. And I would caution that we not use that money for regular operating expenses, but we try and find things that would be one-time expenses as close to capital as we can. uh if we decide that we want to use the fund balance uh we have uh maintenance of parks and open spaces mentioned we have reduction in wages uh mentioned now we're under contract for many of our employees um may I put you on the spot uh administrator Ali um some time ago the unions were approached this was many many years ago the unions were approached about taking a voluntary reduction Can you talk to that?

Yes, that was 91 I believe during the first Persian Gulf War. They had approached the unions and asked about um voting back our cost of living adjustment. So, and that has not been done at this point. No, it is not.

Okay. All right. So, that's a possibility that the council could request that of administration as well. uh that we not replace new employees and that any non-essential uh non-essential work that's done by the city examples being murals and public art and uh busking festivals and and items like that [cough] if I'm understanding [clears throat] you correctly councelor Martell uh be under consideration as well.

Um thank you um m councelor Chidum. Um, at this point I I would like to request that we have an executive session with corporation council concerning the um the information that's being provided to us under the charter versus what I believe the charter to actually be. We have the power to fund or defund any department in the city. That is our responsibility. um that and so when we're told that we can't speak about specific departments, I I really want to speak to our lawyers about that. Okay, let's let's put that on the on the back burner. Um not the far back burner, but not too far. We have a bunch

not too far. We we have a very limited window here. Um we have a plate of things that we want to discuss. Uh one of the things that we wanted to do tonight is give administration a sense on three specific items. Um and let's talk first of all if we can about the uh take-home vehicle program for the police department. Everybody amendable to that. Um we've had a lot of work done by Sergeant Brown. Uh and I'm sorry he's not here. Uh but he has put an immense amount of effort into justifying uh this program. You may or may not agree with that, but you have to recognize that he has put an incredible amount of work into it and his heart and soul into it. Um, I guess at this point I can open discussion up for further discussion on the take-home vehicles or if we have pretty much made up our minds at this point, we can give administration a sense of how the council feels at least six of us out of the seven uh with a vote. What do you feel about that council? Um so my position is that ultimately when you work out all the numbers it it is pretty much a wash depending on how much um the cost of fuel goes up. It is also a new program. And so faced with those two things and the fact that we'll be borrowing money in order to uh and paying interest in order to to get these vehicles in originally, what I would ask is that we roll this program out minus um admin vehicles and uh by using by also allocating whatever available drug asset forfeite funds there are to offset that cost. That would be my position. To summarize, you want to use drug forfeite money to the extent possible and you want to reduce the scope from 65 to down to to non 14 admin uh level employees that do not have vehicles in

their contracts. Okay, that's a nuance. Um councelor Longamp, your feelings on the take-home program.

Um I think [clears throat] everybody knows where I stand with that. I think it's a good recruiting tool. Um, I think the downfall of using our for uh the money that is uh retrieved from uh different busts and stuff that they have is it's not like it once was. You know, when they do a drug bust, there was usually a lot of cash. Uh people are getting much more savvy. They're using uh Venmo and and things like that. So that cash that was once there and available to put into that account is just not available anymore. If I'm correct on that, I I heard you guys say that before. If you wouldn't mind speaking to that briefly.

You are correct on that. Uh we are definitely not getting the monies that we used to get at one time. U mostly because cannabis is legal now and that's where a lot of our bus used to come with a lot of cash flow with that. And now with the cash apps and the and the other avenues of uh getting paid, there's not as much cash when we do these uh bus anymore. So you are exactly it's definitely not filling in like it used to years ago. And could you share briefly uh what you use typically use that money for?

Uh we we usually use that stuff for extra items um that are not budgetary or or something that we have to do every single year like purchase vehicles and things like that. We also use it for trainings. Our training budget is not very big and that we have a lot of guys that need a lot of training. So we pull uh a lot of money out of drug forfeiture for that and other small items like if like for instance just recently we had uh an issue with our firearm. We had to go out and buy firearms. So we spent almost $100,000 on on firearms cuz it was kind of an emergency situation. So that's the stuff we try to use that for and conserve that for those uh big ticket items that aren't budgetary.

Thank you. Um, I would suggest that we don't use that. Uh, we have to purchase, whether we do these take-home cars or not, we do have to purchase 10 police cars. They asked for, I believe, 14, but 10 was what you allotted for, right? 10 vehicles. Um, which is going to cost us money. Uh, either way, and from my understanding, we are saving if we go this route. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Uh, excuse me. For those of you who don't know Deputy Chief Adam Higgins, u you didn't introduce yourself. Oh, we all know who you are, but some folks at home may not. Okay.

So, I think a lot of people are thinking, you know, um that this is going to uh raise our t taxes, [clears throat] you know, that's what's going to raise them. So, can you just explain to uh the public and to council the the difference?

Yeah. Um, one of the one of the big things is if we purchase these vehicles for everybody now, then next year we won't be we usually run 10 to 14 vehicles a year to uh replace them. Next year and the year after we won't be doing that. So, there's going to be quite a savings that comes out of that at that end of it also. Um, and and if we take these off the budget this year um and we do it in the LCIP, that'll save us money also. Um yeah, so I would just uh again I definitely am for the take-home vehicles uh you know for recruiting mainly and uh as they had mentioned before Chief Connley there are three to four seasoned um officers that would probably uh come over to our department. We are in desperate need. people aren't applying for Lewon, unfortunately. Um, so we do need something. I don't think it's a good idea to take it from that other fund, uh, as councelor Naene suggested because that money is just not replenishing like it once was. And as you stated, you just had to spend $100,000 on basically emergency guns. So, I just don't think that's smart. Thank you.

Thank you, councelor. Counselor Herman, thank you. Um, yeah, I am I'm I'm opposed to the take-home vehicle program at this time. I just think in a budget where we're pinching every penny we can that we shouldn't be adding new programs that add to the budget. Um, I know it's [clears throat] been pitched as a cost savings, but I asked questions and just couldn't get the math to work, especially once you add in the um the cost of borrowing money. So, I am opposed to that at this time just because I'm opposed to any new programs in this budget. Thank you, Councelor. Councelor Roy. [clears throat]

Um, thank you, Councelor Chidum. I am um torn on this. I really feel like in any year we this is a great great tool for a lot of reasons. Um, but I think this year, um, it's hard for me, again, like council Haramman, to open up a new a new program like this, but I am I am in favor of it this year. Um, I am going to go for it. I think um I do like a little bit about what uh council said. I do understand the the cons to using some of the fund balance or that police uh balance. However, we're asking like the school department is using some of theirs. City is looking at maybe if we can use some of ours. So, I think it's only fair. I wouldn't say deplete it all, maybe use half of it uh to compromise, but everybody else is using theirs. So, I think to lower the cost in some ways that would probably be fair for everybody. Um but yeah, I think in this year I'm kind of

uh can I just say one thing? Um as far as our drug forfeiture money, I believe we're using already 500 some odd thousand dollars this year to out of the drug forfeite for this budget. So we're spending the more than we ever have ever before. Okay. Thank you for that information. You're welcome. Yeah. But I just know like if if everybody else is doing their part to try to reduce things then you know I would ask that but I am in favor of moving that along. So

Councilor Martell thank you. Yeah 100% encouraged for the take-home programs and I've I've I've taken this issue kind of personally. It's important to me. Public safety is uh one of my biggest concerns in the city and I feel like it affects every other aspect from economic development to recruiting residents and people coming here to increase the tax base. So, um I'm going to be 100% in support of it. I also, like I said, have looked at this personally and dove deep into it. I've looked at every number. Sergeant Brown has answered and jumped through every single hoop we have put in front of him. He was asked for um kind of hypothetical numbers that he based on very comparable districts and departments and that didn't seem to be effective. He was asked for case specific for Lewon for our officers for where they live and he came back with those numbers. We have the debt service numbers and when all of it is taken into consideration, the debt service, the the the decrease in maintenance because these vehicles are going to be under warranty longer, all everything into consideration, let's say this is a very slight benefit to the taxpayer or even a net wash in the end. when you add in the value for recruiting, which is a desperate need that we have right now. Uh the last meeting we had on Tuesday, we were able to established that we have one current applicant for the police department that is going to be able to hit the um the academy in August and sometime roughly a year after that is is going to be able to be dispatchable. If we can bring three to four uh blue pin officers ready to be dispatched, solving crimes, taking calls on day one when they come here, and I believe that's a conservative number. I think we might even be able to flirt with numbers like five or six that I've heard. Uh

potentially uh we can't just assign a zero value to that recruitment value. And the alternative to that recruitment value that we're getting at zero by implementing this take-home program is another substantial raise to starting pay and levels of pay for the police department and patrol officers. And that comes as a 100% direct cost to the taxpayer. We can't avoid that. That's capital cost. So we need to recruit officers in one fashion or another. So when you look at the numbers independently and I have I've looked very closely. I've been in direct contact with Chief, with Sergeant Brown, uh, with Deputy, uh, and some of the lieutenants. I I have really dove deep on this and not just because I want it and support it, but the numbers support it. So, we can't just apply a zero a zero value to the recruitment. And if we're going to be able to recruit officers and make Lewon a safer place for a net zero increase, uh yes, it's a new program, but it's not a costly program. And it it provides a very tangible, very measurable value to the city. And for that reason, uh I will 100% be in favor of it. And I also would like to say from every number I've seen, it actually lowers the budget to the taxpayer for at least the next two years. when that um debt burden is brought in, it still [clears throat] uh is covered by savings. So allowing for some variables with it being a new program, I think Sergeant Brown has done amazing work and I'm confident in those numbers. So that will be my position going forward and I hope my colleagues um see fit to do the same.

