City Council - Regular Meeting

Are we streaming? Thank you. Where did he go? Everybody ready? All right. Good evening. We will call our meeting to order. This is a special meeting to discuss the fiscal year 2026-27 Radford City budget. We had a presentation last Wednesday evening of the full budget as mandated by our city code so that the manager could let us

know what's happening. We've all had a little time to look at the book and digest things. I know it was published online on Friday so that folks could take a look at the advertised rates and the budget book. The purpose of this meeting is for us to discuss things and to see are there adjustments we want to try to make or things along that line. I know it's not on our on our agenda but I would like to do the Pledge of Allegiance and our moment of silence to start off with. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I'll ask that you be seated and please join us in a moment of silence that you can use to prepare for the meeting, to reflect on the issues that the city faces, or for silent prayer. All right. So as I said, last Wednesday we had a called meeting as required by our code. We have to receive a balanced budget from the city manager. We also have to receive a balanced budget from Radford City Public Schools by April 1st and we did do that. But there's a whole lot that has to happen within that. In that discussion last Wednesday night, we did talk about a number of rates and what we had to do because of advertising times for public hearings and for us to actually get things done before the due dates, we had to make a decision on the maximum values for rates. It doesn't mean that that's where those rates will end. It means that that is no more than that can be charged at this point in time. And so we just wanted to clarify that. Todd, I'm going to ask you if you would please give us kind of a little bit of

an overview of what you covered last Wednesday just briefly and help us to understand exactly where we are as we get into our discussion this evening. I know that I've reached out to you on a couple of things. Other members of council have reached out to you on a couple of things. We're looking at every dollar we can look at. We're looking at it on both the expense side and the revenue side to see how we can all contribute to try to help make this the best budget we can have. But Todd, the floor is yours. All right. Well, thank you Mayor Council. It's good to see everyone again this week. Just a real quick summary of where we left things off last week. I wanted to go back over a couple things. So the the budget drivers for the FY27 budget, these you saw these last week. Just wanted to talk about them briefly before we get started. The real estate tax rate, it's being proposed to go from 82 cent to 87 cent increase in the water rate by $1 per 1,000 gallons. In Radford, the minimum charge is 4,000 gallons. That will increase from 2432 to 2832. That was one of the drivers in the budget. Increase the electric rate by 5%. That was course that study was completed by our consultant GDS. That's to keep the electric rate or the electric department operating and maintaining its its financial or its fund balance. One thing we are carrying forward an expenditure or cost cutting measure that we implemented in fiscal year 26. The fiscal year 26 budget called for a million dollars credit back to the budget this year and that was based off of an estimate of about 17 positions that the city through attrition was not going to replace. Throughout fiscal year 26, we actually went a little deeper than that. We went to 34 at one point. We're proposing to keep 25 positions frozen for next year. So that's over a million dollars savings

or or or cut out of next year's budget that were or cut out of this year's budget that were keeping for next year. So that's a cost saving measure. This year instead of showing up on the revenue side of the ledger, it shows up on the expenditure side and reduced payroll expenditures and fringe benefits. We we also budgeted for a loss of one approximately 1.3 million dollars in the electric revenue for the electric department. That's due to Radford University. They will at some point this year bring their co-gen plant online and once they do, that's about 1.3 million dollars that the city will not receive in revenue from electric sales. The other driver is we we had to budget for or we did not budget for $200,000 in revenue due to Pulaski County not honoring the revenue sharing agreement. So we did not budget for any revenue to come in from Pulaski County this year. One other thing, one addition I did make, we still have a few unknowns for fiscal year 27. We still don't have figures from the state according to what they're going to do or require with regards to raises for constitutional officers Department of Social Services. So we don't know what they're going to do yet. Of course, once they give us those numbers, the city will will have to decide or will either have to fund those or make some decisions. So so I just wanted to make that make that point this evening that we still have some unknowns from the state. Can we talk about that just real briefly because that's a that's a more complex thing. It's not just expenditures, right? That sometimes the state will say we're going to increase raises for certain people and certain ones that are covered by the state, they provide funding for but certain ones that are covered by the city, we have to find the funding, correct? That's correct. So we're responsible for our portion if they give a 2% raise, the city is responsible for its portion. Yes.

Start off with some things that that are not included in the in the fiscal year 2027 budget. Things that are not accomplished. We're still not funding all of the non-governmental organizations, the NGOs. We've we've kept those out of the budget this year. We we are uh we are not funding. We have a couple capital projects, not many. The only the largest capital project that we have is in the electric department. It's a $500,000 budgeted expenditure to replace some uh They're not they're not electric poles. I do want to explain just a little bit more. They're they're a little bit more complex than that. They're highly engineered structures that we have to that we need to have in place so that we can make sure that our lines that running across the river are stable and and so that those those structures do their job properly. We have budgeted $500,000 for that in the next year. Um This budget does not grow fund balances. So we've cut capital. There aren't there aren't There there are only a couple capital expenditures. There are many more capital needs than are budgeted for. Um The the general fund so we're not growing fund balances significantly. The general fund is still dependent on transfers. I went over that last week. But the general fund is still very heavily dependent on electric and water and even solid waste for some transfers. So so the general fund is not independently funding itself even in the fiscal year 2027 budget. Still dependent on those transfers from our enterprise funds. The the the the FY27 budget does not increase stabilization funds. So having funds in unassigned fund balance, having those balances available provides cash in case we have

another Hurricane Helene or if a large piece of infrastructure fails such as a water storage tank or a water line, a water main, a sewer main that goes under you know, a VDOT highway or Main Street. Those are hundreds of thousands of dollars if not over a million to repair depending on how deep they are in the ground. So we're not budgeting for replacement of infrastructure or for infrastructure improvements. Um And and the stabilization funds would not be there if something unaccounted for happens. The proposed budget does accomplish a few things. There is a 2% cost of living increase for employees. That'll be the first cola for given to employees I believe in several years now. It does fully fund the schools, the local required effort, local required match in the amount of 5.9 million. And it prevents the erosion of fund balances. So while it doesn't grow them, this budget does fund itself with its own revenue. So there's no erosion of those fund balances as long as nothing unforeseen happens. If a hiccup happens or something unforeseen occurs over the next fiscal year, that that could change. The city it's possible you could have to get a loan to pay for that depending on what the cost and exactly what it is. But but it does prevent erosion of fund balances. So that's a step forward for the city. It invests this budget does invest approximately $90,000 to reorganize and create a continuous improvement lean management program. Won't go into the weeds of that. I talked about it last week but we've pulled back 25 employees. It's required a lot of departments and a lot of employees to take on extra work. It's also required them or departments as a whole as a system, they've got to rethink how they do things. They need to process map their work out. They they need to they need to identify anything in there that's not a value add and get rid of it. But that does require a

certain specialized type of knowledge and training and there are tools to do that. So the $90,000 is to help us consistently save the 1.5 going forward. That's how we pull back on staff and make it work for the citizens. That's how we That's how we can take reduced staff and make it work effectively like everyone is used to getting the the high quality and effective services that the residents are used to receiving from the city of Radford. Uh real quick on the rates, the proposed real estate tax comparison. I do have this up there. It's more for context. Do want to make one point. We're not proposing the real estate tax increase. We're not proposing that because of the neighbors around us because of the city of Galax being at 92 or Salem at a dollar 18. That is for context understand how we compare to our neighbors. The reason the request is in there to raise the real estate tax is because of the city's fund balances. They have been zero, negative. We're trying to grow those We're trying to get We're trying to grow those at least incrementally to get the city back financially stable and to get the cash flow stable. So the reason to ask for the increase is to increase the fund balance and to get a fund balance back for the city. So I just wanted to draw that to to to uh draw everyone's attention to that. This is for context to see how we compare. But the reason the rate increase is in there is to increase the fund balance. Uh I did add in here 1 cent on the real estate gains about 100 approximately $118,000 in revenue to the city. So for every 1 penny it's $118,000 in the general fund. Which I just recently pointed out is heavily dependent on transfers at this point. Uh this is a repeat from last week. We can see different valuations, $200,000

real estate value, 300, 400, 500. Uh you can see the difference between 82 cent and 87 cent. At $200,000 value piece of real estate the increase is $100 per year. Uh $300,000 it's 150, $400,000 it's 200, and $500,000 it's 250. Uh this is a new slide. I did drill a little bit deeper into that. So if we wanted to look at 82, 83, 84, and so forth to 87 cent, you can see the total tax uh assessment that would be on each home value valued at 200, 300, 400, 500,000. And at the bottom what you see here for every 1 cent increase if someone owns a $200,000 home uh the annual increase is $20 on a penny. The monthly increase is $1.67. At $300,000 the annual increase is $30. The monthly increase is $2.50 for every penny. At $400,000 it's an annual increase of $40. And a monthly increase of $3.33. And at $500,000 uh the annual increase is $50 per penny. And the monthly increase is $4.17. Before you leave this slide, can we go back? Um this is the only rate that we're talking about making a change to that actually is a line item that supports the general fund. Correct? Water and electricity support their own funds and we've been doing a transfer, but this is the only thing that begins to address any of the deficiency in the general fund supporting itself. Is that accurate? That's correct.

