City Council - Regular Meeting

Hello and welcome to our uh Tuesday evening budget workshop. Uh as some of you know we will also have a special meeting that got advertised for 7. So we will uh start with the workshop. If the workshop is done by seven uh then there's that. Uh if not then at 7 we'll uh put the workshop on pause have our special meeting uh which I am not anticipating will take very long and then we'll come right back to the workshop but uh we're joined here by administrator Kanrath and director Roy please kick us off.

All right thank you Mr. Mayor. So I think uh tonight's workshop is largely going to center around we have two amendments that were offered by uh councilors councelor Naene and also councelor Chidum have two amendments they brought forward. So I don't know if we'd like to start with maybe them kind of introducing their amendments and the finance director to go through some of the numbers and the breakdown of those amendments if that if that makes sense or however you'd like to to proceed. We have two counselors who have sponsored amendments tonight um before us. Uh I I had previously spoken with uh director Roy. Maybe director Roy could go over the uh amendments and numbers and then we will uh kick it back to counselors.

So amendment one is council chidims. You have the paper in front of you. Um he's looking at the tier three without the take-home vehicles. If you remember um probably about three weeks ago we started the tier one, tier two, tier three. So those items were to um cover more of the homeless shelter from the tiff 106,66 um remove the vehicles for LATC the buses for 50,000. Uh the workers comp gap for reserves that we usually put a little bit in to to cover our unfunded 150,000. Um and council Chidum is requesting without the take-home vehicles. So we would remove the gas, the repairs and um the air cards and the auto insurance for 297500 55 250 18 198 and 120 120,000. So we would have to add back in the 10 vehicles minus the tradein as a reminder for 439,836 and then we have an increase when we open the gas bid. If you remember, we had that discussion of 116,985 and then we moved down to um some of the other smaller items move uh some of the salaries into utilities of 24,71. Um mileage and office supplies from the recreation 5,920 and 10,900. Uh repairs to the armory 8,500 and 10,000. and then removing the coaching under the miscellaneous of 22,000 and the community forums of 10,000. And then position three, if you remember, was in tier 2 um three positions 295,530.

And then the positions five uh five positions 45482 was a savings of 1,82826. And then we had where we're going to add the state revenue sharing up to 100% of 580,813 to revenue increase building inspection fees of 150,000 and use a fund balance to to get to the 9% of 1,950153. And then additional to those three tiers that we had discussed, um, council Chim would like to see from the supply lines 330,000 um, two additional positions of 176 328. Those, I believe, are the two um, vacancies that were discussed last week, one police officer, one firefighter. and then um the request for other fees of 2,600 to be removed. So that would be a savings of 4,272720. And then on the next page, you can see the tax rate sheet and how that would um affect it would uh reduce the operating expenses for the city to 3.8%. and would bring down the proposed tax rate to 2.5% which is below the CPI. So that was C council Chidam's amendment. Next was councelor Na Jean's amendment to remove um the same items as councelor Chidum for the um without with the take-home vehicles. So we wouldn't be removing any of the police um that we that council churn is requesting. So the first item of course is the homeless shelter. We would cover 106,666

from the tiff. Next is the vehicle for the buses 50,000. The workers comp gas uh gap for reserve 150,000. Mileage and office supplies from the recreation 5,920 and 10,900. Uh armory repairs to building 8,500 and 10,000. Miscellaneous services for coaching 22,000. Miscellaneous services for community forum for 10,000. And then we would add the gas bid in um the increase of 116,985. And then again the revenue Sharon up to the 100% of 580 813 build and inspection fees of 150,000 and then the fund balance up to 9% a million 9501 153 um would get us to the 2 million3 uh sorry 2,937 967 and then additionally um director Gagn sent out an email to all of you on May 7th on some items items that could be removed out of um open spaces. So they spoke about adding back to sales of timber uh 50,000. So that's adding revenue. Um removing repairs to building 66,000 removing um 7,600 from repairs to grounds and removing 20,000 from miscellaneous services and then removing 7,500 from the downtown program which would be a savings of 151,100. And then additionally um requesting positions um the MIS director, the senior assessor, the HR technician, uh another police officer to be frozen,

two firefighters to be frozen, a case worker, and the recreation administration assistant, and then all the benefits below are um 874,571 together. So in total the savings would be 3,963 638. On the next page is the tax rate sheet. That would bring the operating expenses down to 4.4% for the city and would bring the proposed tax rate down to 3.3 right at that CPI.

Uh thank you. Um, anything further, director Roy or Administrator Kane Wrath?

I would just like to mention on the supplies um with the I I took the supplies and I did like 10% across the board. The largest ones of course if you are going to keep the um police officers vehicles in for the take-home that is one of the largest along with the gas. So, if you want to reduce supplies, the largest ones are the gas from Central Garage, which is going to be needed, um, and the gas for PD take-home, and then of course sand and salt. Those are the three largest reductions if you're looking at taking 10% off the supply line. I just wanted to mention that. Thank you. Administrator Kane, did you have anything?

I think we're ready for questions. Yeah.

Discussion. Uh so what I'd like to do is just proceed here in an orderly fashion with counselors and we're going to start with a counselor from Ward one. We're go down the row. Uh like to hear what you think about each proposal. Uh where you're at if you have questions. Uh can the department heads please raise their hand? Those of you that are in the audience, we have a number of department heads here. Uh yeah. Okay. I was looking for our public works director. I found him. Um yeah. So uh yeah, we'll just go down the line uh for which proposal you support uh or what support what proposal you support with modifications if you have any and then uh questions uh for department heads etc. We'll we'll go there. Counselor from W one.

Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. Um this wasn't easy. Um and I worked with uh councelor Long Champamps on much of this. Um and the feeling was um at the time that council uh perhaps did not support uh tier three cuts. And so we had worked through to try to figure out positions that um we could cut. Um and we've had conversations with um some of the directors um concerning these positions. some of the directors are not happy about the proposals that are being put forward. Um to be clear, um and I guess it's a it's a it's a starting place to have these conversations. Ultimately, um we know that we have to get the budget to at least the Northeast CPI. how we do that. You know, part of this I think we have an opportunity to hear from some folks um that um have some concerns about some of the positions um and that would may be able to weigh upon us about those decisions. But one way or the other, both of these proposals include cut positions. Uh the proposal uh from councelor Chidum's um the proposal councelor Chidum is putting out is um cutting more positions overall. One of the challenges that I absolutely have right now is looking at the way that each of the departments function um and the way that they're budgeted. Some of the departments are very very thin in their costs. You look at um the recreation department. Um they they don't even have a supply line. Um you look at the the cost for the library, it's very uh it's very low. And also the

staffing is very low. Um and some of these larger departments, you know, I was just going to say it. I'm very frustrated by the fact that we have to guarantee $1.7 million in overtime for the fire department and we're talking about cutting jobs. Um it's very disappointing to me. Um, we're stuck in contractual agreements that don't allow us to find any efficiencies in this city at all. And now we're talking about jobs and and and it does it it just doesn't sit right with me. Um, but that's uh and it's not just the fire department's contractual agreements. There are there are other inefficiencies that are built into the model that guarantee overtime for people while we're talking about cutting jobs and other departments and that is very challenging for me.

Good evening. Uh thank you all for being here. Uh this was not an easy task at all. Um, as councelor Naene shared, whether it was whether it be uh the proposal that we brought forward um with these amendments or councelor Chidums um or if we left it for our administrator, unfortunately um we were looking at positions um having to go and it it is unfortunate. I wish we weren't in this situation. And this is probably the worst part of actually it is the worst part of something I think I've ever had to do. And um I'd personally looked at every angle and tried to see where we could uh take out supplies, take out uh we really really looked at everything and I just don't see any other we actually don't have any other option um besides using more of our fund balance and we don't have we we can't go below a certain number and to be quite honest, we don't have the votes for that. So, we've used as much fund balance as everyone is willing to um give. We've done the best we could to um try to look at every department and but the one thing we know is we do have to lessen the tax burden uh for the citizens of Lewon. And I'd like to just apologize uh to anyone that uh this is going to hurt because it is going to. And I am in support of uh the um amendments that councelor Naene did put forward. Um

and I would like to talk about the supply uh list at later on. Thank you. Uh, councelor Herman. Thank you. Uh, Director Roy, could you remind us what the gas bid increase is on both of these? That was that was when we opened the gas bid. So, when we do the budget, we don't have the gas numbers yet. And as you remember, we waited a little bit because it had spiked so high. Um, and then we we did the gas bid so that we did the adjustment of what it would be for that half a year. Um, so we needed to increase the budget that 116. So we put that in there.

Okay. So that's just that's just the increase over last year when the bid was open. Correct. For what we had estimated for an amount for gas. Um, it was around the same as what we had for this year and then all of a sudden gas just went right up due to the issues that are going on. Okay. Thank you. Uh, anything else, councelor Herman? Uh, no. Just seeing this and digesting it and I may have more comments later. Do you have an idea about which amendment you're supporting at this point if any?

I will have to look them over first. Uh, I'm going to go at the end. Uh, councelor Roy.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'll echo a few of our counselors that went before me. This is definitely not easy. Um, I never really thought we'd be here. Um, out of both of these, I mean, I'm going to go with the one that cuts less positions because I was not in favor of cutting any positions at all, but unfortunately, I don't see us getting to a point of where we can do anything without cutting positions. Um, the only other suggestion I would say and I and I don't I don't like this suggestion is with going with council councelor Nene's proposal, but I mean if we're talking about cutting positions and we're putting in take-home cars, I I'm having a problem with that. I know the police department needs people and I'm torn right now with this because I see people's jobs on the line and I see cars, you know, that we're buying and I know it's going to be an added value to get police officers, but and I know we need it because the city right now, we need a spark. We need something to change things right now. Um, I would I'm leaning towards Council Aene's proposal and I'm just torn with the cars because I just don't know what the right way to go is with that. Um, because I've heard people on both sides. So, that's that's my thing. I'm leaning towards counciling because it's the less the the least amount of positions cut. So that would be what I'm looking at right now.

Councelor Noble, your thoughts? Um, so how many of these positions, how many of these people have bumping rights?

So, um, I'm just going off of memory right now. And one second, Administrator Kenrath, can you for the general public, can you just explain what a bumping right is?

Sure. Or deputy administrator can also chime in on this, but uh this is your ability to uh bump or or take the position of someone uh in your unit under the same contract um of lesser seniority that a position that you're qualified for. Um and you would have bumping rights um to do that. So, uh, one, two, I believe there are four. Um, deputy administrator, is that correct? Three or four? I believe there are three. Couple of these positions are not union positions. Um, I'm not sure if one of them has any seniority to bump anyone, but I believe it's just three that have.

Is it just three? I'm counting recreation admin. I'm counting case worker. I'm counting MIS operations. and senior assessor. You are correct. Four correct. Yep.

Um and also I'm curious at like how these jobs will be absorbed like what's will we just not do them anymore? The positions are gone. So, I'm I'm definitely very concerned about the case manager position, especially when general assistance is one of the biggest expenses we have. I don't know who's going to do that job if we get rid of the case manager position. That's one concern I have. Um and then also the MIS um director and the operations specialist. Who's going to do that? And and is there a whole like I'm just curious who's going to do these the jobs that we're getting rid of? What's going to they're going to absorb and other people are going to do them with no benefit, no pay raise. They're just going to have to do the job, right? Is that basically

to answer the question? Obviously, departments are going to have to to reorganize and reassess how their operations are functioning and obviously there will be uh clearly more being put onto the plate of other existing employees. Uh in the case of uh you mentioned the MIS director, we would obviously have to figure out um what to do with that department as far as oversight where it could go. It involves some reorganization for sure. So uh depending on what the outcome is here, there would certainly have to be some reassessments done in departments of how to redistribute these duties uh and in that particular particular case, how to handle oversight of that department. Thank you,

councelor Chidum.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I have proposed that we go with the tier three uh with no take-home vehicles like councelor Roy. I feel that if we are buying vehicles at the expense of people's jobs, um that's not a fair trade, not a good deal, uh for the city. I fully appreciate the police department's uh rational explanation for the need for these cars. Uh but to lay off an individual and still purchase those cars is it just doesn't seem right to me. Um, I will confess that councelor Nene picked up an area of $151,000 that I missed completely. Um, and that is the uh uh sale of timber and the other cuts that the director of public works has offered up uh as a sacrificial lamb, if you will. Um, I wouldn't endorse those, uh, particularly given that they have, if not the support, at least the grudging acquiescence of the public works director. Um, I would like to point out that my request for $300,000 off the supplies line was not the way to do that is to look at 10% off every line, but the goal is obviously if we need gas to run the vehicles, we spend that. So, if there is a way that we can find roughly 10% in the entire supply line. I do recognize that at least one department has already given up essentially all of that department's supplies. Uh and I want to call that out that that was recognized. So $300,000 off the supply line. Uh the tier three which we talked about would remove eight positions if the $151,000 is incorporated. And I will point out there's a lot of overlap between councelor Nijene, councelor Longamp's uh proposal and mine. Uh my proposal would call for 10 cuts. Um if

the $151,000, which was not included in my amendment, is is uh actually effectuated, then that would reduce that to no more than nine and possibly even the eight that had originally been contemplated in uh the tier three. It goes without saying that this gives me no pleasure. None of us have any desire to do this. We recognize that losing your job uh is a is a life-changing event. Um that has to be weighed against the the increased costs right now uh 7.98% uh tax increase with the anticipation that there's going to be a very significant bump next year as a result of the implementation of the new assessments. Um, so that in some is where I'm proposing. Uh, it it does with the inclusion of director GE's uh $151,000. It does uh equal the number of cuts that council and councelor Longamp have proposed. I think there are nine there. Uh, and this would be eight plus one rather than plus two. So, both of them unfortunately entailed the loss of nine valuable positions. Um, I'd like to talk a little bit about what happens when those jobs are lost. I've explained to my constituents that when we cut jobs, we also of necessity cut services. So, there's a valiant attempt to distribute the the work among the remaining employees. Um, that's a valid approach, but I think it puts an undue burden on those folks that remain, um, I would suggest that rather than trying to distribute the work that we look at cutting services, uh, which is really what this is all about. The people who work for this city uh,

loyally and diligently are after all doing nothing but providing a service to the work to the to the public. So losing those jobs in my mind equates to a reduction in services. Obviously there'll be some translation and and uh reassignment of work. But I think that we need to recognize that costing jobs is costing services and the taxpayers have to recognize that as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I want low taxes and I want uh immaculate streets. I want uh a police force that prohibits crime completely. I want all these things but I don't want to pay for them. Uh and that's just not reality. Uh in some I'm I'm very comfortable with councelor Nene councelor Long Champamp's uh proposals with a few amendments. Um particularly since I I admit I missed director GY's $151,000 contribution to uh reduction of the the overages and the expenses. Um, I I'm happy to answer any questions about my proposal if they come up.

