City Council - Special Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. This is Mayor Cyril Jefferson convening a special meeting with the Howard County City Council. We're having another budget work session for the FY26-27 budget. Here with me in the room, every member of the council is present. We'll go ahead and ask if there is a motion to adopt our agenda. So moved. Second. Second. Motions were made by Council Member Holmes, seconded by Council Member Andrew. Any discussion on that motion to adopt our agenda? Okay, none. All those in favor? ITEM FOR DISCUSSION IS FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 PROPOSED BUDGET. I'LL GO AHEAD AND ACKNOWLEDGE OUR CITY MANAGER, NATASHA BELTON-FORD, PASSES HER.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. I WANTED TO THANK YOU ALL FOR CONVENING AGAIN WITH STAFF SO THAT WE CAN TRY TO FINALIZE THE LAST COMPONENTS OF OUR BUDGET. THERE WERE PRIMARILY TWO ITEMS THAT WERE still being discussed after our last work session if there are any others that have come to mind um please let staff know today and we'll be able to work through those hopefully as well the first item i wanted to pass out some additional information i emailed this to you all as information was still coming in with the holiday weekend so i wanted to make sure that i also provided some printed copies for you as well this is the information from greensboro and also from the city of Raleigh as it relates to the separation allowance provided for fire personnel. During our last budget work session, we provided this table here that you see before you. This isn't new information. This is information that we already shared that talked about the communities that provide separation allowance and then also communities that do not provide separation allowance. And the information that is being handed out to you It has the actuarial studies that were completed for both the city of Greensboro. They just looked at fire. And it also includes the report from the city of Raleigh. The city of Raleigh looked at several different employee groups in addition to the fire department. On the front, there's a table staff went through and we summarized the cost projections from the actuarial study. that were included just for fire for both the city of Greensboro and the city of Raleigh. It's been talked about in these communities for a while. I think that there are some that may question some of the numbers that come back in terms of the long term IMPACTS WHEN YOU DO THESE ANALYSIS. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DONE IN HIGH POINT. WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO OUR ACCOUNTANT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR US TO HAVE ONE DONE AND THE TIMING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN IDEA OF WHEN THAT INFORMATION MIGHT BE READY FOR US TO PROVIDE THAT TO YOU. WE DID REACH OUT TO THEM AFTER THE LAST BUDGET WORK SESSION TO SEE WHAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR US TO DO THIS ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF HIGH POINT. But it provides some preliminary information to you in terms of what the estimated financial impact would be in those two communities. In addition, we are still having some conversations with Gastonia. Gastonia implemented their program, I do believe, in 2024. They are a little bit smaller than High Point, but clearly Greensboro and Raleigh are much larger jurisdictions. and trying to just ascertain the financial implications for that community. And right now it looks like they're right around a million dollars in implementing their program, but I feel like we need to have a little bit more information in terms of how many folks are currently receiving that benefit before we would be able to provide any definitive answers or response to council for this piece. So this is that information for those two communities. The next item that was discussed was the an assistance program for low-income homeowners, a tax relief assistance program. That is one where CO staff has also done some initial numbers looking at the programs that are both in Greensboro and also in Guilford County. You know, just kind of estimating the number of homes that are around that $250,000 range, which is typically the program cap, taking into account... incomes, area median incomes based on household size. It's a little bit of a moving target trying to determine the number of households that may be eligible, primarily because they're typically eligible if they are not receiving assistance through another program. So there are currently four programs that individuals could qualify for property tax relief, whether they're veterans, whether they have a disability. There's also what's called a circuit breaker, and then also elderly individuals. So typically, this program kicks in when someone is not eligible for an existing program. So estimating the number of individuals that would qualify for this program is a little difficult. But our staff, our community development staff has kind of ballparked a number there where if we had roughly 200 or 250 individuals that may qualify because they don't qualify for any other assistance, that may be a good place for us to start. But it's really, I mean, it's very hard to determine. So I want to be very upfront with council that trying to estimate what the financial impact would be for this type of program. is a little premature for us right now. I think it's one of those programs where if council chose to move forward with it, we may see what the intake looks like. And at some point we could come back and appropriate additional funds if that was needed. But there could be some base level of funding that could be provided in our current budget that could be used. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE IS IF FUNDS WERE SET ASIDE FOR HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, IT COULD BE THAT COUNCIL LOOK TO INCREASE THE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THIS YEAR THAT COULD BE USED FOR THIS PROGRAM, BUT THAT IT ALSO COULD BE USED FOR OTHER HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS FOR OUR DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. YOU KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SOME REVISIONS TO THAT PROGRAM. YOU ALL HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT SOME AT OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS, REALIZING THAT HIGH POINT HASN'T ADJUSTED THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE PAID FOR DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE IN QUITE SOME TIME, AND STAFF IS PROBABLY WORKING TO EVALUATE THAT. so it could be that a pot of funds are set aside it could be used for this program or it could also be used to support the increase for our down payment assistance if that's the desire of the board so with that i will just just pause for a moment and really this is an opportunity for members of council to kind of share your thoughts and and you know talks amongst yourselves about you know things that you may may like to see or additional information that's needed to to help make some of the decisions but we have provided all the information that we've been able to gather to this point. The last piece of information that was shared with council were a list of THESE WERE JUST GENERAL QUESTIONS WITH THE BUDGET. WE RECEIVED THOSE YESTERDAY AND COMPILED THE RESPONSES. THOSE WERE SENT OUT TO COUNCIL A LITTLE WHILE AGO. IT REALLY LOOKED AT KIND OF SPECIFIC LINE ITEMS, SPECIFIC INCREASES, ANSWERING SOME QUESTIONS AROUND INCREASES IN SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTS. WE PROVIDED MORE EXPLANATION THERE. SO AS COUNCIL HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THROUGH THOSE, IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THEN STAFF IS HAPPY TO ADDRESS THOSE AS WELL.

