City Council - workshop

Okay, if I can get everybody's attention, we'll go ahead and bring this budget workshop to order. Okay, we do have a quorum, so we'll go ahead and bring this budget workshop to order at 5.31. We're gonna go ahead and start with opening prayer, Pledge of Allegiance to the United States and to the state of Texas. Everybody please stand. Heavenly Father, we come before you this evening grateful for the opportunity and responsibility to serve our community. As we gather to discuss the city's budget and the use of the resources entrusted to us, we ask your wisdom and guidance help us to be good ste

I'll go ahead and open it up to Council Member McAloosa.

Well, I got a lot to add here, which I'm not expecting you guys to have answers to everything.

But I think it's our responsibility to look at how can we make it work at the current tax rate. You know, I'm a true believer that when our housing values go up and down, we should benefit from that. I don't think that when our housing value goes down, our tax rate will go up so that we're paying the same amount of property tax. So I asked you that question, and I appreciate you getting this out for me, but I think that When I evaluate the list and it's not something that obviously I'm educated enough to know the importance of all of these, but I'm not just going to say that it should be just

I don't think, I mean, I know I'm not proposing laying off any current staff.

And when you say that sales tax could be a little bit higher than what you anticipated, what does that look like?

Actually, I was going to ask about that, if you could. I saw that the projection was kind of in line with what the previous years were. Is that... not including Home Depot, or is that not given that much of a consideration? Because I would think that it would maybe be a higher growth rate than what's projected on there.

I know you guys are in a difficult position because I understand that DVHS is making it more and more difficult. And that ends up putting more responsibility on the homeowners. But at the same time, I think that trend is just going to continue where we're going to get less and less revenue. And if we just continue with our expenses on the path that we are... we're going to end up being in bad shape down the road. Without having to just continue to increase the property tax every single year.

I mean, you know, just kind of recap. I just wanted us to at least evaluate the ability to maybe remove up to a million dollars so that we remain the same property tax rate, but also have a long-term plan on lowering the INS with putting some of that money towards future debt. So that was what I think we should at least consider and evaluate.

I'm kind of on the same page as Councilman McAloosa is in regards to trying to keep the rate at the same, you know, and I saw your, these numbers here and is there another analysis that we can utilize? You know, you know, we need our first responders, you know, these cuts, Is there, was there another picture that we painted or can we paint to show, you know, maybe some reallocations of positions or something like that. I'm just throwing some stuff out there. I'm not saying, I don't know, I'm sure you're trying to understand what I'm trying to get at, but these are, I think they're required or

Yeah, but I don't want to suffer that workload. Those are needed positions for the safety of our citizens and our community. I personally don't want to see a cut there, or I would like to see more bodies there. From my understanding and the discussions that I've had with chief of all departments, I think they're They're really being tasked. And I think that we need to definitely support those positions that they're asking for. I just want to make sure that long term that we're not putting ourselves in debt, further debt. I know CEOs and DOs, my analysis that we're currently about $250 million

I'll go ahead. Obviously, nobody wants to sit there and raise taxes, but I'm interested maybe in 0.5252, and that will retain the officers and then dispatch in the positions.

If we have to, that's where I would be at that number.

Okay. And that secures the officers and dispatch and...

So with the current tax rate, Do we get those additional personnel?

What is the total revenue that we've had? for the past year?

So what would be your recommendation or what is the city doing to minimize the difference?

Yeah. Well, I'm also in favor of not letting anybody go But I am in favor of, if we need more officers, more first responders, I'm in favor of that. But I don't want to put the burden solely on the residents. But we got to figure out a way to support our first responders at the same time, keep the tax rate low for our residents, and minimize the difference of the total expenditures versus total revenue.

And if we don't add them, how would it affect our city?

I would like to hear from the other council members before I comment more. Okay.

So right now, when I'm hearing some of the council members, they'd like to see if what we can do to keep, take advantage of the current tax rate, which would drop it to 0.5118, correct? And then if we go to the no new revenue rate, which is the 0.5296, that's bringing back the same amount of money that we brought in this fiscal year, correct?

Although it looks like it's an increase, it really isn't. We should be bringing the same money back. By doing so, are you saying we're still able to keep the four communications officers and four police officers?

So question, with that new growth that's coming, why couldn't we just rely on that versus raising the tax rate when we're going to be getting more money and some more revenue than we did this past, this previous year? Couldn't we rely on that? You can rely on it.

But also our population is growing, correct?

