City Council - Regular Meeting

Uh, hello and welcome to our Thursday evening budget workshop. Uh, so we're going to be discussing uh, the amendment process for for budget amendments with Marty Eisenstein, our city attorney. Uh, following that, I was speaking with administrator Kenrath and we'll probably engage in a discussion about the reval. Uh, but for right now, Mr. Eisenstein, please kick us off. So, I apologize for providing to you a two-page outline of the stuff we're going to talk about, but it's fairly, you know, it's like working through a maze if you want, if you will, because of the different provisions both of the city charter and the school and the school law, state law. So, I thought we would just very briefly go through those provisions. I don't want to spend more than two to five minutes on it and then throw the floor open for questions. I'm prepared to answer anything and everything about the budget, not about what I did last night. So, um, section 6.07G of the charter, all the references to section in this document are to the charter. I When I refer to a statute, I refer to the MRS, Maine Revised Statute citation. Section 6.07G provides that the council by resolution adopts the budget on or before 5:31 uh, 26 and if it doesn't, then the city administrator has 72 hours up to until 11:59 on 32 on 6326 to adopt a quote final close quote budget. The city council nevertheless has until the 30th, uh, excuse me, the 30th of June and again at that 11:59 to adopt

its own budget and that could be and it could propose amendments to the city administrator's budget both before and after the 31st. You're fully free to do that. Broad clause providing for amendments. The only The biggest caveat on the budget is, as I reported in a separate email or letter, a memo I should say, is the limitation to the um, CPU increase. Uh, CPI-U Northeast Region increase. So, the tax levy can be no greater than 3.3% of last year's budget. And that includes all parts of the municipal budget, the municipal non-school budget and the school budget and the contributions to the county. So, it's a real It's a real limitation on the power of the city council that can be waived by a an affirmative vote of five city councilors pursuant to section 6.07I. I weighed in on that last week with a memo. Happy to talk about that as well. The school budget, which has its own special place under Maine law, is provided it provided for in sections 5.04A and 6.01B and it basically says school committee proposes a budget, but you have to follow state law as well. So, and state law doesn't say anything about a municipal school department. It says a lot about regional school unions and the state law, for whatever the reason, says municipalities

follow regional regional school unions, RSUs, only in certain cases. So, you have to wade your way through reading the statutes and it's it's a fun exercise, I can assure you. The first step in the process, as I said, is that the school committee approves the budget for submission to the council. And that's happened already, as you know. The next step for the statute and the charter is for the council to approve the school uh, school department budget and that approval can be done separately from the municipal budget, the non-school budget. That can be a separate vote and you may want to take a separate vote because of the following steps that I'm about to describe. The next step in the process under state law, and we've and the city has followed that in the past, is the the city council puts the approved budget, school budget I should say, out to referendum and uh, per section 1486. And um, if the voters, should the voters reject the uh, proposed school budget, the city council then goes back to the follow the same process as before with school committee weighing in with a proposed budget, uh, city approving or not approving the budget and then sending it out to the voters. That should take place within between 10 and 45 days after the first vote. Um, if for by some chance the voters do not approve the school budget, what the law says, what section 1487 of the statute says is that the budget that

goes into effect is the budget that was um, submitted approved by the city council and submitted to the voters. So, it's the last budget approved by the city council and submitted to the voters for referendum. That's the guiding document and that the assessor can use as a basis to um, assess tax and for property uh, evaluations and I think this has happened once or twice before in the past for the city of Lewiston. Um, if the city council rejects the school committee's recommendation recommended budget, the practice has been to send it back to the school committee to to develop um, an appropriate budget per the guidelines of the of the city. So, with that, I would throw the floor open for any questions you may have. Uh, thank you, Mr. Eisenstein. Before we take questions from the council, I would like to just ask a few clarifying questions. Uh, so, can you give us a an example of what would be an appropriate amendment for city councilor to to submit? Well, uh, aside from You mean to the school committee? No, sorry, city budget, sorry. Anything and everything. If you want to say that we want to reduce the police department or we want to increase the police department, the staffing or the resources, if we want to increase the resources for the library, any department, any program, you can increase or decrease. The The language is very broad, Mr. Mayor, and the language says that the amendment to the budget may add or increase programs or amounts and may delete or decrease any programs or amounts except

expenditures required by law or for debt service. So, an example, you can't say we disagree with the proposed budget, Mr. Administrator, and the debt service should be uh, X dollars less. If that debt service is required, you can't You can't weigh in and say, we're going to reduce the debt service. That would be one off-limit item. But it's generally very, very broad. Okay, thank you for that. Uh, yes, questions, comments from the council. Councilor Herman. Thank you. Thank you for being here this evening. Uh, I had a question on the budget expenditure limit with the um, where we're comparing it to the CPI. I My understanding was that that only applied to the municipal tax levy, which is the the charter says in 6.07H, the percent increase in the municipal tax levy compared to the preceding fiscal year budget. Correct.

So, I understood that to be only the city part of the budget and not the county or the school. No, it's not. It applies to the entire budget because the tax levy is for the entire budget both non-school committee municipal expenditures, municipal school committee expenditures, school budget expenditures and county expenditures. So, it applies across the board, unfortunately. Even though it specifically calls out the municipal tax and not the school tax or the county tax. Well, there is no such thing as a school tax. There's a municipal tax.

Well, tax levy, I should say. Well, again, there isn't such a thing as a unfortunately. I I I understand the issue. And, you know, what's quite interesting is that very section, the following subsection, does not the following subsection. Yeah, the following subsection does distinguish between non-school expenditures. So, when the administrator proposes a budget within 72 hours after May 31st, it's only for the non- municipal for the non-school committee or only the municipal expenditures. So, the charter does distinguish between those expenditures, but not in terms of the tax levy. Okay, thank you. Councilor Longchamps.

[clears throat]

I would just like to see if our deputy city administrator uh he looks a little maybe like he doesn't completely agree or has done things differently. Could someone help us? Uh Director Roy, would you like to say something? So, technically the county shouldn't be considered the municipal budget cuz the county what we're doing is we're collecting their taxes for them and submitting it to them. So, if that other piece of the charter states that he has 72 hours to just come back and give his, not the schools, just the municipal, doesn't that just say that that the municipal is city, not including the school? Cuz he can't if he has to get to 3.3 and can't do the school or get to the CPI and it doesn't include the school, then that to me says that that is only the city portion. And that's historically how it's always been. I'm sorry, with all due respect, if you read 3.03H, the percent increase in the municipal tax levy, is there a separate tax levy for school? Sorry, I 1 second. I I know that you're trying to look at her, but also move the mic so that I'm sorry. our folks at home can also hear. My question is, is there a separate municipal tax levy for schools? Mhm. Is there a separate municipal tax levy for the county portion of the expenditures? Mhm. There is. Yeah. Yeah, we have um I mean, we have on our sheet here, we have the proposed tax levy for the city, 39.5 or I might be looking at the Yeah, that's last year. 42.2 million, school 34. 05 million, county 5.3 million.

So, but when the tax assessor assesses a tax levy, he assesses to produce total revenues, so that the total revenues equal the total expenses, and there are three components is my understanding of those expenses. Component one are the non-school municipal expenses, component two are the school expenses, and component three are the contribution by the city of Lewiston to the county assessment. So, that would be my reading. I may be wrong about it. I stand corrected if I am wrong, but I would like to see when the levy goes out, it's meant to address the property owner, and the property owner makes only one payment, and that's of a municipal tax based upon the property owner's assessed value and the actual mill rate that the assessor issues. And all of those revenues that are compared against the expenses are revenues from only one source. So, whether the presentation to you is in three components or one component, it still comes down to the same uh bottom line as far as I understand it. Okay. I I don't think that's how we've ever done it, but uh No. I mean, I'm not an attorney, so. Yeah, and I and I'm I'm I stand corrected, of course, if you've done it differently, but I would like to know how you've done it in the past if that's the case. So, in the past, it's always been off of the city portion only, which includes the overlay. Um

because that whole section that you mentioned, he the city administrator has 72 hours to come back with the cuts for just the city to get to the CPI, not including the school, cuz if we have to include the school, the city administrator doesn't have the rights to cut down their budget and make the CPI match to 3.3%. So, that portion of the charter kind of pulls school out of the city administrator's purview to get the budget down to the CPI. Or the county. Yeah, but that's not what subsection with all due respect, that's not what subsection G says. It only is that comes into play when the city council doesn't adopt a budget by May 31st. It has has nothing to do with the subsection about the limitation to the CPI increase. He all that he can do is manage the non-school committee budget, and that's what he has to do. It's whether it's 3.3% or not, that's what his emergency or his final budget is, and then it's up to the city council either to decide to agree with that budget, to amend that budget, and or to adopt by five affirmative votes uh an an increase beyond the the cap of 3.3% in this case. Uh thank you. Uh thank you for your guidance. Um yeah, ho- hopefully we don't get to a spot where we are not in agreement on a budget, and hopefully we can pass a budget, and hopefully all of this is a a moot point. Uh

yeah, I um do you have anything further to add uh from administration at this point? Director Roy or Administrator Kennett? Nope. Awesome. Let's proceed. Thanks. Okay. All right. Um Councilor uh Longchamps, did uh I had recognized you. Did you have any other further questions? No, thank you. Councilor Nadeau. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um real quickly, um we absolutely have the power if we decided to, for instance, defund uh an entire department if we so decide Correct. We could also remove specific positions if we so decided. Is that correct? If a position is within a Yeah, sure. Yes. Mhm. Okay, I That That's one of the parts that I was a a little confused on before.

as part of the budgetary process? Correct. Yes. Yep. So, let's say we propose to um we're not going to do this, but if if we said we're not going to have an HR department, we could uh we could do we could defund it. Um As long as there's no state law that says you have to have an HR department. Which I'm sure there is, but yeah. Okay.

