City Council - Regular Meeting

your hair. That's a nice pirate pirate look.

Not now. Like it seems like

you're Have you seen me go like this and then start? You should have had Alexa here. Yes. I can't even access that slice. Hers is so large. I've got so much. Ready when you are. Anna. Everybody ready? Okay. Social Security. Hey, welcome everyone to our Roy City Council my very first work session. So today is March 17th and we want to recognize Council Member Jackson, Council Member Holder, Council Member Spar, Council Member Wilson, and Council Member Scatteren. Saxton.

I mean Saxton. See how many times have Bob messed that up? Saxton. Gez, I can't believe that I said that. So, just a reminder, um there's no public comment period today. This is a work session and it's just um discussion and people can watch it on YouTube or live. So, today our focus is on the fiscal year 2026 and 2027 COLA and wage studies. Please be mindful that this is only discussion item and our conversation needs to reflect on that topic even though I know there's lots of things I want to talk about but today we only are going to talk about this. So now it's time to started this our discussion on this and um Brian since you're the one that kind of started us off and you're the reason we're here. Do you want to start us off on this discussion

and why this is important to you?

Okay. Well, pros and cons. First, the pros. I I talked to Matt. I felt like when the state stepped in and eliminated the 28% increase that we should restore to that budget the 2.5% cola that was to go to the employees. uh 162 I think

roughly

roughly. Okay. Um the reason that I felt like we should do this was a I felt kind of guilty that you employees got slapped the hardest with the state's decision. And I also believe that we're we've only got a quarter of 26 left that we could use some fund reserves for this year. Now everybody's going to say, "Wait a minute, Phil Brian, that obligates us next year." and it does to about 18% for a tax increase for 27. But I want to point out that an 18% is still 11% lower than what we had initially proposed. So in trying to add off that historic Kai. I thought, let's break it down. Let's get the employees back on the cola and let's hope that sales tax revenues come in to where we can mitigate that 18% call. If we don't put back in the cola, there's going to be 15 to 20 people that will not receive the merit. So, they'll receive nothing because they're at their top step. Am I close?

Pretty accurate. Yeah.

Okay. So, I thought, let's meet, let's talk. I don't see the disadvantage of adding the 2.5. I think it helps morale. It lets the employees know we haven't forgotten about them. And we do it across the board. So there's no animosity between the department. And yes, I almost thought up this all by myself. Any questions? Those are all your pros and your only con is basically that we'll just have to have a tax increase.

We will have to have some tax increase back. Doesn't need to be an 18 because we could we might have a great sales tax revenue and we can mitigate that maybe and cut that whole thing in half. But it's it's using federal reserves and I think and I hope about 140,000 this year or the last quarter, right? Am I pretty accurate?

Okay, I'm a good guesser. Um, so anyway, I if but if there's cons to this, then tell me and I'll come back with another bad idea.

Hey, council, any comments? I have a question in regards to the like the purpose, you know, um you talked about wanting to make sure we let the staff know that we're still thinking of them and would this purpose be like this is basically just because we're thinking about you. This would this be to like increase retention of staff maybe go across because you know certain amount of money might help with retention a certain might might be a nice gesture. Uh what are you hoping to accomplish with the three months of this?

If if there is a wage disparity which I'm sure there is the 2.5 isn't going to hurt that. It's only going to help it. And it does send a message to the people that we are going to be depending on should we fall under an emergency. I mean, who's going to knock on your door first if it isn't first responders fire? And so I just, you know, I call it the guilts, call it a better way of doing it. It it breaks the it breaks the increase down and it gets us to use funds, reserve funds that haven't been obligated to anything, including the emergency fund. that money is just unobligated. So why are we not using that to our benefit instead of and that's all that's but yes do I hope it improves turnover of course does it slow the bleed maybe but if we do nothing and we keep sending the same message we know what the answer is going to be that's what I thought

so do you believe that the 18% % that you're talking about will then bring our wages up. That's sufficient to bring our wages up. So, we will have parody. So, we will be paying a fair a fair wage if we're trying to be if part of this then is to let our staff know that we are, you know, behind them. You feel the 18% will be that fair wage for them that that will fit that in?

I I don't know that. I I do know that it makes to me and this is where we got probably a difference of opinion but to me it does not make a lot of sense for us to sit on a savings account we cannot use ever until we we agree that This is that big fateful day. And yet we have, you know, when when I talked through Alexis about it and she had a neighbor that just recently needed service. I just don't want the fire station to go dark on the west side. I mean, that's that's something we've invested in for decades. Why are we I I just don't understand that. And this is such an easy simple vote. Yeah. The 18,000 generates what about 450,000.

So 9% around 450. So 18 would be two years of cola. Oh, I'm sorry. Two years of cola. So 9% and 9% I just I don't know. I I don't know how else to speak to it. I'll leave that to both the chiefs and and anybody else that wants to take this on.

Tell you that I'm I'm currently on the fence about the whole issue. I haven't heard a whole lot. I'm hoping tonight that we can get some definitive maybe a better sway of which way to go on it because private individual discussions have been okay we try not to spend something we don't know for sure we're going to get but at the same time I do like the idea of I mean okay let me switch gears here um talking about if we were do it a bonus versus the the base pay increase and personally I would have more for a base increase than the bonus because the bonus been kicked around. I mean, has been done over and over again many times. And if somebody was wanting to be recruited into Roy and they want to look at our our wages, they wouldn't see the bonus.

They still only see the base pay. And so if we were wanting to do it for recruiting, then I believe it would be better to do it on a base phase so they other people can see that that that it's still it's still going to be below the other cities, right?

But it could be a little bit better. So if on one side of the other on that part, if we were to do it that way, I would be more apt to doing it on that. But then the other discussion that is so hard to not have is is futuring predicting what may happen with what we're going to do with the fire district with whether we're going to keep it within Roy or push it to the Weaver Fire District and that could change how the taxes altogether everything's going to be accounted for. So, it's hard. We can't predict that one because that's we don't have any kind of numbers whatsoever and that one's not even going to be an applesto apples comparison. That's going to be a very difficult one to figure out. So looking at the future for me, I can only go on how I feel the fire district thing is going to go on the limited information that I have and as it sits, I would be personally okay with this increase based upon what I think might happen with the fire district in the future or with the fire department for the future. But it's really difficult to say. You know, we are doing better on sales tax, but we don't have that much of a what do you say quarter how many quarters we've got showing

showing an increase. We we can it doesn't make a a good predictor about it. I mean, we're headed in the right direction. I love it. And I hope we continue that direction. I just hope we don't go the other way and have another COVID happen or have something happen to where people are no longer, you know, because we're still in in a combat situation now, too. So gas prices are going up, a lot of things are going up. It's kind of hard to predict what's going to happen a little bit more in the future, but

I'll just say that everything is going on. So I can't imagine people wanting to work for Roy if there is no promise of you know some kind of future and my again it's it's 2.5 it's conservative I know that but 2.5 for roughly 20 of our employees is all they're going to get. And I just I mean, if this doesn't help turnover, I'm certain it's not going to hurt it. And I but I know I've done a squeaky will and I I recognize that and I know I voted against the 28. I recognize that because it was too much. But if 28 is too much, 2.5 has got to be more than adequate. And that's how I feel. My base feeling about our taxes anyways as it goes is every time we I mean it it eats up us council members because you go on a seems like four to five year cycle you get you get where the city gets into a rough spot where hey we might we might not be able to run if we don't raise taxes. So then the council votes to raise taxes. Everybody gets voted out of their seats and we get a whole bunch of new people that say, "Hey, I'm going to go in there and make sure that nothing ever gets raised and then they kick the can down the road four years until it's unattainable again. They raise taxes and then the

cycle starts over again. So, I'm more apt to go towards a yearly tax increase base model as it is a lower tax increase every year kind of a thing, but we got to somehow fix the fire department's disparity in the pay. And doing our yearly tax increase ain't going to get there. A smaller one. So, whatever we do in the future to try to get this the the fire department done, we need to get fixed. So, but as it is, I would be in favor of this just in the aspect that I feel like we need to go to a yearly small increase. Right. And today we're just basically talking about the

the cola and um I mean we've been having meetings um weekly about this and the wage study and and wanting to keep our employees here and whatever we can do. And it so I mean we just know I mean like Amber she's the financial person and she's it's hard to spend money that that you don't I mean Amber give us your opinion on it because you've told it to me many of times she's like oh my god it is a morale booster for sure

am so obviously next year for sure 18% % but then we want to you know got to consider like the fire department or not even we can do nine and n that doesn't fix the disparity I think is what she's saying I mean our wages are so low but that's only a cola right right that's only cola and to bring our wages up it's gonna yeah

