City Commission - Regular Meeting

you you you you

I call this August 11, 2026, City Commission meeting to order. Will you join me in the flag salute?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We have Reverend Mark Chambers come up and lead us in a prayer.

We're going to have a sermon tonight, so Aaron's going to collect the offering here in the corner. Well, God's peace be upon all of us this evening. Since our nation is still celebrating 250 years of freedom, and our city 150 years of serving as a local government, I would like to share something with you this evening about prayer for our city and nation. And back on June 28, 1787, 81-year-old Benjamin Franklin delivered his famous speech to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. facing a bitter stalemate over state representation. He urged the exhausted delegates to open their daily assembly in prayer as they did when they were forming our nation in 1776. Divine Providence, he famously stated that God governs in the affair of man. arguing that if a sparrow cannot fall without notice, an empire could not rise without divine aid, seeking with prayer and divine guidance. Building a nation, he emphasized that effort to construct a government are fertile without divine intervention. Well, the same message is here for us this evening for the future of our city. Franklin moved for the assembly from that day forward. Henceforth, prayer imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business and that one or more of the clergy of the city be requested to officiate that service. myself as a fire, public safety and hospital chaplain, retired pastor, and being part of the Ministerial Association here in Pittsburgh. It's an honor that you have a city manager and we have commissioners who have reached out for us local ministers to come and give to our city meeting a blessing before we continue. our meetings. And this we want to do so we can have another 150 years as a great city and a nation that was founded upon God's blessings and guidance. Having said that, may we pray. God, our creator, we give you thanks for the freedom we have today. We are blessed today, and sadly that our eyes do not see what we have as a nation and as a city of blessings all around us. We are quick to see the bad, but never give thanks for the good we have. Forgive us, Lord, of our blindness of your gifts to us. Father, we ask you to bless this meeting and all the order of business to be discussed this evening. May your divine spirit lead our leaders into their decisions for the future and that our citizens, too, will be open-minded and open-heart. Bless us to work together in peace and harmony. And may we be brothers and sisters in unity as citizens of this great land and of the city of Pittsburgh. Hear this, our prayer, O Lord. Amen.

Thank you, Mark. All right, moving on to public input. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak on any matter, please come forward, state your name and address.

I'll keep it short. Roger Lomchick, 1147 South 220th Street. So we've seen the budget at least. It looks like in total property tax revenue, it's going to collect slightly over $200,000 less than it did last year, which would bring us close to revenue neutral of last year. That, of course, doesn't factor in the valuation increases and or any properties that have come off the rolls since then. It's a dollar amount decrease in total revenue that you're taking, but it may not actually be a tax decrease to the people. It's something that you, if you haven't done, you may want to look at some sample properties around the city to determine are people actually going to see a reduction in taxes or is the city simply going to see a slight reduction in revenue, but not actually change anything. That's one question I had there. I appreciate that the city's worked hard, that the budget is – not the budget. The budget's actually quite a bit more than last year, but that the property tax collected, as it stands right now, looks like it'll be slightly less than last year. But just something to please keep in mind, simply because there's a $200,000 reduction in what – what's coming in through that one channel does not mean people are actually going to see a reduction because things have changed since last year. It's a very fluid situation, as you've been told by a lot of people. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Please come forward.

CHRISTIE BITNER, 1508 BITNER COURT. I'D FIRST LIKE TO SAY THAT THANK YOU FOR TODAY. IT WAS AN EXCITING DAY TO OPEN UP THE KELS BUSINESS CENTER AND THE BEST HOTEL AND LOOKED LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE THERE TO EXPERIENCE IT AND THEY DID A WONDERFUL JOB, I'M GOING TO SAY, AND I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S WORK ON THAT. I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET. Here we are again. I was looking forward to seeing what it might look like for 2027. I thought we wouldn't have a lot of questions and concerns, but we do again. And I'll just start off. I think you all need to really look at what the budget book looks like. I'm not a fan of the documentation on page 31 on. I think it would have been nice to have like the all division, all departments, that page. I think that would have been very helpful for somebody just who's not have a degree in accounting and all that, that they could look at that and they could just track to see all the different departments and what we're spending that way. So when you open the book, the community profile, we had a gain in population, but it was only a gain of 36 people. When you look at what we lost last year and then what we had this year, but it was only a net gain of 36. I found it strange to see that for 25-26 we had a little over 8,000 households, and now for 2027 we're over 15,000, almost 16,000 households. I'm having difficulty understanding how that can happen, and that's a net gain of 7,500 households. The Pittsburgh development from 2013 to 2026 that we see in the graph, It's had a $79.4 million increase from last year, and the jobs are 57 for new jobs for this year. In the city manager's letter to you all, The first sentence says, I present the city of Pittsburgh's 2027 budget, which totaled $74,194,900. But it's actually $76,347,423. The state budget certificates from page 11 to page 31, there's real trouble with the unencumbered balances looking at that. In 2025, I've seen... in the three budget books that are taken note of in this one. There's three different beginning balances. There's two different ending balances. In the 2026 column, we have two different numbers for the beginning balance and a different number for the ending balance. And what was said, the budget authority, we had an increase of $917,808 in the general fund in 2026. We went down 374,016, but yet we're still, that was a 543,792 increase that we've had carry over from last year. The ad valorem, there's no ad valorem page this year. I think that would have been nice to be able to see all those different things, the increment, you know, RHIDs, all that, what we're spending there. You know, last year it showed that the ad valorem for 25 was $767,840. This year it's a $239,059 decrease. The fund page for the funds with tax levy, there's a lot in there. We can look at... The numbers, they're not matching from year to year. I think that's something that you all need to go line by line looking at what was said. Here was the adopted. Here was the actuals. That is something that you all really need to look at. I think you will find some interesting numbers that they're not matching. It's not consistent from year to year. The outstanding debt in the 2026 budget was $79,715,048. There was a financial statement put in the Morning Sun, July 18, and showed it was $70,372,308.33. So that was an increase of $657,000 in our outstanding debt now. In the budget, we're spending more. We have $76 million versus $72 million. So that's a $3.7 million increase. I thought we were going to be really cutting back to try to take care of what happened over the last couple of years. There's different numbers. One year was at $183 million with our assessed valuation. Now it's $182 million. I just think that you're wondering where do the numbers come from. You would think that we would be, I know I would be looking to double and triple check my numbers and my facts to make sure that we had things right for the people to see. The last thing I want to share is the schedule of positions at the very last of the book this year. That was a surprise. We had a grand total last year and the year before of 307.8 and now all of a sudden for 2026 and 2027, we're going 2026 is 321 and 2027 is 322. Where did all these employees come from? I thought we had, you all had voted to have 307 employees and now it's jumped up that much and I'm just wondering how does that happen? And that does affect the budget I think tremendously when you put it all together. So I think you should be taking a lot of time to consider the budget and what is in there and there is some work to be done yet, I think. So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to come forward and speak at public input? Seeing none, I'll close the public input and move on to consent agenda. Are there any items to be removed from the consent agenda? I'd like B, C, and D removed for discussion. B, C, and D. Is there a motion to approve item A and item E?

Mr. Mayor, I would move to approve item A and E. Second.

Move and second for approval. Roll call vote.

Brooks. Yes. Aye. Yes. Lincel. Yes. Perry. Yes. Figley. Yes.

Motion carries. Passed. All right. Item B. Approval of staff recommendation to award the bid for tree removal project to Wichita Tree Service of Wichita, Kansas in the amount of $89,415 and authorize the mayor and city clerk to sign the contract once documents are prepared.

I'm sorry. I'm trying to look at that.

Can you spin your document? Yeah, so it's north-south. Other way. Other way. Keep going. There we go. The reason why I wanted this one pulled is just going through the information on the packet. There was a large difference in the bids that were provided. Naming the top bid that we're looking for to approve tonight was $89,415. The largest bid was well over $100,000 in difference. That's why I spoke with you earlier. Just walk me through how there's that big of a difference in the bidding process for something.

Well, Commissioner, we put together a packet, which this map was part of the packet. So we're going up Locust Street and Elm Street from Cleveland to pretty well, well, 2nd Street almost. We put together a whole packet. that has every street, every picture of every tree along that route. Every tree can be priced individually per tree if we need to remove a tree or not a tree. We did have six bids, which is a great turnout for bidders. Some of them are previous bidders as well, at least three of them bid on previous projects. And two new bidders came to the table. So the low bidder, we did call references and check. They did work in Wichita. We vetted that contractor. How a contractor bids that price, that's the contractor's. What they do on what equipment they own, what price they pay for labor, how busy they are, they may be willing to do the job and they may be willing to do the job for more money. I can't tell you. We got good bids, I feel like, and we're going to recommend the base bid and the alternate because of the bids that we received. But that's bidding. When you ask for a bid, they'll be all over the place.

When they respond with a bid, do they give you a set of details that factor in where they got to their bid number, or do they just send you a number and say, this is where we're at?

We gave them the list of trees that we wanted taken down. We gave them pictures. We gave them a job description within the specifications of what we wanted them to do, where to haul it, stump grind, all those type of factors. And we put that out, and then we allow them to bid on each tree individually, but we take the lump sum low bid overall.

So when they respond, they don't send you a byline how they're going to function?

No, it's not a quote. We dictate how the work will go.

It was kind of shocking to see that big a difference in the workload at almost double the cost of some of the other ones on finalizing it.

They may have wanted to do the work, but they wanted to do it for their price. That's their business, what equipment they own and how they pay their labor and how they're efficient or not efficient. Our job is, once we get the low bid, is to double check, make sure they've done similar work. We check their references, and we make the recommendation. But we did have six bids. Yes, there's 100 between top and bottom, but there's everyone in between as well.

And this number of trees, this scope of work, your experience, this is a pop question for you, is this very close and similar?

Yeah, actually, I'm very pleased with the bids. I pushed the number of trees this year. I mean, we've done this for... I think this is year four that we've done tree bids. It's based off historic. I look at the sizes. We look at them individually. That's why we ask for individual prices on trees, similar type trees. So we push the number of trees on the route that we picked, knowing the count of trees that we were adding to the bid to try and hit that budget number. So we look at unit costs. I think overall unit cost was somewhere around $1,100 a tree, give or take, from the biggest to the smallest. I mean, if you average that out. And so that's how we... We do some historical averages with tree counts, and that's how we kind of got to where we were. So it's an educated bid, so we're not way over budget and we're not way under budget, and then do a big change order. And the way this worked out with the base bid and the alternate, we're real happy with the bids we did receive.

Well, that was my concern for asking this, the difference in cost even to the next bid, still very substantial. So perception of change orders comes after the initial start of work. would be something that we have to look at if it does change.

It won't. They bid per tree. There's a scope of work already defined. They're all bidding on the same thing. It's not one person doing this type of work versus one person doing that type of work. The goal is to take the tree down, grind the stump one foot below the growth. We will not have the high bounds. We've clarified some of that in our spec, and then everyone takes it to the burn site. So everyone's doing the same thing.

So can you explain why we're taking these trees down?

So this particular route that we chose, so historically we've done some arterials. We started with some trees that were literally setting the radius of the corners. This particular route, because of knowing the anticipated growth of the Kelce, the Best, the downtown corridor, there was discussions early on about Locust Street being a corridor for students walking, biking for students between campus and the downtown corridor. There are some parts of Broadway that gets real narrow with some real small sidewalks. So this is a pretty open corridor. And so we really reviewed that as the route particularly It would go from Cleveland and Elm, and then it jumps kind of around Quincy, gets across the tracks, and then gets back to Locust to take them on up to the Kelk School of Business, and then to the downtown corridor, and that's really why we chose that. Then we chose Elm from Monroe on north, I think that's right. Just because they were already going to be working in the area, so keep them in close proximity to do the work. With that corridor, we've also, previous this year, we submitted on a transportation alternative project to improve the sidewalks and handicap ramps. We are currently in the second round of, we've been asked to resubmit as part of the second round for that sidewalk participation grant, and we won't hear anything until later this fall. But that is some of the decisions that drove this particular area to be chose for tree removal. And there are some big trees in that area that we have some water lines and service lines and different things.

That's what I was getting at. The reason you take them down is because, number one, they might be dead and dangerous. Correct. There's, you know, at intersections it's hard to see traffic. Right. That's another reason. But, and your infrastructure, I don't know, your water lines and stuff. You know, we had a woman come several weeks ago about the trees that were taken down. Could any of those trees that were scheduled to be taken down, could they not, and live trees, could they not have been trimmed back, or do they have to be completely taken down?