Okay. Uh the water rate comparison. This is the same slide I had up here last week, but uh Radford, what we're proposing with the dollar increase, our minimum bill is 4,000 gallons. So that would be an increase from $24.32 on a minimum bill to $28.32 uh on a minimum. And just as a comparison once again, this is for context. It's not the reason for going up, but for context Blacksburg is at $37.40, Christiansburg is at 52, Dublin is at 59, Town of Pulaski at 50, and Pulaski County at 45 or 45 and a half. Uh the target user rate. Target user rate is used by many funding agencies. It's used to determine whether or not you qualify for grants. It's one of the criteria used. Uh how you calculate it? You take the the municipality's median household income. For the city of Radford that's $57,348. You multiply that by 1%, divide by 12, and that's where your target user rate is. The target user rate for our water system is $47.79. Can I ask you a question? Uh

Yes. Uh what did you say that $4 would get us the increase as far as in additional income? As far as additional income, uh $4, so every dollar we go up on or every dollar the city goes up on the water rate dollar per 1,000 gallons, the city will achieve will gain $447,000 in revenue. For every dollar.

$4 that's the minimum gets us the 47. 447,000. And a review of the proposed electrical rate. We What you see on the left is the current rate. The middle is 5% rate with the customer charge going to $7.96. The energy charge would be 111.98. This is based on 1,000 kilowatt hours. What's highlighted in yellow in these columns are the total bill at 1,000 kilowatt hours. The far right column is the recommended rate increase. Uh the customer charge would go to $20. But the energy the energy base rate would be 98.63. It's actually a dollar and 31 cent cheaper at 1,000 kilowatt hour level. It also increasing the customer charge allows the city to reduce seasonality in its revenues. It flattens those out so that we can mitigate against high and low usage to a degree. Um So the increase on a bill at 1,000 kilowatt hours actually 4.2% not five. But the way it works out at all the consumption levels, the city will still achieve a 5% increase in the revenue that's needed for the electric department. So let's talk about that a little bit more while you're on this slide. What you're saying is having the higher customer charge covers more of our ongoing expenses. That's what deals with the seasonality. Is that correct? Correct. So that we're covering more of those ongoing billing and and meter and all the ongoing expenses we have with that. And that that way we're not so impacted by having high ongoing expenses when we have low energy usage or real high bills or things along that line. That is correct. And in some cases where we may have someone that's that that would consume only enough to be charged

the customer charge. Uh the city, a lot of those may be solar power, people that are on solar power. Well the cost of the meter plus those have to be hand entered into the computer system. So installing the meter, the cost of the meter, reading the meter, entering in the data the city is not making $7.96 is not making enough to cover the cost at $7.96. $20 helps us mitigate loss on on the labor that goes into that. And we're trying to balance that by lowering the lowering the actual energy base rate. Correct. So it's not 100% just a new charge. Um can we talk about why we're having to do this just for a second? I know we talked about it extensively last Wednesday, but I think that's really important for folks to hear uh that this is not us just choosing to go up on it. It's not even just saying we'd like to have more revenue. It's more complex than that. Can you share some information on that? The the market for wholesale power has changed drastically in the last 5 years. Um the city has had to we've the city has had to absorb the cost or at least work out the cost for increasing wholesale power. Uh that's driven a lot of this in the electric. Um we can't operate the electric department at a loss. Um the the other with The electric department as well is the single largest outside of its own tax base funder of the general fund. Uh there's approximately $3.9 million going from the electric to the general annually. Um the so the electric department has to be able to fund that transfer. Without that transfer, real estate taxes go up. Or personal property, something out of the general fund's portfolio has to increase to offset the transfer. So the electric department has had to

continuously fund the general fund until until the general fund can can can fund can stand on its own. It is dependent on these transfers from water and electric. And electric by far is the the single largest uh department that's transferring money in there. So it's it's it's a combination of changing changing market the way the market is working and functioning and the city's internal budgeting practices. And just for clarification too cuz we're were concerned about this over the years of trying to stay competitive with our neighbors because when we trying to get a business here or other things, what do we think AEP's rate is going to be this next year? I know we don't know for sure, but I I think Tim, last time you said it looked like they might have a slight reduction or an increase coming up. What what do you think their rate is going to look like as a bottom line number? Okay. I'd really like to know that before we finalize this because it is tough. I mean, we've historically been able to be significantly lower than AEP. So, anywhere in the New River Valley, this was one of the better electric deals, but you know, with everything you've explained Todd and everything you've told us Tim, I mean, that's one of the the challenges we have. This has to remain solvent for all kinds of reasons to stay operational, but also we depend on a transfer from it to make the budget work. Just understanding what that rate might be would be helpful for us just so we know going into it. Sorry to keep interrupting. If there So, with that being said, I'll turn it over to council for discussion or questions. Well, I know

several of us likely have reached out to you about where can we find additional savings in the budget because I know that that's always a concern. If you want to go back to your slide about the things that the budget doesn't have in it, those are savings that we experienced before you even proposed the budget that we're not investing as much in the I think it's Yeah, there we go. We're not investing as much in the capital needs. We're not funding all the non-government organizations. And to explain what that means is that's ones that we're not required to fund. So, these are agencies that do provide services to the citizens in Radford, but uh for example, agency on aging or the Women's Resource Center or some of the other very very valuable things that are important to our citizens, we're not able to fund with this current budget. So, in a way that is a cut out of what the has been requested of us and it doesn't reduce the general funds dependency on transfers. We don't have bigger fund balances and other natural disaster funds that we typically would budget for. As you're building a budget and correct me if I'm wrong, you would build in some of that contingency money. Now, having said that, I don't want anybody to panic. If we were to have a disaster, we would try to find other savings in our budget to address that concern. Is that accurate? It is. The first thing if we had a natural disaster and for example, it's going to be over a million dollars and it's not budgeted in the FY27 budget, the first thing we would look for is to pull back on spending. We would try to find money in the budget. We would try to find the cash flows, but ultimately uh you know, if if you do all of those things and you still can't cover it and it's an immediate need, uh the city would be looking to take out a loan. Uh that would be the last resort, but it it it is certainly possible that could happen. Uh that's worst case scenario. Can we talk about the one capital

project we do have in the budget? So, uh in the electric department, we do have a $500,000 uh um capital project. If it gets too technical, I'm going to turn it over to Tim, but essentially, these structures have been damaged. The structures that that literally hold the power line up and they cross the river, they have been damaged by woodpeckers. Um they have hit knocked enough holes into this thing that it it it needs attention. Uh and eventually, it could lead to a failure of the structure it if if we don't address it. And I assume I'm summarizing that correctly, Tim. I know you showed them to me and I I've I've laid eyes on them and you can see the damage from them. Uh that project is approximately $500,000. It's to get those lines to get those replaced so that we can make sure that that we don't have any failure there. That we maintain our lines across the river. It's $500,000. I have talked with Tim about it today and he we believe that we could spread that across two budget cycles. 250 in FY27, 250 in FY28. So, we can achieve some savings there just with the timing of the project and how we how we fund that. I appreciate looking at that. That makes a whole lot of sense. I found one thing online as I was looking for some solutions to this stuff this weekend about where poles or structures can potentially be repaired to mitigate some of that woodpecker damage. Is that an option for these structures? Okay. Okay. Is all of it wood?

All of the structures wood? Um So, they're just six poles we're talking about? Is and it's going to cost half a million? But they're not just poles. They're interconnected structures, right? Are we using a different material this time?

what I was going to say. Okay. Is there some kind of like woodpecker deterrent that we could use while we're waiting on the next budget? Okay, can we like put some sounds on there to like I don't know. And these structures have been there 40 or 50 years, right? Yeah. So, it's just coming to a natural end of a life most likely anyway for something like that. Yeah. Todd, when I reached out to you to look into that earlier this week, thank you for doing that. When by doing that, can you are you going to be able to do half of it at the 250 cost and then come back or is this like a we got to do the whole project all at once? Get it started phase one and then phase two be in the next budget cycle, kind of like that. My other my other Go ahead. Well, my other question was on the other side of the bridge is Pulaski County is I mean, I know it's our pole, but is it providing service to Montgomery County? So, I mean, I'm sorry, Pulaski County. So, would So, are there is there any way to either charge or recoup cost from them on that? Not I'm aware of. Yeah. Can there be a targeted fee on the electric that is just for customers that are being served by that? Um poles. City service charge?

Something. Uh a maintenance charge or something along that line since we wouldn't have to do it if we weren't providing electricity to that area.

