Town Council - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded.

One and a half minutes. This looks like a fire truck. Where his dude go, man. For people like me, they should have put a top on.

They should They shouldn't have listed what it is. You hear that? How's it going, John? Good. How are you doing?

All right. It is now 1 pm and it's my distinct honor and privilege to call to order the budget retreat special meeting of April 23rd, 2026 for the town of Sersside Beach. Please stand for our invitation will be the same as I did two weeks ago. Okay. Heavenly Father, as we continue this budget approval process, I pray for your wisdom and guidance. And actually, the process began months ago as staff has worked diligently over that time to assemble the proposal we continue reviewing today. So, I thank you for the oversight you have already provided them. We claim the annual budget is the most important responsibility of the town as we assign the people's money. And it is, but it is even more as every good and perfect gift is from above, from the father of lights, and every beast of the forest is yours. and the cattle on a thousand hills. We are working with your resources. And father, as Jesus taught his disciples in the foundational prayer, we ask that your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in heaven. And further, he instructed us to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Lastly, recalling we are also taught that whatever we do, do it heartily as to the Lord and not to men. As we work through this budget, keep us aware of your kingdom, your righteousness, and the fact that we serve you first, as these must be foremost in our minds. Finally, Father, you instruct us to be stewards of your resources. Let us work well above the level of the wicked and lazy servant who was admonished to at least have deposited money with the bankers to have received back your own with interest. And Father, let us do all this to the honor and glory of your son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Amen. And I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Thank you very much. Um I guess I should turn this on even though that's this section. Okay, you got me on here. All right. So, I'm going to uh turn this over for a brief message from Administrator Vincent, and then we'll go into some public comment.

Okay. Uh, good afternoon, Mayor and Town Council staff and residents of Surfside Beach. um don't really need to go through logistics, but what we have is in front of you is our synopsis of the changes that were made from the budget retreat day one. And we'll go through that after public comments. I will say that Melanie and I met with Mr. Hyatt, Mr. Coleman since they missed the the first day retreat and I think about an hour and a half we went through the every single document for the uh reports from from day one with the retreat and also got into what the changes were for for the report that you have in front of you for day two. So uh with that we'll just go through public comments. Okay, before I open the floor for public comments, this is a special meeting and motions will be permitted and uh I'd like to start with one motion to suspend the two speaking terms rule of Robert's rules.

Second. Is there any discussion? All in favor? I opposed. None. Motion carries. Uh we're going to suspend the two turns speaking rule and uh and now the floor is open for public comment. Do we have any? All right, we have nobody. Uh oh, we do.

Okay, you know, I just wanted everyone to do is a public I know but okay can you say something in other words if you got a budget go ahead

okay I would like to my control situation is rel to the geologist I have heard many solutions that period. Having said that, I would like to propose that the town of the budget wanted to retain permits to eliminate eliminate the majority of the paid during this time. So make sense.

Yes. Okay. Mr. Mayor, any other public comment? I I think basically uh you're just saying to budget for uh permits for nesting. Yeah. whatever the egg addling or whatever other lawful means there are I I would just say Mr. Mayor, I think that's a DNR function towards funding. Maybe there's a process, but that's a state function.

So, I think we do have to permit, don't we? I don't know if there's fun. We just need to research. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, just make the note to look into it and see if that is is the way to do it. Are you you good now, Mich?

Okay. Any other public comment? All right. We're going to move on then. Uh then we'll just move into the fiscal year 2627 proposed budget for discussion and consideration. And I think that's the record group. So, at the budget at the budget retreat, we had a balanced budget and we did um there was some changes voted on and it was asked again about the four part-time firefighters. So, eliminating the four part-time firefighters is a savings of 111592. We had originally proposed making the code enforcement officer um part-time but it was voted on to keep it full-time. So that's why you see the additional 47099. Um we are unfreezing the facilities laborer position. Um we had requested a part-time um HR assistant and a tourism development tourism community development coordinator. and then um an assistant director of public works safety manager which was removed during the retreat. So when you originally look at the proposed budget the increase in position personal services would have been $142,000 over prior year. With all these changes, we took away 67,000. So, it's only 75,129 to accomplish all of these positions. And this also we our position count will go down by two because we're getting rid

of four firefighters. We're adding one part-time admin and adding one tourism and community development. The rest were already existing positions. Um, the other thing that was voted on was uh the volunteer firefighter siphon gone from 20 to $25 and that's about 20 grand. And then I as I was going through everything again, I noticed that I had budgeted for the fire vehicle twice. So it was in general fund and it was in um hospitality. That's good news.

So I took that back out. So this next slide shows where our changes were. Sorry. So the proposed budget was 8.8 million and um 8.861 million in personnel services. It is now 8.814. Um our capital expense went from 431 to 356. And then our use of fund balance went from 607,000 to 484,000.

Are there any questions on general fund before I move forward? I have questions. Go ahead. Um or you want to wait till the end? No, I questions. Fine. I mean, and then if you want to make a motion, you can after your questions. I mean, yeah, it's it's going to be better free flowing, I think. Okay. Yeah. Um, like for the new positions, where does the money come out for for the computers, the extra their benefits? So, it's just not what's here. It's additional cost.

Um, a computer and with the screens, everything is about 2500. We have that budgeted. We will just put off one of the replacement computers and get one for the new people instead. Okay. And what about the benefits? I know benefits are included in these numbers. Oh, thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. May. I got a question. Go ahead.

Um with the volunteer firefighters, you eliminated not eliminated four. how we move it back to and we use the volunteers to I don't want to get into the three parts can't do it.

Can the chief have a mic?

Yeah, just keep passing it back and forth. Yeah. Um, so would you just call us anything with the part times? We don't use the part. How is it? I don't understand limiting. If they're not working, they're not getting paid. So, I don't see how that's a savings because we're budgeting for them. We're budgeting a part-time salary and fringes for four positions that we have not filled in two years.

You need people. So, it's either going to be part time is on the roster or you're going to have to do somebody on overtime which is more than a part time. I don't see how it'll save any money. you're if you need somebody, you need some money. It's either pay overtime or pay part time. I don't see how the savings is if you have if you have you need somebody you need. So I don't understand how the what the savings is. If they don't work, they don't get paid. So each part-time position is roughly $27,000 is what they get paid. They could potentially make a year would be budget. Um, this year we've used our part-time employee probably three to four times. We haven't had a lot of call offs or anything like that. We also have a minimum staffing of three. We have four per shift. Um, so we always try to fill that four shift if possible. If nothing else, we can drop a three and keep that there. Uh, we have great volunteers that have been coming in and filling those positions and we've had no issues with that. I just don't see the point carrying those over and generating that income. um when we haven't been using it to begin. Um if there comes another time later down the road where it might be that we need it, that's when I would probably come back to you guys and say, you know, our volunteers have dropped off. We need to look at part-time to save on the overtime. But currently, we we've used the one volunteer or one part-timer that we've had two or three times. Our goal is to have one part-timer per shift uh that can work that shift. So that way we're covered per curve and we use the volunteers when we can't fil that part time shift and then we look through with over time if that's the case or drop down

I still don't understand it because you could have a roster 100 volunte You eliminated what? Four of them. That's really They were on a roster. They weren't used anyway. So, how is that savings? Can Can you explain the difference between budgeting and the actuals?

This Yes, there's a difference between budget and actual. You have to budget for the maximum amount that that position might generate. So, with a part-time, you have FICA and um retirement. you do not have health insurance. So basically, like he said, each position is around $27,000. And so that's in your budget. That's taking up part of your revenue, proposed revenue. So this is taking those out. You could leave the slots just kind of and like you said, have them um on the roster if you're not spending for all four, but it sounds like the plan is to go ahead and get those hired, the ones that are left. So there is one for each ship, but this it is a savings to the budget to take those out.

No, nobody's going to hear you, Mr. Sty. Oh, you're having a private conversation. What I was trying to explain to Harry, if you got 10 people budgeted in or you have to budget the money to pay for them 10 people where if you ain't got four budgeted, you budget for four. So you're saving that money is being saved overall the whole budget. You don't have to put it in there. That money has to be set aside if you have that number on Ro, Mr. Mayor. Oh. Yeah. Go ahead. Turn it back.

Oh, sorry. Um I'm I'm a little dense. So um can can you walk through the uh the transfer in transfer out and the net change and the fund balances? So like you know where is the money coming from and other I assume that's money coming from other parts of the budget. Yeah. As I explained last retreat we have money coming in from hospitality local a tax state a tax. Um there's some admin fees that come in from storm water and um the pier and um sanitation. So all all those other funds are contributing a little bit to back to the general fund.

And then um fund balance as I I think I tried to explain this before. We have a million dollars that we can use for one time items for this budget. Right now we're only using 484 of that million. Um so ba ba b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b bas basically that 484 pretty much covers the um 500,000 that's going to capital projects to complete the the building. Um Okay. So I guess the the fundamental question is us taking money from these other funds. It's not leaving those funds no short. No. Mr. Mayor,

if I could get getting back to let's let's try to close out that one subject before we take on the universe again. Um can you clarify that these are positions that we've carried as a budget line item to your to your department's not been used in two years. So basically all we're doing is alleviating that line item so that we can actually use the money that's been wasted and set aside for us. Correct. That's what I wanted to clarify. Thank you. That's all I had.

