City Council - Regular Meeting

CHRIS, SINCE YOU JUST MENTIONED IT, THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS I WAS SAVING FOR THE END, BUT I HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE ABOUT WE'RE RAISING THEIR TAXES AND I TELL THEM WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. CAN YOU OR SOMEBODY FROM THE STAFF PLEASE EXPLAIN WHO HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND HOW IS IT FORMULATED AND HOW DO THEY MAKE THESE DECISIONS?

AND SINCE WE'RE HERE, I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, I WAS WATCHING THE NEWS YESTERDAY, THIS TAX RATE WENT OUT TO VOTERS And they approved a certain amount, right?

NEW SPEAKER THE VOTERS APPROVED. NEW SPEAKER YES, MA'AM. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

Yes, Councilman Duryea. Are you going to show a slide that actually shows how much the homeowners' taxes are going to go up in cash, like for different value houses, how much in money per year that's going to go up?

Councilman Crenshaw. On page twenty nine of your twenty twenty seven proposed operating budget it has a statement of revenues and expenditures and for fiscal year twenty twenty seven it indicates a hundred and eighty million five hundred two thousand for expenses and then it says the revenue loss basically the deficit THAT YOU'RE PROJECTING FOR 2027 IS ONLY $605,000. WHAT RATE IS THAT BASED ON? WHAT TAX RATE? NEW SPEAKER WE'RE GETTING THERE. NEW SPEAKER YOU CAN'T JUST TELL ME.

NEW SPEAKER 695. OKAY. And that is impressive. I'm not saying that rate's going to work, but that's impressive that you would have reduced what we're deficit spending and have been for the last four years down to $605,000. What is, and I'm not, and I know no one's probably going to know this off the top of your head, but what have we spent deficit-wise the last four years? I know right now we're projecting $5 million. FOR 2026, WHAT DO WE DO IN 25 AND 24? IT'S OKAY. IT'S OKAY. BUT LAST YEAR WAS ONLY 2.5? 2.5 AND 2024 WAS 3.6. 3.6. THANK YOU.

ON ONE OF THE PREVIOUS SLIDES THAT YOU CUT THE 5 MILLION OUT OF THIS YEAR'S BUDGET AND YOU SAID THAT THAT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE.

I noticed that it said salary freeze. Who is that applied to? Who is that going across the board or where? When I saw that I had a question mark. What's up?

Councilman Williams whenever you go through this process and and you know you look at a tax increase do you kind of dive into what impact that could have on sales tax revenue I mean if it's more money coming out of somebody's pocket that is less money for them to spend so it has to be connected.

I SAW A LOT OF EFFICIENCY THINGS AND CUTS, BUT ARE WE LOOKING AT FINDING MONEY? IS THERE A WAY TO GO AND FIND THIS $2 MILLION OR A WAY TO INCREASE, BRING SOME MORE MONEY IN? WHAT ARE WE DOING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET SOME MORE MONEY IN HERE?

Councilman Crenshaw. If you could go back to the slides you had before where you give us the two options there that don't require a supermajority. It was, it might have been before this one where you, it had no, yeah, perfect. This one. Okay. So under the, if we elect the current rate plus the geo debt rate, it's about a $2.1 million additional deficit to the $600,000 deficit in the binder on page 29, correct? Correct. And does that include a 2% cost of living increase?

Okay. And so you had earlier said that 2% cost of living increase was about $816,000? Yes, sir. Okay. Also, if we did not do require the additional contribution that employees have to pay, if we did not require employees to pay that additional, did we increase it 9% or it's increased to 9%?

INCREASED AT 9%. SO THEN THAT WOULD BE ABOUT A NET REDUCTION OF ABOUT A HALF A MILLION, CORRECT? BECAUSE WHILE IF WE DID NOT GIVE THE COLA, I ALSO THINK IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO NOT ASK EMPLOYEES TO PAY MORE ON THE CONTRIBUTION. SO IT WOULD BE ABOUT 500,000 LESS OF THAT 2.1 MILLION, RIGHT? SO IT WOULD BE ABOUT 1.5?

NEW SPEAKER I THOUGHT THE PREVIOUS SLIDE SAID $300,000.

And so again, I'm just, I'm running numbers trying to figure out how to get that 2.1 million down to something maybe a bit more acceptable. Tell me where we're at on travel. I know you said that you were reducing travel costs 60%.

Fair to say that probably can't be cut anymore.

So the travel includes mandatory training for, like, law enforcement and firemen?

Oh, it's travel and training. Okay, well, your slide earlier just said travel. I just think of a bunch of people flying around on airplanes.

So if I said that I didn't think it was a good idea and we had the votes not to increase the employee contribution that they have to make to that, that would not be a net savings on the current deficit projection for 2027?

