Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

start off this 2026 or no 2027 council budget work session. Do a roll call. Mayor Pro Tim, I'm here. Mr. Mayor, are you here? Council member Joiner, are you here? Here. Council member Laauo, are you here? Here. Council member Clinton Quintana, are you here? I am. Mayor Proim, Council Member Andrews, are you here? Here. Council member Santigita, are you here?

Good. So, we have a quorum. Now, I would like to recognize city manager Hawk to start the meeting.

Thank you, Mayor Prom, members of council. We are appreciative of the time this morning to go over a couple of additional topics that will help inform our FY27 budget. The first one will be an agency funding update and then we will talk about our capital improvement program and the strategies around how to complete that. And then we'll have a bit of a refresh and then a [clears throat] follow up with some additional information related to pay philosophy and the living wage that we are hoping to move toward for our pay scales. Um so with that I will turn it over to Rachel Scheler, our housing and neighborhood services director who will talk about agency funding.

Good morning. Thank you. So the human services grant program, it was previously known as the public services funding. Uh we've called it, you may have heard it as nonprofit funding, outside agency, a lot of different names, but it is the competitive grants process for nonprofits that have been a part of the city's uh budget for decades. Other communities throughout the state have similar programs, though the funding sources and their sort of process and review process varied. Locally, the funding for these nonprofits have been general funds, and it is a way that the city really has leveraged some of our federal dollars. We have a an allocation that we're able to use of community development block grants uh that set aside for public services. And so, this is a way to again leverage that and leverage the impact of the community to help implement the strategic plan. Shown on the right are the funding that has happened. Oh, oh, I'm sorry, over the past few years. Um, and so you can see that it hasn't changed very dramatically year-over-year with a slight increase. Um, uh, the awards for each program has ranged from about 12 to $45,000 with most averaging around 20,000. Shown here is just a reference for the strategic plan priorities. Uh, you can see where these grants have sort of fit into the existing [clears throat] strategic plan. This is the first time we be we will be doing outside agency funding with the new strategic plan. Though currently this is the process shown here. Staff did propose some changes to the review process last summer to add in additional review steps with council in mind. But this is generally how it's been happening. So starts staff starts with a target budget and receives applications for a range of programs. These applications are reviewed by staff currently. Um though the process did vary over the summer and program awards are part of the manager's budget which is later adopted. Over time the scope of services of these programs has really

broadened and applications have moved somewhat away from maybe some of the the target core goals. There have also been some other catalyst for changes. Um as mentioned the adopted strategic plan it's it's just slow. [clears throat]

There we go. Keeps clicking but it's a little bit behind. Sorry. Uh so as mentioned the adopted strategic plan um as well as nearing completion of the greater downtown plan with that both have uh implement implementation strategies that could be supported by these funds. Uh incorporating community feedback both from community survey as well as comments received from residents. Uh we've heard things ranging from recreation hours, workforce development, and other needs for our vulnerable populations.

RFPs for the service delivery that the city is looking for with our priorities. Um, and then finally, one of the other recommendations is adding the review and recommendations by the community relations advisory committee, the SRACK. It's restarting and it what we've seen in other communities where they have that participation from some of the residents to be able to have that first vetting so that they can review these applications and proposals and make that recommendation through staff to council. And this would be um really elevating staff out of just the day-to-day and putting that into uh that council appointed committee. So if this is to move forward, this is what the new process would look like. Uh highlighted in red are some of the bigger changes in the process. Again, putting the RFP and review process following the adoption of the budget. This will likely delay awards into the fall, but due to the new model that's being proposed, staff would also recommend extending the agreements to be longer multi-year funding structure. We're currently on a two-year cycle. And so adding this longer term sort of funding agreement, service agreements, we could look at additional years. It's going to allow council to see a better impact of these dollars in the community. It's going to give nonprofits some stability over time to really be able to invest in these programs as well. And again, we're just really going to see a better impact of this. Uh the actual award amounts could also be increased to have that bigger impact. We understand there'll be many questions about what this looks like um from from a nonprofit perspective. So, we did want to show share showcase some of strong proposals. Again, alignment with city strategic plan. Is it allowable? Are we able to undertake this directly? And really how programs will have a long-term impact? What will the community look like in five years if we do it that way? Can we look at

data-driven um programs with strong metrics? And so again, ideally, most of the city's uh longtime partners would hopefully be able to respond to the RFPs that we're putting out to deliver on your priorities while maintaining their core mission. There's no expectations that nonprofits do any mission creep or anything like that. We're really trying to realign what the expectations and priorities of council and how those nonprofits can help with that service delivery. So if you decide to move forward with these recommendations, here are some proposed next steps. So again including the community investment program in the manager's recommended budget as that high level amount staff will develop requests for proposals that will be based on alignment with strategic plan enhancements city service delivery implementation of the greater downtown plan as that gets adopted this spring. Are there some implementation steps that are in there that this can be supporting? And then again feedback from the community survey. This work would be incorporated into the newly formed CRAX work plan and uh we would be hopefully be able to bring you some proposals in November following adoption budget. So staff is just looking for direction on these recommendations and proposed next steps and happy to answer any questions.

I would just like to say thank you very much for taking a look at this and revising it. I've been asking for this for a few years and um I I really really like the idea that we're going to take it to a citizen commission to really um give input to it. So, thank you. [snorts] Yeah, I agree. I have Have you spoken with some of the nonprofits that continually receive awards to make sure that this change in timeline isn't disruptive to their funding schedule?

We haven't. And so one of the things is that since we are on a two-year cycle, it is ending this year. And so funding is never guaranteed year-over-year, cycle over cycle. So they have that understanding that it is that competitive process because the awards amounts are I'm not trying to downplay the amount of them that every dollar is important to a nonprofit, but they are [clears throat] smaller, so it shouldn't have a huge impact on program delivery. This will actually impact them better. Yeah, I understand that. I'm I'm just thinking about the timing of the awards because right now I think it's earlier in the year versus later in the year. And yes, I know some of these folks are in real lean. So I just want to make sure we're not leaving them in the lurch with this shift.

Yes. When we look at when dollars are usually delivered to a nonprofit, we'll be maybe a couple months behind what we normally would be in a normal cycle. Okay. So when [clears throat] you talk about smaller dollar amount versus what's to come in the future, what does that look like? for example, what was a smaller dollar amount than what it could look like in the future.

The annual we've had some awards that are about $12,000. Uh that's not making a huge impact on their program budget the way that these longer term grants, it's going to depend on the program. So if it was a proposal, just for an example, to expand Midnight Basketball that the police department does, we would want to say, "Hey, here's what we're looking for in this. These are the number of hours. These are the this is the type of program that we're looking for and we'd be asking the nonprofits to say what is a proposed reasonable budget that again we'd be evaluating is that reasonable cost to be able to expand that. So it's really going to depend on which proposal we're looking at. Some may have a larger investment. It may be $50,000 for that year-over-year. Uh it may be smaller. It's just going to depend on the scope of what their the [clears throat] service delivery is. And so what is your proposed cycle versus two years?

Depending on the program, we could sorry we could look up to five years potentially. Uh it would be obviously would be annually have to be renewed uh based on performance and budget availability but it would be generally a five-year contract or service agreement I should say. Thank you. If we look at um I guess slide two, the one with the human services recent funding, what percentage is coming from community development block grants versus what we're choosing to put into it?

That is all general funds. The community development block grants for public service is uh based off it's about 10% of our entitlement and that's about $130,000. Those have typically gone to homeless services. uh that's just how it's sort of been written in the past. And so um that's what we've been seeing. Those awards are typically around $15,000 per agency. Uh we've also seen a larger one and some that have done rapid rehousing as well as homeless services. So that's really where that focus has been. All right. Thank you.

Couple questions. Is this this sounds similar to how the county did with their um vision councils or whatever they call them. They had a um they [clears throat] had some some people outside the citizens committees review some of that. Is it similar to how the count county was doing it? The the county had a specific um non-county agency committee that that was their specific role. This is would be through the community relations advisory committee. So it just be a part of their role. It wouldn't be all that they did.

Is the staff going to be making recommendations to the CRA or just here you go? Staff would be evaluating for completeness and some of the background work to be able to pres present um you know sort of like we do for our loans with our loan review board where staff is evaluating making a recommendation of this is complete. Um you know we we recommend moving forward but this we can do that maybe not at the amounts things like that but they're going to do the first vetting just to make sure that the committee is prepared to be able to evaluate them successfully. Okay. So the staff has already designed what what we're looking for with the RFP process. Exactly. Okay. [snorts] And um the performance measures, are they going to be revised as well? Absolutely. Okay. [clears throat] That would depend on the funding. Yes.

Moving forward. Thanks.

I'm on board. the u the the other benefit that this brings and um certainly sounds like there's a lot of support for this which we appreciate but kind of takes some of the um uh focus of a $15,000 grant versus a $30,000 grant to a nonprofit out of your core budget evaluation process. So having sort of one block of money that you know is going to be funding for these nonprofits afterward um then that's what you're evaluating as part of the budget approval process and then each individual award would come at a later date. So it kind of bifurcates the two if there is any kind of association or connection that a council member has to a specific nonprofit and also makes it very clean to be able to uh not vote on that specific contract when it comes up as opposed to again it kind of getting co-mingled with the budget. So, there's some other um process benefits uh that help council stay focused on the the overall um budget without kind of looking at, you know, $15,000 award um out of a $300 million budget.

What how does this relate to our economic development grants? I know that's a separate cycle, but we also want to clean [clears throat] that process up. Yes. Yeah, we would follow a similar process for that. um with the RFPs for what specifically we are looking to have provided. Um we can [snorts] uh figure out who would be the best citizen advisory committee to handle those um and also have the performance metrics that would uh that would mirror all of this. So um I think this is a a sound model to apply to both buckets of funding and maybe looking at doing that in the next cycle. Yes, because that's when those will come. D. Yes. They're on alternating cycle. Yeah. Yeah. So, we've got a little bit of time on those.

Becky. Yes. Could you repeat what you said before David asked this question? I I heard you, but I want to hear you fully.

Oh, sure. Um I was just talking about the the benefits of um moving to a process like this. Uh then for your main budget discussions, council is just looking at one large pot of funding for these awards and not the individual recipients or award amounts because that won't have been decided yet. Um it breaks the process up. So then you are looking at the individual awards as standalone items at a budget meeting or excuse me at a board meeting in the fall. Um, and then if there is a conflict that a council member has with a particular contract, it allows them to uh be recused from voting on that individual item as opposed to it getting potentially kind of co-mingled with the overall budget.

Okay, that's that that's the point I wanted to to speak on. So, does that does that kind of circumvent the nudge we're able to give staff about certain nonprofits um when they run into uh political red tape as far as awards or budgeting or something like that?

It it doesn't circumvent anything. It allows them to be looked at on their individual [clears throat] merits and they're not and it prevents any sidetracking of your overall budget discussion. So instead, council's just looking at how do we feel about 720,000 in general fund dollars versus if you wanted to increase it to a larger amount. [clears throat] That's the focus of the budget discussion than anything that council um wants to weigh in on related to individual grant awards. That would just be a separate process. Oh, okay. Great answer. Thank you. Sorry.

Looks like we've got a green light. So we will proceed. All right. Thank you very much. Next up we have uh Heather Padet, our assistant budget director will be talking about our capital improvement program strategy discussion and um she will be supported with um uh that discussion by Dennis Laria, our chief of staff, as well as Justin Carter, our assistant engineering director over projects. [clears throat] Good morning. Um, for those of you who haven't met yet, I'm Heather Padet. I'm the assistant budget director. Heather, your car a little bit. Get that close to you. Right. Yep. Okay. You have a soft.

Was that you or was that me? I did that.

Okay. So, I just want to go over what I'd like to cover in today's presentation and I want to take a few moments at the beginning to talk about what we mean when we say capital projects. Um, we're going to review the funding status, talk about the surpluses and the budget shortfalls that we've encountered. We're going to present some funding strategies and the what that means in terms of potential dollars and potential impacts to the tax rate. And additionally, we're going to share staff's recommendation. And then we're going to anticipate your questions and discussion. There we go. Okay. So, sometimes we use the term CIP interchangeably when we when we're talking about capital projects. Um, but by way of just kind of a brief review, the CIP, the capital improvement plan is a five-year program that bundles together capital projects that have been presented and evaluated and included in a five-year funding structure. You may hear it called it an 8020 plan. um referring to the split between the financing and the cash portions. Projects are categorized as streets, sidewalk, trails, parks and wreck, public improvement. So you'll and you'll hear us refer to the current CIP as the third CIP. Um we had the first CIP was FY13 to um 17. We had capital programs before that, but the fiscal year 2013 was the first time that the city decided to dedicate tax rate specifically to those capital projects. So, we call that the first one. We're currently in the third one. Um, and as much as we like to think about the CIP as a hard [clears throat] and fast capital improvement plan, we know that it's a program with moving parts and factors that we have to build in as we progress through the project planning phases. trying to figure out the right way. Just [clears throat] here we go. And so we also talk about transportation bond programs, park bond programs. Um, and

they are their own specific kind of bucket of of projects. Now there is overlap. You know, in the previous CIPs, we had transportation bond projects included [clears throat] in there, but sometimes when we talk about the CIP, like the third CIP, that may not refer specifically to transportation bond project because that's not really included in that bucket. But we also have um what we call add-on projects. So those projects that emerge from community needs, from council priorities, from um opportunities that we get from unexpected funding sources. I'm thinking about um the developer developer agreements that we did to do the roundabout at Independence and River Road. I'm thinking about the ARPA funding that we are going to use to put towards the Salvation Army Road. So those things that we may not know are coming but that we kind of fold into the portfolio as we go. Got it now. Okay. So because we're talking about the capital projects kind of this entire constellation we felt it was helpful to look at them through a lens of which projects are related to essential transportation or critical infrastructure needs. Those projects we've labeled as non-negotiables. That's bridge projects, um, bulkhead projects, stabilization projects near the river. Those projects that are critical and can involve some regulatory structural safety impacts. The remaining projects, we have labeled them as negotiable, still very important, still a priority. However, we feel like we have a little bit more room maybe to talk about the um the scheduling, to talk about reassessing them, the order in which we complete them, whether we phase their implementation. And so just a little more more breathing room to talk about those. Okay. So the we've listed out the projects um with the non-negotiables first and then we further we categorize

them into projects where staff feels like we have sufficient funding to complete the projects and then we have some projects where we know we've got some funding challenges. And so I'll just say for each of the product for each of the projects that have a funding [clears throat] challenge, we have an individual project slide so that you'll have an opportunity to see those as we go through. So as you can see the non-negotiable funding shortfall currently stands at 23 million. And I'll just say to get to all the numbers that you're going to see today, engineering did a lot of the heavy lifting. They reviewed project budgets. They looked at contingency amounts. They looked at whether risk factor uh risk factor escalation needed to be included. They looked at inflation amounts. So I appreciate the work because because of what they did, we can we can give you a clear picture of of what where we are today. Okay. So I'm going to run through these project slides and they're pretty brief, but stop me if you've got questions. We've got engineering on hand. We've got finance on hand um to answer anything that I don't I can't handle. So, the CFCC bulkhead is the first. Again, we're we're calling this critical because we're dealing with an area adjacent to the Riverwalk. Um, and there's there's this old and I don't remember where it came from, but it talks about, you know, in the battle between the river and the rock. The river is always going to win. So, we're always fighting that battle with water against those structural elements. um a good number of our non-negotiable projects both of the funded and the funding challenge focused on repairs and stabilization for areas close to the riverw walk

on this I'm sorry to interrupt on this project what is Capefir Community Collegeg's relationship to the property I mean I know they have that building but for the piece that we need to improve I think it's just adjacent to it it is it is just adjacent this is actually our property um to work with this is an area if you walk the riverw walk that can sometimes be a little confusing [clears throat] on what is ours, what is theirs. Part of our look in this project would hopefully delineate that a little bit better. You can actually see that little brick line down there in the corner of that picture. That's what delineates, I believe, our property from there is where the riverwalk is versus where the CFCC property is. Um so their property is adjacent, not part of this. This is city city own.