Uh, Council Martell, we're up to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, it was just a couple weeks ago that you ignored the stated agenda for a budget workshop to discuss the reevaluation due to public concerns. I'd like to ask you to pause this meeting right now, address the multiple shootings, the kidnapping and torture that happened recently, and someone using a vehicle as a weapon in an attempt to maim or murder another Lewon resident. This is a extreme crisis, a public safety crisis that we're dealing with right now that trumps uh the concerns of the valuation, I would say, and you were willing to uh ignore a previous budget agenda to address that issue. So, I'm asking if you'd pause this meeting right now and open that conversation.

Yeah, I will not. Uh thank you, Mark. Councelor Martell, do you have anything to talk about uh the current topic? We're talking about proposals amendment one and amendment two. Would you be willing to give me a reason why you're not willing to do that? We're here discussing for no other reason than this is a budget workshop. That was the case two weeks ago when you hijacked the meeting to discuss we will this is not up for debate. I'm not arguing with you. Do you have anything to add about the budget? Do you not feel like the public safety crisis warrants a discussion? If you're done discussing the budget or refuse to, we'll move on. I was hoping you'd answer us and the public that are kind of worried in our city right now. No.

Anything about the budget?

It's the kind of leadership I've come to expect from you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to address the budget. I will not support anything that uh gets rid of take-home cars for our police. We're not cutting any positions in order to to to provide these take-home cars for the police. We're bonding it. the budget actually goes down this year if we provide the take-home cuh cars cruisers for our police department. If there's anyone in the city right now that thinks that we don't need more police officers and more public safety, then I would invite them to come have a conversation with me after this meeting. As far as the budget goes, I am in favor of councelor Nene and councelor Long Champamp's presentation. uh it doesn't cut as much as I would like to cut. Uh I don't envy cutting anybody's jobs, but the bottom line is is that uh government doesn't owe you a job. And secondary to that, for everyone that sits up here and is uh upset about individuals having to lose their positions, I I can relate with that. And I don't I empathize with those that might lose their jobs. But I also sat with an 84 year old man two days ago that is too disabled to leave his home to get groceries. He paid off his house years ago, but he is in a position where he's now going to go back into debt with a home equity loan just to pay his taxes. Or the man that can't go to the store to get milk and bread is going to have to uproot his life, sell his home, and move because we're not willing to make the necessary cuts in order to ease this burden on our taxpayers. We continue to go back into the same pockets of the same taxpayers over and over again,

and it's just not sustainable. I don't like the idea that we're using all this fund balance. Um, this is what we've done for the three years leading up to this. Kick the can down the road, tap the savings, not make any cuts. It's unfortunate that this has all come to this crucible, this pinnacle where such drastic actions are necessary to remedy the ineptitude and the inaction of the majority of this council for three years, three budgets leading up to now. The reevaluation is separate from the tax burden. We don't have to collect any taxes that we don't spend. If we spend less, we can collect less. The re-evaluation is a fault that lies on both sides of the aisle over a number of administrations for 30 some odd years. No qualms with that. The spending has gotten out of control and that is why taxpayers are facing the burden that they are. So, I don't want to see anyone lose their job. But if you give me the option between someone losing their job or someone losing their home, I'm sorry, you're going to have to go find new work. Uh thank you counselors. Uh do we have um uh director of uh wreck here Nicole Welsh? Yes. Okay. Can you join us here?

Good evening. Good evening. Thank you for joining us, Director Welsh. Uh so we have here uh scheduled for uh elimination a recreation admin assistant. Uh can you explain what this position does and how this work might or might not uh uh be redistributed or how impact operations at the recck department?

Sure. Um so the recreation eb and assistant um some highle stats of what they do. Uh they complete thousands of invoices annually both coming in and out. um help uh help run the background checks for 110 volunteers annually. Onboarding uh paperwork process for 70 plus part-time uh employees annually uh in the last year daily cash ups totaling uh totaling more than half a million dollars. Um they deal with credit card reconciliations for five employees, weekly payroll troubleshooting, um the random things that happen at the armory. Um and also currently does our family uh payment plans for summer camps. Um again, that's just the kind of high level stuff. Um the biggest thing that this position offers is the customer service. is the face of the window is the person answering the phones, which sounds very um silly and basic. Um but they're asking they're answering questions about um one of more than 300 activities and events, walking people through registrations and troubleshooting accounts, sharing information about facility and athletic field rentals, greeting renters, greeting contractors. Um and uh all of these communications come through the form of 100 or so weekly phone calls, uh walk-ins, and email questions. um our other six full-time staff do assist with these um things, but what makes our department unique is that we are not a Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 office structure. We are a Sunday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on any given day, season night. We don't operate only out of the armory. We're at multiple sites and facilities around the city. Um and we operate that way because uh most the activities and programs are for youth and those happen outside school and working hours. Um so between uh employees who are working nights and weekends programs, daytime meetings and off-site programs. Um this

person is holding down the fort. There's often times where uh myself and our other employees have to come in late because there are evening meetings and weekend meetings. Um so if this position were be were going to be reducted uh we would see uh a lack of a lack of open office hours um programs and rentals. We'd also have to re-evaluate the time that um our age friendly program or position uh works with our uh Lewis and senior citizens. Right now it's kind of a split position. Um I'd recommend that some of those hours came back to the rec side instead of just the Louiswis and senior citizen side. Um, so this position holds down the fort uh while we are at Kennedy Park pool, track meets, collaboration meetings, coach trainings, camps, senior trips, practices, and all other hands-on deck occurrences that make the department what it is.

Thank you. Um, since we have director Rel here at the podium, do counselors have any questions u before I move to the next department head? Councelor Longs, thank you so much for being here during this uh very challenging time. Um in that department, can you tell me again how many people there are? We have uh seven full-time positions. Seven full-time.

Yep. And right now, um we've actually hit a good stride where we have one person assigned to kind of each uh pillar, if you will, or each silo. We have senior citizen and older adults. We have adult programs, youth programs, um uh summer camps, um youth and family events. So, we're kind of hitting every single um nugget right now.

Um they were all very difficult. Not one was more difficult than the other to be honest. Uh but um this here the wreck has done some really uh phenomenal work over the last few years. Um and what's amazing is it's not just kids, right? It's really helping our elderly and um so um yeah that and I have another question. Um, Kennedy Park pool. How much does that cost us a year?

Um, operations wise, I would defer to Director Gagnon. Um, I, uh, we usually bud at 60 to $65,000 for temporary wages. That is, um, roughly 7 and a half to eight weeks of temporary part-time employees. Um, and that also includes the cost of an aquatics director and any training that we need. Um, I'm just going to ask this question. if we were to not fund that uh the Kennedy Park pool and possibly put keep this position in, how would you feel about that? Honestly, I mean, this is probably going to sound very, you know, on the line. Uh both are needed.

Um they both serve very different purposes in the community. Um

one one is, you know, keeping day-to-day operations up and running at the armory. um while multiple staff are running around the city doing programs, events, meetings, collabs, and such. Um the pool is a literally like a uh a lifesaving skill building facility um that gives our um our our kids and families a chance to go swimming, not only just cooling off down in the summer. Um it often serves as a early employment um stage for a lot of our local youth. And it's important life-saving um skills that kids learn. Um, a lot of kids don't get to use pools, um, and don't have access to waterfronts. Um, if we were a coastal town, that might be different. Um, but having that pool open in the summer is really important for our younger residents to learn how to swim.

Thank you. That's that's it for now. Councelor Nene, did you have questions for our director? I do. Uh, director, could you just speak to the council concerning the currently one of your positions is self-funded through the programming that you're that you're actually budgeting, correct? Could you could you possibly speak to that? and also how the programs have built up over the past few years in order to create revenues to pay for a position.

Sure. Um so the position councelor Nene's talking about is the uh community sports a position. Um a couple of years ago uh we had a lot of residents who are looking to for ways to get access to the turf facilities. Um and those were uh folks of all ages. They were youth, they were adults. Um, so the community sports a position was created to help um schedule the athletic facility and build free opportunities for kids um who want to use the turf um to be able to get them. Um some examples of that uh program, what they're offering right now is they do a spring and summer popup turf program. Um where we literally go down there, we have three to four hours of turf time where there's uh cricket, um touch football, uh they play a lot of soccer, obviously um and they really get that turf time because you have these kids walking by these facilities like I want to be on the turf. I want to be on the the football field. This position actually lets those kids get on there. When they're there, they're supervised. are behaving and there's a mentorship kind of component to it too. This position also oversees our armory hoops league which is a free league that we work on with Tree Street Boys and Girls Club and Root Seller. Um it's a fiveweek league that we host at the armory um at zero cost for our kids. Um over the years we have anywhere between 125 to 175 kids participate in that. Um so they oversee a lot of those free opportunities but they also have to help pay for their position. Um, so the department covers the salary side. The benefits are still covered on the tax on the tax side. Um, so as part of that revenue generating piece, they help to run our youth basketball program, youth soccer program, T-ball program, and they also help uh with other programs that might need some assistance throughout the year.

And removing this position, would that affect your ability to generate revenues in order to pay for the for this position? Is it going to stretch? Like my question is right now I think we're all seeing that we need youth activity in our community that is positive with mentorship uh the presence of uh adults and and and uh older youth u being supportive uh role models. um removing uh the position that we that I've um proposed, does that hurt your ability to to actually run the department? As far as fundraising is concerned,

it's it's a it's a trickle effect. Um you know, the the thousand invoices I mentioned, um running background checks and volunteers, onboarding employees, um you know, the credit card cash ups like that all still has to happen. Um ultimately that would probably fall on myself and the deputy director. Um by that happening um we have then less opportunities to produce those community collaborations with people, train new employee uh train new uh coaches and such. Um and provide more programming support. Um it's uh a lot of these tasks have to be absorbed. Um and I think that we would see a a drop in services. We definitely wouldn't see any new programs in the next couple of years. Um, and and kind of how I mentioned earlier, we're we're really starting to hit our stride where we're fully staffed. We're starting to do some of those unique different programs. We have like a skateboarding program downtown now. We have 10 people sign up for that. We have an archery program. We have a safe sitter program. Um, we're really starting to hit those kind of niche programs. So, that way it's it's not just soccer anymore, you know, it's not just senior citizen bingo anymore. Um, we're really starting to activate not just the youth but more of the older population as well.

I assume that also provides supports for working families and opportunity for volunteering as well. Correct. Yes. Yep. 100%. Any other qu uh questions from counselors for Director Welsh? Uh, thank you, Director Welsh. Thank you. Uh, Chief Connley, if you could just join us at the podium here, that'd be lovely. So, uh, we have slated to freeze another, uh, police officer position. We already had two frozen. So, would this be a third or have I lost count? Four. Four. Four, I believe. This would bring it to four, I believe. So,

okay. And, uh, so how many positions does this leave open for your department? It's hard to keep up with the math on this. Um, so we currently have seven positions open right now. Um, it would be nine if you weren't counting the frozen that were already existing. Um, so if we have seven minus four, we'd have three open. Three open. Sorry, five. Five. Five open. Yeah.

Okay. And uh and you have some uh looking down the the the rest of the year, there are some uh officers uh who are going to be retiring. Correct. Yes, we have uh three that we know of that will be retiring. Um one's done in a couple weeks. We have one about a month from now and then one in September.