Okay. And then my last question, if let's say the 2% was approved on the 2 million that we're going to be an additional deficit, have you identified what each department would have to, I've heard this happening before with organizations, each department's asked to look at its discretionary budget and cut a certain percentage in order to get us to the numbers that we need. If let's, and I'm not in any way trying to say I think that this is going to happen, but if the council adopted the current rate with the voter approved November bond election debt amount, what would each department have to c

WELL, WE WANT TO SAY THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO CUT.

AND THEN FINALLY, WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE Staff is recommending that we increase property taxes, which is the city's portion. So I know the rate you're recommending is going from basically 65 cents to 69 cents, which is about 4 cents. What does that 4 cents represent overall in an increase in someone's property tax bill at the end of the year?

And I know in the figures about if you had a $150,000 house, what's the yearly increase dollar-wise is around 80 or 100 bucks or whatever.

So if you do, yeah. So Councilman Williams just said 6%. Is that accurate? We're basically...

And so we still don't have a percentage that we can talk to that that we're basically asking to increase taxes.

YEAH. SO WE'RE TODAY STAFF HAS PROPOSED UNDERSTAND THAT THE VALUES ARE INCREASING SO EVEN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WE DIDN'T INCREASE YOUR TAXES YOUR TAXES STILL WENT UP BUT THAT'S A TAXING ENTITY AND WE HAVE THERE'S NOTHING WE AS THIS COUNCIL CAN DO TO CONTROL THAT. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THAT FIVE PERCENT NUMBER AND THANK YOU FOR

SO I GUESS IF WE BROKE IT DOWN EVEN FURTHER, WE COULD SAY $53 FOR THE YEAR. RIGHT. I MEAN, IF WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT PLAIN, WE COULD SAY $150,000 HOUSE WOULD BE INCREASED $53 FOR THE YEAR. OK, now I'm going to get to my question, which was with Proposition A, how much of what projects are being done now? Could that number perhaps instead of assuming all the debt, right? Because that's what we would be doing. Proposition A, all debt would be maybe we could increase it incrementally, right? So what can that happen or is that not allowed to happen?

But how much of that is needed now? Because we're not, I mean, I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong, but we're doing $38 million worth of work in 27?

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING. CAN WE BREAK DOWN WHAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO REDUCE WHAT WE'RE SAYING WE NEED? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

NEW SPEAKER AT AN EARLIER MEETING YOU TOLD US that as we need that money, that's when you issue the debt, you don't get the whole 58 million today. Spread that out over later years. Correct, correct.

On the increase in the employee benefits, that 9%, is that because they're charging 9% more, or is that just because to bring in more revenue? Is the insurance company, did the price go up on it 9%?

Talked about the freeze, which we already shorthanded. UNDERSTAFFED. SO THAT'S GOING TO PUT MORE WORK ON THE PEOPLE THAT ARE STILL HERE. AND THE BENEFITS GOING UP 9%. AND IF YOU SAY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM THE 2% COLA, BASICALLY THAT'S A CUT IN PAY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO. SO THAT'S ON JUST THE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES. FOR THE MEDIAN CIVILIAN. Have y'all looked at, when you was talking about your fleet and everything, what you had to spend on vehicles and stuff, have you looked at leasing them?

And that hiring freeze is not going to help with retention either. Especially if you're doing more work and getting less money. That's not going to help with retention at all. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER.

COUNCILMAN TURNER. NEW SPEAKER MR. BOONE, WHEN YOU SAY WE DO LEASE, AND I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT FINANCING VEHICLES EARLIER, IS THERE A REASON WE DO MIXED USE WITH OUR CURRENT SITUATION? WOULD YOU SAY LEASING IS MORE COST EFFICIENT THAN FINANCING?

Your mic. What's the... What's the least expensive? Where you can save the most money? Do you do it leasing or do you do it buying?

You're not done? Just enough for me to make an educated decision. I like cost comparison on both. I know we kind of throwing it back and forth, but just for me to be able to make a concrete decision, I like to actually see it. My next thing is, are we to the point where you're looking for direction or you just kind of So are we at the point where you're asking for our opinion and what we had on everything or what?

yes sir and uh it's just some things in limbo that i kind of struggle with because even with you know councilwoman sherwood x early about more revenue coming in and we we're kind of saying we're working on it but i know we talked about these industrial agreements for quite some time like i understand working on it but the part we in right now we kind of need to see where we at before we make these decisions because one thing that i've learned since i've been on council i'm just no longer comfortable making decisions about knowing all the facts and seeing financial analysis of before i give thi

And also, we kind of discussed some of these high claims and insurance, and we kind of kicked around maybe an in-house doctor. We did an analysis to see if it would be beneficial for us to go in that direction versus continue to see these costs rising because of, you know, if an employee says they're sick, they don't go see our doctor first. They go straight to the emergency room or where they may choose.