How do they use it if at all? the to my understanding CFCC uses that property for um their boat building. I believe they have a workshop back there where they do some um assembling of what's say small boats or that they do work like a wood workshop back in that area. I know they work out in that space back behind their facility between our property and theirs which is what can sometimes make it feel kind of weird to walk back there um because they do have some items that they put back there to to work on or even display at times. I'm just trying to think about it through the lens of how do we partner with them if they're the main users of this portion.

Yes. And we've we've talked with them a little bit about this area. We will surely have further ongoing negotiations of what this looks like as we move forward. This project is currently at 0% design. We've just started talking with a consultant from an on call contract um to start doing work on this. So, there is a long ways to go in what the finished product of this looks like and part of that is working with CFCC to get there. Thank you. So, are we asking for the shortfall?

No, that's that's not really the intent. So, what what we're trying to do is basically get everybody to look at this in the aggregate and then have a conversation about funding strategies and approaches to close the gaps. rather than hanging out on a specific project, we want to talk about the program as a whole and the way that we address those shortfalls holistically

rather than sort of debating the merits of any individual project because they're all necessary. And I to to follow up on that, that's not to say that there won't be a conversation about some cost sharing, but short of agreements like that, we know that this is work that we need to move forward with. And so we always want to present sort of the worst case scenario. And then if we get good news with grants or allocations of funding that bring our cost down, then we're able to um either adjust a tax rate or more likely take those dollars and apply them to a different project. Um but short of an agreement like that, this is the shortfall that we expect for this single project. So the front street bridge rehab project again we consider bridges critical infrastructure assets that are subject to regulatory requirements and you know if we delay or ignore them can lead to load restrictions um which can impact the overall transportation network. So we feel that those are are kind of non-negotiables. This project is to rehab the existing structure. It will repair some defects and take some preventative measures that will extend its overall service life. It's moving into the construction phase. Has a total project cost and I'll say when we did these slides um that was the total project cost and the shortfall was 693. um engineering has done some additional checking and the good news is is the project cost is now at 3.3 million and the delta is closer to 200,000 and there is some opportunity for potential reimbursement from CFPUA for some utility relocations um but that's not set in stone yet I'm my understanding and so that that change came after kind of finance had done their thing with the numbers so we didn't change the chart but when we come back in March we'll of course have some more refined numbers

and those those updates ates will be made. But just a little bit of of good news on that slide. Pine Grove Bridge Replacement. Bridge over Huelet Creek is scheduled for replacement. It's been in service since 1976. And I personally am not going to talk about how old that is because I too am from 1976. [laughter] I am as well. I believe it'll be 50 this year.

Yeah. So, um, while I think that time frame is nothing [laughter] in terms of a bridge lifespan, it is time for it to be replaced. Um, and as someone on council may remember, um, we did apply for federal grant funds to assist with the cost of not just replacing this bridge as it was, but to enhance the bridge to help with its resiliency to storm surge and tidal flooding. And the enhanced design will also include a multi-use path that will connect it to some other planned trails. Now, because of the uncertainty with the bridge improvement grant program, we are operating on the assumption that we are not going to receive that grant funding and so and that we're going to have to fund the entire project cost. So, those are the numbers that we're using for today. The project cost is estimated at 20.5, which right now leaves us a funding gap of 17.9 million for that project. The EDA grant package, that's how we titled this. This is really the the water street um bulkhead repair. Um it we are it is um it will demolish the existing bulkhead and replace it. We are uh in the process of applying for grant funding for this. We are optimistic about the chances for the award. It would have a 20% match. So the project budget shown here is for the match amount and it it just about equals the shortfall as well. So that 4.2 million number. Um if we are not successful in getting that grant funding, the entire project cost is the 17.5. And in some later slides, we're going to talk about some funding scenarios where we envision that we do get that grant funding and that we don't. Um, so we kind of look at both both scenarios for that one. And so those were the non-negotiables and now we'll turn to the negotiable projects. And then again, negotiable not meaning that they're not important still. It's just again we have a little more room to talk about them. The total shortfall for this group is 30.3 million. And again, we'll go through some individual slides.

Independent screen wall is exactly what it sounds like. We're making some repairs to this to the sounds wall barrier along Independence Boulevard. Um the design phase has been completed. Project cost is 859,269 which leaves a gap of 371,000 approximately. Bradley Creek kayak launch kayak launch at the end of drive will also include some parking. It is close to the end of the design phase. has estimated cost of 477,330 leaving a potential gap of 10175 for the kayak launch. We had this out to bid and we had a like we were under contract with somebody and they just fell apart. Correct. Ma'am, we had to fire them for non-performance.

Did we Did we get any sort of damages for their failure to perform? No, not at this point, but we did rebid it and I believe that that's in the process of of being awarded again. Correct. Correct. Yes, we have we have what we believe is a very good bid and a wordable bid. Um, but it is above what we originally bid from the previous contractor. So, the original bid that we had was very low, very very aggressive. Obviously, fire that contractor, the bid that we have in now is coming a little bit higher. Uh, but it is a good bid in line with our cost estimates. I mean, I'm they failed to perform. I wonder if there'sund 1,000 in damages we could get from them. We can certainly look at

Yeah. Thank you, ma'am. Water Street Park that encompasses the area along Water Street in front of the federal courthouse. It would involve an event plaza, benches, decorative lights, riverwalk, handrails, hardscaping, landscaping, treecaping. All of the scapings are covered. [laughter] Um, this project is in design. We have an estimated project cost of 4.7 million, which would leave a shortfall of approximately 1.2 2 million Lion's Bridge reconstruction that's out at Greenfield Lake. Now, the existing structure has already been demolished and closed off. It was for safety reasons that we did that. And I'll just note, although this is a bridge, it was a solely a pedestrian bridge. So, that's why this kind of falls in the negotiable category rather than the non-negotiable. Um, to replace the structure, the estimated cost is 2.2 million. The good news is the city has already been awarded a grant um $500,000 from the Great Trail State grant and we have applied for some additional grant funding from the land and water conservation fund. So if that additional grant ward is successful, the gap will be further reduced. However, just counting our existing funding plus the grant money that we've already been awarded it we are projecting a shortfall of 1.1 million for that.

Can I ask a question? Amy, is there a deadline to use the already awarded grant funding essentially if we don't move forward in a certain period of time? Sorry. Is is there a deadline on the grant funding that we've already been awarded? Essentially, if we don't use it within two years, we will lose it and have to

There is a deadline, but we're well within it right now. The uh land and water conservation fund awards are expected to be announced late spring, early well no I I should say summer and so we would still be within the deadline to spend the great trail state money then um if we go beyond this fiscal year with additional city funding that's needed then we do put those uh the first grant in jeopardy and possibly the second. When you say this year, do you mean FY2027? FY27. Okay. What is the deadline? I'm sorry. What's the deadline for the $500,000 grant? The Great Trails State grant.

I believe it was two years. Okay. So, that would be this summer. Is that what you're saying? No, I think we have another summer to go. So, summer. So, we need to use it by next summer. Yes. Summer of 27. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. All the dates we're getting confusing. Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]

These next two slides are probably going to be very familiar projects. It's Pinerove North and Pinerove South. Pine Grove North is Oleander the Oander and McMillan. Pine Grove South is Greenville Loop Road and Holly Tree. These are transportation bond projects. So, still very much a priority. Um, it involves some rather complex intersection realignments, new traffic signals, turn lane additions, landscaping, drainage, pedestrian improvements. So for Pinerove North um the current funding gap [clears throat] we have right now is 11.9 million and for Pinerove South the current funding gap that we are projecting is 14.03 million and the rights for question.

Yes. Um when you say the project budget um in these for the the uh transportation bond one does that mean that that's all that was included in the transportation bond like on Pine Grove North it was 3.7 million and the actual project cost is 15.6 million like that's the budget from the transportation bond.

Well that's the budget as as it exists today. My understanding is that project started as one thing and has morphed into [laughter] a couple of different ideations of this project. Um so as of today for this specific project between transportation bond and other funding that we've put together that's the project bund budget for that we have today that's essentially how much money is available to put toward it. Um and then the gap is what would still be needed if uh council wanted to rep prioritize some of the other projects. Um, so like not to jump ahead, but if council said we don't want to have any new revenue, we need to work with what we have. Then we could be pulling out these dollar amounts from some of these negotiable projects to help close some of the other funding gaps,

even if it was included in a transportation bond. So, so a a transportation bond, the um you you have the the marketing and then you have the legal statute. So, um, these projects were included in the public communication of what would be built with those transportation bond dollars. Uh, but statutoily the question on the ballot is broad. It is a bond referendum for transportation needs and so you are able to use the dollars for other things. it then becomes a community PR issue

at times. Um but in terms of the transportation bond dollars, those dollars have already been completely spent. So um so they're they're gone. So when we say transportation bond projects, it's more about the list of projects that were told to the community they would be built, [clears throat] but money was ran out of long before we have now gotten to those. Yeah. 12 years ago when the bond was, right? So, so it's a it's a PR issue versus a um what are you actually obligated to build with the question that went on the ballot?

Oh, in addition to PR issue, I'd also say accountability issue if that's what you know the public was told and that's how they voted. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. And and I'm I'm not I'm not saying that that um you know should be a reason not to do it so much as um making sure that we're talking about funds in terms of um you know it's not that these projects are part of a bond project or part of a bond budget, right?

Um because those dollars are long gone. It's really about the project still needs to be built and we essentially need all new funding to now be able to do it separate from the bond that was approved 12 years ago. Um if I [clears throat] can also add just regard with to the current project budget, most of the property acquisition for Pine Grove North and South I believe has already been done. Um meaning that we've already done any condemnations that were needed. We've already acquired any properties. Some of those were total takes, a lot of them were were smaller, but those monies have already been have already come out of these project budgets. So, this is essentially what's left after what's been done. So, that might explain a little bit of why there's such a big gap because they're already um I think Pine Grove North is 100% done um as far as property acquisition and design and Pine Grove South is at 95%. So, all of that piece has already been done and the acquisition's already been done. So that money has already been taken out and this is just what's left. Um the Ritsville Avenue sidewalks and roundabout that takes two sidewalk projects and the roundabout is at Rightville Avenue and Wallace. Um it has a total project cost of 9.8 million and the funding gap for this project is is projected at $511,936. Heather, if I can speak to that one just real quick because that project [clears throat] is under construction right now. It is really going very well. That number that is there is that we have had to use current contingencies um for property acquisitions or or settlements as we've moved through that have chewed into our contingency that we would think we could need to use in the future. So, this is helping rep this would be to kind of replenish that contingency is what

[clears throat] that shortfall is due to property items coming in much higher than expected. Um, I would say this would be something that we would, if we needed to, we would come back to council if we needed those contingency funds. If everything goes much better than expected, issues don't pop up, um, then we wouldn't actually need to do that. But that this number is reflected really purely due to property type items. That's helpful to understand. I was going to make the point that something [clears throat] that is under construction already feels non-negotiable to me. Like we've got to finish, right? So, okay.

Yeah. And council [clears throat] council has approved um already some of those takes I think at our last post session was was one of them. Um there were just some very large property takes right at the intersection where the roundabout is and some of those properties were just there's not going to be a lot of use that that's left of [clears throat] some of them. And so they were pretty high dollar amounts um that weren't originally anticipated in the project budget. So that's where that's going to come from. Uh the last project slide I have is for Towels Road. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly. Tal's Road Emergency Access. Um, it's going to construct a new street segment which will connect Tal Road to Hawkfield Drive which has a little higher elevation to help alleviate some flooding issues. It is currently in the planning phase, has an estimated cost of 1.67 million and a budget gap of 1.085 million.

Do we know how many residents are losing access to their home when this flooding happens? Is there I know that's still in the weeds, but I'm just curious. Right. I don't have that number. I do not know that number off the top of my head, but we can get you that. We can get you that number. Okay.