What we ran into when we first started this program, and... with the discussion of the commission was the problem is, is whenever you start bidding out just the trim back and the cut back, then you really gotta have someone there always, it's someone's personal decision all the time about what limb we're taking, what limb we're not taking, what side it's on, what it's not, what meter it's affecting, what service line, There's so many more decisions that goes into, so if you just say, drop it, grind it, make it go away, it's a much easier price to bid and everything like that. It gets 100 times more complicated on picking limbs, how you're going to price it, how you're not going to price it, what your contractors do. And I know Every G does have some stuff that they put for power lines and different things. It can be done, but it's a little different on our side.

Is there an ordinance of trees hanging in the roadway?

If there's a tree hanging in the roadway, so yes, your typical standard, you know, even by the American Public Works Association is 14 foot, back 60 foot of the right-of-way corridor, nice clear canopy.

So that's not cheaper than, I mean, going with that...

A lot of the trees that we have are the pin oaks and the stuff that drops limbs constantly in the major corridors. And so we didn't, trying to pick, today it's a problem, we might get it today, but in a year from now it's another problem. And so a lot of those, that was the issues we were trying to address, is just get the overall problem taken away.

So if this route is right now for future, what about people all over town who might have the issue of the fortune fed?

So as of today, the Parks Department, if there is a dead tree within the right-of-way, if the tree is dead within the right-of-way, the Parks Department and their arborists will come and take that tree down. Dead but not hanging over. Any low-hanging or dead limbs, they will cut out of the right-of-way, those type of things. I know, Chuck, when you're on the bus route, You know, the standard policy, my understanding was, is that if the driver comes across something, they radio to dispatch. Dispatch will put it in our C-click fix system. Same with the fire department. Even the truck drivers we have for our dump trucks do the same thing, that we report that back into parks, and parks come and pulls up the canopy as needed.

So there's 142 trees on Locust and Elm. All of them will be gone. It's in the right-of-way.

So basically you're talking about all the trees between the back of curb, and the sidewalk.

All of them will be gone?

Yep.

What's the window of scope for this to be done, approved tonight?

Before the end of the year. So we will probably see them a little later after the leaves drop.

Do they take the trees to our burn pile? Yes.

Yep.

Okay. Any other questions?

To approve item B? There's been a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second.

been moved and seconded. All in favor of approving item B? Say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign.

I will add one other thing that just has kind of, with the changes to 250 and more kids having to walk this year, this will open up more visibility of children on sidewalks is something else to think about with this corridor. Thanks, Matt.

I have one last one. What about somebody who's kind of stump off and it grows up from the stump and it blocks the view. As long as it's in that, are they going to take that out too?

Yeah, if we need to. And we can sometimes have that smaller step done by parks as well. It's along the corridor there, so that's why I was wondering. Yeah, there's a few of those that I see, and some will come back up. I know we've taken a few of them out.

Okay, thanks.

So we had a motion, and we voted unanimous, I think, to approve. So motion carries. Thanks, Matt. Item C, approval of staff recommendation to award the pre-construction engineering and project management contract for the Free Kings Highway and Atkinson intersection project to OWN Engineering of Pittsburgh, Kansas, based on the selection committee's recommendation and authorize the mayor and the city clerk to execute the contract documents once prepared.

So really for C&D, both for me, I just had to go back because there was some confusion on the scope of work for those intersections, what was going to actually be done. So I just want you to let the public know what the plan is again for those intersections.

All right. So we'll start with Free Kings and Quincy. So at that intersection, you have a pretty significant grade change, high-sloping ditches. That... THAT PROPOSAL IS TO WIDEN THAT INTERSECTION, IMPROVE THE INTERSECTION ITSELF, GO BACK 600 FEET ON FREE KINGS AND MAKE THAT GRADE APPROACH BETTER TO THAT INTERSECTION. THEY'LL GO BACK IN CONCRETE AND JUST A GENERAL OVERHAUL ENHANCEMENT OF THAT PROJECT, HOPEFULLY TO enhance anything. To marry up with anything else, we need to improve Free Kings in the future. We've had lots of talks about that corridor all the way to 160, but that's a small step. That intersection is dangerous. There was a fatality about five years ago, so we're really just trying to step up to the plate and do an overall overhaul of that whole intersection.

Will both roads remain open during this, or...?

Probably not. There will be some definite challenges around some of that that we'll probably have to do some rerouting of traffic. We'll work with 250. As the design comes about and we get into the construction scheduling, construction sequencing, we'll address all those aspects.

It will likely affect both Quincy Free King?

Yes. Yeah. Just because of the grade changes and the transitions you need to do through there. And then you still have a lot of drainage that still passes underneath Free Kings right on that north side of Quincy going down to Cal Creek.

This will open up the intersections, make it available for large equipment and vehicles and buses. Better radiuses. Yep. That's the goal.

Okay. So moving north, and that project we're recommending award. We did take three bids from three engineering services on both of these projects, all of them receiving Earl's Engineering, OWN, Inc., and Cook, Flatt, and Strobel, CFS, engineering services for Free Kings and Quincy. We will be recommending Cook, Flatt, and Strobel to design that project. Moving north to Atkinson and Free Kings, that is the same situation. If you've watched any of the news, we've had a lot of trucks hung up, especially with just some of the Vinaplex expansion, Sanderson Pipe, and that's pit plastics in my head. I can't think of what they're called now. Interplast. But, you know, and then the rail yard. So we've had some issues with trucks in the county, and it needs some drainage improvements. Same deal. It doesn't have the grade improvements that it needs, but it does have some turning radiuses that needs improved along with the culvert drainage that goes down through there. So that's the extent it will be put back in a concrete. Concrete manner so and again as far as the scope of the work timing Shut down those type of things as we work through design and construction staging will will work through all those issues But for this project we're going to recommend own ink to do the design on this project

Thank you for giving the breakdown. I've had questions after the agenda went out on what exactly was happening and why it was needed. Now they have the information. So motion to approve item C. Second.

Can we do C and D both at the same time?

You can, but it's probably better to do C. All right.

Then a motion and a second to approve item C. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Motion. I mean. Motion to approve D. Second. There's been a motion to approve item D and a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you, ma'am.

Consider the following. Resolution number 1305. Approval of resolution number 1305 authorizing the redemption and deficientness of outstanding taxable general obligation bond series 2025-A of the City of Pittsburgh, Kansas and authorize certain action to be taken in conjunction therewith.

Good evening, Mayor, Commission. Garth Herman with Gilmore & Bell, the City's Bond Council. Appreciate you having me out here tonight. So a little bit of background on this resolution, just for everybody's benefit. So last year, the City of Pittsburgh issued its Series 2025-A General Obligation Bonds. The proceeds of those bonds were used to help with the expansion at the Eagle Pitcher facility. When those bonds were originally issued, As part of their sale process, there is a certain time period after which the city can pay those bonds off early. That date is actually September 1 of 2033. So under the bond documents from 2025, the earliest date that the city could pay those off early would be September 1 of 2033. Why that's important is because since those bonds were issued, the city and the business have been able to enter into an agreement where the business has agreed to pay money to the city in an amount sufficient to, among other things, fully pay off these bonds as well as pay the city's costs related to that payoff. So what this resolution does is it actually authorizes the city to enter into an escrow trust agreement to arrange for the defeasance and redemption of those bonds. The reason why we have this defeasance escrow structure set up is because, as I mentioned, those bonds legally cannot be paid off before 2033. So even though you're getting the money in August of 2026, that money technically cannot fully pay off those bonds, you know, for another seven years. So to allow for that and for those bonds to in essence be set to the side, we have to set up this escrow so that there will be sufficient funds from now until September 1st of 2033 in order to make the payments on those bonds in an amount sufficient to pay the principal and interest as it comes due. Then on September 1st of 2033, with the rest of the money that's sitting in that escrow, it will also be sufficient to fully pay off the final three years of that bond issue on that 2033 date. So in order to allow for all this to happen, the city will need to enter into an escrow trust agreement. The city, working with Baker Tilly, the city's financial advisor, has gone through an RFP process to choose an escrow agent. It's U.S. Bank Trust Department out of Cincinnati. And the escrow trust agreement itself will be an agreement between the city and U.S. Bank, where the city is, in essence, hiring U.S. Bank to make sure that those payments get made from the money that's going to be set in that trust account. As part of this transaction, the city is also working with Baker Tilly in order to go through a process where the securities that are going to be purchased to go into the escrow will actually be purchased here in about two weeks. The reason why the city is using the money that you get from the Eagle Pitcher Agreement to purchase securities to put into the escrow instead of just leaving it in cash for that seven years is because interest rates right now are very favorable. So you can take the money that you get, you can invest that, and then those escrowed securities along with the interest earnings on them that is actually the money that you'll use to make those payments between now and 2033. So it makes it a more efficient process. You don't just have the cash sitting there. You're also able to use the investment earnings on that cash in order to make a more efficient redemption and efficient defeasance of these bonds. So all of that is taken into account in that escrow trust agreement. This resolution authorizes the city to enter into that agreement. It authorizes the early defeasance and redemption of the bonds. It authorizes city staff to take all actions necessary to perform that defeasance. Kind of big picture from the timeline. As I mentioned, the purchase of those securities that will actually go into escrow, that will happen in two weeks, and that will be with city staff working with Baker Tilly, basically requesting bids from investment banks to supply those securities. The city will determine the best portfolio of those securities based on the best interest return that the city can get under that escrow trust agreement. once that has occurred and we have the final information on that i will make further changes to the escrow trust agreement itself in order to get that final information in there then the actual closing of the transaction will occur about two days later that's the date that the city will formally send the money to the escrow trust or sorry that the city will send the money to the escrow trustee The escrow trustee will then take that money and formally purchase those securities that will then go into this irrevocable escrow. So then the only thing that money can be used for is to make the payments on the bonds from that date until September 1st of 2033. As part of this, there will also be a CPA that verifies all the math works to make sure that the amount of money coming in will be sufficient to make all of the city's payments on these bonds until that September 1st of 2033 date so that once all this happens, the city will no longer make any payments on those 2025 bonds. the only payments related to those 2025 bonds that still need to be made will come out of this escrow. So basically that's the way that you get it off your books. You're hiring an escrow trustee to help you with that. You're taking the money to put into escrow so that there is sufficient funds over there. So that's what this resolution does is kind of authorizes all that to happen. Um, It's a little bit of a different situation. We don't often get to be in this situation, but it's a great one because it means that things are going pretty well and that the city is able to actually get some proceeds from this project and pay these bonds off early. So with that being said, yes.

The interest that is garnered from the escrow account. Yes. What happened? Does that go back into the account or is that usable by the city?

Not usable by the city. It all stays in the escrow account. So that interest will also be used to help make your bond payments.

So the amount of money that we're receiving from EGLE goes into this account and it sits, pays itself off through the escrow program. And then if there's interest or anything left after the bonds are secured and cleared, then that money essentially, is that what you're asking?

That money would come back to the city? No, that's not. I was asking if it's available at the present time, if the interest is available at the present time. You said it goes back into the escrow account. At the end of the bond payment period, the balance... Yes. I would assume there would be a favorable balance because we've got interest growing up over the next seven years or so.

It'll be a very small amount of interest. So when the escrow is sized based on the information that we'll get from the Baker Tilly folks and the CPA, what the city wants to do is it wants to solve almost as perfectly as possible the exact amount of money needed to make the bond payments. based on the amount of money going into the escrow and the investment earnings on that money so that at the end of the day, there will be a balance after that final payment, but it'll be like five or six dollars. So basically, all of the other money from the Eagle Pitcher contract not needed for the bond payments, that's not gonna go into the escrow. That'll be at the city's discretion as to how to use that.

How much are you talking?

I'm not a financial advisor, so I'm not sure about that. I would defer to Darren or Jay or somebody else on that.

Jessica is our financial advisor from Baker Tilly. She's the one we take most of our good advice that we get from. You want to walk into that? Most of it.

Hi, I'm Jessica Lamandola. I'm with Baker Tilly. I'm a senior manager, and we're your financial advisor. Could you repeat your question?

Well, what it started out to be, and they're going to pay it off early.

Yep.

And so what could the city have gotten if it went the full term compared to now that they're going to pay it off sooner? What's the pros and cons of letting them pay it off early? And was the contract made that way for that? Or he acted like it's never happened really in recent time, I would think. So are we beneficial by letting them pay it off early or not? Is more money going to stay in the city's pocket than in theirs? Or is it a give and take?