Okay. Uh, and then those positions would, you know, be open to um and then, uh, I think we've talked about in the past, uh, if, uh, police, um, were to get their take-home cruisers, what is your current best guess as to how many, um, officers, bluepins that would bring in? Our best guess at this point from what we're hearing is, and again I I hate to give you a guarantee, but um we've been told at least four. In the absence of the um uh the take-home police cruisers, uh we are unlikely just to get four blue puns to come on over.

It it doesn't know. I mean, we we've tried several things at this point, and that's that's really um this is kind of what we're looking at, the road we're going down. We think this is our, to be honest, our best option. Understood. Uh and then so it looks like uh from where I sit, perhaps um the the freezing of this position uh the department would be okay given the positions that are coming up uh that are going to be vacated or what what is your your thoughts on that? understanding that you would like to have no positions frozen.

Yeah, I mean certainly we we don't like having positions uh you know frozen, but you know the reality is is um you know the budget is is tight this year. We're aware of that and um you know I've done some of the numbers and looked at how things tend to eb and flow. Um you know it seems tight to say we're only going to have this many positions to fill, but the reality is I know then we'll have three more retirements and we could potentially have more. Um, so I I really to be honest think that the department can sustain that even should we get the take-home cars. Um, I think we'll be able to manage that. Okay. Thank you, Chief. I appreciate your um honest assessment here. Uh, yes. Questions for the chief while we got her here. Councelor Nijene.

Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, we had actually discussed this as well. I had called you to to ask whether or not you felt you could fill that position. Um and and the feeling I think was that you'd have a difficult time filling that position right now as well, right? Yes.

So, one of the questions that I have considering all of the frozen positions that we're looking at, I know that there's a $980,000 that is being uh um um transferred from the congressional uh spending account in into the take-home cars. Does the take-home car formulation and the cost drop based on the fact that that are we talking about five less cars because there's five less or four less cars because there's four less officers. Um could you speak to that at all?

So I don't know that it would necessarily lower the the cars. Um it could initially, but I think that the challenge with that, right, is you want all the vehicles to be sort of on that same line. Um, and should we fill those positions? But I mean, it's certainly something that we could we could look at. And I I don't know if you could answer this or not, but we were adding 10 cars back into the budget if we cut the take-home cars. From from my from my understanding, that is a low number. Correct. Normally be 15. I believe we requested 14 this year. Um, and that was cut down to 10. And right now we have 17 cars operational or I believe so.

Yeah. Out of a department of how many people? If we're full complement, we're 86. Um, right now we're at 77. How many times have we called out every officer uh on duty um in the past week?

Quite a bit. And it it's it's funny you bring that up. The the reality is is we had I'm sure many are aware of of the issues we're facing um in the city right now. Uh we had a situation just recently where with one of the shootings where we were fortunate to have an officer that wasn't working had come in early um and we were scrambling around to get him a car. Um and and that's you know obviously one of the other things that we look at with you know is is the take-home car a recruitment thing? Yes. But it's also a deterrent. It's a having officers be ready to go ready available to respond at any time. And you know, we've had several incidents in the past month, unfortunately, where we've had people doubled up in, you know, CI cars, which is our detective cars that don't have necessarily lights and sirens or at least the cages and all the equipment that you need. Um, and that's that's certainly a challenge for us at times. I

I think speaking to the operational readiness of the department, uh, having the tools in order to respond, I I I can speak to a week ago I had a vehicle show up on my front lawn that was um that had been stolen. Um and uh the people who had stolen the car ran away and we had uh I think seven uh officers respond to it um at 1:00 in the morning. Um and you know this is happening in in my neighborhood. The shooting uh that happened on Avon Street is right down the street. Um, I think it's it's tough when we look at new programs, but I think there are ve very valid arguments for why um we have to consider this, including the fact that it reduces the overall budget for next year, the year after, and the year after for for vehicle replacement, which makes it easier when we're trying to figure out where to where revenues are coming from.

Uh, Council Long, did you have something?

Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Chief. Um when we looked at uh your department um you know we recognized that you did have two frozen from last year. Um and during the beginning of our budget process you guys um were willing to freeze another one and then we came back and asked for another one. Uh so that's four in total and uh we greatly appreciate it. Um, also from my understanding, if for some reason all of the positions are filled and we find the need to add another one, you can always come back to council and uh request that. Uh, without a doubt, we have to figure out a way to attract people to come and work here uh in Lewon. And I I understand that, you know, each year we're always adding something new or trying something different to recruit people, but that's what recruitment is. um you know just a few days ago we had a few hours spanned I want to say from like 1 to 4 1 to 5 where on house street uh I was actually right there uh when two um groups of young adults and teenagers were firing at each other um and I can't tell you how many police uh were there and then just continued to show up to surround that building and shortly after that um we had a fire on Bradley Street where then police needed to be there and then shortly after that we had a car that uh hit a pedestrian purposely um um and there were lots of dangers

surrounding that. So without a doubt, um we have to find ways to recruit. Um you know, I've been in support of this and and I just hope with the recent events that have happened, um this is what we're what we're up against. Uh spring is here. Um we've had several several uh shootings and Excuse me, counselor. Do you have questions for the chief? Well, I'm not done yet. Yeah. Well, please continue with your questions.

You know, so there's reasons why we need to support uh the take-home vehicles. Um and I just wanted to express obviously uh those things that have just occurred in hopes that you do get the support that our police department does need. Thank you. Thank you. Uh any questions for the chief? Yes. Councelor Chidum and then councelor Martell. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, Chief, thank you for all of your service and that of your department. Uh, one quick question for you. Are you aware of how many other local municipalities have take-home vehicles in the state of Maine?

So, we would be the first, uh, larger department. So, um, throughout the state, you obviously have like the the various counties and the state police and I believe there's one small one, I don't want to misquote it, like Wisconsin or something along, but we would certainly be the largest municipal a or the first municipal agency of our size in the state. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Chief. Um, I just want to accommodate you and your staff for dealing with the third world crime and chaos that Lewon seems to have been come under. Um, Council Long Champs mentioned a lot of the things that have been going on lately. I just wanted to point out the recent uh kidnapping and torture. This is not Maine. This is not Lewon. Sometimes I wonder if this even represents or reflects the United States of America anymore. This is a tragedy and I hope you get the help you need. Chief Mark, I I do have a question for the chief. Do you think it makes it easier or harder to to combat the crime that's going on in this city? Uh being down seven or nine officers, it's certainly certainly more of a challenge.

Thank you for that answer, Chief. Have a nice night. Uh that's everything for right now. Thank you very much. Uh Chief, do we have uh uh the fire chief here? Chief Karen, please join us. So, on the amendment two proposal, we have uh two additional firefighters slated to be frozen. Um will this uh you know, I had concerns the other night that even one would affect overtime, I guess. Can you uh can you speak to that? Yes. So,

or or your thoughts in general on this, too? When I was asked about potential cuts, I did propose that I could probably get by with one less entry- level firefighter, replacement firefighter. Um, when I said that, I was being extremely optimistic that next fiscal year that I would have less overtime and long-term injuries, less um long-term injuries and illnesses that I had this year. Um, two is not manageable. If you go forward and don't fund two of those positions, it will increase the budget, not decrease the budget. Um, I will be paying overtime every day instead of straight time at entry- level wages for that replacement person. Um, with if you didn't fund one, that would leave me two. And as I said, I could do the best job I could moving that person around um in the spots where they're needed to minimize the overtime, but if you don't fund two of those, I will only have one for the entire department across three shifts, and it will most certainly increase the overtime more than the reduction in salary of that person.

Uh thank you for that feedback. Uh, Chief Karen, do we have any uh questions for the fire chief uh since we got him here at the podium? Yes, councelor Niji.

It's more comments. Um, but part of it is a question as well. I I had talked about the two new uh programs, which was a fire marshal um and a um and the assistant fire chief, which who again apparently is not a new position. they they were there until 2010, the last time we had a serious financial impact to the city. Um, the challenge that I'm having is I I don't sit with the same view that some of the other counselors do. There there are two employees of uh this municipality that live within my neighborhood. Um, one of them is seeing cuts to their department. Um, and they're also taxpayers and a and they matter. Um, their jobs matter. Uh, their contributions matter. The challenge that I'm having is these are unfilled positions. And I understand that because of the inefficiencies in scheduling with with the with with the department. Um, we're stuck with this. And so like what I'm asking for ultimately going forward is a reorg so that we can I also admit the the city is 35 square miles. The reason why the fire departments are where the fire departments are is because we have to respond to fires all over the city and keep the city safe. There's no question that the work that the police that the fire department does is is essential to public safety in this community. Um, but these overtime lines when compared to losing a person's job in the city is challenging and I understand that we're underfunding this municipality and have been for a long time. We have to find a balance there somewhere and that's why that proposal came through with the two positions. If you're telling me how much that this is going to cost us more on the overall budget, I'd like to know how much it is. So

I with the current wage that'll be in place on July 1 with this the contractual increase an entry- level firefighter will be approximately $84,000 a year. If I was going to replace every one of those shifts at overtime at the median wage, it would cost $137,000. And I also went by and got some actual numbers from this current fiscal year. So to date, we've spent $83,000. The our persons have cost uh it's difficult for me to explain this in 10 minutes because it it's it's complex. So when I hire people, usually hire them in groups and they're even though we fund them for the entire fiscal year, they're they're not they're usually vacant for some portion of that time because as we hire people and then through attrition, they move up into permanent spots and then that spot is vacant and then we wait till we have at least two and then we hire because it's easier to hire two. We have economies, the scale of training and getting them assimilated to the department. it we don't just hire people and you know put them on the truck the next day. So it takes time to get them to get them trained for the job. So there is there's always a surplus in the regular salaries line due to those vacant positions. So even though we might fund three in reality you know uh it might be one and a half at the end of the year right after through the vacancies. Um, so for this current year, fiscal year, uh, we spent $83,000 on our personnel, replacement personnel.

If I had if those people were not available and I had to hire for the actual vacancy, person for person at that at that wage, the actual wage of the person who was out on injury, I would have spent $166,000. twice as much. The so the R the R our persons the replacement people that we're talking about are very cost effective. Uh councelor N or sorry uh councelor Longamps did you have a question for the

I have a question and I probably will have some comments. Um thank you chief for being here. Uh I am concerned uh with the overtime um if we do freeze these two positions and I was one of the counselors that because the positions um are not full at this time said you know let's freeze uh those positions but I do understand uh after you know you explaining this and and speaking with you um I am concerned about the two positions um and then there being a lot of overtime that the city then is having to absorb and pay in the long run. Um I'll be asking questions after the end of this to our administrator um regarding deductions maybe in different areas to fill maybe uh to put one of them back. But I don't think right now is the time for me to talk about that. Thank you.

Any uh Yes. Uh councelor uh Oh, councelor Martell. Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh thank you for coming tonight, Chief. Uh I've got a question. You said that an entrylevel firefighter makes roughly $85,000 a year. Is that the the rate that you quoted? 85,000. 84,000. 84. Okay. I used 85 for my math, but 85 times four. Say we opened and gave you four positions. 858 85,000 times four positions is $340,000. If we give you those four positions and the $340,000 to do it, can we take 500k from your overtime

and have you fill in the void there? You want to hire in groups, bring in four guys, entry level young bucks ready to do some work. You got a little bit of uh surplus there and we can cut your budget, your overtime budget, 500k, save the city 160 grand in the meantime. Could you make that work? No. Why?

Because the current the current budget for the overtime was based on having three replacement personnel already on the books. So, you're talking about only adding one additional person and and cutting the overtime by $500,000. I mean, I just it it doesn't seem like we can and I I don't want to seem like I've got something against the fire department. I I'm am very uh enthusiastic about public safety and and first responders. Uh it just seems like none of the proposals that that we give to you seem like they're going to work. Uh can't cut your overtime, can't freeze two positions. Uh we just got done listening to Chief Connley say she's down nine with the rash of violence that we're dealing with in the city right now. It's just um we're trying to work with you and and it just doesn't seem like there's any scenarios that we're able to present to you in order to to cut some money off the budget that that you find satisfactory. So, if what we're proposing doesn't work, I I would like to ask you to present us something that that you could finagle and could work in order so that we can take some money off the budget because um there's a lot of departments with at least or more o open positions right now and they might not all be as critical as the fire department and I understand that. Um but you know, I I just offered you four four positions. You're you're telling me it's one. I I don't know how to get that math there. I know two are frozen, but um there has to be something. So, if we're not getting there, would you present us wi with something so that we could take maybe a hundred couple hundred grand off off the budget and you can still uh fulfill your duties or is there just no scenario whatsoever where you can tap in cut your overtime or freeze a position or anything to to try and help with the taxpayer burden? So, I did offer that one our pos that entry level position

and I would do my best to make it work. However, I I think there's a misunderstanding amongst the council about the structure of the fire department and the operation of the fire department. Th this is not discretionary spending. I mean, is I I a few weeks ago when we had when I was here and we were talking about this, I tried to articulate that I'm contractually obligated to have 17 firefighters on duty every day. If there's a vacancy due to sick leave, family medical leave, injury, vacation, whatever it might be, I have to have another firefighter in that spot. And if I don't have a replacement, I'm paying overtime. So, it it's just it's not discretionary. I do do the very best I can to minimize the sick leave and to have a h a happy healthy workforce. Um but there's some things that are beyond my control. So I'm not sure if there's a misunderstanding there. But you know if I reduce the over or if you reduce the overtime line, it is entirely possible that at the end of the year there'll be a deficit in that account because when people come to work they need to be paid. I I it's just beyond my control. That that's not optional for me.