Well, that was my question. Is this specifically to get them electricity? It's not for Radford resident citizens? Well, then I might be in favor of pushing $500,000 for 2 years, but Sure. Okay. But can we look into that? I mean, is that even a possibility that we can do a targeted charge for some customers or does it have to be across the entire customer base? I think So, yes, we can look into it. Uh just intuitively, if we look at it, what I'm thinking that we're talking about is like an out of out of town or out of city Right. uh rate. So, it would it would most likely have to include all residents that only in the city, not just there, but if there's anyone, you know, in Montgomery County or or wherever, it would have to be charged consistently for anyone that lives outside the city limits. But it doesn't change our reliance on that need for the 5% that was recommended for the rate, correct? Because that that's far more I mean, it's a little bit of a savings, but that's far more related to the overall efficiency and stability of the electric. And to cover the 1.3 from CoGen, I think that that one thing that I think every single person up here has heard loud and clear is that going up on the electric rate is the most harmful to our citizens. Every single person, no matter where, old, young, just getting here, renting, owning, electric hurts everybody. I have a really really hard time supporting that increase, but I don't know how we overcome the $1.3 million loss from CoGen. I know that there might be standby power this and that, but nothing is set in set in stone. There is no agreement in place. So, it's we have to move on that assumption. But that one that one's really hard for me because that affects everyone and our most vulnerable populations. That's tough. That was tough. Put that in the water. Sorry, Kelly. That's okay. Um so, you said bid. So, the bid was

around $500,000. So, we're we're contracting this work out, right? Okay, I would just I just Yeah, no. No, we're amazing, but there there are things that are out of our control. So, if we did do a bid and the and we're getting, you know, around $500,000 and we decided to push half of it to in phases, are they still going to are they going to be able to honor that if we decide to Okay, so that's something that's I just want to make sure that if we space it out they're not going to be like, oh, if you move it here then you know material is more and it's going to be 530,000 or or something like that. So once we lock it in they're going to be okay if we stretch it out some. Okay, I just wanted to check. Okay, thank you. Tim, I'm thinking if we schedule unless unless you feel like it can't wait, we would schedule that work for the fourth quarter of the fiscal year, you know, May around May June time frame get that scheduled to start. They can invoice half and then invoice half in July afterwards. But that way they can avoid mobilization fees and things like that. And in the meantime can we look at if there's any way to recoup revenue cost on that because I think before we get something in place I I I'm really curious about that. Yes. Yes. Anything in general anybody wants to ask? I have some line item specific questions just to try to understand more about why the budget is at the level where it is. Um for animal control on page 15 we're going up from 168 total to 227,493. Is there a a major driver for that increase?

Is that the one guy Guy found a a believe Todd did it? Key punch error. Page 15. And I have several I just have questions about. I mean I think I know that they're just increased cost or cost we're having to restore from previous cuts because we can't get by without them but I just wanted to check to see we're we're moving from um 168 this year to 227. Well, the big one was in that water waste water I think service looked like it went up. What what page is that? That's 15. It's it's been running 1,500 and it jumped up to 16,000. Right. And and Guy, you had called me earlier today and found that and I appreciate it. So what we discovered, we talked to the department head that had put that number in there and it should be 1,600 dollars.

Okay. So So there's 10,000 left but that that number still higher than that. Go off the projection column, go off the revised budget for now. Okay. So you're talking 195 versus 227.

Okay. So you you can drop that 227 down to 217 with the with the correction that Guy found, correct? My recommendation is to hold that since we don't know what the state budget is yet. Okay. Try to use it somewhere else. Well, and Todd and I were also talking about this. In that case, since we're holding at right now at 25 employees, if we could look to bump that up to hold at 27 which would give us an additional 60 roughly 60k on each which would be about 120,000 in savings. I think we can look at that. We'll take a look at all departments and see what we can find. Okay, thank you. Which column did you say don't pay attention to? Go by the revised budget column, not the projection. Okay. I mean there were only a handful of things that really jumped pretty significantly like the electoral board. I know there's 56,000 dollars for computers. Is there anything that can be done to minimize or delay that cost? On page seven. The mandatory 2.0 federal update of voting machines all she knew is that it would be sometime in 27. Okay.

So that doesn't we don't know if that would be FY27 or technically FY28 so we were trying to be Got you. Third But that could potentially not be realized. We just don't know. Correct.

Okay. Um she said that her vendor has communicated that this update has to pass through the Federal Election Assistance Commission and then the Virginia State Board of Elections. Okay. He's not sure if it will happen in the 27 or 28 budget. He's estimating the cost to be 5 to 7,000 dollars per machine and we have eight machines that need to be updated. I'd also like to add on page 17 for the total of GIS mapping or no, I'm sorry, total general engineering. That jumped up over 100,000 dollars. That's [laughter] Uh so if if you'll look at the GIS department we have zeroed that out and moved it into the engineering department. It just made sense to combine those into one department.

Okay. So with that You should see an offsetting decrease in GIS. Okay, I was going to say so that should be a a reduction. It'll be a wash. Okay, by combining those two. Okay, that thank you. So basically if we look at the about the 2026 revised for GIS and for general engineering that should equal close to the 279,425, right? Okay. Yeah, I wondered about that too. I had that on my list as well. In the municipal building the huge increase I'm I'm assuming that's for the HVAC system. Yes. And that can't really be avoided, can it?

Right. What so the actual or I'm sorry the revised was 193. What was that estimate again on HVAC system? I know you've you've told us I just can't remember off the top of my head. 65, right? At the municipal building I believe it's 65,000. The municipal yes, 65,000 dollars projected for HVAC repairs. That's affecting the clerk of court, registrar, Commonwealth attorney and sheriff's offices. So that's 65 what what what is driving up the additional increase?

There's 35,000 dollars projected for projected for just routine maintenance. Ongoing routine maintenance, some some repairs that have been postponed and we've got to we can't wait any longer. Can we get some specifics and maybe between So that's that's general

a building than just HVAC. There Yes. Yes. Yes. And the city this year tried to pull back on that line item. It it's hard it the building almost consistently requires almost 30,000 dollars annually. And just general repairs, just things breaking down. Um um so 30's a pretty good number to estimate for that. Okay, thank you. And under the um on page 33 under the the highway urban highway maintenance fund we're at 2.2. It's about a 400,000 dollar jump from the revised. Uh it looked a little higher from the projection. Is that just mostly paving as much as anything? Paving and salaries is all that's in that whole fund. Okay. There's approximately 1 million dollars budgeted for paving. How much of that will we count on from the state from the state of good repairs? State gives us right around 3 million process. Do we have or could we get a copy of what streets are prioritized? Could we take a look at that? Okay. And when would you need us or any input from council on that? Where's that already? How's that what's the process for that? So he's estimated his budget on streets that that are are the public works director's estimated that amount based on on streets he's already identified. Uh we can take a look at that and if council wants to to look at it now. We can get you a copy in the next couple days, show you the streets that we're we're looking at paving. I think there's a lot of interest in the community on that. A lot of times I've heard well, you know, there it's not being addressed here, it's being addressed there or or what whatever where some streets haven't been addressed in 10 years. So I think it would be helpful for us because that is one of the things that I hear the most is you know, paving and when and

why. So that'd be helpful. He's provided that so we can get that to you. Yes, thank you. Well, and that's what's planned. Can we get those are like the A streets that need to be addressed, the ones that are most serious. Could we get some B and C and look at ones that would maybe be right below that because I think that's always one of the challenges is is it only main thoroughfares that we're addressing or are we not going into any neighborhoods or vice versa? You know, is a neighborhood in pretty rough shape or something like that because I agree I get a lot of calls on that as well trying to figure out where we can spend that money. While we're talking about that I did want to give a thank you to you and the crew at public works and Timmy because the wreck filling in those potholes that I mean it was I was afraid I was going to fall in one. So it it they did a good job. Thank you. I'll pass it on. Several years that since we've been able to do that sufficiently and this winter was really tough on stuff. Yes, thank you to Timmy and public works for that. I I'd like to to go back over Todd, you and I talked about it on page four the reassessment that I think is done in 28 but yet we've put 71,000 dollars in the 27 budget and it was because the assessors come and do all of the work if you will in the 27 budget but then it doesn't hit the the real estate roll tax roll until 28. That That's correct, 28. Is there Monthly payments are generally made to the assessment firm starting in the fiscal year prior to reassessment. So, total payments made to Wampler Eanes, um well, this This is a history. Total payments made to Wampler Eanes in FY23 was 66,000, I'm rounding off. Total payments made to Wampler Eanes in 24, FY24 was 64,000. So, it's basically split between the two fiscal years. Because you have the tax one tax year falls into two different fiscal years. Right.