Yeah, those questions were mine. And as my habit is anything within 15% or more increase year over year, I ask why. And there were some other warnings and just for clarification. And I would like to thank the staff for replying to them. I mean, I sent them out yesterday morning. And I didn't expect to receive a reply this quickly. So I appreciate the effort. And it was a good job of replying to them. Thank you.

WITH THAT, MAYOR, WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE INDITIONAL RESPONSES TO COUNCIL AS YOU ALL LOOK THROUGH THE INFORMATION THAT STAFF HAS SHARED.

JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, GOING TO THE LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, PERHAPS WHEN SOMEONE APPLIES FOR THIS, IF WE DO MOVE FORWARD, THERE SHOULD BE SOME WAY TO SEE IF THEY because there are times we've run into people who are veterans that didn't know that they had XYZ available or whatever. So I would think that we can help those folks see what's available. And then, you know, I don't want to say that we're last resort, but, you know, help them as much as we can, point them in the right direction, different things. Yeah. I was just going to say that, you know, typically kind of the,

And so that place, if we go through that kind of this fault tree where they check off and if they have you done this, have you done this, have you done this prior to that, then I think that would be a good measure prior to any enactment from the city.

Are those questions that I'm only asking them, like if they call in and want assistance, because they would get more money based on the way we have it now going through like the state.

FOR DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE, DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY'RE BUYING, WE'LL LOOK AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A PROGRAM THROUGH THE CITY OR IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE THROUGH A COUNTY PARTNER BASED ON WHERE THEY ARE. SO WE DO TRY TO DIRECT FOLKS TO OTHER AVENUES FOR THE DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE PIECE. For the city of High Point, though, they're within the city limits, and typically they're coming to us. But we also know that, based on some of our neighboring jurisdictions that have recently gone through and adjusted the level of support based on the rising cost of housing, that we're longer doing. And you brought that up at committee several times, so we're working through that.

7,500 now, 10, 12, 18.

I don't want to kind of get hard and fast on a number, but based on the price of housing and what we're seeing, we have seen down payment assistance that goes up to $20,000 and $30,000 worth of assistance. And typically it is forgiven over a period of time as the homeowner stays in the home. A portion of it is forgiven.

LONG TIME AGO, YOU COULD GET THE STATE LENDING, AND IF YOU QUALIFY FOR BOTH, YOU COULD GET BOTH.

AND YOU STILL CAN, AND SOME OF IT DEPENDS ON MAKING SURE THAT IT STILL WORKS WITH YOUR LENDER AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING ENOUGH ASSISTANCE, BUT NOT TOO MUCH ASSISTANCE. SO WE WORK WITH THE LENDERS VERY CLOSELY TO DETERMINE WHICH PROGRAM AND THE AMOUNT

Tasha, in terms of the expansion of this fund, is this something that will be revisited every budget year? Or is it something that we set for a period of time and say that we've increased it in this FY budget and we're going to hold it until, say, FY30 budget?

I think that you would look at usage. because the amount of funding has been set for some time. So I think that one of the benchmarks for whether or not council needs to increase the amount of funding would be what does usage look like? Are we depleting those funds in a short amount of time or not? And then do we need to appropriate more? It's always a function of what can we afford to do in our budget, but I think one of the first benchmarks that I would look to see is What does usage look like and are we able to get the funds out of the door? Because the other part that you have with this is we can provide the down payment assistance Based on income and based on the sales price of a home, but we also have to make sure that we have inventory there So that can also be a factor as to whether or not you're able to completely expend all the funds that are budgeted for that Is it still locked in specific areas in the city? We have a couple different programs. There's additional funding that you can receive for programs that are within the core city. And those are not tied to specific income requirements. Those are tied to geographic boundaries. But then there are other programs that we have that apply to the entire city, and it's based off of the individual's income. The difference is typically the source of funds. Usually our general fund dollars are the ones that go to support the core city. We're able to use some of our federal dollars to support based on income. But in this case, with the general fund dollars, IT COULD BE USED FOR INCOME, WHATEVER THE PROGRAM GUIDELINES ARE THAT WE DETERMINE.