So, please help me understand how hiring four new entry level firefighters wouldn't be able to offset that. If someone calls out of work, having those additional staff, you you can't cover that at at straight pay with with additional spots and predictably be able to spend less on overtime if you have more staff to be able to fund straight time hours and meet your requirements. Well, that is true. It is cheaper and that's what I'm trying to articulate that having the operson is cheaper, but I have more than I could have five vacancies on any given day. It's not just one person and I'm going to plug it with the opers. I could have five people out a day. I mean, one person I'll have one our person available on that shift, but the other four are going to overtime. I I'm not um I'm I'm not able to see the the the connection here. So, um I'm just going to stand by what I said. like we we have to take money off the budget and it just seems like there's no scenario that's going to be palatable or um sufficient for you to meet your requirements. So, I mean what I'm hearing is like you know too bad we need the overtime and we can't cut more than one guy and and otherwise like what we're that that's what we've got to deal with. We are making cuts across the board. We're taking people's jobs and I just hear you say that, you know, your your willingness to to freeze one position. It just I don't know. I'm seeing a lot of people make a lot of sacrifices. We're we're seeing people uh regardless of what tier or what proposal we're going to go with is a lot of people across the city losing their jobs. And I absolutely appreciate I think you're an amazing advocate for your department. I I just uh we're we're charged with a

different task up here. And um you know, I I uh it it's just difficult to it's difficult to to make 2 and 2 plus 4 uh equal four. Sorry. Uh but I do appreciate what you do and I thank you for your service and that of your staff. It's not lost on me. Uh we're just trying to sharpen our pencil up here for the taxpayers and um I hope you understand that. Uh councelor Chinam, did you have something? I did. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chief, um when you do your calculus for how many people need to be on? I believe you said you you need to have 17 people on on duty. Yes. 24 hours a day.

Yes. H how does that is that frontline firefighters? Does that how does the administration figure into that? The point I'm getting to is that um does administration factor into that 17-man requirement? Uh do you have room in your upper echelons where you could distribute work or not do work uh by cutting an upper echelon position rather than a firefighter position?

So the 17 firefighting positions are all union members. They're it's it's contractual. Um I can't substitute I can't pick up a shift a vacancy and just you know work on the truck that day. I um so that that's all contractual language. Um the the other staff um is very is very busy. Um, if you're I'm not sure if you have a position in mind that you're suggesting, but the fire prevention staff is extremely busy all day long dealing with the unsafe conditions in the city and the blight, and it it's an enormous task. Um, if you spent a day with them, you would see what they deal with.

I'm not arguing that they're sitting around on their hands. What I'm suggesting is that if that is not a contractual requirement and I do think we ought to revisit these contracts when they come up and be aware of the the bind that this is putting the financial situation of the city and uh having this contractual requirement. There may be other uh considerations as well such as our bond rating and our our fire rating insurance costs and so on. I I fully appreciate that, but I do think we need to look at the contractual requirement. My question is specifically geared at the upper echelons, the administration of the department. And I'm not suggesting that they fill in for the front line. I'm suggesting that their positions a a position be eliminated and that that work either not be done or be distributed to other people. You've just told me that these people are extremely busy all day long. If that is truly the case, and I'm not doubting you at all, Chief Karen, uh then the work that they're doing would not be done. I alluded earlier to we're paying for services and if we don't pay for them, we don't get the services. So, can you can you talk to what happens? First of all, how many of your non-union upper echelon uh members of the fire department are there?

So, there's three. is myself, my assistant chief, and a deputy fire chief. And does everyone else factor into the 17 person per shift requirement?

No. So, we have a maintenance technician who's part of the the protek union. Uh he's not part of the the firefighters union, and there's two admin staff. The fire inspectors are covered under the same bargaining contract as the firefighters. And in that contractual language to eliminate one of those they would um the last time one was eliminated he had he was put on the floor as a firefighter. So it which would happen in this scenario that was arbitrated and so that scenario would repeat.

Okay. All right. So given that the constraint is that we require by contract 17 firefighters on three times a day. Uh that boils down then to the three that you've mentioned that are non-union members and the non-firefighting union members who presumably who may well have bumping rights. Is that correct? I'm assuming he would have the pro the maintenance tech would have bumping rights. I I don't know. But again, I can tell you that he's another employee that saves the city an enormous amount of money by by working on the vehicles instead of sending them all out to repair for quadruple what his hourly rate. So it I mean I would I would be reluctant to to let that position go. I think I think it it would cost the city more money.

Okay. Just so we understand each other, I'm reluctant to let anybody go as well, chief. So, I fully understand your position. So, what it sounds to me like is that if there are personnel cuts to be made in the fire department, it's one of three positions. Is is that a fair statement? No. Well, you can cut any position you want. I I mean, it just there may be there may be repercussions. I mean, yeah, if you're asking me where the lowhanging fruit is, yes, it's the non-union. But I think I've articulated this in prior meetings that you know that the deputy fire chief you know was position was eliminated back in 2010 and it took up until a couple years ago to get that back and it was very difficult to recruit somebody for that position because everyone said don't don't go work in Lewon. They're just going to they're going to get laid off next year. They're not going to fund that position. Um, I think it would do an enormous damage to the reputation of the city of Lewis. And I understand your position, the position you're in, and I am being selfish when I tell you this, but I'm also being very honest when I tell you that it it's going to stain the reputation of the city of Lewon to eliminate that position. and he does a and he does a very good job um trying to tackle all the blight and unsafe conditions in this city. So again and I agree with you fewer people is I mean everybody does something if you eliminate a position that's work that's not going to get done. So, you know, again, I I think he serves an important function. I think every person on my staff serves an important function. I understand your need to have cuts. I do. I absolutely do and I respect your decisions. But, you know, as the chief

of the department, if you're asking me questions, I'm going to give you honest answers. And I think that position is needed. Thank you for your cander, Chief. I appreciate it. Uh thank you, Chief. Uh at this point, it is 7:12. Uh is Director Connor I thought I saw you back there? Do we have the city attorney here? Perfect. Okay. Uh we are going to uh put this workshop on pause. We're going to take a few minutes uh recess to kind of move down chairs and reset the house, so to speak. And then we're going to be coming back with our special meeting. uh coming back to you live here very quickly. Thank you.

Hello and welcome to a special meeting uh of the city council here Tuesday 7 p.m. We're going to kick things off with the pledge of allegiance is uh uh administrator Kane Wrath. Could you please do us the honors? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much, uh, Administrator Kain Wrath. Uh, I would like to to note that our clerk has an excused absence as she is uh running an election right now. Um, and Deputy Administrator Ali has graciously agreed to fill in. Uh, I believe we're ready to begin. Uh, Mr. Ali.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Uh, only one agenda item. Order to secure a dangerous building at 70 River Street. Requested action to conduct a hearing to determine if the building located at 70 River Street poses a serious threat to public health and safety. that requires prompt action within the meaning of 17 MRS 2856. If it is determined that the building does meet the criteria for prompt action to adopt the findings of fact conclusions of law in order to secure the building, said order shall establish the corrective action to be taken, securing the structure from all entry and authorize the city administrator to take such corrective action if the property owner fails to do so and to recoup the city's expenses including reasonable attorney fees and costs through a special tax or civil action.

Thank you. We will now begin the hearing. Are you ready? Okay. Uh this evening we will conduct a hearing to determine whether the structure at 70 street 70 river street poses a serious threat to public safety within the means of sections 2856 of title 17 and if so whether the threat to the public health and safety requires prompt action. If the council makes either determination it will then determine what actions the property owner must take. The structure is owned by Scott Clifford. The land is owned by Franklin Property Trust LLC. In the past, the city council understood Stephanie Clifford was a tenant at the property. She she has wrote to city staff that she has not been at the property since June of last year and has nothing to do with the property. I ask that any owner or party of interest, including the tenants, introduce yourself, including your name, address, and position. Is an owner party in interest or representative present? Does any city council member know an owner or another party in interest or have knowledge about this matter that means that you could not fairly and impartially hear the facts and decide the matter based on the evidence presented at this hearing?

No. Councilman, did you have May I ask a question? Uh please. Um it looks like from the documentation the owner is currently in jail. Is that the case? Uh do you want to answer that or is that a pertinent question to ask? Um Mr. Kerry, the owner of the building is incarcerated. That's correct. Uh he's been served with this this proceeding.

Okay. Thank you. Uh there's there's no uh no cost no um no one knows an owner or party of interest then among the council. Okay. Uh the hearing will be conducted according to the mayor's procedures for a dangerous building hearing which I read at the September 3, 2024 council meeting and are included in your packets. I accept into evidence the planning and code enforcement departments previously provided exhibits A through J. I now ask that the Lon Planning and Code Enforcement Department present the city council with information relevant to this matter before it.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. For the record, my name is John Connor. I'm the director of planning and code enforcement for the city of Lewon. And tonight, I'm joined by code enforcement officer and building inspector Travis Tardiff. Uh we are here tonight to present our findings regarding the residential structure located at 70 River Street and to request an order to secure the building under state law. All legal notice requirements have been met and can be found in your binder as exhibits A through I. The hearing notice was recorded on May 8th. We have successfully served the landowner, Franklin Property Trust, and the structure owner, Scott Clifford. Occupants on site were also served and the property has been physically posted with notices of tonight's hearing. Additionally, on May 8th, 2026, Lewon Police Department Lieutenant Tyler Mishu taped another copy of the notice of hearing to the fence on the property that faces River Street. While there, Lieutenant Mishu saw at least seven people at the property. The next day, Corporal Darren Jakes returned to the property and confirmed that the notices of hearing posted by the sheriff's deputy and Lieutenant Mishu were still posted. Next, in the following slideshow, which is included in your packets as exhibit J, I'll describe the conditions at 70 River Street that caused the structure to pose a serious threat to the public health and safety that requires prompt action. As you can see from the original slides, there's severe deterioration of the foundation that's compromised the building's structural integrity. Uh, due to this, you can see the the sidewalls are bowing uh due to the failed foundation. The roof ridge line is starting to collapse over that failed foundation area and the roof fascia is starting to buckle over that foundation area as well. The building sits on a wooden foundation and the foundation sills have been compromised by rot. There's a a large hole in the the foundation that exposes the foundation to uh winter weather and it increases the amount of deterioration which is exacerbated by the excavation of the ground outside the foundation.

These two photos here, uh, the circle parts, the interior of the foundation shows that there's further moisture issues in the bulging. Uh, if you're asking where the bulging is, the slide, the photo to the right where that arrow is pointing looks like a a black mold stain, it's actually uh a bulge uh in the foundation that's starting to uh come into the into the space. Uh this the photo to the left, that's all wet, moist ground uh coming in from the massive hole that you see looking out into daylight there. Uh water has been shut off in the building since October of 2025. Um there have been people in the property since then and as you can imagine with no water, uh it is extremely unsanitary. There is uh evidence of uh human waste and pet waste throughout the property. Uh the tubs and sinks and toilets have all been um filled and and are stagnant in the property. Um when we got to the property, the power was on. Um all of these wires that you see are were completely exposed. Uh the one that concerns me the most is on the right hand side there. That is a RV plug that was connected to an RV in the parking lot. And that p that connection that was just kind of uh wired together was underneath a a car floor mat um completely out in the exposed uh elements. So um CEO Travis Tardiff after the inspection immediately called CMP and explained the situation to them and asked for power to be turned off at the property. So the property no longer has power right now nor water. So the the determination that we made uh the property it's not secured at the present moment. Uh the conditions at the property as shown they constitute a safety and health hazard. Uh life is endangered in our opinion by the occupation of the property. Um we

believe that it's unlawful for any person to enter the property except for the purposes of securing this property, making the required repairs, removing the hazardous conditions or demolishing the building altogether. Uh, the property poses a serious threat to the public health and safety. The health I'm sorry, the threat to public health and safety requires prompt action and the building must be immediately secured in order to mitigate the threat to public health and safety. So, at this time, we're seeking that the council adopt the determination and order four things. That all occupants immediately vacate the property. Staff shall post the building that it's unsafe. that the owner and land or land owner shall immediately secure the property. If the owner or land owner fails to comply with this order in the time frame set forth, the city staff shall have the authority and direct uh to carry in direction to carry out this order. If required before the city secures the structure, staff will enter the structure. We'll conduct a complete inspection and we'll make sure that there's nobody in the building uh to include animals. Uh during our inspection, there were um there was an there was a a dog in one of the upper rooms, we were told it had a couple puppies. Um before we entered the property, the owners or whoever was in the property grabbed the the young two puppies and took off and left the adult uh male dog in the property. We called animal control officer to come out and mitigate that as well. So we we want to make sure that we're going in and making sure that there's nobody in there and no animals in there before we do any securing of the property if if the order is given. Happy to answer any questions. Uh CEO Tardiff is here as the as the building expert. Um he went through the building with a fine tooth comb and um and can answer any questions that you may have.