Okay. Um thank you. That was I think my big point. Uh Councilor Chittum. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to go back to the question of municipal uh levy. Um I appreciate your guidance. Certainly but I'm I'm believing that the municipal tax levy should consist of the operating expenses of the city, the county tax, and obviously one of the components of the operating budget of the city is the debt service. From a practical standpoint, there is no way that this council can reduce the operating expenses, the county tax, and the debt service to only 3.3% over last year. Last year was 67 million, this year we're in the in the neighborhood of 73 million. Um in order to do that, we would be wiping out entire departments. So, given the fact that we have to have a supermajority to pass a budget that exceeds 3.3%, I think it it uh is incumbent on us to recognize that this budget, the municipal budget, includes the county tax. It excludes the school budget because that that that in my opinion, and I believe that we have the authority up here to interpret, despite advice from our attorney, uh we have the authority to interpret the charter as we see it. Now, we want to go to the experts and ask for their opinions, but their opinions aren't the law that we have to follow. We're going to have to make that decision ourselves, and and I don't see that poorly worded as this charter is, the percent increase in the municipal tax levy

can be interpreted to include the schools. So, esteemed council and I disagree on this, and I think but he will agree, I believe, that we have the authority to make this interpretation ourselves, notwithstanding advice from expert counsel. Is that correct? Which part? The fact that we can interpret this charter ourselves. Um you can interpret the charter, but um what is it that bears interpreting about the term tax levy, municipal tax levy? Your interpretation, if I'm not mistaken, says that this includes the school budget. My interpretation is as follows. A A levy is made by the city for a fiscal year and that tax levy by charter and by state law should produce enough revenue to pay all of the expenses of the city. The expenses of the city include both the non-school committee expenses as well as the school department expenses. How else is the school committee funded other than by the municipal tax levy? If we could engage in a little bit of dialogue here, Mr. Mayor. Uh if I may, uh counselor. So, um yeah, I mean we can certainly go back and forth all evening. I I [clears throat] uh I guess what I was trying to say before is I recognize that our counselor has provided his interpretation um and I understand there's disagreement among the council of what these terms mean and uh I guess um you know, in uh and also if we're obliged to to follow his counsel, I guess if and don't take

this the wrong way, Mr. Eisenstein, if we are um unwilling to accept his uh counsel on this, um we could perhaps um you know, get a second opinion from the MMA attorneys. Uh would that be possible, Administrator Cainrath? We can get an opinion wherever, absolutely. Yeah, so rather than I guess have a legal argument and debate ad nauseam this evening, you know, recognize that and and also hoping that we don't get to that spot and we we have a uh we're able to pass a budget with with a supermajority. Uh I would like to um yeah, and if I would like to kind of table that discussion and if we need if we need uh if we're if we need further guidance, we could um get a second opinion from another municipal attorney. Uh but yes, um counselor, I recognize you again, Counselor Chisholm. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I guess my point is in reality here, if we include the school budget, we're looking at a 12% increase. We have no control over the school budget. Therefore, we've got to make up nine points in those areas over which we do have control. Which is the municipal operating expenses. We cannot control the county, we cannot control the debt service. There is not enough money in the operating cost to get us to the the consumer price index. So, from a practical standpoint this year we have no choice. If we cannot get a supermajority to pass this 12% increase as currently laid out, um we default to the administrator's budget and we go into uh the mechanisms that are spelled out in state law and in the charter. So, my argument is that we can get all of the advice that we

want and we we listen to that advice, but we are not compelled to adhere to that advice. So, it's our decision here in my view as to whether or not the wording in the charter, municipal tax levy, includes or excludes the school budget. Only by excluding the school budget do we even stand a prayer of getting down to the 3.3% and avoiding the requirement for five of us to come to agreement. I'd love to have five of us come to agreement, but unfortunately that means we're agreeing that we want to assess more taxes on the taxpayer. So, that's where I see it falling out. Point Point of clarification really quickly. Uh Yes, Counselor Najarian. The documents that are in front of us show 8.1% uh increase in the municipal and and the total tax levy, uh not a 12% increase. So, if you look at the uh paperwork that was handed out um today, uh it's 8.1% is what we're looking at total. I just want to clarify that we're not talking about 12%, we're talking about 8.1. Well, uh were uh were were you finished, Counselor Najarian? I I just want that I want that point clarified before we move forward. Uh understood. Uh all right, Counselor Chisholm and then to our council. Uh I I'm I am swimming in numbers here. We've had so many different budgets pushed at us and we've discussed so many. We have take-home, we have tier one through three with and without take-home vehicles. I apologize if I'm misquoting. I'm looking at a spreadsheet that I have that that recognizes an 11% city, 11 and a half percent school, and 19% county increases. And And that on this spreadsheet comes up to 12%. I've

seen others that have it down at at 10%. So, whatever the number is, it is, in my view, unattainable. Mr. Mayor, just for clarification.

Uh one second, Administrator Cainrath. Uh Counselor Chisholm, uh please uh finish. I'm I'm I'm accepting responsibility for my misstatement, if it's true, of a 12%. My point is that we are so far from 3.3 that we're not going to make it, no matter what the percentage is. Understood, but I think the point of clarification should come from the administrator. I'm sorry? I think the point I'm looking for the point of clarification and so can can I have We're we're we're going to get to administration in a second. Thank you, Counselor Najarian. I would encourage the council to only speak when recognized. Uh did you want to say something, uh Mr. Eisenstein?

It's probably in line with what Counselor Najarian wants is I would like clarification of what that 8.1% represents. Does that include Is that the tax levy as far as you understand? that I'm showing would be the entire tax passed on to including all sections. Right. Thank you. And then

And And my follow-up question, does that include all three, city, school, and county? Looks like it does. So, to re- I hate to um oppose what the city council president has said, but the proof is in the pudding. Your own budget shows that the tax levy includes city, county, and school. I'm I'm not making it up. That's the way it That's the way it is. So, that's their interpretation. Thank you. Uh Administrator Cain-

Uh one second, Counselor Harmon. Uh Administrator Cainrath, please. No, my only point was the document we're referring to is uh the one you should have, tier one with take-home vehicles updated school budget numbers 42926. You'll see on the total tax levy 8.1%. Just so we're all on the same document. Thank you. The one that was uh on our desks when we walked in. Okay, thank you. Uh Counselor Najarian, did you have anything further? No, now that the point's been clarified, I'm fine. Thank you. I appreciate that. Counselor Harmon, yes. Yes, I just wanted to clarify also on this document the total tax levy proposed increase is 8.1%. The municipal part of that is 6.8% as proposed right now. And that's what I was referring to when I was referring to the charter talking about the municipal tax levy. [clears throat] The total on this document is 8.1, but not the municipal part. Counselor Longchamps, did you have something? Uh I can't really remember um except for I want to thank you for being here and I feel like there have been some things that have said that that have been said uh this evening that lead me to believe that maybe if they're not going to take your advice, why the hell are we wasting taxpayers' money, right?

Counselor, decorum, please. Um so, what I'm saying is thank you for being here. I just feel like you know, um just because we don't like your answers doesn't mean that they're not right or so I I'm going to be quiet for now. Thank you. Uh counselors, I if if you will allow me to propose that we're likely um done with that part of the discussion. I'd like to recognize uh uh questions, comments about the amendment process or anything further while we have our attorney here. Uh yes, Counselor Harmon. So, I guess I think it was asked before, but I just wanted to clarify that we as the council have discretion in each piece of the budget and including that that isn't only depart at the department level. That's within departments, so programs, positions, things like that. We We have the authority as a council to to uh either add or delete those things as we see fit because that hasn't been That's not what's been communicated to us. Well, I can't answer what's been communicated to you, but my reading of the charter is that you can change, increase, or decrease, change which means increase or decrease, but you can change amounts, uh programs, and by its very nature, positions, because a position is part of a program. So, yes, I read that as broadly. Okay, thank you. Uh one quick question in terms of uh potential liability. So, if a staff member feels like they have been unfairly targeted by and you know, the

council ends up removing their position, would all of would they have recourse or things different because it's a council amendment versus Yeah. Yeah, well, I I would hope that the council doesn't get into names. It gets into positions and the council can decide in its discretion, of course, what positions it wants to fund or not fund and that's independent of an individual. There's no There's no Nobody standing at a courthouse steps to say you can't sue or you can sue, but it's a pretty strong argument that you have the power as long as you don't center on any individual employee that you have the power to eliminate a position. You don't You may not know who is filling that position, but you certainly do in the same way that you can eliminate or reduce a department. Thank you. Counselor Najin, back to you. Um and we we have some pretty wide discretion there as well. For instance, we can look at any of the line items within a particular uh department and say we want to reduce this line item. Let's say it's uh I don't know, pencils um or supplies, right? Let's say we're going to reduce it by 10%. We have the ability to do that or we have the ability to remove entire line items Yeah, the things that are off bounds, off limits are debt service. Yep. Or things required by law and I don't know that there's any law requiring a minimum number of pencils. Maybe pens, but not pencils. Perfect.

Um and you have the ability to um you know, there may be laws on not in your what you're really be looking at, but special education, for example, you have to fund it to a certain level. Or for instance, OSHA requirements. Or OSHA, that's great example. Thank you. Exactly.