yeah so to save Amber for a second um because I do have a question for Amber at the end, but so maybe we can combine that together. But um I know for me per I can only speak for myself obviously, but um my number one goal as a council member for this well the wage issue that we're in is to focus on increasing the wages because that's going to make the biggest difference in getting us to where we need to be to keep our employees and to also take care of our citizens in the way that we need to. And so I think like if you're like okay number one what's your goal? I would say wages is number one and then the cola and merit obviously go along with those and keep those longterm like that's what keeps us long-term competitive if we keep up with those things as we go. But my I guess my concern is if we use let's say we decide to do a cola um and I can tell you pros and cons. I've went around to all the department heads and talked to everyone. Um, and I know some of the other council members have done that as well. Um, and we did the cola. We're using money that we don't have yet. And so it's not so much that yes, we do commit ourselves to a certain tax percentage increase in the future. Um but also to me it's um committing us to like before we have a plan we're committing to a certain percentage before we have a set plan of how to bring these wages up. Um because it will be a combination of the wages getting to like taking the wage survey and making sure that we're actually to the level that is competitive with other cities and

similar jobs, but it also we have the cola that plays into it and we have the merit that plays into it. So it's not just one of these things. And so, um, I don't think I've talked to any council member at any point that doesn't want to fix that. I think that that is an overall goal that we all want to fix the wages and get us to a point that we because this really is the elephant in the room in everything we decide. Um, it it makes it so we can't we really can't do much more until we take care of this problem. Like it's because it's not just fire that we're losing. We're losing public works. We're losing court. I mean, the more I've talked to, it's it's slowly bleeding to the rest of the departments. It's not just one department. Um, and it's going if we don't take care of it, it will continue to bleed to the rest of the departments. like it the same exact thing that's been happening with fire and public works will continue to work but happened to all the rest of the departments if we don't take care of the issue. So, I guess um what I'm trying to say is I don't know if we can make a decision without cola about cola without talking about some of the rest of this if that makes sense. Like because it all works together. So, that's kind of where I stand just saying that like that's my priority is wages are number one to me. Um and I do feel nervous doing using onetime money in an ongoing expense um without having a cohesive plan that we have all agreed to um where now on the other hand you know you have the bonus option where that is not an ongoing expense but it is still using

one-time money but it's not an ongoing thing. So I think we do need to talk about the pros and cons of those. Um but I did have a question for an I promise it's not too dramatic for you, but um because um Brian mentioned where the money so right now the money that he mentioned sitting there or whatever from my understanding and I could totally be wrong, maybe I understood this wrong. Um any leftover money that we have, we either decide to put it somewhere or it goes to the fund balance that and then it can go to like capital expenditure. So can you explain that a little bit?

Yeah. So we don't have funds budgeted every year to save for capital expenditures. So what we have been doing in order to fund those capital expenditures is any um excess revenues over expenditures at the end of the year, they get transferred to the capital projects fund to pay for the next year's capital purchases. So our fund balance typically stays around the same percent because we do that. So yeah, so they do I mean they do eventually they go to a purpose. I'm I'm that's what I'm trying to clarify is it's not just necessarily sitting there.

So, we talked about like we don't save enough for fire for capital, but because we do that each year, we are still able to buy their large purchases because we have money going into there. Um we have a rotation on police vehicles um that we use to pay for that. And then just ongoing capital if we have repairs to the building. That's what all of that is used for. So, if we didn't do that, we would have to budget every year an amount to pay for all of those things.

And and something I don't um so I've also been on the legislative committee with Alexis that we I it's done now but um at the time we were listening to you know all the different cities and it's interesting to hear what they're all doing and one of the bills was about how much we could have like each city could have a fund balance and um so they asked each of the cities like from the league to send in how much we have at our like what we generally keep in our balances and um ours was I'll just say it's low much lower than most other it's on the low side of other cities. Same with our capital fund. We are on the low side of that as well. So we are we've been frugal. We've been careful with money and that's one reason that they are lower, but it's also put us in a difficult situation for the future and that's what I'm worried about I guess is the future. So that's when I'm talking about that this is says nothing. I think our employees are awesome. I think they deserve everything. Like I I would love to give them the world. Um I I don't think it has anything to do with that. I think it's about where we need to make sure that we actually have a plan that does protect those employees in the future, not just temporarily, but for long term. And so that's that's where I struggle with using one-time funds for an ongoing cost, if that makes sense. So, um, but I think we can talk about the pros and cons. I'm not closed off to some of those options. I just that's my struggle with it, I guess, as well. So talking to all the department heads. So obviously if you asked your employees, do you want a 2.5% cola, who's going to say heck no? But

if is that is that the only thing that would keep them here at Roy City or do you think if they were already looking that 2.5% cola is going to keep them here? Or do you think knowing that we're working on a wage study to try to, you know, bring their wages up with all the other, you know, surrounding cities and make us competitive so we can retain our employees. So what is your thoughts on that? So that you got to be careful I don't walk back anything I said to Diane and Janelle in our last meeting. So, I've been I've been thinking about this um and you know, obviously I've talked to Amber and the other department heads and so I I made some notes and I've kind of been thinking about this. So, you know, the the employees are going to appreciate hopefully whether it's a bonus or a cola, right? You have to be careful that neither is a slap in the face. Um 2.5% for my lowest full-time paid employees is going to be about 50 cents. Those employees just applied for a job at a smaller agency with less work for $5 more an hour. They don't want to leave. They feel like they have to leave. I've got another sworn employee who is actively applying for being recruited by another small agency with less work and will receive $6 more an hour. Their starting rate is $4 more an hour. Now, as we look at bonuses versus colas, right, the bonus is going to be one-time

money to the employee as opposed to over time. um it doesn't do anything for wage though where the other one does have an impact on their wage. Um Janelle, I appreciate this comment because for several years we had an issue with employee turnover. We were able to get that fixed in 2021. As I listen to um Theren and Brandon, I haven't had the issues that they're dealing with now for five years. That is starting to actually become a problem in our department. I have people actively looking and they can leave for several dollars. They don't want to,

they have to. So basically a 2.5% cola it's not going to keep them here if they're going to get paid by. No, but I think if you commit like I get the whole one time expendit totally get it budgeted like

but what is the message you're sending? What is the commitment you're willing to make? I think that will speak volumes even though the dollar amount isn't going to be voluminous, right? I think the commitment and the transparency and the message will speak tons going into this next budget session, truth and taxation season. And so I think the combination of the two done the right way. Like I have an he's going to leave, right? He's going to leave. This isn't going to fix that. But I have an employee that likely will stay. And so that's that's kind of where I've been sent.

Erin,

um I share the same sentiment. The two and a half is is a is a message. Is there a risk? Yeah. But I I think at some point we've got to take a risk to to send a message to the employees. I just want to share this with you. I didn't plan this, but I this is the last well two resignations ago by our 13. I'm just going to I think this is important. This is this is how the employee in the fire department is viewing it. Um so he just says in this I'd like to address the main reasons for his resignation. Roy City has shown a pattern of not being able to support the fire department. Lack of fair compensation, lack of funding and staffing have been a big issue. Minimum staffing is unsafe for the citizens and the members of the fire department. City budgets have been placed as a higher priority than the firefighter safety and professional standards. Firefighters are forced to work with unsafe staffing levels due to saving the city money. Roy City Fire Department has had a very bad consistency issue due to lack of leadership from some accountability and standards have been very inconsistent. I don't want to go into too much detail on this letter, but I would love to expand if needed. Lastly, I would rather join a fire department that I would like to be a part of. I have played the game at Roy since 2012. I could no longer ride the roller coaster of inconsistency and being let down by the city. I have stayed and seen the focus on recruitment and not enough on retention. I have had many opportunities to leave in the past. I have wanted to stay loyal to the department and to the city. There has been no career or personal benefit of my loyalty up to this point. I cannot spend the remainder of my career working for a city that has so mismatched unable to support their fire department and to be uh progressive and have high standards as we do. For these reasons, I feel like it's within my best interest to resign and join a fire department and city that could give me the support I need for the remainder of my career. So, I get that in the last pretty much 20 so resignations.

When was that one? This is just recently um within Caseville like within the last two weeks, two months, two months, month. Yeah. So when I I mean I that's just a heartfelt I think it's just important I share that with you. Um so when you start talking which one we should do the two and a half is a step in the direction. Does it solve the problem? No.

But it's it's Yeah. Is there inherent risk that that we Yes, it is. And that's we we've been I mean the message that's been uh said before is we just keep kicking the can down the road and it's this now elected officials. Do you pick up the can and make a a calculated risk? Is it a risk? Yes. Um but for my employees, um we're to the point where anything is going to help. um the bonus, the two and a half, the two and a half shows it actually goes for us. It goes on retirement. It increases the wages that we're trying to do. Um so I'm a proponent of doing the two and a half. It would uh stop retention. No, because we're the gap has now increased so much. I don't believe it would, but it would send an informal message that finally are we commit because you can hear in that message that there's just been too much inconsistency. Not truly committing to it because of the fears. Um there has been conservative approach which has been good, but now unfortunately it's created such a large gap. How are we ever going to make that up? Well, it's hard because we,

you know, I voted for the 28% increase. Keep your, you know, to get your fire department up and then where, you know, it didn't go through. Um, it's just sad that we we've lost so many more of your firemen and they recognize that. I I do think they appreciate, but I just it feels like there's always an obstacle and an inconsistent to get us to that next level. But just a question. Um you mentioned that the two and a half% from one-time funds poses a risk. What how would you articulate that risk? What's the risk that we really would be taking?

