City Council - workshop

All right if we get the meeting starting good evening This evening we are going to be doing a work session on service fees Or the city of Legrand with that. This is a work session. This is not a council meeting so there will not be any citizen comments or

any questions at this evening. With that, I will turn it over to our city manager.

Good evening, everyone. Thanks for coming and joining us for the conversation. I think several months ago you guys might remember that I sent an email out saying, do we want to talk about service fees? And we had a pretty resounding yes, that we wanted to do that. So that's what this evening is, is us talking about that. Staff did do some assessment of our own, and we'll be bringing some of that information to you tonight as well. I'm going to go to the second sign. Ultimately, the question that I'm going to ask or that we're asking here this evening as we're going through is that we're getting after by having this discussion is how do we sustain the city services our community expects while protecting the city's long-term financial health? Next slide. Most of this is up here right now, all of you are aware of. We've had some pretty significant conversation on the topic. Bottom line is, as you are aware, we have this structural deficit, or deficit is probably not the best word, but we have structural problems in regards to our revenue situation. Reserve decline, inflation, measure 5 and 50 has some limitations, and then the rising costs of labor. If you have any questions as we're looking at these sites, go ahead and feel free to say stop. Go ahead and go to the next slide. So before discussing any new revenue options, it's important to recognize that staff has already taken significant actions coming out of the budget hearing. We definitely recognize and realize the problems that are on the horizon, and we've already taken a lot of substantial steps in order to be able to try and mitigate what we were all talking about at the budget hearings, as well as some additional actions that we're taking to try and continue to set the conditions for better in the future. Some of those examples of the things that we've done already are in the categories that I'm showing you here. Unless you have any questions about that, I won't read it to you verbatim.

So, like, examples of that, like all of those things. Well... Like library. I know we've reduced hours a lot, which is reducing staff.

Same with We did reduce staff this year, didn't we?

Well, I mean, in many years, over the last 10 years.

Well, we've reduced, what year was that?

We haven't really had a reduction. The library hasn't had a reduction in staffing. The only reduction in staffing we've had within the past few years are just this current budget year. But, like,

Well, I don't remember what year, 12, 15 years ago. Yeah. Yeah.

Um, but we did, we did make some hour changes recently. Go ahead.

Um, yeah, recently we, um, took away our two evening hours. It just wasn't giving traffic and we added we're opening a half hour earlier now every day of the week. So that's been really popular. Um, yeah, a lot of people are excited about that.

So with that restructure, have you seen more footpath coming through?

Yeah, we've had people waiting at the door in the morning, so we knew it was needed. Um, so yeah, it's been, it's been really helpful.

And it reduced staffing strain by making that change as well.

Yeah. It was getting pretty hard to cover the evening shifts when somebody's sick, then you gotta fill in and we don't have overtime. So it was kind of a nightmare with scheduling. So this is. helping a lot yeah so you open it all in the evening now or you just so we're open 9 30 to 6 monday through friday saturday 9 to 5 okay yeah thank you yep

So some examples in regards to pursuing grants. Of course, you're aware of the ones that we are advanced in, not yet awarded, but in regards to the police department. There's some that we've received for the fire department as well for the upstaffing in the summer. There's still some stuff that's being worked out in regards to there. And we've got that RFP out on the street for some additional pursuit of grants. I expect that we'll be making a selection on that within the next couple of weeks.

Excuse me, John, are you still looking for a grant writer?

Yeah, that's the RFP that I was just referring to. So because of the limited funds that we had in order to be able to do that, Primary function of that RFP is to be able to find us grants to be able to apply for. And then with limited, there will be, depending on what offers we get, right? We're looking for them to be able to give us as much bang for our buck as we can. And that's probably going to be a deciding factor in who we end up picking. BUT BOTTOM LINE IS THE STAFF DID SIGN UP FOR WHEN WE MADE THIS DECISION THAT IF WE FIND THEM, THAT THEY WOULD WRITE THEM. BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TRY TO GET AS MUCH OUT OF THE PERSON THAT WE'RE HIRING TO DO THAT BEFORE WE PUSH THAT TO THE STAFF. BECAUSE I GENUINELY FEEL LIKE WE'RE BUSTING AT THE SCENES AT THE MOMENT. AND SO EVEN THOUGH WE ALL AGREED THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING WE WANTED TO DO, WANTED IS THE RIGHT WORD, WILLING TO DO. that I'm going to do everything I can to protect their time. But bottom line is if the only choice we have is to write it ourselves, then we're going to figure it out.

We have received a small grant from the Library Foundation and then also we're pursuing a Pizza Hut grant. I think that's up to like $20,000. And then we got a pretty substantial donation last week. and also our cook money, our cook cost fund. We got $10,000 this year that we weren't anticipating. So that was nice for our streaming services.

And we're also on the precipice of likely getting, they've indicated positively in regards to Ford Family Foundation giving us $50,000 to help with our economic development plan. And so bottom line is we're definitely putting efforts in. in some of these other categories, some additional savings that we're gonna be able to realize when we went into the, got our initial estimates in regards to our insurance coverages for things not employee stuff, all things else. We were able to do some analysis over the last 10 years of what we've commonly been having to file claims on and what we've not had to do, and we were able to make adjustments in our coverage, so what went into the budget document. is turning out to be $50,000 cheaper by what we've done now by making these decisions. Of course, that's hoping that we stay with the trend of what that analysis showed us. But as it looks right now, we'll end up saving $50,000. In fact, that's already realized. We will save $50,000 this year.

Which is for our property liability. Yes.

And then, of course, we're continuing to look into and work towards improving various different operational efficiencies. I already mentioned in regards to the insurance, we've also got, you'll see this at the next staff or council meeting, we've got several properties that we're going to ask you to surplus for the sake of us. It'll be actually some further real, Kerry actually brought this to the table. Arch Center East, of course, is a property that we own. And we're paying insurance on that property. Just even if we were to gift that property to Art Center East, we would save ourselves an additional $15,000, excuse me, $10,000 a year on that property. One of the other properties that we're getting ready to ask you to surplus is the Side A, former fire department. Just again, and just getting rid of it will save us $5,000 a year, let alone whatever we make in any potential sales. So those are all things that we've been taking a hard look at as staff in order to be able to try and gain some additional revenue, let alone some opportunities. Granted, some of those are one-time costs, but it feels like Depending on what comes from this evening, we could actually see ourselves trending in a direction where we would, either through revenues or savings, have over a million dollars better situation than what we first saw coming out of the budget hearing.

And decide APS rent, though, don't they?