Uh thank you uh Director Connor. Uh at this point uh I will allow the council to ask questions. Uh please remember we're asking questions about the property and there will be a chance for uh deliberation uh later. Do we have any uh specific questions about the presentation or the property for director Connor and Travis? Councelor Long Jams. Thank you, Mayor. How many buildings are on the side of this building? If you wouldn't mind this house, is there are there two houses on each side? Are they pretty close or? Uh, it's one house with two attached garages. Yeah. On Do they have neighbors? Oh, sorry. That's what I meant.

Uh, yes. There's a neighbor um to the back um on What's the name of that street? I forget the name of it. It's it's it's a safe distance away. It's not like some of the others that we have brought before you that are close together. That's what I was concerned about with the fires and stuff. Um, thank you, Councelor Naene. If I'm reading this correctly, the ownership of the land beneath the property is Franklin Property Trust. That is correct.

Does Franklin Property Trust have uh an enforcement mechanism or an interest in uh making the properties the question is I understand the structure is owned by somebody else. I'm wondering where Franklin Property Trust's responsibility falls if at all. So, we have been we have been communicating with Franklin Property Trust. Uh they know about this. Um and we are trying to uh you know get them to take care of it as well, but not owning the property. Um they can't really go and enter the property and do anything with it. They just own the land underneath it. So, uh we we have u been communicating with them and and they have a copy of this as well.

Thank you. Uh further questions about this? Uh yes, councelor Chidum. Thank you. Um you say that if the land owner fails to comply with the order within the time frame set for it, do you have a concept of what those time frames would be? We are uh asking them to uh secure it immediately. So if they can't secure it by tomorrow, then the city is going to Thank you. Further questions about the presentation or um or the property. Uh seeing none, do you have anything else to add? I do not, Mr. Mayor.

Okay. Are we set to close the record? Uh, the record is now closed. We are now moving forward to councelor uh deliberation. Uh, may I have a uh a motion uh to accept uh the council order as presented? Second. Councelor Chidum seconded by councelor Martell. Uh deputy administrator Ali, did you get all that?

Yes, I did, Mr. Mayor. Uh, excellent. Uh, we now have a motion on the floor. Any thoughts or deliberation here? Questions, comments from the council. Councelor Naene, I just wanted to state that these condemnation hearings um I think are very important. We just heard from u the fire department u about conditions of blight in our in our community and these are the tools that we can use in order to enforce compliance with our codes. um and uh either get people to either invest or divest from properties that are that that are blighted and create uh conditions that overt tax overburden our our public services.

Further thoughts from the council before we vote. Uh Deputy Administrator Ali, are you prepared to conduct a vote at this time? Yes, I am. Uh please call the vote. Council from Ward One. Yes. W two. Yes. W three. Yes. W four. Yes. W five. Yes. W six. Yes. W seven. Yes. Passes seven to zero. Mr. Mayor.

Uh thank you very much Administrator Amali. We appreciate your service. Uh thank you for Mr. Kerry joining us. Uh staff. Thank you very much. Uh this now concludes our special meeting. We're going to take a brief recess so that way we can uh you know head back into uh uh our budget workshop. We'll start back up in a minute. Thank you. Take your seat. Have a good night. See you later.

Uh, and we're we're back to our budget workshop. Uh, thank you everyone for your patience. Uh, did uh uh did we have any more questions for uh for Chief Karen? He was the one that was up there last. Okay. Uh, do we have uh Director Tero still available? Uh, Dutario, thank you for joining us. I see here an HR technician. I assume this is your employee, correct? Yes. And there are besides you, there are only two other employees, right? Yes. And so this would be a reduction of 50% of your workforce. Is that accurate?

Pretty close. Um, yes. Uh can you um uh just give us your thoughts on that or impact? Yeah. So I it would have a significant impact on Can you move the mic down or something? Thank you.

It would have a significant impact on the HR department. Um the technician um does all of our onboarding, does all of our um workers comp input, does all of our OSHA records, um does the benefits process, the payroll process. Um she does a lot of data entry for the department. Um she's the first face that the employees see when they come to the window. Um so she she handles a lot of um crisises for the employees that they may have um and a lot of their life changes. She's the first one that handles all of those changes. She does all of the DOT random drug testing for our CDL drivers as well as all of the background checks for employees, volunteers, and workfare citywide. So without that position, services are going to be extremely slow in HR and some things just aren't going to get done. And unfortunately, because this is serving employees and not the public, we can't really reduce those services. Um, I mean, I guess at this point what will happen is when the bell rings at the front, sometimes employees just aren't going to get an answer because other HR staff is going to be in meetings.

Thank you. Um, Director Tero, uh, do we have questions for Director Tero since she's here? Councelor Niji. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. We can silence our cell phones. That'd be great. Thank you, director. Um, we've added two positions, new program positions to HR over the past six years. Correct.

Um, so the safety coordinator has always been in a position for quite some time with the city, but it was under administration. So that position is now under HR. Um, that person does all of the accident investigations and trainings for as far as safety that are required by law for the public works department and citywide. Um and then the other position that was added is the workforce development position which was again under administration under a different title and now is support for the HR team. Um this is also a position that we have previously had under a different title for a number of years that we haven't had in about 10 years that we've been fighting to get back to.

Understood. So we had ultimately gone from one person in HR to four in the past six years. So we never had one. Um we had an uh the HR director was also the finance director for a number of years. It was a combined job. Um and then there was an HR tech. Um and then an HR benefits administrator was brought in and then when the HR director moved away from the finance director, they got rid of the benefits administrator. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Uh

any uh further questions for Director Tero? Thank you very much. Um uh I just want to uh speak a little bit about the MIS director position. So um but before I do that, I don't mean to put you on the spot. Um uh Deputy Administrator Ali, but when we lose a department head, what what does that what does that look like or or what kind of impacts can we see? I've never seen that before. Um, but I'm not sure, you know, as the city administrator said, we'll have to do a reorg. It'll have to be absorbed either by um city administration or by another department head.

Uh, I guess my concern with losing a director position is that uh especially, you know, for, you know, critical critical, I mean, all of your departments are critical. There's, you know, we don't have extra departments in the city that are not critical. Uh but when we're talking about it um without a director level position there to provide um you know guidance to the staff and uh guidance um for you know and direction for the department you know uh I'm I'm concerned about the the long-term uh health of that department and it's not that uh you know and when we remove a position uh correct me if I'm wrong administrator Kanerath you know when we remove a position we're we're removing that position. So it's not like administration can turn it into you know make somebody else the director or something like that. That director position is just gone. And it can also rem also be a problem if that director position is actually also the expert uh employee for that department. Uh so that could uh provide um you know some challenges as we as we move forward. Uh I imagine uh I had a whole career in IT uh long ago and I can imagine if we didn't have the MIS MIS director there would be uh some work that uh would uh have to be absorbed by other employees and we might even need to to contract out uh for services um which would then you know cost additional money um yeah so those are those considerations as well. Uh part of my concern is and why I've been kind of like resistant to allow amendments because we have we have counselors who who are not in administration and you know and everyone here is acting in good faith and I'm not saying that we're not and uh you know we're trying to do our best by uh by

residents and the city uh and attempt to lower taxes. Uh I guess my concern are counselors have put forth um uh put put forth amendments uh and then uh cutting positions that are are going to be difficult uh to to absorb uh or or difficult to deal without you know for instance like the uh the rec department you know billing still needs to get done to to all the other departments. So either someone else is going to be doing that. So we're going to be taking a higher level employee that we are paying more to now suddenly be doing this and then all the work that they were going to be doing is now not being done or you know they're not going to be able you know like David you put it very succinctly when we lose an employee we're going to ultimately lose services. We are not going to be able to expect some employees to suddenly work double. Like that is not um realistic under any condition. And so I'm just concerned that some of these positions that are being cut, um, you know, while they were, you know, well-intentioned from the standpoint that we're trying to lower taxes, uh, I I think it will be, um, you know, impair um, city services uh, and, uh, uh, going forward.

Yes, Mr. Mayor, you've been asking all of us to restrict our comments to questions, and I think the same rule ought to apply to you, sir. Yes. So, I thank you. I I appreciate that. We're going to have another goound from from counselors. Uh I did want to bring up department heads uh restrict our questions there. I now I wanted to offer my my comments on the overall process which I've done and uh appreciate uh counselors listening and we'll uh we'll now go around uh to uh for counselors to offer their uh additional thoughts and comments. Councelor Ni.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um so just really quickly there are some elephants in the room that we haven't addressed. We know that there are expenses in in in certain departments that are very high. Um and I think that um it is maybe not the best time at this moment to ask for reorg um for I mean we know that our administration costs are are somewhat high and in this budget season I'm hoping that we will be talking about reorganization um as soon as the budget is done for several departments and that includes uh IT or MIS. Uh we're we're working with leg legacy programs all over the city. Um we have uh co-measurate um uh um employees that sit within uh LPS. We're not working with LPS at all to drive down the the cost of the budget. And we're and it hits the same tax base on both sides. Um the you know the challenges that and it's not about the website. Um, but the challenges that we have with the website are shocking and at some point like you would hope that in a in a major corporate environment you have a CEO, a CFO and a CIO. They all kind of work together. It is individual uh leaders of the financial health of an organization. Um, and we're we're just in a situation where in personally I feel like the only way to force this reorganization is to eliminate positions.

Uh, we're going to continue going on down the line. Councelor Long Champs, do you have anything further to add at this point? Thank you, Mayor. Um I guess just uh I I would still stand with what I said at the beginning um with the amendments that we put forward unfortunately. Um but that's where we are regardless of whether it was this one councelor Chidums or our leaving it to our city administrator. Um that's what has to happen unfortunately. I do have a question for our city administrator. Um, we are at 3 point what with the uh councelor Nene's proposal.

Could you tell me? I believe it's 3.3.

3.3. Um, to get it down to like 3.25, what would that uh look like in reduction? How much more would we have to Are you talking about what we had discussed um with councelor Chidums? So when you look at the northeast CPI um and go back, they have multiple years out there. It they always round it up to that first digit. That's why it's 3.3. They don't go out ever. If you look at any of that and

um to be consistent that's what we've used over the years is that just that one digit the 3.3 correct or 3.2 or so really not a half right so there's never usually it only goes out one okay what if we got it down to 3.2 two. I can do that calculations while you guys are talking on Okay, sure. Because I'm thinking maybe if we um are able to reduce some of these supplies um minus salt and you know the things that uh are going to cause real issues. Not that they all won't, but uh more safety issues. Um if we could get it down to that 3.2, I think would be good.

Thank you. Uh, Council Harman, thank you. I've had a little bit of time to go over these and I learned a lot from the discussion tonight and I think I will be prepared to vote next Tuesday. Uh, could you give us a preview as to what amendment uh, you might be supporting? Uh, it's kind of pieces of both of them. We'll uh we'll come back to you. Uh councelor Roy, I don't have anything to add. I stick with my first comments.

Uh councelor Noble, did you have something to I just need to sit with it, I think, for a little bit. And I don't know. Councelor Chidum, your thoughts.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I'm hoping that this workshop will give us a single budget to vote on uh when we have to make the decision. So, a decision on which amendment or which combination of the various elements of these amendments uh to give our administrator and our finance director the tools necessary so that when they come back to us with a budget, it will be an up- down vote. Uh, I think passing amendments at the last minute when that budget comes back to us is not recommended by anyone. So, I would advocate that we stay here as long as necessary to come up with a budget that reaches either whatever number we choose in excess of the CPI, which will require five of us to vote, or a budget that gets us to the 3.3 at a minimum. Um, I do want to talk a little bit about the 3.3 3.2. There's been some confusion and this is going to get pretty esoteric and I apologize for that. Um, when I looked at the at the consumer price index, those are listed month by month, year after year to three decimal places. I subtracted the difference between December 2025 and December 2024 and came up with the number 3.251. that's published on the same website as 3.3 which is the rounding value of 3.251. As an engineer when precision is available I like to use it. I understand precedent has been that we've always used the single decimal point. So that's an interpretation of the charter and I'm I'm comfortable if president has indicated that 3.3 is the target then I'm comfortable with agreeing that it will only take four counselors to pass a budget at that level 3.29 3.3 so I'm sorry for confusing the issue

that's just the pickiness of the man that you've come to know and love over the past three years. The other issue is the question of the interpretation of the charter. Um I had a conversation with uh director Roy prior to this meeting. I had been under the impression that the number we were trying to reach uh 3.3 or 3.21 was actually the proposed tax levy. I believe that's the actual language in the charter, but there is room for interpretation in that. I'm informed that what has been used historically is not the proposed tax levy, but the proposed tax rate. And there's a difference there. I don't want to get into the differences. Now, I do want to point out that while we have two amendments to the charter already approved by this council for uh voter approval in November, a third one is queued up that was brought to our attention by the city attorney. This is a fourth one that will clarify the language as to what exactly the charter means when it requires a four vote or a five vote majority. And that to me is very important because if we do not have a five vote majority, we have to come back with a budget that is below whatever number we interpret that to be. Uh I do now that was a tangent and I apologize for that. Uh I do want to reiterate and I'd like to have a couple of questions for uh the public works director if that's all right. Mr. Mayor. Um, but I will wait until Councelor Martell has had his chance to weigh in.