Okay. So, we've talked about budget gaps for individual projects. So, now we'd like to look at them as a whole. The funding shortfall for all of the projects, non-negotiable and negotiable, it ranges from 51.4 million to 63.3. And that range is because of two main things with the the EDA grant that I talked about whether or not we're incorporating that funding in there. We also have a project that has a surplus in it, the Riverwalk Marina North project. Um there is some surplus in there. And so one of the discussion points is is how and when we apply that surplus. So that's why we have a range of of what the total gap is. You know, we would like to assume we're going to be awarded Gap funding or grant funding, but that's not certain. Um, and we'd like to discuss how and when to use surplus funds. Um, there's always going to be unexpected needs related to the riverwalk. Sometimes they come up quick and and fast. I'm thinking about um, a couple of years ago we had to do kind of a quick pivot down at the Riverwalk to come up with some vehicle deterrent strategies because we [clears throat] had cars that were going into the into the river. So engineering had to pivot pretty quick and and so it's sometimes it's handy to hold on to that surplus that we have it for things that we haven't considered yet. Now to talk about the options um and we kind of touched on them a little bit with our existing debt capacity. We can fund the shortfall for all of the non-negotiable projects with no tax increase. Now that's over a period of time. So it could affect some savings [cough] but they would all get completed with no impacts to the tax rate. we do not have sufficient capacity to fund the negotiable projects as well. [clears throat] So that leads us to the next option which is where we can talk about perhaps delaying perhaps look at things looking at the priority if if something has shifted the need has shifted maybe we can talk about eliminating projects. Um that's just the one of the discussions that that we'd like to have. um the only way to fund

the gap for all of the projects and to keep them relatively on the same schedule is is that adjustment to the tax rate. And so we're going to talk about um that brings us here. So we have a couple of different funding scenarios. Um we outline of course your project categories. Um the total borrowed your um that should have been updated to say total amount. So that's the total amount we're borrow and then we would borrow the 80% of that amount. So that's the total amount that we would need whether or not we have the grant award accounted for for that water street bulkhead project whether or not we're applying the surplus and then if there's an impact to the tax rate. So um when we factor in the funding for the negotiable projects the total amount it ranges you can see from the 51.4 to the 633. If we receive the grant funds and if we include those surplus funds from the Riverwalk Marina North project to keep the projects together and relatively on the same schedule would still require an adjustment to the tax rate of the of the 52

cent [snorts] I'm sorry I'm sorry [laughter] we're getting it all done in one you're rebuilding the city [laughter] Yeah. Everything's less than a set. Sorry. I'm sorry. I just Yes. [laughter] Okay. We're waiting. Yeah. [laughter]

Sorry. Half of half of a scent. Okay. So, and then if we jump to the bottom scenario, um that's if we do not secure the grant funds, and I'm assuming in that situation, we would probably move to put those surplus funds towards the towards the debt. that would require a tax adjustment of about three quarters of of a penny and not 77 cents. Um the middle option which is kind of it falls between the two is staff's recommendation. It assumes that we're going to receive the EDA grant funds but it reserves that surplus. this strategy, it would require a tax rate adjustment 61 of a cent um which [clears throat] brings it down from that higher rate um and it effectively it preserves that surplus for us to be able to pivot with other needs if we needed to. So th this is this is the information that staff really wanted to get in front of you today so you have that that background information to start having discussions about um these different scenarios [clears throat] and how we move forward. And so we are here. We're ready for questions, feedback if there's anything I don't know. Again, we have engineering and finance. And so

what what's the timeline if we went with the half a percent to finish these projects? What do you have a timeline? It would keep them relatively on the same timeline that we're on now. That's which is

Yep. That's correct. So it's different for every single project. Um, but it would be looking at within the next two to three years depending on the Scott size of the project. But almost all of those projects except for the ones that are outlined in there that are early in their design phase are pretty much complete design-wise. So we can almost pull those off the shelf and have those ready in the next six to nine months. And that's the construction window for those projects. again if we get good bids and everything but two to three years in terms of finish

and that would be on the um median assessed value home in Wilmington uh which is worth $445,600 that would be an increase of $27.18 a year which is $226 a month is the equivalent of 61 pennies 61 of one penny contagious asset Yes. Yes. When we have no dedicated funding source like we do with the affordable housing in respect to CIP projects. Essentially, you know, the costs keep going up.

They do. And this is, you know, decisions that are made obviously when we're setting a tax rate at any point in the past have implications going forward because you reduce your capacity over time. And so those gaps increase because it's not just the present dollars, but it's what capacity we had built in as values rise. So, you know, we you could argue potentially that we've not really kept pace with the values here in the city versus what we need to support our infrastructure. There's a lot of other things that we're assessing around the capital program as well. There are things that we designate, frankly, for capital projects that are maintenance projects. Street paving is maintenance, right? So we have to have a conversation ultimately about how do we fund our maintenance works so that it's not dilutive to the capital projects so we can do the things that we need and want to do with the capital program to build the city and the community that we want our residents to have. So when we're talking about these projects that do take some time and I'm sure you're building into that the inflationary process absolutely that we're dealing with [clears throat]

in addition to the environmental issues that we got to go through the public process of acquiring right ofways from individuals then going through that process. So you know a project that may look like you can do it in two years may end up taking you four to five years because of those delays. But so you've got that. So, what kind of what kind of number do you have plugged in there for the inflation here? Is it 3% 4%?

It it depends on the project type obviously because if it's just concrete, we're only worried about the inflation of concrete. Something where there's a building, we've got systems and things like that that are variable. So, we're looking at those those projects on that granular level relative to the inflationary factors and changing somewhat the model to your point about how we're inflating the projects to basically the time the shovel goes in the ground. So, there are some shifts in that thinking as well as making sure that we're capturing all of the anticipated cost. There's always unanticipated unforeseen. you know, when you're into a large project, stuff that nobody knows was buried in the ground a 100 years ago that you come across. But to the extent that we can anticipate those valuations for the property takes really known what the design is, having better contracts so that we can claw back money when there are errors and omissions because that's quite frankly another gap that we've seen historically. So, making sure that we have the tools in our toolbox when we're engaging these designers and these contractors so that we can hold their feet to the fire and make sure we're getting the dollars back when they don't perform. All of those are part of it. There's conversations around is 8020 the sole way to fund our capital projects. Should we have a dedicated line of PGO and are there projects that should be 100% borrowed? How can we increase our own capacity without necessarily modifying the tax rate? So those that's the work that's happening behind the scenes for the next CIP. Right now we're sort of in recovery mode on this is the situation that we're in right now and we'd like some direction from council on how do we proceed to close the gap that exists today recognizing that we're doing other work so that we're in the next CIP which will encompass everything. So we won't just be talking about a parks bond a transportation bond it's going to be an entire capital program. So when we're in that

situation, we can make promises that we can deliver on to our residents.

Jackie, if I may, [clears throat] just as a to follow up on that and by way of update um from the previous question about the kayak launch um and the possibility of recovering, it was still really early in the project when we terminated them. They basically went out and put up a silt fence and they couldn't even do that correctly and so we went ahead and fired them. So, they haven't submitted any invoices and we haven't made any payments. So, we're not out any money. We've already got a new contractor or a new bid that we're getting ready to award. So, they didn't really put us behind any of that. So, there probably won't be any as far as legal action as far as that goes, but because they haven't really damaged the project and and we haven't paid any money to them and don't frankly plan to after having fired them. So, um but it was very early. They they couldn't even get the silk fence put up. a mess.

No, that's that's correct. And the project sign, I believe our inspector went out and leaned on the project sign, it fell over. Um, so it [laughter] was it was not good. Um, and I do want to, mayor, to give you a little more insight as we look at the the negotiable projects and the non-negotiable sheet that that Heather had. Anything that says 100% even 60% we're looking at at most two to three years. We start construction, get those done. Anything that says feasibility or planning obviously still has to go through design, still has to go through all that process. We're looking at at a little bit longer process on those probably pushing closer to the three to four year mark as we go through that process. And we have taken escalation into into account with what those projects need in terms of their timeline. We estimate what the midpoint of construction would be and that's how we determine the escalation needed for the project um for what's what we're seeing within the economy right now. I I don't I guess I've lost it somewhere along the line, but I I understood I thought that the water street park you got currently here current phase design is at 60%. I thought that that was 100% completed. I know they were waiting for the federal government to finish that bulkhead repair that was behind the federal courthouse and that was done. But I always understood that we had a plan in place because we had looked at ballers and you know making it flat and alleviating the curving and I mean we went into a lot of detail about this. I I it I guess I'm I I didn't realize it was only 60% design.

I thought we were 100% on that. I know that there's been a lot of iterations that have gone through on that. Um, I'll ask Mike Niklicki to speak a little bit more on that one because that's before my time mayor when that project started. So,

yeah, hopefully you can hear me from back here. Um, that project wasn't 100% design and if [clears throat] you recall, excuse me, we actually bid that many years back and had to pull that portion out because of the uh Coast Guard bulkhead repairs. But then when we came back to the time when we could start to move forward again, there were certain elements of the park that may not have been as applicable anymore because of the new north waterfront park which is now riverfront park live oak pavilion. And I believe we came back to city council and presented in the fall of 2024. got some feedback from council at that time and we're making some of those modifications and expectation is this project will be ready to advertise this spring.

We will. Yes. [clears throat] Oh, that's a great point. I appreciate Dave Cow just reminded me also since we bid it back in 200 I want to say like 16, the Coast Guard came back with a different type of bulkhead system. It was a relieving platform with a large surface concrete slab. So, it changes how we have to kind of anchor some of the surface features, lighting, um, and other other items because you can't just bury them in the soil. We actually are mounting them to the top of a concrete slab. And that was based off how the Coast Guard repaired that bulkhead. Does that kind of help some of the the

Okay, I got that. But on the curbing, remember there was a big discussion about curving. [clears throat] Yes. Whether we would alleviate the curbing and you know at one time that was a very popular area for that sundown celebration where they would have fans back there. Is that alleviated or we're going to we're going to leave the curving in place? We we actually have along the street section there the same design. So there will be that still about 150 ft wide of flush area with with a couple old ballards in case we do want to have any type of events and things down there. But so we have not changed any of the streetscaping. It's just some of the modifications within the park.

Is that on the west side of the of the of on the riverside is where the curving is going away? Yes. Yes. Correct. So there won't be a raised up sidewalk. Is that what you're talking about? It'll be all Yeah. for for the correct the 150 ft would be both in front of the federal courthouse side and the park side. And then as you get closer to Princess Street and Market Street, it'll kind of ramp back down so you get that 6-in curb reveal. But during events, we'll have the ability to put ballards on either side to kind of close off that area for events. Kind of the same way. Temporary ballers you can pull. That's right. that you can pull up and put back somewhere else. Yeah.

Is that a bad idea for if you ever decide to want to close the streets on Front Street from time to time for whatever. Um the other one is the Lions Bridge reconstruction and uh current feasibilities. Is that complete? Feasibility is complete. That's what was used to submit for the grant. Um and so if we got that grant funding, then we would go into the the full design. Um, so the picture that you saw that that Heather showed that is kind of the feasibility level design. There'd still be again what size the piles, stuff like that. We need to do a full design to really nail everything down. Um, but that feasibility is complete. Yes.

Just I cur what's the span that it's that it's transverse and done because that bridge has been there for years, right? It it had been. Yes, it has been taken [clears throat] down. So there no longer is a bridge there. Part of the reason it was negotiable. It's not a public hazard at the moment. Um, sure. But yes, that bridge had been removed. I don't know what the span is off the top of my head. Mayor, we can get you that number unless Amy or Sally know off the top. I think Sally. Yes. Hi, I can help. Um, so the original bridge was 200 feet. It was not ADA accessible. That's a goal with this project. It's going to be almost double that length around 370 ft um in the concept right now. We still need to go into the design phase to get that exact number to achieve ADA

to achieve the ADA. that that I mean that was the big that's you have to have a longer runway you have to have a longer runway leading up to the bridge to achieve the ADA so that's the reason for the additional length but it's going back in the same footprint okay and then and so that is not anywhere near any kind of design at the current there's concept design but the um design in order to achieve the construction bid package hasn't been complete yet if we get the additional grant then we'll have the funing So, we're talking about another the design of 8 to nine months. Yes. Yes. The engineer says yes.

What what would help us speed that one up and it may not be that long is there's no property acquisition. So, a lot of what drives our long design times is property acquisitions, utility relocations. That's not needed here. So, in reality, Mayor, you're probably correct that is long for that bridge. We would probably be a little bit shorter because we don't have to do any of that. Okay. on the tolls road because I've had people call me. I know they're going they're accessing different people's properties [clears throat] to try to get out when they've had this. Is it primarily when they have these um these high tide events um these king tide events or is it is it now more is it more often? Is it is it more of a Can someone tell me about that?

I think it's becoming more and more often but it's mainly king tide events. Aaron, do you have any additional um thought on that? I know Zach's been working on the design of this one. Yeah, it's primarily the larger larger how many and how many times a year do we know? I don't have a number on that note, but um to answer the previous question, it's about 16 homes on that side of the bridge. It's 16 homes on that side. Can Can we get a mic? And can we identify ourselves, please? Sorry. For for the clerk, please. Please identify yourself and please speak into the microphone. Thank you. [clears throat] We don't have one. I get one. Give me one.

I think we can find one in this place. Yeah. Should we just have people come up to the podium? Is that work? Yeah. This one work. Okay. Yeah. Your name, please. And and identify yourself. Sure. Aaron Beckner, assistant director of public works. Um [snorts] yeah, complaints primarily during large tide events. Um mostly King Tide. Um we are seeing those happen more often. I don't have any exact numbers for you, but um to one of the previous questions, there's 16 homes on that side of the bridge.

So, I understood that there was another possible access or ingress out of this particular section. And you know, we're working with the state. I believe somebody was working with the state about environmental impacts on that and that was turned down. Yes, that's correct. Due to impact. So, we're um we're trying to make a connection between Tols Road and Hawkville so that the folks who live on the water side of Tols Road can get to Hawkville to get out and that's raising it or you having to build a bridge or what?