No, I think Site A does not pay us rent. The museum pays us rent. Site A pays the museum rent. And we don't realize any of that. Our agreement with the museum is very inexpensive, but they're an active part of the conversation. And I feel optimistic that we're going to find a very balanced way in assuming that you approve the surplus to be able to turn... rid ourselves of that property, position ourselves to not only simply be able to relieve that financial burden of having it, but actually see a whole bunch of different things that'll be good for us, both in urban renewal, in additional revenue that'll come in from property tax now, because while we have it, we're not paying that tax. The value of the building is roughly a million dollars, and so we have a good chance of being able to see some good. When I say the value, that's if the building was in good condition. When you guys get a chance to see the report, it's bad. But when it's recovered and returned to, which the early people that are expressing interest to us in regards to it are suggestive that they want to incorporate the museum into the future as well as I'm trying not to put too much information out sooner since we don't have anything official yet. But bottom line is I see it as being a win-win-win for the community, for the council, and for the city. as a whole. So those are examples of some of the things that we're working on and gaining some and the truth is we have a much longer list. Kyle allowed us to take one of his employees and utilize them as a special projects officer to help us get after some of these ideas that we're developing. Because our bandwidth, each of our individual bandwidth to get after some of these things are problematic at best. And so we're able to get a few hours here and there of additional assistance to help vet some of these efforts. And we've got a list of literally almost 50 different things that we're going to try to get to at some point in time. But... depending on how things unfold over the next week or so. At some point in time, we've got to pull back on the gas because my assessment, nobody's come and complained to me, but my assessment is that a lot of pressure is being put on the staff right now. And so I'm hopeful that we can get some breathing room and give ourselves some time to let FTI work. But more to follow on that.

I just want to point out deferred equipment's up there. The biggest hit to Parks and Recreation was that. $100,000 was cut from the budget for the pool. HVAC system, if that's down, the pool closes, and we're out hundreds of thousands of dollars because we're ignoring it right now. It will break eventually. It's old. It came with the building. So it's a massive system about the size of this room. So when we do deferred equipment and deferred maintenance, it's a big deal because when it breaks, it breaks, right? And we don't have any money in the bank to fix it. Similarly, I think police and fire went without vehicles that were in the budget. So those deferred issues are a bigger deal than they might seem. It's easy to cut them from the budget because they're not operational. But it's not easy to cut them when they break or we need them. So that's a huge sacrifice that especially my department took, not just the pool, but other parks needs like paving Riverside Park, for example. Marianne's going to complain next week that there's potholes because the old cars hit a pothole at Riverside Park. We don't have any money to fix it. We don't have any money to fix other parks, parking areas. Those are the things that people don't see until something happens. Well, why didn't you fix it? Well, we don't have the money.

right well and those kind of deferred maintenance things end up costing more in the market right then you have to repair carpet and drywall and prices keep going up every year

And our streets and roads are the best example of that. Sure.

That's not a great strategy. It is, you know, it can get you by, but it's not the best strategy. I promise I won't ask you about that.

You pass it on.

the difficult part is when you look at the public comments around this and there is a gross misperception of the city is somehow poorly utilizing funds which is simply not the case to anybody who's looked at the budget in detail and you all did this but you know until we can correct this public perception about how we're using the revenues that the city is collecting that we have little ability to turn to the public and ask for more tax dollars until they can believe that we're responsibly using what we have and understand the reality of rising costs and stagnant revenues.

Agreed completely, and this is another heavy lift for the team, but the one thing I'm not planning on easing up on is the civic engagement stuff. And that's hard because people are pretty abusive. But what I can say is for every one that's making loud noise of difficulty, I'm getting probably at least 10 that are coming in and saying thank you. If anything, the people that are making loud noise are actually causing people to want to say thank you, good job more because they feel like we're getting abused. Start crying. What's that? Start crying. When we were out working at the farmer's market this weekend, people I've never met before are walking up to me and saying like, hey, I really appreciate everything you guys are doing and the way you're getting out here and the level of, they use the word transparency a lot, the level of transparency that's occurring. But I have to say that's at a heavy price to the team, though, too. Like, I'm not, I'm not, it's not oblivious to me that this effort, I can say public works, I feel like takes a big hit. the level of work that they're doing and the level of comments that are coming in that are specific to their range, I feel like they're rightfully feeling like this is just opening the door for them to be abused and they probably want me to stop. While at the same time, I'm struggling to find a way to build that relationship with the community where we don't have the conversation. But at some point in time, I have to realize that they're feeling like they're being abused. And that's not what I want. It's not what I'm going for. But it's unfortunately a side effect of transparency, right? But I'm gonna continue to look for the balance in there even though, while still pursuing it. I apologize. Anyway, so next slide. So as we were doing some analysis in regards to the various different public services, I have another presentation I can share with you guys if you want to look at it. But the LOC, League of Oregon Cities, provided us a lot of data and information in regards to the various different service fees that are offered throughout Oregon. The list that you see here in front of you is a list of those different types of fees. and the level of, or at least an ambiguous statement of how widely it's used. So unless you have any questions in regards to those, I did highlight public safety service fee because that's where I'm planning on taking the conversation from here.

John, I almost wish we had percentages or numbers here. I mean, very common. What does that mean? Is that 70%? Is that 80%? What, you know, I like this map. This is kind of nice that you included in the handout, but I'm trying to get a sense of this. Obviously, we're not going to compare ourselves to a town of 100 people. Right. But looking at cities of 10,000 or more, can you give us an estimate on where you drew the line for saying common versus very common versus some?

I would say that I drew it at a 90 percentile. So if you're seeing very common, 90 percent or more are doing.

Good.

If you go to the next slide. So then public service fee is the one that is most commonly being utilized across all of the different jurisdictions in Oregon. You can see the dollar amount varies and what various different locations are charging. I will say that on some of the other ones, there were some places, not in public safety, but there were other ones that were charging as much as $50 for some of their services. For a month? What's that?

For a month? Yeah.

OK. But none of them were public safety. Anyway, unless you have any questions on that. And I apologize, though. I don't have exact percentage.

But Corvallis and Sandy are in long locations. That really makes a big difference. Sandy's up by Portland, and Corvallis is over by Eugene. The map is weird.

Yeah, no, I apologize. I got some feedback right before this that my map was jacked up. And Stacy is so efficient that she had already printed everything and put it out, and I didn't want to make us do that again. Do we have a $10... We do not.

So this is because this is existing, but it's not right.

I'm sorry. I'm trying to lead an influence. So other than other than LeGrand, everything else on there is existing. Proposed. Correct. LeGrand is proposed. Go ahead and go to the next slide. So, what we did was, we took the analysis of what we did last year in regards to the street user fee, because this would be the, if we were to do it, we'd be implementing the same way that we would be implementing with the street user fee. At least the same mechanism. Based off of that, you'll see up at the top that the original adopted, in fact, Heather, if you want, why don't you speak to this? Unless you prefer I can.