Uh, yeah. I I mean, if uh I I would prefer that we, you know, rather than like uh have people say like, "Oh, I'm going to have questions later." It's okay to have questions now. And Director G, if you can take the uh take the stand and then uh sorry, you're not on court here. If you can stand behind the podium. Uh please continue. Councelor Chudum.

Thank you. And this question uh also applies to director. Um it relates to the overlap that council nine was referring to. We do not have anybody from the Lewis school department here. But my understanding is that we have uh competent capable technicians in three different positions. One in the school department, one in the public works department, and one in the management uh information services. uh and I'd like to explore the overlap of those positions uh and why we have uh a GIS MIS person and a GIS public works person. Um so if you could address that uh Director Kanye, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. Um so at Lewon Public Works, we are very uh map and and geocentric. um we were based on a lot of CAD and over the last 25 years we've we've gone into the GIS realm. So our history there has really been about documenting what we're doing out in the streets and out in the world and and tying that back to projects and whatnot. So our position when it switched to when it got added uh really is more of a GIS citywide coordinator. So that person is responsible for working with other technicians uh in the city to try to deploy GIS citywide uh and utilize that uh as it right now it's an EZRI platform. So uh different silos and we're trying to break down silos and get data sharing. So we work very closely with the MIS team uh both on actually deployment and that information but also security of that information cyber security uh critically um we are technicians of the EZRI uh and we rely on the IT and the MIS team for for their expertise in networking and and cyber stuff. So, um, I'll let Director Star talk about his staff person, but I know that, uh, our, uh, our employee recently retired. We did hire somebody that is, I would dare say, equally qualified as the person he replaced, uh, in in understanding, uh, what a GIS coordinator and overseeing all the different platforms we're deploying it. We have an internal GIS that's secure for for staff which has uh confidential information uh detailed information and then we have public facing that's either hosted on our own EZRI platform u we do have some that's contracted out.

Sure. and our our person our GIS analyst more focuses on the integration with the enterprise licensing and permitting product which is used for building permits and inspections for electrical and any sort of building permits. So that's more tightly integrated with the permitting and code part of the city and any specialized items that anybody within city hall needs like all of the calendars and things like that. So, did you have any further questions?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to clarify, uh, the GIS person in your department and GIS stands for geographic information system for for folks who are not up on the latest lingo, not that it's the latest lingo. Um, coordinates with planning and code enforcement uh, in terms of mapping and maintaining databases for uh, rental programs. What would happen to those programs if this position were not there?

Um, we have no other person in the department that specializes in in those parts of the program that they use for code enforcement and and clerks for the rental registration program and some of the other clerk items that they specialize in. Thank you. So neither of these positions per se is forward- facing, not frontline, not standing at the window registering automobiles or sweeping streets or uh responding to crisis in the city. That's correct. These are support personnel to support the operations of the city in both cases. Is that correct? That's correct. Yes.

I'd like to pose the same question to Director Gier. What what would happen if the GIS position in the public works department were uh eliminated? Um, I'd like to point out that in any mapping system or any uh online system of record, we've switched that's our background for our asset management, which is more of our daily tasks and work orders. Um, trust in the data is really important. So, we have a lot of frontline field staff that are updating information. And if they're not seeing it updated the next workday, that same day, that next week, depending on the level of update, we lose trust. They stop using those those platforms. Um, we've tried to get out of the the paper environment, uh, and all the inefficiencies with that. So, uh, our GIS person is a city-wide GIS coordinator. Uh this person is working with our consultants. Um they also uh that person also does uh do parcel updates which is quite complex. This um so we do assist all the other departments. So not this person being eliminated. Uh we do partner with uh contracted uh GIS teams. Um that is for bare bones minimum integration for publicly facing and hosted services that real estate uh developers uh taxpayers use to to look at their parcels. Any of the parcel viewers you see uh integrate with that. So that work you know that is a very high level but also a working uh position that understands updating uh databases and systems nights and weekends and our technicians are not at that level. So I have one technician that's a shared MIS uh excuse me a shared uh GIS and asset management

technician uh that that is not capable of doing that work. Do you see that there's any overlap between these two positions? And I'd like to ask the same question of director.

I would say that it is not as much overlap as collaboration. Um, when we first started deploying it, uh, public works was using a lot of the a lot of the information, right? It was, like I said, it's we went from doing CAD drawings and putting those out to utilizing the GIS environment for any of our our drawings for bids and projects as well as builts. So, at this point, you know, we were looking for champions in each department to take over responsibility of their own data. So the utilities did that. We have some field staff that are out there using a actually collecting the data in the field and updating it, maintaining their own data and having that ownership and and that's what's happening I believe here in public here in city hall. Uh and you know with Mr. Star's position in MIS that position collaborates with the one at public works to help deploy and support uh GIS services in this building. Yeah, and I concur with what Director Ge had to say. Um, we don't have a lot of overlap in GIS services. Our position focuses primarily on the code and planning aspects of of GIS and integrating it into the system that we use for those items.

Thank you both for those answers. I I appreciate them. You're welcome. Um, councelor Naene, did you have questions? I I do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'll start with uh Director Gier really quickly if you don't mind. Um, from my understanding, we're still contracting with the with the former employee. Um, is that correct for GIS services? Yes, I think it's up to three three to five hours a week uh for consulting, for training for the the person that was there. Um while you may have skill sets in the industry, understanding our log, our loginins and our networks and how they integrate and updates is something that he's been advising on.

And are there any issues with legacy programming that we're using anywhere in the city that create challenges for somebody to just be a plug-and-play employee for for any of these uh pieces? Also, could you speak to Ezri as being either good or bad? just real quick.

Those are two very large questions. Um on the on the first, um we do have legacy programs. Um what we try to do is make sure that uh they're not the old version that we haven't customized them to the point where we can't get the newest updates. Um so as we deploy, as we've had Ezri for over 20 years, I think we've got Ezrey pushing on 1999 when we started bringing that data in. Uh we had flyovers capturing water, sewer, uh curb line and all of the geo features uh and bringing in and then manually standing there and collecting the data for for better information. So we've had it for over 26 years. Um each of the modules uh in the industry they've we've been able to maintain an annual license, share it and and it's used both by the public as a viewer but as the technicians in the background like we're talking about uh very technical uh analyzing the data uh exporting out the data into tables that are usable for the rest of the staff. So we haven't seen any issues with that. Um on the utility side, the biggest challenge has been um going to a utility network and that's more of how the data systems are set up and it's more for water store and less for the rest of the layers that we use. Um and then your second question if you could

it was just generally about whether or not Ezri is the preferred platform or the predominant platform for mapping. So most everything's gone from a uh network-based they want to try to go to cloud-based uh for better user. So there are more in other industries there are more people actually were working remotely from home. So having a cloud-based system uh allows you to do that and not be kind of in your working out of your firewall and having to do that. Um that's probably the biggest change I think we've seen is that um but I think those are all web- based and we're seeing easier for the users uh in the field. So I have people on the public works crew actually doing maintenance. Uh some of them are using an EZRI whether it's a survey 123 or other module and it works very well and it's very friendly. um deploying the beehive module that we did several years ago and that was part of compliance for an EPA mandate uh and we leveraged that not just to be for sewer but through the public works department and we've offered it in other departments through the city and there's unlimited seats that one uh that one is more for work orders so day-to-day function and logging a complaint and logging how quickly and that's a better platform for that so I those are the two modules that we use okay

thank you uh Director Star, I just have a couple of quick questions for you. So, one of the things that was brought up was that uh the majority of the GIS work is actually for planning and code. Um and so I'm I'm curious as to why that's not a planning and code position and why it sits in MIS. I'm not sure other than it was a very technical position and we had a person that was capable of doing that that used to work in one of those departments years ago that kind of migrated to MIS over time but that still requires collaboration between two two departments. Correct. Yes. Correct.

Okay. And the second question that I have and and this is just a general one. Um, do you have any any concept of how many municipalities contract out their security services uh to third parties? I do not. Okay. I couldn't give you that number. I I understand this is very difficult and I I I I'm sorry we're having these conversations, but thank you very much. You're welcome. Any something further, Director G?

Yes. um being the utility person for 24 years um in the water industry, we're we're a pri we're a priority sector. Um so working with Homeland and and we um we did have an event uh a number couple number of years ago where uh ransomware impacted a close local utility. we have not had those type of events because of our in-house uh and that MIS or IT group was uh outside contractors overseeing that. So I can tell you that I've worked closely with director for over two decades uh and cyber security has been an outmost priority and we haven't been in the newspaper because of it. Uh we've recently had several different audits as well. So, we did work with the state as well as the um I believe a federal department that came in and audited our drinking water for cyber security. Uh and thanks to the efforts of director and his team, uh we we had flying colors on that. So I think it's really important to to raise that as an issue that we we have seen some and we have higher um higher incidents coming at us all the time through alerts through uh we use wider water water isac and it's part of the homeland security notification specifically for water. So

thank you uh councelor Martell we're up to you. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Uh, Director Roy, how close does Councelor Nene's amendments get us to getting below the 3.3 3.2? Does it get there? So, we don't need a super majority. Councelor Na jeans is at 3.3%. So, to get to 3.2, it would be an additional 40,000.

Okay. Well, I would be prepared to vote for um Councelor Nene's uh amendments and the budget based on that and take the 40 grand, split it in half, take 20 grand from uh public works overtime and 20 grand from the fire department overtime. And it's unfortunate it's going to be what it is, but it's time to get a budget passed. Uh we've spent a lot of hours going round and round asking department heads to come up here. Uh I know that my my fellow counselors uh have put in a lot of time and effort into this. Um at some point we're here to make uh decisions and we got to stop making the process the goal and make decisions. So that's where I stand. And I'd be prepar prepared to vote yes uh for what I'm looking at in front of me uh proposed by councelor Nene. Uh and then like I said whatever the 40 grand is split it in half take it off the overtime.

Uh thank you councelor Martel. Um so I I tried to keep notes as best I could as we went around the first time. Uh so we have uh if I can just quickly uh talk to the council members here. Uh so of course councelor Nene you were supporting your amendment right? um after we've gone uh we haven't actually heard um from uh the HR uh sorry not the HR but the GA department but one of the things is the the director for GA available director bracket are you oh look at this director bracket

also I don't know from assessing either if we're going through departments yes okay thank you thank you Um, director bracket. Yes, councelor nine. What questions did you have for director bracket? Uh, so director bracket, one of the things that uh you know came through clearly uh there are concerns uh for services for GA especially around um some of the group homes um or specifically uh the recovery homes. Correct. In regards to the shelter, is that what you're talking? No, I'm talking about recovery homes. Uh

recovery houses. Yeah. Um, we've had three new recovery houses that moved into the area October of last year. And so it's it's kind of difficult to measure the impact, but since October up until today, we've added an additional 69 cases to um our case load. Um, we also anticipate with the shelter once that is up and running, we anticipate at least 25% increase in case loses from the shelter.

And when we're talking about um these cases, for the most part, we're getting um uh reimbursed for the uh for the 30% that that were contributing. Could you speak to are these folks local to Lewon or are they coming from other communities for these services? Do you know the recovery houses are connected to um the um the prisons? So when they're on uh good is it good behavior by good good behavior they're released it's it's it it's coordinated with the case worker at the prison to send them out to a recovery house

and that's what we're seeing in the Lewon area. So, are we building billing the P prison system, the 30% uh uh the 30% of the the city's contribution to GA? We we get reimbured from the state 70% and the municipality pays the other 30%. So, if it's a prison system, we do get reimbured. No, I can't understand that.

No, we still the city still has to pay the 30%. We don't get reimbured from the prison system. So, one of the things I'm trying to drive home here is that we have expanding costs for rate for for for services that we're providing in our community. And some of those services are profitable. Um, and so when we have conversations about staffing, um, transferring some of those responsibilities from the taxpayer to the rateayer is incredibly important. And I'm not saying this is not about the GA uh position, but do we what do we charge for recovery homes

uh as far as licensing is concerned? How does that even work? Has anybody thought about the the questions that I have are when we're incurring additional costs for being a service center in our community? How are we deferring those costs instead of passing them on to the taxpayer? And I'm not saying we shouldn't have recovery homes in the in the community. And I'm not saying that you don't have need for staffing. What I'm saying is it's challenging when we pass that directly on to uh the the homeowner um or the business owner when the services themselves are generating a profit and GA is a state law. Yeah. No, completely understood. Yeah.