All right, let's move ahead. The other changes that were made during the retreat was um the sanitation fund the we had proposed a rate increase of 40%. Um Miss Fallon came back with a really good good idea where we're doing 40 for the roll carts and 50% rate increase for the containers. And then under state a tax um we had 15,000 budgeted for the beachfront blessings for communication boards. it was decided that we're only going to buy four boards and 7,000 of that 15 is going to go to pick each pavers instead. So, I kind of wanted to show you the change um from what we proposed versus doing that extra 50% doing it 50% for the um for the carts. I'm sorry, not parts, the um containers. So it goes up about 40 grand is my projection. Um so you'll see there instead of netting 229 for future uses we'd be netting 270 which is very good. So hopefully this will get us to that 10 year mark again. We'll see.

Can I ask a question about that? Go ahead. Yeah, I I listened to the budget hearing from uh last time, the one I missed, and um I understand that the proposed sanitation charges have pretty much been passed by motion, but it occurred to me while I'm listening to this, why didn't we just make a smaller change like 20% to 22 or $23 and just do 3% a year since we went 13 years and now we need a 40% increase. That adds up to about 3% a year. Why don't we just do that and never have to worry about it again?

As a budget person, the problem I see with that is you have different council members who may not vote it for the next year and then we're in trouble. We've got two years to enforce that. That's it. Gotcha.

Yes. My thought my thought process was this after hearing John Paul Mer was the fact that we would probably have to raise it year after year if we did not go with the higher amount. My theory was to keep the percentage lower for the residents and to bump up the 10% more for the containers because most businesses in Surfside do not recycle. So if they choose choose to recycle, I think we should reook at this. But um that's that's where my point.

So just for the benefit of the people who weren't here last time, I'm going to give you what I gave out at the last meeting so it's a little more clear on paper. that was in your book, just a smaller version.

Yeah, this is the fullsize uh version for my eyes. Um yeah, just to review um if you look at the uh we we went we we Millie and I worked real hard putting this together. We we worked out the revenue and expenses for the next about 10 fiscal years. And again, we haven't raised rates since 2013. We thought that increase would be maybe we get six, seven years out of it and we stretched it as long as we possibly could. Truth be told, we probably should have done this a year or two ago. But if if you look at the the the orange rows, that's basically if we don't do anything. And if you look at the column all the way on the right, which says end of year equity, you'll see when you start seeing parentheses, that that that's the money we have in the bank, the fund. So if we don't do anything in about another year or two year fiscal years there's not going to be any money to buy anything or pay the bills. So u with the and we we included a 30 40 and 50% rate increase scenario. And you can see as you go down for those various colored rows you can see that we can get probably three or four years out of the next option. We thought a comfortable a comfortable place to be might be the 40% increase which makes you solve it until about uh 32 33. So you get about six seven years out of a 40% increase. Council member Fallon has suggested 50% for the containerize isn't a whole lot of extra money but it does make a good point. Um and we it'll stretch it out a little bit further. So maybe he'll get an extra year out of that to the next fiscal year. Yeah. And it's and sanitation rates are always a political thing. Like Melanie said, you might not have the council. You know, they might want to reduce services instead of raising the rates. You need all kinds of things. So, it's best to not to deal with this. This is a very time consuming effort here.

I I kind of understand the concept of what you're trying to do, right? My concern was why don't we just make a smaller increase and then add 3% a year all into the future and accomplish roughly the same thing. That's all I was trying to say. It's a valid point, but again, that would have to be like by ordinance be automatic, okay, for it to work. But but analyzing these numbers every year, like I said, this took us this took us a month or two to put together. Yeah, we had to consult our uh our audit firm. Uh she had, you know, Melanie's got a dozen hours in this. I probably got 20 hours in this. You know, to do this every year would be kind of time consuming. I just had a different thought, but it's fine. I'm fine with it. I'd still vote for it. All right.

And and I've got a followup. The last meeting you said there were also two uh mitigating factors. One was about a million dollar reimbursement from FEMA after Matthew and I forgot what the other one was. Um yeah. Yes. Okay.

We used to service the Carolines area u when we had some excess capacity in our truck years ago, but then as the town grew, we had to eliminate that. But that that increased that that added to our fund balance for many years. We had a lot of money in the bank in the sanitation fund. In the last, you know, 10 years, garbage trucks have pretty much doubled in price. Everything we buy, people, fuel, everything has gone up so far. So that every year we're taking money out of our fund balance to to make the budget work, right? So if you don't you don't want to be in that position where you keep withdrawing from the bank to pay your bills. you want to at least break even or or add to the fund balance every year. That's the goal, right?

So, these are the various scenarios that'll that'll get you where you want to be. So, we won't have to deal with this again for six, seven years. And and that's why it's going to be six or seven, maybe longer instead of 13 again because we had those those two other things that don't exist anymore. We're unlikely to get a a big reimbursement from FEMA even if we get a storm. And we're obviously not going to get additional business. Uh we don't we don't have the uh resources to be able to extend our our service. Yeah. You can't anticipate those kind of windfalls far and few.

Okay. So again, that's why we're only, you know, even though we're doing 40%, it's still only addressing it for five, six, seven years, not for 13 again. There's just no way to do that unless we really blow it up. But it is good also to point out and you did it again uh two weeks ago that even with this projected increase we are less than any commercial service around here today. Correct. That second piece of paper that I gave out

basically we uh we surveyed some of the local companies that service the area GFL waste management and we're still even with the 40 and 50% increase we're still below what our competitors are charging. We are the exclusive provider of services in Surfside Beach by ordinance. So, they can't come in to Surfside and uh and uh take business from us. That's by ordinance. But what we would tell customers is you're still getting a great deal. Even on the road carts, because we're coming to your house four times a week for that one cart price. You know, if you're going with if you live in Ory County and you have GFL servicing your house, you're only getting your garbage can tipped. You're not getting yard debris. You're not getting bulk pickup. you're not getting a recycling service. So, it's a great value for the money and the residents really, I think, appreciate that.

Mr. Mayor, Mr. Coleman, and I think it's a good idea that we're charging commercials more if the commercial does they can recycle so that their their their yards, the amount of garbage they're putting out, it's going to be less if they're recycling. So, the price would go down. They wouldn't be needing as many pickups. I think that's a way to get them hopefully to to recycle. Right. We offer a recycling service uh to commercial businesses in town. They don't all take advantage of. Is there a way to list the businesses that do recycling versus those that don't so that the public knows?

I don't know if that's something the council wants to go down saving business. Sure. But if it was mandatory in in South Carolina, you know, you might be get a different point of view. But uh on my residential street where I live, you might have, you know, five houses out of 20 that actually pay extra for a recycling cart. Everybody else either takes it to a convenience center or they just throw in the trash. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, I usually include this every year because there's discussions about um cola. So, basically what I have in the budget right now is the equivalent of 3% cola as a placeholder until we get more information from the salary study. Um I think we're in phase five of how many of six. So hopefully by the end of May, early June, we'll have more information. Like I said, I have depending on what they come back with, we do have money to probably address whatever they come up with.

Um so right now, like I said, equivalent of 3% is what I have as a placeholder. And then um just to show what other mun municipalities are proposing, I think we talked a little about with the retreat, but um right now Ory or counties roing 4%, North Myrtle Beach 5%, city of Myrtle three, city of Conway 2.7, city of Georgetown three, um Georgetown County 5% in July and 2% in January. And then city of Camden 5%, town of Luton 3% and then on top of that a 2 to 4% merit and then the city of Fountain in 3%. And I think I heard today that social security is going up 3.15%.

Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, you got the microphone. Real quick, Myrtle Beach withdrew like 3% in our holidays. Just so you know. Okay. When I talked to they withdrew 3%. I want everybody to know that there's some places around us not getting a cola this year. So would you repeat that? I I missed Myrtle Beach withdrew their 3% cola and they're also taking away their Christmas bonus. Okay. And I know that I'll double check with them to see where they are in their budget process. see if it gets added back or not.

So, I got a couple questions. First, in regard to this, do we know how we stacked up against like what what these different jurisdictions polls were last year versus ours? In other words, that were weak over the two-year period. Are we high, low, or do we not? We're low.

That's that's question one. Question two is um so I know pay studies come in and I brought this up last time my whole issue with colas but that notwithstanding we're not going to solve that here. Um do we have funding or a process to give either bonus money or an additional raise to our top performers? Mayor um what we have right now in place is employee of the quarter. Basically, that's the only thing that we have in place for that and every employee has to be evaluated in July.

Okay. When did the races actually take effect? 1 of July. July one. I have a comment about that, too. Um

um I listen to the bantering back and forth regarding merit versus a cola. And I have some familiarity with what's called pay for performance. And in that case, you take the 3% COLA and put it as a reserve in the budget. And every employee can earn his share every month if he passes a performance evaluation by his supervisor. Then he gets that month's COLA. If he doesn't or she doesn't, then they don't get that month's cola. And that way, you're able to take the cola and merge it into a pay for performance based on a performance evaluation by the supervisor. Just a suggestion. Thanks.