Yeah, and just lastly for me, our regular employees don't have the pleasure of a union to negotiate on their behalf. So I have to speak to that. I have to explain to employers all the time when we give increases one way, and I gotta look them in the face and speak to why it's not the same for them. So for me, I just can't in good faith not do nothing for the employees knowing we're doing a hiring freeze and an increase in the premium cost for the insurance. Also, I'm not going to sugarcoat it. I'm not big on just raising it just to get to 20%. I can't talk around it. So me personally, I need u

And this is why I asked early, and I've asked multiple times, why bring increases to us that clearly we may not be able to financially afford if we're a part of a financial negotiating team and it's presented to council we're not in day-to-day operations now the decisions are on the backs of us but we're not in day-to-day operations so that's what my issue is by saying yes again because ultimately it falls back on us similarly when a decision is made it's blown out to the community the council said yes but the recommendation didn't come from the council so i i can't operate in good faith that

And I'd like to piggyback on that because what we're basically saying is police and fire, we negotiated these contracts that basically we can't afford and now everything else needs to be cut and nobody's going to say it, but I will, right? We have contractual obligations for over 60% of the budget going to a particular sect of people, right? And now can we go back to them and say, hey, will you not take a raise this year? Can we go back to them and say, hey, can we not contractually do this 3, 5, 7, 6, 8%? No, we can't, right? There are instances where cities have been on the brink of bankrupt

Well, I think Mr. Williams wanted to go next, Mayor, and that's fine.

And I heard it at several meetings about public safety and how much we spend, and it's tough for me to continue to let them be the, you know, the whipping child of our budgetary issues. I just think that is so unfair. I mean, we can point to, you know, some of us weren't here, but we've spent $5 million on the AT&T building for a piece of property that's now vacant, that's sitting there, that's not collecting any tax money. We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on hotel studies, on bond studies, and to sit up here every single meeting and say, public safety, public safety. Public safety

Councilman Crenshaw. And just to echo on that, I mean, yes, we spend maybe higher than the state average in public safety, but we also have one of the highest crime rates in the state. So, you know, when your crime rate's high, you've got to spend more on public safety. And when you ask people what issues are impacting Beaumont and keeping our growth down, it's crime in the school district. So, you know, we've got to address that. Okay, so here's what I've been wanting to say for the last 15 minutes. I went to BeaumontBonds.com, one of these websites we paid that high dollar consultant out of

Yes. That's why to me that just that's already setting us back. Right. And so what I would much rather staff had done was said, look, we told voters this is going to cost you an extra three dollars and fourteen cents a month in November of twenty twenty five. Voters approved it, and when you came to us with a proposal on the tax rate, we could have taken our current rate and added the $3.14 a month. That's already higher than the no new revenue rate of 68 cents. That would have been somewhere between the 68 cents and the 69 cents. So it's things like that. It seems like we're almost up here fi

Yes, sir. And accountability is one big thing. But, you know, we also have made decisions with accountability as far as on this council with settlements and lawsuits. We made decisions with, you know, services that we no longer oversee or take care of. And we made them decisions together as a council. All of us voted on not only those decisions, but also we voted on increases to public safety. Again, I reiterate. I ask all the time for financial forecasts as well. We can know how this will impact us if we make this decision. I voted for it, but what I'm saying is, in the future, it would make

piggyback of what councilman williams said of course you don't want to put this on the back of a single set of employees but what about we kind of put it on the back of the rest of the employees that's that's my thing i mean they're all important those guys that fix the the hole over there the ones that fix the water thing um by the courthouse we're leaving one and going straight over there all our employees are important we shouldn't put this on the back of any of them at all none of the employee that's that's the only thing we're saying can't put don't put on the back of anyone and i want to

NEW SPEAKER I JUST WANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT ALL OUR EMPLOYEES, THEY HAVE FAMILIES. AND WE'RE GOING TO NOT GIVE THEM A RAISE AND GO UP ON THE INSURANCE, THAT'S BASICALLY A CUT IN PAY. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING TO DO MORE WORK BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY SHORTHANDED. AND I THINK ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO EFFECT. They all work hard. Public safety, water department, drainage, everybody, you know. So I don't want to put it on the back of just one set of people. But we got to take into effect. These people have families to support. Evidently, they must like working for the city of Beaumont

WHAT I'M SAYING WAS I WOULD RATHER STAFF HAD COME TO US WITH THE AMOUNT THAT VOTERS APPROVED AND VOTED ON IN NOVEMBER OF 2025 INSTEAD OF LESS, WHICH I ASSUME WHEN WE BORROW THE OTHER $20 MILLION THAT WE HAVEN'T BORROWED YET NEXT YEAR, THE YEAR AFTER THAT, WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND ASK TO INCREASE OUR GEO DEBT amount again and i just think that we're fighting against ourselves it would have been a lot easier from the beginning if we would have just come in and said voters approved the three dollars and fourteen cents increase a month on 150 000 house that's what they're expecting and that's

And I said that several times, and I've been trying to figure out why are we performing as if this hadn't already been approved? Because people already knew that taxes were going to go up. We're saying we're not raising taxes. Yes, we are, because they said so. Either you're going to go with what the people have already said, or you're going to not perform what they have already said is necessary to do, which would have been simpler because, yes, we're arguing about something that must happen.