But they don't re reimburse for um staff. Okay. I I appreciate the feedback and also the could you just speak really quickly to since since immigration enforcement started uh how many cases have we seen as a as a drop? Um um the case load that has dropped consistently has been the immigrant case load and that's apparently down 40%. However, we're picking up on the flip side with the recovery residents

in that 40%. Do you have a number for that by any chance for Hold on one second. So, this is up to um the end of April. Uh let's see. We have um are you looking at the number that were granted and we assisted or what are you looking at? Yeah, that's what I'm asking. So for 20 uh let's say 24 to 2025 what was the drop? Well from 2024 fiscal year 24 uh if you're looking at we would have to go fiscal year 25 I think actually because

24 to 25 our our immigrant cases were 65% now they're down to 40 45. Okay. And they're still dropping. understand. No, people leaving the state every day. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. Uh yes. Uh questions for director bracket since she's here. Uh councelor lunch.

Um thank you director for being here. Currently, uh in your department, can you tell me how many staff you have? We currently have uh administrative assistant uh principal clerk. We have four case workers and myself. Are you fully staffed at this time? We are. Um and just a quick question about the new recovery homes that are um uh appearing here in Len. Um it is a requirement to volunteer, right? If you are getting um a housing voucher,

able body folks are required. It's mandated as part of continuous assistance with the program. They are mandated to look for work and also to perform workfare duties. So they're required to volunteer. Well, you can call it volunteer. We call it workfare. Okay. Workf fair. And how many hours is that a week? Um it's the the value of the assistance that they receive is divided by minimum wage. Okay. Um and do you have one specific person that looks over that or do you guys kind of all take that role and all of the case workers assign work? Thank you.

Seeing no more further questions for you. Uh the director bracket. Thank you very much. And uh yes, thank you for pointing this out. Administrator Kenwrath, uh in the interest of fairness, uh director Healey, if you could please explain the impact uh to the uh let me see the loss of a senior assessor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um just to give you a little history of the assessing department back in 2012, it was six full-time employees. Uh there was four full-time assessors and two full-time clerical. Currently, our assessing department is four full-time assessors and one 60% clerical. The department consists of the chief assessor, the deputy assessor, and two senior assessors. The senior assessor, excuse me, the deputy assessor handles our personal property accounts, which keeps her busy year round, uh all day long. The remaining three of us do all the real estate parcels which equal about 12,000. So the industry standard for an assessor is 2500 parcels. So right now we're all doing 4,000 parcels. If you eliminate a position in my department, that means we have to do 6,000 parcels a piece. Uh well above the industry standard. And the other thing that's very important to point out is my two senior assessors just in real estate alone picked up $12 million. is they discovered $12 million in new value this year, which is $400,000 in tax revenue, which more than pays for their positions. Um, I believe that cutting a position, especially now in what is probably the most important uh project the city's undertaken in years, is irresponsible. I I can't for the life of me understand why you would consider eliminating an assessor. It it doesn't make any sense to me. Um, as I said, they make they more than earn their salaries, so they're making money uh for the city doing their jobs. The uh we've had a real difficult time finding certified main assessors. I've trained three different people who got hired as assessors in other towns. We finally have a full slate of certified main assessors and thankfully they're still staying with us, but I promise you they

probably won't if we continue to treat them the way we do. I feel totally disrespected. I had to ask to come up and speak tonight. Uh because I was ignored and missed and that's unacceptable to me. Uh I don't get emotional. I try to stay professional, but this to me just it it dates. It puts a burn in my saddle. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. uh and uh hopefully can reconsider the position that you think of eliminating. Uh director Healey um yeah um ignoring the assessing department was not my intention. I apologize for that oversight. Thank you.

Uh and thank you for you and your department service. Uh questions for uh yes, councelor Nene. So the the industry standard for overseeing part you're talking about updating parcels on a regular basis or overseeing like correct the transfers all parcels. So what what the assessors do what we do in our office and again personal property is handled by our deputy the real estate parcels. We inspect building permits we inspect sales uh new construction commercial buildings and what have you. So, all of the parcels are inspected by the assessing team uh of the three three assessors that do the real estate. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Further questions for Director Healey. Thank you, director. Thank you. I do want to just add one last thing. If you do have to consider removing the assessing position, I would like to offer that I will retire before the end of the year and you can use my salary to offset it. Thank you. Councelor Nene, uh, we were getting your thoughts. Uh, do you still have thoughts before we move to councelor Long Tra? I have a lot of them, but I don't think I'm going to express them right now.

Uh, well, sorry. And what I was u sorry, it's a lot going on up here. Uh, so you you are still I'm trying to ascertain where we are in terms of uh the support for the various uh for the two different amendments here. Uh, at this point, are you still in support of your amendment as it is or Oh, me? Yeah, sorry. I'm still sorry. Talking to councelor Ni at this very moment.

I I would like to see if we could combine uh some elements of uh councelor Chidums with mine. Um the the truth is I at this point I'm I'm having a hard time supporting um the recck department cut. Um, and I'm also having u some considerable um I mean the the senior possessor position seems challenging as well. I and again, you know, we've had conversations about some of the some of the management positions that sit above this and and it's really challen I I mean, we're going through a reeval the concept that our chief assessor would quit to save a job. Um it's crazy to me. Uh simply because we I mean we're going through the reassess the reav we need um our chief assessor. So I don't know. Um maybe we can talk about the the matching these two offers here, figuring out if we can get to a place where we can maybe save a couple of these uh positions. Um the the other challenge too is is on the supply lines piece you put down 330,000. I don't know what uh what inventories are for any of these departments and whether or not we could who can eliminate what. Right. Um I I also think that talking about overtime, especially within um public works, I know they're down. I absolutely know that. But scheduled scheduled maintenance for for I just want to see some of those numbers drop. And I and I know that we can't push the fire department at this point

because it's contractually agreed and and it's Yeah. Okay. So maybe we just go through line by line and figure out which ones we all have support for um for for both of these amendments. Would that be does that make sense for everybody? Uh yes, quite possibly. Um okay. Well, anything further at this very moment, councelor Nene?

Well, I I do want to just say that like we do have to get to the to the 3.3 and even that for me much of my constituency feels like a failure. uh for much of my constituency there they are hoping to see um they're hoping to see a bigger drop than that. I can say that everything is more expensive right now and the municipality also has become more expensive because everything else is more expensive. It's a knock-on effect. It it it it hard it's hard to run a city of this size with the budgets that we have. It's very hard and so yeah. Uh, so if I'm understanding you correctly, you want to add back in some of what you took out in your amendment. Would that be an accurate assessment? I would support um the senior assessor position um and uh the um wreck position being added back in as long as we can find those savings from uh uh um councelor uh sorry um council chair uh chidam's amendments or from some other amendments that that we're making now that don't involve positions because I don't think that it's fair at this moment to say, "Hey, here's another position." Um, so,

uh, thank you and I appreciate that. Um, you know, administration, uh, spoke with people who might be affected and so yes, we cannot, you know, right now like what about that position? What about this position? Yeah, I just administrator Kenrath. Yes, second that if I could. So, everyone that's on this list to be discussed has been we've sat down with and have notified. So, if we are going to be talking about any other positions, um we would need to do the same process and they would have to be notified properly by us beforehand. So, if we're going to get into the discussion of other positions, I would caution on that um until they've been properly notified.

Uh understood. Thank you. Um uh we're coming back to you councelor Longamps, but first I want to talk to councelor Chidam since you had the other amendment and your thoughts, please. Well, one of the questions I have for administrator Canrath is when we went through the tier exercise and we came to tier three that that uh would have eliminated eight positions and I'm wondering whether the overlap of councelor Nene's amendment what the what the nexus is of the specifics that he's listed and the eight that you had in mind. Um I can say sitting here there is some overlap but not not total overlap in positions and again positions that you know we're going to discuss and have to be notified beforehand. So there were positions uh on that list where people have not been notified.

Oh I see. I thought you had spoken with everyone who had been proposed on either second before the amendment offered by council but not on the two tiers. Right. When we were talking about the tiers, it was it was back under the system of you guys were coming up with a bottom line number and then instructing me to sort of go find it, not listing specific positions yourselves. So, when we came up with those those numbers, um honestly, it could be a a total mix of different positions that to get to that bottom line number you were uh asking us to get to. So the positions on a tier three list uh are not the same as what you see in council nine's um amendment. There could be some overlap, but it's not the same list.

I see. Um thank you. That that's unfortunate. I believe that administrator Canra is in a better position. This sounds like we're booting I'm booting the problem back to you and that's certainly not my intent. Um, but I think that the administrator is in a better position to understand his departments. He has a working relationship with the department heads and has a better feel for what positions would would uh have to be cut in order for us to meet the target that we're getting at. So, um, I was under the misimpression that all of the folks who were targeted in the tier three, all eight positions had already been spoken to. Um, I I I would go back to the tier three recognizing that the administrator had done the work that we have hired him to do. Uh and then based on the inclusion of Director G's $150,000 savings revenue increase uh from timber harvesting. We could eliminate one of the nine positions that I had proposed generically. I did not have a list of specifics. Um, I'm sorry. I only had eight positions. No, I had 10. I had 10. I had eight from the from the tier three and then two more on top of that. So, one of those two additional ones could be funded, if you will, um, by Director G's $151,000, which then essentially puts both of our amendments on a par with looking at cutting nine positions. It only remains to be determined which those are and I do believe that that's administrator Kane Wrath's uh purview. That's that's his Bailey Wick more than ours. Uh, councelor Nene.

Um, just really quickly, one of the things that I don't believe is on here is um I'd had a conversation with the um with the director of p uh sorry, the director of um the library and they had offered to um accept a a removal of half of the contracting service uh for the the monitor position. I It's not a lot of money. I think it's like $17,000. Um, but I'm wondering, could we just check with the director real quick and make sure that I'm I'm trying to push this down any way we can.

Director Houston, thank you for joining us.

Good evening. Uh, yes, we had discussed a potential 50% reduction in the contracted security services. So, uh, just to be clear, that is not the building monitors, which are staff positions related to safety. Um, but the contracted security services that are a thirdparty service. Um, with the reduction in incidents that we've had since the warming center came online, uh, we had talked, you know, when I did my presentation originally about the prospect of removing that contract entirely, which I did not support. Um I if we see this reduction in incidents is consistent. I had intended to sort of wind down this contract over the next couple of years. I was going to propose a 50% reduction in fiscal year uh 28. Um so this is really just us accelerating that timeline. Uh it's not what I would advocate for in a vacuum. Uh but it is $17,000 that um we can offer without uh people losing their jobs potentially. So that's sort of the spirit in which we had that conversation.

Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification and uh yeah, we should add that to the to the lines if we can please. Thank you. Uh so let's recap for a second. You want to add back in a couple of positions that you took out, correct?

Or we uh I mean after have having the recreation department functions with a very low budget hits everybody in the community um from youth, seniors, working parents. Um, I find it very challenging to to if if they were like staffed at like 15 people, maybe maybe that would be something that we could talk about, but but they're not. So, I ultimately worked with Council Long Champs to to look at the different departments where we thought that we could make a cut. Um, and pretty much hit every every department that we could. So, um, yeah.

And so, at this point, you but if we're if we're taking if we're adding positions back into your amendment, you would like to see that those same dollar amounts being taken out elsewhere. Correct. And I think that we can get there with the with the council chid's proposal. And I also think again um the we we don't have to accept amendment one or amendment two. We can modify it. Right. Yeah, it's what we're talking about right now. Um, okay. And if there is there is a position that's still to be cut, um, you know, I I don't think we should lose our chief assessor. I think that's not not good. So,

so if we're one second and then we're coming to you, councelor Longs. Um, so if we're trying if we're adding back in two positions and then want to make those cuts elsewhere, I mean I mean we're not going to find that in supplies. We're we're talking about other positions. Correct. They would likely be other positions, right? So, you know, given where we are right this second, you know, perhaps uh you know, what um councelor Chin Chidum um you know, insinuated that we would need to turn it back to you for uh for ideas about where those where those cuts should be to to get us to the same amount. Am I understanding you correctly, Councelor Chidum?

Regrettably, yes, because I think he's far more of an expert than we are in the operation of the of the city. Yeah. Uh, agreed. Um, councelor um, councelor Long Champs. Yes, you've been waiting a while. My apologies. Oh, no, that's okay. I've actually I have a question now uh for the library. That position or that reduction that you're um asking for. Is that in security or I actually is it in security? Yeah. So, that is a security contract. Uh, we pay uh to have a third party come in and make sure that everything is safe. Um, so

I would not recommend actually um a reduction in that area as we really do not have a warming center anymore. Um, we now have a permanent shelter which only holds 40 people. Um, and you're going to have a lot more people going to the library. Uh, so I I wouldn't recommend that. I would recommend keeping that in there and keeping that security to make sure that everybody can visit. Thank you, councelor Long Champs. Um, thank you, Director Houston.

