Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

Is everything working tonight for now? Alright. It is 05:00. I will call the finance committee to order. Roll call. We have the entire committee here with the exception of Alder Dunbar. Is he on? He is on Zoom.

Okay. Can

you guys hear me?

Yes. We can hear

you. Alright.

And we have Alder Doral joining us in person tonight. Welcome. We'll go to public comment. Is there anybody from the public that wishes to address the finance committee this evening? Second call for public comment. Third and final call for public comment. Anybody online for public comment? I just think I see Alder Dunbar. And was there any previously received public comments? Then I will close public comment, and we'll move on to our discussion action items.

We only have one, and it is the 2026 executive budget. So we'll move on to our deliberations on that. There is a plethora of items that are attached in Granicus that Sean's been updating for us. If there's not an objection or somebody wants to get into something right away, kinda like we did the other night. And we have until 06:00 when plant commission is here.

So if we wrap up before then, I I won't object. But I think we should take kind of those items since those are all the requests or data that's kind of updated to the budget. Just kind of take them one by one and check them off to see if there's any questions on the data that's been given. Is there any objection to that? Perfect. So the first one is the fee schedule, kind of the layout of 2,026 fee schedule, that was provided for us. Any

I can

add. This is new. What we're trying to do to streamline is in the past when departments would have their fees that come to their respective committees, sporadically, through a resolution where the intent here is to try to include all the fees in one document and ultimately incorporate it with the adoption of the budget. So therefore, the adoption of the budget would also adopt the fees and eliminate the need for the multiple resolutions to come back from individual committees. And we learned, like, at times departments may, because of this time of year being so busy, would forget to bring forth and things like that.

So we wanted one concise document. The far right column for your review would detail any kind of increase increase and change of any kind of fee that would be available for you. So that's kind of why it's new and the intent was trying to streamline.

I like that. Thank you. Any questions from the committee on the fee schedule for 2026? Alright. Then we'll move on to the first alder request, and that was from alder Dunbar, which was kind of the 2,025 assessment revaluation analytics, kinda going through some of the average changes, the mean, median, values. So, Oliver Dunbar, did you were you able to review that information?

Yes. I was. I appreciate you getting that to me. Again, it didn't really have anything to do with my decision today or with this budget. It was more, just making sure that we're looking at when we do these, which, again, I I know it's it's not necessarily our control when we have to do these. Just making sure that we we get a good spread of what we're actually seeing in the city. So I was able to review it, and thank you very much for getting those over.

Okay. Sean, did you have anything to add on that? It's pretty self explanatory.

Yeah. The top one just there is, how the assessor does it is by class. So as you can see, it goes class one all the way down to, what was, undeveloped and then your various different classes. And then ultimately, then you have the total that's what the far left is looking at all those classes and totals and then trying to the best, to extrapolate the residential versus commercial. There is some, figures that can be skewed not so much in the average, but just in there because something could be coded residential, but also have an underlying value of architect or agricultural and depending on how the report was, could be pulling from two diff.

It was a spreadsheet that was about 70 columns wide by 14,000 column rows. So there is I mean, while Excel is a powerful tool, just if you microscope it, there could be some some small deviation.

Seems like it's a good 30,000 foot view of Correct.

Trying to just extrapolate. And we can always, going forward now that we know the file that the assessor gave us and do it, we can definitely get further data extrapolated from there if needed.

Okay. Any any could the committee have questions on on that data?

Just like to comment. That's a good job because I know if you start looking at a worksheet with 14,000 rows and lord knows how many columns. It's quite a task. Okay.