I'D LIKE TO BRING UP THE SPECIAL SEPARATION ALLOWANCE, JUST LOOKING AT SOME NUMBERS. SO, GREENSBOROUGH, I THINK THEY WERE LOOKING AT AN ASSUMPTION OF A 7.75 YEAR-OVER-YEAR SALARY INCLUDES OVER A 30-DAY PERIOD, A 30-YEAR PERIOD, EXCUSE ME. SOMEWHAT INFLATED. AND... WHAT ARE YOU BASING THAT ON? THIS IS WHAT THEY GAVE ME. NO, YEAH, BUT YOU... SO WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S INFLATED? DO YOU THINK THAT THE CITY'S GOING TO GIVE A 7.5% RAISE EVERY YEAR FOR 30 YEARS? I MEAN, THAT'S... I MEAN, IT COULD HAPPEN, BUT I THINK IT'S UNLIKELY. I'M JUST... I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. IT'S UNLIKELY. SO THAT... WHERE I WOULD THINK THOSE NUMBERS ARE A LITTLE INFLATED. THE OTHER THING IS THAT They're, if someone takes the special separation allowance, then a junior person is sort of taking that role. So it'll be some, and I don't know exactly where, some of it's a salary offset. So I think we have a benchmark to work from, but I don't think the numbers are going to be as some more analysis this evening. But just for the record, I'm in favor of doing it. And we can work on some of the numbers to see how they fit. But this is something at least to start with.

You're in favor of us implementing it? Correct. I think we'll ask.

Well, there is room for discussion.

It's one of those, and I hate to use this term because it was used on us at one point, not now, under the circumstances in this economy. Even the flipping sword of Democles is hanging over our head when it comes to this next election. Voting, when they're talking about having our revenue, or at least our control of revenue at 3.5%, and also you already have the corporate piece in place that's lowering it to zero by 2030. You also have another income tax cap going from 7 to 3.905. I can't remember which one it is. All those pieces is going to play a part in what we can control as our revenue in

I think that that's a conversation that we need to be having with our state maps.

That if we look to plug into this now that we're locked into it, and then how do we adjust to the increase over a certain time? I think about the number of police officers that I knew personally That's a concern for me. So I'm not saying that I would not want them to have it. I just think that we got more work to do here and in the statehouse before we say yes to this.

And one thing I don't like to do is make decisions when it feels pressure, time pressure, if that makes sense. Well, you both make good points. Because I don't think there's anybody around this table or in this room that doesn't empathize with the request. Unfortunately, it wasn't handled back in the 80s. when they were told that it was going to be handled at the state level. But in terms of that or the housing or anything else that goes to funding, it's where's the money coming from? And the money's coming from the tax rate. And so we're going to have to adjust this tax rate to up or down. When we make some cuts or if we make additions, we're going to have to consent tax rates going to be more than what we've been discussing along in this proposed budget. So I agree the timeout shared with y'all earlier in the letter about the timing. I would advocate and be a strong voice to join with the fire folks, even on some of the state or national level, to see, because there is philanthropic money out there. And there are organizations that have sprouted in the last 20-some years or whatever, Tunnels for Tower, Wounded Warrior Project, that have become very real and very substantial in the money that they bring. And the cause is probably every bit as legitimate for those two projects as

I can tell you from talking to other municipalities that there is consternation and at least hesitation Because if I'm not mistaken, this is the first time I've been on council. I've done seven modules. This will be the seventh going back to 2020. I cannot think of a time that we've been asked about special separation allowance. I think in a better year, we probably would have really entertained it and said, let's do it. It feels like we're at a time where I mean, part of the reason why we don't want to approve our budget on June 1st and want to wait until June 15th because we want to see what the General Assembly's going to do. We could. We'd wait until they figure out what they're going to do before we approve it because you're hamstrung. You're going to commit to things and then have your needs cut out for underneath. Forgive me for that imagery, but I've talked to other municipalities, and they're feeling the same hesitation. I think what I'm hearing around the table is not that folks don't want to do. I think what folks are... feeling like is we don't have enough of a view of where we are in the state when it comes to property tax revenue. And if we have more of a view of what's going to happen there, it will help us. I think the other part is the state having mandated this for law enforcement and having not mandated it for fire is another element to the conversation. I'd be curious, Madam Mayor, have we heard from Fred Baggett at all on not yet the conversations coming up now, because I think we've already been told the conversations aren't coming up. Has Fred gotten any of an understanding from talking to folks on why this isn't coming up anymore? Because I imagine the firefighters all over the state are mobilizing to talk to High Point and all these other ones that we've been talking to. I assume they're talking to the General Assembly. And the fact that the General Assembly, that no one's brought it up right now, does Fred have any insight on that?