Cuz one's a calendar year, two are fiscal years. So, that's why you're seeing part of it in 27, you'll see part of it in 28 as well. And then the new tax rates, correct me if I'm wrong, Kelsey, will be effective or I'm sorry, the new assessments will be effective January 1st, 2028. 2028, yes. Oh, so that 71 is just the 27, there'll be more assessment cost that same amount or probably? Well, so they'll start in the middle of next year is when they'll is Thank you. Thank you. So, the the growth in a couple of our constitutional officers, the clerk of court and the Commonwealth's Attorney, we go from 461 to 530 for clerk of court and from 547 to 668 under Commonwealth's Attorney. The clerk of circuit court and the Commonwealth's Attorney both got one additional position in FY26 that was not budgeted in FY26. Obviously, we get comp board money to offset that. Um but that is going to be a budget amendment forthcoming to you all for FY26. So, once that gets in there, it's going to be more in line with what you're seeing for 27. Okay. So, so we are getting some money for that, it may not be the full amount though. We might

all of it. Okay. That's good news. All right, that's good. And then on the re offices, they pay just about 100%. That's right. Yes. On the regional jail, I know we had an incident, we talked about this a little bit, but I don't know how much the public heard it. We're going from 868,000 to a million 82. Um I believe and and Chief, you can correct me if I'm wrong, that's due to uh a crime that took place last fall in the city where we have folks in in the jail. Is that accurate? juvenile detention money. Okay, juvenile detention money. Okay.

jail, according to the sheriff, he's our um rep on that board. Uh they're anticipating um a rate increase per diem to their or increase to their per diem next year. Okay. So, there's nothing we can do to control that 200,000 or 180,000.

Okay. Um I I would also like to look at page 25 and this is for I think it's parks and recreation, total supervision of parks. Looks like under the revised of 2026, it was at 546,842, jumps up to 681 for 2027 and I do I notice one line item is the rec supplies was up pretty significantly. Um is there anything else or do you have any notes on that for us? Yes, rec supplies, um down through there. Uh special events, that's a huge increase. This includes fireworks for the July 4th celebration and all the other special events, concerts, and car show. This will include music and play double security, parking, and barriers. A lot of that was cut out in the current year's budget. So, that's a huge That's going from 40,000 to 110. Yeah. And then in the telecommunications, I know that we've looked at revamping the phone systems all throughout, but it went from 6,000 to a budgeted of 19,000.

um spoke with him earlier today and he had some things in there that should have been in other line items that we will correct. The The 19,000 isn't going to change, the line items that they're going to hit. Some of it should have been in cable, some of it should have been in um IT subscriptions. Okay. Okay. Well, and back on that for the 4th of July, I mean, Council, I don't know how you all feel, but I feel like that's an important thing that if we can make it happen, we need to try. That was pretty hard to not be able to do the full program last year and this would be a significantly scaled back one. So, as much as we're trying to save, that's that's a hard place to cut. So, is significantly scaled back Do we have the money? Are we doing We just doing So, he It is on July 3rd. Um it and we do get a discount for it being on July 3rd. Uh he's Charlie's also been able to achieve some more savings. We've signed a multi-year contract. If we buy uh um uh fireworks, it'll be through the same vendor. So, we're getting a reduced rate for that as well. But are we budgeting for fireworks And sometimes we're lucky and, you know, we'll get a donor for the fireworks, but we can't always, you know, Right.

count on that at least during budget. So, it's reflecting worst-case scenario. And And I will say that the rec commission and Charlie have been very active in reaching out to big um businesses within the community. We were able to secure three scoreboards that way and next we're And obviously, we're so late in the game right now for this year's fireworks, probably a stretch to think we'd be able to do that, but I do think that we are we are trying to set something in place that might we might be able to rely on on a more yearly basis, but TBD. We'll We'll have to see how it goes, but we are we are trying. Can you look at page 27 under the library for me, please? [cough]

There's two [clears throat] entries that say donations and they've got separate account numbers or something there. What Yeah. Is one of those a Lamplighters donation and the other uh more general?

Well, why is a donation in a um expense? They have two different um You have a donation on the revenue side and then you show the donation on the expenditure side. Um it is I can't get into my computer right now and I don't know what those project codes stand for, but it's two different um purposes that they get donations for. I'll have to get that for you. I cuz I was asking about it. Would it almost Would that be like an offset in book purchases or something depending on what they're using that donation for? It It's whatever the donor specifies.

Okay. That's right, because they can If If someone's estate leaves $200,000 to the library, but they can in their will be like it's for staffing, it's for whatever. Yes, so we have to spend it per the donor's wishes. That is correct. Okay. Uh also on the part-time line right at the top of the page there, looks like it jumped from what, 72 to 153? Or 100 to 153?

based on her numbered positions uh times 20 hours a week. Um Todd and I actually did talk to her just a little while ago. Um and that is an area that if that if she needed to cut, she said she can. Well, there There's the the budgeted amount uh as Trish said, the budgeted amount is for all the part-time employees to work 20 hours a week. Not all end up working 20 hours a week or may not. It's an average. So, that is one line item we could drill into and and see what we can find there. Well, there there are two areas I feel like in the city and and I got to choose my words carefully, I know, cuz people love the rec hall and people love the library. But, you know, when you talk about the street departments and the water departments and the things we've just got to have running, it boils down to me to the two areas that we need to look hardest at for cuts are the library and the rec hall. So, I would like to see you talk to both of those department heads and ask them to go over it again with a fine-tooth comb. And if we need to cut some hours again, and that came up last year, but, you know, we've just got to look for some some more cuts. Keep in mind, the library is already down 8 hours from their original full um Uh yep. operation. I understand that, but so I guess I'm struggling with I know we did cut hours last year and none of us were happy about doing that at all. And so, has the um part-time pay rate increased? Is that why it's cuz I would think it would be round about the same if we don't change hours and they haven't hired any other staff and we're not paying them more per hour. I'm just wondering why it's up so much if it's if nothing has changed. Right. We'll We'll get with her and get a Cuz I definitely don't I mean

nobody wants to take away from either one of those, you know, like you said. I'm just wondering wondering what caused it, I guess. Thank you. I think we can we can drill down into that specific line item with her, the part-time. Uh we'll we'll take a look at it and talk to her, but we can probably achieve some savings there without reducing hours. I just I feel like there's there's some room to work there.

I'd rather not reduce um hours if we can since we did that last time and it was such a difficult decision, but just I mean are we I just would like some clarification if we're paying them more per hour or what the And and the recall is open now from what? 6:00 till 8:00? They have winter and regular

yeah. How much is the recall used during the middle of the day? I know there are people that like to go in early and do their stuff before they go to work and then you got the basketball and everything going on after school, but are some hours in the middle of the day that wouldn't disrupt too much that we could cut out some some time there? It's just something We we can certainly ask that question. Okay. Oh, I was going to bring up leaf Oh, if nobody else leaf collection. Uh you and I talked about that. I think you're going to be looking into it. But I understand there was some you know, there's two ways to go. You can just cut out doing it free and not do it at all or you can add a fee for doing it, but I understand adding the fee causes some scheduling problems. But that's the way I'd like to see it go, I think that there are people that don't have leaves. So, you know, they don't need to do anything, but those of us that want to pay a $25, $30 fee to have them come and pick up the the leaves in the fall. If there's a way to do that that doesn't cost you more doing all the scheduling than it does in them running around you know, one end of the town to the other, but set it up there's going to be this one week and we're going to start over here and those of you that want us to pick them up and then pay the fee, you know. And I'll add a little context cuz I think this came up. I I asked this one um and David Rippeth was our city manager and it was kind of an all in or all out where you either going to bill everybody on their bills whether they live in apartments or have leaves or don't have leaves or whatever um just because of trying to be able to set that schedule where it would end up create so

many staffing issues. So, but to Guy's point we do kind of offer that on brush collection. So, we do it, but I mean I think this would probably be at a bigger scale. Um I I find tremendous value in having the leaf collection and I'd be happy to pay. I mean my yard I have a ton of leaves, but um I it would just for me it would just be about how how would that work? Would it we end up spending more time and cost trying to organize that than doing it, but I would like to take a look at it and see if there's a sufficient way because we do we do it for um debris pick up, so. I think the other thing that's complicated and I know this was a discussion that was held many years ago. Uh a lot of times if you don't do separate leaf pick up, people put them in plastic bags and they're put out with sanitation and so it increases our sanitation cost um where those get picked up and maybe dumped as opposed to put in the um the leaf collection. So. When we do leaf collection, don't we turn that into like mulch that's free to customers besides the dump site? So, we would Well, I that was one of the things I brought up last year in regards to mulch because it we were paying about $55,000 to to mulch it and we were moving the limbs like three times in order to pick it up from the site, take it to another site, have uh the mulching um company come mulch it, then we take it back and there's some movement after that of course to people's homes. Are we is that reflected in here because I did look to see if that was still something we're doing? Are we mulching and paying that $55,000? It should still be in there. I've been having discussions with the public works director about that and right now what we're looking at is the cost of hauling the brush instead of mulching versus the cost of mulching. So, right now I'm still waiting to get numbers on

burn. I know I I spoke with the fire chief about this and he felt that it was probably within their capability to even handle it that way, but I am not in favor of a $55,000 fee for mulch. I'd rather find the savings there than to charge folks because I think the issue you'd run into if you are charging folks, a lot of folks will just either not do the pick up the same way we've done it and it'll result in other issues or things will stay more littered throughout the fall. I think that's one of the challenges you run into with it. It's a service that has value to beyond just that individual and I think that's part of the the key with this. Well, and if it's like around my house, if I paid to have my leaves done and my neighbor didn't, I'd end up getting their leaves. I'd get them back and have to pay again. So, but the mulching even last year I brought up I I felt like it was a for one, we're talking about six sigma processes. I felt the process was convoluted, but I just felt like the $55,000 to provide free mulch was something that I'd like to see. And that may make the most sense is that we just eliminate that part of it and keep the service as a service, but we don't we don't pay for the mulch. They have $50,000 budgeted for 27. We'll look into it, especially the controlled burn. That might be a Right. So, is that something we can if we all are in agreement that we can remove from the budget?