The risk is not like it's always been spoken of. You get it's ongoing, right? But in in our simple minds, we know the disparity of the wages is so far behind anyway. You gota you got to increase taxes anyway. So we if it's it's not a risk for us, it's it's financially. How do you make that up? That's what I'm saying is in our so like well take the risk at some point you're going to have to do it anyway. So you just mean the risk is spending onetime money and the risk is not being able to replenish it. Is that okay? Can I suggest something that I feel like is a is a risk as well in that?

Um I I've thought about this at length. I'm talking like what I sat down with you like in my campaign and I've really thought about not this specific issue but the whole overarching issue and especially in the last two weeks since I proposed this meeting and I've just I am just back and forth and this is what's hanging me up the one time if let's just in a in a fantasy world where I could spend onetime monies to send a message and bring up 2.5% cola and then promise everybody body that I had just paid that I can continue that by passing it whatever we've said 18 or 9% of if I could guarantee that I probably would that's against my own like inside there's a struggle there because it's like one time thing but ongoing but here's the problem that I see the risk to me is not being able to oh we can't replenish it or it will take some time the risk for me is in the unfortunate event that we could not deliver on a promise like that that we might be even looking at a pay cut backtracking and saying we can no longer pay for this we or or keep paying out of one time funds till what eventually goes dry that's what scares me is to not be able to look these people in the face and say I I did it I would have to look at them and say we tried and it failed again for xyz reasons we already saw it happen once that that reason or that that uh path where it failed due to, you know, it wasn't certified. It may not be that reason, but we've seen other attempts at other reasons, okay, to not let our our certified tax rate go through. And I'm just saying that that's what scares me is that it would have to be a backtrack. And as terrible as it was to not be able to to

to uh go ahead and go through with the budget that we had proposed because we proposed the T or not me but but because it was proposed and passed a tax increase could not follow through on that and then as terrible as it was to then say oh that raise that we had that we had promised it didn't go through. I see a far worse situation in having to backtrack. And so what I propose is that that to me that's why I asked like what what do we see as the risk here? Because that's what truly scares me is is like I said if it was just that I can guarantee this go through and but we haven't even met we haven't even met about that. We're not even to tax discussion time. And so for me to just to to say yes this I can pay this but I can't promise that it will continue. I feel like that's that's a bigger disservice than just not getting it in the first place. and and that's where I'm coming from. But do do you understand what I what I

Yeah. And I would just I just would hopefully not interrupt. No, no, no.

But make a comment um that I spoke with Diana and Janelle yesterday and we all have a responsibility in our current roles. What I'm trying to deliver to the city is what I believe you want me to and that is to provide I'd say top tier great service to the resident for the fire and emergency medical. That's what we do. I would expect that that's what you want me to do. So now give me the pathway to accomplish that and I can't do that. You're hearing I can't provide that. And so each of us have those roles and we talked about this morning we what's the mission of the city within each department and I think everybody would say we want to give I think everyone in here just wants to do our job and deliver the services to the residents what we believe they should have now what's the path to do that having high turnover losing over 30 something firefighter that that's not the way we're going to accomplish that so that's what I'm saying all of it weighs heavily on each of us to to do our job to do it well. Um, now how are we going to do it? And the inconsistency is because I think it's been changing new count year after year after year. It keeps getting pushed aside. We can't seem to be committed to it. And then obviously there's the financial part of it. So that would be my question. What do you guys want us to provide? Because there is going to be a risk either way. There's a risk to the residents if we can't provide. Right. I had to shut a station down the other day. We didn't have a battalion chief. I don't I I I can't keep make people working over their hours. So that's a risk the high turn. So overall there's risk everywhere. Can we calculate a safer risk I guess is my question.

Well I think that I mean this what I've been hearing now from everybody and if I'm wrong like stop but I don't think anybody everyone has expressed that at the core of this issue is we have observed a problem and we're in this room to fix it. And and I and I hope that, you know, when I suggested a meeting like this that that we all could sit, you know, and say, "We're Roy City. We're this team." And that's really how I see it is us trying to kind of come to to a long-term solution. Um and and honestly, the 2.5% cola could be part of that. I'm not even suggesting that I'm like like not going to do it. That's my hangup because I worry about the the fallout if it if we don't deliver because we haven't even talked about the plan going forward. We haven't talked about a um you know a a tax proposal. Um but and it's not even so much that you know Brian was saying well 18's way less than 28. That's not that's not the problem for me. It's not the amount. It's that it hasn't happened yet. And that's what scares me. But even beyond that I think what I'm hearing from everybody is that we are all just trying to solve this problem. And I feel like it's a a the proof of a commitment that we're all here. And I'm I'm hoping that at the very least that's sending some kind of a message that we are here. We've got a wage study going. They're already working on it. Janelle and and uh Diane have been working on that um with the mayor, right? Are you as well? Um and they've been working on it. Um we've been we've been talking about other areas of the budget and we are getting to the to the root of this. I mean, it's it's easy for me to say, right, because I just got in here, but I mean, the letter from from your firefighter there from he said it's been here from 2012. I I don't know how to answer that except that this just has to be a long-term solution. And so, um I I don't know. Again, again, I'm on the fence, but I'm not one way or the other perfect because I think there's problems with all of them. I think using the one-time money

for a cola can be a problem, as I just described. Um that using the one-time um money for a a bonus or retention bonus has issues as well. We've already talked about those. and doing nothing I think also has potential problems. There's not a perfect way out of this. I just I hope that we can end up with a plan that we feel like is acceptable and not perfect. I just don't think we're going to find a perfect plan, but an acceptable plan where we see ourselves out of this showing that we're taking steps to fix it. Then then I would dare say, well, let's negotiate.

Yes. Then then commit that well I'm going to be real honest then commit and the residents aren't going to like this then you have to commit to the services if that's what the vision is if that's what the services you want us to provide you have to commit to it the only way we're going to commit to that saying that I'd say negotiate then taxes have to raise sorry Brian taxes have to be raised if you want if you want these services to be at this level and you got to commit to it sure I'll take the bonus then I'll ask to for to negotiate and say then commit to this. Well, I would not even say stop at at a onetime payment. So, never. No. Well, commit a commit to the plan of whatever that is and then you commit to it. And sometimes we're judged by what we do and not our intentions. Sure. And quite honestly, that's in my world.

Absolutely. Anyway, I think I've said a lot. Can I please?

So, I don't So, what happened with the tax commission's decision last fall? I think there's a difference doing this taking a political risk whether it be the referendum few citizens showing come you know showing up and yelling at you versus a technical issue right that issue in the fall was merely a technical issue and so I you know I can understand and even agree with you to a point on you know you don't want to overpromise to employees not be able to deliver now you're letting employees go the inverse is they just leave on their own and that attrition gets resolved because the wages resolved. And so that also is the risk, right? Is these people are going to leave on their own. When when the salaries were starting to creep up, even before the CPI started taking off, both fire and public safety agencies and I imagine streets, it was all the same, right? When we were at market, we were all fighting at the fringes to get employees. We we don't even have that luxury anymore. That was that was a good place to be. And so yes, we need to be careful about overpromising and not delivering, but at the same time, if we don't, then they're just going to leave anyway. And then that problem doesn't ever come to fruition. And so I would that that was just

this is why I say I'm just back and forth because everything's equally risky. I guess

from a military background, I'm going to interrupt, but that everything that we whenever we make decisions out on the battlefield type stuff. It's it's more risk mitigation and you're still going to have risk and everything and you're trying to push to reduce the risks is all you can really do. You're going to have risk and no matter what the decision is going to be and there's some outcomes you can't you can't plan for and you're just going to have to roll with the punches as it were as it as it is. So you got to make the plan ahead of time and you know as the generals always say that a good plan never was what was it never survives the first contact with the enemy but I have confidence that we can make it if we've committed to the cola increase that we can back that up in the continued years. I've got I'm pretty riskaverse when it comes to this kind of a thing and I'm risk adverse in my own personal finances. But this one when I myself looked at the risks for the city failing and becoming a worse place than when I was given the responsibility to try to help manage the city. I'm I know that there's risk in that and the the failure of that in myself is always something that I want, you know, it usually prevents me from making a decision on that. It would prevent me from wanting to risk anything about my reputation or anything that I say. But this is one thing that I've I've been wanting to fix in Roy and help fix since I was on the planning commission. So, I'm I'm committed to increasing the cola for for the employees. I think I'm right now the more that we're discussing this, I'm was on the fence, but I want to make that choice that pushes us in the right

direction. And I think this is going to be the right direction. We'll see in a few years from now, but from weighing out probabilities, I think increasing the cola is going to be our best benefit overall as a city. Are we going to mitigate all the risks? I think it's going to fix all the risks, but I think we need to do something that pushes it in the right direction and sometimes the momentum can help us keep that momentum going in the right direction. So, I want to get the momentum changed and get it going in a good direction. So I think at this moment I think I'm I'm for increasing and doing it as a whole. Right.