Thank you, councelor. Um weighing in last, I want to recognize the work that's gone into this. I want to recognize that it is a program that has potential for great benefits in terms of retention. Um, my bottom line is that this year is not the year to implement uh a take-home program. I'm looking not only at the costs two years down the road. We have no sense that our budget next year or the year after is going to be any different than this. We've got a a big hole that we need to work ourselves out of. And I'm concerned that if we put the blinders on and say the problem is all going to be solved this year, um it's I don't believe it is. I believe we're going to have tough budgets going forward. Uh particularly when we have fixed payroll costs. Uh we are now looking at laying off people. This is not the year to implement a new program. As much as I'm in favor of it, uh there's been discussion about phasing this in. Um that would tend to uh reduce my opposition somewhat because part of my concern is that if we buy 65 new vehicles now we're going to have a a bubble of 60 vehicles replaced in 8 to 10 or 7 to n years and then 7 to n years after that we'll have a bubble of 55 vehicles that need to be replaced. Eventually, it will smooth out, but we're going to see the ripple effects of an infusion of 65 new vehicles for a number of years to come. And and that's concerning to me. So, in terms of thumbs up, thumbs down on the take-home program, my thumb is down. [snorts] Councelor Nine.

Um just just to clarify, I understand that if we borrow this money, um and the LCIP is a big piece overall because there's many infrastructure costs we cannot avoid, but if we borrow this money, we still have short-term borrowing costs. And so, um if I could just ask Director Roy to speak really, I know that the bonds won't be issued for two years, but what what are the current um interest rates that we're looking at for [clears throat] short short-term borrowing? So [snorts] currently when I um contacted our bond council it's um ranging from the 3 to 4% currently right now

3 to 4%. And how was our budget uh proposed budget that was put before us affected with borrowing costs this year? How much did our our um our portion of debt service go up? It's on the tax rate sheet. Hold on. [snorts] right in front of me. So for the city, it's going up a million 57751, but that also a big piece of that is the PD because it's a lease. So it's considered in that debt line. So if you remember, we're um catching up on a million dollars of what we owe um Mr. Platt for this year facility.

So it's probably a range of like 57,000 that's going up. So it's we're talking about 13.3% increase though overall correct this year. Do we know what it's going to look like next year? Do we have any any Well, I know it's dependent on our LCIP, but the we've we're issuing bonds. Correct. So I'm just trying to figure out if it's going to be even higher next year. Within this budget, we have an estimated principal and interest payment for what we will be going out to sell in September for the 2025 bonds. Okay.

So, um we'd have to take a look at what we u approved, what you approved for the 2026 to see what those amounts are um that will be added in next year because ultimately any increase in the debt service affects our overall municipal budget. It reduces the amount of money that we have to spend. Period. Correct.

Which is why again I strongly advocate that we use uh the drug we ask the police department to use the drug asset forfeite funds to try to offset some of that cost. Ultimately, the truth is um not a lot of departments actually have a discretionary fund. As a matter of fact, I think the police are the only ones that have it besides the city itself by having a fund balance. And so since it's going to come out of the taxpayers's dollar one way or the other, um it makes sense to try to offset that as much as possible if we go forward. Council Long,

with all due respect, I don't [clears throat] want this to come off too rude, but uh they are the only ones out there that are uh fighting crime, protecting people. This is not I don't I you know when this was brought to us these take-home cars, you're right. We could put it off a year, put it off two years, but guess what? Crime in Leon isn't isn't calming down. We're lacking police officers. We're lacking the time that they're getting to these crimes because there's not enough of them. You can push things down the road and and some things we're going to have to do away with, but to sit here and say that we should be okay with not doing what we need to do to fully staff our police department to help protect our city is just insane. You know, we're not green. We're not a little town. We're a city with a lot of crime and a lot of the reason why people don't want to come here. So I just they've already taken $500 plus thousand dollar to contribute to our budget because they knew it was such a tight budget. So to ask them for more when it's really not getting replenished like it once was. I mean I can just say from experience, you know, my daughter has had to use some of that money for I think it was a personalized vest or something cuz she's so small. you know that it that money is important [clears throat] because if the funds aren't there or or there if it's not in their budget, guess what? They don't get it. That's where it comes from. From when they knock down a door to help bust a drug dealer, the the hard work that they do, they put their lives on the line. So, for us to sit here and dictate what they spend that on, I think is ridiculous.

Thank you, counselor. Um, you're not getting a lot of direction. I think you got a three split right here. Um, I will say I think the important point here is it does appear there is a majority for take-home vehicles. Um, Council Noble is not here. Uh, I don't want to speak for her. I've had conversations with her. I But we'll we'll follow up with her on her position, but it appears in the room tonight we have four to two split in favor of take home vehicles.

Uh, councelor Herman. Thank you. I just wanted to add some historical context. Um, having been up here for a few years now, um, over the last four budgets, we've been told similar things like, "We need this for recruitment, we need this for recruitment every time. Um, sometimes outside of budgets as well, and we have granted all of those things. And we are still in a similar position as we were four or five years ago. Um, I forgive my skepticism, but uh, it hasn't worked over the last 5 years, and I feel like there are other issues at play rather than just money and equipment and things that that are going to address this issue.

Thank you, councelor. Um, I I thought I had a different count than you did, administrator. Could we put thumbs up or thumbs down to take-home vehicles in general? minus conditional. I'm asking for for we need we we have very little time left. I understand it's conditional, but given the situation as it stands today, I'm asking all counselors to say with today's conditions, do you favor take-home vehicles or not? And and administrator saw four. I was counting you in the yes, counselor, but

if the drug asset forfeite funds aren't used to offset the the program, I wouldn't support it. So, we're just a second, councelor Martell. Um, we are, I think, now at 33 with councelor Noble being absent. Um, and I I [clears throat] don't know where the drug forfeiture uh debate stands. I don't know where it's going to end up. Um, but at this point, um, Councelor Martell, why don't you weigh in again and please, please, I think we know your position. Okay. No, I um and I I don't even know if this is within decorum or not. I just want to ask my colleague a question. Like if they've committed 500,000, how much more of it do you need? Do you need a 100% of all the drug forfeite to go towards it to support it? I'm just trying to find out where you're at with it. Like they they've said 500. Are we going to allow for any other um possibilities or variances or are you going to are you asking for 100% commitment of every drug for dollar? What I'm asking for is to offset the cost of this new program that we're going to borrow money for and carry interest on by as much as possible. So, if if there's uh $300,000 in the account that is not uh allocated for anything, I'd want to see the $300,000 go to the program. The the the fund will replenish. Granted, it won't replenish as quickly as it has. Completely understood. um it is a source of funding to operate police budgets um to offset police budgets and that's what we're trying to do. I think we want to give the product but we also want to reduce the LCIP debt service.

Thank you. Uh you councelor Mart. Thank you. Uh deputy administrator Ali, you had to comment.

Yes, I have some numbers in front of me. Um I don't mean to step on the deputy chief's toes, but actually the expenditures for this year towards the budget is 226,611. So that what they've used so far. So if we they have left over in their um drug forfeiture account, 500,000. So next year they you know if if we use all of that, they won't have it. We'd have to make up some of that in the budget. So, if you do, councelor Nene, if you do have an amount out of that 500,000 you'd like to see, then we can talk to the chief and maybe get back to at least uh the city administrator then can make a determination if he presents that in his final budget to you folks on the 5th.

And just it to follow up on that, there there's no point in time that we've denied a supplemental budget um from a from a department. And if a department comes forward like maybe we've denied the budget um but we haven't denied the request right so if there was an urgent or emergent situation that needed to be funded the department could always come before us to ask for a supplemental budget correct

correct and traditionally that money has always come from the drug forfeite anytime they've come for I know councelor Harmon is talking about some raises that were given that was separate but more often than not when it's a capital item they'll come to the city council and they'll take it out of drug forfeiter I think the part that we're wrestling with is just the overall increase in the budget total and how to offset that. Council Long, I'll be really brief. So, it seems as though there's a three to three split, right? That's the way I'm counting it. Okay. Well, it's Yes, with conditions, right? So, it's we don't know what I mean.

I think we have to get more information and bring back um some on those conditions. Um unless there's someone here that wants to comment further tonight. Um, or if you have a specific number in mind of how much you'd like to see. When you say as much as possible, it could vary year to year. I I mean, if they don't want to deplete the entire thing, um, that that's I guess that's okay. Like, I want a number so that I can say that we're offsetting some of this cost by a discretionary fund that exists that doesn't go to the LCIP. That's all.

So, we could have some more conversations with PD leadership um, and maybe come back with more information on that. Um I think we do have what we need for tonight maybe. So you're a yes with conditions. We have councelor Noble who has to weigh in also. Um and then two opposed. So I think we have what we need for tonight on this topic. We come back with more information on the asset forfeite and maybe take it from there if that works.