Thank you. The next attachment is kind of the capital budgeting or the capital requests that have been approved for the current budget year that we're in of 2025 was proposed for 2026 and then actually forecasted looking ahead for 2027. And it kind of shows, you know, when I know it was part of the conversation we talked about of moving some borrowing from this year next year to the following year to kind of align with debt payments and actually what is proposed for 2027 borrowing. And actually, questioned some of that if it's really capturing everything because I noticed that there's nothing in there for parks and there's nothing in there for storm sewers in the reconstruction of streets now. Some of those are round numbers, so maybe it's capturing some of it as estimated, but it seems to be not quite complete from what we're looking at in the previous years as we look at some of the

highlights. If I could take a moment, I'll So kind of explain starting from Page one is the 27, as Aldous Sekouet said. And that's really just kind of looking at really is extrapolating from the seven year or six year road plan and what's going to be happening in 2027. So you're absolutely right. Like a lot of those reconstructions are the data the figures received from engineering on their estimates as best case today.

There are usually within those estimates, looks different than what you typically see is because a $2,000,000 project on Franklin might have $1,700,000 in concrete cost and $300,000 in storm sewer. We set that out when we bring forth to the budget proposal as it shows in '26 and '25. Unfortunately, at this time, we didn't just have the data yet of what was storm sewer and what was there. So that's why it's a little a lot smaller. But that's really kind of what the requests are to show based on what's in the currently proposed 2027 plan based on the road plan.

And then the commitment of the $400,000 for the ladder truck, which was action was taken back down in 'twenty three. And then if we keep the same payment marking and concrete sidewalks, which we've done for many years, really to show kind of like if these road figures are right and this is what we go forth, we would sit at a borrowing without any kind of parks or any other kind of things about 7.6% based on estimates. Stemming to that then in the 26,000,000 is there, just as a recap, it's also in your binder. Nothing changed from that, just to show. And then the 25,000,000 is just to kind of show projects and where we're at.

As of today, obviously, lot of things can change from year end. For example, on that twenty five point one, Reed Avenue shows a $11,280,000 borrowing, but only spent to date $20,000 we're going to get probably a number of pay estimates coming through, if not have already. So just to kind of, that could be a little misleading. But this attachment along with the next attachment that was right underneath it, which was the requested memo for the rescue truck, really kinda go, I guess, in conjunction because, just trying to show that if we try in my opinion, if we try to split the rescue truck across, given what the, preferred road projects would be, just on the borrowing alone, we'd be, adding, let's say, an additional. I'm gonna make it up 400,000 if we split it, added on to 27, so then you're right at $8,000,000 If these numbers are correct and these are the actual projects that occur.

That was kind of the intent of this.

And not to mention the additional costs that are outlined in the letter Yep. Of the extra cost of the truck itself.

And and we do have assistant chief, Kranek here to talk about it, because, mister Blazer wasn't able to be here. But as that memo discussed, not a very large incentive to even pay in, to have any kind of prepay or anything like that. There's really no discounts whether you pay it now or later or more. But because of the change in emissions standards that's happening, the manufacturers or the preferred manufacturer that we were looking at did, preorder a number of the chassis ahead of time that so they have them on hand and ready. That's why if you remember to recap, when we talked last time, the intent was Chief Laser setup here, said probably twelve to eighteen months.

Well, after inquiring based on the direction from Finance Committee, we learned of this, they have these ready to go. So if we put the order, let's say, this was approved, we were given the go ahead even if you're placing the order in February, March, it's landing as soon as possibly in there. Conservatively, they said eight months would be the longest. So kind of all pointing to, in my opinion, that it would be advantageous. I would advocate for us to borrow the full amount in the 2026 borrowing. But that's my opinion. It's this man's budget. So if he disagrees, I'll give him a chance to talk. My

assumption is you don't disagree since you put it in for the full funding initially. Is there any questions on start going back to the original, the capital borrowing for the attachment of '25, '26 and '27 and then tied to the letter from the chief on the truck as well since both of those are are kind of tied together. Aldo Reckleberg?

Yeah. And the first thing that comes up out of the three pages on that one attachment, it says, pardon me, the 27 capital projects, and it's basically your sidewalk, asphalt, concrete, so on and so forth. I don't see Kellner Avenue And

20.

We'll

And was start up '28.