a take a look at what we can do and what what cost needs to be in there for that. Yes.

paying a third party to come and do that. Correct. So, on page 45 with refuse collection and disposal and looking at solid waste rates, maybe we can talk about that a little bit. I know they've done a really good job trying get the cost down on collection and some of that is in salary savings with our rates being $25 a month versus the other rates in the the region. What are our options there to try to um try try to make that make more sense? Are you asking about refuse hauling specifically?

I mean just all of it together. I I don't think we can look at it just as one side or another. You know, our how are we covering the the solid waste with our $25? Does it make sense to do something different? Like I said, they've done a pretty good job of still being able to maintain service with fewer folks because the budget line for salaries is down, but just to talk about that a little bit and and what's baked in the cake on that that we can't change. Um It's probably more of what you can't change than what you can change unless you go to staffing. You've got the you know, the the fee to Cloyd's Mountain, the roll-offs for the drop center. I mean those are your biggest expenses along with the the mulching that are in there other than um your salary and normal operations like you know, keeping up your solid waste vehicles. Those are your three largest expenditures other than salary and benefits. Well, then and looking at the recycling center and I know that's a a crucial piece cuz we don't offer curbside pick up, but we're mandated to have a percentage of our refuse refuse recycled and we we exceed that and that's also a convenience piece with being able to drop off stuff at out at the um the Park Road drop center and go from there. Um So, I mean I don't know if there's a way to look at additional savings or if our rates aren't what they need to be to make that make more sense. I don't know. What What suggestions are there to look at sanitation cuz I know we've talked a lot about does it make sense to outsource it and if so, what does that look like versus keeping it in house and if we keep it in house, what does it look like on what the rates need to be? We'll definitely have those conversations internally.

You think that's going to be more in line Todd with your um looking at uh processes and procedures with your optimization plans? I think so. I think anytime, you know, the city has an opportunity to take a look at outsourcing, it should consider it. Uh I think the it sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. Um I know in our previous role that I had, we took a look at mowing. Uh it turned out it cost more to outsource than to do it ourselves, so we we did not outsource. Um but yes, I think we should always look at all options available. As long as it it provides high quality service at the best at the cheapest cost possible. I would I would love for us to see if we can really focus on maximizing efficiency rather than hitting those rates again since we've looked at all the others. I I I'm not looking for ways to increase rates, but uh if we can increase efficiencies, I would much prefer that. Yeah. I think what we need to understand too is when we're we're doing these comparisons, is what our actual cost is to provide the service because we're not talking about the insurance that it to have guys off the back of these trucks. What does that look like for us? So, it's not just how much is that rate per month? How much is it costing us to do it ourselves? Cuz you've got the salaries, you've got the insurance and the vehicle maintenance and uh upkeep, new vehicles. So, if there's a way to maybe really do that sort of deep dive comparison, not just a comparison of rates, but what it's costing us. Cuz I'm assuming there's a certain kind of liability insurance associated with with that.

line item called risk management. Okay. And and I do know I believe did Timmy tell us Yeah, it's six trash trucks, three are backups, and I believe he said all six of them are worn out. What? Worn out? Worn out. Yes. What is the typical service life or and this might be a question you have to ask for those trash trucks and where are we where are they in that lifespan? If you don't have that right now, if that's something we can get. definitely get it. Yeah, thank you. Worn out doesn't give me a lot of faith.

Right. So, let's talk water rates for a minute if we can since you know, Seth you brought up a good point. I've had a lot of people reach out that are concerned about that headline number where we talked about a $23 increase in the water rate once you look at that 4,000 minimum gallons. I don't disagree that we've got to get that high enough eventually so that we can qualify for grants, but it does concern me because that's one of the more regressive things that we have along with the electric that that's hitting a lot of families. Um that they can't get rate support for. I had a couple people reach out that said I can get some help with my rent and there's some programs that help me with a little bit of electric, but there's very little that helps with the water. And so, that additional $23 for those families or more depending on their usage if they're heavy water users because they've got a lot of laundry to do or things along that line could be very challenging over the course of a year. And that's actually higher than most of our other increases we're looking at. You know, we're looking at you know, $7 a month uh total potentially for electric. We're looking at a few dollars a month depending on how valuable the property is that the real estate tax is based on, but we're we're not proportional on that same piece. And Guy, I know you proposed the highest rate last time. And I and I've got something to say. Um The to go to I'm a bulldog after a bone here, you know, we've got to get the water rates up so we can get to these grants. And we've got to do it I think in 3 years minimum. And my proposal is actually to reduce the real estate um rate 3 cents and go up another $4 or a dollar a thousand on the water and go to 32.

Well, I'm I'm good with 32, but let's talk about that real estate piece for just a minute. And and I wanted to bring this up because nobody likes increasing the taxes at all. You're hitting somewhat different populations with some of those. And and that's one of the challenges. Um I think one of our concerns is there's only so many fund lines that actually fund the general fund. There there's a handful of things and correct me if I'm wrong on this. Water does not typically fund the general fund unless we transfer it.

That's right. Electric doesn't fund the general fund unless we transfer it. And while I'm very pleased that this year's budget is using money being generated in this fiscal year for the budget that it doesn't rely on borrowing money from outside, it doesn't rely on borrowing money from other um reserves or things along that line. I am concerned that we need to be building toward that eventually. And again, whether that's kicking the can down the road that there'll have to be another 5, 10, 15 cents in fiscal year 28, 29, 30 on that or what that has to look like, but at some point that has to be addressed at a higher level. I know we're hoping we're going to get more economic development growth so that other line items grow like sales and meals tax and and some things along that line but I am concerned that if we're too light on uh the real estate tax that that actually doesn't get us further along in the sustainability for that that general fund. I'm with you on the water. In fact, I had suggested that to Todd prior to him making the presentation that a couple dollars on the water made sense. And I could see coming off a penny or so on the real estate tax. I think my biggest concern is you know, the water and electric rates hit our our citizens who have they typically don't have property a lot of times when they're struggling to make that water. And that's a generalization, but for folks that may be struggling to make that monthly bill, so they the real estate tax isn't quite as as much of an impact on them. Uh but I get it where it's an impact on everybody. Every tax is going to hit somebody in some way. My concern is if we don't do something in the neighborhood of 4 cents or so we're not going to be where we need to be next year and the following year and the year after that on supporting that general fund. We're still going to be heavily reliant on transfers. And the water, electric, and other things that we transfer are much more

elastic that those rates can change. We saw that in electric. The amount available for transfer can change dramatically in a year. So, while it could be a big benefit for 1 year if our cost or something goes up it limits our ability to do that. That's kind of what happened to us with electric and then it drives things even higher. But I don't know how everybody else feels about that. I I'm just really concerned that if we go too heavy on the water that that's going to impact some families pretty badly. I'll add I I I support the sentiment that Guy's talking about. I between two and three cent if we could reduce that. I've had several people that reach out to me too that don't own property, but they've said, "Hey, every time you go up my landlord then passes it on through rent." Um and so, while they don't directly get it on on their real estate bill, they're getting that additional rent cost. So, I think that unfortunately any type of increase really has a as a hit on all segments of the population. And it's and right now that's tough for everybody when your gas is $4 a gallon. Why why I would agree with Guy on we need to cut that real estate back some is we've done the heavy lifting there. I mean, and if we were with the budget as proposed over 3 years is a 20 23 cent increase. I mean, that's significant. Um so, I'm not saying get rid of the whole 5 cent, but if we if it could be 2, 3 cent on the real estate the water, I think we're all kind of in the same ballpark on that. If with the electric at 4% and hold off and with these other cuts um I'd love to see what that looks like. But to Guy's point, I do I mean, we've we've hit that pretty hard. Last year was a 13 cent increase and we have an assessment on the horizon. And typically that drives up the cost as well. So, being mindful of all that and of the increases that we've had, I I would I would agree. And I did do if you looked at the