Good. If if you're comfortable with that tonight, administrator, fine. Let's move along to the next item which I am arbitrarily going to pick as uh nonprofit contributions. That should be a relatively easy one. Uh, does anyone have strong feelings on uh requests for nonprofit contributions? Councelor Haramman? Um, yes. I would say this year uh the inind contributions I would be okay with those. Uh the cash contributions I would not be okay with. Uh with the exception of the basically the cityrun events such as the Balloon Festival, the Liberty Festival. Um and then so those are the cash contributions coming from regular funds. Uh there was at least one request I believe from the um the opioid settlement funds and I would be okay with that one as well because that's a separate pot of money restricted to that type of use.

Thank you, Council Nine. So, uh, first, um, I'm fine with the inkind contributions for, um, pretty much everybody who asked, um, for the cash, uh, awards. Um the I think we need to move to a new space where we're issuing RFPs for services that we want rendered and and and it's done in partnership having organizations come before us and say please give us money for our general operating expenses. It's it's not tenable any longer. And so if there's a service that's being provided that we want that we've asked for that we've contracted for I have no problem with that. Like if somebody came before us and said, "Hey, uh, give us $40,000 and we're gonna, um, make sure that there are no syringes on on our streets. That's what we're going to do." I would I would 100% support that and and and completely back that. But the concept, I know that many of these partnerships have are long lasting. Um, you know, the farmers market, for instance, I'll give you an example for the far I don't think they made a cash request, but the farmers market brings people in every Sunday, right? like like from from May to November. It's the Lewon farmers market. There's a partnership there. They're using city land, all of these things, but we can't fund the part the farmers market general operations. Um, and this goes across the board. So, there are programs that I completely identify as city programs. One is the balloon festival, one's the fireworks. I think that's pretty much it. Um, other than that, moving forward, we shouldn't be taking cash requests for from nonprofits to fund their general operating expenses to function in the city. They've got to be providing a benefit that we're asking for that we're willing to pay for.

Thank you, Councelor Martell.

Thank you. Uh, yeah, absolutely not to any of the the cash. I'm uh I'm with the fireworks and I'm with the the balloon festival. Uh my question is on some of the inind. So if someone wants to use a field, great. You can use a field. That doesn't cost the city anything. If you're asking for 40 hours of police enforcement and security, we're we're still paying for that and we're we're talking about addressing overtime and these other things. So that might be inind to a certain degree, but that also ends up being a a cash draw. If if I need to be corrected, please uh correct me. Uh but I look at some of these inkind and I feel like they're framed as inkind. They still come out as like a a cash cost to the city out of the fund, whether that's funding police or providing security or infrastructure or whatever else. So if we own a field or a a soccer field or a softball field for a tournament, we can give someone use of that. That's what I consider in kind. if if it actually costs the city something to provide it, um I feel like we should look at that as indistinguishable from a a cash request when the inind donation that they're asking for becomes a cash payout from the city. Does does that track?

Thank you. Uh, councelor Longshow.

I agree with councelor Naene on this one. Um, I am for the balloon festival and obviously our Liberty Fest that we have. Um, I'm okay with the inind donations. Um, I don't know if this is the time to speak about this, but the $300,000 that Spurwink was asking for for the uh vehicle, I'm not in favor of. Um, that money is uh used well supposed to be used for um rehabilitation, right? and um they focus more on harm reduction. Um and I just don't think those two things really uh are the same. So I am not in favor of um of us giving that money uh for that vehicle for Spurwink. So I just want to share that. Could I summarize what I think you've said that you're in favor of the balloon festival and the Liberty Festival and no other cash contributions to nonprofits. Is that a fair summary?

That is what I've said. Okay. Thank you. Council Roy, do you have a weighing in on this?

Um I too, like everybody else, I'm thinking in kind is okay for me. Um well, mostly everybody. Um I would also support, you know, the Liberty Festival and uh the Bloom Festival. Um because I think we're a city and we need to that's we need to do that. I I feel you know there's a lot of people out there that do pay taxes and see very little for it. But th these things we we need um I myself would be looking at being okay with spending some opioid settlement money because I know we need to spend that money. So, I would be okay with that um for just um that for the purchase for Spurwink because I do know if we partner with them and they get this van, we could definitely see some benefits to that in the city with cleanup and all that stuff too. So, I think there is benefits to that. Um but other than that, I think we're, you know, with the cash donations, I'm good. So, you want to summarize what I said? [laughter]

Thank you, Mr. Roy. Councelor Roy, u Council Nine,

just really quickly as far as the the inkind donations in in staffing services, things like that. There are events that happen that have long-standing events that have been organized by the community that are supported by the city. One of them I could give an example for is like the Pine Street Block Party, right? like you you actually do want to have a police presence there and it's actually required um through the permitting process and so you know like the Dempsey Center if they in order to hold that event they need police presence and so that's you know it does bring a little bit of a of a return as far as because these organizations are upholding the the entire thing with the exception of the what we're requiring them to them to do which is why the inind exists. I get the point though, there is a cost to it 100%. And just to speak really quickly to uh the spur rank uh request. I think it should be removed from this budget completely and we should have a separate conversation about whether or not we're going to fund it at all because it's not um it does fit into the the window the four the four pillars harm reduction, education, prevention, and recovery. But it's not this is it's opioid recovery funds. It has nothing to do with our budget. like drop it from the budget for right now and we handle it as a separate request with a workshop with an understanding of what type of permitting we're actually even going to be looking at. There's a lot of things that that are moving in that and so like having that jammed in with the nonprofit requests is didn't sit well with me. There's a lot of questions that people want answered as far as how that runs. So,

Council Roy, I would agree with that. I I think you know the more information and education we can get out there for this whole procedure I think is better. So yes, Council Long. Yeah, real briefly. Um I would agree with that too. I think it should just be completely out of this conversation. We should have a workshop. We should really dissect uh every aspect about uh in pros and cons and that's just a separate topic I think.

Okay. Hey, if I could summarize, um I think the council is nearly unanimous on no cash contributions to any nonprofit other than the Liberty Festival and the Balloon Festival and um that uh yes in general to inind contributions recognizing councelor Martell has raised a [clears throat] valid point that these are actually costs to the city. Um, but if that's the consensus of the council, um, I'd like to move on unless somebody has an objection to that summary. Deputy Administrator Ali,

I have one question. Council Harmon is the only one that addressed this. The rally for recovery is opioid funds. Um, so if everyone is in favor of that, that's something we've been doing for I want to say at least five years. It's $1,500 that comes out of the opioid funds. If everyone's good with that, makes sense. I think I think we're good with that. Thank you. Right. Thank you for bringing that up. All right, that's two down or one and a half. Anyway, um what shall we tackle next? Fund balance.

Fund balance. That looks like a fun one. Okay. Um Director Roy has recommended that we maintain a 10% right in the middle of our 8 to 12% uh window. That gives us right now 180 uh 1.87 87 million. Uh, I'm sorry, 18. I'm losing my decimal points again. Director, how much do we have in the fund balance right now at 10%. 18 and a half. 18 or 19 with the 10% we have um well with with uh

sorry um there's 8. So the 8% is 14 90341. The 10% is hold on [snorts] Sorry. [cough and clears throat] So 10% is 14,990 314. So we were asked what would be the well what we would have to keep in fund balance not what we could use. Um we were asked the number if we used up to the 9% threshold. The amount that could be used is 1,950153 would be that would bring us to the 9% threshold.

Uh 1,900 950,153. Okay. I uh 1,950,000 in round numbers. Okay. Um so that would take us from 10 to 9% in the fund balance. Um that money would then be used to reduce the tax levy uh and reduce the burden on the taxpayers. Uh that translates at $30,000 per penny. Uh 375 375

37 Okay. 40 $40,000 on the penny translates to some some percentage of money off the tax levy. Um what's the feeling on using the fund balance reducing it uh to 9%. Remember, our window is from 8 to 12 and we currently have uh $18 million in there and we could withdraw just under two million and still maintain a full percentage point over the minimum uh required in the ordinance. We sorry if you don't like it. We also have some numbers of the impact that would have on the tax rate and on the overall budget if you want to share

just where it would bring the city for example with the tax living. Correct. So with the tier one um removing all the expenses that you guys saw on the sheets earlier um except for the bodies the the positions um without the take-home vehicles the tax rate would go down to $35.70. Um bringing the cities at 18.24 24 which would be 5.7 um with sorry 5.7%

percent correct. Yes. So with the take-home vehicles um it would be $35.73 the city would be $1827 at a 5.8%. and director, sorry, that the reduction from the the current proposed, and then you add in the the fund balance, the 1.95 million brings us uh from what to what as far as a decrease in the city percentage on the tax levy. I believe it's 10 to to five, something like that. It's a significant.

So, if we were using the tier one at the beginning when we started this, the city was at 10.7, which was 7.4 4 over CPI. If we go to this current, it brings us down to 5.7. Um, so we're over the CPI by 2.4. With the vehicles on tier 1, it was [snorts] um 10.6 at the beginning when we started this and now it would be 5.8, which is 2.5 over CPI. Thank you. That's a that's a lot of numbers. Director Roy, I appreciate that. Thank you. Um, councelor Nene.