Thank you. Okay. Uh Counselor Shullam, did I see your hand? I think the question was answered whether we have a line by line authority. Understood. Uh further questions, comments about the the amendment process. Uh well, we have our Counselor Harman, yes. Um yeah, I guess I did want to ask about the amendment process cuz the the charter speaks to it uses the word amendment um in the past, what we've done during budget processes is we work kind of collaboratively through workshops and determine what we're going to include in the budget, what we're not going to include in the budget. Um this year has been very different and it seems like our what's been told to us is that we have to write out a formal amendment and then present that on the final night that we're passing the budget and then have that go to an up or down vote as a formal amendment to the budget and that's not how it's ever been done in my experience and I just wondered if if that is what I mean I mean it's I just can't quite conceptualize it cuz that's not how it's been done before. So, I thought that the process of amending the budget was what we do during these workshops and we come to a consensus and sometimes we might take a straw poll or something. Um so, I just wonder if if that is is that how we actually have to do it even though we haven't done that before? I mean, are you If you If you I don't want to talk about what you think or not or whatever, but I don't think, Counselor Harman, that you have to go through a formal process. I think the the idea of a workshop is to try to reach consensus. You may not take a vote because you may not be a lot You're not allowed to take a vote, but if you throw out things and discuss things, I nothing wrong with that. That doesn't

mean that's where you're going to land and that's not the amendment. There is a I mean, there would be you would have a formal amendment by resolution, which is what the I think which is what it says is you can adopt amendments by resolution. So, that's what you do. However, you would adopt a resolution. Yeah, I guess if I could follow up um it's been past practice that if a majority of the council comes to a decision on a particular item, then that that is put into the budget or taken out of the budget and that's just in the budget that we vote on finally at the you know, when we vote, which would typically be May 5th, but I guess we have postponed it to a little bit later. So, I'm just I'm a little confused by the process that's been communicated to us is that we have to write a formal amendment and and put that on the floor, debate it and then take a up or down vote on it at the night of final passage of the budget, which is very new to me. So, uh if I may answer by asking a question, please. And I think it would be appropriate for the administrator to weigh in on what he envisioned was the process if if if again, with all due respect and understanding protocol. Uh Administrator Kinroth, yes. Yeah, thank you. And my only point earlier in bringing this up, it is it is a power of the council and individual councilors to offer amendments. So, if there are amendments, they by charter are allowed to be offered. I think the workshop process as you've been doing it does work. If you can arrive at decisions by consensus, that's fine. But it also doesn't, you know, exclude individual councilors from having the authority by charter to introduce amendments to the budget. Um that is the the process in in most of their places. It does work. It doesn't all need to be on the final night on on budget passage. There could be a

number of meetings where you consider amendments. So, I think that the process that, you know, you've been using I think works fine. The only my only point in bringing this up the other evening was it is a charter power of councilors and of the council to be able to offer amendments if you so choose. I don't think you have to. But if there is a councilor that wants to offer an amendment, you do have the authority to do that. So, that was my only point. Anything further, Counselor Harman? No, thank you. Counselor Najin. I just uh further expound on that. I think this budget season is a particularly contentious one and I think it would be uh we would be remiss um if we I think everyone has some ideas about how to reduce the budget and ultimately, if our names are attached to it, it comes forward in council. We have the We have the ability to make friendly amendments. We have the ability to shoot up or shoot down anything um when it's put forward, but it's clear um what we're trying to aim for and I think the amendment process is probably in in a budget year where we may even still be looking at eliminating a a position or two the way to go forward. So. Uh one quick question here, Mr. Eisenstein. So, uh the budget requires a super majority. Would each amendment require just a simple majority get added to the budget or what are your thoughts on that? I I think an amendment would require a simple majority, but the overall budget, if it's going to go if it goes beyond the 3.3%, does need a super majority, yes. So, the answer is yes and no. Or no and yes, I should say. Understood. Thank you. Uh further further questions. Uh and

then we can talk about process. Uh Administrator Kinroth, what did or sorry, did we have further questions, councilors? Administrator Kinroth, I guess what I'll I'll recognize you to to talk about, you know, we discussed a little bit the other night where we would have a deadline to submit amendments that would then give staff time to review them and prepare them. What were What were you envisioning? Right. So, how it would normally works in other places, there is a deadline for amendments to be submitted to administration and the finance office. Those amendments would be worked up and they would be printed on the agenda for the meeting when they're going to be considered. So, they're not offered randomly from the floor, although city attorney, correct me if I'm wrong, I think a councilor still has the ability to offer an amendment from the floor if they so choose. But we would like to have all amendments in. Want to respond to that, Marty? Yeah, I fully agree with the administrator that an amendment can be made from the floor uh and using proper protocol, of course, in the city council, but yes, absolutely. Um but I think for for good and clean procedure, it would be appropriate on how it works best as I've seen in other places, there's there's a deadline for amendments. Um so, I think in this case we would be envisioning um probably towards the end of next week if we're going to consider them on May 19th that all amendments have to be into our office. It gives the clerk's office plenty of time to put the agenda together, all the amendments to be listed on the agenda and then they would be considered at that following meeting. Now again, they all have to be considered in in one meeting. Um you could consider them in in multiple meetings if there are, you know, a number of amendments. So, uh it doesn't have to be on the final the final evening. So, anyway, just for good process, I think we'd like to set a deadline for amendments and give staff time to prepare, gives the clerk's office time to get them all on the

agenda, um and then it's also clear to the public uh what amendments may be considered and there's no surprises uh on that evening. Although again, um as city attorneys agreed with, it doesn't exclude uh council from offering an amendment from the floor and and working through the process. Uh well, just one point of clarification, Administrator Keenrath. Um you mentioned to that amendments would need to be considered on the 19th, but we would only be able to vote on them uh amendments in a meeting, and that is our last meeting unless we called a special meeting to go over amendments, correct?

Correct. You could have additional meetings. Correct. Okay. Um is the I saw Madam Clerk is is our clerk still here? She's coming. Ah. Madam Clerk, uh uh could you give us uh the latest we could submit amendments uh you know, understanding that we can submit amendments on the floor during the meeting. Uh I trust that we're all working together here in good faith and we'll come up with amendments um you know, by deadline, but what would be the latest that you could accept our amendments and then, you know, in time to prepare for everything? To have them in the uh May 19th agenda packet? Correct.

the Wednesday before at noon. What day would that be? Uh someone looking at the calendar? May 13th. Right. So, but if we could just have a quick discussion on that uh Mr. Mayor, that's the deadline that the rules state that um councilors have to submit items for the agenda, but I believe what the administrator was referring to was having the amendments in earlier to allow the finance director time to review those numbers, determine the impact of those amendments. I mean, there's some calculations and figuring she probably has to do to determine the impact of those proposed amendments. So, I think that's what he was indicating was an earlier time frame to allow that time, but I'll certainly have him answer that. Okay. Uh yes, either Director Royer or Administrator Keenrath. We were discussing uh because we're looking at a meeting on the 19th in order to give staff time to uh prepare, get this all together, uh and it would give us uh councilors a week. Uh we were thinking 1 week from today, a Thursday the 7th end of business that day for amendments, and it gives the following week for finance, clerk's office, all staff to prepare, then they would be considered at our meeting the following Tuesday the 19th. Uh If that would be acceptable. So, it gives you basically 1 week from this evening to have amendments prepared and in. Okay. Uh we will uh comment on that. Thank you. And thank you Madam Clerk. Uh Councilor Shidem, yes, your thoughts. Thank you. Yes, uh given that Fridays are typically not open days, would it be feasible or understandable or acceptable to say that the deadline uh would be the close of business on Thursday? Or That's what I just said, but Friday would work, too, if you'd like. Close close of business on Thursday the 7th of uh May.

1 week from this evening. Okay. I just I'd like all of us to understand that that is the hard deadline. That would be 4:30 p.m. on May 7th. I I'm I'm proposing that, and I'd like to see us all adhere to that. Uh right, and that's what I meant was um you know, we're all acting, you know, while recognizing amendments could be made on the floor, um you know, I'd hope that we'd all work in good faith and submit amendments at that time. Uh Councilor Najarian, yes. I just wanted to comment that that would give us at least a day or two to absorb public feedback um after the public hearing on the uh on the 5th. So. Further comments or questions from councilors about that? Uh it appear and it it sounds like we're all mostly okay with that. Uh I think we're we're set with that deadline. Uh further questions, comments um regarding this for our for either administration or Mr. Eisenstein. Mr. Eisenstein, do you have any other comments or questions? Just on the school budget portion, do you have a meeting scheduled to approve the school budget? Yeah, I believe that's next Tuesday the 5th. Okay. Thank Yes. And then the referendum, if it is approved, would be thereafter on May something. 12th.

May 12th, I'm hearing. Yes. Madam Clerk, is there something you'd like to add to that?