Well and I feel that you know that you know I think our future for Roy City is bright with a lot of development. It's, you know, that we have talked with people that want to come to our city and and that will bring us more, you know, increase and and like Baron says, what do we want for our employee? We want somebody who's a seasoned employee to show up at our house if we have an emergency or someone who's just out of the police academy, you know, and just, you know, faces a a shooting or something or someone's having a heart attack. I mean, every citizen that I've talked to said, I'm willing to pay higher taxes to keep Roy City how it is. We love our city. We love, you know, our fire department. Um, we love our police department, our public works, our wreck. We, you know, that's why people move here is because of all those programs and our safety record and and I just feel that it's just the citizens need to know that we, you know, do have a tax increase. They just want to know where all that money is going and is it going to make Roy a a great place to live? And I um I mean I'm for the cola myself. Even though it it's already going to be a tax increase, we know there was going to be one next year anyway because we didn't get anything this year. And and being on the the wage study committee, we know that we have a lot of work. But we have Amber and Matt, two really smart people with numbers also that have been working really hard to try to keep that tax increase, you know, not

too bad where I have to put a security guard in front of my house. And so, but I really feel that um with us working, we mean we've been thinking of everything in this wage study committee um of what we can do to keep our employees here and um I love, you know, all of the heads of the departments. I think they're all just such good people and and I can't imagine how hard it is for you guys to lose these good employees that that you've become friends with, trained, and they love Roy, but money talks. Man, if my husband came home and said, "I can get $5 more an hour somewhere else." I'd say, "Honey, sorry. I don't care if you love Roy. You're leaving." And and I just feel that that's kind of where we're at right now. And I think giving them a cola, which is not my decision because I'm not a council member, but I just think that it's kind of a a good faith showing them that they didn't get anything last year. And um and I I mean me and my husband always spent it before we had it. And I feel that's not a good thing to say, but I just feel that they just I just think it would be a good morale boost for the employees to know that we feel bad that they didn't get anything last year and it would when would it take effect if we did do the how many months would they get the cola for? Just

be ongoing, but we could do it as soon as probably next payroll. Yeah, right now like like in April. Right. to start maybe in April so they get a few months of that. So, but Matt and Amber, I want your opinion on this because I know it's probably not the same as mine, but because you you guys know how all the numbers work. I'm thinking more on emotional um just trying to keep our city together and so well you're asking two finance people to spend money that we don't have

that uh you can't it would be very difficult for me and I've expressed this before to say I think it's a good idea to do that because if something does fail the people that you would be looking toward to answer the questions is Amber and Okay. And so we are on that side of the aisle on that obviously because of our financial background and for that purpose of taking that responsibility because we have to answer those questions as to why that didn't happen. But to say that employees need colas, absolutely they do need colas. When we're looking at last year being 17% behind, a cola plays into that. So now we can say we're 19.5% roughly behind. So to say that we're not behind and going somewhere else for $6 an hour, 2.5% is not going to fix that though. So anybody to think that yeah, 2.5% and we're well on our way. No, it's not. It's not just that. So it it is a very difficult decision

because we do not have that money um the ongoing money it takes to pay for it. And when we um council member Holbert talked about this in um respect to the legislative u committee that we were all attending. It was pretty fascinating to see that we were at 21% and on average people are like Riverdale cities at 35%. And most of the cities 50% of them were over 30%. I think it was 66%. So to say we have all this money to spend on average with other cities, we don't. We have it's a lot of money, but when you're running a, you know, $30 million budget, that reserve isn't as big as you think. As an individual, $4 million is a lot of money, but as an organization of this size, it's truly not. So to say, you know, I'm not going to I for myself like I truly believe the employees need that that increase, but to say that we have that money to do it, that makes me very uncomfortable. But for you guys to make that decision, I am not the one that can raise taxes either. That is not my decision. That is a council decision. And so it needs to be your decision what you want to do with that. Because if we do not have that money, it comes down to raising taxes or cutting other services. And when you're talking about $450,000, you're not talking about little services. You're talking about big services. You're talking about more human capital to layoffs to put into perspective roy $120,000. So you take out roy days out of the equation, you still don't have a 2.5% cola. So you're not talking these little cuts. You're not talking about not going to a training or something like that. You're talking about massive services.

I said I'm glad that you brought that up because when we're talking long term and that's why I say I'm my number one is wages because like you said if we add money we don't have and then something happens and we can't rate like we added the cola but we can't raise wages now for whatever reason. And I mean, I'm for raising the wages because we need to. I'm just saying for whatever reason, I'm one person. I can't choose for everyone. If that happened, we put ourselves in a very dangerous situation for the future going forward. And you're right, it would jobs could be cut in the future. Like that is a possibility if we if we don't take care of the wage issue. And so that is that is a concern I have for the future. If if we go and we say okay we have 18% this is just the cola we know wages what were they 17% behind or whatever it was last year so now 19 something maybe more we're talking more than a 18% tax increase and I don't know if every council member here is willing to do that and so if we're not willing to do over that amount we will not save anything you'll have a colon nothing else will be fixed and I'm just I'm trying to be very blunt about that because that because we will already be promised to the cola. So that that's my fear that is and it's because I want I am ready I will fight for the employees. I will fight for our citizens by fighting for our citizens. It's we fight for employees to fight for our citizens if that makes sense. and and I'm ready to do that, but I just want I don't know if the full council is aware enough of those numbers and I'm we don't even have the full full numbers because you're still working on budget stuff, right?

So, I'm not sure we're full enough aware of those numbers to make a decision about that and or unless we are if we're like most of us are like we're fine raising taxes above 18%. Then by all means, you know, but if you're like no, there's no way in heck I'm doing that, then do not vote for this because they will not.

Even still, let's even just suppose we all approved pay tax increase. There was no discussion. It was that easy. Done. passed. There are I mean we've already seen attempts with a referendum suppose that that was successful because we're not even the last word like we still answer to residents and they still have a say and and there's been you know it's become popular now to to sign petitions and so that's just and I guess I I want to ask this question and pose it to um to those who are leaning towards you know give the cola it sends the message um and that is suppose that that happens suppose we did pass it pass whatever we need to um to either keep the cola or if you want to say we passed whatever we need to to bring up to median whatever you want to say suppose we passed it and for one reason or another it failed let's say that we did not get that increase what is and this is not a gotcha like I don't know the answer so I'm looking for like what are some suggestions what do you do like do you do you lay off people do you you know some people do you cut services like we were talking that's a lot of services to have to cut. Do you walk it back and say, "Okay, that was just for because it was onetime money. It only covers that last quarter of 26." Do you then decrease pay? Like what is kind of what are some like ideas? Do you see what I'm I'm just like, yeah, like what could you do? Because I I don't see a viable

option. How I would see it panning out is like said it come down to a referendum and I think at that point you would have your citizens basically because you guys has put out there that it was four raises. your citizens would be basically telling you then we're going to cut services because I feel like that's the two options we have. So at that point, like I said, it's going to punch all my guys in the gut. So I don't think you reel back the wages. I'm going to have enough guys that leave and then unfortunately you probably don't fill their position. So that and in Oh, go ahead. Just regarding that, if it is a cola, you're not able to roll back those wages because that becomes a legal issue. So, if it's a cola, I mean, you you'd be then deducting pay and you have to go through that process um set out in statute and it's not just a quick vote or anything basically. So in that case, if we were to say this money from one time like our reserves, our reserve fund, this money is intended to pay a COLA for the last quarter of fiscal year 26, that has to stay.

Well, if you do it as for the next year, if you do it as a COLA, it's an like they said, it's an ongoing expense. If you did it as a bonus, that's not something that would be an ongoing expense. But a cola would be an ongoing expense. Okay? So you couldn't walk that. So further question, that's not even an option now. You can't undo it. How do you keep paying for it? So, can you can you ever cut can you ever cut wages or do you just have to cut people? You'd have to cut people. You have to cut I never cut wages, but you can. It's just

a depend whereas walking back wages is not an option on the table, but reducing workforce is, cutting services is. So, like these are the options if we were stuck. I mean, heaven forbid, right? Okay. Well, and with what Brandon's saying is if that's what the citizens want, they want us to cut services. That is jobs. That is also their jobs. Like there's no way around that. Like that that's true. And I want to be real careful because my guys listen to this. Yeah. And when you guys say cut, it doesn't do me any favor. So No, I don't want to cut.

Like I have enough turnover and that's sad because but that's the reality of it is I have enough turnover. So, I don't think we'd ever have to cut somebody. Yes, I do think that we would maybe not fill a position until we got it figured out. So, when you guys say cut, I like to because it sends my guys a bad message. That's in your department. But I'm talking about not necessarily like if you cut certain services, then jobs start to disappear. Like, whether we want them to or not, that's just starts to happen.