Pass it down. It's still on. I have one one last comment about this. When we do a comparison, I'd like to see sizewise, you know, Surfside's very small. Is there anybody on this list? I mean, I can pretty much tell you Ory County is huge. North Myrtle might be close to us. They're not. So, I'd like to know. I don't know if it's the number of employees because um we have to remember we're a two- mile town just because say Ory County gets 4%. We not necessarily should get four I mean 3 to 5%. It depends on size to me but um because they have more money coming in they're allotted that they can do something with that. Uh Mr. Mayor, if I have

Go ahead. When it gets down there, oh, excuse me. Is it fair to assume that proportionally that really doesn't have any effect? I mean, your your bigger municipalities bring in more money, but they also got a whole lot more going out. They do. And you have to remember we all live in this Cory County community. So we're all pretty much paying the same prices for everything.

So we are not we already make less than everyone else. And I think we'll find that in the salary study. Yes, we are smaller. So we probably you know maybe not as much as everyone else is making but we need to keep up with inflation. Well, and I'm just going to comment and I'm yelling into this thing um that I think okay, I'll take it. Um I think we we know the pay studies coming and I think we continue to try to

uh solve the pay study issues prematurely. I mean, we keep discussing things and we we may as well just wait until it comes out, see what is recommended, see where uh our position is to competing municipalities and counties, jurisdictions, I guess I should say, and deal with it at that point. Otherwise, we're just maybe this, what if, and let's just wait and see what we come up with. I agree. So, basically that was the end of my presentation and the other um the other part of the agenda is going over the um rate increases. But as far as what I had to present, that's that was it.

I think I have one more question. Okay. Okay. I'm I'm going to ask a question first if you don't mind because I got the microphone.

So, um we'll minimize the passing back and forth. One thing I will say about all the positions um and I think we should have done this last year with the uh fire uh administrative assistant. Um, I don't know if we need a motion, but I'm going to ask staff to um start looking at any new people and maybe at about a six-month point at the end of this year, assuming they're hired quickly in July or August, maybe to prepare some sort of report that says this is the impact already. And then um again as we go into budget next year, you know, at this time now you got about eight months in to say this is what the HR assistant has done. This is what the tourism and community development person's done. this is what the facilities person's done and and demonstrate that there is a real meaningful uh productive uh contribution from each of these people because you know I I think in general we have concerns about just adding people um and then everybody kind of just assumes that you know they're there forever no matter what and I think we need to know we need to hear back specifics on what these people have done so that we can judge if we made the right decision or not. And you know, it's hard to to eliminate spots, but if we're finding something's not doing what we thought it would do, we'd have to uh face up to that at the next budget year. So, if if uh this group wants me to make a motion, I'll do that. But otherwise, if if uh staff is just willing to take that on, I don't think it's necessary.

I I'd make a motion. All right. I'm going to make a motion that uh we that staff prepares uh two two reports end of end of calendar year and going into next budget year. So roughly December and April highlighting the impact of the of any new spots that we approve. I'd second that. All right. Any other discussion on that? And I'll pass the mic around if anybody wants Yeah, but we'll vote on this. Now we have a motion. Can do I ask for a clarification just on the motion? Sure.

That includes positions that were created last year and this year. I didn't say that, but uh uh sure. I'll I'll amend it to include last year, which would be the administrative position for the fire chief. Was there any other new spot last year? the um it was an executive assistant and that was two years ago. Senior Well, that was in a new position. That was that wasn't a new position per se. It was Yeah, it was elevated. Um the other um code enforcement officer that hasn't been hired. Okay. Well, but that'll be this year's

I didn't say that. I just said all the new positions, but I would include that in this year's. Yeah. Right. So, it hasn't been hired yet. So, Right. So, so it would be five spots. The uh uh executive assistant for the fire department, the community and tourism and community development position, the facilities laborer, uh HR, the HR assistant, and the code enforcement second code enforcement officer. So, we would be looking for a preliminary report by the end of this calendar year and then a followup report heading into next year's budget. That is that's now the motion. I'm amending it.

I'll second that one. Mr. Mayor, last year was just a question for clarity. Was last year also be added extra firefighters? No, that was

applause when you're having fun. We put the extra firefighters in when we turned down county and I don't I'm trying to think that two years ago. right at the beginning of our turn. Wow. I I'm not saying I'm against the firefight. I'm just saying if it is, it is. I'm sure it's it was worth what we did. I'm sure we justified and validated. Yes. But if it is if it was in the last last we should look at it just to show that.

All right. So, I'm just speaking into this microphone right now. Um, the motion on the table is for the five spots. And if I have to say them again, I will. But hopefully we remember what those five spots are for this year. One leg. Any other discussion? Just say all those spots from the last two years. Yeah. There you go. And it was five. Yeah. All right. Any other discussion? Okay. All in I'm just going to do a voice vote. All in favor? I opposed. None. Motion carries unanimously. And uh now let's give the microphone to Miss Shawn for whatever she wanted to bring up.

So just tell me if it's not appropriate at this time. Deal with money. When I deal with money, I deal with you. Um we got a lot of money from certain source this coming this this budget this past year. Are we banking on we're going to get that every year? I'm being very conservative in my projection here because I still don't trust it. Okay. Okay. That's all I want to know. Yeah. But I did increase it from what I saw at the time.

Right. seeing a little more, but I'm going to be conservative till I see what happens the end of this year and going into the first six months of next year. Okay. Thank you. Nice. Good. Then I think we're ready to head into the fee schedule. Is that where we are?

Yes. And that that is on um in your packet. Hopefully you guys had a chance to look at it. Um, do you want me to go over this? Okay. So, the first change that we're looking at is um underneath FOYAS, we added the line plus any additional charges for reductions. And then under um used to be section was special event fees change it to event fees and um for a small less than 4 hours. The registration it's the same amount from last year. We're just changing the wording there. And then for a large um four or more hours They didn't change the story. Then the next page, this whole section has been added on special events. Um what I've been told these are for things such as um surfing. Yeah, it's application fee to be able to do um whatever festival or whatever they're planning on doing, whatever event they're planning on doing it and it covers the cost for employees to have to go through that process. Yes.

You can't you can't speak. You can't. It's not public comment. Yeah. Sorry, Mr. Ken. If if we'll look at parking in a little bit maybe, but right now we're into special events. I've got a quick question. Um, I'll just yell it. Um, how is this section different than the section on the previous page? The section on the previous page, correct me if I'm wrong, Tabitha, was for vendors for our events.

This is for someone outside wanting event that we have the town has to approve and use some of our resources for for what? Give me another example for the application fee. So example, if Surf Dreams wants to come in, there's an application to be applied because we as employees have to do certain pieces of work to process that application and there we've not been. So it's it's outside entities versus our fall festival and our whatever, right? And then the labor fees would be based on whoever's working helping like fire, they're helping um police, public works. you you may want to I mean just a suggestion you may want to clarify the wording in this to be clear that that's what the because when I read it I didn't see

application fees I I get I know it was application fee but we're talking it says special event application fees okay what I'm not what I'm missing is how that it's just applies to outside entities not not us that's what I'm not seeing that's why I was confused maybe it's just nonions. It's up to you. I'm just saying it was confusing to me because I I couldn't differentiate. Okay. And we've noticed that many localities do this, but when Tabitha gets an application, she sends it to seven different employees who has to evaluate it and send a response back on what needs to be done.

Well, I get that part. Like, I just couldn't quite cipher the difference between this one, the other. Okay. Well, then I have a question. Are these high enough? Yes, they are. We looked at other municipalities to make sure we were in line. Yes. Okay. Don't make the same. There must be some some cheaper employees. This has nothing to do with the employee cost. This has to do with the application process. Well, then we do have the parties. We have a fee for each department that goes on top of this for the event once approved. But this is just to process the application, right? So there are employees involved in that.

Correct. And so to process an application in $25, that's that's quick. Okay. Yep. If it if it's that quick, then fine. Correct. All right. Um on the next page is the sanitation fees which we've already talked about. Um and then we also added sidewalk planner/feature encroachment less than 20 square feet $100 annually. And then under the peer kiosk fee um an electrical fee of $20 $25 a month. Mr. Sammy, that's to your point from the last Yes.

I appreciate that. Staff did the research. And on the next page, um, police officer security services going from 50 to $55 an hour. And then under the fire department, they wanted to match what the police department does. So false alarms, first and second alarm are free. After first you get charged and then

was that an important alarm? This thing just buzzed. I just wanted to make sure we were still on and recording and all that. The battery is running low. Should we should we take a brief recess while we look at this or Yeah, we know it's okay. All right. Do you want anything? Well, you know, I mean, we'll

wrap this part up and let's see. This this is just going to be a quick yeah battery change or plug in.

So the last thing was police and fire department. Yeah. And then

and then um go a couple pages in and we start getting into the planning, building and zoning. And I think Mark talked a little bit about this at the at the retreat, but his goal was to make sure that his what he's bringing in covers their operations, which they should. Um, and then some um, let's see, it was he changed reinspection fees from 75 to 100. He did construction board appeal $400. I don't think it's

Please note all of these the numbers have been changed but the words haven't so please change I tried to change the words too but I missed that one. Yeah.