It's it's creating a connector road between the two because Hawkville is higher than Toll. So, Hawkville doesn't experience the same the same flooding situation. So, it's just providing a connection to get to Hawkville. So they have a secondary access point to get help during those events. And right now, how deep does that water get? Um, can I mean what I'm asking, can you get out or is it a situation where you there's no way you can get out cuz the water is 5T deep or 6 feet. It's not 5T. It's probably maybe a foot. Um, but you know, with with a regular vehicle that that's a car that that can be a concern. Um,

so no, it's not it's not 5T. It's big ticket item. Yes, sir. Can I Can I ch Kevin Spears, City of Williams? Yeah, Kevin. Yeah, thank you for identifying yourself.

No problem. I I like to listen to uh instruction. Um, here here's the thing that I'm missing and maybe I missed it, but I'm not hearing like for for the list of projects that we have of capital improvement projects that we're looking at that are negotiable, non-negotiable, uh there's not a precedence that's being put on the project, right? So, we do know we have some older projects that our resident have heard about for many years and have not seen come to fruition, right? And then we introduce uh this this week, you know, we're going to we're going to go create a new park, right? We're going to get a we're going to go into a partnership in the county. We're going to get a a grant from the endowment. We're going to create a new 25 acre park over here. But here we have a bridge at Greenville Lake uh that needs to be addressed. it hasn't been addressed. But you know what I mean? There there's some things and and wait, let me say this, you know, as we as we contemplate increasing the tax rate percentage. Um there are some things that we're going to have to deliver to our citizens. And so I mean I'm I'm not hearing that. So maybe it's being implied, but I'm not hearing that. I want to say uh Becky and Dennis, you did a great job of Becky, you did a great job of saying, "Hey, this is what this tax rate increase is going to cost people in real time." And Dennis, you you said something. Um Wow, you did say something important, but I forgot. Anyway, [laughter] but but it it was good. It did it really did feed into the point that I'm making that we need to be able to relay this

information and I' I've been saying ever since I've been on council, you know, we need to be able to deliver the tangibles to to our citizens when we talk about increasing the tax rate because if not, you know, they're going to rip us rip us apart and and they don't have anything that's really going to say, you know what, what do we get for Yeah. And and and why have these projects been on the to-do list for so long? And I mean, you're even saying, you know, that pretty much we've just been allowing them to linger. We haven't done this.

So, so Mayor Promp, thanks for that. I think that that's absolutely what we're about is we we have to figure out how we deliver on these promises to our community. And so the conversation is what are the options that council would would be willing for us to explore in order to deliver on those because we know we are laying the groundwork for a future CIP. We know that there are future things that we need and want to do, but it's absolutely imperative that we deliver on the things that we said we were going to do and and we have to we have to be about that right now. And so we're trying to figure out how can we go ahead and and do those things to best position us to set us up so that when we go back to the public in the future and say we need this for these things that they can feel confident that we're going to keep the promises that we made.

So you're talking about if we go with a half cent being able to complete these projects within a threeyear four year timeline. I'd say three to five just to be candid because we do have some design work. There's some stuff there acquisition you know that there will be things that we learn as we go through this and so you know based on where we are right now very comfortable to say 3 to 5 years to be done and that also gives us the runway to start planning for the next CIP and understand that we've built this additional capacity on a going forward basis as well. So when we do this tax increase, if we do this tax increase, then then that also provides additional funding going forward as we're retiring that as we're delivering projects to take on new work. So it it becomes sort of a bothand.

Okay. So you made a comment about some of these CIP projects have been had fallen you felt under maintenance issues as opposed to CIP issues. Can you explain that separate separate can you explain that again because I know a lot of it is resurfacing which is a maintenance issue and then the other part of it is the bulkhead works the bridges that we have to repair the parts that we have to make and maintain and the stuff of that nature those fall within the CIP and you feel that y'all looked through enough of this to to identify these are the projects that we promised the voters on some of this and then the other part of it is CIP projects that need to get done some point in time within the next five years.

Yeah. So, let me let me try to encapsulate it this way and Martha please please jump in. Um, but because the CIP operates on a fiveyear schedule, these projects are in that current five-year schedule, that fiveyear bucket of projects. But what we're saying is that based on projected costs, we have a notable funding gap to be able to complete all of the projects in the current bucket of [clears throat] CIP projects. And that's that's uh CIP that's what has been known as the transportation bond projects. That's um any of these remaining part projects. That's basically anything there. Now, because we're already three years into our existing CIP bucket, we've already spent a lot of money. We've already completed a lot of projects. We have um also some of those projects have been some of the maintenance things that Dennis is referring to that in a um in an ideal kind of best practice world, that is not what you put into a CIP. um you should have separate maintenance funding, ongoing maintenance repair, preventative maintenance, ongoing maintenance that would be funded over here. So then it's not competing for those available dollars because in every five-year trunch, if we have say a $50 million bucket of funding for projects that we want to take on, if you're using that $50 million for ongoing maintenance, you're essentially diluting your buying power to be able to invest in infrastructure, to be able to invest in park uh new projects, um all of that. And so what we want to do in future budgets is pull out in future CIP buckets is pull that maintenance funding

out and that is just part of the regular annual budget that we're funding because those things just come. They're they're exactly they're operating costs.

Um so so we can't undo where we [clears throat] are with our existing adopted CIP. We can't unwind the clock of what projects were promised to residents in former referendum processes. What we're saying is in order to finish everything that is in the existing bucket, we do need some additional funding in order to do that. And then to Mayor Prom's point, the development of the park is in the future new bucket that we know will now need to include if everything goes through will need to include the funding to be able to develop that park. So 10 to12 million of that new bucket we know will already be accounted for with that park development. But that is not competing with the projects that we have before you today because these are already what have been adopted or promised. Um [snorts] but what we are saying is that it at the end of the day it's a it's a funding decision and it's a political decision. So um so we don't see a pathway to be able to deliver on all of the promises made without the additional funding. Uh but if council just said, "Hey, we need to draw the line. There just isn't going to be more dollars to go to toward it, then that is a council decision regarding which projects do we delay and kick to the future bucket or we scale back and try to value engineer. Um these are worst case scenarios. We are continuing to aggressively pursue grant funding, but based on what we know today, this is the amount of funding that we believe we need to complete the current bucket.

I want to I want to take [clears throat] this high level real quick. Just zoom out for a second. So for the current CIP bucket, we have one and a half cent of the tax rate that's going to this. You're asking us to increase that to 2.11 cents total. Is that right? That's what this is. I think currently what we have is it was previously 1 cent and now after the re-evaluation we're closer to threequarters of a cent and so we have already taken that 3/4 of a cent in consideration when doing our evaluation. Okay.

Um sorry Penny Martha finance director. [laughter] Um, and so like Becky was saying, uh, we have the previous CIP plan that we have already included and what we're planning to do, planning to borrow for, and as far as the 8020% match that we're currently following. Um, whenever I bring I believe it's at the next council meeting, I'm going to be presenting an issuance that we're bringing forward potentially for the spring. And you will see in that issuance there is a large amount of that funding that is going to be going towards pavement, road improvements, different items like that as they were alluding to. So the information that we have up here is what we need in addition if we were to finish the projects that are currently listed as negotiable and non-negotiable in the the packet. So

yeah, I I understand that. I was just trying to understand what we we were already setting aside some. [clears throat] Yes. Our packet says 1.5 cents. Is that not am I misunderstanding this? That was but when we started that CIP that's what that's what we put forward as we were we were kind of allocating one and a half cents. One cent for the maintenance projects half a cent for the infrastructure projects. Martha said with the revaluation that that number is different. Okay. Y that

so and and that is one thing in future budget years not to confuse the issue too much but um when there are revaluations that will be an important conversation to have with council is if we want to adopt a you know penny for progress or you know two pennies for progress or whatever is when the value of a penny increases if we don't increase our budget with it then we are ultimately diluting

that pen penny and then it's no longer a penny for progress. It's now threequarters of a penny. Um but that is again a prioritization conversation with council because if you hold the line on increasing your budget and keeping that penny dedicated to capital, then that's going to put pressure on the rest of the budget to be able to for to continue to afford everything. So just something to keep in mind. We're a couple years away from another rebal. Um, but it's very easy to dilute. So, it was basically an FY2425. It was, hey, we're going to do a penny and a half, but because the value of a penny has changed since then, that's no longer accurate. Thank you,

David.

I have a couple questions. Um, sort of alternating between pages four and six here. Um, let's start with page six. So, I'm I'm assuming that the projects that you are bringing us in the non-negotiable um funded category, the second bottom, the bottom of the two charts, you've already looked through these and determined if Okay, I'm trying to break multiple thoughts and I'm just going to throw it all on the table at once. My concern is the projects that were promised in 2014 and 2016, are they actually the things that are needed today? And do you need that feedback from council on what actually gets funded and what doesn't?

So, so that's the political side of the conversation. Yep. So, when we're talking about non-negotiable projects, [snorts] these are core infrastructure projects that um it it's not a political conversation. These are [clears throat] bridges, bulkheads, things like that that have to happen. Um, what you're talking about is the promises [snorts] or the conversations that were had with the community back when the bond referendums were taken out and then and the community has changed in 10 plus years.

Community has changed. And so if council said, "We no longer want to do these because the community's priorities have changed or your priorities have changed," you are able to do that. But that is a political decision. And and I just want to make sure that in that context, what we're seeing on page six has at least been scaled for the community change, right? We're not we're not picking up a plan that was developed in 2014 and saying we're still going to plug this in despite That's correct. And that's why you hear some of the changes relative to the design and the status of those sorts of things and the feasibility is to make sure we still have the scope correct.

And some of these things have grown over time like the Greenville Loop projects because other changes have meant, okay, it actually needed to be a little bit wider than we thought originally, which then meant we needed additional takes and now there's signalization stuff that's involved because there wasn't a signal somewhere else. You're right. So, and so everything that we're looking at today has been accounted for those two questions. All right. Thank you. Yes,

David. That's a good point and I and I think we need to tread lightly with that because well, I think we need to speak to the community about what they think is important because you're right to to a certain extent uh the community has changed. the council definitely has changed, but also there's a a part of this community that feel that they're being pushed out

and and there's some enhancements that are taking place and there are some uh access to resources that are not being afforded all over the city of Wilmington, which makes people feel like, you know, uh we're no longer welcome here. We're being forced out. And so, um, I think it's imperative that we hear from people in their totality as much as we can, um, about what's important to them. And I also wanted to say this as it relates to CF projects. I know I talked to Tom about this, um, a year ago or years ago, but it's just how how we're doing projects, right? because again the date, the time, the the period of that it takes to complete a project and then how we go about doing those projects. Um as as Dennis talked about, what's maintenance, what's not, you know, we're pingponging all over the city doing um repaving roads, right? So if you repave my street [clears throat] and then you move over to the next community and then you move over to the next community instead of just knocking out an entire neighborhood, you know what I mean? And then we so we know we have something like that's complete. This this this project is complete and now we're moving on to the next thing. And it and it makes people feel better instead of by the time you paint my street, move over to another community and then come back. Now my street looks old again and then my neighbor street looks new. And it doesn't really make sense to everyday people. So I I think we need to have a a real plan for how we're going to address projects, maintenance, and things of that nature. And I I'm not downplaying

anyone, but I think it's obvious that we haven't had a plan. We don't have a plan. So, I I want to address the the paving um and then I'm happy to turn it over to Dennis to talk about um planned changes moving forward with how we deliver on capital projects. Um but uh Mayor Prom, your your point about paving um to me um that is an an education um issue that I know that we can put a lot of effort into helping people understand. Um but the the best practices around paving um really call for a look at the condition of each individual street um and then applying the best product at the best time to help maintain that specific street to the highest level possible. And so um so from that perspective, you do sometimes see a street that has now qualified for say um complete repaving, full depth reclamation uh because it reached that point of degradation, but then one street over it has not reached that point and but it would benefit from crack sealing or potholes being repaired. [snorts] Um there's uh mineral rejuvenation that can be applied to streets that helps hold them up in better condition. So there's a multitude of products that um are best to be applied depending on what the specific need is for the specific street, but we do understand that that can look funny to a resident. And so I think that's where the education piece comes in. Um and and that's where I think we can do a better job with

[clears throat] um you know you know hey you know like a you know you know the more you know you know kind of education series um to help people understand that. Um so but that is the reason for it and so from a a cost standpoint it would actually be uh less efficient to go in and be repaving streets before it was really required based on their condition. uh which is what would happen if uh in some cases if we tried to take on an entire neighborhood. Good, good point, baby. Let let me tell you what happened. This is funny, but this is real life. So, my street got paid and then my neighbor stopped speaking to me. [laughter]

Like, my street got paid because I was on the city council. And and and for the record, we promise that is not why your street got paved. Your street got paved because You can't tell. You can't tell that. [laughter] And they and and they were said they talked trashy about you for a little bit. Well, we can make up a little flyer that you can hand out.

And so, real quick too, Mayor Pton, I mean, I think what you're speaking to is also some of the stuff that we're looking at directionally. One of those things is our shift in sort of our economic development approach and really, you know, standing up MWBE supports and those sorts of things and finding new people to do our work, right? Because if we've been riding the same horses unsuccessfully, it's time for new horses. So, we have to do that work to engage new people and and try and get better results than we have. [snorts] We have to engage the community as we build out the next CIP. I think, you know, Becky said, you know, we we cannot there's no time machine in this CIP. I don't think there's a tax rate that would buy one of those. So, so going forward, absolutely engaging the community on their priorities as we're looking at the things that we're doing is core to what we're going to be about and and informing people throughout the life cycle of the project. We've already started to do some of those things on the existing projects. you're going to see even more of that. Regular community meetings, updates, kickoffs, those sorts of things are are absolutely core to what we're doing. And then the way that we select the folks to do our work, had tremendous success historically in government doing things on qualifications based selections rather than dollars. It's not to say that the dollars don't matter, but doing RFQS and selecting people using the Mini Brooks Act and getting people seem at risk and those sorts of things. So we have a guaranteed number before anybody even goes into the field. And again, having those tools then to hold people accountable when there are error submissions, when there are things that are screwed up on on the contractor side is is all core to make sure that we are doing what we said we were going to do.

Two questions. I agree. on the 2014 bond. Um the the items that had been identified, how what are we down? Two, three.