In regards to this for user fee?

Yeah, just as far as breaking down the budgetary reality there.

So when it was passed, it was $8 a month for utility. We bill an average of $4,500 or 4,500 bills a month. So coming out to an annual revenue of 441,316.99 for this current fiscal year is what we brought in for that street user fee. We estimate coming in next year at 425. It kind of give and take depends not only on vacancies and homes, but also the allowance for bad debt. Not always do we collect everything. So that's where we come up with the 425,000, but we actually brought in 441. So with... John's public safety service fee at $10 a month. Um, that's the annual revenue we expect to bring in. Well, the five 61, 600 with billing at 4,500 accounts and collecting it all. Of course, with allowance prevent that we're looking at 540.

And then we gave you options of if we did different amounts, unless you have any questions on this.

So if we did apply a $10 a month public safety fee, that goes to the utility account?

That's the method of billing it?

Yeah. To bill it, but it'll come into the general funds. So is there going to be... What's the earmark for the... Is it... Going directly to public safety? Yes. Is it going to be in a box?

Yes, so it will have its own separate line item for the revenue coming in, and then we actually do have to do a cost analysis each year showing the revenue brought in, the expenditures for both police and fire, showing that we have enough expenditures to cover the revenue that's coming in, which we will have way more expenditures in the revenue coming in.

And currently that street user fee goes all to streets and roads.

That's correct. It's its own special actual fund. I wasn't sure because I myself have not set up a special fund like this. I actually visited with our auditors quite a bit today in regards to this since it's for operational purposes, not a capital project. We can just, we don't have to create its own fund. We can actually just bring it into the general fund, but we do have to show, there's reporting at the end of the year that I'll have to show that revenue is covering the cost.

The goodness in that, which I'm sure you guys, I apologize, it seems like I'm talking down anyway. I don't intend it that way. relief in the police and fire has positive effect across the entire organization. So even though it's absolutely dedicated to go to police and fire, the relief that it causes, because that's $560,000 that we can potentially use elsewhere in the organization, depending on what our reality is. So bottom line is, Even though it's all dedicated for the police, it has a ripple effect that's positively affecting the entire organization.

Or it'll decrease our deficit.

Right. So you're proposing that you would pull back some general fund dollars that otherwise would have gone into that bucket to offset...

So there's a nuance in it though. There's only, so right now, so depending on, let's say we decided we wanted to implement this tomorrow. We did not budget for that appropriation of these funds for this year. So ultimately what this would happen, what would happen is this would just go in and be earmarked and saved and budgeted next year, or we'd have to do a special supplemental budget. IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE IT THIS YEAR, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE WE JUST EARMARK IT AND USE IT NEXT YEAR. AT WHATEVER POINT IN TIME THAT WE DECIDE TO IMPLEMENT. AND IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, WE COULD JUST WAIT TO IMPLEMENT UNTIL THE NEXT BUDGET YEAR. THAT WAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER MY RECOMMENDATION IS GOING TO BE THAT WE SPEND SOME TIME SOCIALIZING THIS BEFORE WE IMPLEMENT. one way or another or one way or another um next year budget year you would see a much better budget picture as a result of this not perfect we'd still have problems but we have a better budget picture than we would if we didn't have this and we just started the budget year july one yeah and really we don't um so

A supplemental budget is to increase appropriations, so increase expenditures. We don't plan on increasing expenditures whatsoever. So really, that's where we don't have to do a supplemental budget. That money can still come in. And actually, we could still use it for police and fire expenditures. We're just not increasing our expenditures. So we don't have to. We're not required to do a supplemental budget.

So the way I see it is the sooner we implement it, the better for the organization.

But if we implement this... How will that affect our proposal to go for gas tax? And I can't see people wanting both of these things in.

Um, so there's, what I can say is I'm not, I feel like I'm like, I don't want you guys to feel like I'm talking down here. Um, the problem's real across all of these different veins and there's no one solution that's going to solve all of these different competing, even with, let's say best case scenario, gas tax goes through, this goes through, we're still going to have problems. We're still going to have shortfalls. So what I can say is my recommendation here is that it's not a matter of whether we like it or not. It's a matter of we either have services or we don't. And therefore, we're doing the best that we can to make sure that we can keep the services we have with time to be able to even improve them through other efforts that are still continuing to go. I would agree that any number of things that we're going to do might have an adverse effect on the other. But what other solution do we have?

I understand what you're saying. This is one that the council will put in.

So, yeah, this is one you can do without voter protection.

So I just see that as being negative toward People agreed to do the gas tax.

Agreed. Agreed. What I can say is, and we can go into gas tax a little bit more if we need to tonight, though that wasn't an agenda item, but we're doing the best that we can to make sure that the education is getting out there and that we're going to give the community what it needs to know to make an informed decision. Come August i'm going to ask of this Council to significantly ramp up their interactions in regards to the topic, because the we as staff are going to have to completely stop. But. When we reach that point and we're nearing it i'm understanding, can you speak to that stacy.

I know that August 5 there will be a couple of resolutions that will put on the agenda for you guys to. Push both of those, the charter and the tax, the gas, local fuel tax. Resolutions for the general election, so I've spoken with our attorney and he is going to be getting us all of the information on the 5th. So then I can start the next steps because there's a timeline. I think it's like the 14th of August or something and it's like, it's clear that next week and. If we don't start that process on that time, we won't be able to get it on the ballot.

And the moment we get it back from him, we have to stop talking about it. And the only ones that can talk about it now are you, or at that point.

John, I'm just wondering what... you know messaging around a proposal like this looks like is that you know hey this is going to allow us to maintain the services that we have are we are we going to make you know public assurances that this added revenue will allow us to do something more i mean you know we've we've pulled back on some things with police with vehicles we've pulled back on talking about a drug task force officer. I'm just wondering what you perceive the message in.