Okay. And then um yeah there's a few that's what I get for copying from this. Let's see. And then under the new residential construction building permits and fees. See, let's see. New residential construction. It's going from 59 cents to 60 cents per square feet. And took out plan reviews, took out total. And then under section B, he went from 54 cents to 60 cents. And then he went commercial plan review fee shall be based on total square footage. He went from 275 cents to 30 cents. And then plan review from 100 to 200. Third and subsequent reviews will be 100 each. Business inspections commercial uh $150 75. Um zoning permit $75. Zoning permit rightaway encroachment $100. zoning permit fences $50 and $100 and we took out the use of the table. Um then he added the language building permit fee schedule under the zoning permit moving any building or structure

including manufactured home placement. Um parking lot constructions 75 And then he added the language building permit P schedule. He used table 30 13.52C building permit fee schedule. Then he added um he took the zoning permit for tree removal from $5 to 25 and we added uh flood flood plan review for $250. Removal of required or regulated tree $25 for the owner of existing residence. Owner of commercial property 75 to 100. Owner let's see thinning removal going from $5 to 25. Same with owner of commercial property. Apparently we Okay, we didn't have any fees before for pruning limbs. So now we're going to charge 25 zoning permit water well allowed only for landscaping $45 certification of zoning compliance going from 50 to 75 temporary certifications of zoning compliance $100. I believe there wasn't a fee there before.

Let me see. Um, under commercial plan review from $75 to $200. Residential plan review from $50 to $100. Um, I guess extra extra inspections may be needed. Um, he's going from 75 to 100 for the first, 150 for the second, and 200 for the third and any subsequent thereafter. Under subdivision plat fees for major subdivision, he's going from 175 to 200. Major minor subdivision 45 to 100. Um for the final zoning, major subdivision from 175 to 500, minor subdivision 50 to 200. And then surveys as built 35 to 50. Combination survey 35 to 50. Um under second review $30 to $50. And then board and commission review fees. Special exceptions 200 to 300. Variance 200 to 500. Appeal other than tree removal protection 200 to 300. Appeal for tree removal protection 200 to 300. Um, zoning map map and text amendment 250 to 800.

Um, plan development $350 to a,000 and plan development amendment 350 to 500. And then on the next page, can I just throw in there because there was some pretty dramatic changes there. Uh, Mr. Vincent, can we assume uh that these have been vetted against other comparable municipalities? Yes, I mean it's between it's it's between all four of the staffers, the building official, uh the code enforcement and Mark has indicated that basically these all these fee increases are based on actual staff time. Okay,

covering that cost for those actual reviews. Okay. Beforehand when you saw the flood plane 250, we we didn't used to review those. It wasn't safe. We know what the cost actually is to review the storm water applications. So, kind of follow up to that. Um, I think it's Oh, no, he's not. Um, so are we going to have to approve these things separately in a in a in a council meeting? I mean or is is approval of this in this you approve the entire comprehensive fee schedule? We're approving it today. Part of the budget part of the budget it'll be for

this updated every year with the budget.

So I've got some concerns. Um um primarily the the fees that are going to impact citizens of the town. I mean I mean first one comes to mind is pruning a tree. you know, to going from zero to 25 bucks just to get a a tree pruned. Um, not that that's a lot of money, but that affects folks that live here, you know, and we're already paying taxes and already paying for the people that are going to do the work um through their taxes. So, I have concerns about that. I also have concerns that I would like to see, um, a comparison of other jurisdictions and what what they're charging at. I mean, it's kind of the same question Skip, I think, is asking. Um, I understand that we're doing it based on what we, you know, the the amount of time it takes for our employees to do it, but are we pricing ourselves higher than Ory County neighboring other neighboring jurisdictions? That that's my primary concern.

If you want to do something different that residents get a discount price versus a contractor, you can do that as well. I I I would like I mean off, you know, just off the cuff, that would be my inclination. Um, but um, like I said, I am concerned that I don't want to drive businesses away either, you know. So, I just want to make sure that what we're charging is consistent with what other jurisdictions are charging for similar types of permits and that kind of thing. And right now, we're kind of doing this based on, you know, evaluation of what it costs us to do it, which I get, but

should cost the other jurisdictions the same amount. I can't imagine it would be more for their employees to do the same work. So, does that make any sense? Like you said, I I I guess where I'm at is I would like to see some additional information. Okay. And I don't know. Um I don't I want to speak for you, but I don't know that we need every single one, but maybe pick eight or 10 or 12. Yeah. I mean, good examples. There's a lot here obviously, right? And that's kind of what I'm Yeah. I mean, if you want to say for those applications that are applied for by a resident and not a contractor, then there's a discount price for that resident. But I Mr. Mayor, if I could, but I don't think he's talking resident contractor necessarily. We're talking

how much does it cost our employees, right? How much does it cost our employees to do it? And how much do other municipalities charge? That's the two questions. And and in the end, if we charge a contractor more, they're going to pass along the charge to the to the resident anyway. Actually, that's a point I was going to make, having done way too many permitted projects in the last five years, because a lot of our contractors do the permitting on our behalf. So, that's going to put if if the residents end up having to do the permitting, that's going to put more it could put more of a burden onto our residents as opposed to just handing a project over to a general contractor and letting them take care of business.

Well, I was thinking more of pruning a tree is going to be a resident, not a contractor, but a major subdivision is going to be Well, not necessarily. Well, these are in a contract. Yeah. Yeah. I I'm not crazy about getting out my chainsaw and doing an 8 inch lift. I've done it. On this same Go ahead, Mr. D. On this same subject, how many years has it been since we've raised these prices and looked at these prices? It's probably going to

uh how many years it's been since we've raised these prices and looked at these prices, but I'm on the same on the same page as these guys are. We as a council need to look at some other places that's been charged and what they're charging and what our regul what our charges is against their charges. But I would like to know how many years it's been since these things has been raised because this is this is a a lot of raises across the board and it should make a big difference in the budget if that these go through. I mean, I know in my three years, we have not changed any of these.

They in my five years, they have not changed any of them. So, I know it's been five years. So, that's why I'm asking how long it's been. Yeah. And to be clear, I for my end, I'm not opposed to any of it. I just want I just like to know how we stack up. Okay. And, you know, what's the impact on the folks that live here? So, again, I don't know if we need to go through every one of these. Um what I would suggest is that uh director Broer pick on his own eight on maybe

yeah some some of the bigger the bigger ones and and if he comes back with a story that's satisfactory fine if we think we need a little more information he might have to dig a little more I don't want to create a massive work project for him but he's already looked at these obviously so it hopefully won't be too much additional work and again just bring back say eight of them um in in another meeting or so. Yes. Of different categories. Give us some justification, you know, and then we we get a a warm fuzzy feeling that it's good or we need more. Um the other thing I'm going to suggest is that as we approve the budget, do we need an ordinance to approve the comprehensive fee schedule separately from the budget?

No. We're sure of that. Okay. All right. Mr. Mayor, uh Mr. Tell me, I have a question about the police reports and fire reports. Here I am a victim of a crime or I had an accident or something to pay $25 for my house down. I just just want clarification. What does it entails? I mean, I can boiler it and probably get it for a lot cheaper. No,

you couldn't boil the uh number one. Number two, uh the insurance companies will pay for that $25 to begin with. Um and to be honest, $25 is extremely cheap. Other places I've been, they're $50 to $100. And insurance companies have no problem payment. We always try to tell our residents, there's no reason for you to buy one or get one. Have your insurance company get it. They're going to get it either way. They have to get that get the plan. And I would say a foyer request is a minimum of $25.

Is that just good? I'm just curious as to why that fee is it administrated. We're just covering the time it send. Okay. So that was a safe assumption.

I've got several questions, but follow up on what Gary just said about the police and fire reports. I know um my sister was the victim of a pretty expensive crime and um in order to get the tax authorities to not assess a penalty. It was a theft of tax returns. Um we had to get reports. So now she'd be victimized again. She'd have to pay for her report to send in asking that they not charge her a penalty for being laid in her taxes because they were still um I'm a little against that to be honest. Um, some other questions I have is under the FOYA, um, are we sure we can provide for, uh, reduction? Is that something we've looked into? I'm kind of a fan of the FOYA. Um, and I don't feel we should I understand it's ownorous for a lot of the people in town government, but I don't think we should try to prevent foyer requests by having ownorous charges. So, I'm not a fan of that. Um, some other questions and points. Under advanced fees, you have an electric outlet access with a minus $15. You probably want to take that.

That's that's uh the way it came. Okay. Yeah. Point is just all through um accept the changes. It'll fix everything. And then under block party, it's slashriteway. I don't understand how a block party and a rightway go together. What's what's the intent there? So the block party right away is it will be defined. It needs to be defined but it is exactly what um North Myrtle Beach charges for theirs if they want to use that space. Close the block.

Correct. Close the block for like 13th Avenue North. They want to close that block. Have like everybody bring meat, cookout, all the things. I see. So, it's if they're going to use public property for the for the block. Got it. Thank you. Um, got a couple others here. Let me find them. And do you want me to address redaction? Yeah. Were you asking a question or just making a point? I'm gonna ask them all and then maybe people can comment. So, okay. Does that make sense? Um, but

under the under the pruning, I have an issue with that is sometimes we get a storm that comes through and a limb breaks. Do do people have to go get a permit in order to trim the broken branch or broken limb off their tree? So, that's a question. 8 in, excuse me. It says limbs over 8 in and over in diameter. So, if one breaks in a storm and is lying in your yard, before you can cut it, you have to go pay for a permit. No. Okay,

and that's it. Those are my questions because I think everything got addressed except the redaction, right? They just said nothing for a fallen limb. Do you want that? Do you want to speak about redaction? Go ahead and send her the mic back. Although I don't think she needs

I know, right? I've got that outdoors. All right. Um, so redaction fees are anything that needs to be redacted outside of the inhouse town employees. So, example, if we get a request for a recording, that redaction has to go outside of us. So that would probably go to Heritage Digital and then they would charge us for those reduction fees. Understood. You're welcome, sir.