numbers coming back down to 2 cents on real estate and going up four more dollars to 32 gets us a net um to transfer as you would say of um I think it was 93,000. Actually. No, I I get it that that that helps with that. I do think longer term and I'll turn to folks that are a lot smarter than I am on this. Um I feel like though even though we have hit things hard where things have changed so much uh the transfers we've been relying on have been more questionable. You know, at one time we transferred as much as 6 to 8 million dollars from electric over. And that's kind of what got us into some of the challenges where we were so far behind and had to make up a lot last year with uh Craig's budget that he put together for us, but I mean, where do we need to be on real estate tax to be sustainable? That's the big question. And one thing I'd like to add on the water, I I hate going up on the increases as well, but what was really telling was that is some dire infrastructure that if one of those water tower our citizens not being able to have water is in a is not an option. I mean, obviously we could bond out money, but there's expenses with that. Whatever. So, that particular rate is in my opinion targeted to trying to fix some of these infrastruc- that's what I would like it to be used from rather than just facilitating our general fund. Obviously, we've done that through transfers, but we have to be building for some of these capital reserve projects. I mean, they're coming. So, we have to start addressing that. And I agree. But that's part of why we got to start buffering the general fund, too. That's the hard part.

And again, it's whether it's this year or next year or the following year. That's the whole piece. It's got to go there. And you know, even at the 87 cents, it's still a modest number in comparison to how other communities are finding the resources that they need to to run a community. I mean, it's it's unfortunately we we can't protect our citizens from inflation. And our budget as it sits is is not there's not a lot of fat to trim on it. We're already not meeting some of the other things that have been important to us as a community. So, I think we have to be very careful because when we start now looking at a balanced budget with not not a lot on it to trim. We've just all gone through it and there that those numbers that we're trimming still are not substantial in the in the larger budget. Important to do, but where where do we make this up? What else are we willing to not provide our citizens because our citizens are not going to like it when we're not providing services either. That's why people choose to live here because we are a good community and we do provide things like a rec center and a library. So, for every penny that we're saying we're not going to do, then what else are we adding to this list of things we're not providing? Because we either bring the money in and start creating that equilibrium back from the years that we really didn't increase when we should have. Um or there's more sacrifices. It's going to be roads, it's going to be water, it's other infrastructure. So, I think we have to be very careful. I think we have to keep in mind that, you know, we have a due diligence. We certainly don't want to harm anyone in our community, let alone our most vulnerable. But, there's still a reality. We're we've not paced with inflation and that's where we're sitting. So, as much as we wring our hands, the more inaction

that we do, the more the communication and the story has to be how do we become a county because we're not raising the rates enough to maintain city status. And my opinion is, unless we're able to do the hard work to maintain our city status, we have no business talking about becoming a part of a county when we see the counties are charging so much more. We can't just keep wringing our hands. We have to We have to move We have to move the needle forward. I will say I do think though we have all set with just the with the cuts that we've talked about tonight alone two to three cent off that real estate. When you talk about the $250,000 deferred um cost and maybe elimination of cost of the poles. If you could hold two more positions, that's a 120. That's a penny right there. The 250 is another penny and a half. And then I think we've also addressed, you know, some other things that we could look at. So, I do think that part of this is n- try not to burden so much our staff, but also giving some relief to our citizenry. And I think that by being able to get these cuts um that we've asked you about, I would like to see that passed on to the the citizens. And I do think that that would equate to two to three cent. Um and then, you know, we've gone up in some other places, but that to me the rationale for that is those are the most emergent I can't We cannot overcome a $1.3 million loss to co-gen. I wish we could or I would not have supported that increase. And then when we you have the infrastructure needs that we do at the water department, it's not if it's when and that is one of the most basic functions that we provide as a city. So, that's just kind of how I've gotten got there. But, I But, I agree to Jesse's point, too, that that, you know, we as a city we provide a lot of services and that does come at a cost, but mitigating those where we can, I think we've offered a couple things for us to maybe do that. And remember, if we have any natural disaster, we have no money set aside for that. We have zero funds set aside. If there

is an issue at our water plant, we're not addressing that either. There's no I mean, as it sits, we don't There's we we simply don't have the forethought for the what ifs and the what ifs, as we know, we're dealing with aging infrastructure. We've seen more and more natural disasters hit our community. So, I would like to see us instead of of cutting and just again becoming neutral in those areas, perhaps using this opportunity to create some buffers for our citizens so we are not creating a crisis over uh the smallest of of floods, which to me at this point we're we're not addressing an elephant in the room because we've had several more natural disasters as of late. Just doing rough math off the top of my head there with what's been proposed with the increases and the cuts, that should allow for a net positive transfer into the a larger net net positive transfer into capitals than what the proposed budget was. Would that be your understanding? By increasing the water, by the by the additional cuts, and then even if we were to come down a cent or two, that should still be a net positive for our capital reserves.

Where are we at with water? What What number I mean are we at?

I'm good with um 34. Um that that takes it up um basically 10 cents. Um that's a little more than $2 on the original. Uh that's and that gets us closer. Cuz Guy, I don't disagree with you. We've got to get that water rate up to where it will qualify for grants. It doesn't all have to be in 1 year. And I'm good with a penny off the real estate tax. But, you know, to your point, Seth, I agree completely. We want to provide some relief, but we need to build up some of those other funds. If we can take some of that savings of like the quarter million dollar savings, if we're able to to benefit that and have that available to us for other emergent needs, I think that's helpful. Um so, it it's kind of a meeting in the middle of where we can um that it also gets us the and this is a struggle because I know folks are going to have a hard time understanding this. It gets us further along in getting the general fund to be sustainable. Because if that's one of the goals, which it likely will have to be at some point, getting the general fund to a sustainable level will mean getting that tax rate so that it can fund all of those items. Now, hopefully we'll have growth. We'll have new businesses. There's several things on the horizon that are very positive. They're still a little ways away. Um so, we can't count on them today, but there'll be some things that will help that as well. Maybe we can get some additional state and federal monies in to to help support that, too. But, I think if we can at least capture some of that so that it doesn't have to push it out to the out years cuz that's kind of how we got here was we relied so heavily on transfers and had such an artificially low tax rate for so many years that when that elasticity law was lost when that elasticity hit the um electric department. That's what cut into our funds and we couldn't respond quickly enough. So, I think that's one of the hardest parts. And correct me if I'm wrong cuz we've got better financial experts in here than I am, but um that

that's one of those pieces that I stay awake concerned about of what's that long term going to look like for the city and will it result in a couple years where we have to go back to what we did last year where we didn't know we needed to have such an increase. If we can mitigate that over time, doesn't that get us to a better place? Kelly, I know we haven't heard from you. Do you have any thoughts? I always have all the thoughts. Yeah. Um like I said last meeting, I feel like we have made progress for sure. The the ship has turned. We have seen it. It's not going backward anymore. We have made great progress. Our budget is funding itself. Kudos to you guys for, you know, working really hard to make that happen. We're not borrowing any money. I know that we are going to need to have infrastructure needs, particularly in water. I, you know, I think that we should increase it more than what a dollar is. I do feel like we have increased the real estate significantly over the past few years that I've been on council. Um it is very unfortunate that we did not increase that a little bit each year, but hindsight is 20/20 and we can't do anything about that now. So, I don't think that we should What did you say we'd increased it in the past couple of years? 23 cents? That's including the five cent Okay. So, that's a huge amount in the past couple of years. So, I would I would propose maybe taking it to 85 cent, doing three versus two. Maybe um when I talked to Todd earlier today, he said that to get to a point where we would be able to get grants for the water, it was like $5.87 would be the total per gallon $4,000. Was that what it was? I have to go back in my Okay. So, that's almost $6. So, how about we, you know, split it over the next couple years and do a $3 increase on the water, which is kind of in the middle of what everybody was saying? Electric I I mean, like Seth said, we can't do anything about the co-gen

situation. Despite what anybody in the community thinks, we do not control AREU. We do not get to tell them what to do. I I wish that we could, but we can't. So, we are going to have to mitigate that loss. And, you know, I know that several of us has talked to people at AREU and they said that they are willing to, you know, reinvest that money that they are taking away from us. But, again, we can't depend on them saying that. I hope that they do. I hope they make good on that promise. But, I I don't know if they will. I can only hope. And then the Pulaski County situation, that's just I I've got too many words for that situation to to talk about it. But, these are things that we can't change given what we didn't do in the past, what's going to happen in the future. So, I I'll I'll propose those numbers. And start the conversation. I didn't understand your $3 on the water. So, we're talked to Todd earlier. I asked him what dollar increase would it take to get us to the that 49 dollars and whatever to get us to a level where we would be able to get grant funding. If we had a disaster or we had a a tower that went down or something and we would need to get grant funding for that. I asked him how many dollars per thousand uh gallons of use is 4,000 gallons of use is whatever it is. To get to what would the increase be in dollars? And he said it was $5.87. So, the six

That's per thousand gallons. Okay. So, that would be

Multiply that times four as to what the bill will be. Right. We're going $12 increase. Yes. Instead of Yes. 39? I'm I was just comparing it apples to apples. So, what we presented to the community was increase the water rate by a dollar per thousand gallons. So, I wanted the apples to apples comparison of what it would be in dollars to increase it per thousand because that's that's what the numbers were that we were showing the citizens before. So, it'll be $5.87 per thousand gallons to get to that level where we would be able to get grant funding. So, that's almost $6. So, if we wanted to spread that over the next couple of years, give us a little bit of buffer what more than what we were having, you know, that we proposed originally with a dollar and make it $3 or really cut it in half and do $5.87 divided by two, whatever that is.