So what I would perceive that everything you saw coming off the table last year would be coming, or this last budget cycle would be coming back on. Of course, we're still hopeful to get the grant. That would be an even better situation for us. But bottom line is, is I would see what we had to take off the table last year, both for fire and police, which honestly, like fire, well, you guys cut close to the same, about $400,000 each. ended up being cut from the budget, depending on how you count the dollars. I would see most all of that coming back as a result of something like this. So rather than staying in the reduced capacity that we are right now, we would be able to see ourselves return back to the way people were used to it. And that would give us at least the ability to provide the service that they've been used to. I don't know that anybody's had the opportunity yet to feel the pain of what's been cut. Some of those things, unfortunately, like why we made some of the decisions we did with the police department is because, like I'm beating a drum here, like it's hard. They have an incredibly hard task to try and get up to full capacity. staffing in the police department it's not for lack of really good efforts in regards to that but if we keep doing the things that we're doing to improve the circumstances this is a piece that helps us move closer to be able to improve potentially improve the fiscal reality of the police department we're not going to be there next year but we got to get positioned to where we can compete with the agency that keeps taking our people away from us and I got to tell you there's a huge gap like it's a big gap and it's not going to be easy for us to get there I think they foster a great environment where they show that their people are cared about the thing that's making them go more money and as much as we all hate that that's true the bottom line is if we want a fully staffed police department we're going to have to compete with the ones that are taking them away from us And this is not going to do that, but it's going to get us closer to it.

So I hear you say this really is going to allow us to maintain the level of service that we have. That's kind of the messaging that you envision.

I think that's, yeah, I'd like to expand on it. But yes, at a minimum, that would be the communication that I would want to accompany it.

To not cut.

Would definitely not cut any further. And I would say bring back what we did cut.

I would say keep people.

And I've got a statement that I'm going to read to you guys here in a little bit because Merle wasn't able to be with us tonight. But they're hurting significantly because of these cuts. And some of them, like some people are, I don't say that at the expense of anybody else that's hurting, right? Parks and Rec is hurting. The police department is hurting. Finance is hurting. all of those are cuts that we made this last year those trickle effect reliefs that we're doing with this public safety will give us the opportunity to try and remedy that this next go-round it's going to put us better than we were at the beginning of this year but certainly not fixed um and but the staff is working hard to try and continue that that momentum and that trend in that better direction that's going to make sure that we can at least keep what we have, let alone try and gain any additional improvements based off of what the future needs of La Grande is going to be.

I would suggest, if I might, some of the comments, Chief, that you've made in recent council meetings that are informative to us and the public as to the number of calls for services are dealing with in our community. I think too many of us are largely oblivious to the realities of the city, whether it's a nice town, a lot of people still don't lock their doors, that sort of thing. But those kind of numbers, I think, tell the true story of what the burden is that is being borne by some of our public safety personnel. And it may make what is going to amount to a bitter pill, regardless of how you slice it, a little bit harder, a little bit easier to swallow, or otherwise relieve.

Next slide, please. So why the staff recommends, I think we kind of, at Nauseam, kind of talked about that here and now. The bottom line here is some bullets that talk about why the staff recommends that we move forward with it. I mean, it's quite literally just in different words, everything that we've been talking about. The one thing we didn't talk about here is how I would perceive it as enabling FTI. And I realize that we haven't had the opportunity to have the work session yet where we're going to dive into that deeper. I think based off of the last council meeting, we'll have a work session on that. I don't remember the date. Is it September or October? for the FTI based on the rescheduling needs it's going to be in September or October depending on when the council is fully available but bottom line is I think as you've heard probably heard me say maybe the point of like getting sick of hearing it Part of that tiered approach that we're taking towards trying to solve our problems is intended, like all this work that we're doing now is intended to create the relief that we need to give FTI the time that it needs to work. In that tiered approach, those last two tiers, the last ditch effort to fully solve our problem is one of two things. to ask the community to increase taxes, which we already know is not an appealing ask of the community, let alone a desire of the community. And the other one is cut services. Those are the last two steps. This gives us time to show the community that we're doing the best that we can to solve the problem before ever bringing those two questions to the table. The hope is that when and if, well, the best hope is that we'll never arrive there. The worst case scenario is if we do arrive there, the community trusts us when we're asking that question. It's one thing to simply say we don't want to pay it. It's another thing to say we don't want to pay it because we don't trust you. And so Heather and I have, in the not too distant future, sometime end of August, beginning of September-ish, we're planning on doing a budget, brown table with the community that's intended to help us get after very complex topics and distilling them down simplistically in a way that's going to help people be able to understand better what the realities of city budgeting is. It's not going to be an easy task. I apologize for pushing that on you or working on it with me. But I can say even some of the civic engagements that have come out, I think you've mentioned it in your comments, is that people think it's as simple as be more responsible or move this from here to there, and it's just not. It's much more complex than people care to take the time to understand. We somebody that over the some of the civic or the social media stuff over the weekend was complaining complaining about what they couldn't find on social media. I mean, on our website, and then ultimately found it and came back and said that they ran it through cloud AI and it's clear that we're overspending in all our urban renewal dollars. And I'm like, that's, I said, that's an oversimplification. Your numbers aren't correct. You're welcome to reach out to me and I'd be happy to explain and share with you what the reality of that circumstance was. They were referencing the Market Fresh building. The bottom line is they're just difficult conversations and we have to do the best that we can to try and communicate with them. To me, that's how we're going to build trust, even though it's emotionally taxing for the people that have to deliver that information. The positive people that show up and contribute, that's great. The less positive people, it's a drain.

So a public safety service fee that would be attached to a water bill or utility bill.

Yes.

Okay. So, um, so, so each house has a utility bill. Okay. What about apartments?

Okay, I'm glad you're asking that. You're going right to the right direction.

That was my next question. How are we going to fix the multi-unit problem?

And I just went through, like, the average two-bedroom apartment in La Grande is $11.45 for, you know, whatever. That's just a quick... And if they make $20 an hour... They don't have a whole lot of extra after that rent. So I want to kind of.

So similar to the street user fee, we have a tiered way that we apply it based off of need or capability. i'm working with legal to make sure that we're taking that into consideration for what would be authored here as well when it when it comes down to it there is no perfect solution there's always going to be some level of complaint in regards to it i can also tell you that to david's question we have kyle has Gained this and we have an additional consultant that's come to the table that's helping us do the work that's necessary in order to be able to. fully identify the various different apartments and other locations that are utilizing those utilities, but not paying that that bill. in order to be able to make sure that we're spreading it out more equally through the community. It's going to take us another six months to a year to get the solution in place that's going to make sure that all of those different users are actually contributing to the costs as well. But unfortunately, Kyle isn't able to be here with us tonight to be able to give you the nuanced description of that. But we feel confident that within tonight, I called him anticipating this question. And he said, within six months to a year, we will have the solution in place.

Yeah. So, you know, if you have a house that has six people living in it.

Yeah.

Will they be paying the same fee as one person living in a one bedroom apartment is my concern.