You had a couple more under tree fines and violation of building codes changed, too. Um, yeah. We were under the we were there next to last page. Yeah. And I can't Did he say this goes along with what they're looking after for the new tree or I believe so.

So I believe that's where that this section is. So removing protected trees over four inches in diameter measured by 4 feet from ground without approval. Permit shall be $500. He's changing that to $2,500. Okay. I Where are we? Under under tree funds. Join again, Billy. I'm sorry. next to the last page. Okay. Okay.

Then he's removing the next two sections. And then on the last page under miscellaneous f u miscellaneous fines, violation of building codes and storm water ordinance, $500 fine.

Mr. Mayor, if I could I thought there was going to be some additional wording coming on that to make it uh because we have seen in the past where where some contractors have seen it as a cost of doing business and just go in and strip mine the lot and pay the 10 grand. I I've spoken with Mark to understand that he was going to put some permit limitations on those contractors that did that by by saying he wasn't going to allow them to build for three years after they pulled that. Is that not something that's still before the planning commission?

I don't know if that's reorders or not. But if that does get approved and changed, then we'll we'll have to revisit be a fine though. We're we're in fines here. That would be a part of an ordinance, but I don't think you'd call it a fine. You're right. I think there's no there's no verbiage here for penalty. It's just Yes. Sorry. My bad. So, uh I have a question. There's a couple references here to a table uh 1352C building permit fee schedule. The building permit fee schedule is in red. Is that a new document? I mean the table number is not or is it a new name of it?

No, that's same. Okay. Just surprised that it's in red then. Where are you? Where are you? I'm in the tables. Uh the pages don't have numbers. Um yeah, planning, building, and zoning fees. And then you, you know, go a couple of pages in there's tables and at the bottom of the one page zoning permit certificates and other review fees, it references building permit fee schedule. And then the top of the next page references building permit fee schedule both in red. So I'm assuming they're new documents or new name of a document, but I don't know what it is.

I see what you're saying. Yeah. I It's hard to tell what page we're on. This is what he's talking about where these are in the schedules are Oh, I thought he was talking about that. You're using the table 35 13- 52 C the building permit fee schedule. Okay. So, it just said use table 15 1352 C. Yeah. Before period. Yeah. He was just more like I don't know what that is, but I'll go find out now. Now he's telling us what it is.

Okay. All right. Thank you. That clarifies any other questions on the the B schedule is a lot of stuff to take in obviously Mr. Mayor M. Chief Nichols not for victims. $25 process fees and $25 for accident.

Thank you. Wow. Did you just shuffling papers around here? But

cover in here. A lot to soak in under fees. Yeah. And of course any of these can come up in in the readings. Um but obviously we don't want to belabor the readings too long. Uh we what I guess while we're doing this uh Mr. Vincent, can you just give us a a general uh look ahead to the schedule and the when the first and second readings you expect to occur?

May 26. Yeah, we the next schedule is basically we we uh we've got a publication of the public hearing and then we've got May 26 is going to be the first reading and then the first meeting in June which will be June and 9th is going to be your second reading to adopt the budget to be official July one. So with that we have uh what's that July?

Yeah. Okay. So we have uh the agenda is already basically set for uh Tuesday's meeting, April 28th, I think it is. So the May 12th meeting uh would not be a reading. I guess we could have budget as a discussion item. If anybody brings up anything over the next couple of weeks going through this, something else pops up, we could we could do that. Yeah. Get you your your comparables. um for the uh fee schedule in with PBNC. So, we'll have he's already got it. So,

is it worthwhile? I mean, we'd be talking the May session, the first May meeting, I guess, um after we have that data to have a a agenda item just related to fees. We we we certainly could. But I mean I I think we should probably have a placeholder in May 12th for budget discussion and then define it as we get closer

because as you just said I mean there is a ton here and I mean a lot of it self-explanatory but a lot of it's not and again my whole thing is I just want to make sure we are not overcharging right you know I mean I just want to ensure that we are consistent with other jurisdictions and I mean I'm all for raising the tease should they should it make sense Um, but right now we don't have the information that allows us to to to make that analysis, I guess. And I would say with the placeholder on the May 12th meeting, make sure the questions come before the the May 12th. So, we can be ready to answer those questions whether it's fees or anything.

Yeah. And I think the questions will be self-explanatory. I mean, if we're charging 50 bucks for something and the other jurisdictions are somewhere between 20 and 35, right? Then seems we're out of line. But, you know, if they're more, then maybe we're not charging enough. And I can just say that document's already been prepared. So Mark's ready for that. Okay. But that jump from 500 to 2500 on that one item is I need to see that. Um you said we rarely ever have that. I would hope for their sake. I would hope

last one you did just for future years making such a dramatic uh charge uh at the fee schedules. I know it's got to be part of the budget, but that's that can that can kind of put an anvil on the budget process when we're having to look at such dramatic revisions. You mean as far as more revenue? Well, I know it's Yeah, I I realize it's tied to the budget process, but I don't want to Well, the fact the fact that they're so extensive could delay the budget process in the future if we have that this extraordinary amount of changes and revisions.

I think what Mark's I mean, what Rick is asking for is going to help you understand comparison that we're right at the same. think skills on the right paid I mean on the right thing because when we get asked this many increases over at one time that's that's over everything is doubled it's just about doubled in price and we tie this to the overall budget approval that it could it could get to be a long well I can say this again we used to use safe soil we still do a lot of our um John's the only one that does it over an acre and That takes time. But it hadn't been done by planning building. Yeah.

I'm not saying it's not justified. I'm not I'm just saying it's it's a lot of a lot of red. Yes, for sure.

Well, we uh basically have completed what's here on the agenda. We could take a break and come back and see if there's any last things or if everybody is satisfied, we can adjourn early. Mr. Mayor, uh, from last year's budget, I prefer we don't adjourn right off the bat because last year we had this same problem and they were people made comments that we adjourn too fast. So, I'd like to see that we take a break and come back and make sure everybody's happy at this meeting when we leave out these doors and not saying that we rushed this process and and didn't listen to everybody's complaints. Second.

I second that feeling. Yes, I a motion. We don't I guess I need a motion. I'm making that suggestion. Okay. What I'm gonna do is I'm just gonna call a uh we do like as much as 20 minute recess and everybody kind of go over they can go people can go over and think about it in their mind in 20 minutes they can come back and we can discuss more if they want to discuss more but I hopefully that I don't hear the same complaints we had of last year leaving this budget and rushing

all right so I'm going to call a recess let's make it uh 2:40 that's I think 23 minutes right now Okay. So, everybody back at 240. All right. Uh, we're in recess. Thank you. Yes. After we come back. Go ahead. I just need to make sure. I mean,

okay. This conference will now be recorded. What got me then? It's my best part of my job. So, what did we decide? I have to technically. Yeah. Well, that one of us. It has to be on the good side. Okay, that's fine. On the good side. No. Well, the positive side prevailing I prevailing is I believe what but you're going to go first. Oh, okay.

All right. Is everybody here? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Okay. All right, Skip. Take your seat, please. Thank you. All right. We're now coming back from recess and hopefully everybody's had a chance to reconsider, uh, give a last look to any items here. Um, so I'm going to ask if anyone wants to make a motion. I know Mr. Hyatt wants to make a motion, so I'm going to hand the microphone to him. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we uh reopen public comment so that people that have been here might have a comment now. Some have indicated we'd like to make a comment. I'd like to allow them to make a comment. I'd like to have them address us from the podium if possible.

Second. All right. Any discussion? All in favor? I opposed? None. Motion carries. We're going to have a another public comment and uh we'll just do it right now. So, if anybody wishes to speak up, come on up here. Get up here, kink. We've already talked about what he was talking about. Yeah, we did that. So, we don't have any more public comment. Oh, here we go. We bet. Thank you.

Yeah, it's on. I have a concern in listening to you all and that is with the cola and government we got a cola every couple of years whether whether or not they really got it was usually reasonably within 1 to 3%. They handle the cost of living expenses that employees go through. Some people are in a position where they may not see a salary increase. They're not in a step increase. They're going to be working for the same amount for the first to five ten years. So, colas are something you should separate out from salary and other benefits and expenses as well as promotions. That is a separate line item. Give the employees colas. Vote on colas, whatever is reasonable for our town. Don't dismiss it like it's extra money in their pocket. It's not. The cost of living goes up for all of us. that should also be considered. Then as far as the standards for evaluating employees, that's really where the work needs to be. How do you go about as an employee evaluating your employees for the benefit of the town? Use a numeric system as well as a qualitative process so that it's fair and equitable and that everybody has a fair shot to demonstrate their best qualities and to do the best they can for the town. those outliers that don't do well, those naysayers are lazies, there is a perfect process for getting rid of them and to replace them as needed. I think the directors are working really hard not to ask too many times about the increase of hiring more staff, but God bless they should use it, they could have it because there's a lot of work that goes on that I think a lot of us don't know about if you're not involved in governmental operations. So I would just like for you to consider

evaluating colas in terms of cola and then looking into other avenues that deal and address with promotions and benefits that increase, you know, health insurance, vacation time, whatever, because they deserve it. Plain and simple. We cannot keep these people here if we don't do that. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Um, any other motions uh coming out or I'm sorry, any other public comments before I close them? Oh, we do have one. Okay.