THE BALLOT LITERALLY SAID THIS IS A TAX INCREASE. WHICH STATE LAW REQUIRED. NEW SPEAKER COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS.

NEW SPEAKER THE TAX RATE PROPOSED TODAY IT IS ABOVE Right? I mean, I'm not following.

It's only proposed to go up to 60. The 65 plus the geo debt rate only increases to 67. So that's why the $3.04 on 68 cents threw me off because I thought we said this was going to cost more on the bond. And so the ballot said the $3.14. That's what we educated voters on on the increase would be, which they approved. And so to me, that should probably be somewhere between the, it's less than what staff is recommending today, but it's higher than the no new revenue rate. I'm assuming going by y'all's numbers.

The rate with the current rate plus the bond rate was like 0.675.

And the no new revenue rate is what 0.683%

But what I'm saying is they did not include all of the bond money on the geo debt rate that they proposed to us because they've only borrowed $38 million. But taxpayers already in November approved. I'll follow you now. I'm assuming that's what they did.

I don't know that. THE INCREASE THAT'S GOING TOWARDS THE BOND, THAT MONEY CAN'T BE USED ON THE REST OF THE BUDGET. IT JUST HAS TO BE USED ON PROJECTS THAT GOES WITH THE PROPOSITION.

But is staff going to come back to us next year when we borrow the other $20 million and say that the INS has gone up again and we need to increase again? That's what I'm saying. I don't understand why we broke that up when... Voters already approved it in November. Why didn't staff come to us and say, this is what the rate needs to be because this is what was approved?

And that makes more sense then. So in essence, the $0.03 represents only the $38 million out of the $58 million that we borrowed. And that if we would have borrowed the full $58 million already, that $0.03 would likely be higher, maybe around $0.045 or whatever. And you would have recommended the higher rate. And so that's why we're not doing that right now.

And that's what I said. And to me, it would have made sense if we did it all at once, but now I understand why we're saying we're having to break it up because we can't increase, is it the INS? Okay, we can't increase the INS over what it actually is. Gotcha. So I think I'm still back then, well, for whatever it matters, I'm still back then at the .67.

Ms. Moon, at the different rates that you showed us, how would that each different one affect our, I think she had mentioned before, our bond rating?

I'M SORRY. THAT'S WHAT IT'S DOING. PLAN TO GET THAT. YES.

Whenever you're having these conversations and they're expressing the concern and where we're headed, I know that you weren't in that position and Chris wasn't in his, but have they said if they shared the same concern with the shrinking fund balance over the last four or five years, or is this the first time that they've said we're now concerned about it?

BUT SURELY THEY WERE CONCERNED AS THE GENERAL FUND WENT FROM $50-plus million to where it is now. I mean, they've raised these concerns every year, I guess, is my...

AND WHEN WOULD LIKE A TRIGGER HAPPEN I GUESS TO WHERE IT WOULD IMPACT YOUR BOND RATING?

So whenever we bring this back, we finally approve everything. Are y'all to go back and look through everything and make sure that everything was figured out right and correct and double check and all that stuff? Yes, sir.

You said last mile? So if it comes from there, if they ship it, then Beaumont will get the sales tax off of it?

Not will jump into this one more question I just thought about. Y'all were looking at this COLA increase. Did you get to 2% and you just stopped there? Y'all didn't look at what 3% would be like or 2.5%?

I hope we can continue looking and see if we can make that happen.

COUNCILMAN TURNER. NEW SPEAKER I KNOW WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THIS. IS IT STILL ONE LINE? DID WE LOOK INTO A COMMERCIAL LINE AND A REGULAR LINE?

YES, SIR. So my question is, well, there's more than one, but first, when are we going to start selling our methane? Do you know when that line is going to come on and we're going to start? On the gas line?

And my other question is, you know, how many cities in Texas provide free refuge pickup? When I say the claw, basically, that comes in and picks up solid waste, trees.

Have you looked at what kind of savings that would bring if we just did that once a month?

Now, if you have tires, people dropping, bringing tires to the landfill, is that something you could charge them for?

Do the refuge on the curbs. Because I know a lot of tree services will give you two prices. Our price to haul it to the landfill or another price for us to put on your curb and let it be picked up for free. Same thing goes with remodeling. They'll say, hey, we'll bring a trailer out here or we'll just dump everything on your curb and let the city pick it up. And so I would like to see charges.

NEW SPEAKER I know. I know. But I'm just thinking outside the box. NEW SPEAKER Correct. Everything that we handle, there is no revenue for.

NEW SPEAKER Sure. So on that same note, as business owners, and I know there's a bunch of us up here that are business owners, when a department or a company is losing money, you don't just look at your administration staff. You begin to look at the efficiency of each department. and a department head may not think something needs to be cut good examples good sam that saved us three hundred thousand dollars but it wasn't asked to be cut from the budget so i would like to see an efficiency study you know uh water department drainage department how many men do we actually need on a crew how many

NEW SPEAKER SO THIS IS THE MR. MAYOR IS OKAY.