No, I was going to if there was any other questions that yes, so the city attorney is correct on May 5th on Tuesday night will be is on the agenda uh for the adoption of the school budget, and then the school referendum will be the following Tuesday, May 12th. Questions, comments from the from the council. Uh yes, Councilor Herman. Yeah, I guess this is as good a time as any. I was just going to provide a quick update on the school budget. Um so, we got an email Tuesday afternoon from the superintendent with the updated budget that the school committee passed. Uh it passed unanimously, and the increase on the local side is 8.1% or 8.06%. Um so, I I had heard on Tuesday night I had heard numbers like 12% and I just wanted to correct the record that it currently, as it stands, as it was passed by the committee, is 8.1% increase on the local side. Thank you, Councilor Herman. Um did I see someone else who had their hand up? Uh Councilor Shidem, did you have something? Uh no. No. Okay. Uh Administrator Keenrath, um you know, from administration side, is there any questions or do you have everything that you [clears throat] need? Yes, we're good. Thank you. Madam Clerk. Thumbs up from Madam Clerk. You can look at that. Uh all right. Anything else, councilors? Mr. Eisenstein, yes. Um don't want to beat that dead horse, but I do want to ask the administrator when his reference his reference to total tax levy, is that a reference to municipal tax levy, or is that a reference to some other tax levy? Administrator Keenrath, please. It's [clears throat] a good question. Uh what we've been working off of when it

says total tax levy is city, school, and county. Uh if I could ask another question, when you're comparing that tax levy to the uh section of the charter that limits it to 3.3%, do you compare the 8.1% to the 3.3%, or what have you been using as a comparison? We have been working off off of just the city uh portion or city county. Uh and not been we had not been factoring in the school when discussing getting down to 3.3%, at least in our discussions so far. Thank you. Anything further from anybody? I think we're I think we're good. Mr. Eisenstein, we appreciate your service to our city. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh okay, that concludes the discussion about amendments. Uh I would like to have a discussion about the reval if Administrator Keenrath could join us here. So, I had a discussion with Administrator Keenrath. Uh what was that? I feel like that was today or yesterday. I think it was today. It was today. Lots been happening. Uh and uh you know, we've heard from many people about the proposed reval, and I guess I wanted to and I um yeah, I guess it doesn't matter what happened at the at the last budget workshop uh meeting where we talked about the reval. I think that was like a week or two ago, week and a half ago. Uh but I guess if

there was consensus for um a uh a delay and then and/or um a phased-in approach uh to determine if there was a majority consensus for that, and then perhaps have our administrator draft a letter to the chief assessor expressing that interest. Um yeah, that might be helpful. Administrator Keenrath, did I miss something or No, and just so you know, I think it was discussed at the last or few meetings ago about doing some form of delay and/or phasing. Uh there was discussion at that time about a 1-year Can you just move the mic closer to you, please?

delay for implementation. Um Chief Assessor Healey has agreed to a 1-year uh delay for implementation, but I know there are some other views on the council of what they would like to see for implementation, so I think uh maybe now is the time we discussion uh on the implementation again. But our Chief Assessor uh has indicated he's comfortable with a 1-year delay. Uh as you know, by Maine law, he does uh technically have the call, um but uh certainly this group um is free and able to weigh in. I guess uh if we're uh my plan is just to go on down the line starting with uh councilor from Ward 1. Um if we're okay with a with a one-year delay, say so. If we feel we need more than a year delay and or phased-in approach, you could say so at this time and we'll just wrap around. Counselor Nadeau. So, I I had originally really wanted to see a phased-in approach and I understand that there's a lot of expense associated with a phased-in approach as well as the fact that it's very confusing. I supported the one week one year delay. I would be also be completely comfortable with a two-year delay at this point. The only concern that I have is that something happens in the housing market that drives drives down housing costs and then we lose the $580,000 that we put in for for the investment. I think another point that I want to bring up right now is Tyler Tech is giving until the 15th of May to have dialogue about the revals. I think that needs to be extended. I don't know if we can go back to Tyler Tech and ask them how much it's going to cost to extend that period for informal hearings, but people are still trying to get their heads around what this reval even means for them. And so, I think leaving a a window to have these this dialogue is super important. And again, we need to get everybody that we possibly can in this city

on the homestead exemption if they qualify, on any tax abatement program that is available. So, I would ask that the city leads on that and also partners with others in order to make sure that we're we're getting people door-to-door, literally. Yeah, thank you. And we can pose the question to Tyler about extending to May 15th that one. There could be additional costs, but we can pose the question and see what options are there. So, again, I would be supportive of a two-year delay if that was the the favor of the of the council. Thank you, Counselor Nadeau. Counselor Longchamps, yes. Thank you, Mayor. I too would be in favor of um extending, asking if we can that date, and also pushing it to two years. I think yes, we've gone a long time. It does feel like we've kicked the can down the road because technically we have. But, folks just received over the last week their assessments. People need time to digest, figure out how they're going to budget this. And quite honestly, just to educate people on exactly what happened. You know, they're opening their mail and they've just doubled or tripled their their houses their assessments. So, I would go for the two years. I think that's important for our citizens of Lewiston. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Harmon. Yes. Thanks. Yeah, I'm in favor of the one-year delay and I'm still in favor of a phased-in approach cuz even if we delay it one year, it's still a large increase for a lot of people. I'd like to see more information about the complications and expenses involved with a phased-in approach because it's um I know for for a lot of people it will be a very large increase and doing that at one time isn't going to be very feasible. I mean, my my assessment went up over 400% myself.

I feel like delaying it by a year and then phasing it in over maybe three years will give people a little bit it'll still be hard to handle, but I give them a little bit of a break. So, that's where I'm at right now. Thank you, Counselor Harmon. Counselor Roy, yes. Thank you. Well, for me um I would be in favor of um a two-year delay. I do think it's very important now that we have the numbers. We haven't had the numbers. We've been talking about it for three years, haven't had the numbers. Nobody really knew what it was about. You know, and when you get smacked in the face with the numbers that we got right now, I mean, to be honest with you, I mean, that's enough to give a lot of people a heartache. So, I would be in favor of a two-year delay. I would also be in favor of the phased-in approach. I mean, the other way that this could have been done is, all right, we've waited 38 years. You could have put 10% on this bill this year, 10% on next bill next year. You know, you could do that and still achieve that the same goal, but it would be a phased-in approach over the next. But, I right now as we sit tonight, my choices are two-year delay and and a phased-in approach afterwards. Thank you, Counselor Noble. I definitely want a phased-in approach with a delay. So, people have time to save and to you know, build it into their budgets. Everybody that I'm talking to, all the emails I'm getting, people are looking at selling their homes. They don't want to be here anymore. Um I feel that, too. You know, I'm on a single income and it's a lot for me to have to come up with that and worry about how I'm going to pay it, too. I'm

for a phased-in approach over like two or three years. Um and I you know, I'm willing to to wait the year and then start the phased-in approach or or however that would look like. I don't know, but I'm with Counselor Harmon and Counselor Roy. I'd like to look more into that and see what we could do. Counselor Chisholm. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The lone voice up here, I am not in favor of delay or phase-in. I think this assessment is conflated very much with the budget process and there needs to be some understanding better understanding about that. My concern principally is that we know because we've had this revaluation and there are such dramatic differences in the increases of individual assessments, we know that the old assessments are inequitable. We know that they're unfair. And if we delay this for a year and use the old assessments, we are knowingly using an unfair and not level playing field process. So, I would argue that rather than delay the implementation, we develop systems wherein people who can apply for or or who need assistance in dealing with unexpectedly large tax bills, which result primarily from the budget, but also secondarily from the revaluation, that we have systems in place that we can address those concerns. I think delaying the revaluation for a year assumes that we will not have the nearly double-digit increases that we're looking at in our tax levies and our costs of operations next year. And I don't think that's a good assumption. I think we're going to be in the same place next year with all of the costs beyond that are beyond our control and we're going to be looking at, gee, this is a big hit with the with the

tax levy increase and now implementing the one-year-old revaluation, let's kick it off another year. So, we've we've been accused and prior councils have been accused of kicking the can down the road. This is precisely what we would be doing if we delayed the implementation of a process that we started three years ago. I'm going to recognize that we have been less than stellar in educating the public about what a mill rate is, how assessments and levies operate. We could have done a better job at that, but to delay it for a year, I'm opposed to that. I recognize I'm a very small minority. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Counselor Chisholm. I appreciate everyone's input. Counselor Martel. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um So, I'm going to point out once again that our assessor's advice was not to do this. It sounds like he's now on board with it, probably because he's been encouraged to do so. This council and other councils before have had a habit of saying trust the experts until we decide that we don't like what the experts tell us. Now we're looking at professionals that the city pays to do a certain job, to give us certain advice and if we don't like it, we're just going to tell them, oh well, we're going to do what we want. Um And I feel like I'm going to resonate with a lot of the council president's words. I believe I'm going to lose this vote and be on the minority end of it, but I would also be against kicking this can down the road further because I'm not [snorts] necessarily convinced that this that the group of us sitting up here are going to do any better in the next year or two than what we've failed to do in the last three knowing this was coming. And while I don't want to sit here and assign blame, I think it's important that

we have some accountability for the failures and the lack of communication. I've gone back and I've seen the Sun Journal articles and other articles where we were promising to communicate and to make sure that we were going to roll this out in a manner that informed the public and uh to say doing so was an epic failure or failing to do so was an epic failure might be an understatement. I'm not going to deny that I feel like there's a political aspect to this. Kicking the can down the road gets us past next November, which has a lot of implications for certain people sitting up here. Um And so while I believe that I'm going to be on the losing end of this vote, I will continue to advocate for cutting of the budget because it's our spending and our spending alone that drives up the tax burden for our citizens. So, that's what I've got on that. I intend to vote against delaying this, but I expect to lose in that vote. Uh thank you, Councillor Martel. Uh okay. So, it looks like there is um Councillor Herman, you were you were okay with uh you wanted a just to clarify um Councillor, you wanted a 1-year and then a phased in. Would you Yeah. Correct. If we didn't have So, right now we have uh a supermajority want some sort of delay and phase in. And so, uh looking at my little notes that I've made here, either um you know, perhaps uh you need to come to 2 years, or somebody else needs to come to to a phased in. Um yeah, that's that's where we're at. Uh Councillor Herman, did you want to say something? Um I guess I would be okay with 2 years. I feel like if we were to phase it in, then a 1-year pause would probably be

enough time to to allow people to prepare for a slight increase. Um and then if that could happen over 3 years, maybe 4 years, uh I feel like that would be enough, but I would [snorts] I'd be okay with 2 years for a delay. Um my only concern is that the longer we delay the implementation, that means the longer that our mill rate stays high, which is discouraging for investment in the city. So, that's that's my that's where I'm conflicted on that. Understood. Thank you. Um Councillor Longchamps and then Councillor Negi. Thank you, uh Mr. Mayor. [clears throat]

You Yeah. Thank you. It appears as though our administrator definitely needs some sort of uh direction on what to write, Mr. Healy. Correct?