I thought it was a

two year bump for that one. I could be wrong.

I was told it was one year. If it's two years, well, I mean, is what it where you put it. But I'm just saying I had planned on '27 and I was told that so.

On, Tab seven on that piece of paper under Tab seven in your binder with the road project plan, I do show 2028 being down the street Fleetwood to Wildwood estimated cost $2,000,000 and it does detail 2026. We put minus 2,000,000 as in happening two years later

then

to to

that. I'm just saying And based on the

And

one with all the detail for the next year's budget type thing, I was told it was so I just assumed that without looking at that one. So until I saw your one pager here, I didn't see it. So that's why I questioned it.

Okay. No.

Else, Alder Reckonberg?

No. Not at Okay.

Any other committee members or Alder Norelli, you can feel free to jump in here anytime too. Okay. Then we'll move on to the next attachments.

Where we are here now?

The general fund summary with fund balances. I believe all the record this is your request.

I'm sorry. Which one?

The general fund summary and fund balances. I think that's the sheet you also were handing out.

Yes. Yes. I requested that. In fact, I handed out a printed version with a couple notes on it that I had made to all the members, including, alder Norell, the mayor, and, Sean. And, you know, looking at this, I have a problem with the last column, which is the '26 proposed budget.

And the ending equity on the statement of revenues and expenses is $2,200,000 and yet I'm showing detail for May There's a $3,000,000 disconnect. I followed what you did in the other columns, but I I'll have to admit, I only spent about ten, fifteen minutes with this as I was in Green Bay today taking care of my mother. So

K.

But I if I were to complete the last column the way the other ones were, when it comes down to your general fund on designated, it's a negative amount. Correct. So you're saying it's correct. It would be a negative amount if you would have just completed the last column the way you did the other columns. And I'm not going to argue with you because unless you've got some other philosophy going on that I would have taken, I would agree with you that's going to be a negative general fund undesignated.

Correct. Yes. I think to speak supposed to show knowing by the footnote four that we detailed that there would be that fund balance to balance out, but we were showing it as the financial statement presentation. So that's my error. But I think if you do the math, like if everything comes correct with what we put in a fund balance of $3,500,000 for this budget for 2025.

So depending on if the expenses and revenues come out the way they're as if everything was the same and you had to fill that $3,500,000 I mean the simplistic math, we should do that. Dollars 4,800,000.0 was our ending fiscal year 2024, minus 3,500,000.0 right? And there's a little bit of some offset on there because current estimates do have some of the firefighting or firefighter equipment purchases in there that show that offset. I see you highlighted that one as well. But, yes, if that were to happen, I mean, was to try to dictate if they were to happen, but you are correct.

If everything would occur, essentially, we would have to we would either have a negative unassigned, so we would have to pull from assigned. And the only other thing that's zero is that long term accounts and internal inter fund receivables showing ahead under the non spendable at 1.62. That's a carryover of three years. I'd just say that that amount at 1.62 was predominantly to cover the negative balance in TID 24 and TID twenty two. I apologize, I didn't detail that on there in another footnote.

But TID twenty twenty four is now positive because at the end of 2024, we are negative $1,000,000 because our borrowing didn't hit till 2025. And then 2022 was little negative, but the increment is intended to for 25,000,000 is to hold off. So I only add that I didn't do that on here because that's obviously not done until the final audit. But if worst case scenarios, I mean, we would potentially have to have some negative on the sign.

The other option any year. Correct. I've been doing this same practice for years, and we

haven't seen that.

So that's why I'm confident on the numbers. I don't like it. I know you don't like it, but there's two options options to get that 3.5 down, and you know what they are, Alderman Reckleberg.

Oh, yeah.

You raised the levy or you cut expenses. And we've sat through several of these, and nobody seems interested in raising the levy.

We've already increased interest income.