My department's obviously different. So like I'm mostly enterprise funds. So it would basically affect the street department the most. So that would be you know your road may not get plowed for a few days. Like there's there's certain things that they wouldn't realize until it was on them that their services would be cut their potholes probably wouldn't get filled. So, I mean that's that's how I would envision how you guys would, you know, fix that because that's how what I would say the citizens are saying to you at that point is, you know, because it's basically wages or services.

Thank you for clarifying that because that's what I'm saying in this, you know, in this dire situation where we've we've provided a cola. If we've done that, then we can't continue it with revenue. What are the options left? And so yeah, I'm by no means proposing start asking people now. That's not I'm talking about I gota you got to think forward. This is like a a very very longterm discussion. So I'm just like yeah because I don't know the answer either. I don't know where you look to fill the gaps and where I don't know. Yeah. And I want to be very clear. I do not want to cut people. I do not I just want to be clear about that. Like in fact

some of the departments need people you know like they need additional people. So, and I would love to be in a position to give them that. In fact, I would hope that we could because I think there is a lot of extra burden on a lot of departments right now. Um, because of just how things have went and um but yeah, so I guess I guess what I'm just trying to say is that using one times funds does possibly and maybe it won't happen and and I'm I would be okay with using one time phones for equal if we were all on board saying yes we are okay because I'm but I would rather use that 18% if no if everybody's not on board I would rather use that 18% to raise wages in general not just a cola like I would like to use that towards raising the wage so I know that the cola does help raise the wage I get that um but it's it's not exactly the same as raising the actual wage of like you know by a couple of two to five dollars whatever it is. Um so that's I guess that's just my concern is I just want to know that as a council if we do that like that people would be on board to actually make that happen because like like I said I'm willing to fight for our employees. I'm willing to fight and and I think by fighting for employees, I'm fighting for our citizens because I think that they do want those services. And so I'm willing to do that and but I just I'm one person on a council. So and I don't think we've heard from Michelle if you wanted to say anything.

I would echo what I feel like everybody is saying. Cola is wonderful and it's a great step. It's a step in the right direction. However, our priorities would be a wage correction, implement the wage study to get all of our staff up to market value. That's where our priority would be. You know, I'm not bleeding like the fire department, but we did lose someone who tried to wait as long as possible assume hoping that those tax increases would have been implemented and they didn't come through and he ended up making the decision to leave just like everybody else. He didn't want to, but for the betterment of him and his future and his future family, that's the choice he had to make. And I'm sure there's two or three others that are anxiously awaiting that because they are want to move on with their life and have those other mile markers. So,

so Matt, so the next step would be after session, get input would be what? just given us a direction on how you want to proceed. Is this something we would bring to council and and

if you were to give us a direction of doing bonuses or something, we could just fund it and and start proceeding. When we did the last year's budget initially, it was in there to do it. You you voted to do it. Um, however, the city has not implemented that cola because we did not have that tax because we So, you know, like when when you did the 28% increase, that offset was coming from taxes. That offset would have to be changed though. But this isn't something we we I mean, we have to have like a vote on it or we or we have a new direction

for it. What were you saying? Well, with our last budget amendment, that correction was made that it's now um we didn't adjust all of the wage accounts because you're talking like 200 accounts at this point. So, we just took it from fund balance knowing we wouldn't. So, that correction has already been made that it would come from fund balance instead of the tax increase. So what I hear is that um we're talking a lot about a small whole uh compared to the big picture and that really wages are the or the the big issue. And for us to have an artificial good warm feeling that this 2.5% cola right now is is really going to help anything. I think it's been pretty clear that it's it's only as we had someone say it's only phase one and we can't commit to I don't think we can just commit to phase one. If we commit if we commit to phase one, I think what it really means is we're committing to the entire process of correcting this wages and 18% is only for cola. 18% tax increase is only for colas. That has nothing to do with wage increase because I think the numbers that get battered around get mixed up. You say 2.5% cola, but that really means 9% tax increase. You say our wages are down 19 or 20% Well, a 20% wages being down does not mean a 20% tax increase. That means that means like maybe a 40% tax increase or a 50% tax increase. I mean, the numbers we start using these percentages interchangeable, but they don't you you can't interchange 20% me below

median wage to somehow mean what the tax increase would be because they are completely different numbers. And I think that starts getting mixed up. And so if we're going to do phase one, I think it needs we means we need a commitment to the entire party and not just um feel good that we started and then, you know, just left it hanging. I I don't know. That's my concern from a little bit of what I'm hearing now.

I don't know, Brian. What do you think about phase one versus the whole party? What What do you How does that sound to you? Well, first of all, the council, the last council by a 4 to one vote, put the 2.5 in that budget. And when the state said no, that took it out of the budget. All I'm saying is why can't we use dollars that have not been allocated, have not been obligated to save the last quarter of 26.

So it's actually I think a 1.5% is what it was. It was what we voted for was a 1.5%. So in the in the initial budget there was a 2.5% when the motion was made there, it dropped that to a 1.5 and used the rest for for wages. Wages.

So, you know, I do I I agree with Janelle in that political risk, but the thing is is sales tax revenues came in at 2.63 63 above which was roughly a 3% swing in sales tax revenue. If we have sales tax revenue coming in above and beyond then that is money that we have available to us. Yes. Is it a risk? Yeah, it's a risk, but when you ran for office, it was a risk. And my point is is that if we put this aside and wait further, we're not going to have any more time to wait. And you know, the last time we used bonuses, that didn't work.

So, what about the wage discrepancy? Where does that fit in your race puts us two and a half% closer on the wage disparity? I can't see a down with this other than yeah, I hate taxes. Don't want to pay 9% more next year, but 9% is a heck of a lot lower than 28. My point is we are somewhere in between and we need to get to that number. I do want to clarify. I don't think it's a political risk for me personally. I'm saying

that is not I

I openly said when I ran for office that I was for the tax increase. So I to me that's not even in the thing. What it to me is I'm worried about the future of the employees and the city. Does that make sense? Like I am worried about what the wages what we will get to. And and if everybody's on board then I'm not worried about the future so much as much. I mean, there's still things that could happen, but but if we're not all on board to do a tax increase that actually makes a difference in the future, then we're just like I would rather have the 18% go towards wages is what I'm saying, if that makes sense. So, I just wanted to clarify that.

The financial risk. It's not a Yes, it's not a political risk. At least to me, it's a financial risk. And then a bigger what you might call political risk would be increasing taxes. That's a political risk, right? But we're talking about onetime funds. That's what the financial risk is for this taking something that you can't promise. But you know what? I think Brendan had a really excellent point.

I like it. And that's uh that if I'm I mean I'm I'm throwing out all these ways that it might fail and it might, you know, have to change our minds or adjust whatever if if we don't get the tax increase that this would commit us to. Um and that is if if it was a referendum deal that that would be residents opposing paying wages. We're not always a last say. And I think that, you know, maybe that's the voice of residents saying it's it's not wages we want to pay and and and that's not something that I have control over because that's that's an electoral body is saying and I just I just keep thinking about that how that's a really good point.

We can't we can't promise it. We can't commit to it today because that's so overdue. And just to say we're going to do this and we're going to pass it and all in favor that's not what this is today, but this is just kind of throwing that around. I think that's just a really good point.

And weren't we going to have like um an open house and some, you know, public meetings where actually the residents can air if you know reasons why if we do have a tax increase, you know, for our fire department to stay here. Everyone wants the fire department to stay here. Everybody wants, you know, when their sewer backs up, they want Brandon to show up at their house. I mean, everybody wants it, but we got to show them that, well, if you want it, then you have to pay for it because it's not free. And so, I just feel that um I don't know, I want to keep our employees here, but I want to keep their wages up. Also, do you think that 2.5% cola would keep anybody who already says they're leaving your department, would it keep them here or you think they're already

Yeah. So, I think the two and a half shows that you guys are willing to, you know, stick your neck out on the line. I think it, like I said, two and a half's not going to cure my problem, but I think it's going to buy some time till you guys can work through the budget process. So, I like to say if somebody's already looking, it's probably too late at that point. But, I think this will help them from looking because they see you guys are willing to stick your neck out on the line and then they're willing to wait to see what happens. this coming budget and I think they'll stick around at that point. But I've a nine

seven to nine leaving a year. I went for how long a whole six eight months was five down but down five firefighters and then I tried to offer the two to help. I mean again so both your points I'm already there. I'm going to lose on average last four years five to nine. So, I'm going to be there anyway if something doesn't get done. Then I won't have to fill it. Then I can't fill it because no one wants to come work here. I'm testing five people at a time for it. It's just it's hard. So that's I don't know. Yeah, you're there. I mean, yeah. I mean, again, I'm very true.