I'm going follow up with Miss Helier. This is Keith Ashley, 418 13th Avenue North. As a resident, I don't have a problem with homelessness. What I have a problem with is them being used as a weapon. Um, employees every day get opportunities. I know when I was working, I had opportunities come to me. I felt it benefited me and my family. I took it. I left. I went to another job. And I would hope that the employees of our town would do the same. Another opportunity comes that benefits you and your employee, you should take it. That's what you judge. Don't use the cold as a threat. Okay? People come and go for jobs all the time. And look at where we've been with our fire department. Look at where we've been with our police department. And we're still here. People are going to leave. Guess what? We're still going to be here. Right here, place we love, right? We will survive. We will be here. So, that's what I have against Kohl's. And I'll just say this. Um, many times I would go two, three years in my private sector work and not get a raise. In fact, I just retired in December. The last six years I worked zero. I got zero rates. And that was during co

and by so you know, stop using it as a threat. Um and and and and and that and employees you get a better opportunity somewhere else, take it. You and your family, you should take it. I did many times. And if you do, yes, we will lose you. But you are replaceable. Everyone is replaceable. And we will survive. We'll still be here. We'll still be going strong. We're right here in the place we are. All right. Thank you, sir. Any more public comment? Okay. Um I am now going to close the public comments and move on to any motions uh since or or any discussion or motions since we uh took our recess.

I've got one. No, not what we were talking about. No. Okay. Oh, were you all in sidebars? Procedural thing that I'm going to have to deal with.

So, um I'd like to make a motion that we have a um a separate council discussion um at the at whatever the earliest convenience of the council meeting to to separate out a discussion of the feast. Um I I think that that it is so there's so much there um that I think it requires a separate discussion mostly because I want residents to understand what's being proposed. Um and if it gets locked inside the budget, it won't get the intent get the attention I think it deserves. So anyway, that that's it. It's a motion to have a separate agenda item on an upcoming council meeting just dealing with. I'll second that.

Okay. You want to say something about it or I do got it.

Um I I commented lightly on it earlier. Um, I don't think with as dramatic changes and revisions that we have made to the fee schedule that it was a a good idea to wrap it up into the overall budget process as for the very same reasons that Rick just mentioned. Um, I think we need to uh we need to have further vetting, justification, and validation of some of these fees uh so that we can make sure that we're being competitive and and also uh consistent with what other folks are doing in the area. And uh I think we need to see that uh from the various directors that have um especially I mean you know from Mark at PBNC there's there's a lot there to absorb and we need to we need to visit with him a little bit. Thank you.

Can I say something? Go ahead. Yeah. I'd like to amend the motion that we not just remove the uh fee schedule from the budget, but that we also hold a public workshop and let the public voice their concerns about the fee schedule. Well, you you made an amended motion. It needs to be seconded first. I'll second.

Okay. So, that that's been seconded. Um what what I'm going to say is that uh it'd be hard to get a a workshop in. I think if we use the next available meeting time May 12th uh and we make it a business item we invite I mean any meeting invites public comment but it is a fee schedule item on the agenda. I had suggested before that maybe it should be uh approved outside of the uh the whole budget process. I guess we don't need an ordinance for it, but this would effectively take it out and we would approve the fee schedule at the May 12th meeting. Don't know that we need to get a uh workshop in there. Uh try to squeeze that in. Uh obviously, we can't do it before our April 28th meeting. I mean, we'd have that week in between. We could put one in there, but then we'll just bring it right back for the regular meeting on May 12th. So, I would prefer to handle it that way, but I do support having it as an agenda item at May 12th.

Can I ask for uh Mr. Mayor, can I ask for further clarification on that in that me? Yes, sir. Please. Just just understanding that though we would break it out and approve it separately, then it would fall back in to the budget process as an item already approved within correct what we will approve overall as the budget.

Yeah. Just like we made motions and I'm just speaking loud to be caught on this thing. Um just as we made motions at the last meeting for various positions that still reside in the budget, they will be approved in the first and second readings of the budget or they won't. Um but but they're in the budget that will get voted on. Let's put it that way. The fee schedule we can pull out as a business item on May 12th and do whatever we need to it and then it goes back in for the first as part of the first and second readings in the budget. So, it sounds like we would still maintain uh uh the uh uh process for the overall budget. It's not going to drag it down.

Well, and for those that can't see, I'm now I know we got to get we got to get it done by a certain date. I'm now looking down to Mr. Vincent and Director Ruber. May 12th when I heard the schedule. Okay. The publish of the budget. So was the 26th and the you said earlier 26 is the first reading n and and the and you for our discussion earlier the fee schedule is not a major change that will create you cause you to do a lot of budget. I'm not going to change my numbers. Right. So, so that would work from an administrative standpoint. Correct. We can meet the same schedule.

Okay. Good. Okay. Okay. That's where I Any other comment on this issue? I'd like to make another comment.

Sorry about that. My concern is that there's so many changes to the fee schedule and a lot of them are doubling or even more that I think the public might want to have a a thorough say and I don't know if just trying to handle it at a busy meeting will be enough. But um you know I'll bow to the council's request. Any other count? Okay. Okay. So, the motion on the table right now is to uh schedule a workshop on the fee schedule prior to the May 12th meeting. Basically, am I getting that right? Okay. All right. So, that's the motion on the table and I'm going to ask you to call the role.

Well, to to to review it at a workshop. I didn't I want to still leave it. I still want to leave it in the budget, but we need to approve it, review it, and vet it separately. Well, it was Mr. Hyatt's amendment. I know, but Rick, I'm willing I'm willing to to admit my mind to incorporate Mr. Okay. But but I mean, we're not removing it from the budget. You just want to discuss it separately as a separate item. Yeah. So, you don't want to slow down the budget process. I got you. Yeah. a workshop to discuss the fee schedule separately separate from the rest of the budget. Okay. All right. So, we got it just withraw.

No, no. He was he was saying he he agreed with Mr. Walls. Nobody wants to pull out of the budget. We just want to look at it, review it, and vet it separately. Yeah. I I think we just clarified it. So motion on the table is to review the fee schedule separately from the rest of the budget at its own workshop prior to the May 12th meeting. And and yes, the administration has said there's time that the timing could work. So it's it's really just about scheduling a workshop. Um Miss McGin, you want to call the role? Mr. Hyatt? Yes. Mr. Walls? Yes. Mr. Worn? Sure. Yes. Mr. I'm Mr. Coleman. Yes,

M. Fallon. Yes, I'll go along with it. I think we got a four different ways of saying yes there. So, we're going to look for the uh administration to schedule a workshop on the fee schedule. Um, and so now the original amendment just or the original motion um is no longer needed. All right. Can we further clarify, Mayor Krauss, that it be prior to May 12th? That was in the motion. In the motion. Oh, okay. Okay. I just want it was whether we were going to do a workshop separately before or were we going to make it a discussion item at May 12th? I just want to have a workshop so we can approve it or whatever.

12th meeting. So, I'm going to guess it's going to be roughly May the 5th, the week ahead. You're saying May 12th. May 12th at 4:00. the meeting. Oh, well that's before the meeting. Yeah. Um, yeah, technically. Okay. Uh, does does I mean does that actually work for for people? And I guess this is now just a kind of a discussion item, but I mean we're already going to be meeting May 12th, so just we invite people two hours earlier and we discuss this and then move into the regular agenda. Do we have enough time to make any changes that the public wanted to see made? Well, two hours schedule. Okay.

Okay. If you get your get your point across in two hours. Now, whether anybody will show up or not, I don't know. Right. Right. It's just it's just a workshop. Okay. So, it's that's not a motion, but the administration is suggesting that it's at 4:00 on May 12th. If anybody wants to comment on that, go ahead. All right. It looks like that's the way we're going to do it.

Um, since I got the microphone, I am going to make a motion. Um, per Robert's rules, if you want to reconsider something that passed from the a previous meeting, someone from the prevailing side has to bring it up. Um, I was approached about the HR assistant position. Um, and uh, I did a a vote to keep that position in, but I'm going to make a motion to uh, remove that position and just to open it up for additional discussion. Second.

All right. So, we got a motion and a second. Um, since I made the motion, I'll start it. I still support the position. I believe that uh we've gotten away with uh not even having an HR person for a few years, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. I think it uh sets us up for some potential even legal issues. So, uh as I've seen a lot of the work that's been going on, it does seem to be a lot of things to do to catch up, and I think a part-time assistant is a uh economically efficient way to address it.

Mr. Fair if I could. Uh I was on the fence um since last meeting, but the fact that we are going to do uh a review at the calendar year um to further justify and validate these additional positions we're bringing on. Um, I'm in I'm inclined to give it still give it a shot, but uh I'll just say it puts it puts the position in a vicarious situation where they want to hire somebody that could be the only thing I'd want to say about that is they want to hire somebody that could be removed in six months. Um, it's going to be tough to get somebody good to commit to that.