So, yes, they would be paying the same. The only way that they would be paying differently is if it's a house and a mother-in-law cottage. then they would have two different locations living at the same place but if they're just simply living under the same roof in the same house we don't have a system of being able to other than asking people to self-report and tell us and based off of a criteria that we set that says if you have more than x number that's just it's just going to be problematic to try and go down that path that's the same question as saying if you have a home you know you can have a

4,000 square foot home that has one person living in it, they're going to pay the same amount as a 4,000 square foot home that has eight people living in it. So I don't know that the home to apartment comparison is as relevant as just saying it's a dwelling unit and we treat them as dwelling units.

And if the apartment is complex, we generally don't bill each individual resident.

Exactly. Because that would proportionally affect people who can afford it the least and

And that's where I'm saying that we're working with the verbiage within the how we're applying it within the what will be a. The words escaping me. Bottom line is we're going to author it so that it's taking into consideration the various different problems of the different people's revenue-generating capabilities. But again, no matter what, it's not going to be perfect, right? People are complaining about the idea of a gas tax that's going to cost them, in a worse case, vehicle would cost them literally $1.50 more to tank up than it would under normal security. And they think that's too much. So there's no perfect solution. There's just the bottom line is we have to implement things and we will do the best that we can to navigate the problems and be as sensitive as we can to individual needs and find where there's possibility to help and provide relief, we will. BUT UNTIL WE I WOULD NOT SAY THAT'S REASON ENOUGH FOR US TO STOP FORWARD MOVEMENT IF WE WERE TO DECIDE THIS BECAUSE IT'S THE THREAT IS WHAT WE LEFT THE BUDGET HEARINGS WITH. THAT'S THE THREAT. AND WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE THREAT AND THIS IS A CONTRIBUTING SOLUTION.

I THINK WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT.

AGREED.

SO TO YOUR POINT, KARINE, TOO, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAS A as an assist program for lower-income people for water bills, right? Do you know about this? So there's a...

I hope so. Well, yeah.

I didn't mean it disrespectfully.

I'm just saying. Okay, so... Sorry, John. It's better than forgetting the word than actually saying it. Try to be productive. Long story short, for lower income people, there's a discount program they can apply for. I think it's up to 20% or something like that.

It is 20%.

There's actually guidelines that we go by. We go by the federal property rates. So that mitigates a little bit of your concern, I think. And I think with this, we can certainly promote that one.

We're also making the assumption that a... property owner would pass these costs on one one to the resident where a lot of multi unit facilities are set up to where utilities may be included in the cost of the rent and you may see landowners absorbing that rather than passing along to. some of the lower income residents. So there's a few assumptions that we're operating off. I think your point is a valid one. We need to be sensitive to it. We need to be aware of how that is going to impact people equitably. But if we're talking about an equitable impact, what is absolutely not equitable is our current set of 50 dwelling unit system paying one

That is absurd.

So to me, I mean, we've been beating this for years and we still have not fixed it. You will see that. So, but to me, I think this is a, this is hard for people to swallow because they're going to be asking the same question. Why am I paying the same amount? You know, as a, Single person retired living in my home and that apartment complex across the street serving 200 people is Paying the same amount per month. So to me we almost need to fix that before we go and propose this We've got the cart before the horse here.

Well, we could fix it. It's gonna be so per the conversation I had us obviously we're not making decisions here today right if we were to pose this and you were to approve it in the August Council we can we can state when the implementation timeline is going to be and we could probably even say like if we haven't solved the problem we don't do it are we we hold it but bottom line is we could We could implement it. We will fix it. If anything, the nice part about it is if we did implement it right now, it would be another, for lack of a better term, increase that we would see that would make it so that it would be good now, it would be even better a year from now. without having to raise fees. And so bottom line is whatever direction or guidance that the council gives, that's where we go. My recommendation would be that we implement now, we socialize it the way that you're talking and educating people that, hey, this is going to be more. It's not going to change what they're paying individually. By having more isn't going to reduce their amount.

um but it will have more people come in and that's a relief for the future for them not um not just realized today so our follow-up question is do we have an estimate on what that change would do to the numbers um we don't yet that's part of what the consultant's doing for us right now i'm sure there's something i'm missing but i'm like i fail to see what it about saying how many dwellings do we have, and we're going to tether that. Again, I'm sure I'm missing something. I'm not aware of something. How do we not count the number of apartments that are paying into a single utility?

Well, I think we could probably fairly easily get to the answer in regards to apartment complexes. The problem is the problem's bigger than apartment complexes. And so rather than us just go around and We just haven't made the effort on our own. I haven't asked anybody to make the effort to go around just tell me how many apartment complex they are and how many dwelling units they have. That would give us a ballpark, but I guarantee you the number in the end is going to be different than what we tell you.

Well, some houses have been subdivided.

Exactly. Yeah, that's kind of the point I'm trying to make.

I think it's also a bit complicated because the meter... the readings come off the meter and if you have one meter for a 20 dwelling place then how do you then install 19 other meters or is there some sort of solution whether it's through software or GIS technology or whatever it is where then you can collect there's 19 dwelling units there or 20 and because I'm pretty sure meters are expensive and to go out and pay somebody to put an extra 19 meters in a hole in the ground It doesn't seem like it's reality. So there must be a nuance there that I don't know about. That's not this. This is a flat fee per.

So it's not based on a rate. You're just looking. All you have to know is how many units are being paid.

Per meter, though, is how it's written out, right? Utility bills are per meter. So we don't have a way to read that electronically like we do now, is what I'm saying.

Yeah, you just have to have a way of adjusting on the back end. See, for this meter, this is times 8. Sure, yeah. This one's times 15.

Because I'm sure they're not going to put more meters in. They might . Silly example. I'm just trying to paint the picture. It's more complex than just.

Yeah. Like I said, I'm sure I'm missing something. But I do think that that's a relevant part of this discussion, because it changes the financial numbers. It also changes, again, to me, what the public will view as an equity issue in how this is paid.

I agree that we need to do that first before we consider... I think so, too.

So I guess I'm a little confused on that because what you're asking, because the number is only going to come back higher. It's not going to come back lower. So the analysis that you're asking for, I could see that if it was a risk that it would be cheaper. It's not. It's actually going to increase the number.

But then that might change how much we would need to ask for here. Oh, I see what you're trying to do.

You could get by with an $8 a month fee instead of $10 a month. Because other people are going to look at this and say, oh my gosh, we're the highest of all these cities pretty much. I mean, that literally puts us right at the top, matching only Ontario, and Grants Pass is the only one higher. So, again, does that allow us to adjust back and now come back and say, look, guys, we're going to be cheaper at $8 than everybody else here except for... you know, Forest Grove, who's looking at moving up to 10 anyway. So to me, again, it's a perception issue, and it's how it allows us to present it. So if we're looking at this number and saying, this is sufficient, this is what we want out of it.