Mr. Williams. Yes. So with either the tax, the no new revenue tax rate or the current tax rate, our first responders are getting their merit pay, our staff is, or their step pay, and our staff is getting their merit pay? Correct. Correct.

So what would it put the tax rate, you have that center column right there where it says that you could bring on half now, but you would have to cut like, right now you have eight positions that you'd like to bring on, four communications officers, four police officers. What would the tax rate be at if you do that middle column?

And so that's, um, is that something we could consider with also like a midterm review to see if we could bring on the other four, uh, two communications officers and two police officers if, uh, if we're doing well and, and our sales tax was up and those kinds of things.

I tend to echo council members Sheridan and Davis and what they were saying and maybe we can take a deep dive into some of the other areas of the city because you know I agree I'm not willing to give up the four communication officers and the four police officers I think that could be a detriment to our city and continue to lower housing rates if people deem it unsafe. So I think definitely maybe taking a little look around. This is quite a pickle that we're in, and clearly raising rates is not great in this economy right now. But maybe if we could, I don't know what to look at, but if we coul

So why don't we concentrate on increasing our revenue instead of, if we cut here, or if we boost up here, we're going to have to cut here. How about raising our revenue, increasing it, increasing profit? That way we can make sure everybody gets paid, whether it's staff, first responders, they're all getting their steps, their merits, and we keep the tax rate low for the residents. Increase our profits, increase our revenue.

I thought I recall us going above the no new rep, no new revenue rate last year. If I remember right. Yeah. Yes. So I know that since I've been here every year, we've gone up and up. Okay. It hasn't gone down at all. Um, I have, um, police chief has been very, very vocal about the need for dispatchers and I've, wouldn't disagree that they're needed so i think if there was anything not to to get rid of it would probably be that um and i know that their pay increases are included in here as well which i don't think anybody's interested in removing that i know for one i have zero interest in mess

Quick question, Chief. What's your staffing level for dispatchers currently?

Okay. But at that point, that does give you the opportunity to add more patrol officers?

But I'm saying excluding these four officers with your officers in training. Essentially, they're not currently out on the beat on their own.

Okay, I just don't want the perception that like, you know, hey, we're removing this, so we're in the need of having four more officers on the street right now, and because we don't do this, we're making our city less safe. I think that's not a valid view of it.

So removing these four officers is not going to make the streets more unsafe? Okay. Second to that, on the dispatchers, I know that you've had an issue because of the pay. What's the staffing level that you're trying to be at, and what's your current staffing level?

Like you said, you're more in need of the communication officers. In my professional opinion, yes, sir.

Question. Again, I want to go back to the new growth. With the new growth revenue that we're going to receive, now, maybe you answered this earlier, but how can we not utilize that to support the, you know, with the additions of the... you know, the police officers and the communications. Why couldn't we utilize that $1.2 million worth of new growth to support this versus raising the rate?

But again, using the rationale that you guys just pointed to me, here you have the four communications dispatchers and the four police officers staffing here as part of that.

Okay, so on page 51 over here, in 2020, our tax rate was 0.5121.

Yeah, it was on page 51. Okay. No, it's on the... This one, sir? It was on the PowerPoint. It was on the very front of the budget PPT.

Oh, yes, yes. Okay. And so in 2020, it was 0.5121. And then in 21, it remained the same. It dropped in 2022, dropped again in 2023. went back up 2024, went up again in 2025, and then again in 2026. So, I mean, and I understand what everybody's saying, but being up on the dais and also hearing the residents to be heard when they come up to speak about wanting to see more police traffic, wanting fixed roadways, wanting sidewalks. We can't do that if we just keep lowering everything. And I understand that there's growth, but we do have property owners that move in that do not pay because of unfun

I'm in agreeance. I definitely want to give the police department what they need. But also, us as council, we're relying on you and... Mr. James and Sarah, James, to increase our revenue, increase our profit. I want shirts to prosper. I want us to increase that revenue so we don't have to raise the tax rate and our first responders can be fully equipped to provide quality service to our city. We were the safest city last year. That says a lot right there. So we're relying on you, Mr. Williams and your staff, come up with some way to increase our profits and make the city prosperous. That's my

I haven't heard anybody else mention the excess fund balance. I don't know where people's thoughts are on that. Because that could make me more comfortable with it if I knew that others were more interested in putting it towards future debt than just putting it in the bank with very little to no interest.

No, I'm talking about the, well, you had proposed $5 million for the reserve.

