[0:01] no thank

[0:05] you oh

[0:10] shoot

[0:11] he's

[0:13] [Music]

[0:23] thank like to call the connect the city

[0:25] council committee meeting for

[0:28] Friday October 18

[0:31] we have the committee

[0:33] Finance thank you madam president I

[0:35] would like to call finance committee to

[0:38] order and we will continue

[0:42] our budget discussion on the proposed

[0:45] 2025 um budget but before I proceed

[0:52] um don't have a copy of the revised

[0:54] version Derek can we um make a copy of

[0:58] the revised version for dor

[1:02] please it

[1:04] out dor doesn't have a copy and it's

[1:07] kind like you looking for the

[1:08] adjustments from yesterday no the

[1:13] yes John this no no no budget that was

[1:17] um the spreadsheet that he sent for us

[1:20] no no the entire the entire budget that

[1:22] wasion the Revis she means this she

[1:25] means yes revised here you can I'm not

[1:29] using m

[1:30] yeah she dor wasn't here for that she

[1:32] didn't

[1:34] get okay that's

[1:37] okay I do have one someplace and I I

[1:40] don't use

[1:42] it do have she doesn't have a copy of it

[1:46] but how does that differ from I was expl

[1:49] that's trying to exp to that it's not

[1:50] much difference it's just a

[1:53] separation different

[1:56] no separ

[2:00] the so I was talking to Dory today she

[2:01] said she doesn't have a copy that she

[2:03] can

[2:05] discuss so I want to make sure all

[2:07] members have um have a copy available so

[2:11] that will be discussed we do not um put

[2:14] oursel at um disadvantage you want me to

[2:16] print a copy or you want yes I would

[2:18] like one of the council members here uh

[2:21] I would like you to print a copy for me

[2:23] please is yours written on no I've been

[2:25] using you're going to still using my

[2:28] usual one you're going to I'm using

[2:30] one as well so you don't need a copy of

[2:32] the that well i' like a copy of

[2:34] everything that was given out like I

[2:35] said I take mine

[2:38] away

[2:40] yes thank you then she'll have

[2:45] cop okay all right so before the end of

[2:47] the meeting I would like a copy for um

[2:50] to

[2:53] this one two please yes I just want to

[2:57] make sure everybody has all the

[2:58] documentation and

[3:11] [Music]

[3:15] want me to test it for you I'll be like

[3:17] a good everybody else has there still

[3:18] test

[3:22] her you don't like our

[3:24] water um well it's not your water don't

[3:26] take it personal it's just the water on

[3:28] the table

[3:33] water

[3:42] [Music]

[3:46] people this we went through last year

[3:49] you know given the updated stuff out of

[3:52] the charter amendments from 79 which are

[3:56] clear that's

[4:03] this is

[4:04] incorrect he has a charer witer this

[4:09] last year making copies bring it down

[4:12] that's because it's

[4:14] different all

[4:17] right I

[4:24] saw yeah that was reason was like it

[4:27] doesn't buy the last year

[4:31] [Music]

[4:47] going say anony tonight yeah he said

[4:50] last night he wouldn't be

[4:56] here you have your laptop you have yourp

[5:00] ready can't

[5:03] it that's why it asked for $60,000 we're

[5:06] taking CS for the team no that's why I

[5:08] asked for $60,000 upgr all the

[5:11] machine is that time to buy laptop

[5:13] everyone desktops laptops the

[5:17] 6,000 desktop the desktops

[5:29] [Music]

[5:38] security

[5:42] issues there

[5:45] are I thought they weren't going to

[5:47] replace all the desktops some of them

[5:49] would be laptops

[5:59] [Music]

[6:10] don't worry dere you will get a

[6:12] laptop so that mean you will have to

[6:14] work seven days a week really from home

[6:18] yep from your car from hotel

[6:21] from at the L at the beach

[6:34] all right

[7:05] [Music]

[7:21] sit

[7:58] TR that happens

[8:27] I hear

[8:52] oh thank you

[9:00] [Music]

[9:01] okay I think I have

[9:13] [Music]

[9:41] I think I gave too many

[10:24] all right so let's um let's

[10:27] continue you should have in your package

[10:35] some some reports that was requested

[10:38] from last

[10:40] evening and we'll just go through the

[10:42] one with regards to

[10:44] um the salary um recommendation

[11:27] I did have a song I think you did

[11:31] yeah um Mr Williams I think most of

[11:33] these were brought up by you if I'm not

[11:35] mistaken correct me you want to look at

[11:38] it to make sure all are captured in this

[11:40] spere and then Mr Farley you had a one

[11:50] program I just want to add something

[11:52] based on the email that s out all

[11:55] of go ahead please so um everybody email

[11:59] from another staff person the principal

[12:01] planner who was not considered so I

[12:04] would like us to um consider that

[12:07] individual for raise as

[12:11] well they do show up on the sheet that

[12:13] Anthony gave up however it was not part

[12:16] of the

[12:18] recommendation and everybody got the

[12:21] email pleas that email sure sorry I I

[12:25] miss did everyone receive it oh okay yes

[12:28] everyone receive email but uh if you

[12:30] don't mind please it came from Sam

[12:57] [Music]