So the 2025-A bonds, when they were issued, the total principal and interest that it cost to borrow that was close to about $7 million. That's P and I, principal and interest. With them paying it back early, as Garth was saying, you can't call it until 2033, so you have to keep paying it. Now, if it was callable... we would just refund the bonds today. And we would pay them off, and we wouldn't achieve the efficiency that Garth is speaking of. By doing the defeasance, let's just, big numbers, let's say you owe the seven million, but we are calculating interest from now until 2033. So all of that interest stays in the calculation. So what that means is that you don't actually have to deposit that full seven million, right? You deposit the balance, to get to what the bond investors are owed. And so you actually have a very efficient situation where Eagle Pitcher has said, this is what we would have owed you over the next 10 years. We will pay you that. And then you kind of get to decide how to deal with it. And so for you guys, you get to put less in an escrow. Bondholders get paid fully through 2033 and then call the balance. And then you have money left over.

So when the smoke clears, how much money do you kind of guesstimate it?

After the bonds are cleared and that money's set aside and put in the escrow, what's left?

We're not going to hold you here, but just... The part that she's leaving out is there's also another premium that Eagle Pitcher was paying. I think that's what you're asking about. That was $300,000 a year for 10 years, or $3 million. And right now, the amount that they paid us... to do the security purchase, which you're talking about, um, net, um, the rest of the money will be about two and a half million. So the, the, the estimate right now is that we would get 3 million over 10 years, or we could get two and a half million in year one. That makes sense. Answer your question. Yeah.

That two and a half million doesn't stay in escrow until 2033.

It doesn't ever actually hit the escrow.

Yeah.

So in two weeks, we'll the, when we take the bids, there'll be a whole calculation. And you're basically structuring it so you get to like the penny, right, the $5. And so with our initial estimates, we're looking at depositing about 5.2 million. So it's all day of, right?

We can't get to the market. Yeah, there's two chunks of money. One is that escrowed security. That has to be done. Those are the bonds, the interest, everything that's committed to the bondholders. And that number, net the check that we got from, that we negotiated with Steve, was $5. You know, we should get $2.5 million, which is what we put in the budget, and to help with the health fund, and then the rest of it just goes into the general fund.

Yeah, so it's a pretty efficient way to improve your community with the economic development that that project was for, pay off bondholders, and then today you get the benefit of those funds rather than a small increment over time.

The reason it's unique is because you don't usually... and 10-year agreements in year one. But the economics of this deal with the company and the gentleman that was our partner decided it was a good idea.

So if we would have stayed with the original agreement, we would have just made $500,000 more than there would have been $3 million. Over a decade.

Yeah, we would have received the $300,000. All the securities, principal and interest, all that still would have been paid, but we would have had the $300,000 a year each year rather than getting this over. Yeah, this is $2.5 million. Correct.

Yeah, so if you don't enter into the escrow agreement that we're talking about today, the city is still required to pay principal and interest. So it's not a choice between paying the bonds or not. It's just whether you put it into escrow, have earnings that help pay for some of that cost with the balance being left with the city.

And it's done automatically in their responsibility.

Yeah.

Not the city's.

And while the city hasn't done it in a very long time, it's a very common process. So this isn't atypical.

Really?

Yeah. I'm working on several others currently. So the slug rate right now is just at a rate where it's advantageous for communities to take advantage of it.

And the key is it's just off of our books. This is a deal we put together that we would have carried for 10 years, and it's clear of our books right now. So in theory, even though it was backed and it had a promissory note behind it, and I think it had a personal guarantee, it's still debt that we don't have carrying as a tax holder. And they've done, yeah, and obviously Jessica has to explain this to us 100 times for us to figure it out because we've never done one. And Garth has been right there at the helm making sure that this purchase goes just like all the bonds that they do for us and that they're underwritten well and they're covered.

Moved to approve Resolution 1305. Second.

And moved and seconded to approve. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you.

This is driving me crazy, sorry.

Item B, variance, Riddell Underground, Inc., 1200 West 4th Street, consider the recommendation of Planning Zoning slash Board of Zoning Appeals to grant the request to submit, submitted by Riddell Underground, Inc., for a floodway variance at 1200 West 4th Street to allow the construction of a storage building as well as a future building expansion.

Hello, everyone. Zoning board felt like this is a third-party engineer above our thing. They're saying zero issues with the flood. So we approved both the one where it's the rebuild of the building that got torn down and for the future 6,000-square-foot business area that they're planning on adding on to later. We just went ahead and approved both of them.

In this process, the property owner approached the board, and it was initially denied, and then there was a repeal process? How did this work out?

That I don't know. We didn't deny anything originally. What they brought to us originally was from the engineer.

From the engineer. I've had some weird phone calls on this, and the information has gone sideways.

They applied for a permit, and they were denied because it needed a variance being in the floodway.

So just a basic permit to build was denied? Yep. As far as the scope of what they're doing, that all stayed the same? Yep.

So how did they get a variance? Did they have to go somewhere? Planning and zoning. Planning and zoning? Yep. And how did it get out of the floodplain or floodway?

It's not out. It's a variance to allow them to build. It's still there, but the risk is only theirs. Yeah, the risk is only theirs, but as Kyle mentioned, they had to get a report from, elevation certificate from an engineering company that said the risk was zero.

How long did this process take for them to submit the request for the permit to the, making it to the board?

Well, the process is about a 35-day process, but for them to obtain their information, that's however long it takes them to find somebody and hire them.

So for this specific case, how long has it taken from when they approached the city to you guys being here today?

He wants to know how long it took you to get through this.

After we first applied for the permit to build, it was denied, and we found out the criteria in which it would require would be to get with OWN, the engineering company, and do all the certifications and everything, and that took about a month. Then we had to do the list of homeowners or property owners around within a 200 variance around our facility. So yeah, we got it.

Part of the process the city has in place right now. And you, I guess, you did the request, and again, I'm learning this process. So the request for the property owners within 200 feet of this one comes from the county's GIS system. That information, that data comes straight from that system.

No, they get it from a Crawford County abstract or a title company. Okay.

But the data itself for this comes from the Senate? I don't know where they get it. Okay. I'm learning the process. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions?

Any other questions? Move to approve.

Second. Moved and seconded. To approve, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Thanks, guys. Thank you. I don't see fire department software purchase consider fire department staff recommendation to waive the competing competitive bidding process and to purchase and implement the first new records management system at a first year cost of thirty two thousand three hundred dollars and five cents to be funded through public safety sales tax.

Good evening Mr. Mayor and other commissioners. This request basically is to update our record management systems and consolidate the hodgepodge of different systems that we have into one contiguous software that'll actually give us a better overall usage and also give us better capabilities because we'll be able to, again, do our electronic patient care reporting system that is required for us to be able to fully function as emergency management technicians. So that'll give us those capabilities so we'll be able to do that. Plus, it'll also be able to allow us to take all our old legacy data from our past fire inspections bring it in, import it into this software, so that anytime we have requests for records from our past inspections, we'll be able to provide that in a more timely fashion, instead of having to dig through seven or eight different programs. And on top of all that, this will allow us to also do online training with all our members for their continuing education that is required, and it'll also do it in a way that is more advantageous to the younger members of our department. With that request, that's why I asked for this approval.

So all these programs are going to be funneled into one then?

Yes.

And who's loading it all?

So they actually, as part of the onboarding process, which is that 6,600, they will actually come and actually take all our data and import it over. They'll also do training for all our members as well. So we'll make sure that everybody is fully aware how to use this program before it ever goes live.

How long to get it up and running?

They initially gave us a 90 to 120 days, which is what I'm asking for now. So hopefully we'll have it way before the beginning of the year. But some of these things can be brought online, different modules of this program. For example, the training can be brought up pretty quickly, but some of the other things are going to take a little bit more work, like the CAT integration will take a little bit longer.

So it's just a housekeeping thing.

Yep.

I've been all over their website trying to get information on it and speak with somebody. How did you get to want to use this agency?

So I reached out to several different manufacturers of different programs or like programs called a bunch of different fire departments that I'm familiar with that I knew was using this program as well as several others. There was another one was called Image Trend we looked at, EPR Fireworks, Apex. So there's several different out there. And this one gave us the overall of everything together that we wanted to use. For staffing, to emergency callbacks, to CAD integration, to be able to pull up on the tablets the preplans for buildings as we pull up to an emergency. This had it all, and that's why I picked this one.

Are a select few of the firefighters? I'm sorry? Are you just using a select few of the people, or is everybody going to know how to use it?

Everybody's going to know, because this is going to be, as they're on scene and they start running an emergency medical call, they're going to be inputting that information in there, and then they can take that information and it'll go to the state, and it'll also go to whatever hospital they're getting transported. And also, because it's going to be a common protocol, which was that the National Emergency Medical Service Information System. It'll also be able to be talked to, hopefully, Crawford County EMS as well. So hopefully we'll be able to pull this all together and make it one continuous system for emergency medical service.

So is it voice? Can you do it voice-wise or do you have to?

You can actually do both with this program. Actually, you can do the voice dictation. And it'll actually put it in there. And it does have a little bit of an AI capability where it'll help clean it up and organize it a little bit more, which is another unique feature for the first due. And so that'll also help some of the reports as well. Sure. Efficiency.

And this is going to be paid for from public safety sales tax?

Yes, sir. And it's actually, after we get past the implementation cost, it actually is less expensive than our current cost. bundle of different software programs. Combined with all the rest of them.

I remember when you came in initially and gave us the brief, and we were working on the budget information early in the season, that you were very adamant about this section getting updated and upgraded.

Yeah, we absolutely have to have the EPCR capability, and that's something that our medical director is very adamant about, being able to do the quality control for our reports. And this is the one we need to do that with.

What's the basic life expectancy of this program for use? They're projecting you're going to get 10 years out of this system.

Yeah, I mean, and it's basically, it's a cloud-based system, so it's constantly updated, constantly monitored, and approved upon. So, I mean, as long as we stick with the company, as far as I know, it will be somewhat indefinite.

As long as you pay the maintenance, it's up to date.

Well, exactly. Pay the subscription.

How much are you saving, Consolidate?

About $1,600 a year. Every little bit helps.

We appreciate you looking into this and going through this process to find one that does work and has the things that you need, as well as saving the city and the taxpayer money. So it's important. Motion to approve.

Chair already done.

So Cheryl's got a second.

We'll give a motion and a second to approve. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries.

Chief, I've got to ask you a question. Yes, sir.

And if you don't mind, maybe Chief Nargis and somebody from IT might come up and help answer the question. that I have. It's my understanding that we purchased radials back in March, I think it was, I don't know the exact date, for about $64,000. And it was purchased so we could communicate between Crawford County Sheriff, Crawford County EMS, Crawford County Emergency Management. My understanding is they're still sitting in a box and we don't have that communication. Am I right with that understanding?

Correct. Yeah, they're still sitting in a box.

So is the police having the same issues with their radios? Can you communicate to the agencies in the county?

It's been a challenge for a while, but we are at this point very close. I think next month, if Stan corrected you.

We're looking at the end of September, and we're actively going to be joining into the county's radio system. So all of our radio system, our police, fire, and all that, we'll be able to intercommunicate with everybody in Crawford County. We'll be on one unified system. So this is a normal length of time it takes to get this... Yeah, we're actively building out the infrastructure right now, so there's a lot of things that have to come into place. We're putting new radio dispatch consoles upstairs in dispatch, which will mirror proper counties so that they're the same system, same interface. The users will be... able to jump back and forth and use both systems. Our current system's not going away. It'll remain there for legacy purposes and needs. Whatever it may be, be able to talk deep inside of the building. Sometimes the analog just works better. That will be moved over to the digital system. There's other infrastructure that's had to be built. Repeaters, connections, things like that have to be put in place and we're building those and getting those done. So we've been working with the director over at Crawford County to get those done and we're getting very close right now. We're shooting toward the end of September to go live. We have to do programming for all of our radios around the organization for police and fire. Some radios, some of the old radios, that was one of the reasons we purchased was to bring modern radios in that could communicate on both digital and analog, which replaced the ones that could only do analog. We'll reprogram and we'll have the ability to talk on both police and fire to various agencies throughout Crawford County. Police, fire, all those because most of the people in Crawford County are on the county's radio system. So we're just jumping on board and going to be all in the same system.

So everyone else has the system that we're trying to get implemented.

Correct. Chuck, if I can, that's kind of been part of the problem since the FCC said, no more analog, got to go to digital. It kind of made everybody be in their own silos, all the agencies. And so if you weren't all together, which I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but just a few years ago, I think one of the companies bid one of the bids for the city alone for dispatch and all, was $3 million or something?

Yeah, and that was going to the state system, the 800 megahertz, which was built around police and fire for the P25 standard.