Yeah, it's it's really Pinerove North and Pine Grove South are the two big the two big projects right there. Um are the the two main ones that I'm tracking from the transportation bond. Trying to look through the list here. Everything else really is under construction, Mayor. Um we've we've put those out. Um Pine Grove North and Pine Grove South are the the two projects. All right. Pine Grove North. I mean, that one has exploded in cost. Um, and I guess the question I want to ask is on the Pine Pine Grove North and I know that we purchased properties

and rightways and all that and I know we're realigning the uh intersection there. Question is, the state participating in this one because it is a state road only drive. [snorts] They're not. Why wouldn't they? Since this is their road. This is a safety issue also. They don't participate in anything has anything to do with their roads.

Maybe some I know they probably don't have any money, but could could someone address that because this is their road. Oander Drive is their road and we're sitting over here making the realignment. And I know McMillan is ours and Pinerro is ours and Riceville is our but what is this just something that we did without engaging because you know you can't do anything on a state road without their approval. So you had to get some approval from the state DOT to move forward with this type of a project I would imagine. Correct.

That that's correct mayor. And I I know I was kind of nodding my head with you so I got the mic but uh the they had been involved. [clears throat] We had to get encroachments agreements with them. One of the reasons why that project is so expensive is because a lot of the work needs to be done at night because of their encroachment restrictions. So early on, I don't know how much they were engaged during the planning of this project. I know they've always had a project that planned for the intersection improvements at Oleander and uh college. There may be, you know, maybe Mike Kazowski could speak more about the status of that, but no, there has not been any DOT funding or participation in this project.

You can ask. I mean, it's their it's insane. But but but on only but on Market Street going out to a porter's neck, all that all that work is being done by the state, right? Been paid for by the state. Correct. Is that right, Mike? Go ahead, Mikey. Tell me tell me.

Sure, Mr. Mayor. Uh, so the work on Market Street North, yes, it's being um completed by North Carolina DOT. The project at Pine Grove and Oleander, that was a city project. It was from our long range transportation plan. Uh it was to improve capacity and the safety at the intersection there at um Pine Grove and Oleander. the that project did not score and has not been scored in the prioritization process. The project that has been scored in the prioritization process is the intersection improvements there at college and only entered and those intersection improvements to date have not scored high enough to to get funded. They were in the step through prioritization at one point but uh given the cash challenges at DOT it's that project has got pushed out and it's currently not funded in the step. Jeez. Where's this Wizard of Oz that does all this scoring? Because I [laughter] don't get the scoring process. That would be something that I would love to delve into. But anyway, that's another scoring.

There's there is a prioritization process. There's no there's no politics involved in score, right? Got you. I'm sorry, Mikey. I just [laughter] You're good, Mr. Mayor. Other questions, feedback, comments? So, your recommendation is is [clears throat] 61 of a set. Yes.

To complete these within a 3 to 5 year time frame. I mean, I as I'm as I'm looking through the negotiable projects, the ones to me that feel like we could actually have some negotiation and discuss discussing on cutting the values of those are so much smaller in comparison to the 11 million, you know, projects that I don't feel like we can cut. So, I don't know if it's reasonable to say that that's a viable strategy. I mean, I appreciate I I appreciate the thought that has gone into what you have brought us. I can I was looking for how we could change it and rearrange it, but y'all have thought a couple steps ahead. us too. [laughter]

And and that and and but that's really the point is that we we wouldn't be bringing this to you all if we felt like there was this really clear path to say, "Hey, never mind on on X, Y, and Z." Um but this is this is just where we are with what's left in this buck CIP bucket um that we're coming up short on. And they're all important projects. I mean, they're on our infrastructure. That's what people talk to us about doing campaigns. is how important the infrastructure is, maintaining infrastructure, what have you. I would like if we do move into that direction to fund this, I would love to see on a yearly basis where you folks come forward to to to give us an update on CIB to the Yeah.

because if we're falling behind on projects, if we're delayed on something, if something's not happening, we need to be made aware of it instead of this this timeline that went by. I know that we we went through CO. I know that we went through the whole issue with the hurricanes in Hurricane Florence and and getting the community back together. It took some timeline away from that. I think our goal of was about 7 years to seven to 10 and we exceeded that. But uh and then of course the one thing that we didn't take into consideration when we were talking about this bond 2014 was the amount of rightway acquisition and how much time and effort and what you had to do in ramping up your department to to do I don't know how many 3 400 um properties that you had to acquire

over 700 acquisition over 700 acquisitions. So that took some time and then you go through a legal process on some of those. So that you there was a time element that we weren't made fully aware of in respect to the um purchase of rightways [clears throat] which was a much longer period that than we anticipated for all of us. It was because what there are certain notice periods that we can't get past that are months and and months in in length when we go to do that. Um, and so yeah, and also when the 2014 bond was done, the the cost of those acquisitions wasn't realistically factored into the project budgets um at that point. And that was it's definitely a lesson that [snorts] has been learned since since 2014. Um, it's just we weren't part of that process. But

sounds like the autopsy's already been done. Great. But we we have learned a lot of lessons since since 2014. And one other thing, Mr. Mayor. So, not just for council, but for the community communications and engagement and the capital team. We're building a dashboard that will be updated monthly where everybody can see the status of every project, whether it's in design, whether it's in construction, delivery dates, financials, all of that is going to be out there for the public to view monthly. So happy to come back and give you whatever updates you want, but it'll be there and available and searchable in real time. When is that dashboard going to be available? We're looking to stand it up in the next 90 days.

Fantastic. Because the the 2014 bond their their dashboard, right? Yes. But we're we're looking to stand up a new one that would then sort of reset so that as we're going forward, we've got those financials and those sorts of things are out there. So by June 1st, I'd say July one just to be conservative for the start of the new year because we have a lot of other work that's going on in the background as well for July 1st. So you know, but but that that is absolutely going to be core to to communicating to the to the community.

Good [snorts] work. I mean, I I I must say, I mean, you folks have delved into it, and I know we talked a little bit about it last year in regards to CIP and concerns that the staff had about funding these projects moving forward. So, I appreciate the deep dive into this and makes a lot of I mean, they're all important projects. Where do you cut? I get it. You want to take a break? Yeah, let's take a break. You want to come back at 10:20? Yeah, we come back at 10:20. We're back in session. Okay. Again, I'm going to turn it over to Hulk City.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Proton, members of council. Um, what we want to end our time together today with is a followup to the pave conversation that we started with you all in November. We [clears throat] have of course uh seated the new council and so uh we do want to spend a little bit of time recapping to make sure that everybody remembers the conversation and that we're all on the same page and then uh we are able to then talk about some of the implications of what this move would do to our pay plan specifically and the cost implications of doing that and then some of the options should council be interested in moving forward. So as a followup, we are talking about a living wage which we are defining as um being equivalent to 60% of the area median income. And in looking at this um we will go ahead and move on to the next slide because that's a little bit repetitive. Um so what do we mean by living wage? Uh as a recap, a living wage is the wage level necessary to afford an adequate standard of living for workers and their families calculated for work performed during normal hours. We define the living wage as 60% of the area median income. Uh recognizing that anything below 80% of the area median income does still qualify somebody for support with their housing costs. Um but looking at uh what we are able to move toward compared to where we are, we feel like this is a significant jump in the right direction to be able to um at least bring all employees up to the 60% level. Uh living wage also reflects the local cost of living. It is not a one-sizefits-all benchmark. And um the nice thing about having this outside

number is it does adjust annually to look at housing, transportation, food, healthcare and childare costs at the county level. So it is specific to every county and so it is hyper localized for what is happening in our market. So, when we look at AMI compared to our workforce, um the area median income in New Hver County for a single household is 75,885. Obviously, if there's more than one person in a household, that number does adjust. But looking at our current workforce, 80% of AMI is equivalent to $60,78 a year. And 51% or 517 of our employees make less than that on an annual basis based on their base pay. And the positions with minimums that start below 80% AMI are 69% [clears throat] of all of our positions or 833 of the approximately 1,200 positions that we have with the city. When you look at 60% AMI, which is equivalent to $45,531 a year, the current full-time number of employees that are making below that are 138 employees or 13% of our workforce. And the total overall positions, this does include part-time positions, um, is 329. This is just a look at some of the starting uh pay for some of the positions that we're talking about that are below 60% AMI. We didn't include positions that just have a single person in them. So, these are uh this is not completely all-encompassing. This just

gives you a sense of um some of the the job assignments that are very important to the work that we do across the city every single day. Um, these are our facility technicians, our recycling and trash workers, grounds technicians, signs and marking technicians, housekeepers, recreation specialists, our administrative support staff, uh, and then in our police department, a number of positions, NCIC, property tax, records tax, public works operators, and then even some of the senior positions in uh, these areas also [snorts] fall below this threshold. I think the the other thing that's important to point out about this is um many of these positions require a fair amount of skill and certifications. Um so even if they um are considered entry level, there is a great deal of work that [snorts] has to go into making sure that they're up to speed and able to operate efficiently on behalf of the city. Um and so uh we we want to recognize that um there is uh a great deal of expertise um that rolls down to every position in our workforce um even at these lowest paid positions.

So excuse me on these positions here that you've identified you want to get those up.

So So yeah, so we'll talk a little bit about the philosophy in just a minute, but essentially we want to raise the floor. [snorts] So if we raise the floor to a dollar amount that is equivalent to [clears throat] 60% AMI. So the lowest paid position in the city of Wilmington would be $45,531. We then have to scale our pay scales up from there to make sure that we've got equity and our pay scales and you're still able to then uh account for the additional differences in skill or level of responsibility as you move up in the organization and we'll show that in some later slides.

Essentially think of it as raising raising the floor. [clears throat]

So this matters for a number of reasons. Um when we look at bridging human needs, Maslo's hierarchy of needs um is uh kind of a poor way to look at sort of what do we need as human beings and um physiological at the very bottom. Food, water, warmth, and rest. Um if these needs aren't met then you are not able to account for the other things that uh people also desire to have [snorts] safety, social security, esteem and self-actualization in the workplace. Um that really accounts and equates to um fair pay and benefits um and a positive work environment. Um, so really what we're trying to do is establish a higher level of what we consider to be fair pay for the work that we're asking people to do. One [snorts] thing that is um also important though in in the lower slide um uh I'm sorry I'm nerding out a little bit if you just bear with me. Hburg's two-factor theory, it's really about motivation theory. And um and so um I think sometimes there can be this belief of um either, you know, pay solves all of your problems or conversely that um it doesn't matter what you pay people, they're never going to be happy. Um, this motivation theory really looks at the fact that pay is um really considered a a core component um where if you if you can't get equitable pay right, then you're never going to be able to uh to get it right in other ways. Um because it's always going to be a problem for people if they can't pay their bills, if they're stressing about money, if they don't have a place to live to be able to get to work at a reasonable time. You can have the best work environment in the world and you're not going to be able to keep people. Conversely, if you have the best work environment in the world or or if you pay people a whole bunch, but you don't have a great work environment, you're

also not going to be able to keep them. So, this is one component of work that we are doing to make sure that we are the kind of employer that people want to come to and stay to. Um but um it's not about just kind of giving everybody this massive pay increase and thinking that that is going to help with motivation and effectiveness. Um once people kind of have their basic needs met, it sort of drops off as a motivating theory um in terms of how impactful it is. But you've got to get to that core level. Um otherwise it's always going to be negatively impacting what you're trying to do. And here's also why we think it matters for our region um and for our organization. We do want to establish ourselves as an employer of choice. Uh we know that people have the ability to move around uh whether it's locally to our neighbors or uh transplant themselves to other places. And uh we also know that people uh are willing to come to us but they need to be able to afford to live here. um and take care of themselves and their needs when they do. We do believe that this strengthens our local workforce um and that it encourages stable wage adjustments uh for the entire region and hopefully stabilizes the local economy. This does allow people to then be able to um put money back into the local economy, which we think is a good thing. And uh being able to send the message that uh we recognize what the cost of living is doing in this area [clears throat] and we're keeping up with it um as best we can sends uh an important message about our values as an organization and the commitment that we've seen to um trying to address the affordable housing problem by also making sure that we're taking care of our own employees.