Cutting expenses. So I I agree with you, Alder Reckleberg. I don't that's not the perfect world, but we have years and years of proof that when we put that unassigned forward, we've balanced it. It hasn't eaten up the full 3.5 anywhere near. Now, Sean and I will agree, we're getting worried because a lot of that unassigned being filled throughout the year was through vacant positions and everything, and we're at full staff for almost every department.

That's where you get the bulk of that savings. Right? But it's it's yeah. It it's it's been every year I've done this, and we've we've balanced it out where we have not lowered the unassigned drastically at all.

Well, you're going from 4.8 down to 2.3.

If that is if all that's still yes, that's if all expenses we still have to

end of the year to get through. Well, yes, have to assume you're going to get all your revenue and get all your expenses. And if you do, that's where you're going to be. And based on his conversation about kid districts, which are supposed to take care of themselves, I would like to see that detail in the statement so I can see where the money is coming from, where it's going, who's covering what, but. That's why a statement like this for every fund for the last thirty five years or so have always been what the county receives.

They received, if they wanted it, 100 page detail. They received a 120 page summary. But they could not only see the detail, but they could see the financial statement projections with all the transfers and the covers and the this and the that so people would feel comfortable. When I saw this, I got very uncomfortable because at first blush, I would say that two point three isn't going to be there unless I see some of the other stuff. And when it was negative, that's how I got hired for the county from Brown County is they said, we got trouble.

I said, yeah, you got trouble. And I'm not saying we're in trouble, but this scares me. And it scares me until I see where are the numbers that because if you notice well, you don't notice, but I highlighted, give or take a couple dollars, the fund balance in detail, which shows up in the middle of the page. And the very bottom, which is the fund balance as per the detail, all the individual component parts. And the numbers are within a few dollars.

I'm not going to complain about $20 or $40 But when you get to the last one for the '26 budget, you're showing me we're going to have $2,200,000 and you're showing me 5,700,000.0 in detail. It doesn't work.

You're So right. The formula is there's an error in the formula. And I'll apologize. Just

I'm created that this glad to have this I'm not blaming you. I thank you very much for presenting it. Like I said, you presented it like this when you worked for me at the county, when we did the county's budget. So I would like to see this for all of our budgeted funds because I realize there are some funds that aren't budgeted when you get into the internal service fund.

Can just ask a question? Where did this document come from?

It's one of the pages out of the county's budget.

Was gonna say because on top of it, it says Mantua County General Fund summary.

Yeah. You got the template. I just Yeah.

I didn't know if it was the human services budget or not.

Oh, okay. Did I even caught No.

That's my worst. That's

I even chain I even changed that. I even caught that and changed that. I must have forwarded the wrong PDF. Nauseous all the time.

I mean, to to this point, the fact is there's $3,500,000 of fund balance applied for next year. That's what happened last year. That's what happened the year before. We've we've hit our mark almost every year close to that we don't we don't take 3,500,000.0 out of unassigned every year. Other otherwise, we would be, I would be way negative I've done this quite a few years now because the only two options are to raise the levy, raise taxes or to cut expenses.

And you noticed last year I asked to raise the interest income.

Which we did this year, correct?

Well, you had to. But what I'm saying is my offer to raise the interest income last year was a legitimate request. In fact, you're estimating $300,000 more than even what my estimate was.

Okay. But Alder Reckleberg.

But now you're budgeting what you should be budgeting. So we're running out of we're going to get more revenue than what we're budgeting. We're at the point where, hey, we're pretty much budgeting the revenue probably we will get. We're not going to have that.

Right. Because that went to fund balance. And

that's where that part of the 3.5 is coming from. Yeah. Is the extra revenue that came in that wasn't budgeted in the Correct.

In the interest income. But that's showing up in this column, not the column for next year's budget. That three that extra revenue is showing up here in this column for the twelve month estimated actual.

Again, those are those are columns. At the end of the day, when all the cash coming in and all the cash going out, you know, we we did not have to take 3 and a half million dollars out of fund balance applied because we made it work throughout the year. And we didn't have to raise taxes, and we didn't have to cut expenses. And as you saw, we've increased we, counsel and myself, have increased expenses pretty drastically this last year.