If I could Yeah, just clarify. I think what we're doing here is so that our city assessor is already um sort of rendered his his opinion of what he intends to do. Um he is able to do that by by law. Um I think we're having a a discussion here of if there are still strong sentiments on the council, and I think what the mayor said earlier is perhaps, you know, a letter could be drafted on behalf of the council to our assessor of of your opinions and, you know, of your desires on the implementation. Um but his his latest position is uh I think as we discussed a couple meetings ago, uh just a straight 1-year delay, no phase in. If I am correct or remembering correctly, um the phase in approach would cost Correct. over or or around $800,000.

400, but potentially 800 depending on there were a couple different scenarios or options there, but it was at minimum 400,000. But also, was there something with the programming that, if I remember correctly, that um they didn't have the programming for that because that wasn't Right, part of the expense would involve uh some software modifications, I think, to allow us to do this. I mean, a phased in approach is extremely rare. Uh as we talked about, it can be done, um but it's very rare. So, they'd have to do, I think, some things unique uh for us in order to carry out, uh for example, a 3-year phased in approach. I'm wondering if this is worth like us having Mr. Healy come back and actually sit with us again. I know we've already done this, but there does seem to be the majority of councilors that are very con- not that other councilors aren't concerned, so I shouldn't say that, but are are considering um the fact that a lot of constituents are very, very worried about this new assessment. Would it be okay if we asked him to come back to council? Let's talk to the professional about this, the expert, and, you know, revisit the phase in, exactly how that would look. I think we need to have that done again, personally, but Yeah, I think he will will probably stick to his initial advice, which is to just implement now. He did move a bit and and talk about doing a a now 1-year delay in implementation. Um but I I don't I'm not sure how much that's going to move if you have him back. He's not here this evening, Right. obviously. Um but if you're looking for more general information on the process with Tyler for the phase in, we can we can get questions answered and get that information back even just, you know, via email. I don't know if we need

another workshop. Um but I think uh again, if there is a majority of the council or a supermajority of the council that has a certain position, uh and I if you'd like to express that position, I think, as the mayor said, that's what I think some of the purpose of this conversation was. Anything else, Councillor Longchamps? Mm. This is really hard for us, you know, um and I feel partially to blame because, you know, we were a the sitting council that said, "Yes, we know this needs to be done." It hasn't been done in 38 years, and it's something that should have been done um a while ago or decades ago. Um when this did come up, the best way I can explain it, and to my knowledge, is we were going to have uh new assessments done, people were going to be educated on that, um and I just feel like we have failed um the citizens of Lewiston. I don't feel like we did that. And although we are to blame, myself, um I do think it's our responsibility with the new councilors that are here, responsibilities, to help ease some of that uh financial burden that is now put upon our citizens. So, I feel like it is our responsibility, whether it's our fault or not. I'll own my part, but I also know that we need to do the right thing by the folks that are on fixed incomes, um that are really afraid. We will be responsible for some people moving, getting very sick, um because of this. We have a lot of very proud, older, elderly people that live that were born in Lewiston, that live

here, that if their income, if they cannot pay their tax bill, and they don't know about all the resources that are there, they would rather be homeless than not pay their bills. We still have those people here in Lewiston. And it is our responsibility and the right thing, I'm not saying that this shouldn't have happened because you're it absolutely should have, but we dropped the ball and we didn't do a good job relaying it to the to our communities. So, it's now our responsibility to make sure that we do our best to make it affordable for everyone. Uh That's it. Thank you, Councillor Longchamps. And if I may, councilors, um you know, I'd rather not rehash the past or assign blame, but just talk about how we're going to to move forward. Uh Councillor Negi. So, again, um from the presentation that was brought forward, I know the phase phased in approach is is one that's going to cost us $800,000, right? Especially if you do it over the 3 years with the 1-year delay. And and $800,000 is eight jobs, right? Uh so, in in a tight budget year. So, let's not have uh let's The phased in approach would be great, but I think it's it's not possible. Um I don't think the assessor will approve it, and I also think that the added expense is huge. So, again, um I was in favor of the 1-year delay. I will support a 2-year delay. Um and we just need to get a consensus here to figure that out. I don't think that the phased in approach is going to pass, so. 2 years for me. Uh thank you, councilors. Uh Councillor Roy, did you have something? Thank you. Could we gather all the information of all the ways that um or all the services out there that we could apply for, like homestead reduction, all these things, um and get

a list of those, and I would be willing to go door-to-door and knock on doors and educate everybody in my ward. I would even do other people's wards if that's what it takes, cuz I want everybody to know that what's going on. So, the answer is absolutely Our Assessing Department already has these, you know, these resources, you know, so we can we can get them out uh to you. Um we can also do, obviously, more uh to get these specific resources. I mean, number one is the homestead um that, you know, we want to make sure people are using if it's their primary residence, uh and get that out there as much as possible, too. So, Can we

Absolutely. Can we do like can we have directions on how to do that because we have a lot of people that are going to be challenged to do these things, whether they're being at home or whatever. I mean, I don't have the time to sit there on a computer with everybody door-to-door, but if there's a way to get a step-by-step thing for some of these, I would really appreciate that because again, like our older population, we really need to educate everybody. Right. And we could even do, you know, because obviously not everyone is online, we could even do direct mail pieces. We've already done uh inserts uh in uh tax bills, in water bills uh about the reval to educate, so we can certainly do more of that, too, where it's direct uh you know, something in the mail to every uh property taxpayer, um as well as other things. So, absolutely. And again, I don't want to incur any more costs, right? So, if if I have to hand carry them to a lot of places, I'll do that, too. I don't have a problem with Well, that's why I think some of the inserts are great. We did that with the property tax bills as well as the water bills. We had an additional page printed, inserted into bills that were already going out, so there wasn't the additional postage cost. Awesome. Thank you. Uh yeah, I understand Councillor Najarian's point about the increased costs for uh for phased in and yeah, an extra $800,000 that we don't currently have uh that uh could be problematic. Uh I know Brunswick did 3 years. I think that might be uh a bridge too far in this case, but it sounds like there's at least consensus among uh a super majority for for 2 years. Is that what I'm hearing and seeing? Yep. Yeah. Understood. Um I think we're we do have at least uh sorry. Uh Councillor Harmon, is there uh something you'd like to say? Um yeah, just regarding the phased in approach. I was just wondering if we could get more information on the what are the complications and what are the costs and um

and and just how just so we can balance or so we can make a decision on that. Um cuz I agree, I don't want to incur another $800,000 in cost, but it would be it would be interesting to see the breakdown of those things.

Yep, we can get more overall information the process. If you do have a specific questions, let me know. We can pose those also in in in addition. Thank you. Yeah, I think it's just the overall like what is the breakdown of those costs? Why why is it so expensive to to do that over a period of time and um if there are any other positive or negative benefits of doing that. Uh Councillor Chisholm. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh it seems as though uh Assessor Healey has already agreed to a 1-year delay. We have enough complications before us right now with dealing with the budget. I'm wondering if the question about whether a phased approach uh is appropriate or even extending to a 2-year approach is appropriate now. Can we not do that after we've gotten through this budget given that my understanding is uh Assessor Healey has already agreed to stay this revaluation for an entire year. So, do we need to make that decision now? Do we need to get that information on phased cost approaches now? Can't we make that decision after the budget has been resolved? Thank you. Um Councillor Longchamp, did you have something? No, but since you called me, if you don't mind, uh I will say that uh people want to know. Right. Right? People are really nervous. So, I do think it's important that we come up with some, you know, and I don't think you have the clear direction, do you, on what you were asking? Well, we're we're getting to that point.

there's so I I think where we are is our our our chief assessor has um in effect made a decision. Right.

Um I think we're looking for feedback from this council because there are differing views on how to implement it. Um and I think I agree with what your your prior statement uh was in that I think for us um I I think, you know, I think I speak for all the staff, it's important I think for us to get information to the public out sooner rather than later of what's going to be happening. Uh I think there's extreme interest in knowing how exactly this is going to be implemented. I think the sooner we get that information out to the public, um the more we could um just uh have some clarity um and depending on what it is, potentially, I think alleviate some uh of the uh fears that are out there right now, but um again, uh I think getting something out to the public, some sort of clarity that this is how it's going to work, this is what's going to happen sooner rather than later uh would be a good idea. Uh yes, Councillor Longchamp.