Uh this just uh looks at the living wage threshold which uh we talked about before but just so that um everyone can understand again this is for a a single household um and the target equivalent of 60% AMI is $21.89 an hour. That is for a 280 hour a year schedule. So, we do have some folks working other shifts that are non-traditional eight hour days. We've got folks on 12 and 24-hour shifts. What we're looking for is getting them to that uh total annual salary. Um even if the hourly rate is a little different, our current minimum hourly rate is $17.38 per hour. Um is is what we're looking at with our current pay structure. So, it is a notable shift upward. Um, but it also demonstrates just how far off we are from uh a living wage threshold. We do have vacancies across the city that we believe this will help with. Um we of course know about some of the issues in police and uh want to make some notable strides to close that gap. Um in particular that's probably where they are actually the the most stressed when it comes to having to deal with these vacancies. Um public works is another one that has a large vacancy rate. we are going through a a restructuring

[clears throat]

um but we do want to fill a lot of those gaps as well. But the point with this is just also to show that it's not just uh relegated to public safety um that we are experiencing some issues across the organization including in some of our management positions being able to be competitive with getting people to come for the money that we're able to offer. The turnover rate we are expecting uh to be a little bit higher in FY26 compared to FY25. Um ideally we would like to see this down in single digits for the entire year. You're always going to have a little bit of turnover with people needing to move for other reasons. Um but we feel like we can make vast strides on this number recognizing that the cost of turnover is very very high. Um you've got lost productivity. The amount of time to uh recruit and then train somebody and have that person working up to full speed. We're sometimes looking at six to nine months if not longer to be able to sort of get back up and running. If we have to hire a new police officer and put them through B because they're not certified, we'd love to have them. We're glad that they're making a career with us, but it's about a year from the time that we bring them on staff, get them through B, get them certified for them to be able to be working independently. Um, and so the more people that we can retain, the fewer dollars we will be spending um or absorbing in that loss productivity. So some additional work that is underway that um talked to you all [clears throat] um in part about it. Uh but we have implemented a comprehensive

vacancy review to increase operational efficiency. So we do not just automatically post a vacancy at this point. Um it undergoes a just a significant justification process where the department has to submit and answer a lot of questions about the need for the position, how the work can be performed, what is the benefit of potentially contracting it out, what are the implications if it's not filled and um and then it goes through a review process. And we have declined to post a number of positions uh because we felt like the work could be handled in other ways or we have paused some until we get through the reorganizational structure changes that we're making. Uh because we want to make sure that um of the 1197 positions that are approved by you all that it's the right 1197 positions. Um, and so if it allows us to retweak and rework sort of how we're allocating those numbers, as long as we stay within the total FTEES and total [clears throat] budget, we're looking to maximize everything at every turn. And this is another way to do it. Speaking of the organizational restructuring that was presented to all of staff a week ago today and we are moving forward with the backend implementation, all of the changes to how things are routed in the finance system and in the HR system and that will take effect in March um for everything to sort of go live. and uh communications is putting together a flip book of what those org charts look like. As soon as I have that, I'll send it out to you all. And it really was a tearing down and starting from the ground up in looking at um what do we need to accomplish as a city? How do we

deliver the services that we need to and what is the most efficient way to do that? And so there is significant realignment, the creation of new positions, again all working within existing budgets and existing FTEEs to be able to be more intentional about some of the work that we know are priorities to council, priorities to the community and allows us to uh move in a different way than we have historically. Um to my knowledge, that has not been touched in about 20 years. Um and um and so um I I've sort of described it like tentacles have sort of developed over the years. Um and so uh we sort of took personalities out of it and said what's the work and restructured accordingly. Um with that we're still vetting there may be a few positions that were able to then say hey after we redid all of this we actually don't need 1197 people. it may be a slightly lower number. Those dollars could then become available to help implement this pay plan increase, but we are trying to keep the two separate. So, we want to make sure that the work that we're doing um is fully fully covered. If it happens to have a benefit of creating some capacity for us to have a lower salary cost uh because there's a few positions we don't need, then we want to offer those up. But we're still going through that. We literally have every position [clears throat] and where they are reporting to and what the salary is on uh essentially post-it notes. Uh they're fancier than that. They're printed um uh literally on the walls of an entire room working out to make sure that um we have good position control and that we're accounting for every dollar. and where things can be funded through other

sources that is not general fund is also being evaluated. Um so there is a massive amount of work going on right now that [snorts] um is sort of working in tandem that we think will benefit this overall conversation. Um but the important takeaway from it is just this is not business as usual than looking for some adjustments to pay. We're also looking at the duties of employees, making sure that they are fully utilized. Um, and that is causing some additional readjustments and smoothing out. So, we will have more information on that at your March work session. Um, but uh just know that um that is that is underway. So, if the living wage uh philosophy is implemented in whole, we would be looking to align our pay scales with the 60% AMI for all full-time employees, which would mean the minimum annual salary would move to 45,531. Uh these are just an example of some of the positions that um would be impacted by it, but we are looking to also remove some of the lower pay grades to essentially help boost everybody up. We don't feel like that creates any equity issues for those based on the duties that are expected. Um but it is uh adjusting at the bottom of the pay scale and I'll show you that in a few slides. So, mayor, to your question earlier, when you talk about raising the floor, this would be raising the floor from $37,980 up to $45,572 and then rebasing all of the pay grades uh from there. So, if there's a 5%

distance between each grade, then that would apply to the new pay scales. Um, [cough] we did narrow some of the pay scales in terms of their maximum allowable dollar figure to help make sure that the dollars that we're asking council to invest are being driven down to the lowest paid positions in the organization. This is not a money grab for our highest paid employees. Um, we're looking to really invest these dollars in the lower grades on the pay scale. And to that point, there would be a $15,000 cap on any increase that anybody could receive. Um, so this is not going to result in a 20, 30, $40,000 pay increase for anybody at the executive level or a higher management level. They will be capped. They will still be within their pay grade, but they will not move the way that other employees who are making less would move. This is really little. you have a print out in your sheet. Um, but I just want to point out a couple of things about this in reference to what I just talked about. Um, so if you look at the um far right column um it says spread. So spread is the um the distance between minimum and maximum of a pay scale. And in our existing salary scales that is not um consistent across all paygrades. And so you have particularly at the higher pay grades you have a very notable spread which my understanding of that was uh perhaps that came about years ago to help account for how low our wages were that it created some of these higher ability for some of the executive positions. Um, but what it

would do if we didn't correct it is it would um, uh, kind of create numbers that are just outside of where they need to be for our highest paid positions. So, if you look at the far right column to the the furthest right of your your sheet, um, this is the proposed pay scales. And you'll see that that spread is consistent across all pay grades. So, for some of the lower pay grades, we're actually increasing the spread. So, they'll have a higher top amount. Um, but we are limiting how high some of the top paid positions would be able to go um under this new plan to just keep things contained. Any questions about that before I move on?

Are there um people who would get a um pay decrease from this change? No. So, um if if you are shifting your entire set of pay scales by 20%.

Everybody moves with it. Um but what we would do is for essentially anybody making above $75,000 a year, their pay increase would be capped at $15,000. So instead of getting 20% increase that equates to, you know, 20 grand, 30 grand, 40 grand, they would be capped at 15,000. And that would apply to everybody making more than $75,000 a year. So if you make below 75,000, you would move with your pay grade. And so if you're if this is your minimum and this is where you are in the pay grade, it's just going to do this. And so you would move with the pay grade. And so those are the costs that have all been calculated of what is what is the difference in new salary versus old salary add benefits and then that is how we come up with the total cost of implementation.

[clears throat]

So the impacts that we would see if we do implement this would be that 100% of our employees would earn at least 60% AMI and uh we currently have 1,145 people on staff. Um and that is an improvement from 85% right now. It would also improve a number of our employees and lift them above the 80% AMI, which is really where in an ideal world we would want everybody to be. Um, but that does increase us. So that's 74% of our workforce would now be above 80% AMI, which is $60,78 a year. Right now, um, only 47% of our staff are higher than 80% AMI. We look at first responders. Uh we know that it's that's an important sector of our workforce that council likes to look at. Um first responders make up 65% of our staff. Um right now uh 16% make less than 60% AMI. This would increase it to 100%. And then um 39% of them make above 80% AMI. this would improve it to 70%. So significant [snorts] gaps uh would be filled with this [clears throat] and the average first responder increase would be a 19.3% pay increase. So the the difference in this philosophy is that we're really looking at living wage first and then we're looking at what it has or what it does to our market competitiveness. Um and so what we're really saying is um we're every single year we would want to look at living wage and make adjustments

according to that. Um and then if there's room for merit pools on top of it that's great. Inflation will always play a role in that, but that's really where we look first instead of the historic approach is to kind of look at your neighbor and look at your neighbor and be like, well, how, you know, can we get above them? Can we not? And then if they go up $200 and all of a sudden they're ahead of you, then, you know, oh gosh, you know, it can be this kind of race to the top. We're kind of taking that off of the table. We want to still pay attention to it to make sure that we're where we want to be or somewhere in that ballpark, but that really becomes less of the conversation. Uh but we do still want to look at it for the uh benefits of this exercise um uh particularly through the framework of um field operations uh which is our frontline workers and public works, parks and engineering as well as our police officers and firefighters. So, uh, the city minimum right now is, um, 37,980 and the benchmark average, um, which again is going to be your highest and your lowest and everybody in between. Um, the benchmark average is 40,000. And, uh, so this would lift us up above the, uh, average in the field uh, moving to 45531 uh, for uh, the first group of employees. The second group uh would move them from 39852 to 47819. The benchmark average is 43723. And uh some of these are where we have our largest number of vacancies. So we are just not we're not getting applications in these positions right now. They trickle in. Um and these are um core services that people very much expect to occur. Um, and then the positions at N5, our current minimum is 41870, benchmark average is 44666, and the proposed minimum would c them up to 50,252.

Before we leave this slide, can you tell us which of these positions are vacant and have no applicants? The ones that are the the most hard to fill would be your public works operator one and two. Those are in streets and storm water. of those positions require a CDL um which is a very highly soughtafter uh skill license. And so you can see those are the the largest ones. Um and um also on this list would be we we do struggles with our our grounds technicians and tree trimmers filling those. But the the largest the hardest to fill are those um uh public works operators ones and twos. Again, those CDL holders,

recycling and trash operators. Recycling trash operators fall into that um that operator too. They also have a CDL requirement. So, sorry. [clears throat] They have the CDL requirement, but are they not getting applicants? We're having a hard time. Thank you. Do we work with the um community college to employ some of those that are going through the program for CDLs? We [snorts] actually have our own CDL training program we implemented a couple years ago. Um we do have people that are are currently going through that successful through that. Um we do post our jobs with Cape Pier Community College. Um but uh but we have found success doing it in house internally.

Unfortunately what ends up happening is um they get the CDL which then makes them marketable and then I remember and then they they leave for more money. That's what we're trying to prevent. How much more money are they leaving for? Do you know? Depends on what they're doing. some of the long haul trucking um can be very lucrative. Yeah. Um so it's easy.

Yeah. Um so we know some folks have left for that. But even like local delivery routes essentially if if you're a a CDL driver in the private sector, so lots of competition. Um if you're a a CDL driver in the private sector, you're you're going to be making more than this typically. Um you're probably looking at north of 50 um if not north of 60. There's also the benefit of the [clears throat] hours that public sector work offers and the benefits. And so the struggle for some of them we've found is it's the inpocket. So it could be they're leaving for a few dollars because it's what's going into their pocket as opposed to because we have great retirement and those pieces

they're not thinking but they're not thinking about that. It's handtomouth. So it's that they could be leaving for just a handful of dollars. Um, but there, you know, and it really doesn't make sense, but it does because it's going in their pocket as opposed to retirement and those kinds of things. I got a feed now versus I've got a feed now versus later. So, we've seen that as well. Is there a budget? I'm sorry. Is there a bonus structure with that as well? Uh, a like a in what way?

In a retention way or any way to keep and retain or retain our our CDL drivers? We've created um uh some levels within public works. So you see operator 1, two, three, four. And so as they obtain new skills and and and so they get CDL, they can move up to an operator one. They learn how to operate certain pieces of equipment, they can go to an operator 2. Is there a time limit on that? Like, oh, you have to be in this operator one role for, you know, six months to a year and then you could go to that. There are. Yes, there are time limits in some of these positions. Um, and then there's others where we'll hire you off the street as long as [clears throat] you have a CDL.

Should we consider removing some of those time limits so in order to retain those CDL drivers? Absolutely. We we've we currently look at all of our job descriptions and we obvious we we make sure that what's required for that job is is necessary. And so a lot of times if you come to the city and yes, it might take you a year or two to get your CDL, but the operator 2 only requires two years. As long as you have that skill set to operate the equipment at level three, you can you already have that base experience, you can automatically move into that level three position. Okay. Thank you.

Looking at police officer starting pay, the lefthand column is currently where we sit at our starting pay. Um, which is in alignment with the old pay philosophy of looking to be middle of the market. um this [snorts] is considered the the market that we look at which is a combination of our our closest neighbors as well as um some comparably sized communities around the state. Um we don't know what everyone is going to be looking to do as part of FY27. So we can't compare it uh to what they might be doing. Um, but we do just want to show uh that it would provide a a significant leap in being able to be a market leader in this area that um we think would have a [clears throat] significant impact on our ability to recruit and maintain officers, particularly given what we're asking them to do. Um the workload, the call volume, the types of cases that they're working. Um it is a significant commitment to be [snorts] working in the city of Wilmington and um so this would be the impact of the movement in the pay plan.

I'm sorry. Is there is this is different. Is the PowerPoint updated since it was printed? What's which one's correct? It's 62593. So the slide is correct on the screen. Okay.

[clears throat] So, even better for us. Yes. And then firefighter pay under this new philosophy. Again, we are middle of the road where we currently sit. Um, and this number is correct. 58036 would be the starting point for a firefighter under this new. These tables are the firefighter tables. It was repeated under the police. We have the same table. Sorry about that. It's okay. [snorts] If you could just send us the updated one. Absolutely.

Becky, um, I appreciate you making connection for us between affordable housing and our salaries. And uh so I wanted to see if you knew approximately, especially with our emergency responders, a percentage of police and firefighters that live in the city or even in um our county. So I don't know about fire. I was told just the other day um now this was this was anecdotal, but it was uh from uh deputy chief that 12 of our police officers live in the city. Oh, I see. Uh, Captain Dawson, that's probably Wait, say that again. 12 12 12%.

No, 12 people. 12 12 people from WPD live in the city. Correct. [laughter] Uh, Chief Mason, do you have any idea about firefighters? I do not. We can get that out for you. Yep. We can get we'll have to get the number of firefighters, but we are we are aware of some at least anecdotally who travel significant distances to come to work.

And along those same lines, we had a couple of years ago um Chief Williams brought to us a proposal to take to the endowment regarding supplemental housing assistance for police officers. How any status on that? It was a grant he was requesting. I don't think it ever went anywhere. It was supposed to be in combination. I think it was also working with the hospital Novant at the time. I'm trying to I don't know if anybody out there remembers it, but it was specifically applying for a grant to look at housing options to subsidize um police officers um in the area coming in living in the city. I don't think it went anywhere

or if we ever finished that application. I think there were some other constraints that went along with it. Okay. Um, but I think it was also in partnership or looking at it with the hospital who was also looking at their workforce too. Is that ringing a bell, Tom? It's all coming back, but it was something along those lines. But we can continue to look at some of those options in the future as we as we go. Thank you.