Well, then let me ask you this. Because if you see the second column, which is the '25 budget, Right in the middle where it says excess revenues and other sources over or under expenditures and other uses, we've got $3,500,000 Because it's in the income statement presentation, you don't show another source of 3,500,000,000.0 That's basically the fund balance applied. We're using fund balance applied to cover that deficit. Go over and look at what is the twelve month estimated actual for this year. It's $4,300,000

Correct.

So tell me how we're not using the $3,500,000 all of it if you're predicting a deficit of over $4,000,000 I don't mean to argue. I don't want to argue. I just want to get it right and I want people to understand these things. I don't expect you to have a degree in accounting or finance or whatever.

Estimates, but also, two, we are mercy to these estimates come out based on when departments do when we do our budgets, we have to put our estimated actuals in. And that sometimes, sometimes, just going to be frank with you, some departments just copy over their budget. They don't look at the actual. And then we scrub it and look through that. Could we miss stuff? Absolutely. So to your point, some of those could be, as I say, estimates. They might have been estimates in November I'm sorry, September, and various changes happened there. Mean

I'm the first one to agree with you. But as you know, I always put an emphasis on twelve month estimated actuals. You attended those meetings with me, I made it very poignant to the departments that you need to be as honest as possible. If you're honest, I go to bat for you with the executive. If you're trying to pull one over my eyes, you're out on your own.

And I always went over it. I don't know if you did, but I always looked at them. If I didn't agree, we argued right then and there to try to get it right. I'm assuming I don't know how your time goes if you had time to do that and maybe argue with the departments and say, I don't agree with your number or not. But if this is what we're basing our decision off of, I'm seeing a $3,500,000 applied fund balance and we're going to run over a $4,000,000 deficit.

Now part of that $4,000,000 right, as we say, if we rewind, in the expenses under public safety, that $18,000,000 of an estimate, part of that also includes the fire engine.

Yes. But you already reduced the equity section on that from $1,819,000 you brought that down to 4,440,000.00 I was going to ask you to see that not tonight, but I mean maybe to between now and say, are we adding some, subtracting some and then adding and subtracting some more? Or is it just plain and simple, you're taking the difference and that's what's being applied to purchase whatever it is we've got?

Yes. The $4,000,000 is without the transfers in. So then the transfers in would be reflected in the reduction of the unassigned fund balance at the bottom. I can explain the mechanics better or we can collaborate and

Well, yes. I don't want take up I just want to bring this out that I'm paying attention.

You know? I appreciate it.

Don't you just hate it when I pay attention? No. Okay. There's a lot of empty chairs tonight.

Okay. Anything else on this document?

Other than I would like to thank him for going through the effort of doing this, I appreciate that.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Then we have the revised 2025 tax levy sheet that's may have proposed. That's based off of there's one revision in the total tax levy, I believe it is. Nope. The assessed value.

Yep. The assessed the manufacturing equated assessed value came back, so we just updated rather than update it and try to reload. I just wanted to put an additional attachment on there.

And then the same thing with the next tax rate sheet. Any questions on those? They're just, again, calculations through with the manufacturing numbers that came through.

So those are on yes, so those are there. So essentially, before we were showing a negative 2.34% decrease in levy over the last year with the change in the assessed I'm sorry, equated manufacturing, we're at negative 2.33%. Ultimately, our estimates were off about $300,000 So that's why you see a very, at least in my opinion, minimal change on there. So

Okay. Then we have the actual budget proposal from the mayor that's in there, that same thing that's in our binders. So we're not gonna hash that out right now. Then we have the just a basic sheet of the reval kinda coming out to that 22.98% that we saw the values increase. Then we started having the letter letters of support for Lancer Circle. We have the letter support for the adjustment to the for the Rar West Art Museum. We have the mirror letter. We have the marine band letter. Any questions on those letters? Okay.