Soon as we come out of this and July hits, boom, I was like, I'm out. So, we just filled them. We hired them. We spent the money on them. I can calculate the money. It's over half a million dollars we spent in the last that doesn't seem to resonate how much we spent in training hiring and they leave and that doesn't even talk about the ones who over 8 to 10 years now all that investment's out the door. So again, that's it's going to happen here. If we hit July, nothing's done. Right back. Just what you're saying right there. We've definitely lost money as a city because we've lost so many employees. Like every time you have to retrain or you have to go through that.

Yeah. Get new equipment for whoever depending on the, you know, department. Every time you do that, you do lose money. You lose. When I toured public works, something that really stood out to me is um like public works is kind of like you know you know everything in the little quirks of your car and all this or whatever. You know, you know whether you can kick the wheel and it will stop doing whatever the light will come on or whatever. And public works is kind of like that that they know all the intricate parts of our city like what areas have acidic soil or all that stuff. So, we when we lose long-term employees there, we are losing um really knowledge. Um and like I said, also you're paying to retrain someone as well. So, I mean, I I definitely agree with all of that. Like, and like I said, I I'm ready to fight for our employees. I just want to know that the rest of everyone else is. And I think that's what I'm getting is from the other council members, but I guess like they can less I don't know

the thing is too is like Janelle Diane I've been saying is this is so much bigger than a two.5% problem like this is so much deeper than that and you know we we have a quorum's worth of new council members who just inherited this issue and and and are trying to I don't know I just to me I'm I'm looking at this 2.5% and I'm going okay that's onetime money it's not coming back does that make a dent in this problem but we've just already outlined how big this gap is is truly humiliating to Roy City. I'm embarrassed by this that we can't pay our people. I really am. And and and yet we expect, you know, the the caliber of service that you provide there. There's by by being elected, we represent residents and we we are charged with making sure that they have services to live here. But to do that, we need to have departments that function. I feel like that's kind of a two-fold thing. You've got to have a culture in your department that people like to be there. Not one of these department heads that I've talked to have said they have a culture issue. Okay? The people who are leaving say things that we have to go. We don't have another choice. We we we we just we've hung on as long as we can. That kind of thing. Culture is not the problem. Pay is the problem. And I feel like it's bigger than 2.5%. So, what I'm wondering, and this is why I kind of we're here, I suppose, is that is that is the 2.5% going to make a dent? Because if it is, I really want to consider it. And if it's so superficial of a problem, 2.5% cola disparity, that it just doesn't even begin to get at it, then we're going to have to go forward with our wage study and seriously look at this, which they're doing. They're looking at it and they're finding appalling numbers appalling numbers in the gaps in pay compared to to with with comparative comparable municipalities. And those are the things that I think

that that the ones who are on the committee are saying, "Yeah, we could talk 2.5% today, but this is way bigger. We've got to get you guys more. We just got to get you guys more." So So is this a good Is this a good faith effort? this sitdown, this wage study, this is that a good faith effort? Is it is it not good enough? Not not to say, oh, is it do you not care, but is it not quite would the 2.5 make a difference in retention, in morale? Would it?

Yeah, it's a dent. Sure. What? Who employee in this say, "No, that doesn't help me." Not one. Every one of them is going to say, "Thank you. It helps. It is a dent." Now, does it stop you? It could. Again, it's it's the message you want to send. Does it communicate more? I believe it does. I'm committed to increase the pay no matter what. No matter if I'm only on the commission for or council, I should say commission too much. If

I'm still if I'm only on the council for two years, I still want to be committed to helping turn around this wage gap. And it's not going to happen. I don't I would never expect to try to make this happen in one year's tax increase to fix the disparity. It wouldn't it's just not going to happen. But I'm even more now solidly committed to my vote here today going for the cola is also going to be my vote for the next year's increase. I I know that that's what I'm committing to and I'm wanting to commit to that

because that's what's important to hear for me. Well, people that off the council, I mean, when I was on, I don't know why we didn't have small tax increases for years. Before I even got on the council, I felt if we would had two, three, 4% a year, maybe we wouldn't be in this spot. You know, I mean, I know surroundings, a lot of surrounding cities that do that and they've been able to keep up, you know, their wages. So, I just I don't know, just not that we vote on Matt. So, we just

Well, I just, you know, I think Chief Williams had a really good point about negotiating, right? I think we need to negotiate. And so, we want to keep our employees here. And

what I kind of want to do is um you know, Brian, you are very concerned about citizens and you're very concerned about our staff and I appreciate that. But my concern is when I hear you talk about this, I don't hear you acknowledging the disparity of the wage. And I believe in colas. I absolutely believe, in fact, I was so glad we did colas when I was out for a little bit because we need that to keep up. But it's not enough. And I So I think part of this negotiation is I guess I don't hear you saying that you realize wages are a big part of this problem. I hear you only say colas. And am I misunderstanding that? Am I missing that vote? You are.

Okay. You are missing that vote. 2.5, if it's added, goes to their wages. That all of these department heads can say, "Look, see, we started. Before you learn how to dance, you need to know how to walk." And my point is is if we're not going to willing to take a 2.5% risk, that's a that's a 9% tax increase. That's

I understand that. And you know how badly I wanted last year for it to be a singledigit number. I do. And I would have jumped aboard with with dancing shoes, but that would have only been cola. That doesn't address wages. So that's why I appreciate going through this. I appreciate that a lot. The cost of living will be added to their wages. That's why to me the bonus don't make a lot of sense. Okay? Because the bonus isn't going to show up. And last time we used it, it failed miserably.

So that's good historical. So So that's 9% now. We're going to need nine or 10% next year. I mean, this is if we're adding up our percentages, right? And now we already know that we are probably if we average it out 20% median wage below and a 20% that that's probably going to be we're I mean again I already said that number that's going to be probably double that. I mean, we're talking pretty big numbers because even last year, even last year when we were talking 28%, that only did median wage at 50% 50% of the median wage. It only got us up, we weren't even to median. We were like at a quarter of median wage, you know?

So, I mean, this is going to be big. We're talking big. And I I understand that and that's that's coming and I I get that. But if If we're not willing to tell these folks 2.5,

what what makes you think that we're going to be able to tell them 28 or 35 or 45? My point is is that we have this money in reserve that could be paid. It's not dedicated to earthquake preparedness. It's there. Why are we not using it this budget year? Why aren't we making an example of the employees? Yeah. Am I concerned about tax increases? Yes. Always have been. And you know that.

Yep. AB. Yep. I'm right there. Is that good, right? listen to me pick on you. Yeah. But the point is is if we don't show something, man, I I I don't know. I Well, I want to know. It's very reassuring for me to hear you say those other numbers and stuff like that because to them, too, right? I And so, you know, with that being said, I think you talked me into it. You smooth talker. Well, I've never been accused of being a smooth talker. I'm afraid. Yeah. But tonight

wanted to hear is what you're if you're willing Yeah. to Well, I think I think I feel like you've you've addressed the cola. What we're just hoping is that we can all understand that this is just more than that. And it's like But it sounds like what I'm hearing from you is you got to start somewhere. Why not take this step as part of a of a longer term plan? Why not start now? Is that is that is that accurate? Well, then like Matt said, uh 9% if you go two years, so it's up to us again. Well, it's another 9%. Right. Yeah. But it's

because next year I think they've estimated 2.8% for a cola. I could I mean that's just an social security. Yeah.

You know with social Yeah. So the reason I took the idea to Matt, the first reason was absolutely I felt guilty. Believe it or not, I felt guilty. And I'll tell you why. because I've used all their services and I'm on the council and I'm really wellliked by Glenda and people like me and it's time that I start letting people know that you know what if you like what you've got you got to pay for it. They've been to my house well most of them have been to my house on a call. That makes me feel very good to hear you say

I

I want you to know that hearing you commit to addressing that full resolution is very reassuring to me, very refreshing, and I just feel that we're more as a team because I think the beauty of this council is our ability to be as a team. And so you committing to that higher, you know, we don't know what it is, but committing to a higher tax increase, I just want you to know, Brian, is very refreshing to me. And I just I just want you to know I appreciate that because that takes a lot for you because I know how much tax increase is hard for you. And it's hard for all of us, but it is especially hard for you. And I want you to know that is absolutely amazing to me. And I appreciate that willing, your willingness, and that commitment. Thank you very much.

Thank you for that, but I remind that I'm sorry. Chief Wind was trying to like the opportunity's lost. I'm sorry. Oh, that's okay. So, you know, will it have an impact? I think quite I it's something versus nothing. I think where the impact is going to be the most significant are these conversations having the tone that they're carrying and uh you know we're being watched right and so when we talk about culture you know if you don't do this I'm going to be replaced with people who can't get jobs anywhere else but here and that will absolutely decimate culture

but I think the other thing is too is you know we have to give our employees the benefit of the doubt right there are going to be some people that are going to leave this is not going to fix I bet there's probably quite a few that are on the fring managers watching and they're willing to wait. And you know I in our department we we put a lot of value in the transparency not because you know we're trying to hide the ball. We don't want our employees knowing why we're making decisions or not. They can be told no. They just want to know why. Yeah.