Yeah. I mean, I I I expressed concern about this at the last meeting or last budget retreat. I I'm just not convinced that there is enough there to justify a an additional government position. Um, you know, for example, I mean, one of the one of the issues that was brought up as justification for this is to to do an an employee handbook. Well, my understanding is we've been working on that for a couple years. Um, if if that's one of the primary reasons, why don't we just get a contractor in here and give him the task of writing a writing a personnel handbook for the town and we'll be done with it. I I have a problem with increasing the headcount related to this particular activity barring additional information. I'm just not buying. Two years ago, we didn't have any HR. Now, we're going to have two. Um, I think there needs to be more time to evaluate it. That's my personal opinion. Yes, sir.

My concern is my understanding is that the town um contracts out for payroll services and we pay about 45 grand a year for that service. Um if you bring that job inhouse, it would take uh someone's time to do that. um we could easily do it inhouse and that 45 grand could be applied to the uh salary of the part-time person that we brought inside. Um and that would allow that person to do other things than payroll because payroll and benefits doesn't require um you know 50% of a of an employes work. I've done payroll for oh 20 25 people uh for many many years and didn't find it too ownorous or burdensome. So it's not the hardest thing in the world to do. I was able to do it.

Um so I would be in favor of bringing this person in with the understanding that we're also going to no longer farm out um our payroll and we're going to conduct payroll in house. So if that's if that's a true argument then I would be in support of this person. Thank you. Just pass it down. One quick comment. Okay. So my I could be wrong but my recollection at the last retreat was that the discussion of the payroll process that that was going to go to finance. So I'm not sure that that position is going to be involved in in in the finance market.

Let's let's address that right now before we go on further. like let them address that and then we'll continue. Payroll involves human resources and finance the looking at everyone's time sheets is HR following up with departments HR actually processing the payroll and cutting the checks finance. So you can't they're not the same. We have to have to have checks and balances. That's the checks and balance.

I guess I'm struggling with time part the responsibility of the supervisor. It is, but we still have to go in and make sure everything looks legit.

Let me give you an example. Someone puts in for a vacation day. for some reason they end up having to work some extra hours another day. They don't get that vacation pay and those extra hours. You get to take less vacation time. So if I put in for eight hours but I work two hours over another day. I still only get 40 hours for that week. I only take six hours of vacation and said hey those are the kind of things we're looking for. No, I understand that. And I did this before and I as a supervisor I was responsible. That's what I was going to say. Is HR gonna catch that or is there supervisor? Her eyes are on it. Okay.

Before the checks are cut.

Could you give us anything else on what this person would be doing besides just checks and balance? One of the biggest things we need a third party presence. Right now, our handbook prohibits the recording of any employee meetings. Consequently, sensitive conversations between HR and employees require a third party witness to ensure an objective record and protect the town from liability. A part-time assistant would provide the essential neutral neutral presence. Employees including the town administrator outside of HR cannot be involved in these conversations. That's to me that's one of the biggest things. Um, another thing would help be helping with keeping job descriptions accurate and ongoing necessity uh for recruitment, ADA compliance, performance evaluations, etc. Um, this work is currently hindered by competing high priority tasks. Um, the other thing is we're trying to do SOP developments. There's no extra time in a day to do that. Um, talked about the personnel handbook. Yeah, we've been trying to get to it for the past two years. Haven't had time because there's been so much other stuff that takes priority over it. Um, again, lots of foyas. Um, compliance deadlines, time-sensitive tax such as MFLA notices, ADAC accommodation requests, and workers compensation claims require immediate attention. Also, legal mandates for liability claims and random drug screenings require immediate action. These those are just a few examples. and then

whether the HR um specialist something were to happen that currently leaves the town vulnerable um for missing these filing deadlines. There's you have to file with the state, you have to file with um federal government, there's other things that I don't even know about um because I shouldn't know about them. I'm not HR. You have some ideas. I have a question.

We're waiting on the pay, right? But we with the pay study, I also think we're trying to figure out what we need and what we don't need. Okay. If you you know, I'm a little concerned. I'm the one that motioned to remove the part-time HR position due to the fact I am not quite sure that is the right position we need. Okay. Um I I see where you're coming from that you know you have this whole to-do list. Well, when I worked I always had a to-do list and talk about priorities. you know, you take two months and you say, you know what, guys, budget's over with. We're going to work on the handbook. So, everybody should have a piece of that pie with that. So, that's just one thing. I am still not convinced that we need a part-time human resource first. Um, you say about reporting to the state and everything. Have we missed a date yet?

No, that I know of. Correct? Because that has to be a priority, right? But there's other things that get put on the back burner. Payroll is every other week. You're filing these things every other week. But maybe you wouldn't need that if when employees go to certain employees that it's more structured. Hey, I worked five hours of overtime. It's not HR's position to approve that. Uh, yes it is. Wait a minute. You're telling me that somebody from the police department

Well, I mean, HR has to look at that and get with that department director and make ask questions why and make sure it's correct. So, yes, we have to evaluate it. We're not saying yet this is what you we have to make sure that department head has put it in correctly and they understand there's something that needs to be changed. There's checks and balances. Department heads do their job with their employees, right? HR checks over every directors. But I would assume that if overtime is done in any of these departments, the first line of defense is the directors. That's correct. Correct.

Correct. So when they if they say yes to that overtime, that HR person should not be saying no. If that overtime is done, but that person had a had a vacation date, had overtime, there's some adjustments there that the director didn't know. That's an adjustment that doesn't have to do with a but it's a check and balance that we have to go through every single two weeks. It is mandated. Yeah. I mean, at what level? Otherwise, someone's getting paid for something that they should not have. I get it. But I'm just wondering how's it state? Do we report that to the state or that is that a federal mandate? That would be an HR question, but that I get it. I get it.

I don't know all the HR rules, but I know that's how everywhere I work, that's how it's been. You don't want you don't you want to keep the PE the employee from double dipping and using their time when they don't need to use their time. An appropriate check. And our system is time clock plus. So, I check all my directors and my staff as far as every two weeks for their time. Sometimes time clock plus will flag something that's wrong. HR checks what I check for my directors. It's a check and balance all the way down the river.

See, I was more like when I worked and I put in my own time, if I tried to put in 48 hours and there wasn't approval in the beginning, it the the software just wouldn't let you do it. So, I understand your check and balances. I get that. But I still go back on the fact of this payroll study and to figure out what we truly need. I'm not sure you keep saying that, you know, we're stretched in. Okay. But I I maybe I just need to sit with you all. And I agree whoever set it up here about you bring somebody on and say 6 months down the road we figure out we don't need that person, we need another person for that. So you've already hired somebody in that skill set, but you really needed something else. I don't think we're thinking this completely through of what I'm not arguing that you don't need a person. My disagreement is that I don't know we're hiring the right Is this the script?

Mr. Mayor, if I could just pass it back down. Well, I I can Okay. Okay. You talked about me. Let me tell you something. Um, the pay study is not going to make position recommendations, is it? That's That's I didn't think it was. It's going to work with within our framework. some different titles based on what the employee does because they did take responsibilities and stuff. I get that, right? But they're not going to recommend that Sonia needs an assistant. Okay, that's I wanted to clarify that.

I I want to make sure I understood another question. Go ahead. just to comment where the fact where the fact is she just said they might um want a pay study not positions but titles

maybe if somebody else's job has a wiggle room in there I'm just saying I don't think personally I don't feel comfortable that I can make a sound decision saying automatically 100% we need a part-time time human resources when six months down the road we got this person hired and I've said this before and this will be the last time I say it and then you go by and you say no five that doesn't give the town a good reputation I got a question how many employees do you have

um 903 I think it does count that includes your summer people too That includes that I just did. They said HR to employees once they're saying regular business unless you have a high turnover rate. We don't have a high turnover rate.

Just one more quick.

All right. kind of piggybacking on what Michan said. Um if if we go if pay study indicates that we can look towards more of a pay performance type of system or some sort of hybrid to me what would be necessary at that point is an employee relations type of person because that's going to that's going to create things like grievances over salary. it's going to create um issues regarding between the employer the employee and their supervisor. I would much prefer to wait to see about that than than I would than I would for this because as I said, I'm just I'm having trouble buying the need for an admin person um kind of piggybacking on Harry too that you know for not what you say 93 employees um and and and back to the whole time thing

clarify something budgetarily it's over 100 right now hired I think is 93 to 98 That that's mine. And and and back to the time card thing I said, I mean, I did this for a long long time. And I can tell you there was a time card I approved that was wrong. It was my button was in a slate. Not HR.

Not HR. And and never once in all of that time did anyone from HR have to ever get involved in a time card of an employee of mine because I was responsible for approving the overtime. I was responsible for making sure they were at work every day. Um that they and if they weren't that they took whatever leave, whether it be sick leave or analy or whatever. Um h how would an HR person know that if if an employee of John's was out one day and then and then took um and then worked, you know, a Saturday more than John's going to know, you know. I mean, I I just see that as a supervisory responsibility. I get the whole check and balance thing. I I would even ask the question, how many times has that happened where it had to be overruled by HR?

Don't say overruled. Well, checking it, getting with the department head, questioning, and how many times does that happen? Every week. Every week you have every week we have then then these guys aren't doing their job. Well, I I think you're saying every week it's checked. Every week it's checked. I get that. But is every week a problem? Correct. I just I think we're fixing a problem. It isn't a problem. I guess is where I'm trying to go with that. That's my again that's my opinion. That's all I got.