Well, they had to talk me into $10. I wanted $20, which I realize is ridiculous. But what I can tell you is our problem isn't solved, even at this implementation level. Right.

And we're not going to do something. We are going to have to make cuts in the near future. More cuts. Very, very possibly.

Respectfully, there's a lot of pressure on us right now. And I know that we all made sacrifices and cuts, right? But I'm feeling it. Like every day my staff is feeling it. It's real, right? We don't have time to wait, guys. I'm sorry. I'm telling you the truth. Like I've squeezed everything I can. And people can debate that. But I'm passionate about this. So I get it. It's hard to be in your seat. It's really hard to hear public complaint. It's really hard to be accountable. It's really hard to be an elected official. I respect that tremendously. But I'm here to tell you, like, we're there. Like, I'm sorry. We can't wait. The general fund is toast. We're done.

We lost your trash picker-upper and lawnmower. I know what that person does.

It's hard. I mean, my staff are struggling. My morale is low. It's hard. Heather's without a staff in her office. Like, it's hard. So I just, I'm here to tell you that I respect your decision and I respect your position, but we don't have time to wait. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you.

We need to hear that.

So one of this slide is, and it's all the same rules. I mean, so we could do the street user fee is the same reality of what makes this possible. We can go into more nuance in regards to that if you'd like, but bottom line is it's legal and it isn't considered a tax and we would be implementing appropriately in accordance with Oregon law. if we were to decide to do it.

What is the process from a council meeting perspective? Because I mean, you probably have to have a public hearing on this. Is this a three-month-long process?

It has to be about 90 days, because it would be in ordinance. So first, second reading, and then 30 days out from that. So it's possibly 90 days. Even two days.

So essentially we're into almost next year. Well, six months out. But what I can say is we could go whatever direction you're saying. And certainly we could delay the decision. But kind of to Stu's point, our team needs a win. And our team needs to know that we're not the only ones being expected to figure out the solution to this problem and keep taking it off the backs of the teams. Um, I, my senior staff is absolutely rightfully stressed out and I don't know how to relieve them on that. Um, except for we got to solve the problem and this gives us a little bit of blue breathing room. It doesn't solve it, but it gives us breathing room and implementing this. The sooner we implement it, the more they can say, all right, there's, there's relief on the, on, uh, and we're moving in the right direction. Um, so I share. what Stu and I think everybody else, and you'll hear from Merle, is communicating. All of them genuinely really would like for the guidance tonight to be for us to move forward with this $10 implementation.

Another perspective, if you circle back to the impact that it may have on voters' willingness to approve the gas tax that's proposed is really our alternative for a revenue source for payment roads is coming through the street user fee which is a council of action does not require voter input and And those are kind of our two options if we want to improve the revenue situation. As the gas tax is proposed, would again bring in revenues from residents outside of the city. We're essentially getting a two-for-one deal there, as opposed to trying to capture that same revenue off of the stream user fee, which is a big alternative. Maybe this will be perceived negatively by the public. I have no doubt in my mind that there will be a fierce backlash to the proposal of raising fees to that tune. But at the same time, it may help people understand what the difference is between what we have proposed on the gas tax and what the alternative would mean.

I would have to argue that's a great education perspective, utilizing that to say it'll get worse if we don't do the gas tax.

The two-for-one arguments are really valuable.

All right, so of course it always looks nicer when you see it as a 16 cents a day thing, right? But that doesn't change the fact that the utility bill is a utility bill. Go ahead and go to the next slide. Another representation of what ultimately it's looking like. Next slide.

I thought you said $0.16 today.

Oh, yeah. I made a mistake there.

That would have been the $20. Yeah.

The $0.16 is right. It should have been on the other.

Yeah, that's because staff talked him off the cliff.

Yeah. Yeah, no, that's what happened is I forgot to change it on that slide.

It's you and your friend sharing stuff.

Yeah.

This is what I think is the important part to show the public.

Yeah, so be a bottom that great. Thank you for saying that. Bottom line is that this money helps all of that. And that's just right now, let alone when we fix the application of it.

Going to go to the next.