250, that's the $10. I mean That's what I was proposing. That that's that's halfway. That, you know, is is seemingly meeting a lot of us in the middle where, you know, you're wanting to do a little bit more, some of us are wanting to do a little bit less. I'm just proposing things to get the cuz we're talking in circles like No. It's good conversation, but Yeah. I'm I'm trying to come up though $3 * 4 is 12 added to our current 24, so we're going to 36. That's what the bill would be, correct? Base pay. Right.

Yeah, it is thousands of gallons. Most of our customers are right around that level anyway. So, you know, cuz I even asked could we drop the 4,000 gallon limit to two or 3,000 and, you know, still keep the rate but not require that payment if people are really cutting back on water. We don't think we can do that and meet our cost is the problem and and that's one of the challenges. Again, I agree with you, Kelly. I think we've got to kind of find a middle ground on that and that's why I was comfortable with the 10 dollars which would be about 250, you know, per thousand gallons that gets us to 34. We could go to 36. I I think that hits again some people harder than it does others. I I'd really again like to see us be more level. I'm okay with 3 cents on the real estate. I think if we go much less than that, it's just going to bump up the real estate tax next year or then after reassessment, you may not be able to come down as much on those reassessed properties and that hits everybody real differently. Um So, it's almost better to bake it in earlier so that you've got more room to address once you get that reassessment cuz that that, you know, different houses assess very differently. Um But would would people be comfortable if we we looked at that um 34 or 36 and then drop down to um a 3 cent increase instead of a 5 cent increase? Is that kind of where we are, we think? What do we think? Additionally, I do think it was very creative that she changed the um the flat rate on the electric. I thought that was a very creative idea. Um Yeah. Thank you, Tim, and your consultant.

It's ideal. Yeah. I mean, those are those are the kind of creative, you know, ideas that that really helped us and I'll and I'll say it again, we did an a we're doing we're we're making the needle move. It doesn't seem like we are because we don't have some big surplus in our general fund or we're not doing these big transfers that we're thinking about, but we the things that we have done the past couple of years are making a difference, but it takes a while to see the difference. You're not going to immediately see your your your water bill go down because you change your shower length by 10 minutes. It's going to take you 6 months to see that change. So, it's we're going to see more of our hard work this year. I really do feel like that. But do we think we could gel around somewhere around those numbers? Yeah, I think we're playing on it we're playing in the same ballpark. Yeah, I mean, it sounds like we're all we're all kind of in the ballpark. It's fine fine-tuning those those numbers coming down a couple cent on the real estate. I think we're all in that range range on the water. For for the electric, we So, my question would be we advertised at 5%, but we're actually going to cut that back down to 4.2. No, but it's an overall five. That's the thing. It it's a tricky piece cuz I asked the same question. It's an overall 5% because we're increasing the base rate. It's just on the other electric. Is that accurate that because we're making that adjustment? We still need to bake that in because of the cost and and I think we also have to see how it works. You know, electric is so tricky because we're buying on an open market now instead of on a guaranteed wholesale contract. My concern if we're too tight on that we come back and say, "Oops, it needs to be even higher." So, um I like what was proposed because that actually reduces your kilowatt hour usage a little bit so it's not as bad. It's a little higher base rate, but that kind of covers our costs a little bit more and that seems to be fairer across the board as best we can do.

You know, nobody likes doing any of this. I wish we had a budget where we could say, "Guess what? We don't have to raise anything. We're great." Um but I also don't want us to be irresponsible. One of my biggest frustrations of my time on council was asking that very question of, "Do we need to be doing something different here? Do we need a higher rate or do we need to be cutting something more?" and being told, "Nope, we're good where we are." I'd much rather know that we need to make these adjustments and that we make the hard decision about that for the future of the community than to be surprised later and say, "Whoops, we're million short." And and go from there. And I think for now this is a conservative way to approach this and conservative in that hopefully it sets us up for smaller things in the future as well. And we always have to be looking at that that we're building things to a point where it's going to be sustainable, where it's going to be something that's supported. Can you all run those numbers and kind of let us know what that's going to look like with the suggestions that have been made and then the um potential for the savings? Yes. That was that was my next question, but it was also do you do you we have to dispense of a first I know we can change between the first reading and second reading. Poor Craig last year learned all the way up until 3:00 before the second budget. He knows about that. So, I so I I know we can do that. But as far as advertising the rates, if we vote on it remind me of of that. So, tonight if we were to set a rate and then we were to go home and say, "Man, that was the worst decision ever." Between now and the second reading, we can change

We're not even doing a reading tonight. Okay, so we we don't even need to 21st. This is a discussion.

Okay, perfect. This is just a discussion. We have if we want a meeting next Monday, that's an additional discussion about where we are, if there's anything else as we're scouring through the budget that we see, "Oh, here's an an error or here's an issue." The way I understand it, we'll have our public hearing on the 21st and we will have our first reading at that point in time. We'll come back a week later on the 28th for our second reading. So, that's where things really become more solidified, but I think it's good. In a perfect world, we'd be having this discussion 2 months ago and it would give us more time for even more reflection on things and more discussion, but this is where we are for this year. So, this is a good discussion to have to see where everything is, see what those numbers look like, see if we've unintentionally made an error somewhere that won't be balanced or won't be sustainable and to go from there. But um am I correct on all those dates? Yes, sir, and that's why we had the not to exceed to give you that flexibility between the two. Thank you. And and I know we've given you a bunch of suggestions. I would love if we could look into and I don't know that we can, but if there's a way we could shave some off of the cost on the electric. I don't know that there is, but if you could we can all fine-tooth comb that I think that one bothers everybody probably the most because that's I mean, that's significant for people. Um so, if there's anything we can do and I don't want to give false hope that there is, but um anything we can do to mitigate that. Well, and I don't disagree with you on that. Here's one of the things I'm really worried about with electric. This is our first time buying on an open market. And um I would rather err excuse me, [clears throat] I'd rather err on the positive side to start with than to come back and have to have a much larger increase later as people plan their budgets. And I think that uncertainty is a factor we have to build in. I don't like it. I wish it wasn't the case. I think there's a lot of uncertainty in what our wholesale price is going to continue to be. And you know, one of the things that hit us in I believe '23 2023 for the '24 budget

was that electric rate shot up multiple times in several successive months and we didn't react quickly enough on that and that ate into our margins so badly. That's one of the things that got us behind. The one good thing with everything we've talked about and and this has been brought up a lot. We've chosen to finance some of our billing with American Electric Power Wholesale. Radford has not defaulted on anything. There's nothing that has just gone unpaid. So, when people say, "Well, you don't pay your bills, but you don't get shut off." It's because we've chosen to finance it to preserve cash flow while we're dealing with a lot of other challenging issues. We're doing so much better on that and thank you to our our treasurer commissioner and everybody who's helping us do that. Thank you to Trish and and to billing and everybody. But I if we can hack that down even further, I think that helps us and we've got to look at that piece, too, because we don't want to um end up still in a situation where we're trying to balance that cash flow each month uh and go from there. I guess could you could you look to show us what it would look like with a 2 cent real estate increase and a 3 cent um real estate increase and then what was it? The 36 and 38 were the water rates that everyone

34 and 36. 34 and 36. I did a 38. What's 36 is the $12, so that's $3 on a thousand gallons. 38 originally. Okay. That's still We we we can run all scenarios. Yes. And in combination.