That was the goal, was to get everybody on the state system. But I mean, rural fire departments and small police departments can't even come close to it.

So is the college, you can talk to the county?

It's not great. I mean, when I started in 1988, the old analog was pretty strong. I mean, these guys, the people that make it work, are doing their best to make it work.

Well, you know, it's a public safety issue, and it's for the citizens as well as our police and firefighters. And, you know, the quicker we get this implemented... You know, just give me an example of the million-dollar fireworks display. How did that work out for not being able to talk to other departments?

I mean, it was a challenge. We did have a couple of the newer radios were able to get programmed last minute, so we were able to make at least some, but unfortunately, just given the size and scope of that incident, it was a little bit of a challenge. I think going forward, too, obviously, once we get on the county system and we are trained a little bit better and everybody comes under a common protocol, I think it'll work even better. It's just gonna be a matter of getting to that point. It was kind of with the million dollar firework thing, thrown together haphazardly at the last minute, unfortunately. But I think we were able to make it work again, like we said. It could have been better. We learned a good deal after that. We're going to have some after-action talks about it. But going forward, it will be much, much better.

Well, you've been on emergency situations with mutual aid. How does that work? How did you handle that?

I'll give you an example. Early on when I got here, we had a pretty significant fire on Free Kings. And I got there rather early. And just given the scope of the fire, it was right there on the border with us and Baker Fire. It got to the point that I had to make the call to pull our firefighters out. When I made that call, I knew that only half the people on the fire ground heard me because Baker was on another channel, and then Frontenac, who was there later, was on another channel. Later on, with Baker's fire chief, got into my vehicle, and we had three radios sitting in the front trying to talk and keep communications with everybody. It wasn't great, but we made it work. As we get closer to this, we can push a little bit forward, push a little bit faster and get this thing going. I think it will be much, much better. It's just getting to that point and getting everything done and done correctly.

Well, you know, that's the credit to all of you that... It wasn't great, but you made it work. And you're saying, Pat, that in September it's going to be operational?

Yeah, that's our current go-live goal is to have all the infrastructure in place and everything programmed. The go-live is really as simple as say noon on Tuesday, we radio out to everybody and say at noon on Tuesday, cut over to digital, go to TAC-1, we cut over on digital, and we're live.

So we got all the equipment, we just got to get it.

Yeah, it's a matter of programming and final installation and testing. But, yeah, we're getting very close to being able to move over to the live.

Like I said, it brought to my attention and kind of made me a little nervous when you can't talk to emergency departments. But I'm glad we're getting close.

That's our goal is to resolve that. All right. All right.

Thank you very much, guys. Thanks. All right. Item D, 2027 budget review and discussion. Discuss the proposed 2027 budget.

Mayor, commissioners, we gave you the budget last meeting. Hopefully we can adopt it sometime in September, September 8th, I believe. Missy's here. Most of the department heads are here. So I just wanted to get your feedback and how you want to proceed with this.

I'd like to start, Mr. Merritt, some of the information and the questions that Ms. Bender brought up. I think we need to address those and come up with some type of response for each thing that she brought up so the community has clarity on the number of variances and differences, as well as the increase in personnel projected for 27. The ad valerian page, can we add that? Is that part of the... software program that you're working with Missy can we add the ad valerian page as a for reference yeah for tracking and then going through this again this one's gonna take more time than I think anybody anticipated starting it Where we're at with our mill rate, I don't want there to be the confusion that we dropped the mill rate, we're fixing the problem. That's only half the equation. We have to produce spending within the city to give tax relief to the taxpayers that deserve it. And we told them we were going to do that. 215 is not that. So we need to dig deeper and look closer. And if that takes departments coming in briefing the commission on things that they feel within their departments they can cut back on to get us to a better number without going into reserves and without penalizing the employees or the healthcare, because obviously none of us want to do that. There are other things that we can look at to get that number at a more feasible rate. We did tell the public, we told our community that we're going to do better and make this right and we're not there yet. Just from the overtaxation obligation came back with the hospital being on the books last year and the amount of money that was taken, we've got to do better.

DJ, you got a number in mind? To what end do we ask the city staff to continue to cut? I'm just curious.

Well, looking at the areas that we have presented with this submitted budget, I think we need to The mill levy needs to be at least 3 to 3.5 through budget reduction. And we're at 2.15. And if we get to that, I think we'll meet the intent and the goals of what this commission said they were going to do.

I think we're at the point where we don't even have to have a revenue neutral rate this year. We are. To me, that's awesome.

That's a small step.

That's a big one from the last several years.

How much did you cut? You talked about working on the budget. So you said that close to how much was cut to begin with, and where was it cut that you had mentioned? Was it close to a million?

I'm looking for the page.

If I, I'd like to offer a POSSIBILITY ON THE INCREASED STAFF? AM I WRONG IN THINKING THAT MAYBE WE WERE DOWN MULTIPLE POSITIONS IN, SAY, POLICE OR FIRE AND NOW WE'RE CLOSER TO FULLY STAFFED? IT'S NOT LIKE WE ADDED

No, I can I can answer this I worked I worked quite a bit on this full-time equivalent list for the for Darren and Missy and And I told them it would probably come up in a question because it does look a little skewed, but it's because I ran the numbers, the employee list in June, and what we were missing in 2025, 2024, were our full-time equivalents of seasonals and part-times. So of the 13.9 that were off, so just so you know how employees are calculated, a full-time employee is worth one point. A part-time employee is worth half a point. And then a seasonal is worth 0.3. So that's how they're totaled up. So when you look at the full-time equivalent list and get the differences, we have 13.9 different increase in total employees. 6.5 of those are part-time employees. 2.4 of those are seasonal employees. And so the remaining... The remainder of that is full-time equivalents. So 2026, our increase were three sanitation, property and sanitation workers, a network administrator one position, and a deputy city clerk position. So that was our total increase, which I think has all come through you at some point. We've talked about all those. The only increase in a full-time position that we have in our budget for 2027 is our sports facility maintenance technician that we've talked about with the soccer fields and baseball fields, softball field projects. So that you've also already discussed. So that's the only full-time position that's actually budgeted for 2027 that wasn't budgeted before. The part-times and the seasonals the staff know that they have to stay within their budgets on those. So we may have to have more people, but they're not necessarily working all at the same time. We've got more lifeguards, but they're not all on duty at the same time. But when I ran the budgeted, the payroll for June or when we pulled it, we're in peak season. So we've got peak amount of employees and that's where we're at. It probably had never been adjusted from the past several years to get to the correct actual numbers of where we're at, but it doesn't necessarily mean more dollar amounts are going out in those part-time areas. Does that make sense?

So is it 307.8? Or is it 321.7? If right now you're in seasonal mode with the numbers.

So the totals should be, and I'm working off my phone because my stroke has died right before this.

You're saying five positions that you mentioned there.

So if you notice that the general fund, actually the full-time positions, they're not increasing. They're not increasing because we've moved things around. So the 307 point, if you look at the full-time by type, I think that will help. The full-time by type has not increased, full-time has not increased as significantly as like the part-time and the temporary. Does that help?

So when you're looking at 25, 26, and 27, you went from 307.8 and 25 to now 322.7. Correct.

And the majority of the difference of that is in part-time and temporary.

Does that help make sense? Let's assume that you took all the part-times, the .3s and the .5s, and added them all together and the FTEs. What would you come up with? Would you come up with 307 or would you come up with... 322.7. So...

for 2027 if we added everything that it comes up to 322.7 yeah the full time is 262. um this year we're estimated um at 261 well we we were yeah our estimated full-time equivalence is 261 next year it's 262. that that increases the one parks um sports facility technician

I was going to ask you about that, Kim.

We don't even have a sports facility yet, but we're budgeting for... Yeah, because it could potentially, I mean, there could potentially be work by the end of the year, so you've got to budget it in. I'm not sure when all of those projects are going to complete.

Will the soccer field be done by the end of the year?

We're getting ready to start working on the soccer field and everything like that, and with all the other projects going on, especially at the first of the year, as soon as we can get somebody there to start working on that, because we have a lot of 23.7 acres we're acquiring there, plus the pond and all the upkeep and everything. So once we start improving everything, we want to keep those improvements going, and that's going to happen sooner than later.

So what would that position pay? What's it budgeted for? How much? I think it was roughly 60 with benefits.

Yeah.

So would that be somebody that's already working for us, that's got experience in doing this, or you would hire somebody off the street? They could.

I mean, it would be open for an application. So if they're qualified people, yep, absolutely.

What would their qualification be?

Experience in the sports, as far as marking and everything. And it's going to be, there's going to be a lot to it. They're going to be working everywhere along there, but their specific focus is going to be out at the soccer complex, just because of the scope of the work. Because those are large fields, and especially being natural grass, I mean, they're going to have to be mowed, striped, irrigation and stuff. It's a full-time job.

Does the equipment come in and out? Is the equipment, the nets and everything, I mean, how do they get handled? Do they just stay out there year-round?

Yeah, they will, yeah. So one employee can do all that, Chris? Yeah. I mean, there'll be sports staff around like everybody else, but yeah, that's it. Just expanding. Cause we're a spread thin enough. And then yeah, once we're expanding, cause we're also going to dog park, then that, and then the new sports complex.

It'd be nice if we had somebody that we could hire with that had experience of doing that kind of work.

That's a good ad. Yeah. But anyway, that's the only, I think to summarize what Kim said, the full time positions are up for right from actual Kim. actual to the estimate, and then we have one new position in the budget for next year for the soccer position.

Could I just jump in here, because I know you had asked something about what we're looking at to mill levy, and you were saying something about your thoughts. So this, what was it, 2.152. Last year, because of mistake, our mill submitted budget was 50.854 mills. The final budget, because of the mistake, had to go to 52.006. So that's where we came up with the 1.152. And this year we have a 2.152 reduction of the mill. So actually that 1.152 is something that we agreed to because of mistake. And now that it's at 2.152, that's just a reduction of an additional mil. So I added some things or subtract some things. That's one mil that we're talking about right now. But if we looked at a two mil reduction in middle levy, it's going to be 49.854. Am I right or wrong? A three-mil reduction would be 48.854, and a four-mil reduction would be 47.854. So I'm kind of like DJ. I know every department's done a lot of work, reduced some expenses, and it's just, to me, we're making up for a mistake we made last year by reducing 1.152, an additional mil. But I would like to, between now and September 8th, whether we get it done in a couple meetings or three meetings, or if we need a special meeting to weed all this out, I would like to see closer to between three and four mil reduction. That's just my thoughts. And I got a question for you, Darren, in this, your statement. It says... The reducing or eliminating the annual tree, are we funding that $100,000 now? And you have $150,000. So that was going to be what we needed, this budget, if we didn't reduce that $150,000?

We took it out of next year's budget.

It would have been $150,000 for next year.

Well, whatever you wanted to set it at.

That's what you wrote down here, $150,000.

I was just making sure, like when we spoke before, the number was 100,000 for that service, that usage, and then in this statement for 27, it's showing 150. So I'm questioning where the extra 50 came from.

Oh, on page 6? The bottom paragraph of page 6?

All my communications with you, Darren.

Which one is it? Page 6, the bottom paragraph. I only have three pages. Oh, on your letter?

Your statement last paragraph.

Well, it's in the book. Second page. Second page of your letter. The second paragraph.

The very bottom paragraph. The bottom paragraph. The question is, has the previous true removal cost and the new usage for removal, has it been $100,000 or has it been $150,000? Because it's projected to be $150,000 in 2027.

No, it's always been $100,000. The $150,000 must be a typo.

So that's wrong.

I'm trying to catch up because I don't have the page numbers you guys have.

I think the 50 was the signage that we were doing. You probably comboed those together to make the 150.

There's also 50,000 for the sign program.

Updating the blue 911 signs, which we've almost completed.

The what signage?

Our 911 signs, our street signs, we had $50,000 a year dedicated to updating all that signage, and I think you combo those together.

So using that program and that amount of money.

Yeah, if you drive around town, they're all over the place.

So you're still going to leave the $50,000 for the signs? The $100,000 is questionable?

The $100,000 was for the trees. We started at $50,000 in year one. We've done $100,000 the last three years, and then we've also had $50,000 for the updated 9-1-1 signs that we've been plugging it. Yeah, I didn't see that. Yeah, thanks for explaining that because it just says tree removal. Yeah, so I believe that's where it is.

And then the $50,000 Pitt 150 Celebration Fund, So we're taking $50,000 from that or leftover? How much was in that to begin with?

Budgeted $50,000.

Budgeted $50,000?

Budgeted $50,000, but $26,000, I mean, there won't be anything for $27,000.