Yeah. So, if we're if we're looking to meet the the same amount, I think at this point we have, especially since uh you know, administration team has not talked with other uh people about their uh about their positions. I think at this point we really have no choice but to kick it back to our administrator and then come back to us. Councelor Long Champamps. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, um we would go with all of the positions that uh council naene and I uh proposed minus the wreck and our chief assessor and leave it up to our city administrator to find two other employees that he may have to or will have to um unfortunately eliminate their job. Is that correct?

That's how I'm understanding it. How are you understanding administrator Kanerath? Well, there's so clear. So, we would be accepting the Nene amendment minus those two positions and then there would be direction to administration to find two more positions to eliminate or well the dollar amount of those positions the dollar amount of those positions right find those savings. Uh councelor Nine did you have something? Yeah, I was just going to clarify that it's a dollar amount if we can find the dollar amount anywhere um and it doesn't involve cutting other positions and that that's what we should probably do. Um, but I know that the budget I I've gone through every page of it. So, councelor Long Champs.

So, we do have that 40,000 that we talked about with the supplies. Um, could we potentially unfortunately deduct more from the supplies? So, when I said 40,000, that was to get you the amount that we would need to get to 3.2. I wasn't suggesting it out of supplies.

You're right. So most of the supplies as I stated um if you do 10% across the boards 318,000 however like I said 197,000 322 would be gas, sand, salt. Um there's another 30,000 that's contractual for um uniforms. So that only leaves like 90,000 to look at. So all of the smaller departments that have small numbers will be losing more along with the fact that some of that like HR it's safety supplies um fire safety supplies, police it's safety supplies. So it there's not much to take unless you take from the smaller departments which won't get you that much.

Thank you. Um I do have another question for Director Healey. Um,

yes. Thank you, Director Haley. Um, that was a very honorable um, statement that you made uh, a few moments ago. Um, and I I would like to go back to that if you don't mind and I apologize for doing this in public. Um you made a statement that um you would something about your retirement. Sorry. Sure. Yeah. I would be willing to retire before the end of the year in order to save Sorry. Can I interrupt this conversation for a moment? Uh Director Tario, are we okay to be having this sort of conversation in open session? We already did. Well, I understand, but like I'm sorry.

She said yes. It's his position. He's brought it up. So, he's made that public. Okay. Just double checking. Thank you everybody. Uh, please continue. Director Healey. Um, so again, when you started making that statement, things just kind of went in my mind because I I was just felt really bad and uh all of that. Um, is is that correct? Is that what you said? That is that's exactly what I said. Yes. I would be willing to retire before the end of the year, which could be enough of the savings to keep uh the person that you're looking to get rid of or eliminate.

And this this probably isn't okay to say. Um then please um yeah, let's Whoa. I'm just I'm trying to figure out how we can save, right? And where we can and I Can I interrupt you for a second? No. A long chance. Sorry. What I wanted to ask was Don't say something you shouldn't, please. Thank you. Is um I don't want you to leave early, but if I guess what I would ask is if you were willing to give that up, you know, was your plan to retire soon or when were you up for retirement if you didn't mind me asking?

I I really don't mind you asking. I actually had a March 1st of this year date to retire. I was convinced to stay on through the reevaluation. Uh which I said I would do. Um and when I didn't realize that this was going to come up and I just feel now that because I'm where I'm at my career that if I can save someone else's job that I'd be happy to do that. I thank you and I I think we should take that into consideration. and um unfortunately um uh t take what Mr. Healey has uh said into consideration. Thank you. You're welcome.

Uh councelor Nene, did you have something else? Yeah, I think that's probably a conversation that the administrator and the chief assessors should have um that isn't public like I'm so sorry for this but but I I I I appreciate um your dedication to both the city and your employees and I know that it's been an incredibly rough road with this with this riaval um and and we certainly appreciate what you've done for us. So yeah, thank you.

Thank you. Uh okay, Director Roy. Um you know the total dollar amount of the amendment to uh would still require uh five votes. Correct. If we remove those two positions, yes, because it would bring it back up um above the 3.3%. Understood. We are removing those positions, but then it sounds like we are charging administration to find those savings elsewhere, which will likely be positions or we're adding that back in. It's just a question on process. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Um I mean councelor Nian has voiced support to remove those two positions. Is that

is there other support because we're all trying to keep tabs and there I think was initially support for the nian amendment from four counselors as it stands. So yeah, I think we're trying to get consensus here this meeting to prepare for next Tuesday. No, no, understood. Um and uh we're coming back to you, counselor MTO. Uh so as but if we're never mind the positions, if we're talking about the dollar amount, the dollar amount that uh uh amendment two represents, that would need five votes right now. Correct. If it's above 3.3. Yes.

Yeah. And then to get it below would require another 40,000 as councelor Martell asked. No. So currently as Council and Aging's amendment two, it gets us to the 3.3 that we need and you don't need the majority five. So, but if he if we remove the two positions, then that will bring it back up and we'll need to either reduce another 163,753 to get back down to that 3.3% so that we won't need the majority or you need five votes,

right? And yeah, Administrator Kenrath and I are thinking along the same lines here. So, uh, for this dollar amount right now, it appears that, um, before we did have, uh, four votes to, to support that because we had, uh, councelor Nene, we had councelor Long Champamps, we had councelor, uh, Roy if I'm not mistaken, and then, uh, we had councelor Martell, and then, uh, councelor uh, Chidum, counselor Chidum also seemed amendable. Am I understanding everyone correctly? Councelor Chidim,

the discussion that we've had this evening has been illuminating. Um, I was never completely comfortable with the council naming specific positions. Uh, as I've said before, the dollar amount works and as my conversation with Director Roy earlier, um, the cuts that I had proposed in my amendment don't necessarily have to be as deep now that we have a new understanding of what the target is. So, um, I I I I would go back and argue that if we put the $151,000 from the public works department into amendment one, that would meet the target goal and it would leave the administrator with full discretion as to where to find those personnel cuts. I'll remind everybody, and this is for the public, that our budget has four basic components. Personnel is 52% of that and that's one of the few that we have control over. Supplies is another. I don't have the percentage on that. But the other two elements of our budget are fixed costs and contractual services. And we we cannot without violating contracts without not paying insurance or debt service. We can't touch those. So the only places we have are supplies and personnel. And we're focusing on personnel. We've been told that supplies uh are sacrosanked. I would argue that if we reduce the salt consumption by the public works department by 5% um that's probably a doable and achievable goal. And hearing that salt is $190,000. Did you say director Roy?

So 197,322 was gas and sand and salt. So to take 10% from the supply line um for sand and salt would be 54,337. The rest is from gas.

Okay. I I I'm Let's abandon the 10% now because we've got some other moving targets here. My point is that supplies are the one of the two areas we can touch. We've already exhaustively talked about personnel. I do believe that this is administrator Kanra's responsibility. So I would argue for my amendment which rests that ownerous responsibility on his shoulders. Uh and then I would say that those large public works um supplies, salt, sand uh and gasoline, if we take a 5% cut in those, that would be a significant amount. My guess is that if we do that with the budget that I the amendment that I proposed and add in the $151,000 that Director Gier has graciously found in his budget, we meet our target. We require four votes to pass. We've put the burden of choosing which individuals and positions are going to be cut on the city administrator. uh and and we can that would be our direction to the administrator to come back to us uh on Tuesday with with a budget that reflects those things.

Uh understanding that your proposal uh does not include the police uh take-home cruisers. My proposal does not include take-home cruisers. No.

And I um I wonder if that's going to be difficult to uh muster the votes for here on the council. Uh, councelor. Yes, councelor Nan, your thoughts? Well, we've just gone through a pretty grueling public process and so I would be happy with accepting the amendment that I put forward, including anything that you've put forward that isn't included in my amendment with whatever the gap is concerning the the the two positions that I've mentioned um to for the administrator to to to work out. I mean, the public process, I think, is is is pretty um uh we're talking about positions, but they're people's jobs. And in some of these positions, we know who people should whose jobs they are. It's a we we've gone through this piece, and like I don't necessarily think that we should go back to the drawing board. Uh so counselors um are we uh do we have uh can I get a thumbs up from counselors if they want to support the nine uh amendment allowing uh the administrator to uh to find the savings of the two positions that get put back in. Am I am I saying that correctly?

Yes. Correct. And I think that part of that revolves around a conversation um because it's been very public tonight with the with with the chief assessor and the administrator and figuring out if that actually makes sense for the city. Um uh do we have u support for that to move forward?

Do we need five uh for that? No, it would be four because we're funding the savings elsewhere. We are to stay. Okay. So, if we had four, long as we stay at 3.3 or below, we we need four. It appears that we have uh support for that. Majority support. Any final thoughts before we call it a night from counselors? Councelor Martell, you had your hand up earlier or are you good? I'm good. Okay. Councelor Haramman. Yes.

Yes. I just wanted to comment on the the process. I guess um you know this would have been a lot easier for me if I had had these positions this list of positions several weeks ago when I asked for it. Um I just got this when I walked in here tonight and to be asked to make a decision on these things with in such a quick time frame I don't think is fair. Um, we're talking about people's jobs here and we need some time to to uh to go over the information that's been presented tonight. Um, so I I will be prepared to vote on this next Tuesday when we vote on the budget, but I am not prepared to make a decision one way or the other tonight after two hours of of seeing this information.

Uh, councelor Long Champs, any final thoughts from you? Yes. Um I would just like to say that uh the amendment that we did receive from both counselors uh Chidum and uh councelor Naene uh we actually received on Thursday. Um so we we did have uh more than just tonight uh to review this. We didn't have the financial you have not been recognized. Thank you. We didn't have the financial presented tonight. So, I think an informed decision. Councelor Harman, you have not been recognized. We're not going to argue back and forth, counselors. Thank you. Uh,

um, yeah. So, my final my final thoughts. Or am I still here or not? Uh, yes. As long as as long as we recognize that we're not going back and forth. I I wasn't going back and forth at all. I was simply stating that I received the amendments on Thursday and as far as part of the process, our administrator asked us counselors to submit any um any of these any amendments that we should want to to administration um as of uh last Thursday I believe was the deadline. Was that is that correct on Thursday? That was what we all agreed to at the last meeting. Correct. Right. Um, thank you.

Thank you, counselors. I want to avoid us uh simply trying to be right. Okay. We're trying to wrap up this meeting. Councelor N. It's not that. It's just correct information. We did not receive this information until tonight. You have not been recognized. Councelor Herman, you're still not. Thank you. Councelor Nene, I'm recognizing you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, first, just to address the entire council, um, this is highly dysfunctional and it needs to stop. Councilors, stop bickering between each other. Thank you, councelor Nene.

The we're already behind the eight-ball right now for having conversations about how we fix next year's budget. Um I have made some proposals concerning in private um and I think in public too concerning licensing of of certain businesses um that operate within our city. um possibly even looking at um the uh rental registration program uh as a forpay system. We need to find sources of revenue that pay for the services that we're providing. We don't want to be in a situation in this city where we're having a conversation about getting rid of a fire marshal while we have buildings that are requiring more service. You know how many times a fire marshall's been in my house? Never. So, um, we're providing services that are getting spread across the entire tax base, and we need to figure out ways to make the rateayers, the people who are receiving these services, foot some of that bill so that we don't have to have these conversations in the future about where the money is going to come from for an essential service. It's it's a it's a it's a very um uncomfortable situation. This was this was not um this is probably the worst council meeting I've been to for several reasons. Um but um we we we need to we need to find sources of revenue to support our city staff. We know that we that I know that there are people at home that are saying that the budget's bloated. There are places that do need reorg 100%. Don't get me wrong, there are. But nobody uh no department in this city is overstaffed. Um it just isn't. Um

thank you uh councelor um Nene. Uh counselors. I'm attempting to call it a night here. Uh staff, do you have uh do you have a point of order? Councelor Herman, I would like to speak to my experience. I received this information tonight. If other if other counselors received it earlier, that's their experience. duly duly noted. I received this tonight and I would prefer more than a couple hours to consider it before making a decision. Thank you, Councelor Herman. Uh staff, do you need anything else from us? Thank you.

I'm just wondering um if we do this amount, I I want to make sure we're going to do the appropriation resolve. My fear is that when the city administrator comes back with two other positions um if that's going to change on Tuesday of on your votes. So that's my fear of not knowing. Um we don't like doing an appropriation resolve at 10:00 at night. It's a lot of numbers. Um so that's just my fear not having a finalized number. Uh I I appreciate you voicing your concern. Um yeah, sorry councelor

Nene just to answer to that I think that the the issue that we've run into repetitively is that there are people who are not comfortable with tier three on on the council and there are people who were comfortable with tier three on the council. This process wouldn't have happened this way had we just accepted the the the tier three cuts, right? Councelor, thank you. I I don't want to rehash the past. No, I'm simply stating that I think everybody up here knows that we have to stay to the to the northeast CPI. Thank Thank you, Councelor Nine. Uh I think we've we're good for right now. Um this concludes our budget workshop. Thank you all. You're going to keep shutting me out of the process. I don't understand why I'm here.