And then the electric scenario, too, but I think looking at that one because again, that one didn't come from internal. That came from the advisors that have been working on that what Tim, 3 years? Was that accurate? So, they had done that rate study to help us understand where Right. So, just so folks know, we don't just automatically say, "Oh, 5%." Or something like that. We're really trying to figure out why our costs are going to be what they are, what we've got to do to deliver reliable service, and to keep the company solvent for the city, but also to keep the transfer there because the transfer still equals about 40 cents on the real estate tax. That's a huge piece. At some point, Radford's got to address that because if the elasticity of electric continues the way it's been going, that margin may get harder and harder to meet without a significantly higher electric bill. And that's why getting to where we need to be on sustainability for the general fund is so important cuz we're we're less reliant on that transfer. Um I wish it weren't the case. You know, I wish it were like it was in 1980 or 1990 or even 2000, where we were making an extra 12 or 14 million on the electric program every year. Those days have left us. Even if we had a heavy electric user, our margin is not what it used to be. And that's the hardest part of trying to address a lot of these issues. And uh if we had an extra 20 million sitting somewhere, that makes it easier for us to make some of these decisions as we move forward. We don't have that. We're trying to build back toward it. Any other thoughts from anybody? I I think off tonight's discussion alone, we've identified close to 375,000 potential more cuts with the 250 with the with the infrastructure related to the electric. You could hold Maybe I would like for us to visit holding two more positions at roughly 60,000 each, and I think between all the various line items we've talked about

there might be some more, you know, if we could get that to 425 or or 400, that would be um that would be good if we could knock that down from what was presented. So, I think that's feasible. We'll look into it.

Okay. Thank you. What does everybody else think this evening? I love all the spreadsheets and the trending and everything that you guys have done. It makes it so easy, probably easier for you guys, probably a little bit easier for when Craig was doing it, to be able to answer some of these difficult questions and be able to look at more than just one scenario. So, it's seemingly easier to look at 32, 34, 36, 38, you know, level. So, I know that that's hard to implement it, and it takes a lot of time, but I really do appreciate you guys implementing those tools so we can look at this easier and see trends a little bit more in the future. It's It's invaluable help from you guys. So, thank you. Well said. Thank you. I appreciate your spreadsheet. And I just wanted to say that I know, you know, we the five of us, we're talking one-on-one and in communication quite a bit. And what I can tell you is that the five of us certainly all understand what's going on in your households because it's going on in our households, too. So, we know times are tough. Um we know that inflation's hitting hard. None of this um pleases us. We wish we could continue at status quo, but that's just not feasible to remain a city. Um I think you'll find that if you look at the numbers that we're proposing, we are still uh the best buy for the area. You're We're still living in a great community, and the rates are still lower in almost every single category significantly than the rates of last year for the communities around us or cities that um are similar to us. So, we're doing our best to make sure that this remains a community that you want to live in, that we're providing the services that you care about, that are important to you. Those things cost, so we're trying to balance all of that to make sure that there's a meeting place

in the middle. And I can say again, all five of us take this very seriously, and what you're enduring in your households very seriously, as well. Well, I'll just leave with one final thought. You know, anything we're doing is an investment in all of us. That this isn't the city a separate entity from those of us that live here. You know, we rely on the water lines, the power lines, the the roads, the schools, the library, the rec center, all the programs. And so, every dollar we're talking about helps us with our public safety, helps us with our economic development, helps us with our quality of life. And we have to invest in those things because if we don't, the tipping point comes where things start a downward spiral, and it becomes harder and harder to maintain the city as a place where people want to be. Um affordability is a huge piece of that, but sometimes when you get past that tipping point, it doesn't matter how much you go up, you can't get back to where you need to quickly enough without suffering pretty serious harm. And so, I think making these choices is really important. I don't like raising these rates, either. And, you know, for years when we asked the question, we're told, "No." It kind of was a little bit of a relief because we thought, "Okay, we're okay." But, it's also kind of bad when you find out that no, you needed to be going up every one of those years. You needed to mitigate some of the cost every one of those years. So, that's why I want us to be extra cautious moving forward. That we need to make sure we don't get complacent on where we still need to go trajectory-wise. I know we're talking a lot about the water tonight, and that is one big component. Uh but really looking at that sustainability of the general fund. I'm hopeful that the new businesses that there rumblings for, that there are prospects for, that there's opportunities for, will be game-changers. And that's one of the reasons I have a lot of hope for the

future of this community. I think there are millions of dollars in future revenue that will be coming, that the seeds have been sown for. Whether it's the West Radford Commerce Park, whether it's on Main Street, whether it's at Tall Oaks Center, whether it is in different places throughout our locality, there's a lot of opportunity here, and that's the very good news. The best news with this budget, as I said, and I want this to be a real takeaway, this is a different budget from what we've seen for years. This isn't reliant on a transfer from reserves. This isn't reliant on a loan. This isn't reliant on some outside force changing things over the course of a year. This is reliant on the money we feel very confident that can be generated in the 12 months from July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2027. And that is the difference, and that is huge progress. And that's only happened because people up here have had the courage to move forward with that. Cutting helps get you there. But ultimately, the reason we've had challenges with our fiscal situation has been much more on a revenue side of things. That revenue has not been sufficient to meet the needs of the community. That it's not that we've tremendously overspent. And I think that's something for all of us to keep in mind because that revenue piece has to continue to grow. And I also want to say I don't look at citizens just as revenue. That's not an answer. We're all in this together, and we all have to help contribute to this to make sure together our locality is going in the direction it needs to. I'm really thankful for all the people working so hard on this in addition to the five people up here who are having these discussions. Clearly, we have our lead staff in finance and the city manager. We have our consultant in Craig Meadows. We have our department heads. We have our commissioner of revenue and our treasurer. We have all the people who are doing the work, but down the line, where we have been able to experience savings in the budget, that's people

that are out there working on your roads, working on electric lines, working on every aspect of the city that are doing extra work, extra jobs, taking on more to try to keep things going. And I fully recognize that that's been significant on their part. I'm proud that we have some money in there for them this year, and that the insurance piece has been eased a little bit. That is truly a blessing for everybody because I know that has been harmful for the last couple of years, where we've been able to provide no additional support for our city employees. And I think that's an important investment in ourselves. So, you know, a lot has been accomplished. As frustrating as it all is, we are headed in a very good direction for the city. I think if we can continue to keep traveling on that pathway, the road to the future is being paved as we talk, and and we're making some good progress. There's exciting days ahead. Hopefully, we're going to have some more announcements over the next few months as we move forward because that'll help everybody to feel better about the good things that are happening around our community. And we've got a lot of wonderful things. I have to say thank you to Kim and all of the staff who helped work on the Easter egg program this past Saturday. That was such a shot in the arm for so many people, and I had so many people reach out to say thank you. I know last year we had uh folks that stood up and helped us when the city couldn't do it. I know we had the fireworks last year because we had a donor step up when the city couldn't do it. We're bringing back the 4th of July in a different format this year. Those are all important things because they directly contribute to our mental health, the quality of life, and how we feel here in the city. So, it doesn't happen without a lot of people working really hard and working a lot of extra hours. So, thank you. And And with that, we will go on and adjourn. I do want to ask council, do we want to have an additional budget meeting next Monday um prior to our regular city council meeting?

Would that be when you could present some of those numbers to us? Because if so, I think that we have to meet on Monday.

Yes. Okay. So, do we want that at 6:00 or 6:30 on Monday? 6:00? Is that good? Yeah, I just have a hard time making 5:30. Yep. So, let's let's go on and plan to continue that 6:00 p.m. meeting on Monday and plan for that at at like I said at 6:00 p.m. Monday, April the 13th. We will have a regular meeting on April the 13th and at that point in time we will have citizen comments on public matters. If you have thoughts, if you have questions, if you have concerns, you can always email us, you can always speak to us ahead of time, but that'll be an opportunity to speak to some of the budget issues we've talked about tonight and next week. And then we will have a special budget meeting on April 21st at 6:00 p.m. That will be the public hearing for the budget. There will be open time for citizens to comment on rates, on uh the different expenditures we're talking about, on everything. That will also be the first reading of the budget that evening. April 28th, we will have another special budget meeting. Again, we will have conversation here and talk about anything that's changed between the 21st and 27th or 28th. We do have a regular meeting on the 27th. While we probably won't spend a lot of time on budget during that meeting, there will be a citizen comment time at that meeting as well. And like I said, if you want to have things read into the record when you can't be here, you can email us. We're collecting all of those. We will read those as part of the record for the public hearing. Please do still limit your comments to about that 3-minute mark because we we do want to give everybody a fair shot um on to what they have to say. And then after the meeting on the 28th, whatever we decide will be the rates, the budget, and everything for fiscal year 2026-2027. And that will go into effect with the tax rates as of the July bit or June payment uh that needs to go in. Tax

rates, tax tickets will go out in May for that. So, does everybody understand that'll be for the first half of the year? And then rates will take effect as we as we acknowledge them. Okay? Hopefully we've communicated everything. I know we've heard from a lot of folks. We've shared that information among staff, among ourselves, and uh Melissa's helping us keep track of some of that. So, we are hearing your voices. Um again, you can email us, you can email city staff. We can continue to gather information when we have our public comment time on the 13th and we'll go from there. Any other business for us to consider tonight? All in favor of saying goodnight, say goodnight. Goodnight.