NEW SPEAKER IS THIS THE SAME GENTLEMAN THAT CAME AND SPOKE TO US AND I ASKED HIM I SAID HOW CAN WE HAVE GOOD NUMBERS WHEN WE HAVEN'T GIVEN THEM GOOD NUMBERS BECAUSE WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW HOW MUCH IS NOT BEING COLLECTED ON OUR AND HE ACTUALLY LAST YEAR CAME TO US AND SAID WE NEED TO DO A WATER RATE INCREASE AND THEN CAME BACK THIS TIME AND SAID MY NUMBERS WERE WRONG WE DIDN'T NEED TO. so i before we start raising rates i think that we need to make sure that we have a hundred percent collection on these i mean we we have no idea how much money we're not collecting and everybody's going to see a

Yes, sir. Chris, just a quick question. On that slide where we're talking about $9 million next year in water improvements, I think it was the next one. Yes. So annual water line replacement, 9.1 million for 2027. What does that 9.1 million include? Is that just the cost of going out and actually replacing the line and the materials? Or does that 9.1 million include the salaries that we pay water people to do?

Okay. And maybe I'm just not seeing it really quickly, but what's the amount we're going to spend next year to improve the sewer lines so they don't back up in people's houses?

WHAT'S GOING ON DOWNTOWN? WHY ARE WE SPENDING 4.6 MILLION ON SEWER THERE? THAT SEEMS LIKE A BIG NUMBER AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE CALLS WE GET ABOUT SEWER AREN'T NECESSARILY DOWNTOWN AND THEY'RE IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND WILL THAT HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON SEWER ISSUES ACROSS THE CITY OR IS IT MAINLY JUST FOCUSED ON DOWNTOWN?

NEW SPEAKER I HEAR YOU. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. SO I GENERALLY TELL PEOPLE WHEN THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE CAN'T FLUSH THEIR TOILETS, I SAY WE SPEND 6 MILLION A YEAR TRYING TO IMPROVE THAT OUT OF OUR ENTERPRISE FUND. WHAT IS, AND I DON'T NEED AN EXACT AMOUNT, BUT JUST A BALLPARK FIGURE, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THAT FOR FISCAL YEAR 27? could you repeat that question so I generally I tell people when they say they can't flush their toilets to say the city spends about six million dollars a year improving our sewer lines so that you can flush your toilet when it rains it look

Councilman Turner. This kind of came up briefly earlier, but in the past, I know the city wanted a certain amount of revenue in case of a storm, the city would have to get everything back going. But correct me if I'm wrong or to my understanding, if it's a storm, don't we now pay a deductible versus having to pay everything out of pocket up front?

but but the quick i just want to know in case of a storm do we pay a deductible now or is it the way it was structured when we're experiencing the storms where the city had to put the funding up and we had to wait to bring be reimbursed MEANING THE WAY WE'RE INSURED NOW.

to perform this uh the repairs ourselves in order to get the city back operation and functional so those are some some things um to consider and see and the thing about that is and i know that's at a level a federal level we can't control but similar to the city's mind frame at the time when covert took place was maybe we do this and it will come back and As of right now, that hasn't happened. And that's what scares me in these situations when you spend these funds up front with the expectation of getting them back in return.

AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A TOUGH SITUATION TO BE IN, DUE TO WE DO ARE NOW SET UP THROUGH THE RISK POOL, BUT WE HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED IT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEBODY ON STAFF HAS EXPERIENCED IT. THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE...

you know insurance isn't going to cover and fema may not now either so that's another thing to consider and that that's something that i'm glad you said that not knowing if it'll even be recovered back that puts us in a very tough situation that's correct okay nothing else that's all we have okay

Is there a motion. This is item two. Item two, yes, sir.

You lost your money. At 69.5, and we do that. In order for this to pass at the September 8th hearing, it's going to take five votes.

Okay. So, but we could approve it today with only four? It makes no sense, but okay. State law. I'm against it.

And I'm just clarifying, the no new revenue tax rate of point, I'm just going to say .683, that would require a public hearing? That's what I'm confirming right now. That's what I'm asking. Well, I don't think it does based upon how I just read this. But who's answering that? Nick also for clarification it can be let's just say does require a hearing in September it only requires four votes because it's. The no new revenue rate right.

So without a hearing and in order to approve this rate in September when we officially adopt it, it would only require a simple majority of four votes. Correct. Thank you so much.

I'll make one. Okay. I make a motion to amend the proposed tax rate to the 0.675963. Second. There is a motion to, where is that amount?

It's the current rate plus the... Plus what?

I make a motion to change the tax rate to the current rate plus the addition of the voter approved GO debt.

yeah this is one of the options that we were given in our little option chart and it's the current rate plus the g o debt which the voters approved in november of twenty twenty five and that is point six seven six nine five yes and that is not the only debt that we have though there's additional debt so essentially we have three cents that is going to the is on that fund can only be spent on debt

And I understand that, but that's not what his motion is.