So, first, do we have that calculation for tier three as well? We do not. Not with the um fund balance because we took away on Tuesday night that you all did not want to lay off anybody. So, we did not do those calculations. I think the vote was 43 for tier three. um pretty sure the argument was that we didn't have a a supermajority in order to pass the budget, which we don't anyways um at this point. So I I would just like to know the impacts for tier 2 and tier three as well. I can I can get you those numbers.

Okay, I appreciate that. Um and just to follow that up, I'm okay. Last year we used we brought our fund balance down to 9% and we used 100% of uh projected revenues uh from revenue sharing from the state. I'm okay with doing that, but I would want to make sure that any positions that are vacated during that calendar year are not replaced without uh without council permission ultimately that that's an item on the for for discussion, but it's connected to like there's always a

there there's always going to be a caveat in order to get to an agree like we have to do this in a way that like I want to see the fund balance replenished and in some cases we may not have to replace that staff member immediately. Um and if and if that's the case that salary could go to the fund balance for the next year. Councelor Long,

thank you. I'm [clears throat] confused with the numbers and and I'm sure it's me, but if we have a little over 18 million in our fund balance and we take away 1.9 something, that doesn't leave us with 14 million. So I think that's at 8% [clears throat] that would leave us with 14 million. 9% uh would would would leave us with a different number. 8% was 14,930441. The the uh 10% was 14,990 314.

Right. So, but what you had mentioned uh before was 14 million was at 9%. And 14 million is is quite a bit of money if we moved it down to 8% which would get us our 4 million that we need to get us at uh 5.7 uh for a mill rate.

Yes. Um, sorry. 18,628 would be um the 10%. Sorry about that. That's okay. So 9% um would be 16 something, right? 8% would be 14 something. So I guess what I'm saying is either if we are not going to cut positions and we want to get this mill rate down to like 5.7, we may have to take almost $4 million from our fund balance or ask the school to cut to match our uh what we're taking

if I'm making any sense. I don't know. Yeah, the the 1.9 uh just on the city side gets us down to the 5.7% increase. Okay. On the city tax levy. Oh, it's 4. It's actually uh if we do the 4 million, well, right about 4 million. What does that bring us down to for the mill rate?

And when you say four, you'll be talking about the school side with fund balance coming in. Where are you getting the four million? I'm just saying if we cut $4 million off our budget right now, what would our mill rate be [cough] [clears throat] with all of the other changes with the with the current amount of fund balance?

Yes. in there. An additional 4 million I'm not saying that right. I don't believe I actually don't want you to cut that out of our budget. I'm saying that if we were able to come up with the 4 million. Am I making sense?

Are you talking about in fund balance? Yes. Okay. So, in our fund balance, we do not that would take a majority vote um to get below the 8%. There's not four million in the our fund balance that you could take [snorts] because that would take us below and that would bring us down to the below the 8% level, right? Okay. So that would take us down. Um, but we could comfortably do the 1.9 1.95% which would then leave what in our fund balance if you don't mind if we took out the 1.9 the difference between about 16 million. I know.

And just for a little clarification um council long chimps you said we have to throw a lot of numbers at you. If we do do the 1.9 without the take-home vehicles on the city side, the increase is 98 cents from last year on the tax rate on the tax on on the tax rate. And then for the school, what what they currently have providing is $1.56 and on the county is 37 cents for a total of $2.91 increase from last year tax rate. That's sometimes a little easy if we just look at Thank you. And that's without the take-home.

That's without the takehome. And what with with the take-home it increases by 3 cents to a dollar one. So it goes from 98 to1 increase on the city side and then you go from $2.91 to $2.94 94 increase increase. Thank you, Councelor Martell.

Thank you. Um I just can't help but point out that uh yes, using fund balance can lessen the blow. We are working with an unsustainable math equation that doesn't work. We're spending more money than we're able to bring in. And I just struggle with thinking that taking our savings essentially down to zero of effective money that we can use is just another unsustainable way to address the ongoing and repeated spending that has put us in this situation. So, if we want to approve $1.9 million worth of use and fund balance, uh, we are in desperate times that require desperate measures. So, I am not going to object to that because I want to lessen the blow to our taxpayers, but I would like to see the same amount 1.9 taken out in actual spending. If we don't address the spending, we're just continuing [clears throat] to use our savings and other forms of moving money around to to kick the can down the road. And what has got us into this problem is years of overspending and not being responsible and spending more than we can reasonably expect to bring in. And it we've got to stop doing that at some point. Uh the savings is running out. We used a lot of it last year. We're looking at using every last bit that remains without having to have a special vote to go below 8%. So yes, I would vote for this as long as we see the same exact amount cut in actual spending. So if we want to get to the 4 million that you suggested, councelor Long Champs, take 2 million out of the budget, use 2 million in fund balance, and there there's your $4 million. But we've got to address the spending at some point. [clears throat]

Councelor Roy. Um thank you. So, one way to address the spending, um, Council Martell, is looking at the overtime. We're looking at almost $3 million of overtime. We, if we can cut a third of that, that [clears throat] brings us to the 4 million that we were just talking about. So,

thank you. I I would like to bring us back together again. We we're talking about fund balance. All of these things are interconnected. Uh, we're talking sometimes about the city side increase. We're talking about the overall mill rate increase. It's a confusing issue. In my view, the only thing that the taxpayers are concerned about is what what their taxes are going for. They don't really care whether it's county or school or city. We're faced with a bit of a difficulty because the only budget that we can control is the city and that we've set some targets for ourselves to bring the increase on the city side down, but that's academic. As far as the taxpayer is concerned, we are never going to be able to get to the CPI uh total tax increase that that does not require a five council majority. That's a given. Um as I said, I think earlier, in order for us to do that with the tools at our command running the city budget only, we have to close the city. We have to fire all of the policemen, all of the firemen, all administrators, public works, everybody because that's the amount of money it's going to take to get the overall mill rate down to a 3.3% increase over last year. And obviously, we can't do that. So, we're looking at a five five a super majority. [clears throat] As to the fund balance, uh we've given administration, I think, good direction on two of the three items that we talked about. Do we have a sense of do we want to carry the fund balance from the recommended 10% from the finance director uh as we did last year down to nine I think it was 9.1 last year but for purposes of discussion are we comfortable with taking $1.9 million from the fund balance and lowering the percentage rate of general revenues from 10 as it stands now to nine. I'd like to call for a thumbs up.

Council Nene, would anyone support the caveat that we do not fill positions in this budget that are vacated without council approval? That's another item that we're going to be talking about. But they're connected. They're all connected. And what I'm trying to do is cut the Gordon. What you're trying to do is get the 9% passed so then we can turn down the the vacated positions piece. No, I'm not I'm not doing that at I think that's what it feels like. I I I'm sorry to be [cough] I didn't mean to say it that way. I'm just It's important that we make sure that we replenish the fund balance. And so that's my concern. I'm comfortable with going to 9% because I don't think we have a choice, but I also think we have to think about how it gets replenished.

Okay, let's talk about that immediately next. So, consensus on lowering the fund balance reserve to 9%. Caveat, I want to see the budget cut. So that's give you a yes or no. Okay, I appreciate that. Um, and these are all difficult questions. Everyone has reservations, concerns, caveats. I understand that. So that was four though, right? That that was I'm seeing four. That was five in favor. Okay.

Of the six of us that are here and one with reservation. Two actually two with reservations or conditions. Right. So to me that's that's a consensus of the council that we're comfortable with uh reducing to 9%. Now let's talk about the conditions to replenish that and one of those council Roy

I would uh I would agree with council ny and I think um you know in order to replenish the fund balance because it is very important that we have an understanding of what we're going to be um the positions that are going out or or you know uh being left and you know uh the ones that we're going to look to uh put back in if if it makes sense. Thank you. So, the topic that we're talking about now is whether or not we replace positions that are vacated for whatever reason during the course of this fiscal year 2027. Council Harmon,

um I would also be okay with with councelor Nene's proposal. Um, I think that there are some positions um that may be vacated that we cannot leave vacant, but we can address those as they come up and um and that'll be a decision as they come up. Thank you, Councelor Long. I'm just not sure that we are actually in position to do that. If someone could weigh in. Um,

yeah, I guess I just look for clarification. So we'd be talking about any position that becomes vacant, whether it's a retirement, they move on to a different position or uh any other reason that position becomes vacant, we would have to come back to the council for funding to be approved for that. How would this I guess I'm struggling with the mechanics of how this would Yeah, that's basically what I would hope for. And I don't think it would have to necessarily even be um Well, I guess it would have to be a public funding would already have to be in the budget for the position. Correct. Right. So the funding is in the it is we're approving the budget, right? Whatever budget it turns out to be. So if that position is funded,

that position is vacated for whatever reason instead of immediately filling it as you normally would, you would um come before council to make sure that that we are willing to fill that position. So the council would have to approve the hiring of every position that becomes vacant during the course of the year. It's it's a lot of positions that turn over in the course of a year.