I wouldn't think so. I mean, this is when the 150 celebration.

I think that's what he's saying, yeah.

So we spent all $50,000, Kim?

No. So we still have, we earmarked certain amounts for, like Little Balkans, Small Business Saturday, remaining events for the rest of the year.

So we're still going to use that?

We actually won't spend all 50, so we cut that back. So we should have a remaining $20,000 in that. So we would have spent $30,000 towards all events throughout the year.

So that's for the remaining, you're going to spend, yeah, okay, good.

Yep, yep, so there should still be $20,000 in there at the year end. We're trying not to spend any more than we have to on that.

So we don't need a budget?

Nope, so we won't budget that for $100,000.

151 celebration. No, we won't budget that. I think 150 was good. Yep. All right, thanks.

You bet. So that's $20,000.

And the building demolition program, $50,000. What did we budget for that?

$100,000.

$100,000?

$102,000 this current year.

Have we spent all that? We use $100,000?

We'll spend whatever we have, yeah.

Has that been consistent in that program?

We never have enough money in there. I mean, we used to not budget it at all, and it just got to the point that we had to budget it. So, yeah, it's been reduced. The next year's budget, I think $12,000. $50,000? $12,000. $12,000 for next year's? It's in two places.

We reduced the building demolition program by 50 grand, so it would still be 50, wouldn't it?

Yeah, we thought we did, but it turns out we budgeted in two different lines. The new system, she put it in another line item, so we actually had another 40 in there. So the budget is balanced right now with 50 and 40 in two different places.

So 90,000.

So we're still down 12, but we still have money, which was a big concern.

That's a part there, too. Okay.

Now as far as that program, do we have a list of homes that were projected to be demolished using that specific amount for 27, or does that fluctuate too much to track it that far up?

It's something that moves. I mean, we could never know 12 months out which house is going to be. Please come up. I didn't want to interrupt you. No problem.

It doesn't work like that, Commissioner. We get the complaints, and then we will follow a very lengthy process trying to find a homeowner and do valuations. I have to have a hearing. Typically, we try to get houses repaired if we can, unless they're past this threshold. But we don't have a list of homes like that. So it's case-by-case driven? It is case-by-case.

So just the houses that you're viewing that aren't going to meet the requirements and need to be demolished within 27, there's no actual... No, we have roughly 94 cases going on delapse right now.

Now, how they turn out, it depends on the year. Depends on all the steps? Yep. So what's the average to demolish one? Well, I mean, there's a lot of factors, whether it's a basement, how big the house is, what they're dealing with content inside the house is a big driving factor. But I would say, just to give you a ballpark, $7,000, $8,000. But we've seen them much higher.

Yeah, it used to be 4,500 to 5,000.

100,000 doesn't go very long. I think, to be fair to the department heads, we're talking about all the things we asked them to cut and the things they brought to us in the book. I also think it's important to remember that we, I think, unanimously voted, if I remember right, to give everybody a 3% cost of living raise, which was about $400,000. So with tasking them to cut, we also increased the overall budget by $400,000. So that's not an easy thing to...

We haven't voted for that raise yet until we approve the budget.

Nobody's saying this is easy, Stu. I know it's not easy.

I'm just saying those kind of things are in perpetuity. We all want to take care of our city employees, and like I said, a cost of living raise is a cost of living raise, but that doesn't come without a big number price for the budget.

But there are things in the budget that look to be where you can cut more but not affect that.

And that's why we gave you the detail. Right. The difference this year is, I mean, the book is what it was and we'd all love to have a book and hopefully one day we'll have enough software where we can just print the book. The problem with the book last year and the problem with the book always is we never had a financial management system and the one we were using, we still had to make the book by hand. So Missy came in this year and said, look, we're going to put all this in the new financial management system. I think you remember last meeting we talked about. The financial management system isn't even going live until next week. But with the consultant's help, they were able to get that report that you're looking at with the blue tabs. And the reason we wanted to give that to you is because, A, it's now balanced with the state forms. I'm still questioning. I think Christy brings up a good point. If it says the letter says $74 million and the form says $76 million, then that's another typo in the letter. But we need to get that right. Right. I've got that circle. So she's got that circle. But the key is... Now you have a line item budget to Cheryl's point where you can see, if you see line items and you're like, hey, why is this up or down? We've got answers for most of those. We went through the budget with the department heads. We do have some expense increases. So if we could start, Cheryl asked me this about 10 minutes ago. Sure. CCAP bus is in for another 10,000. It's just, it was 33,000. It's more, that's in there. We have the deputy city clerk in there. That's a new position. from during the year last year. The parks is the new position we just talked about. The general fund raises are $390,000. The health insurance premium to cover the employer to get that back into balance is $262,000. That total right there is $787,000. So those are just increases in expenses that we We just have, we don't have to do the parks position. We don't have to give raises to your, I don't know whoever said it, but that's part of that. I'm pretty sure we're planning on doing the health insurance employer increases because obviously we all seem pretty unanimous. So that's in the budget as well. The expense decreases, as we mentioned, and the website's gone. So that was 150. The building demo was cut by 12. Um, yeah, we have an outside inspectors for big jobs because of all the projects going on. That was almost 50,000. We, we didn't, um, use that this year. We've done with Dexter's crew. We've done most of that all at in-house. So we took that out of next year's budget. Um, that finance director contract that we talked about last year, we didn't have a finance director. We had Margie and that crew from AGH come in. They still help us with the audits. but they are no longer helping us with the budget. Missy's taken out on. So we cut 55,000 out of that. So that's another expense. Um, the website from it, that's a one-time thing we had in this year's budget. It'll be thanks to Stephanie's hard work. I don't know if she's in here, but, um, that's out of next year's budget. That's 130,000. Um, the pit one 50 celebration we talked about, there was 50,000. Um, the things that get hard to do are every year we've done a significant amount of golf cart paths and drainage improvements at four Oaks. Um, we've pulled that out of the budget this year. So we're taking a year off and trying to see if we can get by. Um, so that's 147,000. Um, the pool improvements are kind of the same boat, but we had, we took $38,000 out of the pool improvements for next year. Um, a lot of the pool improvements have been made. The pump house has been replaced. There's a lot of improvements out there. So just in that area where it's like, well, hopefully we can get by with that. Um, the health plan admin changes, um, that's a 371,000 decrease. That's that's a big deal. Um, the food pantry for 20,000 and the code blue security costs for that cloud blue shelter for 20,000. We're both in the general fund. We moved those both out of the general fund. So I think there, I don't know if they're opioids or special parks, but Kim's Kim's whispering opioids. So we get 50,000 from opioid settlement. So we've moved those out of the general fund. Um, so they're still funded, but, um, that the total of that's over 2.1 million. Those are the decreases. The one I left out. is the pain point, and it kind of gets to everybody's point, and that's what all the staff's doing here. In order to balance, I touched on this last week, utilities communications is a line item in the general fund budget for all the departments. Operating supplies is a line item in the general fund departments. It's in the utilities fund, but we're not going to save any money on property tax cut in the utilities fund. Professional services is in there. So when we have a shortage, you need something done. If you have to hire somebody, that's what professional services is. Travel and training, that's a core part of an employee experience here is making sure that they can travel usually to training. That's in there. Facility maintenance is another one that we looked at. We have... Facility maintenance department our division, but they actually Cut some money out of there. We have a contract services, which is another one We do work through contract and we don't have enough employees. We need something done that the employees can't do the uniforms budget was cut and And the equipment maintenance budget cut, um, the total of those cuts is, is just under $900,000. That's what we did. Um, it was easy to remove pit one 50 cause it's bit one 51 to your point there, but, uh, and the website's done, but, um, yeah, we did take this serious. We did go in and, and I think the other point to make is the additions list that we created and my table of contents is too huge to find it. But after the meetings with all of you, we kept a list from every department that came in and requested, hey, we need this and that. Those were not, I don't think there's anything on that list that was funded in next year's budget. We took the mill rate seriously. We don't want to put a budget together with a fund balance. We're prepared to take the mill to wherever the five of you wanted to go. But this was our first chance to give you a base budget that said, look, we've taken the air last year out. We've taken another mill on top of that out. Um, and, and to the staff credit that they've given up a lot on the equipment and supplies and those line items to keep their employees, to keep their fellow employees and to give them raises this year because inflation is nearly 4%. So, um, as you all know, we did get hit in the health fund. Um, the Eagle picture thing that we talked about today is going to really help us there. And yeah, the budget is up. Why is the budget up? Well, the budget is a 72 or 74 or 76 million dollar budget. Miss, you'll tell me after the meeting. We'll get it right next time. But it's only nine point last year or the current year. We used nine point three four two thousand dollars of property tax money. The current budget that we've got in front of you uses nine point one. The budget did go down, but we have sales taxes. They're all up and we didn't put them up by five or six percent We did what we told you in the five-year forecast. We increased them by two and a half percent over estimated. Um, we have other fees that have gone up. The court fees have gone up, but our court caught, but our, our jail fees doubled this year. So another cost that we had to absorb is instead of paying 45,000 for jail fees, we're paying 90,000. All that comes out of the general fund. So the budget, you're not going to be able to add 3% raises and all the things we've done to improve the health fund and all the growth we have in the sales tax funds and not grow the budget. But we did reduce the property tax side and we understand that's a, big a big pain point so we're ready to take your direction but the department heads are here because they're taking this real serious and Missy did a great job this year of going through the estimated column so when you're looking at the numbers it's not the best to look at adopted you can see when the audit gets done they don't ask you for the adopted from the previous year they ask you for the actuals and then they ask you to estimate the current year because the adopted budget is meaningless our adopted budget is all of our money and reserves and everything appropriated and in the budget. That's what the state requires. So those three columns should be useful. We're prepared. We've gone through every line item in that budget and already prepared comments about why this one's up, why this one's down, what we cut, what we added. We have done with the new system, there's been a lot of movement. The public safety sales tax is a good example. All that money used to be budgeted off budget. With the new system, Missy loaded the entire thing in. If you look at police and fire, depending on what fund you're looking at, it looks like it's way down or way up. But when you look at it in whole, which Missy's already done, you can see that there's a nice couple of percent growth there. We haven't lost anything in police and fire. But we definitely took nearly a million dollars out of our general fund operating accounts for things that I don't know if... you know, if, if, if we come back to you at the end of the year and when we're short on those, you know, that's going to be another discussion, but that's the steps that we took to balance the budget this year. And it is balanced currently. Um, but I understand and we're here. We have, you have our attention. Um, we'll go as low as you want to go and we're going to try to do it without, um, a hard hit to the service because what we really are, like I say all the time, is just 50% of our budget is people and their equipment and tools doing things that just come up during the year in addition to their regular work. And so anytime you reduce a mill, it's about $182,000 we need to take out of this budget. And that's one thing to keep in mind. And on the other side, for a $100,000 piece of property, that same mill, cost of taxpayer, $11. So for us, it's definitely a balance of giving the taxpayers a break, but also not putting this city in a position where halfway through the year, we're just already spending our reserves because we under budgeted. And I know that's a lot, but I just wanted to make sure we heard you and that's where we are today. And we are here to answer any questions.

I'd like to have a copy of that list that you just ran through, please. The two parts of the equation for property tax is the valuation we have no control over and city spending, which we have all the control over, aside from dancing in between the raising costs for materials and what's going on around us and the cost of the communities around us as well. We have been high taxed. Property tax has been very high in this community for some time, and the people are demanding help with this. Again, as Steve's comment earlier, this being easy, it's not easy. This is the hard part. When people pay attention and they walk through this, this is the second stage of the hard part. The proposed budget you brought to us is a starting point. You got to that point by working with the department heads and looking at things that were open to cut. No negotiations I've ever been a part of stopped at the first start. We need to work a little more on this. Exactly what to cut back is something that you know the Commission needs to speak with the department heads and look at Things that are available. We don't work with them in those departments daily and don't know The detailed information of looking at a line item chart, which is convoluted in the first place especially with a new program I guess so my understanding and my my request is that we look at this deeper and and try to get to a position where we are actually making a tax break for our community and our people. I know we can't do this for three years and hold at that level, but I was in this room last year when the neutral rate was voted upon and there was uproar within this community for months because it was approved by the previous commission to go above the neutral rate and spend more. So now we're sitting here now asking the staff to help us communicate with us and help us get to a point where we can actually help them lower their taxes and it be something they can actually see. One mill is, again, not a lot for a taxpayer. It's not a meal. If we can get, and Stu, to answer your question, 1.35 is in addition to where we're sitting now that I would be comfortable with.

What's magic about that?