Which goes to my earlier point that I would wish that we would have made a proposal on the current rate plus the geo debt to include what voters were told in November of 2025 when we said that it was the effective of $3.14 a month for a house of value of $150,000.

I KNOW, BUT PEOPLE VOTED TO INCREASE THEIR PROPERTY TAX BILLS $3.14 A MONTH ON A $150,000 HOUSE. TO ME IT MAKES SENSE IF STAFF WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED A RATE THAT REFLECTED WHAT THE VOTERS ALREADY APPROVED.

Completely understood, but I don't think that's his motion.

But that's debt that's already got to be paid. Where does the money come from?

Someone needs to move for the no new revenue.

rate would be all dead is that what we're trying to do. I don't know what you're trying to see is no new revenue.

current rate plus the geo debt and the 2023 adopted which was proposed have both been denied and just to clarify if you did the current rate plus all debt it would require a public hearing and it would require five votes that's correct and what we're going to get the money for the rest of the day come out of operations yeah

So that's how we're going to cut the cut. That's going to basically be including cutting that 2% because they're going to have to use that to pay the debt.

But it didn't cut in the 2%. It would be basically dipping deeper into the rainy day fund or our reserve. So instead of us being where I think we're going to be right at 20%.

What percentage are we at on the no new revenue rate? Are we at? Okay. And just for clarification, because we've never done this before, if we do approve that, do we then later have to vote to change the ordinance to where we don't go below the 20%?

So we can just violate the policy and move on?

Ah, I like that. All right. You said we're going to have to get this money out the rainy day fund. I thought this whole plan was for us to stop taking money out the rainy day fund to pay our bills. So we're going to adopt something that makes us go into the rainy day fund to pay the bills.

Current adopted doesn't include the bond election.

Figure out something to get four votes and.

I want to know, why would you vote against the current rate plus the geodic? We've got to pay that. That's right there, that .6950.

You just voted against that. We just made a motion. No, I didn't. I just made a motion for it.

And so did others. Or we can go in between those two.

WE'LL TRY. I JUST DON'T LIKE THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED, HONESTLY. IT'S CONFUSING. IT KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER CRENSHAW SAID EARLIER, JUST THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED, I JUST DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE.

I just think for the record we the language didn't start out right and it created some theater and division drama all the things that Beaumont is known for but now that we're here I think we need to we've got to do this there's work that must be done but we didn't start out on a good foot with the language. What does that look like going forward? I don't know. Can this be tabled? Is that an option?

NEW SPEAKER AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE APPROXIMATE 1 MILLION IS NEGATIVE 1 MILLION.

IT THAT NEW ONE OF POINT SIX EIGHT SIX POINT FOUR THREE. THAT INCLUDE THE COLA. YES. THAT INCLUDE GOING UP ON THEIR INSURANCE RATES.

and not to be disagreeable chris but actually it's going to be one point six million because your chart here counted the point six nine five twenty twenty three adopted rate would only be a six hundred thousand dollar deficit in twenty seven but the current rate plus voter approved prop a is an additional one million IN DEBT OR DEFICIT SPENDING FOR 2027. SO WHILE IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAD, IT'S STILL A $1.6 MILLION DEFICIT. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, when there's a vote everybody's clear uh and again i know we've had a long day and i hate to keep putting y'all on the spot

AND WHILE WE'RE, I MEAN, I GUESS, ARE WE DISCUSSING? YES. It's unfortunate that we're in this position because voters in November of 25 approved a tax increase. The ballot was very clear. It says this is a tax increase in big, bold letters, which is required by state law for good reason. But in reality, it didn't increase taxes until city council came along and said, adopted the new rate and that's unfortunate because it's putting us in this position but at the same time voters approved it. And but it is confusing this is also the first time you know November twenty five is the first time the

AT OUR LAST MEETING, THE BUDGET WORK, WHENEVER THAT WAS, YOU ASKED FOR OUR DIRECTION. AND YOU ASKED FOR WHERE WE STAND. WHAT RATE WE WANT TO GIVE YOU. AND THERE WERE THOSE OF US UP HERE THAT SAID WE DON'T WANT TO MOVE. AND THERE WERE OTHERS THAT SAID THEY DID. i've made a motion we voted on it i would implore those that that instructed the city manager and staff to move in a direction to to make a motion to reflect what you instructed them to do two weeks ago

I made a motion based off what I thought would be appropriate and right, which was the proposed budget, because we have a city manager and staff that made a recommendation based off the debt that voters approved and the bonds and the certificates of obligation that we have. And this is why I proposed that we go with what had been proposed and it didn't pass. So with that being said, in an effort of compromise, I'd be happy to support one of my colleagues that can come up to the numbers that cover our debts i don't want to hear any growling stomachs because people are eating next door they're j

NEW SPEAKER I HAVE SOME DISCUSSION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY GOING TO DISCUSS? SOMETHING ABOUT SPENDING MONEY?