He didn't have any insight as to why it hasn't been brought up. It seems that a lot of the focus now seems to be focused on addressing salaries with teachers and several state employee groups that are lagging behind. When we did reach out to him, there were some conversations that the last time it was talked about in earnest, I think it was referred to a study committee, was in 2019. And to my knowledge, there has not been ANY RENEWED LEGISLATION THAT HAS MOVED FORWARD TO HAVE THIS WHERE IT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S TAKEN UP IN FUTURE YEARS, I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY. BUT THAT WAS THE LAST TIME THAT WE COULD FIND SPECIFIC LEGISLATION THAT WAS DISCUSSED. AND THERE WAS SOME MOVEMENT THERE. IT WAS REFERRED TO A STUDY COMMISSION. BUT AT THAT POINT, NO DECISIONS WERE MADE.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU TO COUNCILMAN MOORE'S POINT. I mean, glad to advocate with firefighters at the state level for this to be supported. It seems to me that when you leave it purely in the hands of the municipalities, the reality is this council could approve it this year. You could have a whole new group get elected in 2027 and in 2028, but they can say we're not doing this anymore. I think that's just the reality. I want to put that reality out there. I'm not saying they would do it, but I want the reality to be out there that when you have these funding things that you tie councils to, supposedly, or in perpetuity, really what you're saying is if that counselor feels like they're being squeezed, and someone says, I don't know why you do that in the first place, then that counselor's going to say, okay, we're just not going to do that anymore. And so if I was a strategist for a firefighter association in another state, I would be talking to the General Assembly, so that way it's memorialized there. If it's there, then you won't have counselors who can make up their mind and say, we won't do it. So I just, it's a really sticky situation to be in. I saw your hand go up and then my hand.

I was trying to focus on that. The legislation for the police in 87 is a mandate. Yeah, yeah. So we don't have the authority to undo that.

No, no. What I'm talking about is fire. What I'm saying is if we voted this year to do fire, two years from now, two years from now, the council could say we're not going for fire. And so the real strategy should be that there be a Raleigh mandate.

You know, on the Raleigh and their budget... Rumblings are, as State Auditor Bullock was speaking today for the Chamber, and he feels very optimistic that within the next 10 to 12 days they're going to have one. We'll see. But that's the rumblings that he's getting out of Rumblings. Tell him we're having a football. That's right.

state mandate. Is there any direct state support in terms of supporting this in terms of the costs that municipalities have to bear for police?

I have not. You mean for the state helping to participate not set some of the costs? Yes. I have not heard that.

So they mandated it and then we paid for it.

Exactly. You know, if council, you know, chose to join some of the efforts to lobby for additional separation allowance for additional groups, similar to how you had some home harmless provisions when you advanced the legislation around veterans, it may be that you could, you know, have some language there kind of requesting the state to help participate. Because it is, I hear the conversation around you know, kind of making this decision at the time that the state legislature is looking at limiting your ability to adjust your tax rate. And even when we were preparing this year's budget and looking at revenues, They've been fairly flat and minimal. Our sales tax projections, we're starting to see increases coming out of the pandemic. There are some increases, but that has slowed quite a bit. So we're continuing to watch that. And clearly from the discussions that we've had at previous work sessions, the cost for us of doing business is not keeping up with the amount of revenue that's coming in.

SUGGESTED TAX RATE IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET BASED ON THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS AND PROJECTED FUTURE COST OF DOING BUSINESS, IS IT APPROPRIATE? FROM A SUSTAINABILITY STANDPOINT?

I DON'T. I WISH I HAD A CRYSTAL BALL. WE HAVE MADE THE BEST RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CAN BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE AND BASED ON DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE PREVIOUSLY TO FUND OUR OPERATIONS. YOU KNOW, WHAT WILL BE DONE IN THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. WE'LL HAVE TO PLAN FOR THAT AS IT COMES, BUT I THINK THAT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, A GOOD REASON OF WHY WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FAIRLY PRUDENT IN LOOKING AT OUR PROGRAMS, WE'RE FAIRLY CAUTIOUS WHEN WE'RE ADDING NEW THINGS TO OUR BUDGET, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE REVENUE SOURCES TO STAND UP. IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT IT'S THE BEST RECOMMENDATION THAT WE HAVE WITH THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE.

have like friends and family and I will have some of the clients from the job that like operate in different areas like Ohio where they've seen like their personal utilities double close to triple when the discussion was like when they had their discussions in their areas they said it wasn't that they were using more So that went up because the usage overall went up. And I'm not, you know, everybody wants to go into data centers, but that's what my question is to us. Is that something that can impact us in our current situation with electric cities? Is there a point? Because, you know, we have 100-something data centers in you and Carolina. I FORGOT THE TERM HYPERSIZE OR WHATEVER IT IS, SOME OF THEM. AND MY QUESTION IS, DO WE, I KNOW WE HAVE SUCH A HANDLE ON WHAT WE CONTROL HERE, BUT DO WE CONTROL GETTING IT FROM CATALA TO HERE?