But I will say I came from an environment, Mr. Mayor, if I could that that had neutral parties sitting in on discussion, strong discussions, the three tier discussions that you have with an employee appraisal and stuff talking about that kind of stuff. No, I'm talking about entry to their file for correction, things like that. You had to I had to have a third party neutral sitting there from human sources as a witness. Well, maybe Tennessee and yeah, these days witness um Okay.

I guess I'd like to understand this third party witness thing. Um that's kind of new to me. I don't I'm not familiar with it. I know uh Miss Stiger Wall's not here, but do either you have enough knowledge, expertise to explain I mean what what happens if we don't have that third person? that she said if there's any kind of litigation a third party is basically just justification about what the conversation was it's not one against the other what the situation is

and so yeah so okay so right right any any kind of disciplinary action at all I mean but so that opens us up to uh potential lawsuits uh for uh unlawful firings or something is that Is that what we're saying? Uh or unlawful disciplinary actions. There's potential there. Okay. Um yes, go ahead.

So, I'm just learning the payroll process. Um so, I'll be working with Sonia closely. Um, and just in the past couple weeks, it's special events things that are supposed to be paid overtime that they code it as special events, but it doesn't get paid the overtime rate. So, those are things for that. Maybe John or Nickel may not notice. They don't know what the rate should be for overtime, what the code should be necessarily. They just see it's special events and that's coded correctly for them. So, those are things that we look for. Again, if they work 38 hours and they put in for six hours of vacation time, sometimes that gets missed and Sonia catches that and then we'll correct the vacation. Um, things like looking at the system and making sure they're crewing their vacation correctly. Um, we had some person this week that missing hours. Sonia and I had to work really closely coming up with a spreadsheet to see should they have approved hours. They were very close to um the amount of hours to max them out. And he was correct. He should have been given his five hours. And so we had to correct that. And that's all part of the process every week of making sure the system is working correctly. It's not necessarily the managers that are making mistakes. Sometimes it's the system itself. And if you don't have another person with eyes on it, you're not going to find that.

That puts you on the spot because I'm going to ask you the question. Do you think you need help? Yeah. I think somebody's Yeah, that's

I heard some very specific words potential. You cannot put standards on every single thing a person has to be responsible for for the whatifs. I worked for the federal government 37 years. This extra person, this third party person. All we had to do was get an employee. They have to sign an NDA and they sit in there with you. And you would pick your most confident person. usually maybe somebody from a different unit, a different section, but you didn't have to line yourself up to have that third extra person. Um, through making the mistakes, I think pay goes through. I've been on many specials, maybe over time, too much, too less. Eventually, it gets fixed when it does happen. So I'm saying why are we jumping the gun when you're saying things happen but every week 10 times 20 times 30 times. Well if it's happening that much then the directors need to be educated. Do they have a second level of approval within there? It shouldn't have to fall on back onto human resources and finance for now to the next one.

Well, I'm I'm gonna make it my turn. I'll sit here and listen to this. We're talking about putting somebody in that's $26,000 a year. We're saving

$40ome,000 a year right off the bat. So you're you're you're not losing. You're gaining an employee that has a little knowledge of how the town runs and how it works. You've already got them here and it's a savings of 20ome,000. So I I I don't see how we don't it don't benefit the town. we're not spending extra money to put that employee in in place that we ain't we have not already spent uh for outside sources. So I I really don't understand what the argument is here that it's costing the town money or it's it's costing this or it's costing that. Actually, put that employee on it's actually a savings if you want to get right down to it. And so for me, I think it would be better to have that person as the part-time person. We ain't hiring them as a full-time person uh for that job and and see how it works out. I don't like to fire nobody, but as I stated before, if you have a part-time person and you need to make it a full-time person, then you don't need the part-time person anymore. So we had that to happen in some of the other things. Uh so just with that being said, it's a savings overall and you got somebody that's learning. I'll take that.

All right. I'm not going to talk about savings because I I think we need to evaluate each of these on its own merits. So the uh bringing payroll in-house is already being planned irrespective of of an HR assistant. And so that $45,000 savings is already realized. I don't care about what we did juggling director's position that we decided we didn't need or any of the others, the the volunteer firefighters. This issue has to stand on its own merit. So, um, it's an assistant for HR for I think 28,000 if I remember correctly. Um, I I believe we need to step up our HR efforts in general. I I I believe we have skated by uh perhaps fortunately for a few years and I I think there is a lot of work to do. I think $28,000 is a relatively small price to pay for that. And uh I'm I'm inclined to still stick with providing this person to get us ahead of the curve um on just all HR issues, the potentials, the the the things that haven't been caught up, whatever. Uh I just think it's it's a reasonable price to pay.

So is there a motion on the table? Yeah. Motion on the table is to eliminate the part-time HR assistant. Yes, I made the motion and you seconded. I think Mr. Law Horn. Yes, I just forgot what the addition and so that is the motion on table. We're at about that point anyway. Any last comments? Set it back down.

And this goes off of what Mr. thing. He said, you know, take on a part-time person, right? And then you're down the road like, oh, I needed to be fulltime. Now, is this person going to be is this person want to go part-time or full-time?

Because we have a scenario in town where a part-time person didn't want to go full-time. So, now we're hiring another full-time person. So there's a domino effect here and we have to be well aware of it. I'm just saying we need to have our ducks in the order and figure out if it's going to we're going to keep a part-time position, part-time position. I don't want to come back a year from now and say, you know what, now we need a full-time position. You also could do two part-time positions if you found that you needed more hours and save those benefits. I got a quick question. How do you come up with $28,000?

And do we have somebody in mind that we're going to be hired? Oh, no. Hold on. No one in mind. It's um based on a admin starting entry level salary for 20 hours a week. And this person is going to be trained in HR. Yes. You think you're going to be parttime? An admin assistant to help with all of Well, what is your HR assistant to help with all this busy work? This can be trained. one five.

Okay, I'm just going to talk over to this thing. So, the motion on the table, it's your phone. Sorry. Motion on the table is to uh eliminate the HR assistant position and I'm going to have Miss Medina call the role. Miss, yes. Mr. Coleman, yes. Mr. Stam, no. Mr. Mr. Laworn. Yes. Mr. Walls. Mr. Walls. Yes. Mr. H. No.

I vote no, but the motion uh carries anyway. And the position is eliminated. It's four to three. Are there any other motions that need to be made at this point? Set it back down again. Or yeah,

I know y'all will stop me if this is not a motion I can do right here if I have to do it in the red room, but I reread on our agenda when it said retreat changes. I read that as the retreat here. Um the last two times we met, we didn't have more than six, seven people here from outside. Um I I'm open. Well, um my motion is to discuss where the retreat budget seminar should be. Is that appropriate to do now or

Yeah, I think that's a next year discussion dealing with the budget. Yeah, I mean I think we should review that if if that's a concern as we go through the budget process next year and when we do that I mean you start in January I believe you start the calendar back in November. Okay. You guys start preliminary. You get us started in involved in about January I think when you publish the calendar. Yes. And at that point we could discuss the venue as well I think. Right. Yes. Would that be acceptable if we going through like January?

As long as as long as the money is not set aside now for next year. So our budget goes from July to July. Correct. July 1st to June 30th. Yes. Right. So that means next year when we meet the costs will go under this budget that we're approving now. Yes. But I mean the venue, you're not you're not going to propose some I I I know you. So you're not going to propose we go to Hilton Head or something like that? No, no, no, no. I'm saying the civic center because I think this costs too much money.

Okay. I' I've been told this is cheaper, but but whatever. We're talking a couple hundred dollars. I'm guessing the deal that Tabitha made with Wendy, it's more expensive to have it in center than it is that here. That's all that's all about. But but again, we don't need to get into that. It's going to be a couple hundred dollars, probably $500ish, $1,000, maybe, but I mean, you can you can sort that out through the course of the year. Okay. I'm getting I'm getting

Okay, so we're we're kind of degenerating here into a couple of meetings. I'm getting the the high sign that this is going to be hundreds or maybe a thousand dollars that can be worked out through the difference. Yes. That can be worked out through the course of the budget year so we can address it in January. Correct? Everybody good? Mr. Mayor, I have one more and I don't know if it needs to be a motion or not. I'd like to hear from our staff that we have here present today if they have anything they'd like to address to this council while we're all here and listen to what they may have to say about what's went on and the process of what's on their mind.

I don't have any objection. Anybody have an objection to that? Then we'll just we'll just do that by unanimous consent if anybody wants to speak. with that staff have anything to address this council about whatever's going on and and I listen I'm I'm willing to listen to say just take it away Chris

I ambody okay any other discussion or motions Uh then I'll just ask a direct question to Director Guber. Do you have everything you need to That's the only change. Everything else stands as is. That's that's what I'm hearing. And so you could process that.

Yeah. So, we we've already agreed and and the uh decision was to do that on Tuesday afternoon at 4:00, whatever the 12th, I think that is. Okay, I'm seeing nothing. This is nice because I can look all down one way like a regular meeting. I got to keep turning my head back and forth. But if that's it, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Stamy, go ahead. Let's make a motion that we adjourn this meeting. Second. All in favor?

I opposed. None. Motion carries. Meeting adjourned. I didn't ask if there was discussion. This is just what we already have.