Me how many other hauling. Garbage franchisees do we have I know we have republic I know we have I'm assuming waste management we have twelve right now I twelve.

And do we have any idea about what those 12 generate for us a year in gross receipts?

Sir hello where what other cities in texas do you operate in other than houston.

And do you plan on bringing your waste to our city landfill? Yes.

Okay. If you're already in the area, how are you operating if you don't have a franchise agreement? We're outside of the area. Oh, okay. So you're in the county, I guess? Yes, sir. Okay.

Okay, and so the cities then that you service in addition to Houston is I guess orange and. Yes, sir, like needling grows, I mean we're and you already have franchise agreements with those cities so I don't have to have the areas I'm in right now okay okay so we're your second franchise agreement other than the city of Houston yes. They have like an application for this with like references and.

My apologies. I've been in this industry in this area for 42 years.

How many trucks are y'all planning on operating in our area?

Is it appropriate under these types of agreements to have any kind of upfront payment or anything like that?

Is that, do you know if that's appropriate?

Understood. Just looking for an additional way to generate revenue since that's such a hot topic. What do you know about your current use of our landfill is? Do you have any idea just in general what you're spending with our landfill?

And do you have a certain customer or you just have broad customers or is there a certain plant here that you service?

I have one question. Yes, sir. Several percent of gross revenues, how much is that in dollars?

I don't know if I'll ask you or her. Can you explain exactly the relationship between the Botanical Gardens and the City of Beaumont?

NEW SPEAKER How much is the small stipend that you all get from the city?

YOU ALL HAVE A WONDERFUL ORGANIZATION. YOU DO A GREAT JOB. THE BAUMONT BOTANICAL GARDENS ARE BEAUTIFUL. I'VE BEEN TO EVENTS THERE. AND YOU DO A GREAT JOB. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE VOTING ON ANYTHING TODAY, RIGHT? BUT I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WANT TO DO. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

I just wanted to call up Mr. Raggett and get his ideas on what's going on with the Botanical Garden. Or his views.

Your ideas about the relationship between the Botanical Garden and the city of Beaumont. I mean, you with them.

NEW SPEAKER I'VE BEEN OUT THERE AND WEEDED THE FLOWER GUARDS BEFORE.

On discussion on this, I'm just going to ask counsel.

And we can also, I mean, they said more than once, we could approve it. And when we have the public hearing, we can go down on it, we just can't go up. That's correct.

What's the difference, Mr. Boone, in the price in dollars for a $150,000 house between the 0.686043 and 0.683976?

Yeah but that okay well that's. Less than a half a cent right. IS THAT A HUNDREDTH OF A CENT? SO IT WOULD BE 10 CENTS? NO.

NO NEW REVENUE AND CURRENT RATE PLUS VOTER APPROVED PROP 8.

Okay and I'm sorry to do that assuming your math is right Mister mayor if we if we approve the current rate plus the voter approved prop a. You're saying that would be the increase should be three dollars and thirty eight cents thirty hundred per month on a hundred and fifty four thousand dollar house the issue I have with that is that we told voters in November twenty five that it was only going to go up three dollars and fourteen cents.

yes there's no there's no telling what we paid for that bond calculator from the consultant and no i i do i do agree with that i'm just saying now i've got a bit more of an issue with that rate because it's higher than what we had told people so um let's confirm my math calculation i do have a question yeah all right go ahead so what was added

THAT'S TAKEN IN, I GUESS, THE FULL SCOPE OF DEBT ATTACHED TO THAT PROPOSITION.

SO IS IT ADVISABLE TO TAKE ON, TO INCUR, TO KIND OF TAKE THAT MONEY IN NOW FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT NOT, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THESE PROJECTS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN? SEEMS LIKE A BAD IDEA. I MEAN, JUST TALKING IT OUT LOUD, I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW feel about that.

Well, I hear what you're saying, but correct me if I'm wrong, aren't we going to go out on the additional $20 million that we haven't taken out next year? Isn't that what the plan is?

OK so I thought we were going out on this rate the on this additional twenty million next year which made me think that it was more appropriate to do the current rate plus the full voter approved prop a because we're going to do this rate that we're setting is for taxable values next year and if we're going to go on out for that debt next year then we're basically covering what that additional debts going to be But if we're not going to do that until 28, then maybe that's not a good idea. And I'm not trying to tell you all when you need to go out for that debt, but what is the true advantage t

So you should really go for it whenever you actually are in need of it.

Well, and again, I know I've gone over this before and I hate to harp on it, but this is very unfortunate because now it puts us in the position of when y'all go out on the additional debt in 28, we're going to be right back in the same boat where y'all are going to say our INS is increasing because we've done the additional $20 million in debt. And so then the council is going to have to vote to increase the tax rate to take into consideration the additional INS. when this was all approved by the voters in November of 25. And I wish, knowing what we know now, that we could have done something

Well, I don't want to be misleading either. So let me ask you this. What would the rate be at the 0.67695, which was the rate that you all have originally proposed, plus the $700,000 that we're going to incur in additional costs next year? What's that $700,000 equal on the tax rate?