WELL, THERE'S SOME CURRENT LEGISLATION THAT'S KIND OF BEING DEBATED BACK AND FORTH THAT'S LIMITING OR TRYING TO PUT SOME PARAMETERS AROUND DATA SETTERS AND MAKING SURE THAT IF THEY ARE DEVELOPED THAT THEY ARE responsible for bearing the cost the full cost associated with providing electric to those types of operations um so i think you know that that's one of the you may find some some comfort in that you know where those bills go you know i don't again i don't have the crystal ball to determine that um but i think as much as possible electric cities try to advocate on our behalf to make sure that we're not seeing any significant increase in costs associated with getting the power to us. So I think we feel pretty comfortable with where we are.

That was just something that was circling my head with everything else I mentioned earlier.

And we've tried to build out, you know, kind of that rate stabilization fund. We're currently working with one of our consultants now to look at our rate structure, and we'll be able to have I THINK SOME ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH COUNCIL OVER THE NEXT SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. AND I THINK THE OTHER PIECE IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT BILLS THAT ARE MOVING. WHICH ONES MOVE AND WHICH ONES DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW. BUT THERE'S ALSO LEGISLATION OUT THERE THAT'S PENDING THAT WOULD LIMIT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO MAKE TRANSFERS FROM YOUR ELECTRIC FUND TO COVER OTHER COSTS OR TO COVER OTHER FUNDS. SO THAT IS ALSO A SENATE BILL THAT IS OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT MOVES OR NOT. I don't know, but that is being discussed based on some municipalities taking funds from their electric utility and using it to balance other funds. We have not done that in High Point traditionally, but that is currently being discussed in the legislature, and Electricities has been trying to advocate on our behalf. for that as well. The advocation to... As much as possible to, again, maintain as much local control as possible. But again, High Point is one of those communities that can be used as an example because we have not taken that route to balance our budgets. We have typically looked at our funds separately. We make sure that we increase the property tax rate to cover things that are in the general fund versus doing transfers.

Just for the conversation, there was a bill in 2017 at the General Assembly to an act to create special separation allowance for state and local firefighters. So it has been discussed before.

Was that the one that was referred to a study commission in 2019? It came up two years in a row. I think there was one referred to a study commission to look at the implications of it. I don't know that it moved out of the study commission, but we can... Yeah, we're aware of that.

What we're inquiring about is why in this year that every municipality is considering that Raleigh's not making any movement on it. That's what I'm very curious about. That's what I'd love to know. And I don't anticipate they'll give us an answer. Also, just a side note, if this General Assembly approves a bill because they have issues with municipalities and their electric rates, and this is the same General Assembly... that enabled Duke Power to not have to pay back all of their customers after the Supreme Court already told us there was an issue with what they did. I just want to go on a record talking about how absolutely ridiculous. And that is absolutely ridiculous for the way they overcharge the customers. So I just, it feels hypocritical. That's a big power customer. I agree with you. I think the other point to lift here is, and I do like to somehow be an optimist here, that this council over the past maybe 12 to 15 months had been approached about the need for us to increase department and at the time that it was brought up amongst this group I mean this group had real considerations about it asked city manager and her team to talk about it I think councilman Andrew was involved in some of those discussions too and since then we've landed a grant and we've allocated in this budget funding from our city government revenue to actually do that exact thing that we were approached about so I have to say that while we may not be Hitting every single mark. We are making some movement in some of the areas that we talked about. One big movement. I think that's a big one to do. That's going to cost us a seven-figure investment annually to do that alone.

And in addition, Mayor, when we did the report from Fire Chief Consulting, they gave us a kind of five- and ten-year plan. One of the items that was in there for us to have additional safety training officers in one per ship, that was part of our five-year plan. We have that included in this year's budget to go ahead and add those additional positions. So even though that was provided as something that we should look at to fund over a five-year period, we included it in this budget.

That's a good step.

OTHER POSITIONS ON TOP OF THAT? THOSE WERE, I DON'T RECALL THE OTHER THREE POSITIONS, BUT IF WE WERE, I KNOW WE WERE KIND OF IN THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.

And that's, I'm having a discussion on this year as a group before June 15th, Madam Manager, to support our fire departments. I am, I am wary of folks putting their bodies on the line and us maybe not having all the accommodations in place for proper screenings as it pertains to cancer. And I think there is a big step that we could probably take there too. I don't have the technical Mumble and jumble in front of me. Forgive me. But I do know that was one of the requests that I had heard about that could be a step forward that I think from a budgetary impact doesn't have quite the hit as the SSA would have it, but could be a step forward to ensure that we're taking care of our folks even more.