That's what I'm saying. I have an interest in using some of that so that we lower that future debt so that actual homeowners see a benefit to it.

I ANSWERED IT EARLIER, SO I'M FINE WITH 5175 BECAUSE I SAID 5252, SO. OKAY.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT WHAT MACALUSO WAS SPEAKING ABOUT USING THAT 5 MILLION, AND I UNDERSTAND THEY WON'T SEE IT FOR A COUPLE YEARS NOW, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO LOOK INTO.

So the only way we can get those four dispatch officers for this budget year is to go up to 5175.

Then I would go with the 5175 so we can get the dispatch officers and not cut any other positions.

I am a proponent of having... giving the chief all the resources he needs to include the police officers and the communication officers. I've been there, I've seen what the dispatchers, the lack of resources that they have and they're doing a tough job over there and I've seen it. I think there's, again, ways that we can work efficiencies to keep the rate at the same level. and still offer these and still increase the manpower that we need. So at this time, I'm going to say no. I want to keep the rate at 5118.

So right now, we're at 5-2. Yeah. 5-2? 5-2.

I'm with Council Member Davis. I don't know how we can cut any positions all the way around the board because, I mean, parks are needed just as much as any other position that we have. So I would just try to – I would run the numbers to see what things would look like and how the cards fall. We did, if we just kept the no new revenue rate, well, the 0.5118 is what they're recommending, and then also the 0.575. Let's see what that look like. I mean, the 0.5175.

Steve, can you clarify again on the total ongoing revenues over expenditures? You had the $250,000 on there on the sheet that you handed us.

But that doesn't offset it enough to add the dispatchers?

No, I'm just, the way I'm reading it is that if it was at the 5118, the revenues over expenditures would offset the cost of the communication officers.

We're kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul at that point.

Is there anything that council would like to see from the city manager and the staff going forward?

I just think, you know, some options here. You know, just give us a good picture, some options that we can look at. And if, you know, if we can't keep the rate at 5118, we have to go up to the new revenue rate, then I think for me, this is the reason why. You gotta give me the good why of why we can't do with this rate and we have to go up this rate. It's just my concern, just all the way around us, the economy is just, everything is going up. Our gas price is going up, grocery bill is going up. And to me, you know, I hate to see that our, you know, our rate, you know, everything else, this go

Mr. Williams, I want to add to that. Give us options where we don't have to lay anybody off. I don't want to cut anybody. We need people in all departments, and it's not fair to cut somebody off. But if you can give us options where we can cut without laying people off, now we're talking.

I could see myself supporting the 51.75 just to make sure that the dispatchers are ended. But like I said, I'd like to see that we commit to taking down the future debt so that we can see the benefit here in a couple years and kind of what offset that current increase.

I think that that should be at the beginning, that that should be one of the considerations.

Any other guidance from any of the council members?

Well, I think some wanted you to show how you can keep the rate the same, but add the four officers and the communication officers, which is 624,000, which I think you said at that point you'd have to find cuts in other departments. I know I don't support that, but I think that's fine.

Yeah, I would... Just to kind of clear up the waters a little bit, I would do the 0.5118. We're trying to bring on the personnel, but also showing us what we're going to also miss out on, or as far as what services you're going to have to cut back or positions that you might have to do away with in order to make that work. and then what it looks like with 0.5175.

Taking a deeper dive into the budget to see how we can make that happen, if at all possible. And if so, what are we going to have to give up in order to make that happen to keep that rate or to go to the other rate and bringing on the four dispatchers? And if we can, officers, but at minimum the four dispatchers.

Yeah, raising it to the 51-75 and adding the four dispatchers. Okay.

At that point, I think the only thing that would happen is that the four police officers wouldn't be added, but everything else would just stay the same.

Any other council member would like to say anything different?

I'd like to see how we can increase our revenue.

Yeah, I know another way kind of like leading to what Council Member Guerrero is saying is if we can see what we can do to bring more retail in, that definitely helps offset, takes the burden off our taxpayers. But if we're going to be doing that, then we also need to see what we can do to kind of help those businesses get going because I know there's a lot of businesses that have reached out to me that have stated that it's very hard to get things moving and going forward as they're trying to build insurance. So whatever we can do to streamline that, not so much to cut back or give up money,

Does no, the council member has any other questions and then we'll go ahead and in the workshop, unless you have one.

Sounds good. We'll go ahead and if there are no other questions, we'll adjourn the meeting at 7-11.