This is not cheap. Um, we knew that when we started to look at this, but the um, you know, a different way to say it would be that we are off by 17.3 million. If we want to move to this particular philosophy, um we have spent a great deal of time pulling out the salaries that are funded by other revenue sources so that the general fund impact is as low as possible. With that, we're still currently at 14.6 million. And again, um, as we refine our positions [clears throat] and our reorg, we, uh, are hoping to lower that number if there are positions that we could sort of hand back, um, to lower that we would not need to, uh, continue with those positions. Um, and just to be super clear, uh, sidebar on the org chart, nobody is losing their job. There are no riffs. um if you are employed by the city of Wilmington, you will continue to be employed by the city of Wilmington. So when we talk about potentially handing back some positions, they would be vacant positions. Um so I just want to make sure that that is abundantly clear. We have messaged that to our staff um want to make sure council knows that and the community knows that that we're not um getting rid of anybody um as a part of any process. [clears throat]

Nor are we reducing anybody's pay. So nobody nobody is being demoted or or or taking a cut in pay relative to their their position relative to any changes in the structure out of the 1100 employees I know a lot of them were in public safety in regards to the police department but overall be be besides the police department the ones that you've evaluated let's just say that have been open for more than two years Becky how many do we know how many that how many that

there's there's a handful probably a dozen or so that have lived in that and those are a lot of the ones that we've talked about with the RTS and the and the and the field service workers and those sorts of things. And so part of that is is we're gaining some of these efficiencies by putting all the people with mowers as Becky likes to say in one group that maybe you don't need as many people mowing and then you can look at those vacancies and say do we really need those positions because we can't fill them anyway. Should we reclassify them, repurpose them, or or just do away with them if we're having that much trouble and we're successfully completing the mission? Do do those v are those real vacancies?

And then I would imagine you've also evaluated how much can be outsourced. I was imagining that is an ongoing that is an ongoing conversation which would obviously just shift it from a salary cost to true I understand but but as you need it is what it goes to. Yes.

So the general fund impact as mentioned the $14.6 million total is what we're looking at for general fund. Um, we're calling this a worstcase tax rate adjustment that is equivalent to 4.1 pennies per 100. Um, excuse [clears throat] me. Why we're calling that worst case? [clears throat] Excuse me. Why we're why why we are calling that worst case is this continued evaluation of positions. Um, and also uh what we will achieve in natural growth in our revenues. Um we don't want to uh count on that uh because we haven't gone through the budgeting process to know what other natural increases and costs, contract increases, maintenance cost increases, just uh regular impact to operations that we experience on an annual basis. We do have um a few additional initiatives that we are looking to bring forward as part of the budget process. some expanded mental health services for our first responders that will have a cost associated with it. So, we want to kind of preserve that natural growth until we're further in the budget process. Um, but we feel comfortable that we could say worst case scenario would be an increase of 4.1. Uh, but we are going to be refining that over the coming months. It would only go down. We are committing that it will not go up.

Do you have a best case? I know I know you just explained that why that's not on the slide, but I'm just curious. I I would I would be thrilled to bring you three cents, [clears throat] but that's over $3.5 million that we would need to find in a variety of ways to be able to get it done to three cents. [clears throat] I have a I have a couple questions. Um, first I know this is really focused on wages and I understand it's the money in pocket that is really going to help with retention, but what's the what is the value of our benefits package as it relates to total compensation?

Yeah, we can calculate that and kind of build it into the total cost and kind of how we're how we compare against our competitors because you've got things like the deferred compensation that we pay our employees um which is another huge benefit and then you got our our benefits we look at. So, but we do look at the total benefits package and we are actually looking at our health insurance this year to make sure that we're offering a competitive package that's affordable. Last year, we council just invested money to reduce our premiums for employees which saved them $600 a year which was huge. So, we do look at the whole package and we can certainly look at a calculation and show you what that total cost would be and how we compare to our competitors.

And these numbers we have for police and fire, that's just wages. That's not a total benefits number. But I will say that in terms of deferred comp, um it's pretty uh we're we're pretty we're very competitive when it comes to deferred compensation here at the city. Um in terms of police and fire and what we offer others of what those do. My other question in an earlier slide you made reference to uh folks depending on overtime and second jobs. Do we know how many city employees have a second job? Is that something that they don't they do have to fill out a employ the secondary employment form so we can kind of pull in and see how many we might have.

I it is I I would say it is um uncommon to not have a police officer or a firefighter in particular working either all the overtime they can get or they have a second job. Um uh you know lawn care, construction, um there's there's a lot of extra work going in um that that keeps them away from home. It would just be interesting to see those numbers so that we know how much that really is impacting our staff. Sure.

Be there was a comment and I think about on the package the total package people more concerned about having the money in their pocket as opposed to down the road when I retire whenever I'm going to retire.

Is that something that resonates? It seems because I I remember we had this conversation about with with New Hover County in regards to the sheriff's department, police department, how they were giving $1,000 more, but they weren't giving same compensation package on retirement as a as a way that that was moving their numbers up and moving our numbers down. Does that still resonate that way? Do we have to be that heavy duty on on on retirement? So, kind of shift some of that away. So retirement rates are set by the state state understand that

so we don't have an impact on that uh related to the deferred compensation the contributions to 401k um it is normal um to be around 5% for all employees across the state. We're at 4 and a half% for all employees and then police officers get an additional 5% 5% on top of that. It's that 5% for police officers that would be, I would say, over and above what you are typically finding in most other communities. Um, uh, but that would only apply to police officers. So, there's nobody else in the city that receives that.

And with that, we're still having challenges recruiting and retaining police officers. And there's still more work to do on our benefits package. Clayton mentioned that that that's one area that we have found that we're not as competitive as we could be. Uh and we're continuing I mean it's good coverage but in terms of the cost and affordability in those pieces

and that that the narrative from employees is that our health insurance is not affordable. Um they um they they struggle with the costs um and um and then like the premiums went down but then some of the uh deductibles went up. So if you if you don't use it, your cost out of pocket did lower, but if you do have to use it, it then took more for the full coverage to kick in. So it it's kind of six in one hand, half dozen on the other. Um, but to increase the health insurance benefits that is uh going to we're going to have regular increases because they're going they're skyrocketing every year like everybody's. but then to actually make a better plan will eat into some of that natural growth that uh we are expecting in the budget. So that's why we're trying to preserve it until we get those numbers back. I perfect world and I realize um we don't always get to have a perfect world but um looking to take care of both to the extent that we possibly can would be ideal. looking at um the actual impact on the tax rate in terms of [clears throat] annual and monthly costs. This is again looking at the median assessed value of a residential home in the city is $445,600. The current tax rate is 0.2825. And so that is an annual cost of 1259 and a monthly cost of 105. The uh tax adjustment [clears throat] would uh if we were to add the 4.1

cents, it would be an additional $183, which is equivalent of $15 a month on the average residential assessed value. happy to answer any additional questions.

Sobering. So you folks have comments in here. Um I understand the significance of a wage. How how much money did we spend last? Repeat that again. I can't I couldn't hear the last part of it. How how much money did we spend last year with pay increase? We did this last year. That's right.

Some of them went up. I think it was it was I don't have a seven and a half% on average. Yeah. So I don't have No. I mean million millions. How much did you spend overall? How many millions of dollars total total total? Right. I'm we're trying we don't have that on top of our heads. Um, Heather, do you know I I don't I don't I don't understand how I'm coming to a budget meeting and we don't have the the things that we need, right? Because this is important. Sure is.

This is important. This is extremely important, right? And we can go around facilities all day long and put them in presentations and that'll make things look really smooth. But let's get to what what what we're actually spending, what we spent, and what we're looking to spend. because I that's super important, right?

And and it really does frame the conversation that we're having. I'll be honest. I don't know how anybody else still in the room, right? I'm kind of tired, right? And I and I and I I'm a proponent for livable wage. I'm a proponent for people who work for the city of Wilmington to make great pay, right? I want I I look at that the rate of Wilmington that I look at the book of business every single year and I go right to where is the city of Wilton? Where are we? I look at that because it's important. [clears throat] I I I talk to people in in in our recreational facilities. I talk to people who work in storm water and trash. I talk to people throughout our organization, right? and they all want to make more money. But I I I just I think the missing piece of this conversation is that we do this every single year and we frame it around the conversation that people are leaving our organization and they are. And I know every year somebody gets mad at me for saying, "I don't care. Get mad. I'm going to piss somebody off." I know there's no way I'm gonna sit in this seat and not piss anybody off. But it's for a greater cause, right? So what what what are we doing? What are we trying to do? How how do we get to the point of where we want to be? And we go one year without having this conversation that says we're losing people because they're going other places. But that's what that's what employees do. So, if if I may, Mayor Prom, I understand I wasn't here for prior budget conversations, but the biggest issue from my perspective is that we're starting from a losing proposition with

how low our existing pay rates are. If somebody's making $38,000 a year and they get a 9% pay increase and the headline is 9% pay increase, people may say [snorts] that's a huge pay increase. But 9% of $38,000 a year is a pittance. And so what we are trying to do is look through a different lens to raise the floor to a base [snorts] level that then in future years if there are increases we're starting from a position of strength. Whereas right now we are clawing and scrambling to try to make improvements, but we're starting from such a low place that it doesn't actually move the needle in terms of recruitment and retention.

Great. But every year when we move the needle, right, we move the we I've been on council how long? Six years. We move the needle every year. And how are we at a lower place than next year than we were in year before we moved to because of because of the inflation. Like I'm I'm not to cause living inflation u just inflation in general, right? But it can't be said or not said that we're not doing anything. And again, I want to see the people in our organization get to a normal wage. At what cost? At what cost? Because I think that's a that's a question that needs to be had and that's a conversation that needs to be had. At what cost? Because every year someone can come back and say, "Well, you know what? I just this is just not making it for me." I mean, who who's to say? I may once this meeting is over, I may message my boss and tell them to go, I just can't live like this anymore. So, the nobody is saying that council hasn't made significant strides in prior budgets, but this is a different philosophy to take where the previous adopted philosophy was middle of the market. And if we are expecting to be able to recruit and retain excellent employees, middle of the market pay is not going to be enough. It's just not. Um, middle of the road will get you middle of the road with some shining exceptions, but otherwise that is going to be what you're aiming for. And that is not the kind of organization that I think council expects us to have.

[clears throat] certainly not what the community expects us to have and not what I expect us to have. Um so what we are looking at is changing to a different philosophy that then we will look at our neighbors um to make sure that we're staying where we need to be. But otherwise the litmus test will be what is living wage doing from year to year. And so, um, if inflation [clears throat] is really high one year in a future year, that could cause us to have to make additional large strides, but it's based on changes to that foundational uh, AMI that we are using as an outside basis for where should we be, where do we need to be if we're committing to this as a core value for the city of Wilmington. Um, and that's what drives the conversation. um uh instead of you know is 3% enough or is 6% enough. Ultimately I understand that that comes down to dollars and cents. Um but this is not a lens that the city has has ever looked at this through. Um and it's one that um you know from my position I think aligns with a lot of the other conversations that we're trying to have around affordability and uh expectations for performance. and we we need to make sure that we've got qualified people to do the work. So, in terms of what it's going to cost, you know, we looked at the 4.1 cents as the worst case scenario, um which, uh, you know, is about $15 a month. And on the slide that's up right now, um, council was interested in, uh, some phased approaches or thinking about it if particularly if we're not able to lower that number significantly. Um, you know, the the problem is every month, every year that we're behind, we just continue to slip behind. So, the recommendation is to fully implement this philosophy as part of the FY27 budget because it would

prevent a tax increase two years in a row for residents related to uh any kind of wage inflation, any kind of wage inflation, and it allows us to achieve that competitiveness. Now, if that is not something that council can support, fully understand that. Um, but in that case, this is something that we would still hope to be able to achieve in time. Just may take us a little bit longer to get there. In that case, there's a phased approach at the bottom of the screen. Um, that would have some increases this year as well as next year. have a question. If this is implemented in FY27, would this be in place of any merit or cost of living increases for that fiscal year or an addition to? I would consider it your cost of living increase.

Okay. Um and so we know this is way too expensive to also fund a merit pool. So this would be this would be in place of both of those. This would be in place of both of those. This would be the adjustment made to wages for the FY27 budget. Period. Thank you. I think the book is if we were going into business as the city today, where would we be wanting to set the salaries [clears throat] for the people that we're trying to hire? Last year, we just to go back to that question, it was 8.

8.6 million is what was invested. We took looking at the because we were looking at that point our comp philosophy was to be at the 50th percentile. Um but looking at where inflation was last year, we landed at a 5% market increase for all employees. So we moved our ranges last year 5% if you recall there was no merit. That was the increase for all employees. Inflation was higher than that five. So we we to the point we are and council we thank you have continued to invest in employees. We're just not we have not been able based on our current philosophy to keep up um in terms of that. So last year it was 8.6 uh and it was a 5% based on moving the the ranges uh so we could stay competitive but also moving employees and there [clears throat] was no additional merit that was given last year. We also did make some changes to health insurance council did do that so thank you as well. So we invested some resources there too. Um but that that was the philosophy at the time which is different than um than this. So

and it it is hard to go a year let alone two without a merit pool. It it in terms of uh pay philosophy. Um it does make it difficult because people are not then moving into their scales which then frees up sort of the space at the bottom to be bringing in new employees. Um it it's really just a a funding decision because this number is so big

um that we feel like the it's more important to get us to the level that we feel like we need to be and then in future years looking to make any adjustments based on AMI and then uh having an additional merit pool to go on top of that to reward particularly exceptional employees. fees. Um it it's just too expensive to seriously consider it at this point in time. Well, it's a totally different philosophy and we've never seen this before. So, we've always played kind of middle of the road.

Uh and we've always chased it and every time there's an adjustment made in another community around us, we're over there chasing that

and you're trying to be the leader in that. So, so looking to be the leader um uh and and asserting ourselves that that is our intention that we will continue to to follow this model. Um so, you know, people people can chase if they want to. You know, that's up to each individual community, but these are the thresholds that we're going to set. This is how the pay scale will lay out and that number will land where it lands. Um you know, if if Leland, as an example, because obviously they could help [clears throat] us uh quickly, you know, by by $100. Um it would not be rushing back to council and saying, "Oh my gosh, we need to then make adjustments." This is saying, "What do we need in our community to be able to afford to survive?" Um and what do we think is appropriate for that particular position in addition to the culture that we're building and the expectations that we're setting. basically then like we hold the line and it happens to put us in a position of strength. Um but we are really looking at it um through this through this lens instead of worrying about $100, $200, whatnot. Because if we're doing the other things that we need to do, if we can get pay up to a certain level, I don't expect people to be jumping for $100. um because the basic needs are at least met right now with the needs not being met, that $100 can feel worth it.