I'm happy to look at what those costs may be or what the specific screenings are. We have started with our physicals in-house. There may be some expansions that we could do there, depending on what it is that we're considering.

It might have been the type of screening, and it could have also been the volume and cadence of that, too. It might have been, maybe we currently do six months or 12 months, something like that. Maybe it was increasing it, given how an issue could exacerbate within 90 days. their exposure to smoke and fire and hazards and so on and so forth.

I mean, is there a benefit to doing some kind of actuarial study for SSA? I mean, it might have some clarity, all of the state legislation might have in mind. And also, if there is action at the state level or a mandate to do this, it would be nice to be able to budget appropriately.

Councilmember, we have reached out to our accountant to figure out what could be the timing and the cadence for that. So, I mean, that's information I think that would be helpful for councils to have in the future if this is done. So we did, after the last budget meeting, reached out to them to get some more information about conducting that for the city of High Point. So we can definitely do that.

So who, which jurisdiction that's approximately the same size as we are I MEAN, I KNOW THAT MAY HAVE BEEN IN STATES WHERE THESE TOWNS DID IT VERY RECENTLY, BUT I'M TRYING TO FIND AN APPLES-APPLES COMPARISON. BECAUSE IF IT'S ANOTHER TOWN THAT'S ABOUT THE SAME SIZE AS WE ARE AND THEY DID IT, THEN THAT KIND OF GIVES MORE WEIGHT THAT WE CAN. BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T LINE UP, BUT... WAS THERE ANYONE CLOSE TO OUR PARK?

No, Gastonia implemented theirs. They implemented theirs in 2024.

And they're at 88,000, so they're at 30,000 plus smaller.

I'm not sure the population in Concord, but we can get the populations. These are typically the ones that we, you know, benchmark with in addition to those that are listed on the right side there. Elizabeth City. I mean, it's an outlier. And New Hanover County, you know, they're... FIRE DISTRICTS THERE COULD ALSO IMPLEMENT, THEY HAVE AN AVAILABLE ROOM TAX RATE THAT THEY CAN IMPLEMENT THERE THAT CAN HELP FUND SOME OF THIS TOO. SO WE WERE TRYING TO LOOK AT HOW THESE THINGS WERE FUNDED WHEN WE LOOKED AS WELL. BUT WE CAN PROVIDE POPULATIONS FOR THE ONES THAT ARE LISTED HERE. CONCORD IS 116,000. SO THAT'S PROBABLY THE CLOSEST TO US.

But Concord doesn't have it. Concord does not have it. Concord and Wilmington are the closest to us in population. Wilmington is right above us. Concord is right underneath us. But neither one of them have it.

I'm just thinking if anybody's been doing this for a while, I mean, I just don't know if their projections match reality. I mean, it seems like all this is fairly fresh. They might not know that yet.

I think that's why we were trying to get some additional information from Gastonia because they implemented their program in 2024. I think Mooresville is just started this year, I do believe. So there's not enough, I think, historical data to understand if their projections really match what they're spending. So that's why we were trying to kind of dig in with some additional information there.

And Greensboro is considering it.

All right, they took it out. They took it out. I mean, I guess they're still debating their budget.

Is there any other discussion or any other questions that we need to raise here in this meeting?

Just one final comment. The advocacy to the General Assembly, I agree with it in theory. But if the General Assembly is going to make a mandate, because we asked them to, but provide no financial support, annual financial hit to a municipality, if they're not going to provide some financial support, it's going to be on us anyway. So that internal debate needs to happen here simultaneously alone if we're going to do a mandate.

And if we're going to mandate, we should also demand that the state provide some financial support if they're going to mandate things. I think that's what was mentioned earlier, that they wanted to add that in the language. Yeah. It kind of just has to happen that way.

In my opinion, it's just going to have to happen that way.

Does the state give any for police? No. No, I don't think so. No, that's what they don't know. But for this, they're probably not going to give any for fire.

I don't think that they need to know.

If they have kept our address on 9-0 in Texas. That's the truth.

I think, Chris, your point is spot on.

If you're going to be hypocritical, do it in the same conversation so everyone can hear it. If you're going to ask us to not do anything with our tax rate, in the same breath, tell us you want us to do this thing too so that everyone can hear how crazy it sounds. So I just, it's hard for me to take Raleigh seriously. I'm sorry.

Is there a kind of an interest in us adding some additional you know, funding to do the homeowners assistance program. I think we talked about that for 2027. I do think we could kind of make some adjustments within the existing parameters, and we could actually kind of come back and appropriate funding for that, because I think we talked about it. We started doing it in 2027. Oh, yes. But, you know, I thought we've got to get some program guidelines down and understand what it could look like. And, again, usage, I think, would depend on... Yeah. the number of folks that come in and whether or not they're eligible for some other program. So I think it's hard for staff to throw out a number right now. But I do think that's something that we could, you know, kind of come back and kind of work through our community development committee and get that done if that's the will of council.