That gets us to 3.5 in the reduction in the mill through reduction in spending. And I think that's very doable working together. I think we can make this happen.

Well, the only question I have based on your comments about working with the department heads, isn't that what we did for the last six months for an hour before every meeting?

So if you paid attention to that was the start, are you saying I didn't pay attention to you? It's not just in briefing. That's my question.

You're saying I didn't pay attention for six months. Let me finish. Go ahead. Throw your information out there.

Let's calm down. Let's calm down. Take a breath. What I'm saying is what they brought to us in those was an initial where we're at and what we need. At no point in those hearings did we hear as a commission where they felt they could reduce spending. That didn't happen. So if you were paying attention, we saw the front side of it. Now we're asking about the back side.

If you were paying attention, they also gave us a list of things that they would like to have to improve our services to our community. Darren said that all, if not most, of those were left out.

Well, like I said, I'm not attacking you on what you're perceiving. I'm saying this is the basic information.

We did not get... Well, I don't know that it's warranted that you ask if I paid attention, so I'm not sure what that comment was.

Well, no, it's pretty much... Hey, guys, let's get past this.

Once versus needs is what I think it should be, and... I think there's some legitimate questions on wants versus needs. So without feeling like we're attacking, I don't even like that word, but maybe explain some of the wants versus needs. Could we start there?

Yeah, I think when you say wants versus needs, yeah, what we need to understand is what you we are we're not all here today because we don't have anything to do we're here to answer your questions you just got to give a specific question sure i'm happy that you guys are thank you for all being here wants versus needs isn't that's relative so you got to just tell us okay what just lay it out i think we've got a crew here and we're ready to talk but well who's in charge of fleet who's in charge of the fleet that's in charge of matt you're the first one up there

Explain to the average person how many cars or trucks in the fleet.

So there's roughly around 100, we'll say, one ton and down that we run through the fleet through all different divisions. That includes PD, patrol, everything through there. So a couple years ago when we did, our stock was 10 plus years old, actually probably pushing closer to 15. We did that improvement. Now, what we've done with the fleet is we stopped doing outright purchase, so we do have the upfront cost, but we're building equity. And so what we've actually seen, in fact, we just met with Enterprise here the last week or so, we've actually seen some of the vehicles that are approximately three years old that we've put back into the market actually sell higher than what we had on the recovery value of those vehicles because they gained equity and the market increased. So we've seen some of that. We've also seen improved safety enhancement with the vehicles that we have. I mean, a lot of them all now have backup cameras and all the fun stuff that goes into that. It's all standard issue on a vehicle now. We're also seeing, I mean, with that, we also have better fuel economy with those vehicles as well. And so we've seen some better, we've seen an uptick on our mileage per vehicle, which goes with, I mean, obviously fuel is up as well. So I wouldn't say, you know, there's a certain level of wash and all that, but we took the directive to... you know, update our rolling stock to make that. And so there is some upfront cost of that, but we're starting to turn around and resell those vehicles that are in more of that three-year window with low mileage and putting them back in. And what we've seen is we're seeing a higher resell value on those vehicles because of the equity we have in them and replenishing those funds. So we're actually gaining on that. So right now at the moment you're looking at all those costs on those lease vehicles. So it's a double-edged sword because what you see in the budget is the annual cost for each leased vehicle that we have in the budget itself. However, when we sell those vehicles, that money returns into the fund in which those vehicles came out of or gets replaced. And so you don't actually, it's hard to find and see unless you go down every, every list of vehicles to say, hey, this is what we expected to get out of the salvage value, and this is what we actually got.

And I understand the upgraded part of it, you know, working on it in the long term. How do you determine the amount of vehicles? Most people, they drive from home, they go to work, they get in the vehicle at work, and they do their duty, and then they park it.

I can tell you I still get hit up that we don't have enough. In fact, I realized even in my own department, I may have chopped my own legs off with some shuffling around. We evaluate, so years ago we evaluated and we continue to evaluate with department heads and divisions and we shuffle, we get what they need. 10 years ago or 12, Landy and I went around and we did some right sizing. We had some three quarter ton trucks that should be half ton trucks and we talked to department heads. What are they actually using it for? What's the purpose of this vehicle? Prior to Chris, Toby and I had some conversations about, you know, we got a couple short beds that really need to be long beds and we, you know, for water tanks and different things. Same conversation I had with Dexter here recently was we brought the trash service on and, you know, he needs a one-ton. He needs a, well, no, we need an eight-foot bed because we're hauling poly parts. You know, trying to get, and so some of that in between, we gave them some stuff to make it work to get off the ground, and we're trying to right-size some of that. So we're not just willy-nilly. It's, you know, there was some accusation of, you know, everyone just got whatever they wanted, and that was what it is. It's not that way. No, I understand the upgraded part of it. We try to utilize the best, you know, and we still, you know, there's still another ask here or there, you know, of a handful of vehicles.

Can you summarize real quick? the funding of the fleet because...

So the funding of the fleet is broke out into the public safety sales tax, utility operating, and the STCO, the sales tax capital outlay. And so every vehicle that we have is assigned to each division and department, which resides within each one of those three funds. And so it's not coming all out of the general fund. There's a lot of stuff... Is any of it coming out of the general fund?

Is any of it coming out of the general fund? I think there is just a few.

No, not out of the general fund. It's all out of actual STCO. I mean, there's not. It's sales tax capital outlay. There's not property out. Yes, that's a good point. All the leased vehicles from Enterprise are coming out of the sales tax capital outlay. out of the utility operating budget and out of the public safety sales tax. So there is no general fund money.

And do you understand what sales tax capital outlay is? I mean, that's another one of the earmarked sales taxes.

Well, you said, Matt, that you hear all the time that we don't have enough vehicles, and I'm sure that's coming from employees. But we hear all the time, how many vehicles do you have to have? So it's a two- It's a double-edged sword, yes. But to the point is, the vehicles we get in, you get in, are stock vehicles. You put... lighting on there, whatever you do that you need. And you don't take that off. That goes with the vehicle. So that extra cost that it costs taxpayers put that on, you probably recoup that when you sell the vehicle with that on, right?

Oh, yeah. And most of everything we have is orange and white. It's LED. There's really not a lot outside of PD. PD is your own little animal. And a lot of the advantage we have with Enterprise when we outfit a one-ton, a service body, whatever, that actual up-front capital above and beyond the vehicle for the body of the truck, that actually... That cost is cut in half and input into the lease payment, and the rest of it comes back on the resale for that service body. But those are typically a five-year lease vehicle.

There may be one. It looks like in 2027 budget we have a vehicle for animal control. I don't know if that's PSST. That is PSST. So that's even PSST. Sorry. I was trying to.

So is there a savings of the amount of take-home cars compared to driving to work, getting in their vehicle, leaving the vehicle here? Is there any savings fuel-wise or wear and tear-wise? because it seemed like there's a lot of take-home vehicles.

Again, that's up to the department head. The requirement is we live within eight miles and it's respond to emergency situations. And there's a little bit of, I mean, that's up directly to how they respond to whether it's building services.

How many take-home vehicles are there? Yeah, I mean, outside of public safety, who's got a take-home vehicle?

I've got two in my department, myself and one other individual.

Two. And how often do you get called out for use with that vehicle on average?

I'd have to ask fire and PD, probably weekly.

Every once a week, that kind of stuff? And then the other person that has it, similar? I would have to check with them, but probably every other week.

So you're not talking about a significant amount of fuel savings if you park the vehicles compared to coming in and getting in and doing... For us, it's time.

For me, it's time. People running through buildings, house fires, anything, PD and fire calls. So it's not... I mean, I did it for 11 years. The first 11 years or 10 years I was here, I drove my personal vehicle.

No, I was just curious about how many take-home cars in the fleet, total.

Mr. Barron, Darren. Yes, sir. What was your final, when you added all up the cuts, where were you? Missy won't let me do that.

I thought you said 900. Missy won't let me do that. Are you talking about the total decrease of expenses?

I only gave you... the total cuts that were on here, this isn't comprehensive. This is literally the comprehensive list you have. Um, we could probably go through cause we did it line item. This was me yesterday saying, okay, in general on revenues, revenues decreased. Um, in addition to the mill rate, there's also delinquent tax collections connected to that. So that's another 27,000. Our state liquor tax went down 16,000. and our motor vehicle tax went down. So we took about a $259,000 hit there. But we did have increases in the revenue, so that's good. The total I had just on the ones I listed was $2.1 million decrease in expenses that we've taken out. But some of those were one time.

So to bring it down, so these gentlemen want to get down to four mils cut. that would mean you would have to find another $6 million to cut, right?

No. Not at all. So if you're saying two more, we're at right now?

1.35. You said down to four.

You're at 2.5.

Well, no, I just give what four would look like on the mill.

Well, how much would four look like? It would be another $364,000. So it's not just us gentlemen.

It's not just us gentlemen that want to reduce taxes. It's the taxpayers that want it.

I didn't point at you.

No, you said us gentlemen want to reduce the mill, and it's not just us. It's the taxpayers that want us to try to reduce expenses.

You know, it's really funny because I talk to a lot of taxpayers, and nobody has mentioned this. They say, you guys are doing a good job up there, and the city's looking fine.

Well, same way here, Doc. I've heard from a lot of people that, you know, I know we're struggling to pay expenses, but so is everyone.

So is the taxpayer. Something's got to be cut or somebody's got to be cut. You keep cutting.

Either you've got to increase revenue or cut services.

And the taxpayer's got to decide if they're going to buy a loaf of bread or they're not. So, you know, it's a two-edged, double-edged sword.

If you get it down to once... and needs. The needs, if you get rid of the wants, you have the money to do the things that we're wanting to do. Not cutting people, not cutting down on their health insurance. You know, we had a long, lengthy discussion before about that. I hate that. I don't want to do that. But I understand it. And then going negative on the health insurance reserves, And then that $2.5 million from Eagle Pitcher, I really think that ought to go into the IMA fund, the whole thing. That way you're sitting there, you have it, and leave the IMA alone so people don't have higher deductibles.

IMA is our health fund.

Yes, I'm sorry. No, you're fine. But when people look at things overall, everybody has this problem in your own house, your family, whatever. And sometimes you just gotta deal with that a little bit, but you make up ground in other places. Don't get rid of employees, don't cut fire, any services, But there's some things that you're just used to doing and you just don't think about it and maybe we don't need it. So that's why I was asking about maybe fuel savings and take home cars and that type of thing. And, you know, no disrespect to the fire department, but I see the big fire trucks go out and guys will go eat at Panda or places like that and they're driving. I know if they get called out. but they're driving a million or two million dollar fire truck and it takes a lot of fuel and I could see every TV show I watch they're cooking in the firehouse and they're great cooks so why are we spending money driving around other than maybe be seen in the general public and chief like said no disrespect but when you're thinking about saving money and how much it takes to rev up that truck and leave the station to go on a Walmart run when you see them come out with a few sacks Why couldn't somebody go in the pickup and go get stuff?

It's just a question, I'm sorry. No, no, it's a legitimate question, and I get it a lot, to be honest with you. And it's one of those things where it all boils down to time. And to have somebody, to split crews and send them to a Walmart, send them to another shopping to get the food to cook in the firehouse, it... It takes time for them if they get a call to either respond back to the firehouse to get to the truck they need or to try to get to the scene and meet together and then come together. So it's just a simple thing of time and every second counts when it comes to an emergency.

Do we have other vehicles to go to the grocery store other than the fire truck?

We could, but it's going to be a matter of splitting the crews. And again, if we split the crews, then we're already down staffing as it is. So if I take somebody else off the truck and then send them to the store... then if we get a call, well, then that's one less person on the fire truck. So that's kind of where it boils down to.