Right. And so is 2.5% going to move the needle? Not likely. But what is the message we're trying to send? We're being transparent. We're trying to be unified. Right. they can take the 2.5% and they will likely a lot will probably wait because they're being kept in the loop and they're learning the why. And I think as long as that continues, they'll continue to watch and wait. So that's

I appreciate that feedback. I think that's important to remember too. Like and I think that's kind of what the whole purpose of this was, right? that make sure we're on the same page and we may have differences opinion in the future of how to make the wages work out or whatever, but that we're all that all of us are committed to fixing this problem, I guess, is what and I better or worse. Yeah. Um within our vested power,

right? Within our vested power. But yeah, and I think like I think you were right what Brandon said like we can't control what happens after that point. But um but yeah, that we because I do think I do think we serve our citizens best when we fix this problem. You mentioned negotiation and I want to I want to hear more about that.

I was asking for the can be picked up. let's commit and I know the citizens have a say on that and then but that's that's the other risk you want to raise taxes there's now a referendum you get to hear what they want to say now we get to tell them what you we can't provide so that's that's what I'm saying is I I say if you're not want to this then I sure as heck want to see that let's start committing and how you going to commit to that what is it that look like for you

I think year to year now uh it's a plan It's that the council to me and he he's military police. We have these missions who drive everything we do. It surrounds what we want to do. So the council will say of course we want good services. I think most of the residents do that. I mean I I can't speak for them. They they'll have their opportunity to speak. But I I would think like when shows up with a firet truck, he wants to do a good job. You want to get there quickly. I you want your water. I mean I mean I could go every that's what they want. You you got to give us a path. That's You got to give us a way to do that. And that's what I'm saying is then when I say commitment, I mean, Brian, you committed my office, too. I did I kept that a secret, but but it's it's the other end of it, right? It's it is we had we recognize we're all taxpayers. We recognize it. So, it's that I think from what I've heard from some residents is there wasn't enough transparency and that's an area of improvement. Like, where is it going? Um, but that's what I'm saying. We we have to commit to where we want to go, the mission. And then that way that that's our guiding principle. Whoever comes in, they in the police and fire like they a new individual comes in, new firefighter, they know the mission and we're all on the same team. But with new council members who come in and out, I think that has been lost over the time. Maybe that's why in the um at least what I hear from firefighters, it's been consistently we operate in crisis mode. Politically, it's easier when the tires are falling. They have to replace the tires or maybe some preventive maintenance like we talked about. Smaller increases should have been done. But I also don't want to I think it's irresponsible of me to throw other council members from the past under the bus who thought they were doing the right thing. And so I I just want to make that clear like I I think they thought the right thing, but maybe we forgot what the mission was of the council to do. And that is right. I

guess it's a balance of the residents and the departments, but it's been spoken. To me, a strong city is a commitment to the services that we provide and do them with excellence and provide that that is serving your residents. It's just financially how do we get there? And I just, you know, my last comment is I would have never brought up this Weber fire to serve a district. Why are we even here? The fear is and my guiding principle is my mission, my responsibility as the fire chief and my passion of why I got into the service is to serve residents people. That's what I like to do. Now, I'm not doing the job. I'm not on the truck. Now, it's my job to make sure that firefighters can provide that service. Two, we have to have the men and women to do it. And that that's been my goal ever since we started having the conversation. That's I'm trying to create options to help the city, the residents, so they can have that. So Brian, when you having a heart attack, you get taken care of. Your life is saved. But now when we start to challenge the services, we can't do that. If it's eight minutes, you're likely not here. That's what we're talking. And I can I mean, I'm I'm no more important. I want to make that clear. What we do is no more important than these guys. I don't put myself above anybody what we do. But that's what I'm saying is my role was to create some options. Do I want to keep a Roy? Yes, please. But if we can't, option two, option three, we have to cut services.

Um I appreciate you say a plan because um even when I was running for people would ask me, well, what do you mean? I'm like, well, ideally as a council, because we work as a body, we could come up with a plan, a two-year plan that maybe like puts us in a very, very positive direction because, like you said, you know, councils can change every two years. And I think that it sounds like from this meeting that we just had that we everyone is committed to making that happen. And I think that that is the key is to have a plan. And I think as we start to move into the budget thing that will be our plan if that makes sense. And so I acknowledging that today what we're talking about is part of that plan now. So if that's what we're doing this typically we we know that there are times where cities firefighters we understand cities could go through a phase but when you come out of the phase in a two three year bad time we know the economy in 2008 went bad. I experienced, we all experienced it. But when you have the commit, you can come out of that knowing that they'll take care of the employees, our employees that we speak to. You have a problem. It's a crisis. We go through it. We know that coming out that we're going to be okay. We just It's a phase. And that's what hasn't been there. It's been a I'm now five years with losing on average so many firefighters. Now, what's the plan? There isn't one. You don't know when. So, the uncertainty, I mean, just put yourself in their place. What would you do? Oh, I mean

we've talked about you would you would leave because your family you're being forced to go out and find another option. No, you don't. You've committed yourself. You you've been trained here. You ignore people. You work in a dynamic team and now we we're we're I sounds maybe harsh. We're failing them. We're underfunding the these these services. So, what do we do? The plan and the mission helps you to overcome that. If you've got a plan and you stick with it, do you think? Yeah, I think the planning elements, but what were you going to say?

I was going to say the other thing that I think that we can do better as um is transparency with the public because that nobody wants to be treated like they're dumb and I mean we we do all the boring talking with everybody and

and so we're supposed to bring them something that they can make an easier decision on. And so the open discussions that we have like this I think are good and for the public to be able to see them and try to make it as open as possible and that's why I think it's going to be good when we do talk about in the future with the fire department type of stuff having open houses and that and I want to continue the that clarity with the public because they're not I think when they understand that hey this is what the real situation is there aren't there aren't closets full of money anywhere we've been able fine. You know, I've kind of looked around and I haven't found any. Wouldn't that be?

And so, um, just giving them the respect that, hey, this is this is really what it is. And you can say I'm lying because I'm a politician now or whatever. I've been one all I don't know, two months, I guess. But um I I think it's I think it's on us to also try to be as as clear as we can with the public so that they can if something does happen, say referendum, whatnot, then at least they have the information as best as they know it to make that decision and now it's out of my hands and I feel more comfortable about that because now the public's voting on it, too. So I I don't feel I'm feeling less and less risk now the more that I talk about it and more I'm thinking about it and talking out loud. So

I I just feel that that's after the fact after the elections and the more people I talked to about the 28% tax increase, they're like, I wish I would have had more information because I just saw the signs and voted, you know, and they're like, but I had if I would have known where all that 28% was going, then I probably would have voted different. But I just think that's what Jason's saying. We just have to be more transparent and they have to just know you know everything have open houses more discussions more public you know I don't know how we get to the point where we have to do the truth and taxation meeting where we actually have an open house about about it before we get to that meeting and say hey

hey guys public this is what we got this the problem we've got to try to figure out and if you've got some ideas you write it down on this paper whatever I mean because that's we work for you yeah because that that was the problem everybody didn't want a tax increase, but they want everything stay the same, but they didn't have a solution or it, you know, and it may they still may not have a solution, but I think that the them knowing more that hey, we're not so we're trying to do them right. We're not trying to do them dirty. So, they see that if anybody would go into the caucus because we said we'd only have this go till 5:30 because of the Republican caucus. Well, it didn't start till 7. Oh, I thought we said we would only go at 5:30 because it started at duration.

Yeah, it starts at 7. Okay. I thought we said 5:30. I think this is very important. I mean, you know, and I think we're getting close, but I think Well, I know. I just didn't want anyone to not where they were going. I thought it started at six. So, so I think this is been great discussions and something. Thank you for Alexis for, you know, having us do this. And

I think it shows all the department heads that this council wants to work together and keep this city as one and get the wages up the best that we can. Maybe, you know, two-year plan or or, you know, obviously we ain't going to do it in one year. the taxes would be probably astronomically high and um but we have you know Amber is really smart and Matt's right there with her and they kind of tried to keep us on the straight and narrow path of of like are you crazy you can't do that and so I just feel with all of us working together for the same goal and and let you know all the um boys know that I think the it just helps morale so much if you can give them something that they have a little bit of hope and so um I think that this meeting if they're listening to this today that hopefully is they're like okay I I feel a little hope you know in the discussions that were made and I I feel that maybe I can hang in there for you know to see what the future brings in the next few months of what we can come up with. And and um I just think this has been a really good idea for us to have this tonight. And and um anybody else have anything else to say before we ask for an adjournment?

I think I've said enough. So, I kind of wanted to um I guess to choose point about the plan. Um I'm feeling a little emptyhanded leaving only because we've talked about this plan and then not said it. And that is talking about the message. I feel like that's a scary message I don't want to be sending is that yeah, we're going to do this plan and then we leave without a plan. Not that we can have the whole plan. admittedly, but I feel like I I I don't know.