Um, so one of the things that we would do along with this, of course, we have the normal budget retreat. We have the retreat, but the hearings, um, we would include within this some additional ways I've shared with you before that we're in this implement or construction phase of the. what we're calling the Community Service Readiness Index. That will be a tool that we will be able to utilize with the community to help them see how we're doing what we're supposed to be doing, what we say we're supposed to do, and reporting how well our service is in connection with the resources that we're receiving. And that way they'll be able to see by color code, simplistically, and you'll be able to see by color code, simplistically, when we're underperforming as it relates to the resources that we're receiving. What we'll say is, in order to be green, we need X amount of money. And if we're performing in amber or red, well then that means that's where our funding level is at, or we've got to explain to you what the other reasons are as to why we're not doing it. So bottom line is, we're creating the mechanisms to make it simplistic to talk about it, and for the community, and the council to be able to hold ourselves accountable as well as maximum education to the community. And we intend on utilizing that. So again, it's building off that transparency efforts. Go to the next slide. That'll all happen through all of these different engagements that we'll continue to do. Go to the next slide. These are some of the frequently asked questions we would anticipate and that we would share as part of our education effort if we were to implement. And then go to the next slide. So Councillor Wheeler and I had the opportunity when she was going to be out of town, I asked her if she was planning on contributing or wanted to contribute anything to this particular discussion. And she said, yes, she would, but she wanted to be informed. So I met with her and one of the earlier versions of the presentation shared that with her. and she asked if she could write a statement and then contribute that back to the discussion. So what I'm going to read now is actually her words in order to contribute. Chief Lacey did the same thing. So from Councilor Wheeler, John met with me on Thursday to discuss our upcoming work session. Since I will not be able to attend and will not be able to watch it since I will be flying across country, he thought that I might be interested in the topic and want to be able to voice my opinion on the subject. This past year, our La Grande residents have had service increases with Avista, OTC, and Waste Pro. And in November, the gas tax will be on the ballot. The main purpose for government and local government is for the safety and protection of its citizens. Our police and fire departments are crucial for the protection and safety of our citizens. So many cities are cutting back in these departments. She said, so many cities are cutting back in these departments. This is something we must prevent happening in Legrand. The service fee could prevent any future cutbacks and layoffs. It could also help with equipment costs, but we must figure out a way that this service fee would be paid by all citizens, since all of our citizens will benefit from this fee. Bottom line, I'm in favor. And she said, thank you for giving her this opportunity. Merle's is a little longer. I can try and sound as redneck as he sounds. I mean that with love. Good evening, Mayor, Council, and members of the community. Thank you for allowing me to share a few thoughts this evening. Unfortunately, I'm unable to be here in person, but I wanted to provide my perspective as fire chief on the proposed public safety service fee. The city manager has explained the financial reasons behind this proposal. I would like to offer a different perspective, one from the person responsible for making sure our firefighters are ready when someone in our community calls 911. Every day my responsibility is simple. I have to make sure that when someone needs help, we are ready to respond. Most people do not think about public safety until they need it. When they call 911, they do not ask how old the fire engine is, whether equipment costs have gone up, or how the city budget is doing. They expect firefighters to show up quickly with right equipment, the right training, and the ability to help them through what may be one of the worst days of their lives. That is the promise we make to this community every day. But the level of readiness does not happen by accident. It takes trained people, dependable equipment, ongoing maintenance, and careful planning. Last year, the Grand Fire Department responded to more than 3,400 emergency calls. Behind every one of those calls was a person or family facing a crisis. Whether it was a house fire, a heart attack, a serious vehicle crash, or a wildfire threatening homes, they were not thinking about budgets or inflation. They simply needed help and they expected us to be there. Fortunately, we were. Our department has always worked hard to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars. We have pursued grants, delayed purchases when we could, looked for efficiencies, and stretched every dollar as far as possible. Those efforts have helped, but they cannot overcome the long-term challenge we face. The cost of providing emergency services continues to rise, while revenues that support local governments simply have not kept pace. One thing I appreciate about the Fiscal Transformation Initiative is that it encourages us to address these challenges before they become a crisis. It is built around planning ahead, making thoughtful decisions, and protecting the services our community depends on instead of waiting until we have no choice but to make cuts. That approach reflects the purpose of the FTI, to strengthen long-term stability and protect essential services through proactive planning as fire chief i do not want a future fire chief standing before this council explaining why response capabilities have declined because we've waited too long to act i understand that no one wants another fee on their monthly bill but i also know that delaying investments in public safety does not make the need go away it only makes the challenge bigger and the eventual solutions more difficult The proposed $10 per month public safety service fee is not about expanding government or creating new programs. It is about protecting the public safety services our community already relies on every day. It is an investment in maintaining the firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical responders who answer the call when people need help most. Just as important, this proposal includes accountability. The revenue would be dedicated to public safety with council oversight, annual reporting, financial audits, and transparency so our community knows how those dollars are being used. As fire chief, I have to think beyond next year's budget. I have to think about the department we leave to the next generation of firefighters and the level of service our community will expect 10 and 20 years from now. I hope the people of La Grande never need us, but if they do, I want them to know that our firefighters will arrive quickly, prepared and ready to help. That does not happen by chance. It happens because the community chooses to invest in being ready before the emergency occurs. For those reasons, I support moving forward with the proposed $10 per month public safety service fee. I believe it is a reasonable and responsible investment that will help protect the public safety services our community depends on today while preparing us to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and thank you for your continued support of the men and women who proudly serve the city of Legrand. Respectfully, Merle Lacey, Fire Chief. Any other staff would like to contribute to the conversation?

I'm sorry. If you may, I was just looking for the right opportunity. I just want to let you know that I champion John in this effort because we are collaborating. we have an impossible task to do in 24 hours during the budget hearing and we made sacrifices big ones but we did it for the right reasons but this out of that was revenue we need revenue we rev need revenue in this what he proposed is palatable It's doable. So I talked to other chiefs, two specifically that have this, and I'm like, hey, what can we expect if we were to put this to the council and stuff? Here's the deal. You add anything to the community that adds any amount, it's going to be negative. Here's the deal with this if we do it this way. It's going to be negative, we're going to hear it, and it's going to go away. A year from now, I doubt that we're going to be hearing about it. So you've asked for revenue. I think this is a good way to do it. I do like the idea of making sure, you know, addressing the apartments and multi-dwelling units and getting those costs from that. But I've shared with you stats. I think Merle said it perfectly. If you approve this fee and we went forward, I am not looking for the police department to be BETTER TO ADD MORE. I'M LOOKING TO SUSTAIN WHAT I HAVE AND GIVE HIS FISCAL TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE A CHANCE TO WORK BY ALLEVIATING BURDEN ON THE GENERAL FUND THAT'S GOING TO HELP STEW, HEATHER, CARRIE, AND THE OTHER DIRECTORS AND DEPARTMENTS. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW I AM FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. I'M GLAD IT'S $10 AND NOT $20. And also I could be wrong. I know that other cities have done this too. This is, you can tweak this, but you can start the first year, $10 second year, $9 third year, whatever you want to do. I think that there's other things that you can do with that. The one thing that I learned from talking to other chiefs is, um, don't make it a short term thing, because what you're going to find out is the end of that short term, say it's three years. I'm just using this as an example. then you have to do this process again with, and then it riles everybody back up again. So anyway, tomorrow I'm going to be into a board meeting and there's going to be 25 or so chiefs. And I want to talk to them more about this, what they do. That's another thing that is nice is John prepared a nice slide through the League of Oregon cities and stuff that shows this is not new. You know, I am comforted as a chief of police when I see that this is happening with other municipalities across the state of Oregon who have all been in our position that we're in right now. So anyway, I just wanted to speak out loud in support of John and this and our department and the other departments present.

John, I have a question. Did you talk to League of Oregon Cities or did you just pull from data they had?

I pulled from data they had.

Okay, so I was just kind of curious as to how these numbers relate to their populations.

that make sense like in comparison so for city sizes and whatnot yeah no um i unfortunately have not i i will get that answer and get it to you tomorrow um but i'm not prepared right now to be able to tell you i'm not really stressed about it i was just curious what it looks like like how much money are they generating now because of their oh yeah their numbers gotcha yeah no i i can certainly dig into it and try to get some answers okay

It is interesting to see, though, that all of these except for a couple of them are just for police.

Well, no, no, that list I'm sharing with you there was meant to just show you how many are doing public service. There are other ones are doing that and others. On that list, some of the ones that you're seeing there have that public service safety and other ones that they're doing as well. Above and beyond. Yeah, above and beyond. That's just one of the ones that they're doing. Um, it just going back to that one list where it showed it, you know, it's not consistent amongst all orgs. The one that's most consistent is public safety service.

So some of them might have a public safety and a park fee.

Or public safety and street user.

And also, I don't know, cause I didn't do any research, but some of them, so when I was talking to the auditors, a lot of people actually set up these fees to let's say create funds for a police department or a new police station. So it's for a capital project where they actually have to have their own special fund. And that's when I was talking to the auditors. I mean, do we have to have our own special fund? But since it's just for general operations, no. So some of these may be actually set up for big capital projects.