Then we have the memo for the unfunded positions. Again, that's something I asked for the three positions, the assistance of the attorney, business manager, and engineer. There's gonna be the resolution coming. I talked to Jesse Lillebridge, our HR director. That'll be coming towards personnel on the first. So any questions on that? Excellent.

Next one to duplicate. I think the next one do you see the rescue truck?

Yes. I just do that.

Yep. Sorry. That was it. I added it twice. I just feel that passionate about getting that truck.

We're only buying one.

You're passionate about

buying Just wait till the end of the meeting. We'll buy three.

Okay. And then there's a request from I'm not sure which alder. It doesn't say on here about the hyster historical spending for MIRA.

Yeah. It was alder Noel.

Request now.

Okay. Because

I have received a

a message from a a citizen about MIRA

I'd be glad to. Could I ask, did you hear back?

It late later in the morning or early afternoon today. So I have

And I can

tell

you that's been the the probably disconnect is the we don't know. And that's that's been the disconnect, basically. So there there's never been really a a formal budgeting process for MIRA. So kind of just routing it through having Visit Manitowoc kind of manage it and distribute funds as needed or requested, but still having the checks and balances on it. I think is just kinda keeping it level and above board.

Yeah. I can see I did get one initial okay. Let me find the message here real quick. There was according in this email, according to Courtney, there was

No. No. And I I'll provide one other little tidbit is there was a little pushback from the hoteliers that the room tax dollars for Mira isn't necessarily fitting the mold of the generation of room tax that so they would like to see and I think there was a conversation at the last room tax meeting is that while there's still some funding from the room tax flowing to MIRA, that they would like to see it be also some fundraising aspect of it for some self sufficient dollars flowing into it. So they've kind of viewed the room tax dollars as being some seed money, some match kind of money to get them fundraising. That if they needed additional funds, that that's kind of how they would have to raise some funds because they just didn't see the the intent behind those room tax dollars is to get heads in beds and that, you know, the mirror dollars don't really do that on a really annual basis.

So, Mayor, did that kind of

Yeah. Absolutely. And if you're on the sheet that Sean attached for Mira annual spend, just to note, so in in the past, Mira received 1% of all room taxes collected. That was in resolution. So that's why you see in 2018, we probably collected $714,000 in room taxes, right? And you can see that, I think, around 2020 was accurate. That was about 524,000 Then we switched it. But you see also in those previous years that other dollars raised, and, you know, they had those programs in the past. We eliminated the council eliminated that 1%. That's why you see zeros, you know, and it really was supposed it was intended to be an annual allocation of true need.

And as Aldrich Zuckerwitz says, we don't know exactly that true need. So and also to sustain the program moving forward, love to see those donations and contributions from non room tax or tax dollars support the program, which so that's

And and the other aspect was when there's delegations, obviously there's a larger spend. But on the off years when there isn't, there isn't that larger spend. To the point of like that 1% was always going into the Mira Fund, well, if there weren't a lot of annual activities in those years, it didn't make sense for those funds to be directed sit there. So it's a little give and take, but I I think, you know, I Unless you're reserving them

for a lender or little delegation. Correct.

But that'd be you know, those years, those dollars could flow. It'd be budgeted for in different ways. So I I think there's just a change is hard. We'll go with that.

But that was the reason why I was just trying to understand more based on the email address.

Yep. Any questions on that aspect of this document? Okay. And then the last I think all the Norel, this is yours as well. And we've done some things like this in the past where the any expenditure in the budget was highlighted of 5% greater or less.

And this looks like anything that was 16% more and probably tied around the health insurance costs. I noticed that was the majority of what was highlighted. And there a couple, but they were really small amounts that just triggered that because of the small amount.

Yeah. Yep.

They didn't have a budget line item before. Yeah. No. It's it's a good look at it when you talk about going from year over year of what's changing. So I appreciate that that fourth fourth look.