I get it. I get it. But if you could give us that new rate, and I'm going to make a motion to approve that rate because that is legit, what we've borrowed plus what our additional payment is next year, right?

I understand. I just want that to be clear. But because voters approved that rate in November 25, we'll possibly be able to increase it next year to make up for that higher INS. Yes.

I got you. I just want there to be no confusion that we came in here and voted for something that we hadn't actually incurred the cost in yet. And so I greatly appreciate you telling me about the $700,000. Do we know about what that is increased to the 67, 69, five?

So so that's the way 6, 8, 6, 6, 9, 5, 6, 6, 8, 6, 9, 5, if that's a half cent not doing that right.

I think that would be adding half a cent. Okay, is that it? Well, and what's, you came up with 68, 0? The current right, yeah, the rate that.

Yes, add a half a cent onto the 67.69.5, which is what y'all already told us was the current cost of Prop A.

And it accurately, and just so we're clear from staff so that no one will ever say, well, y'all did fuzzy math up there. It's the current rate plus the GO debt that voters approved in November of 2025 that we have incurred already with borrowing $38 million plus the additional $700,000 that we're going to have to pay next year in 2027.

I know, but we don't have to be perfect today.

There's some people up here that think that we can make those numbers work with cuts. But the 0.683115, again, reflects our current rate plus the money we've already borrowed from the November 2025 Prop A voter-approved bond election plus the additional $700,000 in revenue next year.

thank you all right with that said i make a motion that we adopt a rate of 0.6832 which represents what we think oh you can't do that use the word adopt oh can we say set a proposed rate I make a motion that we set a proposed rate of 0.6832, which represents our current rate plus what voters approved in Prop A from November of 2025 that covers all of our debt service costs through 2027.

Yes, I rounded up. I had 683116. It was 683115, and I went to 6832, period.

Well, if someone would propose that, then we can vote.

Mayor, if you don't mind, can we call for the vote?

And just to be clear, this only requires four votes in the future. Six weeks. When we adopt it.

NEW SPEAKER POTENTIAL. NEW SPEAKER POTEN

i'm concerned this is two meetings in a row where we've had complaints about paratransit in particular this phone in the morning that people got a call and no one's answering i would like for staff to please contact our transit management who we pay over $100,000 a year in management fees to a third party. And we also pay the transit manager $200,000 a year and figure out why it is that people have to call every morning to get a paratransit ride and they can't get people on the phone because no one's answering the phone. that's unacceptable with us spending six million dollars generally a year

Okay. Well, if there's anything that we can do to, you know, help that situation, it sounds like she has a good reason why she hasn't been able to make improvements to her property. And I'd certainly, if I would have known at the time that we voted to condemn that property or that building that that she had pancreatic cancer, you know, I probably wouldn't have voted for that in case if I did, so I'd like to revisit that. The gentleman in the wheelchair whose sidewalk is messed up, can we please get that fixed and reach out to him? And if staff could please email me that address, I'd like to go

I'd like to echo Councilman Crenshaw, the lady with pancreas cancer, pancreatic cancer. I know we voted on it and it's on the demolition list, but if we can help. that's a big deal i have the sidewalk for the gentleman with the sidewalks caved in it i've also been getting several calls about these water bills that are astronomical missing numbers or different new equipment that's being read improperly after people have gone out and hired plumbers There's a church that recently reached out to me. I've sent a few emails out, but I want to address this openly on the mic that I'm concerned. There'

MR. ALEXANDER AND MR. ALBERT-HARRISON ABOUT THE GAS PIPES THAT ARE EXPOSED. IF WE CAN REALLY LOOK INTO IT IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA. LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS LOOK INTO THE SAFETY CONCERN THAT'S BROUGHT TO US ON THE MIC AND AS WELL AS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT OTHER CITIZENS BROUGHT US EARLIER. THANK YOU.

Yeah, I'll I'll I kind of address that Councilwoman LaDonna. I met with the property owners on probably five or six different occasions, brought the city manager in and also the police force to try to solve the problem at the parking lot. The property owners spent $45,000 on extra security through the Beaumont PD. They have also added two or three cameras to link them in with the real-time crime center so the the property owners have have done everything they possibly can to mitigate this the issue that's going on in these parking lots and so uh that's the direction that we're going and that's

Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Durio. Yes, I want y'all to, if you wouldn't mind, speaking with Mr. Sinclair. He has some concerns about sidewalks and bike lanes and walkways. He lives over there behind Chili's, in those apartments over there. If somebody could get in touch with him, I sure would appreciate it. Also, a good friend of mine, Reggie Williams, a retired firefighter, his wife passed this week, so if y'all could keep him in his prayers. He was just 51 years old, a young lady. And also on this budget stuff, man, that's what we were elected to do, to compromise, work together, and