Chief, I've had this discussion with you and Darren, and I brought it up, our EMS calls. We're using $1 million, $2 million trucks to run EMS calls. And it is a staffing issue. When I was on the department 25 years, we had two people at station two and two people at station three, and it worked perfect. We had a guy that changed that before you got here, and there's three at station three and three at station two. If you bring those guys back uptown, you have more people at number one station. What we did, we ran... with the pickup. The youngest guy on the shift that day, we ordered what we wanted. He took a pickup, he went to the store, came back. He's got a radio. If we get a call, he's going to respond in the pickup. We don't need to be going in $1 million, $2 million truck and the fuel. My other concern is running these trucks on EMS calls. They're as big as they are and as fast as they drive, it's a safety issue. You know, people don't hear sirens. They're preoccupied, you know. But if you ran two guys from station one in a small pickup for the whole town, then I'm not saying, you know, it's just routine EMS calls. I'm not saying a code. A code, naturally, you'd respond with a pickup and a couple guys and whatever station is close enough to whatever district the EMS calls it. So that's my, I think we could save some money

I 100% agree with you, and I would absolutely love to do that. The problem is that we have requirements for NFPA, crew sizes. So by taking that third person out of that station, I'm taking that third person off that truck. If we were to get a house fire, now we have to wait for another truck to either come from Station 2 down to Station 3's area before we can even make entry to start fighting that fire. So by keeping that third person on the truck, they can start pulling a hand line. They can start getting ready. The officer can do a 360 of the structure to determine safety, to identify whether or not there's going to be any rescues. Putting those uptown, I would absolutely love to be able to ride them on a smaller truck. That is 100% my plan. If you remember, during my budget presentation, one of the main requests I'd had was for three extra people, and I know that is not popular at all. But that is what I need for my department. I am trying to make it work of what we have right now. But maintaining that crew integrity is paramount. To be able to, every second count, pull a line, get the water on the fire, to make the rescues is what we're looking at. Chief, that's my point.

You just said it. That's a need. To Cheryl's point, a want versus a need, you're not getting that, and that's a need, not a want.

Well, here's my response, and I agree with everything you're saying. So you've got three people on a $2 million fire truck that goes on an EMS call. They have to stay at that scene. If you get a fire call, they don't leave that scene until they're relieved by ambulance, paramedic. What if that ambulance is somewhere in the county and we got a fire that takes all three stations? Now you have one truck tied up for however long it takes the ambulance to respond to that EMS call. And I'm saying if you had two guys in a pickup, they still got to be there, but... you're in a pickup. That apparatus that's sitting there waiting for the ambulance to come is not being able to be used at a house fire, a college building that's on fire.

So, you know, I hear what you're saying, but... Yeah, I mean, right now, I mean, to be honest, my minimum staffing on the daily is eight people. So, I mean, that's... in lack of a better word, crazy at some point, depending on our call volume. I showed you in our budget presentation, our call volume has increased dramatically over the past 10 years.

EMS calls or fire calls?

EMS calls is driving it. It is one of those things where I'm trying to balance it as best as possible. I understand that we have to be able to respond to this virus 100%. We also have to be able to respond to a cardiac arrest that happens at the bar at 4th and Broadway. It balances out. It may not seem like a huge emergency because it's a smaller, it's a medical local versus a large fire, but to that person, that is 100% an emergency. And every second counts for us to get there. So by bringing a crew up to having a dedicated crew at Station 1 to run those calls, absolutely. I would absolutely love to do that. Unfortunately, with the staffing levels we have right now, And it's hard to bring those up from the outlying stations to station one. But I would absolutely love to do it.

Well, I hear what you're saying. And that was the same staffing levels that I, when I was on the department 25 years, we made it work at that staffing level.

Well, at half the call volume, though, too.

Well, yeah, I guess we'd have to wake up the horses when we went on some of those calls. But anyway, I just, that's in my heart, you know, that I think we could do it, like I said, and you're saying you'd love to do it. I think maybe you could look at that and see what happens.

Can we get... As we go through items, can we wrap them up so we don't have to go through them again later? Did we wrap up the cars? There's no vehicles charged to the general fund. I understand gas, but we've had this discussion every year since I've been here, not always with the commission, but the biggest pushback I get is from the insurance companies that are saying, You don't want all your cars overnight in one parking lot. That's a really huge claim waiting to happen.

It sounds like you're only taking a few home.

I'm not arguing with you. Can I finish? I'm not arguing with you. Go ahead. So we have definitely looked at, and you've asked before and others, what's the list of people taking home cars? They are generally in the utilities. Utilities is a kind of a system where We all know what's going on this week. Stuff breaks at night. People need to get out. But I do think we're pretty diligent. But Cheryl, I don't want to leave it hanging. Can we move off of that one?

Oh, yeah, yeah. Question. Thank you for answering. I just wanted to know.

And the majority of the take-home cars are, like I said, Dexter has two out of the building services, but everything else is utilities, police, and fire. I mean, it's all emergency response.

Because of that hundred, I just wondered how many was take-home.

Yeah, you're talking about probably 20-ish overall through the whole system of that 100. So we've got 80 of them parked somewhere.

Police has a bunch. Fire has a bunch. Let's narrow the gap and make a focus group. Let's focus on things that we possibly can reduce that are tied to the general fund, not tied to sales tax, that we can actually make this effective. That way we're not bouncing back and forth on things that don't qualify.

That's what the detailed line item budget is. I don't know. Somebody sounded like they didn't like it very much. But, I mean, it's by fund. So you can look in there.

Before we get there, I had a question. Giga energy. We get franchise fees. And what is Giga? And what's the franchise fee we get?

Giga is the data center. And how much? I mean, we're halfway through the first year, and it's, I don't know. We don't have any data centers compared, so I don't know if we get more electricity and hotter weather like we do at my house. So Blake negotiated the deal, and we kind of went through the numbers two years ago when they were coming. I think we have our franchise for electricity is up 234,000. That is not just Giga. But I think we're estimating probably maybe 10,000 a month. But I don't think we'll know until a year from now and we've run them for a year. Because they were ramping up and we just don't have a data center.

I thought Blake said 30, and 10 of it went back to them, and 20 is what the city kept. 10 of it was sales tax. Sales tax.

And sales tax, we did not increase it. Until I get some sales tax numbers on them, I'm not going to write that. I know we're going to get electricity from them.

So currently, the revenue generated from that specific entity, we don't know what it is. Is that what you're saying? We do.

He knows. It's 20?

The estimate provided by Evergy in the early stages was that the total revenue for the city would be 30. I just can't recall if it was 20 franchise, 10 sales tax or vice versa.

It was 20, but roughly 30 a month.

Right. A month. The agreement that was approved by the commission was that for the first five years, the city would rebate back half of the franchise fee for the first five years.

That was around 10 grand, right?

Yes, yes. We should be receiving, combined with all the elements involved, 20,000 projected.

And those are just the early estimates provided by Evergy.

To me, that's like... a guy selling me a car and telling me how fast it's going to go for how long. I mean, we didn't put it in the budget because I don't, I'm going to put numbers in that we think we're actually going to hit. So what have we, you have a sales tax isn't in there. We've put, I think we put about 120,000 in for the, our share of the franchise. That's all we've put in next year's budget, right?

So for 2026, the revenue totals from that establishment have not been applied to 26 is budget. And then we're looking at 27 is budget now. We obviously need to look at this as another way to help with this process.

Missy's budget has 26 projected, and I'm sure it's based on what we've currently seen for the year, and that would include gigas, but that's the only accounting we've done for that facility because we just don't have actuals.

I haven't seen anything on where that revenue's been allocated or defined for use.

That's just going right into the general fund. Our franchise revenues go right into the general fund.

Yes, electric, phone, all of it. And so the overcap from Eagle Pitcher's sale, that additional funding outside of the bonds, also has contributed... Revenue. Into the general fund. Okay, so with those two revenues added to the cuts that have been made, I mean, we can clearly get to three and a half to four if we...

But those aren't ongoing revenues.

Right. One is, one isn't.

We can't balance this budget on one-time revenues, or we will be, whoever's in here next year is going to have to raise the bill, or we're going to start deficit spending, which is what we did when I got here.

Well, we're saying it's going to, I mean, projected it's going to keep running. The one from Eagle Pitcher, yes, that's shutting down. But the data center revenue applied to this is not, they're not expected to shut down.

But we don't know what they're generating. They've only generated for, what, five months is all we probably have booked? Yeah. If that's if they start in January. I mean, I totally agree.

I just want to know what it is. We don't have that total.

What's that?

We don't have the total they generated in five months. Blake knew.

No, Blake knew what they told him it was going to be two years ago that they were going to generate.

Right, but we should have somewhere. You should have somewhere.

From the time they started up and running?

Average he has, let me see.

Because maybe it's as simple as a couple places.

I'm looking.

And that would be in the, that goes to the general fund? That all goes right in the general fund.

Yeah, and it's earmarked in there. So I can tell you what we collect. Okay, in 25, our actuals for franchise tax for electric, which is where the big bulk is, we had about 1.7. We had budgeted 1.5 in 25. For electricity? Mm-hmm. And then, so we are projected for 26, we have is 1.9. and our budget for 27 is the same, 1.9.

1,934,000, is that right?

From out there? No, that's for everything. Oh, total. That's every total.

That's total. One of the things about data centers is they have to sell their space to people, and sometimes they sell, they have more space to sell than is available.

So we can't work out a contract.

That's what I'm saying is you don't know from, time to time, year to year, how much? So you can't project forward and say that we're going to get $1.2 million a year. Because they may not be able to sell that space.

But if they worked out a contract and they guaranteed this is what they're going to give them. If they're on the contract, yes.

Well, and to DJ's point, I mean, yes, there's a lot of ways. One way to balance the budget is to increase revenues. But we traditionally... We're probably at 4% revenue growth right now in the sales tax. Last year we were 6%. Every year we budget 2.5%. If you want to balance it that way, but the problem with doing that is... We've got to do this every year.

We're not saying what we're doing today is going to be for 28%. I think we focus on 27% and we clearly have the ability to do what we're asking.

I'm agreeing with you. If you want to write up revenues, I'm just telling you the reason we don't is we always try to stay real conservative on revenues. Because if they don't come in, then you're cutting stuff. I don't know what that would be. I don't know what another 2% increase would be. I'd gladly write in $300,000 for gigas, but I don't know what it is. I don't have a history yet. I know they told us what it was going to be, but We all know how that works out.

Is this the same company? I don't remember. I don't know. Is it the same company that originally built that or has it been sold? No, it's been sold. Just one time? Or has it been sold multiple times?

Just once. I can tell you overall, I'm looking at between 24, I'm sorry, 25 and 26 comparison. If we're just looking at for the first six months, of the year, we're up $129,000 just in electric. For the franchise. Okay. So for six months, 26 over 25 is up basically $130,000 for six months.

But is it always up $130,000 after the first six months, every year, every year?

That's part of the thing. We're not going to know that information. We're going to have to deal with it every year. and re-look this every year. And that's the whole point of digging into this budget this deep, is to find the eaches and work them as the upcoming budget is out there. I think this is viable. I mean, I... So what do you want us to write for the revenue? I don't know. I'd like to see the actual numbers from what they're producing. And then, I mean, some of the money from Eagle Pitcher also could be applied to this. If we were looking at their revenue over the next 10 years to be applied as a consistent, because they were planning to be consistent. Now we've got a cash out, essentially. Then let's apply some of that money, the overhead, towards this year's budget. I'm not saying all of it, but some of it to get us to a more feasible number to give our taxpayers some kind of a break.

For me, getting back on Giga and going by what they told us they were going to give us, help me understand if we sold them the ground and they told us, There's no contract that if they told us they're going to pay this and they haven't paid it?

No. Mr. Mayor, those numbers were provided by Evergy. And so the agreement that the city had with the data center company didn't stipulate any direct payments from that company to the city. We just knew that based on the electricity that they would be purchasing, that the city would be collecting sales and franchise fees on that electricity. Okay. But it was not an agreement between the city.

So we'll never know what. It could change, you're saying. Can I get a copy of that agreement?

I'd like to look at it. Yes, it could fluctuate based on how much electricity they use.

How do we budget, work that into, I think that's what you're asking.

The same way you budget for everything, you look at the estimate from the year before and the history, and you say, okay, does it look like we're trending up or down, and then what are you comfortable with growing that number by? but with only six months, I know it's August now, so it feels like eight, but I don't, I mean, so we just don't have a year yet of knowing what they're, what they're going to do.

So I looked back at the change from in 24 to 25 in the first six months and it's only $38,000 more in 25 than it was in 26 or in 24. So if that's the case, then you're looking at about an increase of a hundred thousand in six months.

So 18,000 a month. So I guess you could put in 12 times 18. I mean, yeah.

I mean, yeah. I mean, this is the direction we're discussing and trying to get to. I mean, it sounds like this is a big chunk of it right here.

Yeah, I mean, hey, man, we can write up every revenue by 4% and get out of here. I mean, we always are. I've told you this every year. We are very conservative on revenues because my history has always been it's better to be conservative and have money at the end than have to cut stuff in October, September, whenever you find out, oh, wow. But I don't know that there's any. Magic to you. I don't know what the sales tax if we go from two and a half percent We projected three and a half percent what it gets you. But yeah, I mean you can set the revenues That's why we do the five-year forecast so you can say no. No. No, let's let's be aggressive this year and I've been in plenty of cities and scenarios where they're Extremely aggressive on their revenue estimates and they just deal with it in the end on the back end If it doesn't come in and they hold off on something But you've got to do that with enough time in the year to save that money and sometimes that's tricky to do

Well, I appreciate you being conservative. All we're asking, maybe we can be a little bit more conservative and see what we can do.