Thank you. Again, I would just ask that um you would go back and ask him if we could do the 2 years. Councillor Najarian, it sounds like Councillor Roy is in favor of that and uh Councillor Noble. Uh thank you, Councillor Longchamp. Uh Councillor Najarian, did you have something before I weigh in? Uh did just really briefly, um the 1-year delay has been agreed to, so we're asking uh possibly for a 2-year delay, which Healey either grant or not grant. Um the I think that again, I just really really want to emphasize this, the windows in which we have to to uh file our um uh our um uh informal reviews um are only until the 15th of May, so we really need to find out if we can extend that. That's one piece. And then two, um we don't have a mill rate yet and Councillor Chisholm's right about that. Um so so without a mill rate, it's going to be very difficult for people to understand even what their new valuations mean as well. And so um yeah, I just ultimately, I'm I'm feeling like we have to do a lot more in order to make sure that people understand what's going to happen to their taxes. That's all. So. Thank you. Councillor Martel, did you want to add something before I weigh in? I did. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh I have gotten This is [clears throat] kind of a specific question. I've gotten multiple emails from constituents uh concerning the homestead exemption. Is that still something that can be applied for this year or have we passed that deadline because it was tax day? Now that there was a lot of confusion about it passing and no longer being the case, I believe last year. It is available again this year, uh but some people feel as though they missed

that deadline. So, I'm just trying to get a little clarification on how someone would go about addressing that with this new tax bill and the evaluation. I I imagine there'd be complications if this is being delayed, but uh that's a question I've gotten many times and I just want to ask it on the record and see if I can get an answer from city administrator or anyone that might know. If they have not applied by April 1st, that's considered a waiver. Um but if you've applied once and you haven't moved, it's it's in effect, so you don't have to apply every year. But if you've never applied um and if you haven't applied by April 1st, that's considered a waiver for the year. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Malloy. Okay. So, uh councillors, if I may, um I know we had uh well, Councillor Harmon, you had questions about the um uh more questions about the phased in approach, but that does not appear to be a majority support for for council on that. So, at this point, I there does appear to be a majority super majority support, five councillors, who would advocate for 2 years. So, and then realizing time is of the essence and our property owners, um you know, we've all seen uh there's a lot of anxiety and fear. And so, I uh yeah, at this point, given that five of us are in favor of uh a 2-year delay, um you know, allowing our administrator or directing uh politely asking our administrator to to draft such a letter uh that could then be uh forwarded on to uh us Chief Assessor Healey, I think would be um most appropriate at this time. Uh yes, Councillor uh Najarian. So, the one thing I do want to bring up um that I think is important, too, is if if there is a 2-year delay, right? Um things can change in the market, right? And generally speaking, most communities are updating their their valuations

every 3 to 5 years. Um and so, we it it does get tight. I see a reason for this and I want to support it, absolutely, but I am also saying that that there are complications that that could occur. And I hope that does not that is not the case cuz then we'll be in a even bigger mess than we're in right now. So. Uh my sense is our our uh assessing department would be um up to that challenge. Uh Councillor Chisholm, yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to clarify that when people call me, we can say with absolute certainty that the mill rate this year will be based on your old assessment. It will be on the order of $36 per thousand. Yes. We can say that with absolute certainty. So, again, Assessor Healey has already agreed to a 1-year delay, so that means yes to your question and there's potential for 2 years yes to your question. Okay. That that's not a question that I'm prepared to answer to my constituents. They want to know what their bill's going to be in September. I can tell them use your old assessment and whatever the council decides for a budget, that will determine the mill rate, but expect it to be around 36. Correct. Thank you. Uh Councillor Najarian, yes.

Just as another point of clarification, right now we're looking at 3514 before any further cuts. So. It's a moving target, depending on what happens here in the next couple weeks. Uh yes, uh I think we all understand that. Councillor Harmon. Yes, just a couple points of information. So, people can file the homestead exemption anytime, uh but if it's after April 1st, it won't affect this year's taxes, it will be the the following year's taxes. And then also, um it's since we have a staggered terms now, every year is an election year, so um everyone's going to be up for election at some point each year. Uh okay. Thank you. Um Administrator Kinra, do you you what you need from us? Uh as far as the the reval and your your sentiments

direction. Yes. So, you will draft such a letter and then I assume you will forward it to us. Yes. Okay. Excellent. Uh counselors, I think we're I think we're set. Uh administration, did you have anything else? We're good, I think. Anything else? Thank you. Uh I think we're I think we're good. Um yes, thank you everyone. Appreciate Are we not going to discuss anything about the budget? Uh is there anything else? Uh counselor um Counselor Nadeau, yes, what did you have? So, I just going over a few things. Uh we haven't really delved into the LCIP at all as far as like what we're going to accept or not going to accept. And also just coming back to some points on fixed cost in the budget. And I know this is going to make me um What's the word I'm looking for? Um Not popular. Not popular. Yes, exactly. In certain circles anyways. Um can we have some conversations about our inter municipal agreements? Right now, we have a set cost of $205,000 to the Auburn Lewiston Airport. That is an annual cost from my understanding. There is um at least some desire for Lewiston to relinquish our rights to the airport. Um I know that the enterprise zone share funding ends in 2029. And so, if we can have possibly a little bit of a discussion about that and possibly give some direction to the administration in order to to have some conversations with Auburn. I would also unfortunately like to bring up the 911 call center. Now, that the county tax has increased 14% last year and 20% this year. Um and we're paying for that service. There is a cost savings in

in um switching over to the county. I think we'll save about $500,000 a year. There are jobs involved in that though, so I want to point that out. Um but I think these are two areas where we need to have some discussions and would like to have them now um if that's possible. I also had mentioned uh on the revenue side um changing the the monthly fees uh for the parking garages to either 65 or 70 dollars a month and I would like to get some feedback um from the affected departments um or maybe get a consensus now. Um Also, I know that we're paying $250,000 for um trash removal from MWAC who's supposed to be burning the trash, but unfortunately they're not able to burn it all. Um and so, I want to find out in the next meeting. I don't think we'll have this information immediately, but in the next meeting uh whether or not we can raise the tip fees for the other communities that participate in the uh um in the MWAC trash burning program so that we could possibly raise some revenues there to offset our additional costs with MWAC. Um so that that's another piece. Um And there are more, but maybe we just start with the Auburn Lewiston Airport and uh and the 911 call center. Uh Director Roy, are you in a position to join us here at the table? I think that would be most appropriate at this time. Unless you have strong objections otherwise. My laptop's not working, so Uh oh, no no laptop, so there's that. Um uh nonetheless, if you I'm glad you brought all your books.

Uh if I don't know who's Okay. Uh all right, I guess um Yeah, I Administrator Cainrath, Director Roy, do we want to talk about the airport and the costs associated with that and what our options are at this point? So, the city's portion is 205,000. Um Auburn pays 205,000. Lewiston move the mic a little closer so I can hear you.

Lewiston pays 205,000. That cannot be reduced per the agreement and Council Chisholm is aware of this too cuz he is on the Lewiston Airport board. Um so, that portion cannot be reduced any lower. Can go higher, but it can't go any lower per the MOU. I have I have a couple of questions about that. One, if we had approached Auburn and asked to no longer be part of the airport because ultimately the comprehensive plan for the airport really doesn't involve a lot of the Lewiston side planning at all. It seems to be mostly an Auburn project and they're asking for more funding in order to make that happen and we're the entity that is not providing the fund. I know that we funded certain portions through LCIP in the past. All of these other pieces Auburn has a goal of making the airport functional. Lewiston does not have the funds to make that happen and I think there is a conversation to be had about about removing an MOU and removing Lewiston's interest from the airport. Am I not correct about this? You could you could get together with the Auburn council. And you guys would have to go over the MOU and see if they're willing to um basically cuz we would lose our revenue. We would have to lose that tax revenue. That's out there till 2029. I would imagine that that would be on the table. Um we do pay them a portion for the tax sharing for I don't know if it was the amount to I can't remember off top of my head. I think it was money hundred, yeah. Yeah. So, we pay them a portion. So, you would have to meet with the city of Auburn and you would have to discuss that

in order to to remove the MOU. As far as the the enterprise zone that we created in 1979, I believe it was, we actually lose revenues from that in in 2029. That that is bound up in the municipal in the inter municipal agreement or does that function as a separate piece? That I believe is in the MOU. All of that information I believe you have and have received um in your packets. I I believe it was a couple years ago the counselors asked for the MOU and and received it. I can pull that out and resend it to all of you. Um it would have all of the information on there. And what revenues are we seeing from the airport each year? We see a tax revenue sharing, so it's in your budget under the revenues. I just want to state for the record the dollar amount if we can find it. So, we have 186,000 um budgeted to receive. We received 123,810 last year. Uh so, no, sorry. We received um 205,121 last year. Okay. Mhm. So, that's actually a break even, I guess. Um at least for the moment. But by 2029, we will no longer be receiving any revenues, correct? Correct, unless you you and the Auburn City Council go through and do another MOU. Okay. But we'll still be on the hook for maintenance costs forever unless we make an arrangement to leave that agreement. Correct. Okay. Uh if I may, counselor. I think

um discussions about dissolving our joint operations through the airport are are you know, for another meeting and not for budget workshop. Uh and probably would um be best accomplished by a resolution passed by a majority of the council to engage in negotiations with Auburn. I'm just exploring the options of reducing costs, that's all. Understood, thank you. Counselor Chisholm, did you want to weigh in? I think you've taken my thunder, Mr. Mayor. It's always a pleasure when the mayor and the council president are in agreement. Uh Counselor, let's talk about parking garages next. Or 911. Uh yeah, okay, 911. Please yeah, if you could restate you wanted to perhaps consolidate 911. We've explored it in the past. I know that there was a cost savings involved that that was sat somewhere around $500,000 based on the fact that the outsourcing to well, we're already paying for for 911 services for the county, but I believe that due due to the calls, we're looking at possibly another 800, 900,000 dollars in contracted services. So, this the portion that you pay out of the county is not the same as what we receive from 911. So, it's it's a different service and we don't pay like the larger portions. The only people that pay the larger portions of the the um 911 out of the county are the uh the counties and cities and towns that use um Androscoggin County. We do not pay that portion. I know a lot of people think we do. Um we do not. So, when they do the percentage and that's something we could get from them a breakout of their budget, you'll see that and that portion we do not pay um what the other cities and towns that