But there's not a sunset on this.

Not as I'm proposing it. Unless you tell me to put it in that way, it wouldn't.

I would say no.

it's all under council resolution and so we we can adjust or it's under it's under ordinance not resolution but or ordinance much like the street user fee and the strong utility yeah i would suggest that and i i'm by the way i'm in favor of bringing this uh as a proposal but um i would suggest in doing so you read that at the council yeah absolutely because the public needs to hear tonight compassion yeah they need your passion up there you know you know they think they need all of all of our city staff to really tell them what the reality is. I like how he worded that. People are having problems. They're not thinking about budgets. They're not thinking about this. When they go and play in the parks, and we have soccer games and things going on right now, people aren't thinking about that. But I think we need to draw a line in public perception between what we can enjoy here as a community and what how that's paid for and um and you know i think sometimes there's a little just a general lack of awareness i think we're all prone to that just not thinking about how how it is that we enjoy the streets we drive on the the ambulance that comes you know when we need it so i would just i would suggest that that would be a very nice thing to have present at that meeting um As a counterweight to undoubtedly some public comments that will be direct.

I'm sure the public doesn't know that these cuts have happened either.

They do in the library because I made a sign, sorry to say, at the front desk that says this is everything you won't be getting this year.

Okay. And they have...

expressed her concerns, and we got the donation last week to help with it.

Are you planning on saying anything? No, that was kind of all. So something that she didn't mention is about three weeks, three, maybe four weeks ago, I went and Carrie came to me and shared with me that her staff is worried. Um, as a result of that, we went over and met with them and spent some time and by the time we left the conversation, I think that we were able to calm some fears. Um, but bottom line is. they have very real fear. They're not naive as to think if cuts are going to occur, who's going to end up bearing the front of that. And it's likely to be either Parks and Recreation or the library. The question they asked me was, what do we have to do to be valued by our community? And I said, it's not that you're not valued. You are valued. Everybody knows you're valued. It's just a matter of limited resources. in having to make hard decisions we were able to i think very positively reinforce them encourage them that that's that we're working hard that we're at least a couple years away before there's even a threat um i think the decision that i'm hoping that you guys will make tonight at the council meeting is going to push that further into the future but i can say that they are absolutely um just in her And I know it's not limited to the library. Just in the library alone, there's very real fear. And I think we're not in the business of running a city to be concerned necessarily about the fears of our employees. But I also think I care about my employees as much as I care about my community. And we should be doing everything we can to preserve that. and only making the hard decisions when we absolutely have to. And this is an opportunity to prevent that from happening. To help prevent it. It's not perfect, but it's moving towards it. Unless anybody else has anything they want to add? So we're already going to go forward. Go ahead, one more. So bottom line, success looks like what we referenced before. All of these different things will, this isn't going to, again, isn't going to be the perfect and only solution to everything that we're working on, but it's going to be a substantial movement towards it. We are committed towards a whole lot more things are going to come out over this next year in order to be able to continue to solve the problem, but In the best case scenario, we're setting the conditions right now for us to be able to have what I would describe as potentially wild success in a great relationship with the community, great services being provided to the community. And this is an investment into that future level of bliss that we're all going to be able to experience. But it's going to take this upfront investment in order for us to get there. I'm going to go to the next slide. Questions, feedback, and ultimately, my intention would be to, we've actually leaned into this a little bit, started working with legal to begin the structure of authoring what would come before the council in August. The nuances that comes from our conversation here tonight will determine whether that stops dead. or whether or not I need to make any alterations. I made some assumptions that we would agree on $10, but it's not difficult to make some changes if you're wanting something less. My recommendation is the $10.

I think the $10, though, you're putting more out there. What you're looking at is police, fire, EMS. as the other ones are only looking at police. So the $10 is not, I mean, it's reasonable for what it's covering.

And good point. I didn't even think about it that way. And I think it's possible that a model like this, someday we may need to consider four parks and four libraries and other services. And I think people understand that. But I think it also helps when the public understands what the money is going for. I almost, in a sense I like the term public safety, but I don't know if you play with that terminology. I think people just need to know that's where my money's going. I think that's probably a good way of doing it. I think people will refire EMS lease there. I hope so. But if I know that I have a $5 monthly bill or something that's going to parks, I get it. I know where that is. I think there's some value in having those earmarked amounts and then people can see it's squishy it's this void that I think people think that money just disappears into and where does it go and so there is I think value again in having something like this that is it's accountable I think we bring it to the council and listen to the citizens from there I mean truly I mean that's their point where they can speak up and if then we make our decision at that time or

Actually, within the next room.

I don't know if it's appropriate or if you have an answer, but I would love some direction on when to provide comments from staff.

August 5th is going to be the day.

I'm just saying, like, before or after public comment.

I'll set a time for it. I'll set a time for it. Great.

Some strategy in person, I think, would still be helpful. Because I think it then flavors. THE CONVERSATION. I'LL ADD IT. YOU SET THE STAGE FOR WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS BEFORE COMING ON THE BACK END THIS MORNING. NO PROBLEM.

THE COUNTHALL HAPPENED ON THE 22ND. I'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS THERE AS WELL.

BUT BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE I'm going to do everything I can to get the information. Some of the criticisms we get is, why aren't you getting the word out there?

I'm like, tell me where you want me to go.

So you have what you need. Yes, I think I do. Yes, thank you.

I do have a quick thought. Go ahead. It just occurred to me. I think I'm going to run a report tomorrow to see how many county cardholders we have. We did bump it up for county support from 20 to 40,000 a few years ago. But it might be something to look at and revisit to see. Because I know we're about 5,000 cardholders total. And we have, I mean, the county cards, there's a lot. The non-resident doesn't really make sense. We only have like 30. So it's really not bringing in. But it could add a little bit more to the general fund instead of 40. I don't know.

This is what we need. come up with ways to pay for what we're doing and so i think i commend you and the work that you've all put into this this is a solution it's a tangible solution to a very real problem and i think that's what we're asking for give us the solutions you know let us do this without you know trying to run massive deficits in the budget find the revenues that allow us to

it would be nice if that money came directly to the library to help us our budget a lot honestly it goes to the general fund though but that's all we can bring in it's all we can offer for revenue you're doing great yeah i think it will speak to staff you know i really do i think that there's a broken trust a little bit

It's a budget process, so it's going to be important for them to see that too, especially the ones that are paying attention, which is remarkably a lot. It's a good thing.

People are paying more and more attention. It's painful sometimes, but it's good.

Any more comments?

All right. We are adjourned.