If you want us to go show you what a 1% increase in sales tax would be or some of these other ones on top of what we already have and what it does, I don't think we can do it on the fly today.

It's not just that, too. The franchise fees from one entity and whatever the city's overhead is going to be after the bonds and all the fees are paid for from Eagle. I mean, we're I mean, 215 adding to 135, if we got to 3.5, then I think that would make sense. But just the franchise fees were almost there.

It's not illegal to balance the budget on a one-time revenue. It's just not a best practice. And the reason it's not a best practice is because in 2012, I inherited a budget that was out of money because they kept not doing their due diligence and putting a structurally balanced budget together. But for a year or two... I mean, that's all on the table. I mean, just tell us what you want us to do.

I feel like our franchise tax, we were already pretty aggressive with our increase, but, I mean.

We just don't know with that, with Giga. I mean, everything else is just, you know, electricity is about the same every year with a little increase, and you just kind of roll it up 2.5%. I don't know what you want. Do you want to go through every line item in the general fund and just start saying, does this look right? Do you want... Cause I know what you're saying and I like it, but the staff always looks at me and says, look, man, you've got, we've got the parks and rec department. We've got half the people we need. And we do three times the work that we are, that we're budgeted to do. And we're being asked to cut. And they're like, and all I told them was, well, we're going to cut out your clothing, your equipment and your help. And that's, that's, that's not a woohoo. If we can increase revenues a little bit. And, and, and we know that when we all come in here next June, And Missy's given her mid-year report before next year's budget, and it's like, yeah, revenues, we're not like, we're going to hit all those revenue estimates, and we have to do something. I mean, that's all on the table. We just, you know, we're trying to give you a very conservative balance.

I feel like we're saying the same thing. I mean, DJ keeps saying overhead on the, I think what we're talking about is the proceeds from the, how does it look if we use, enough proceeds from the Eagle sale to get to the number.

It's nothing. It's easy to do. In seven years is the only time it'd probably be a problem. And you have plenty of time to adjust it between that.

And to Cheryl's point about replenishing IMA, I think that sounds great. I just don't know that we're in a position if we're cutting this year to replenish that. Right now we're in the hole. Right, right. Committed how much? So we have 2.5 based on

Jessica? Yeah. That's just money in the general fund. It's not even tax money. So that's good. We've committed 800 of it to make this year's budget projection balanced.

But we also put the remainder in the general fund. We've already booked that in there. We already show that as income.

But there's a reserve in the general fund. So that's how the general fund works. If you want to take... There's nothing easy about it, but if you want to take another mil down and just say, look, we're going to take it out of the Eagle Pitch of Money and we're going to watch next year and see how things come in.

That seems simple enough to me.

Yeah. I mean, the staff would say thank you because, quite frankly, they won't even look me in the eye right now because I took $860,000 out of those five line items.

If we consolidate the overall revenue from the data center and the remaining that we need to, say, get to 3.5 mil total reduction... from Eagle Pitcher, we're there. And it's not taking all the money out of the benefits, proceeds from Eagle. It leaves movement in there. It'll cover for this budget. It gets us tax relief for the community without punishing anybody. It works for the city, you know, fighting off the promotions and raises.

As long as we realize, like Darren said earlier, that's a one-time, the proceeds from Eagle. Part of it, yes. It was one time. It's this year. So, I mean... We're going to have to find, you know, next year to maintain that.

We're going to have to find that somewhere else. Well, so I guess what I would recommend, because you guys can't vote on this until you vote on it. Right. It's tomorrow. It's 745. There's, I don't know where we are in Christy's list, but I think most of them, Missy's like, yeah, we need to go through that list. At the next meeting, why don't we present you? an amendment, an adjustment to the submitted budget with the stuff we're talking about and take the mill down one more and adjust the certification page and all that. Is everybody okay with that doc?

One, one, three, five.

No one. Yeah. We're 2.15. Do you want to go to 3.5? Yeah. Okay. So, and then we'll present, we won't present it. I keep using that word. We will have that budget in front of you and that budget is not submitted. So we can probably get it to you well before the meeting.

Okay. That was gonna be my next question.

And then, um, And then we'll just start the next meeting where we stop this meeting, which is how does it look now? And then what else is left to look at?

Is that? Sounds like a positive four.

So we're going to up the revenues. I guess this is just, we're going to take the property tax down. from current year to that 3.5, and the difference, we're going to look at the general fund and put it in there and see what that looks like.

Utilizing revenues that weren't utilized this year. Yeah. I mean, that's essentially what we're doing. We're not increasing overall revenues.

Will you correct your... Yeah, I'll go through the letter. 150 down to 100,000, whatever it was. If there's any other mistakes in there...

Well, those are actually two programs combined together. So, yeah, I can either add that it's also signs or I can take it to 100. Do you want signs to come out? That's what I was trying to do. Are we taking stuff out?

Yeah, if they're done and there's no longer a need for that, then, yeah.

The signs are ongoing.

The sign program is like the water line program. Every year we replace like a quarter of a million dollars in water lines. You just got to stay on top of it. Oh, you're talking about stock signs and stuff like that?

Street signs. Oh, the street signs. Okay.

All right, so before the next meeting, then we need responses for Mrs. Bittner's questions and issues with the budget current. Also, the adjusted off of what we've communicated tonight, changing use of revenue from the data center as well as EGLE applied to the budget to reduce the overall mill 3.5.

3.5? And are we clear on those positions? I think so. Okay, that's another one. I'm just checking stuff out. On the FTEs? Yeah. FTEs is the rest of it's the parks and the lifeguards.

We're talking about one additional full-time employee is what we added.

And I think we're going to need it if we're going to put two or three soccer fields over there next to a lake.

I think I might be able to address some of Christy's concerns real quick. And if not, then she could submit me a list of your other questions. I THINK WHAT SHE WAS DOING WAS COMPARING THE STATE BUDGET COMPARATIVELY TO LAST YEAR. IS THAT RIGHT, CHRISTIE? WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES?

COME UP TO THE PODIUM.

WERE YOU LOOKING AT THE STATE BUDGET?

I WAS LOOKING AT THE STATE BUDGET PAGES THAT ARE IN THE BOOK COMPARED TO LAST YEAR'S WHEN YOU SAID THERE WERE DIFFERENCES. I was using the state budget pages, yes. Okay.

So those numbers will never be the same. So when you look at 25 on last year's budget, those were projected 25s. So when you look at, I'm just going to explain what this state budget is coming from. When you look at the first column, the prior year actuals for 25, those tie out to the audit for 25. And the audit for 25 just finished We just got the report last month. So those numbers, if I take the trial balance straight from the auditors and break that into everywhere that it needs to be in the state budget, it ties out exactly line for line. So we didn't have audited numbers for 25 last year. So when you look at last year's, does this make sense? When you look at last year's budget for 25, I mean like the column that says 25, those were estimates. last year. Now we have audited numbers. So when you look at my numbers, those are audited numbers. Okay. The next column is for the current year estimate for 26. So basically we ran a financial statement for 2026 actuals through June 30. So those numbers are from June 30 and we are projecting. And so those are new projections. So those won't have been on last year's. It would not match the budget at all because last year it would have been 26 would have been budgeted numbers. Now we're talking about these are projected numbers based on actuals. So they have nothing to do with last year's numbers.

Is there an issue with getting the actuals prior to the budget season for the upcoming one? That we have that information and it's not fluctuating?

We don't have it.

We don't have it. The year's not over. Well, within a month. I mean, when does the audit process start?

No, the audit, this is correct. This is from the audit.

This is from the audit. When does the audit start, the officially start and run?

Our year's not up until December.

I'm not asking the time it's covered. The actual audit process itself, when does it start to finish?

We have them on site in March.

In March. You said something before about we were behind on the previous one because there was issues. Right.

The year I came, they were just finishing the audit in September of 25 for the 24 audit.

They were a year behind, right?

I understand the actuals versus the estimates and then your proposed budget. I understand all those, but I wasn't just looking at that. I was looking at all those others.

Yeah, they should all tie out. And let me tell you, they will all tie out. Every one of them's got three columns. It's got the prior year, 25 actuals, those all tied to the audit, which we did not have last year. None of this will tie to anything from Last year's, because they're all new numbers. They're all new numbers because last year 25 was projected. This year it's actual audited. Does that make sense? They are audited numbers. I got the audited numbers, I got the trial balance from the auditors, and then I sorted them and put them in the columns that they should be. in every one of these, none of these will match. If you pull out last year's budget, none of these numbers will match because we're talking about different periods. And we're talking about last year's was projected for 25, this year it's audited for 25.

But your unencumbered balances should be the same, correct?

No, no. Because auditors make journal entries.

No, but your actuals, like you're showing for 2025, You have, this is what we ended up with at the end of the year, correct? So then it goes over into 2026. Well, you have all kinds of numbers for 2025. Let me tell you, there's a bunch of numbers.

Okay, so like I'm looking at the library. It ends at 917. It starts at 917.

I know. I know. But that's not what I found in the... You're looking at... I'm looking at the general fund. That's what I was referring to.

The general fund.

Mm-hmm.

Are you looking over here at... Okay, you're comparing this.

I'm not even looking at that. Okay. I'm sorry. I just looked at this. This was very hard. I'm sorry we're not using some of the things we had last year.

That was all manual. I know.

I know.

Okay.

I was looking at the general fund.

Okay. Yes. So when you're here. Okay, so your unencumbered balance was $4,377,610. Okay. and it should be pulled four, three, seven, seven, six, 10.

Notice 25, that's your problem. You started 25 into 26. There was two different numbers. These were close, but they're not the same.

What are we comparing that to?

I found it somewhere.

This comes right straight from the bottom of this.

I know that.

Yeah, I mean, because that's all formula-driven in the worksheets.

The state worksheets are all formula-driven.

While she's looking that up, I do want to explain something because the state workbook is given to us. We pull that right off the Kansas Municipal site, and a lot of these formulas in the state budgets are hard-coded, and I don't change any of that. So I just put in from our trial balances and use those numbers from the trial balance. But what is confusing, this is confusing because When you look at the detail back here, all these blue sheets, this is all the detail. We have multiple funds that flow into the general fund. We have the 100, which is general. We have the 107, which is the Four Oaks. We have 108, which is airport. 109 is aquatics. 110 is farmer's market. 180 is healthcare fund, and 215 is the new fund, the public safety sales tax. So in order to do that, you have to add all those up to get it into one page, or actually it's three pages, but it's one document. So when you're looking at the general document, it's got all those funds added up. So you can see the complexities here, and I'm not trying to get you lost, but I just want you to know that you can't take the state budget here and tie it back to the blue sheet. because there's multiple funds that dumps into that one.

The state budget is made for everybody to use, so it doesn't have, we have four funds that are unique to us, the public safety sales tax. So it doesn't all, yeah.

I looked at it, we have actually 19 funds that go into various pots, correct?

I've got six. Oh, I don't have them all listed here, but yes, yes.

Okay, so at the very least, it's difficult. Right.

So when you get to the special highway fund tab for this, when you're looking at special highway, the 229 and the 231 goes into that worksheet. Then in the library, you've got the 120, the 121, and the 122 funds. Those are all library funds. And then when you get to Section 8, which is housing, you've got 240, 244, 245, 261. And the reason why I'm telling you this is so that you don't think that the number back here in the blue line sheet is going to tie directly into these, because they're not, because they're all compiled. The nice thing about getting it in the software system is, we can do a filter and a sort, and I can say, I need this fund, this fund, this fund, this fund, and I need it all brought in. So it'll filter it for me, I can bring it out, and I put it in an Excel spreadsheet, and then I can sort that through.

And I know I'm getting in the mud here. To Christy's point on that, the one you liked, it was like division, da-da-da-da-da. that you mentioned in one of the reports. It was like by division and department or... Well, it was like that page.

Well, it depends on what year. It's either like page 53, 54, 55. It's one of those. It's the very first page once you get to...

we will have that system is new and those are some of the reports that I've been asking for and they're like you're not gonna we're not even live with that system but those are the reports that we will just are prohibited from making them by hand because of all the stuff I'm like we're not going to be putting numbers in back into Excel spreadsheets we put in a new system we're gonna have to get those reports to come out of the system and then they will be right but that's why we haven't even taken a report writer class for this yet because we didn't have