are using them that don't have their own 911 center, um we don't pay the same portion of that. We don't We're not included in that piece. So, just just as a start, if I could get the difference between uh what it cost to contract just from uh from Androscoggin County Sheriff's versus what we're paying in for the municipals inter-municipal agreement. Just so we have that number. Correct. I can ask um but I will let you know and they are I believe the county is down um I can't remember if they said five um individual employees for that that department. Um so, I I I can contact the sheriff and talk to the sheriff um and get those numbers for you so you're aware. But even if you wanted to dissolve dissolve and not have the 911, I don't believe the county could take on our services. But I will I will talk to the sheriff and find out. I would I would hope that if any of these conversations if they actually proceed on any level, we would be considering uh uh placing some of the 911 call center uh people who are currently employed with Androscoggin County Sheriff's. If they have open open spots, um we have employees, so. I believe a couple of them have come over from Androscoggin County to 911. Uh consolidated 911 uh services um has been uh discussed a lot. Um unfortunately, uh there's been strong religious objection to it. I'm not sure exactly why. I I think uh consolidating uh both 911 centers would um you know, save everyone uh quite a bit of money. Um but uh once again, I think that's for another time. Uh Counselor Chittum. Thank you. I also sit on the 911 committee. Um there are also technological and technical reasons that

consolidation is not as easy as let's do it. Um this would be a long-term project to either move the county dispatching to the existing LA 911 or vice versa. Um it's not something that will affect this year's budget no matter how hard we try. Uh this year's budget has been fixed. So, if that's a discussion pertaining to next year's budget by all means, let's bring it on and have it. But I suspect that the answer is going to be the same that there are technological reasons that we cannot do it and the funding is not as clear-cut as people seem to think it is. So, let's let's postpone this until after this budget season. Uh parking garages. Yeah, so uh my proposal would be and I mean we could we could look at all the revenue lines, but uh ultimately, anywhere we can get a little bit extra money, I I I think it would be uh important right now. The parking garages, if we if we raise the fee to like let's say 65 or 70 per month and then possibly consider Right now, it's $5 a day, I think, to park in in in in the parking garage. I think that's the the the total. If we increase those uh a little bit um I think that those revenues would benefit the city. Um and so, I'm I'm not sure why there would be an objection to to um charging like a a fair amount for parking in in comparison to other communities. Uh uh or sorry, uh are you um Is Okay. All right. Uh so, yeah, I'll quickly uh Well, just to confirm, is it 55 a month right now? I will have to to look at that. Okay. Yeah, I think I remember 55, [clears throat] but um you know, I I understand and we definitely need more revenue. Recognize

that absolutely. Uh I don't want to create any um either real or perceived barriers to um to coming downtown using our parking garages. And so, I'm And then we also have businesses uh that have purchased spots uh at parking garages and that will also affect uh the cost of uh doing business. Um I imagine uh that uh uh absolutely nobody will be in favor of this. Uh and I am not currently. Um comments, questions from other counselors. Counselor Harmon. Yeah, I just pulled up the city's website and it's 55 a month. Um $42 a month for downtown residents or for downtown small businesses. And then it says non-downtown residents, it's uh $600. And then business annual 50 plus, I assume that means they get 50 or they they pay for 50 or more spots, that says $540. Uh Counselor um Chittum. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I'm all for looking at parking revenues. Um one of the possibilities that occurs to me is to create a an enterprise fund for parking so that the revenues for parking are used exclusively for the maintenance of the parking garages and the costs associated with them and that takes it off the general fund. Um so, that's worthy of looking at. I don't know whether that would drive parking costs to $100 a month. I just don't have the numbers, but it would seem to me that if we created an enterprise fund for parking, um that would offload from the general fund. Uh back to you, Counselor Nadeau. One of the things that the parking garages have not been successfully done is generate enough revenues to keep the maintenance on the parking garages up. And And so, this is This is one of the reasons why I bring this up because it becomes LCIP or general fund costs when we defer maintenance and then it's more

expensive. I have no problem with uh with the set tiers for businesses and downtown residents. Um I just want to see that And you still get 2 hours of free parking no matter what, right? Like you always get 2 hours of free parking and it's free parking past 6. So, I'm talking about raising uh those costs a little bit and it's not a huge amount of money, but at the end of the day, all of the things that are affecting the budget right now, were not huge amounts of money when they started, right? And then they grew and grew and grew. And so, we need to look at the same the same process, I think, for revenues. Um that that would be my my argument. Further comments on parking garage prices. Uh yeah, sorry. Counselor Longchamps. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I too would be in favor of increasing um

[clears throat] that and uh that's basically all I wanted to say. Thank you. [cough]

I'm choking on our higher uh um uh potentially higher garage prices. Uh I guess um uh Director Roy, if you could um I guess what are what are we asking administration to do at this point? Perhaps prepare numbers or Well, I think we could make a proposal uh for the monthly rate increase, the daily rate increase and the hourly increase. Is is what I would suggest, but they would need to check it against um but the prevailing rate in other communities, I would believe, you know, just to make sure that that we're not charging too much, but I know that we're underselling our parking. So. Uh Counselor Harmon. Yes, I I don't really have strong feelings either way. I just wanted to point out that we did just recently, it was either last year or maybe the year before, we just recently revamped the parking um the fee structure in order to in part encourage people to, you know, to use the garages for longer-term parking use the on-street parking for shorter term. So, we did just revisit this recently. Um but I don't really have strong feelings either way about raising the fees. That was June of last year when the City Council at the time made all these changes to encourage people to use the parking garages. Um once uh TD Bank and several other uh businesses closed, we weren't having the use of the parking garages. So, this was Economic Development had brought it forward to the last council to encourage people to um to park in the in the parking garages. Uh we've removed the parking meters from the streets to try to encourage uh more short-term parking with parking enforcement. Um but we've heard from the businesses downtown that we, you know, we haven't done enough right now for people not to, you know, to park in the parking garages. So, that was a way to get them to end there. Um if we raise the prices, that's up to you folks, but I will let you know it was June uh when last year when we made all these changes

and lowered the prices. Uh well, and you're uh starting to read my mind there. Would it be okay with the council if we asked uh Economic Development their their thoughts on it uh and then and then go from there? I would be amenable to that. Uh Director Roy, Administrator Kane, I will let you uh check in with our Economic Development Department.

All right. And just to note, any uh change would have to be approved at a regular council meeting by vote. Understood. Uh yes, Counselor Nadeau, did we uh go through all your items? No. I I Is it all right if I direct direct this to Director Gagne? Uh please, please. Uh Director Gagne, concerning the $250,000 in overfill costs for MWAC, do we have a a clear understanding of when that will stop? And also are you familiar enough with the contract with the inter-municipal agreement for using the landfill to advise on whether or not we could actually raise the tip fees? So I just read through that contract again this afternoon. It's a 10-year agreement with MWAC or MWE. We're 3 years into it. So there's 3 years left of 7 years left. So June 30th of 2032 would be when it would expire. Some of the provisions in there allow for mutual discussion upon efficiencies in the ash and reducing cost but not increases or escalators. Um our current what we charge for ash is $58 a ton. And what we're charged for municipal waste when we bring it there is $81 a ton. So there's already a mismatch there. Plus we're now being charged for the fact that they can't burn all of the trash, correct? Like that that $250,000 overrun is for them to get rid of trash that we're sending to MWAC, is that correct? Was me again. We'll look at that item and and have Deputy Director Bates. I think we we added some revenue in there to separate what we were charging MWAC and those revenues coming back and what we were being charged as an expense item. So I think you're seeing a $90,000 gap between revenues and

expenses. I don't think it's as high as you see. So that's a new account where we're showing revenues coming in from ash receiving and tipping fees for ash and we're showing expenditure for us being charged for municipal waste going to MWAC. So there there is a difference and it's $90,000. Okay. Director Bates, did you have Deputy Director Bates? Yeah. This I can tell you but we can get you more information. We have our the trash that we bring over we have that's our first priority. They are burning 7 days a week 365. And again what we bring over there gets burned first. If they take in too much they have to ship it. So that that fee is not coming back to us right now. The fee for them shipping to like Juniper Ridge landfill. So we know. Okay. Thank you. Counselor Najarian, did we work through your items? I think we covered everything except for the LCIP. Director Roy, when will we be talking about LCIP? Anytime you would like if you like to talk about LCIP now. Um We've been going over it when we had the departments in front of you so that if you had any questions on those um projects or those items that they were looking to put in the LCIP and bond, they were here to answer those questions. When that's Thank you for that reminder. When will we need to pass the LCIP again? We usually I believe pass it um in June. I believe the 1st of June. Just find the

If counselors I guess have questions about LCIP or if we want to you know perhaps now is appropriate or we can set up a time where we specifically discuss LCIP in that way everyone can be ready. Um Yeah. Counselor Najarian. I think that would be fair. I just want to like emphasize that I believe that we're going to exceed the 80% rule. And so we need to really focus on only the essential things in the LCIP. And so um Yeah. Yeah. I would recommend that we we set up a time to discuss the LCIP to give everyone a chance to gear up for that. Yes, Counselor Harmon, your thoughts. I just had a question on the process. Um I believe anything that we pass in this LCIP it won't get bonded for I think it's 2 years.

3 years. Okay. So so the decisions we make on this aren't going to affect this year's budget and this year's tax rate but they will affect it starting 2 years from now. Correct. Okay. Thanks. Counselor Najarian. And when we do have the discussion on the LCIP could we also have a breakdown of any of the unspent bonds that we have for discontinued projects at that time? Correct. I have currently um I currently updated that and will forward those to you. It has the city and school cuz unfortunately we just did I haven't done up the memo to you all. Um We just did the arbitrage calculations for the 2020 bond and unfortunately we have to pay back to the IRS because we exceeded the interest amount that was allowed. Um So we just sent back a check for 208,000. Um in in funds to the IRS because projects were not complete. So I do have that list of everything that's open for LCIP and by the years and and that will be going out to you. I was just trying to get the memo done to to inform you of that 208,000 and I was going to send along the updated list. I appreciate that. That 208,000 comes out of funds that were sitting in LCIP LCIP bond accounts, correct? Correct. So it came out of the interest that was accrued. Okay. Thank you. Perhaps [clears throat] Administrator Kinmonth you could work with Director Roy to propose a time to talk about LCIP and then my guess is a working laptop would also be useful at that time as well. All right. Counselor Najarian, did we work through all your items? That's it for the moment. Okay. Any since we have our administration team and Director Roy here, did we have any other questions about the budget?