That was the intent to put it on was because it was a that I felt it was a valid request and was good to show, like, we presented in the binder summary, but given that health insurance 13% salaries and the unions and stuff. And also to the kind of kind of paint the picture of, you know, it's been requested in the last couple of years to split DPI to its appropriate source of where it is, and you can kind of see how that is. To Elder Rekelberg to mention to you, we did like if you had five employees in parks, their salaries, benefits, all those associated expenses do go to the parks I department now or intended

appreciate that. That's now we know what we're spending in parks and not well, here's part of it.

Correct. There is one more item that I uploaded kind of, a couple of minutes before coming here. If you guys would back if you have a chance to back out of the agenda part, hit the refresh and go back in. Yeah. Let me know if it shows up. It would it be

at the bottom of the list?

It'll be at the very top. I put

it at

the very top. It's just a memo, and it's just a procedural thing I have to correct, because the mayor's proposed budget in the binder are in our system that was and then also formatted based on the budget publication, had that transfer from room tax to MIRA for only $400 but it's just an error when it really is the intent of the commission is to be $5,000 So it's truly in the from an audit perspective, it's a revision. But once a budget is publicized, it can't be revised. So it ultimately would be quote, unquote, revision request

Okay.

Formality. Doesn't change anything. Doesn't increase. Doesn't touch anything on the general fund. Doesn't even touch anything on the the additions because in order to balance the room tax fund, we have to plug it with an expense because it's showing more revenue coming in anyway based on the towers. So it does it's just a revision to it of it there.

Okay.

Any questions on that one?

It makes sense because the we passed the the budget for room tax rate before we got the budget from the mayor. So okay. So that takes us through all the documents that were requested for by alders that were supporting documents of the budget through presentation from the mayor. So I guess I will open it up to committee four. And, alder Narelle, you're welcome to jump in here. Obviously, you you can't make motions, but you can add to the dialogue. Alder Dunbar, I guess I'll open it up to the committee. Where should we go from here?

Reducing the borrowing by about half of that equipment. And it looked good. We wouldn't have got to the number, but it would have been something and I could have lived with it. And looking at the letter now, that kind of shoots the hell out of that.

It did look good initially, until it didn't.

The guys gotta try.

Well, think, you know, we we looked at it. You took this similar approach to the latter where we budgeted over several years and because of the large amount and, you know, I I think it was worth the look at it and asking the right question. And it just didn't it didn't make sense to do it this way for that particular piece of equipment.

Alder Sly? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have to say that this is my sixth budget. And I hate to use the word clean, but there's been less discussion necessary over this one than any of the other five that I've looked over.

It's we've when I say we, I should credit our directors and our chiefs for doing their due diligence and especially our finance director. I'll even credit the mayor. What the heck? At this point, I can't see any reason not to make a motion to approve this budget.

Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve the budget which should actually be forwarding the budget to counsel. Approving forward the budget to counsel. Do we have to well, I'll wait for a second before we discuss. Is there a second on the motion?

Second. I

have a second from Alder Brey. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Just for clarification, because there's that amend, do we have to make a motion to amend as presented? Or how do we have to handle that transfer?

The the way I've found that works is amend as presented including any all attachments. Does that make sense? Because it's

like That does make sense.

Right, the towards the attachments is there.

Gonna in in culp everything there. So does that is that a friendly amendment to your Almost too friendly. Okay. So let the record show that motion reflects that it includes all attachments.

Including the adjustments.

The two things really are the assessment number Yep. Because of manufacturing and the mirror. Mhmm.

Those are

really the only two Yep. Changes. So just as I would say amended to no opposed to. Because if you say all attachments, you might Yeah.

That's true. Someone

might look at some of these attachments.

Okay.

And I'm just

I understand.

That's just

So would you like to restate your motion?

It's been pretty clearly stated here, but I'd like to move that we approve the budget pending any the two adjustments for MIRA and for manufacturing. Thank you.

And there's a second? Yes. Okay. There's a motion and a second then. Discussion?