I would love for us to do that. Yes. So we do not want to do the SSA. We want to do the other one. Is that what we're saying?

But it'll all come down to the funding piece for me. Right. Because if we just said that, we're concerned. I think she may be talking about moving money. I still think that's apples and oranges.

Because you're talking about residual versus usage. And you would definitely have more people receiving the benefit from the SSA than the people that were receiving the money from purchasing homes.

Not theoretically, I think in reality, if you wanted to make it more apples to apples, what you have is a set amount that says each year, regardless of who retires, this is our pool to give to separation allowance. So it wouldn't be based on 80% of pay. That way you wouldn't have the fluctuation in that variable. That's what would make it more apples to apples in my mind. The reason why they're not apples to apples is because, correct me if I'm wrong, we would have a set amount for this homeowner assistance. This wouldn't be some fluctuating thing. We would say, this is the number that we have to support that, and when it's out, it's out. So if you wanted to, you know, if you feel like that's a part of the discussion that we should be having, I'm not against that. I think I said last week when we met that SSA policy, if we're setting it, it doesn't have to be set based off of some of the examples we've seen. I think technically we can do whatever we want around it. Just keep in mind, if we set whatever that number is, someone's going to come back and ask us to change that number. So I don't think whatever we approve today

I MEAN, WE'RE NOT KEEPING UP WITH THE COST OF LIVING AS IT IS, YOU KNOW, OVERALL. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS MEDICIPALITY, I'M TALKING ABOUT IT IN GENERAL. WE'RE JUST NOT KEEPING UP WITH THE OVERALL COST. TWO POINT WHATEVER IS STILL CLOSER TO FOUR. BUT SO, YEAH, THAT'S THE ONLY THING. THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS ON THAT LINE.

SO I'VE GOT A QUESTION. SO WHAT IF SOMEBODY HAD TO TAKE EARLY RETIREMENT BASED ON A HEALTH CONDITION? Because the way it is now, like, I was trying to compare, like, long-term disability with this SSA, and one of the things is the SSA doesn't have any, as long as you meet the amount of years that you put in and can retire, so you can technically retire at 42 if you started at 21, if we're doing 20 years, and then we'd be paying from 42 to age 65.

Well, I think we're doing 30 years.

Okay. Uh-huh. To 52?

It's whatever we set. It's whatever we set. So we say three years or seven years or we'll pay you for 20 years. It's whatever we set.

So could it be based on if you have to take early retirement because of health conditions due to your job? I mean, could we put that in as a parameter? What's already in place for folks if they get injured on the job?

Typically, you would have a disability retirement at that point.

That already exists. And that comes from state and federal?

Is our intent to make a budget decision on the 15th or the 1st? I think we're voting to make a budget on the 15th.

But we'll finalize based on the decisions that are made today, because there's kind of still inputs that we have to do. And we'll continue to monitor and watch kind of what's happening at the state level. But our goal would be to bring it to adoption on the 15th.

There's a word called amendment, by the way.

What?

You can always do budget amendments, but you set your tax rate when you pass your budget. Yeah. Yes, sir. Chris, let me start.

I had the picture of her face went out. Have we ganged out?

Have we gained our alternate scenarios and contingencies?

We have. And we have a staff. I don't want to arbitrarily throw things out there that may not materialize. But the reality, and I shared this when we started our budget work sessions, that if you look at our current operations, if you look at our current operations, you would need roughly $0.02 on our current tax rate to be able to fund our current operations. So we would be looking at significantly curtailing capital investments if we had to hold our tax rate where it is. All of the expansion items, meaning implementation of the pay study once that is complete, even merit increases, all of those things. Those extra firearms.

Those extra firearms.

All of that. All that's in the expansion budget. All of those things would have to come out if we had to stick with our current tax rate and our current valuation. But again, we're not proposing that at this point. We'll continue to monitor and see what occurs. But we do know that of those things are expansion items the safer positions the shift training officers the pay study The cost of the market adjustments for all employees, all of those things, the capital that's in this budget, all of those things are expansion items. And part of that is it's not so much what departments are doing that's driving this, but when we have our local government employees retirement system contribution, which is also mandated to us by the state, we look at health insurance costs that we provide because we don't want to pass that cost on to our employees. We cover it for our employees. We look at, you know, cost of doing business of things that have been approved throughout the year. You know, the additional cameras that are going on vehicles for the police department, you know, and really just the operations. Those are the things that are pushing our budget above what we're able to afford at our current tax rate. So we've looked at all of those things as we put this budget together.

Do we know the status of the county's tax budget? tax rating, then do we know?