I completely understand that. But I also think that like we we've gone through a process where we've thrown bodies at problems. We've thrown money at problems and and we don't have a lot of money and and contrary and I'm not trying to to dispute what another counselor said, but contrary to some opinions, I know that our budgets have been underfunded chronically. like we just have not had enough money to to pay for the services that we need in this community. But also in in the time period that we're dealing with right here, we have to figure out how to be more efficient with these things. And so, yeah, I think that if there's a department that is down uh one staff member and they figure out a way to work without that staff member for 6 months, 8 months, that replenishes the fund balance. Or if it's a position where the director says, "I can't go without this." you come before us and we say, "Yeah, we we we [clears throat] release that position." Um, that would be that would be my take. Um, but I I'm sure there's other opinions here. So,

Ger Roy, thank you, Council Chisum. Um, it kind of feels clunky to me and I'm kind of rethinking that. Um, one of the things I fear is if we have a position that becomes vacant and it takes time to come back to the council, we're looking at overtime to fill that. So, we're just kind of cutting off our foot. You know, that just kind of I think it's going to take a lot more time. So, I I it kind of feels clunky to me. If there's a a happy medium, a way that we can figure out to do this seamlessly and not take as a lot of time, I think it would be better. But I just feel it's a little clunky at this time. Councelor Long,

thank you. It feels like we are trying to do the administrator's job. Um, I don't think that is really our position. Uh, we're not in the field of hiring or firing here. And, uh, I I it feels like we're trying to maybe dictate, uh, a little more as to what goes on with employees. And I I just I I don't think that's right.

Councelor Harmon, thank you. Um I wasn't expecting that the council would approve the hire or anything, but that we would approve the funding or basically using that funding for the position. So the hiring would still go through the normal channels. Um I believe personnel is approximately 50% of our budget. And I think it is reasonable for us to have as a council to have some say into those into that half of the budget at some point. And if it's not going to be during this process, then as things become vacant, I think that is reasonable for us to have some input as to where the city's money is spent.

Thank you, Councelor Herman. Councelor Martell,

thank you. Um, [clears throat] I'm just struggling with some of the concepts here because I think councelor Rory makes some good points. Like, it sounds good. Let's let's cut overtime. Overtime is expensive. Let's find a way to schedule around that. We get a bad snowstorm in the middle of January on a Wednesday. We can't really say don't do overtime and and leave the streets full of snow and not plowed. So, we do run into positions as a city where we are out of options. And if we're looking to freeze every person that retires or freeze every open position, I know we're looking at public works potentially at freezing some positions. There are some very essential uh services that we don't have the luxury of saying we're just not going to fund the overtime for that. Uh we need to police our streets. We need to plow our streets. Uh stuff like that isn't just as simple as sitting up here and saying let's not fund it. And the more positions we freeze can lead to overtime uh for the people that are left. And then if we say freeze overtime, uh I I guess I would agree with the clunky definition. It it we're in unchartered difficult waters and we're trying to make some tough decisions and try to figure out how to keep the city going and save the taxpayers some money. So, I'm not sure I'm even offering a suggestion here, but just trying to recognize that not all of these solutions are are going to meld together seamlessly. So, I just a little bit of forethought and planning uh might be able to go a long way hopefully. Thank you. As I look here, uh our budget uh for the city is $2.8 million in overtime alone. Um and that that spread over

three 15 20 departments. Um the largest appears to be in firefighting where we have a $1.5 million recommended overtime amount. Uh councelor Longamp. Thank you. Uh Councelor Chidum, if it would be okay uh because we are talking uh quite a bit about overtime. Uh, Deputy Omali, can you just touch base on overtime, where that comes from, and and kind of a little sense of why that takes place?

Sure. Um, I do have a copy of the charter in front of me, but if we're moving on from you folks, um, approving, um, I won't read that. I will also mention to council Haramman um if we when the city administrator presents the final budget if you want to make an amendment um that's in the charter where you guys can fund or or defund um you know a department if that's what you want to do you guys could make that amendment then you guys could all vote on it um but when we go up to overtime we have police fire and public works and that's where our all overtime is I think there's a small amount for our MIS so when Matt or Kurt are sitting out here Um, I think that's $2,000 in that budget. But in reality, our budget is in the um our public safety and our public works. If you folks want to make an amendment and say, "I want to reduce overtime at the police department or the fire department public works for a certain amount." And you guys all vote for that, that will happen. But then realize um the city administrator may have to come back to you and say, "We've had homicides. We've had really bad snowstorms. I need more money." and he would then have to come to you mid budget season or fiscal year to ask for more money. But in reality, I understand what you're saying about the overtime counselor um Roy, but it's the three big departments that get the overtime. There's, you know, we don't pay people in city hall overtime other than a small amount um to the folks that work the camera system here.

Uh councelor Nene then councelor Long. So while we don't we absolutely don't oversee hiring and firing, we oversee the funding of the departments. And so that's the part that for for what I'm looking at and I understand the point of making like I don't want to micromanage anything in the city. What I want to do is figure out ways to reduce overall costs. And and if there was some, you know, magic thing that I could say right now that would reduce costs, like I would uh I'm just I'm I'm just exploring options here to figure out ways that we can what happens because of our contractual agreements is that when higher paid positions become vacant, lower paid employees move into those positions. and and then generally speaking the lower paid employees are also the the public facing employees and so that that's why it it can be a challenge I think to just allow these positions to be filled when when we're trying to one replenish the fund balance and two you know like for instance right now like we can't afford to lose another patrol officer we can't afford to lose uh somebody at the treasurer's office um that that's you know, or at the at the yeah, at the tax collector's office who's who's like forward facing. Um, and so these are tough challenges. I don't have an answer to it. This is just my proposal that I put out. Um, so

councelor Longo, Council Roy,

thank you. Um, so I was uh when I was looking at a spreadsheet today, um, I counted 18 overtime lines, some as small as $150 and some as large as 1 thou 1,425,676. You've got another line which is 20,000. You got one that's 200, one that's 2,000, one that's 128,800, one that's 747,000, one that's 5,000, one that's 7500, 5500, 6,000, 25,000, 255,000, you know. So again, I've got 18 lines here that have overtime spending and I know like like the fire department has built-in overtime. I know that, right? So again, I'm just I'm just I'm not saying let's cut all overtime, but what I'm trying to do is trying to find some savings in the overtime. There's $3 million of overtime that we might be able to cut from the budget. I'm just trying everything I can to to reduce the budget without cutting any positions is what I'm trying to do. So would would a a way to approach that and I'm asking the administrator here would the council I'm looking at a spreadsheet and and your spreadsheet and mine are very similar but they're not identical because I have 19 lines totaling two 2.8 million. [sighs] Would it be helpful or a hindrance if the council were to say cut the overtime by 10%. you figure out where

uh you know I think it may be helpful honestly before we even go down this road I mean I would like to hear in a public way from these three big departments what are the potential ramifications on operations from this I think we need to make an educated decision there may be room to maneuver here um but I do think we need to hear about what are the potential ramifications to operations uh will we be back potentially coming asking for money more county mid year because uh we have an issue. So I think we do need to hear some some more from those three big departments that consume the vast majority of this overtime. Um what you're saying I think is possible, but I haven't even had these conversations yet with these departments. Uh and so I think it's important that all of us just hear uh where there may be room to maneuver and what are the potential ramifications of um some larger cuts to to overtime. So I don't know if we have

we fire here, we have police here. uh is public works here. Okay, Kevin. Thank you. We do have the expert here. Uh Fire Chief Karen, can you can you [clears throat] speak to overtime requirements at the fire department?

So, I am aware that the firefighting line is the largest overtime line. Um and we have um contractually we're required to have 17 firefighters on duty daily. Uh we have vacations. We have had this past year we've had some long-term absences due to injury. Um, so every time there's a vacancy, I have to hire a firefighter for overtime for a 24-hour shift. That's that's why that number is large. It does add up. The only way to reduce that is uh through extra personnel, replacement personnel who rotate, [clears throat] don't have a permanent assignment. They just rotate in and out of positions of who's out that day sick. Um uh we try we are uh funded for three um one for each shift but sometimes I have two or three people out per shift uh you know plus vacations and stuff. So it that line is contractual and really you know you can't reduce it by 10%. um it will just it'll go in the negative because when people come to work, I have to fill those spots when people are out and I have to pay them, right? It's just not optional. Um the other lines, the fire communication, the the fire prevention division overtime lines. Um they're small lines. Uh they're really not. Those are they work overtime in emergency situations. uh coming doing fire investigations or if we have a broken piece of equipment on a Saturday, the mechanic might come in and fix it. Um so those are light lines to begin with. Um and if you wanted me to take 10% out of one of those lines, I I don't think it's going to get you much savings. I would be happy to look at it. Um now that you've made overtime made me aware of it, I will go back and it'll be something that I look at and I can

prepare better explanations and and u analysis for you. Um, so I could have a better conversation about this, but the largest line that that firefighting line, I don't know what the exact number is, 1.4 million or whatever. Um, there's not a lot of wiggle room in that. I can tell you that when people are out, I have to hire overtime. Thank you. Um, just for reference, the the number is 1.425 million. Uh, [cough] the revised budget, uh, the original budget last year were 1.34. Uh, so there's a roughly $100,000 increase which I assume is contractual because of steps and colas.

That is correct.