Yeah. I have. Mister chairman, if I may.

You may.

Thank you. So going into this, the one thing that, I guess, more that I was talked to the most about that people have asked me about and something that's been a concern of mine is I've owned my home for three years, and there's been three years of tax increase. Some day, you know, which is which is a hard thing to discuss, hard thing to really have a whole lot feedback to the people that ask me this. But now that I said set through this budget and now being on finance, I think that it is easier to explain. You know, we we have the health care, which is a large chunk.

We have the just general cost of living pay raises, things that have to happen. The things we're spending outside of that are on public safety equipment and public parks. And those are the things I believe that the government should be spending on that we as a city should be putting the money towards. And that is something I'm comfortable telling people when they ask me why are my taxes going up. I can tell them, well, we're getting a better fire department.

We're getting more parks. We're making things better. And I think because of that, what at first looked like something that was gonna be difficult to explain and something that was, maybe not as presentable to your average person that's asking or trying to look at why their taxes are going up. I think that the the department heads and, mister mayor, you've done a great job of actually making sure that we are, yes, we are spending money. Yes. We are increasing, but it's not frivolous. There is no extra things here outside of things that the government should be doing, like I said, parts safety, that the money is going towards. I'd like to say thank you to the department heads, for that.

Alright. Thank you, alder Dunbar. Alder Schleich?

Just to expand on what Alder thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to expand on what Alder Dunbar was saying, perhaps these increases wouldn't be necessary but we've also had other things besides the HR issues, the salaries and such, the price of steel is up, which drives up the price of things like fire trucks. The price of salt is way up. The price of, frankly, just about everything is way up right now.

And that is, I guess I should have said this earlier, that's one of the reasons that I applaud our directors and our chiefs for coming up with the budget that they have. Because to come in where we have with the sizable increases on just about every consumable and usable item out there, it's coming at the rate that we have, think is tremendous. I really do. Thank you. Thank you, Elder Schlei.

Just take one kick at it. I kind of made most of my comments at it last meeting. I'll say I'll reserve most of them for council. But when you take a look at the budget from last year to this year, most of it's a carryover. The majority of it are going to be the residents are going to receive the same services that they received this year as they're going to receive next year.

I haven't heard from one citizen that said, can you change the level of services that I'm receiving, increase it, or decrease it? I haven't heard one council member say, can we cut a service or actually increase a service? I think we're at that magic number where the services are meeting the expectations of of the constituency. And that's that's a hard line to find, but I think it's a it's a balancing act, and I think we've we've done a a pretty good job of balancing what the the public is looking for. We perfect at it?

No. Fuck. No. But we're we're not terrible either. The increases are coming purely from a cost of personnel driven side of the budget. And it's something that council has approved all year long. So it really shouldn't come as a surprise to everyone. It's something that as throughout the year, there should have been a box that we've checked all along saying this is going to increase the budget, this is going to increase the budget, and this is going to increase the budget. So it's you can't get to November and be surprised. You know?

Then we get to the capital. There's really not you can't cut anything in the capital and reduce your taxes in this budget. It that's future budgets. You can look at your borrowing at what's gonna reduce. But for next year, it's not going to do a darn thing. So it's a longer term discussion on borrowing dollars. And if you look at the last fifteen eighteen years of where the city was borrowing to where they are, it's been reduced. You could argue not enough. You could argue not fast enough. But where it was, it'd make your head spin. So is it a perfect budget? No. I haven't seen one. Probably won't. Can I defend the budget?

Yeah. Is everybody gonna like it? No. But it's it's I think it's the best it's gonna be. So anything else from the committee? Alright. All those in favor? Aye. And opposed? Alright. We will forward this on to council, which is a special meeting on December 1. We will cancel the finance meeting scheduled for next week Monday since there is no need. So we get a extra day off. With nothing further we will look for a motion to adjourn. So moved. All right.

We are adjourned. Second.

Thank you.