You talking about what they are proposing for their tax rate? They're proposing a reduction in their tax rate, but it's not revenue neutral. I do believe it may be seven or eight cents above the revenue neutral rate. It's an 11 cent reduction, if I'm not mistaken. And Greensboro is similar. And where are we compared to that again? Ours is, I think, an 8.75 reduction from 64. So we're recommending 56, revenue neutral rate is 48. THIS WASN'T AN EASY BUDGET TO PUT TOGETHER. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE ALWAYS MORE REQUESTS THAN WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO FUND AND BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE BUDGET DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO HAVE WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. EVEN THE CAPITAL REQUEST, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE out a couple weeks ago and some of the recreation events and I think one of the comments was made to me of it would be great to have you know kind of additional amenities here right those are all things that are asked for but when we're trying to balance and provide a spending plan to you all that we feel like we can afford that's we have to make some of the tough decisions

I'm sorry.

So I think there are multiple steps in this. I think first that the constitutional amendment is passed in November. At that point, the General Assembly will have to set specific parameters. I think there's still some discussion that will take place. So I don't know what those parameters will be. So I feel like as part of next year's budget, we'll probably get a little bit more clarity as things move forward. But as of right now, I don't know what the guidelines are.

I think it's important to remember, too, that some of the challenges we face are things we can't control, all the way from geopolitical backwards. But she used the word expansion in her discussion there three or four times real quick in the back. And that's like growing pains when you're a kid. Our city is doing well. And with that, unfortunately, comes the cost. And I've mentioned before about us doing good and getting people in here from other states and other cities and in the state. And how do we keep our quality of living and our value of living where it is? And that's a hard balance to do with compensation, with services, with five or six different INFLATIONS TO CONSIDER. SO IT'S A REAL CHALLENGE ON EVERY LEVEL. I APOLOGIZE FOR MY AMENDED COMMENT.

THE QUESTION THAT I GET A LOT IS THAT PEOPLE NOTICE THAT WE'RE BUILDING NEW HOMES. SO THEN THERE ARE NEW HOMES ONLINE. paying property taxes, and what's the delta between last year and this year, and why are we paying more than what that can cover? And I understand that the staff has done a good job on showing the cost of asphalt and fire trucks. Everything went up a lot more than inflation. don't remember seeing what that delta is. I can kind of share with folks who ask me that, yes, we are growing, and yes, there are more people paying property taxes in the city, but there are also other things that we need to pay for. So it's not as simple as, you know, the new guys will pay for everything.

Well, you always have the discussion on what, you know, What's each penny on the tax rate really translate into? And that's a personal thing for each person that it faces. 1.937. No, I know what the number is. But if you ask 1,000 people in the community, their individual circumstances are all different. So trying to strike that balance and then asking, where do you want us to cut? You know, with all that that's going on, what do you want to give up? And those answers don't come real quick.

It's a hard fight because, you know, what we looked like from 2014 to now, you know, we were graying out as a city. I mean, honestly, that's what was happening. We were literally graying out as a city with hundreds of kids. as soon as they possibly could. And the big part that we created those three early strategic goals was to retain the youth. What do we need to do? Quality of life was a big piece of it. So like you said, it comes with a cost, but there's a return. When we talk about the MRF, when they were talking about getting rid of the MRF and letting it be used, I was like, well, no, we need to control that MRF. It was talking about the cost versus the benefit. I was like, well, just in 13 properties here in one market, the debris that was recycled was heavier than the Christ the King statue in Brazil from one market. Can you imagine what our landfill would take if we didn't have that control and that piece? The same thing I look at quality of life. You know, certain things didn't always seem like it's this heavy, quick return of investment, but it does because the kids are staying here. They are staying and seeing these new young folks staying here, purchasing, and there's your growth. So, you know, it's, like I said, it's a balance. But the reward is seeing what the city has become in less than, you know, 20 years.

It's becoming.

It's becoming.

Thank you.

Chris, because I think your actual term was recruiting, but I'm telling you millennials was the actual term.

I was determined. I had to wait for that word. They looked at indexes. That is correct.

That is correct. Esky millennials. Yeah, they got the X. Yeah, definitely.

We changed it. You got at least three around the table right now, Chris, so good luck. All right. Any other questions or discussion here at this point regarding budget? Okay. Our next meeting is next Monday, June 1st. We'll connect. I think we've got a special meeting prior to our regular meeting. If I'm not mistaken, Madam Clerk, that meeting starts at 4 p.m.? It starts Monday. Okay. We'll convene here at 4 p.m. in City Hall in this room next Monday, June 1st, and then we'll go to our regular Thank you. Council Member Peters. Thank you. I thought you were going to say. Council Member Peters on the motion to adjourn and Council Member Johnson on the second. Any discussion on that motion to adjourn our meeting? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any against? The ayes have it and we are adjourned. Thank you all.

This was a great meeting.