Okay. Um, and I don't know, I have year to date, but that number doesn't really help me because I'm not certain as to when that number came. I I would certainly and I'm I don't want to speak for the council, but as as the counselor from Ward Six, um I would like very much to see as sharp a pencil on that overtime line, particularly given that yours is the fire department is the largest overtime line of all of them at 1.4. Um your other two total $12,000. So I I I agree with you that those are there's there's not much to be picked from there. Yeah, I I know the firefighting line is a large number, but I would caution you to, you know, you can you can reduce it to any number that you like, but when people come to work, they need to be paid and I have to have 17 people there every day. [cough] It's I I mean I you know I and I'm projecting when I give you that number, when I made that number, I'm projecting 15 months in the future, who's going to be out sick? I mean, how many vacancies am I going to have? It's it's a difficult task to say the least. Um so I give the most conservative number I can based on [snorts] uh you know historical averages. It's it's it's the best that I can do. Like I said it's just an arbitrary number. You can make it any number you want, but [snorts] it may end up being in the negative at year end because when people come to work, they need to be paid and I have to have 17 people every day contractually.

Thank you, Chief. I I'm I'm not certain we're giving you a mandate, but I do I would like you to have a conversation with the city administrator about that overtime. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Uh we also have another uh expert director, Director Gier.

Good evening, Kevin G, public works director. Um I'm going to be referring to the uh page 18 in your budget books if you want to look at that. Um as the the chief, we're we're using historical numbers with finance and admin as we're putting budgets together. uh in FY23 uh that winter was 237 in actual overtime, 237,000. FY24 we had 174,000. That was a drought. If you remember December 23, we had a flood and then it didn't snow. So if you look at our historic averages as you go through '05 actual we look at 06 uh as of January 31st of 26 we'd already spent 167,000. So um we have been trying to flatline we basically have that as 1% over last year's budget. Um 255,000 is what we have for overtime for winter ops. Uh maybe director Roy can has an updated number as of as of now.

Currently um they're at $322,71.

So like the chief just said, we're we're using historical averages. We're trying to forecast 18 months out when we do the budget for submitt. We're hoping for optimistics. We're using averages. Uh in ' 04, we were we had money left. Uh and now we're over budget. So, we're reacting to snowstorms. Uh we are trying to be as efficient as possible. Um we there are times when you know call it there's going to be big snowstorm. We've got people staged. We call them in and don't don't have people sitting around getting overtime. So we we stage our crews coming in. First crews are coming in deploying the icing if that's what how we're fighting it. And then we start bringing the different crews in for the different routes. Uh we have a team and B team. So all of public works crews um some supervisors have plows and able to do a little bit of cleanup, but you know the crews are doing the plow and responding to those emergencies. So I'd love to like the chief said, you know, we we can trim that number back, but the actual is may be higher. Um in regards to some of the overtime other overtime accounts, [clears throat] uh we had one account which is an admin. It's uh 33% lower than it was the previous year. Um highway highway and open spaces is pretty much depending on what's going on with different storm events. We can be chipping branches after a windstorm. We can do be doing um overtime repairs on the highway system. So potholes, patching, uh responding to those. We have a 48 hour response time on those. Uh we're up a little limit on that, but we're up by 10,000 is what we allotted. I said 1% increase over last year on

winter ops. Uh our street light overtime is up. Uh we we have it listed as 54,000, but in reality, we're about [clears throat] 9,000 higher than last year in that overtime account. So, we do have on call people for street lights. When the downtown goes gu dark, we've had three or four events this year. Uh we've had uh customer, you know, residents as well as counselors aware and that's a safety issue. We want to make sure our downtown and other areas are lit. We've had similar issues. That same standby person comes in for all traffic signals. So dark signals also cause it cause a safety issue. Um solid waste, uh we're up a little bit there about 6,000 in that light on them. And if you look at open space, hydro and canals, that was flat flat funded. Uh the open space uh right now, I'll I'll address it a little, but we can definitely get into it. Um back when there was a reorg in early 2000s, wreck was doing all their maintenance. They were doing all their mowing, raking, and all of that. So, uh Deputy Director Bates came over with her expertise. all of their staff came over and and the focus was wreck works on programming and everything on their space and public works utilizes all that maintenance. Uh we use a lot of seasonal help to do that. So right now we we are hiring do have seasonal help in there. They're at a lower rate and they're augmenting our normal staff. So it's not not saying it can't be done, but I'm just saying we made a switch uh in about 2008 to be able to do that. And I think we're seeing some benefits, but I would talk with the director of Welch and we can talk with administration about those options. Um, some of it too is we're going with the turf. So, a lot of this is event based. So, if there's a football game, a

soccer game at the high school, we have staff going in to properly use a magnet, clean that space, and make sure there's no sharps like, you know, a spike from a metal cleat that shouldn't be used on on that whatever. they're keeping the the field safe between games and between events. Um, and then finishing up municipal garage, we're about 7,000 over. Uh, it represents 21% increase right now. I think they had five vacancies uh in the municipal garage. Um, those positions are currently still pro frozen and proposed to this budget along with three more. So, total public works is eight frozen positions. Um, vehicles need to be repaired. So, uh, we have two shifts and we're trying to do what we can. Um, if a unit is down and we don't have the overtime of the staff, then that unit's down. And if it's during a plowing event, right now we're going street sweeping, then that unit's not on the road, we're not as efficient, it's taking a little longer. And the last one's building maintenance. So, that one we actually cut by 36%. Uh, that is down about $10,000. So overall, uh, public works, we came in, I think it was about 1.3% increase over last year. So that's just a quick summary on what we do and what what's there.

Thank you, Director Gier. Um, Councelor Longshow.

Thank you, uh, Councelor Chidum. Um, I think it is an important topic, uh, to talk about the overtime and I I think it was important. And I think a lot of uh citizens here in Lewon definitely complain about that and uh not just complain but they're they're concerned about it. You know, can we cut there? But you know, we're talking about public works, the fire department, and the police department. And you guys have given a great explanation as to why uh the overtime happens and why it's needed. Um I'm not in favor of you guys cutting that at all. I would ask Deputy Omali if he wouldn't mind touching a little bit on the police department since you were um affiliated there.

Yeah, I was going to address that. Uh so, councelor, I know it looks like a lot, but actually several departments have several different line items, so it's really only those three. There are some smaller ones like I talked about MIS. Um if you look at as uh Director Gagny was talking about on page 18, there's two lines here. Um the 128 804 that's for the detective division and the 747897 that's for patrol division. Um the police department has only asked for an increase of 1.1 in their detective division and the 2% increase for overtime in the patrol division. [clears throat] You know a lot of that's based on the calls for service that come in. If there's homicides, if there's more, you know, drawn out cases, you know, you're going to need to have detectives come in. If if we don't have those issues, then they don't call the detectives in. Um, you know, I I know council Nene, you have concerns about uh replenishing um the funding that would the 1.9 million. You know, we have several open positions at the police department. We're freezing some. Those aren't going to get filled right away. So, that's part of the what the process is where the money comes back. U my concerns are, I mean, I'm not going to speak to the fire department. I, you know, I've been aware of their um their overtime budget, but he has contractual. The police department does not have a minimum manning. um they attempt to send detectives home or send officers home or not hire supervisors for a full shift. On the overnight shift instead of doing two for eight hours, they'll have one maybe for four hours. They try to do it based on call volume, times of year. Um unfortunately, April is April into May when it starts getting warm is our busiest time of years. I mean, we can talk to the chief, but their increases aren't that great and considering their colas were 2.5, their ask for their overtime was less than that. Um, so I think they're just going based on historically where they end up. You know, it has in historically when when I was the police chief, if we went overdrawn on our overtime at the end of the year, we would have to do a a budget transfer and take it from our salary line to cover that. [cough and clears throat]

So, it is up to you folks what you want to do, but really there isn't a lot that we can cut. And I I do agree with the fire chief that his hands are pretty much tied because he has a minimum manning in his collective buying agreement. Counc.

Um so when we we're talking about overtime for like clear clearing the field for instance um any of the money that is generated from renting the field um or any of our fields for that matter, where's where's that money go? Um and does it ever offset any of our overtime costs? I would ask director Roy if she could comment on that, but I do know that uh Deputy Director Bates gets with the school uh and and talks about uh most of the capital items are shared 50/50 between our budget and PW items for those spaces as well as the school. So, it's a 50/50 funding on most items. As far as the overtime goes, I I would have to come back with you some information if Director Wright can help. It does seem that we do collect revenues for for some of these things. So, yeah, if you could speak to that.

Correct. It's right in the general fund. Um under the interest, rents and royalties, you'll see um rental for other you'll see rental for city event fees um for facilities. You'll see that there is one facility um that goes into a separate account for um for field replacement for field. So that that's not in our general fund and that can be used to put towards when they have to repplenish and redo the um turf field. So we're sticking it into the into the general fund pot and then paying for the overtime through our regular budget process. Correct.

Okay. Um and and that we're not splitting those revenues uh with the school system where we are not for that that certain um field that does the turf. It goes into an account. So the school does know um and we have that balance and they know the balance and when they're looking at when they're going to replace that. So they do um it's a benefit for both the city and school for that field.