I can appreciate the long-term value of that philosophy as well, which is basing wages based on what it costs to live here, not necessarily the decisions the folks next door are making. Um I I can understand the long-term benefits of that.

Not just funding, but just the benefit of people who work here being able to live here. I think the strategy and the philosophy make a lot of sense particularly when we have people in emergency services who have chosen like a vocation or a calling and I think about this through the lens of having family members who are teachers of if you have chosen like this is my calling this is my profession I'm going to be in it even when I get basically abused by my employer like yeah the employer needs to step up and so when we're looking at 65% of our workforce being in that vocational category I think this is the right Thank you. We agree and um the Sorry, I totally lost my train of thought. Um I had a really good point. Um uh the um it'll come back to me. I'll move on.

I'll just add that um attrition also very expensive. Yes. I measurably. Yes. Yes. So is recruitment. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And and I I remember the point. Thank you for that. Um

got you. We we have people who want to stay police officers, who want to stay firefighters, who have told us, and I've experienced this in other communities, this is not necessarily unique to Wilmington, but you know, they are having to leave that vocation where their heart is because they can't afford it. And so the fewer people that we have leaving for that reason where they're completely getting out of law enforcement or they're completely getting out of fire service uh because they need to go make more money for their family. If we can do as much as possible to have them not have to make that decision and they can stay with that chosen passion uh and vocation, then you know that's also a great thing. So thank you. And we have recruiters and like police that are talking to [clears throat] candidates that want to come to Wilmington, but they can't because of the wages. And so we really think this philosophy is really going to help attract new people here as well as retaining does both.

I think it would be really helpful to see anecdotally I totally understand that. I think it would be really helpful to see how many folks were missing out on because of wages. Like it would be great to see the data there. Yeah. Um to support that um that story. So we we we know that anecdotally. I I think the other thing is we don't know who's seeing the posted wage and moving on. Sure. Right. But if somebody gets far far enough along in the process where they're able to say, boy, I want to do this, but I just can't make the math work, um it would be useful to collect that data.

Um for a living wage, I think this is a great philosophy to um take. I am um I'm gonna go back on something that Kevin I'm sorry mayor pro Tim stated during our last council meeting and this is just on the outside looking in as a citizen when we look at a lot of the projects that we're funding which people don't know what we go through and how we do it and how we're robbing Peter to pay Paul in order to [clears throat] make things happen. Um, you know, again, we have to be able to tell how the sausage is made um to our citizens, our constituents about why we're doing what we're doing in order to bring this to fruition. Correct. And so, I just want to be clear that we we make sure that we're communicating that, you know, it's I don't want it to be clear as mud. I want it to be clear as water. Clean water by CFPU. [laughter] Um, so pun intended. Um, but you know, I'm all for making sure that we increase these wages. It makes sense. Um, and there's not too many people that can afford to live here at this point, and I've said this during my campaign as well. Um, keep in mind that we do have some projects that are huge that again we were talking about what could come off the table, what could stay on the table and um look at finding funding um in some of these places where we're not trying to increase the tax rate. Just a thought.

Absolutely. Absolutely. I have a I'm sorry. So, go ahead. I just wanted to add on to what council member Joiner was saying about um you know callings and and we do see that in in certain professions and some of them are hard to fill. But I also want to say that I have seen this across the board in everybody uh that works in public service that there are a lot of job jobs in this organization where people could make more money working for the private sector. But you all have a calling to some extent and you are you are doing this because you want to be here and you ought to be paid fairly as well. Yeah, I agree. Thank you.

Um my request uh is related to the phased approach. It would be useful to know what the implementation strategy looks like there just for a point of comparison. Um I agree with what folks have said. The the work that our staff does is so important. Um, we have to acknowledge that and we need people to be able to afford to live for the work that they're doing, the incredible work that they're doing. But I think just in terms of understanding the math and how that works, I would love to see some of these charts with that approach. Sure.

Let me just say this. I don't want anybody to get it misconstrued to think that I don't support pay increases. But it's it's it's not detrimental to ask how we want to do, right? Sure. Yeah.

It's definitely not. And so u again year after year we've done it and and if we've done it incorrectly, then okay, address it. But I mean it's always going to be something. And I'm not saying that it's not important, but it's always going to be something. There's always going to be a level internal, right? There's always going to be somebody who says, "Well, you know, go over here, get $2 more in my pocket. It's just it's this life." So, yeah, I agree with us trying to be, you know, the organization in this region. Well, I mean that's we're not competing with you. People don't mention Leon when they mention Wilson, they mention Raleigh, they mention Charlotte, they mention Haworn, whatever. So, you know, I understand but there there are dynamics that different, you know, what Charlotte has to but whatever mechanism that they have to pay better than what Wilmington has is is really different. So, it's it's going to take some investment. I understand that. So, I'm just saying I don't want anybody to be mad and say that I don't support increases or minimum wage because I do. Um I I would much rather I' I've been on the record of asking we're paying one person uh a certain salary. Could we not get other folks at different levels in the organization? We could get more people for the salary of one person, but that's another conversation. But either way, I can defend whatever I say or my sentence

towards anything. So I I do want to put it out. I I appreciate that, Mayor Prom. I I I don't want to be argumentative, but we do lose we do lose police officers to Leland. We we lost five last year to Leland. But appreciate appreciate your other points. I will let it go. I I understand you saying I could go on and on. I know. I know. I hopefully I'm in a good uh place with police department. have to look at it before.

Becky, when y'all when you folks are are going to come back with the final um tabulation on this thing, you're going to go through all of the the um the jobs, all of the employees, the ones that haven't been filled for two years that we've appropriated funded to evaluate how much we can reduce it to hopefully. Also, I would like to see some% I mean, I know it's kind of sometimes a stab in the dark, but some some percentage of what you perceive to be the growth rate. Yeah. Because I think that's an important distinction that we ought to talk about. We don't have annexation at and we're pretty much locked in now.

Um, and I know River Lights is coming to an end and I know we we've had a pretty good run there with the amount of development that's taking place there and the tax base that has grown there and helped us, but what does that overall look like to us from a from a growth potential because it's not only to do with salaries. You also got a pretty big CIP projects here moving forward and we've got a lot of people using this city every single day that are not residents of this city. That's right.

And these police officers and fire officers and I remember when chief evangelist here I think 52% of the accidents that happen in this city are not even of city residents. It's people that are visiting the community or from the outside. We hate to take care of them but it's a cost. So I like to see what that growth rate is. And then in regards to the sales tax revenue, I know that we used to get those numbers from the state. I know the county gets 80, we get 20 based on per capita or avalorum taxes. They go with the Avalor taxes, which makes them get 80% of them. So when we go up on our rates, I understood that we also get a a bigger percentage of the sales tax revenue if we go up and they don't go up. But they use another mechanism by by their fire tax and if they go up on the fire tax then they get a little bit more of that.

So it lags by a year. By a year it lags by a year. You don't feel Yeah. It's a it's a meandering path of calculations to figure out the impact. But it's is it we may even be getting less than 20. We may be getting 17. I don't know because I think the state quit doing giving us those numbers years ago. I believe on purpose I believe so they could tell cities hold us wise.

Um I I know early predictors the sales tax revenue is um expected to level off dramatically. We had kind [snorts] of multiple years of really significant growth and it's it's leveled out. So we're not going to see the 15% you know year-over-year like we were for for a little while. ABC stuff. um that's been increasing. So, so ABC stuff has been increasing, but then you um have other like intergovernmental uh revenues that are actually decreasing. So, telecommunications tax is offsetting it. So,

um the uh the League of Municipalities uh puts out a good publication at the end of March that gives a pretty comprehensive look at uh what you can expect in all of those various revenue lines. that tends to be a good source to to have an indicator on it. But yeah, we're happy to bring as much as we can. So, you've given us some options here. We can either take two bites at the apple or we take one bite at the apple and do it all at one time. Do the [snorts] living wage deal and then possibility I don't know how we will do on the CIP. CIP CIP the recommendation right now is path of

6161 um and then you know there's some other big ticket conversations to have with council um at later dates related to um I'd say paving budgets and um transit in particular if um council's interested in changing some of those funding philosophies that would be additional impacts if you want and I guess the other thing is that we don't know right now is federal level with FEMA. I mean, which is another concern of mine because we've got a lot of money set aside for for those kind of emergencies and if FEMA's not going to be there, what and I don't even know what that would look like without getting the reimbursement from the state and the federal government.

It it would be devastating, you know, if if you get particularly if we got more than one storm in a season. Um it it could readily wipe out our fund balance. Um and then without it being replenished and it's not just FEMA, it's all the federal agencies that we are depending on for so much of our budget for so many of these things that big question.

Yeah. So I I [snorts] in talking with uh Martha about fund balance um you know I think the the more we can at least try to hold the line um is is wise. I don't know if we're in much of a capacity to add significantly to it um intentionally. Um but uh we are hoping to end this year with at least the ability to put some unused funds into fund balance that would help offset any expenditures that we've had over the course of the year. What is that number right now, Mark? Is it what's the percentage on on the on the fund balance?

Uh so we ended June 30, 2025 with 25.27% 27%. Our policy is to be between 20 to 25%. But as we alluded, well, as Becky was just alluding to, one of our biggest concerns is potential impacts of hurricanes or some other type of disaster hitting our area. Right now, we're very fortunate in that the state picks up 25% of the cost and FEMA is 75%. State portion is never guaranteed. And so that's kind of an event bye-vent basis. Um we have already used some of our fund balance this year and so far to date I want to say it's around 1.9 million that we have already kind of um used. portion of that was for software costs related to the um new radios for public safety and then we just appropriated the million for the potential park.

How about on the [clears throat] social workers? We're going to where we're going to do some of that. So So that is included. So the the four social workers are included in our budgets for FY27. So yeah, they're covered. the bond agencies when they're looking at us on our fund balance and all of that. I'm sure they're calculating all that. We're we're AAA.

We are currently AAA. Um I will be talking a little bit about that at the one of the upcoming meetings. Um we work with our financial advisors um with any new issuance. We will be going out for um new ratings and so we will be going out to S&P and Moody's again this year. Um we do work with our financial advisors because there are certain qualitative but then there's a lot of quantitative aspects that they look at and so we try to do our best to stay and maintain that rating. So the the rating between a three and a two, let's just say in regards to borrowing capacity as to what you can borrow, what are you getting 25 basis points? Is it does it make a difference or does it really make a difference?

I can have some additional conversations with our advisor. Typically the rates will be higher. um if you're, you know, triple bond rating, you have a lower rate, but I can talk to them and see um what it might look like. Just out of curiosity. I don't know that right off the top of my We used to be two for a while and then we moved up to three. Um I mean that's the best you can get. Yes, it is. So, and whenever we're doing our modeling for, you know, what our what the [snorts] capacity is, we're working with them to try to maintain that three if possible.

So, the according to Google AI, uh the the difference between a rated and then a double A+ is probably what you would be down to as opposed to a straight double A. Uh the difference is anywhere between six and 25 basis points. [snorts] That also speaks to why we didn't want to exhaust the surplus with the CIP stuff and that was why we were proposing the 61 instead of the the.5.

I just have a bigger concern with what what the feds are going to do because nobody knows from FEMA and that's a big issue for all because are we going to have to replenish this every year? Is the state going to kick up more money? They've got $60 billion worth of damage in the western part of the state. Where are we with that? I mean, and if we get hit down here and they got two whamies,

and I I will tell you, we have had conversations with our advisors trying to think through of potential alternatives if we were to have to go that route. It's something we obviously don't want to, but it is something that we're trying to keep in the back of our mind and have a plan for if the worst case scenario were to come into play. So we are thinking about it. We just hope it we don't need to go that route. Okay. Does it [snorts] as far as uh formal presentations? Um

um I have something that's not on the agenda, but I don't know when else to do it. And historically at budget meetings, we've had like a Q&A, anything else from council members. So I'm going to do that now. Um, my understanding is that the film partnership of North Carolina had a contract with the city and the county and maybe some state funds in there that is expiring at the end of this year. They're my understanding is that they were expecting that to be reinitiated through the state, which is now not going to happen because of the lack of a budget. So, they needed a different initiation. They need a different jumping off point to figure out whether or not they're going to get renewed. And it's a $1,000. It's a $100,000 workforce investment to get people trained to work in the film industry and all of the funds do have to be spent within the city if we contribute them. Um, so I I want to make sure that we know what steps need to be taken for them to renew their funding since that's something that's in our legislative priorities this film.

David, when you say the money has to be spent the city, that's for residents of the city. I don't know the specifics on whether or not the expenditure has to occur within the city or if it has to be spent towards a city resident. That's a good clarifying question. But for example, like I do know that I think Winston Salem also is one of their um partners and so like our dollars could not be spent Winston Salem and vice versa. Right. Because one thing I like about that program is they pay to people to learn. Right. My my [snorts] understanding is that while they are training they are being paid. [clears throat] They don't have to like take time out of you. They don't have to step away from the workforce to go get training. Yeah, that can be a barrier for the workforce.

What's the name of the What's the name of the film Partnership of North Carolina? I can check into the previous contract we have. Yeah. See what the terms are. Thank you. I'm happy to follow. Thank you. In that information, did you see who helped initiate that? Sir, when you were looking that up, did you see who helped to kick off that initiative? I I think it was a partnership between It was at the state level. Like I know that Governor Cooper, I think, ordained that this entity would exist to do workforce development statewide for film and television. And then different communities throughout the state bought in. And Wilmington was one of those. New Hoverver County was one of those. Yeah.

I'm talking about on the Wilmington level. I don't have I don't have that history. Just ask. We'll find it. Thank you. Any other questions, comments?

You got your work cut out for you. We do. I know. Uh I believe lunch is here. Lunch is here. Um so welcome to stay. Um otherwise I think it's box lunches. Um so if uh you need to go that's okay too. But we appreciate everybody's time. We will meet again in March. Um and we will bring you some more topics of discussion to help inform our budget. So appreciate everyone. Have a good day. Thank you everybody. We need room to stand. We can make some money back here. 8:30 a.m. Monday back in this room for California. Okay, we set a job.