Well, would plan I think would planning a another work session about budgeting starting that would that help you build? I mean, the thing is is that built in is already part of the plan, which is we have to talk about taxes. That's like built in like we're going to have that meeting, right? Like that's already going to happen. Well, and we need to have one about we were fired. Well, sure. Sure. I mean those two things go into the plan. Yeah. Yeah. So these are Can I give a suggestion? Yeah. Yeah, please. I was just going to say you already have another step in the plan with the wage committee that is Yeah, that too is another part of the plan. So yeah, I think I think it's important. We've talked about this. Let the residents decide what they want. That will help you plan.

If they decide we don't want to pay taxes for these services at this level, what's the consequence of us not doing that? create a town hall meeting and get as much as obviously you got to promote it. That's your opportunity to me that should they should be part of the plan. Yeah. If they want these services, I think you're going to see some maybe a different change when if taxes do have to raise because it's based upon their needs and what they want. It's they're the driving force. It's the residents who we all serve. If they don't want these, then that changes the plan.

That changes the budget. It changes the taxes. So, I think you got to get some really good input. We're short on time to get that accomplished, but to me there's a lot of things to be considered. I think the residents need to be a part of it. That would be my suggestion.

Yeah. Right. And I feel a town hall meeting like we don't want to be a panel with everybody coming up one at a time asking us question. We want more like open house form, don't we, Matt? where they can go around and talk to everybody and have more individual conversations since because you'd have a line clear out the city door people want to come up and talk and then we have time limit on it that way if it's more open house where everyone can just go around and ask questions isn't that kind of what we had in mind I think that's what he's on the council I think that's what we said yeah

regards to your comment Alexis I was wondering you know maybe part of that plan is just to have a tiny bit more knowledge maybe is what you're thinking like what are we doing next and I don't know if this is out of the ballpark but last year when we talked about raising wages 1% do you remember because I can't remember what was that what was that amount when we averaged out a 1% tax and I didn't bring that uh folder of my notes because I think that gives us an idea if we know that raising wages 1% is about this much money, you know, across then then if we know we're, you know, last year it was 14 or so percent or if we know if we're getting further behind, that gives us a little bit of information and understanding as we work on the plan. Is that kind of what you're thinking is let's give us a little more information or maybe Avery can ask that or

I mean I don't mean to be like let's decide on a tax right now. That's not like what I'm saying. I'm just like, you know, what's the I don't know. I I like this. I I'm I'm liking pieces of a plan. We have the wage study. That's part of the plan. Yeah. We have, you know, we have I I love this. Chief Williams is right. We ought to have a a public something, you know, over this as well. And to all the things that we're talking about and and lay it all out. Um and there was I was going to write down and I feel that rather than percentages, we need to have dollars. That's the reality. Talked about that because like

28% was going to be $9 a month for my house. But I know I don't have the nicest house in Roy. So it have been 12 $15 for somebody else. So no matter what our tax increase is going to be, we need to have, okay, if your house is worth this much money, this is how much you're going to be paying a month and have all those um programs lined up for them to know if they

don't make enough money to pay their taxes, then this all the places they can go. And I think that's something thing that we need to have at the open house because, you know, if they, you know, disabled vet or um if they make under a certain amount of money, we can have handouts and information there that we can say, did did Diane, how many did you say that you knew how many people they helped? Uh, I have that written down in my external brain. Yeah, it's another one of these

because I think people I'm being the high school I've had opposite say to me, "My mom can't afford you need a tax increase. We barely make it now." And and I said, "Does she know that there's help?" And she said, "No." And I said, "Well," and I know her mom, I said, "We can get her that information." I think just knowing when you hear 30% or 20% or whatever that's why that one year when we did 11 when we did our tax increase I said how much Amber is that a month on an average house in Roy and I think people dollar-wise see it more like Diane will tell you 60 cents a day or the other day when we were in our wage study she was this is how much it would be a day but um you don't want to bring up soft drinks or anything like that. So, but anyway, I just feel that the dollar value rather than the percentage. I don't know. It works in my head more. Percentages kind of freak people out, but if you're like, "Okay, my house is worth this much."

It doesn't mean anything really, does it? Percentages because right, you know, 180% of $2 versus, you know, Yeah, it's different. Um, okay. So I think plan well I feel like we have to we're looking like right here and we need to know like what's the goal? What I would really love to know is what is the intention? Um how close to median do we intend to bring it up to?

Intend to go all the way no matter what. Do we intend to only do a certain tax increase percent? Is that the way we're looking at it? Are we looking at it by by how like by when how long is this going to take? because it's just saying, okay, well, we're gonna do a wage study and we're going to do a meeting and we're going to set a tax rate or arbit those are all arbitrary and they don't really define the goal and I don't know where is the appropriate place to talk about the council's goal for like I don't is this is this a good place or we got to do that in like a real meeting where you can vote on it or like I don't know but like I feel I would feel better knowing if this council intended to be bring people up to median or if they intended to go closer or like what percentage of you know what I I would feel better knowing that.

Well, I think that's good that Yeah, I think all those numbers we'd have to find out from Amber in order to bring them up. What percenting would we have to have and how much would that be monthly? And um we just Yeah,

but you know, that's a good point because last year the 28% was going to bring it halfway to median with the goal being this year we would brought it up to median. Well, now we're a year behind. So, does that mean really that plan was by this year to have it up to full and median? And so, you know, I think that's a a good point because that gives us an actual target to work towards. We don't know what that number is. We don't know how much that is per household. But if we have a goal in the future that we're looking for, certainly a lot easier to get to it and that I feel like would be a good communication to departments. here is the date by which we will be at such percent of median 100% 80% 40% 20 like what

then they'd be like oh need some work sessions to get there I think after the works after the wage study is done that we can set up some work sessions where we can get some of these start hashing out the numbers start hashing out what options that we would have to do almost like looking at a bank loan like we need to fix the wage and there's this big of a gap how long is it going to take us to get there if we do this many payments kind of a thing. So I think we just need to get that work this year. Did you say that we have that that um it's earlier this year too? It's May instead of June or

Well, so we do present the budget to you in the first meeting in May. And my suggestion would probably be for me to give you that total amount to bring it to the median wage and then we can have work sessions on where you want it to be. And so then when you go to um vote on it in June, we set the ceiling on the tax increase. Did you just Was that your suggestion? You can propose a a budget that would show us what median wage would be. That's just your suggestion. You'd want to show us that. Yeah, we've kind of talked about that in the in May. I was just wondering where that thought came from. Like why? Also, she has

so in May I have to give you a budget that is based on not having a tax increase and then it will have a separate agenda that lists specifically what the tax increase would be for and I can have that be that total amount that gets us to the median wage and then if you decide you want to do you know we're just going to do 20% of that or whatever that is you can back that number down the C that would be great that tax rate at we have so many months so we can say it can't ever so high, but we can definitely bring it in. So then you can have work sessions after that and when you vote in June, that's when you'll set the ceiling on the tax increase and then you'll vote on the actual amount in August.

How do we decide on a ceiling? We just are like you on a ceiling. You vote. Okay. So we we decide based on our budgets and we're working out. We just set our own ceiling and we can go up to So that's why Jason's saying we need work sessions before. Okay. Did you by chance remember what that was? what that number was like how much it cost for a 1% um it's around 175,000 per 1% per 1% oh wait I guess wages wages on wages 1% would get us about 17 or give us cost sorry would cost usund or um wage percentage

for 1% basically thank you very much for each percent right wage 75. Yes.

Well, I think before we adjourn, if we could just get kind of a clarification from each council member of where we want to go with this. I'll start on four. Okay. Well, my direction go. Let's do it. Are you saying 2.5? Yeah, I think that's what he's asking. Go for it. Is that what you're asking? Okay. Just making sure that understood. And Brian, I know what your answer is.

Give a um for it. And I'm just going to say the caveat is I do believe wages are still the most important um goal here and that um you know I feel if I'm jumping in with both feet, it's because on the good faith that we really are working on wages and we're getting to that median wage. And so with that good faith effort, I'm going to jump in the deep end of the pool and I'm saying yes on the 2.5% cola to get us started. I'm going to basically say ditto to exactly what she said. So yeah, with with knowing that everyone's kind of on board then

um just I want to clarify um Diane kind of summarized the feeling but I want to I want to get confirmation from the departments um that the uh the real priority here is the wage disparity and the 2.5 is a step towards that. is are we in agreement on that? Yeah, that's what I was understand. So, I'm glad you clarified it because like that that's what I think. But, Right.

and and hopefully, you know, this whole um event allows us to have that kind of team approach of council and staff and department heads. And so hopefully, you know, you feel good about what we're doing. So that way you can convey that to your uh departments in that regards that support because that's what we're really trying to do is support the citizens by supporting your department. So we appreciate that kind of collaboration. So there unanimous vote for 2.5% cola. Thank you.

I think that going to help the employees hopefully know how much we want them to stay here and how much we appreciate everything they do for the city. And so we have any further discussion. Um we have a motion to adjurnn. I'll motion to adjurnn. I have a second. All in favor? All in favor? I

All right. Get after you. Okay.