Okay. Gotcha. And just really quickly to the to the police overtime, I don't have an issue with the police overtime uh at all. I do think, and I brought this up privately, that at some point in time, um the contractual agreements that have the starting schedules of uh 7:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. should be looked at because in all honesty, we know that calls for service early in the morning um are lower. and if we could figure out ways to to better staff overall um that possibly we could reduce some overtime costs, but that's a contractual agreement conversation. You have to reopen uh those contracts to even talk about that. And so um it just seems like we're we're wedged for changes that we want to try to make to save money by what's in the contractual agreements.

Well, there is in the collective bargaining agreement for the patrol and detectives union what's called we used to call it's called a lobster shift. um where you have officers come in later [cough] in the afternoon and work over so they're they're covering so you don't have to hire overtime. Unfortunately, you're not able to man that when you don't have the staffing. So, that's another, you know, and we've try we try to do that where we try to limit um but the problem is when you don't have the full staffing, it's very difficult for the chief to accomplish that. But that is already in the collective buying agreement that lobster which is an overlap shift. Um so you don't have to hire somebody for an eight hour shift. You kind of do the hours where it's busy. You know, historically, you know, calls for service kind of dip around 3 and then they pick back up as people start leaving work. You get car accidents, things along those nature, and then things kind of die down and then they pick up again as it gets a little bit later in the evening. So, that shift has been used in the past, but the problem is with the the number of offices that uh Chief Connley has to utilize is is not available to do that.

Completely understood. And I also understand that right now the police department's dealing with a hu huge amount of behavioral health issues that at the end of the day that they don't necessarily um we're managing behaviors as opposed to actually managing crime. Um so um yeah, councelor Roy. Thank you. Um I just want to say like first and foremost I I do not want to jeopardize any safety or anything like that. I mean being tasked with trying to cut some revenue uh some some expenditures here. I um you know looking at that number is really big and I really appreciate you know the directors coming out and saying what they said you know to let everybody know but again trying to save some money. I mean this number overtime is usually a a big thing with every business right uh and you try to cut it. So but I appreciate it. Um, and I do not like again I'm I'm not looking at jeopardizing anybody or safety or anything like that, but I just had to we have to look at that. So,

Director Ger, you have a comment?

Uh, yes. It it goes to a little bit what councelor Roy was just talking about. Um, unfortunately, I' I've been here long enough to to not be the director, but I've seen a lot of the different phases of what we've done. Uh, and probably 10 or 15 years ago, we we had what we would call elective overtime, right? So, we would do some specialty projects, get caught up on some things that weren't necessarily essential. I'll tell you that we made that switch about 10 years ago or longer. So, [snorts] it's been a very conservative effort. uh and it's kind of built into our budgets now where it's not there for you all to to cut because we are I think I would say we're pretty much down to essential uh functions. Uh whether it's mowing after hours and we're trying to stay compliant with the the city ordinance that all lots are mowed and not grow to a certain height uh or other safety concerns. So um I just want to acknowledge that that you know we have been trimming it over the years and what we're left is is basically I think essential functions.

Thank you director. Um I I do want to make a comment that yes I I don't I don't um allege that there is any frivolous overtime. Um, as I said at an earlier council meeting, what we're looking at is is do we hit the taxpayer in the pocketbook or do we hit the taxpayer by reducing services? And I think my position on overtime is yes, any overtime reductions, particularly in public works, um, are going to result in a reduction of services. Are the roads going to be plowed as quickly in the morning? Are they going to be ready to go for the commuters? uh is the grass going to be allowed to exceed the the city ordinance maximum height? Um, these are things I think that would be reductions in services but could uh afford a also a corresponding reduction in overtime. And I would on behalf of the council ask you to meet with the administrator and look very carefully at what are those less than essential services that could be eliminated by taking the overtime out. Um, that's that's the choice we're faced with. we're all looking at tough decisions and we reduce services or we increase taxes. So, it's a balance of those. Thank you.

So, I think with that, I think we can have these conversations uh come back. We have another meeting on Tuesday evening um and continue this conversation. But I think it'll be worthwhile for us to sit down, have some conversations, see where we could find some potential savings uh and report back. Um, if that's a a good next step, uh, that sounds fine to me. Councelor Nine, you there are a couple other items on here that we may want to address, but go ahead. Well, no, go ahead, Council Ch.

Well, I was looking at another unchecked line here is the vehicle replacement program. Um, stretching vehicles out to 120,000 miles instead of 100 or 100 instead of 80 or whatever the numbers are. um making a vehicle last another year uh across the board. Uh and I'm wondering if that's uh something that the council wants to talk about or if it makes any sense at all from administration standpoint to say let's let's stretch out the vehicle make get extract every single ounce of use we can from them or is that a different

Yeah, I think we're looking at if there are ideas to throw out, let's let's hear them. Let's get an idea of what we're looking for and then we can go back, have some discussions, get some information like I said uh and come back with just some more uh information and some more kind of fruitful answers to go forward if that makes sense. So maybe um give us a little bit more flavor of what we're we're looking for uh and then we can we can meet with the respective staff uh and come back with some some information and some potential impacts or where we can get by. If if that makes sense, we can proceed that way. So, yeah, I I would support checking with the different directors to find out one if there's any vehicles that are being requested this year, either in the LCIP or the regular, aside from the take-home cars, if we can remove them from from the budget this year. Um, [cough and clears throat] and you know, we may be able to add them next year, we might not. Who knows? Um, and extend that uh vehicle replacement schedule by 20% across the board for all for all departments with the exception Well, I guess Yeah. And so you're looking for specifically 20%.

I think 20% is good, but you know, if a director says, "Hey, we can extend it by 50%." Great. Let's do that [laughter] because I have I imagine what's going to happen is all the directors are going to be like, "I don't think we can do 5%." But let's have the conversation. And and and and if we you know, these are these are fixed costs that we're that we experience every year. And if we can if we can extend out uh if we can go a little longer, if we can limp a truck uh for a year um and it's going to save us on both the LCIP and the regular uh budget, then let's do it. I mean, I've seen there's some municipalities that have um you know, trucks held together by you know, duct tape that are do that are doing work for the city, right? Like go look at the the Freeport dump trucks. like, you know, they're they're [laughter] um you know, [clears throat] I'm trying to save money somewhere. A fancy truck uh with a new logo on it. Everybody loves it, but at the end of the day, like we're talking about possibly cutting jobs, so like let's figure out a way to to cut the budget first.

Good. Good. Director G, you have a comment you'd like to make?

Yes. Uh definitely plan on meeting with Administrator Krath as he stated. Um, but just for your but more the public's reference, uh, in the FY27 LCIP, all the public works vehicles that are proposed are on page 65 and 66. Uh, they have outlined the years. I believe we have some that are in there with mileage. Um, not all public works vehicles get a lot of mileage. A lot of that is actually run hours. Um, that list is prioritized. The top of the list is the highest priority. the bottom of the list is the lowest priority. Uh and we will go through that list with administration and come back with you some suggestions.

Very much appreciated. Thank you, Deputy Administrator Ali.

I just wanted to point out that all the vehicles are in the LCIP council and Nene. There's nothing else in the budget. Uh the only item I have unless I've mis ticked things here is wage reduction and I'm wondering if the council would be interested in asking administration to revisit with the unions the potential of foregoing or reducing the amount of steps colas etc. Um as deputy administrator Ali indicated some many decades ago this was done. I believe that the outcome was that the union said yes, rather than lose employees, we will take a small hiatus. If I'm misspeaking, please correct me.

No, you are correct. At the time, um, we were told there were going to be two police officers that were going to be laid off if we didn't vote back our 3% cola. But I think those were different times. Um, but we can ask. I'd like to have the council's consensus on that. I mean, [cough and clears throat] my own personal philosophy is if you don't ask the question, you'll never get the answer. But if we're looking at the potential of laying off eight employees out of our workforce, uh, and an alternative is for the employees collectively to say, "Yeah, we'll take a little bit back." Um, that seems to me a question worth asking. Cons.

Um, yes, I strongly support, um, having that conversation. I think the truth is, um, tier three I I'm still 100% in support of. And so, you know, if we could figure out ways to cut um some of those expenses, maybe I change my my opinion on tier three. Um but staff costs are are it's hard because they're going to increase every year. Um it's just it's just what it is. So if if there's if we're facing the possibility of layoffs versus having conversations about h everybody's strapped for cash and and that the the taxes are unrelenting at this moment due to and we should have the conversation about the county as well at some point in time but and the school in when we go around here. Councelor Herman.

Thank you. Yes. Um I'm still in favor of tier three with no take-home vehicles and uh I would be in favor of asking the question if if unions would be amendable to that. Um I agree with you. If we don't ask the question, we won't get the answer. Administrator, just so we're clear, what units are we approaching? All of them or what units are we asking this question? For me personally, it's every everyone who has contract with the city. Okay.

Any other counselor comments? [cough] Administrator, [clears throat] do you feel that this was uh productive?

Yeah, I think this was actually productive. I think we got some good consensus on some things. I do just want to reiterate again, if you are thinking about uh amendments uh for the budget that you want us to help you uh work up or craft something that you're interested in proposing uh to the council, we are available uh to do that. Um May 5th uh is um slated to be our budget approval evening. Um as you know we have we do have until the end of May but uh May 5th is on the calendar for budget approval. Um so if you are looking at amendments to offer we're happy to help um work those up whatever ideas you may have. And when you say amendments, do you mean we think uh department I'm picking one here. 4155 line 412000 could be cut in half. Is that the sort of amendment?