Counselor Roy, are you raising your hand? Thank you. Um What I would like to see I've heard the phrase you know real cuts and all this stuff online around. Could we have a breakdown of what city services we'd be lacking if we went and took the budget down to 3.3%? I talked about this last time. So I want to see I want to educate people like if we need to get down to 3.3 what that looks like for the city and what that what services we are going to look at cutting. I don't know what that looks like. Yeah, I mean there are a number of scenarios that also depend at that point what positions are being cut and where of what potential services could be impacted by that. So I mean there are there are a lot of different scenarios. We can certainly put out you know the dollar figures needed to get down to 3.3 or get down to zero. But as far as what particular services may be cut or lost it would really depend on what people you're cutting at that point and where as far as a reduction on services or programs. I just I just want people to understand like to make those cuts what what that means for our city. Is it like shutting down you know departments for 3 days out of the five. You know I just I want I want people to understand like these cuts are really really big. Right? And then I I had put down you know what does it look like at 0%? Does that mean like we're cutting 28 jobs? You know something like that. Yeah, there are a number of different scenarios. But if we're talking about going to zero just a 28 jobs that's probably you know best case scenario there. So yes, we'll be talking about significant employee layoffs at that point. But again depending on what particular scenarios are approved by the council it could look in a number of different ways as far as actual cuts to program services that the public may see on a

daily basis. Um but it is safe to say if we're talking about going down to zero for example we're talking about significant layoffs of staff here. Right. And I mean even after if we'd used 1.9% from the fund balance. Right? I mean 1.9 million from the fund balance. Right? Um What would it look like in terms of like maybe positions or or departments or whatever to get down to 3.3? I mean we don't have to go to zero cuz I don't really feel like I Yeah. So basically in a nutshell from from tier one you incorporate the 1.95 to get to 9% fund balance. Beyond that to get to 3.3 is $1,042,000 of additional reductions. That's the 3.3 CPI number. So if we were to maybe look at like how many how many departments do we have in the city right now? Is there do we know? 15 or 16. Okay. So if we were to say you know we don't want to cut positions but if we would look at maybe doing a 10% reduction in each department of costs whether that's overtime whether that's paper whether that's you know certain things. I mean that would probably generate close to that 1. Uh So we've actually we've discussed the idea of cuz you know it's it's often you know thrown around that why don't you just ask all departments for a 10% across the board cut and that's it. There are departments particularly smaller ones that honestly cannot absorb. We were we were considering 5% of the time they cannot absorb a 5% cut. Some of the larger departments yes, but most of our departments are smaller. Police, fire, public works obviously bigger. Finance, you know, large to to mid. But the clerk's office, the assessing,

planning, I mean we have some smaller departments also. So even looking through some of those budgets and trying to find 5% between personnel, supplies, and other things they absolutely need to do their their functions is challenging. So I think it would be difficult to do an across the board cut even at like 5%. Um Higher than that is is exceedingly difficult. So As far as supplies, we actually were looking at supplies today. Um It's it's quite a bit leaner than you may think. If we're thinking about I mean every I know we're looking at every little, you know, bit helps here that sort of mindset. So that is that is true. But if we're looking you know, for another uh you know, say million dollars to get to that million 42,000 gets to the the 3.3 or to go beyond that. Um we do need to be looking at more than just paper clips and paper. No, I understand. I'm just trying to look at every aspect of trying to see what we can do to to do to lower this. So again, I appreciate that. Thank you. Uh Counselor Shedd, I'm yes. Thank you. I'd like to go back to the discussion we had with our attorney and understanding fully that we're all talking about the same number when we're looking at 3.3. Um I've just heard it written down that if in addition to reducing the fund balance against Director Roy's recommendations from 10 to 9%, we still need 1.04 million dollars in cuts to reach 3.3. Correct. Is that 3.3 on the city operating expenses, on the city operating expenses plus debt service, on the city operating plus county plus debt service plus school? What is that 3% that re it to attain we would need to cut an additional million dollars from the city operating expenses.

We were not discussing the schools being included there. Correct? Correct. So to get us to a 3.3% on the area that our city attorney does not feel that I've I've got to I've got to start that sentence again. The city attorney feels that the 3.3% applies to everything. I think there's some differences of opinion up here. Um the 3.3% the million cut that you're talking about that gets us to 3.3% in which budget or budgets? The city.

City. Including county and debt service or just operating expenses? Just the city's operating minus the revenue. So if if I believe this CPI was put in the charter in 2022. And if you look at past um myself and Deputy Administrator were looking at the the past information on all the slideshows that were presented to the council it said city only um right on the slideshow. I believe when you're looking at I looked at the um assessor's documents it says municipal, says school, says county um assessed um when you're looking at the certification. So I think when they put the charter together they were saying municipal only as the city only. Um as he mentioned when it said that if it if you all do not agree and it goes back to the city administrator he cannot look at it's non-school budget. So I believe when they were doing the charter I don't think that they were including everything and as I mentioned county we are only collecting the taxes for the county and and from our citizens and sending the county the exact amount back to them. So I I think when the city put the charter together I believe it was just for the city and there's verbage on may municipal um that states city municipal I don't know if um Deputy Administrator O'Malley has that still up, but we were looking at that and it stated city only school separate, county separate is how the wording was on the state. Um so I think when they put it together in 2022 I think that was their

ultimate goal was for it to bring the city down to the 3.3% or the CPI. When you say city, do you include debt service? The um city operating debt is together, yes. Okay, there are three lines on this sheet that we are looking at for the city. Operating expenses, county tax, and debt service. And what I'm hearing you say Director Roy is that the 3.3% target the 1.02 or 4 million that we would have to cut, that would get us on operating expenses and debt service to a 3.3% increase over last year. Correct. So if you look at the the tax rate sheet that you have in front of you it is split out up top, but when you get down to um the city portion, the proposed tax levy, that amount is your operating expense, your debt expense for the city minus your city revenue gives you that number. Okay, and is this I've got to find the one that has today's date on it. Are you talking about the 6.8%? Um the proposed tax levy on the tier one with take home vehicle updated school budget numbers 42926 shows a 6.8% proposed tax levy. That is operating expenses plus debt service. If we Is that correct? Correct for the city.

So if we take 1.9 or 1.86 million dollars out of the fund balance that reduces the differential to just around a a little under a million dollars which is pretty close to the 1.04 that I'd heard earlier today. That would get that line to 3.3%. In the past it's always been the actual if you look at every single presentation, every single um Do you move the mic closer to you for our folks at home?

single presentation, every single memo, the CPI has always gone off of the proposed tax rate city. So that five it would be 5.8% minus the 3.3. So that number would go down to 3.3 when you minus out the million 42. Okay. Thank you. And that's not the advice of our corporate counsel. Correct. He's stating that it's all three. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Counselor Harmon. Yes, I just wanted to clarify when we're looking at the number that we should be comparing to this 3.3% we're looking at this proposed tax levy just below the halfway mark of the of this page. No, it's always been on the actual pro proposed tax rate down here.

Tax rate. This number right here is how it's always been calculated if you go back and look at everything since 2022 that's the number that's always been looked at. Okay, thank you. So that's currently at 5.8% on the city. Correct. And that's the number we should be comparing to the the goal of 3.3. Correct. Okay, thank you. Uh Counselor Harmon. Sorry, thank you thank you Counselor Harmon. Counselor Najarian. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So right now this is all calculated on a on a 10% uh um um fund balance or is this calculated on a 9% fund balance? 9%.

This is on 9%. Okay. Right. That amount of the million 950 you'll see like midway down under where it says less non-tax revenues that amount has been put in to the use of fund balance on that sheet. Could you just speak again to our our bond rating and what happens to it? Like historically we've been at a double A negative, right? Correct. And that's very normal for the financial well, financial responsibility for municipalities of our size and also economic activity. Correct. If we were the the issue we have every time we have the rating as I had mentioned um is that we are not being bumped up to a better grading due to the fact of the income in the city. So what um individuals make in the city is the hard push for us not going to a better rating. So it's very important um to show that we're financially um financially secure along with our plans. So that's why it's it's looked at as the fund balance and in the past we've been able to use fund balance for capital items which are one-time purchases which is as long as we didn't go below that amount did not affect us. But, um starting to use fund balance for operating expenses, uh I don't know if it'll affect us if we continue to do it, it may down the road affect our rating. Fair enough. Thank you for that. I think one of the things that you're bringing up, the average AMI of a family in Androscoggin County and Lewiston in particular, um and all of the things that we're struggling right now with right now, it all comes back to economic development. Um bringing in good jobs into the community, bringing in

a higher tax base, um that doesn't necessarily displace the residents. It's a It's an augmentation. Um and we've struggled with that for a long time. Um we have not successfully increased the tax base. Um I would just say, um for like my final comments, um any projects that are scheduled this year that any of the departments do not think that they're going to finish should not be put in the LCIP. Uh ultimately, we should not be bonding for projects that will not be finished. Um so, yeah. That's it. Uh further questions about the budget from um from from the rest of the council? We might be calling it a night. Um Administrator Cain, or Dr. Roy, did you have anything further at this time? No. All set. Thank you. Deputy Administrator O'Malley, I don't want you to feel left out. He's good. I think we're I think we're good. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, department heads for being here. Uh have a wonderful evening.