Whatever you'd like to do for the budget. Correct. Okay. Councelor Harman. Yes. I I guess I have some questions about that process. It's new to me. Um, would it make more sense to to offer suggestions during the crafting of the budget rather than to have a final budget and then make a formal amendment that's brand new that that hasn't [clears throat] had other considerations with other people and other effects on other parts of the budget? It seems like in years past we've gone through the budget and made these suggestions as the budget was being put together rather than having a final product on the table with a formal amendment that's brand new that night.

So maybe I'll bring more of a process to to you guys then. Um I think the point of these workshops is to get as much consensus as possible around items. I guess what I'm saying is I think there still may be some extraneous issues that one or two counselors do support that they may want to offer something um to the body. still just from what I'm hearing there are some ideas out there with a few counselors that are not part of the general consensus right now maybe that may want to be offered. So I think that's where I was going with that. Um but I guess I was also expecting this is just how it works many other places that on the evening of the budget there will be a number of amendments offered uh by counselors uh to amend the budget. Um maybe that hasn't been the historic process here, but it's certainly how it could work.

And obviously it would be advantageous to have those amendments prior to known well in advance of and honestly just to help you guys work up what ideas you have to to amend the budget. Okay, Council Harmon. Yeah, that that was my concern was that it seems like it would make more sense to have these things brought up sooner in the process rather than having them brought up on the final vote um so that people have more time to consider them and to consider what the effects might be on the budget. It just seems it seems like if you put any changes off until the very last night that it's it's hard for people to make those decisions in the at the very last minute.

Yeah. No, I think that's the purpose of the workshops. I think we're we're coming to consensus on a lot of items. Um but I guess my my general point is if there are still some things that a counselor wants to offer, there is a process to do that legislatively. I'll say councelor Herman councel long I think throughout this whole process and correct me if I'm wrong we have had uh the opportunity to come to you and with amendments at any time now whether you agreed with them or not uh but you have had that open door of course um

I just have a couple questions about the budget so frozen positions how many do we have right No. 12 12 12 in total. So we have 12. And where are they from? Eight. Eight are from public works, one is from finance, and I believe three is from PD.

Okay. So we have 12. um when you originally started uh the budget process and correct me if I'm wrong with this number, but I believe you guys had said you were did your best to shut off basically a little over 4 million. Is that correct? Correct. Which included frozen positions. So the the positions that were frozen last year were carried over uh and we added five more six six more positions this year. Six and six.

Thank you. That was my only questions I had for that. Thank you, Councilman Eene. So for positions that were frozen like two, three, four years ago, those are just dis they're gone now, right? They're not just continually carried forward. They're not frozen. are mostly in in public works and uh we have some MP in PD that have been frozen for numerous years now. Okay. And a lot of that comes back to recruitment. So we're not budgeting for those positions because we know we can't fill them. We've had difficulty recruiting. Correct.

Yeah. Okay. Um, so this is on topic but slightly to the side, which is I really want to encourage the council um to craft a letter for the county uh to talk about the 14% increase last year and the 20% increase this year. [cough] It's unsustainable. Um we're still we still don't have a jail um which is going to be whenever the that funding comes through. I'm sure we're going to get nailed with that too. And so I think it's important that we advocate for ourselves on some of these fixed costs that we don't have a lot of control over. And I know that you sit on the the county commission as well as um uh Mr. Reid and uh um I'm blanking on her name.

There were there are six members from Lewon who sit on the uh Andrew Scoggin budget committee. Okay. Um and and I if I could please interrupt you. Um, your point is well taken, but the letter should be addressed to Augusta, not to the county because the county is suffering under the same external forces that we are here. We just need to advocate for ourselves.

I agree. Like ultimately, if we're not if we're not stating that these increases, we're bearing the burden of of being a community that has some assets. Like I just look at communities in Andrew County that their asset class hasn't changed in 20 years because they're pastorial uh uh you know subdivisions and and we're we're bearing the burden of all the of the cost of of the county while also not getting the level of support for the needed services that we're required to provide in this community. And so it's a it's a real challenge for me and I think that it we need to advocate better for ourselves. So, uh, I would suggest a letter to Augusta, um, also concerning, um, the sheer amount of needs-based services that are based in this community that there's mandates for that we're bearing the burden of without uh, compensation. We're picking up the tab for the entire region. And it's not just us. August. Um, Auburn is also dealing with some of this, but it's it's there's a lot of services there that like we're required to provide that we're not capable of doing right now with the budgets that we have. So,

there's no argument from me. Council Nene, may I task you with drafting that letter for consideration by the by the council? I would love to. Thank you. Anything further from the council council nine again? When will we find out? I I know the school budget was approved, but when when will it be presented to us? It was it was already presented to you when he came um last month when he went over um what they had for budgets. He had that slide and then he asked you about whether you guys wanted any discussion on the LCIP.

So that part has changed, right? Like that that the their budget has actually changed. It's now, I think, an 8% increase is what they're talking about. Could Could you speak to that, Council? Um, I don't know the exact number, but that that budget has gone up from the the superintendent's original um proposal. So, we it's increased

from the from the very original proposal. Uh, we did add some positions back in to the budget. Um, but there were there were approximately 30 positions that were being cut and we added back in I think about five or six of them um before we finalized that last night. Okay. So, when does it come before us again? May 5th. May 5th. May 5th. Okay. Yeah.

I think I think I'll have a couple of comments on it. Um, just wanted to know when it was coming. Uh to that end, could we have a copy of the budget that will be presented to us on May 5th, tonight, tomorrow? I I I guess I'm asking councelor Haramman as a representative on school. Sure. I can um I can ask the superintendent to send us a a clean copy basically. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Councelor Nene,

the executive session I requested um can we have that um put on the books for since it's an executive session, it can be a special meeting for any day. I think I I'm convenient. I I'm not convenient. That's the wrong word. Um I I can make any date work. I don't know about everybody else. Uh this is an executive discussion to discuss with our council the with our consil our powers and duties under the charter. Okay. All right. Um yes we can certainly ask uh administration to put that on the agenda. I don't think that we want to do it on the 5th of May. Uh but perhaps on the 19th would be the meeting after that.

How about this Tuesday? How about as soon as possible? Um

administrator the agenda could be amended. We could uh find out availability from city attorney. It could be a special meeting as well. It could be on a Monday. It could be on a Wednesday. Tuesday. Uh it's difficult to talk about the need and necessity for the urgency of an executive session in public. Um, I I I'm trying to figure out what's the urgency here because we have to approve a budget and I think there's a discrepancy between [cough] the powers that I believe we have and the powers we've been told we have. And so ultimately, um, I want that clarification.

Um, if that question can be framed and put directly to council, this could be a relatively short executive session. Um, could we and it's it's very unusual to put it on the agenda now, Thursday. The agenda has been published. Yes, we can do that, but I would rather not. Um, we could have a special meeting. I How does the council feel about the urgency of this question? Does it merit a special meeting? Councelor Harmon, I would be okay with that. And I'm available most most nights. Um, I don't think it qualifies. [cough and clears throat] Deputy Director Omali, do you have a

Yeah, Council President Sham, I have concerns um that this can be even held in executive session. We could ask the city attorney to come and we could ask questions out in the public, but I don't believe talking about in terms of the budget process for the city council and what the roles are would would qualify as an executive session council. I mean, I can ask clarification from the city attorney. Um, so worst case scenario is he can just come and and sit in front of you here and you can ask him questions. I think that might be the better way to do it, but I'll double check with him, but I don't think it's going to fall as an executive session. Is it allowable to have that discussion that I could be wrong? I can check with the city attorney. Yeah, I would think that generally speaking, discussion with the city attorney does fall under executive se session privilege, but again, um

we can check and then we could schedule it before our workshop on Tuesday or if you want to hold a special meeting, we need a vote from the group of you or the mayor to call for a special meeting. uh would administration check with uh check with council to see whether or not as far as availability on Tuesday availability and whether or not this falls under executive session or it can be done in public before Tuesday this coming Tuesday we would amend the agenda and do it this Tuesday.

Yeah, I'm I'm uncomfortable with amending of the agenda. Um how do the other counselors feel about that? We have been um tried to be very careful about not putting agenda items out at the last minute. I'm fine with a special meeting whenever the first available date would be, which I think would be next Thursday. Thursday, we would have a workshop scheduled anyway. Correct. Let's do that. Let's let's consult with our attorney, find out whether a this is warrants executive session and b whether they're available on [snorts] a week from today. Councelor Harman.

Yes, I would I'm available next Thursday. I'd also add that um one of the permitted topics for an executive session is consultation between a body and its attorney concerning the legal rights and duties of the body. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Anything else, administrator? I think we're good here. All right. Without objection, then is that a request for recognition? Councelor Long.

Yes. Um I just have a quick question. Is it I don't know if I can ask councelor Nene um but I'd like to Is it because it's an uncomfortable conversation or No because I I've been Well, can you have this conversation after we adjourn? I'm just wondering why can't we do it in public? Well, we'll get an answer because I've been told that I can't do in public exactly what I want to do. Okay. All right. Let's let's get an answer for administration. [cough and clears throat] Um, there being no other interest in speaking, I by executive decision and unanimous consent declared. Thank you.