[13:02] get more

[13:58] m

[14:07] and that line is a 8686 if you need to

[14:10] look in your um Bud

[14:14] documents 86 a 8686

[14:29] what page is that

[14:33] [Music]

[14:35] John

[14:42] 50 right just trying to get

[14:58] their

[15:27] for for

[16:45] take

[17:04] than

[17:47] that

[18:24] this B you just want

[18:26] to that

[18:29] well um as I said this this um

[18:32] individual by their Supervisor was asked

[18:34] to be considered for an increase and um

[18:37] it was did not was not brought forward

[18:40] and so um they were aware they as you

[18:42] can read by the email and um so send

[18:45] this email with more information that I

[18:47] knew anyway uh and asking for an

[18:49] increase and I feel like based on their

[18:51] level of education and their years of

[18:53] service to the city it's not an

[18:55] unreasonable ask and would ask that um

[18:57] council members would

[19:03] that

[19:11] discussion deing just the state of

[19:13] numbers so 2024 salaries

[19:16] 84,3 33 and the proposed salary for 2025

[19:21] is

[19:22] 86,00

[19:26] 863 and the recommendation from you is

[19:29] to bring this up to

[19:31] 10% from

[19:34] 2024 that that would be yes that will

[19:37] bring that number to

[19:43] 9336 that isn't the package on the

[19:48] break that's what I'm getting up

[19:52] from discussion of this

[19:58] well I guess for me it's a little

[20:01] concerning in that um maybe we should

[20:05] have requested our HR department do a

[20:07] market research for every department

[20:10] head administrative positions that we're

[20:13] opening up a door um for administrators

[20:18] just if they don't I mean the the chief

[20:21] executive officer does performance

[20:23] evaluations and judges performance and

[20:25] judges all of those things we don't work

[20:27] with these folks that

[20:29] closely and and can't speak to that I

[20:32] mean I'm sure they're doing great jobs I

[20:35] mean doing your jobs but I think it it just usurps the process and it opens

[20:40] the door for and it puts us in positions

[20:43] for every Department to come up and and

[20:44] know that they're doing great service

[20:46] for the

[20:47] city um and saying no or or or saying

[20:51] yes um and and I think um I mean that

[20:55] that's kind of our job we have that

[20:56] Authority but I'm just concerned concern

[20:58] at the

[20:59] president and their individual cases I'm

[21:02] just concerned that of us doing that

[21:04] then where does it where does it end um

[21:07] and we have to be mindful that we're

[21:09] looking at a tax

[21:10] increase and a significant deficit next

[21:13] year um and going to 10% increases in a

[21:16] time where we're raising taxes is is I

[21:18] think um concerning to me um we thank we

[21:23] only have a couple folks requesting it

[21:25] but we're opening up a door and and that

[21:27] concerns me that we have a process in

[21:31] place um maybe we can look at that or do

[21:34] market analysis but this just just

[21:38] concerns me this the way that they were doing

[21:40] this stri favoritism more and put this

[21:44] in a position um that I'm just not

[21:47] comfortable with but I'm certainly open

[21:50] that's that's my take on it go ahead

[21:53] please Mr

[21:55] chairman basically every management

[21:58] employee asks for a raise greater than

[22:01] what I put in

[22:04] budget you know you have to balance it

[22:07] to say some of what uh Mr ancini is

[22:12] Raising creates conflict I sent an email

[22:16] out today because the council's going

[22:18] down this road of Peace mealing it you

[22:20] know if people want pay raise they can

[22:22] go directly

[22:23] councel uh you know it's

[22:27] just such the wrong

[22:29] tone it does undermine my ability to

[22:32] manage the

[22:34] city have you just have any experience

[22:36] as the department I would see that too

[22:38] this is like you know this is my you put

[22:41] me in this position of Voters but even a

[22:44] department head to to to make those

[22:47] recommendations and you know the county

[22:50] would be the legislature something going

[22:51] around me and the legislator doesn't

[22:54] know the day-to-day activities and my

[22:56] challenges that my make have

[22:59] if I

[23:00] felt I think I like the 3% raises

[23:02] because it looks like it's pretty much

[23:03] across the board except for those

[23:05] special conditions that were Justified

[23:08] um but doing it this way I think

[23:10] everyone make that request that probably

[23:13] could be something we wouldn't consider

[23:16] but in the fiscal times that we're

[23:18] facing right now and just the process of having someone like power department

[23:24] now I think I'm come to people I'm going

[23:26] to go to the I'm going to councel and

[23:29] make a case for myself so thanks but no

[23:32] thanks um that that concerns

[23:36] me so speaking um so just to be clear

[23:39] this person this person's recommendation

[23:42] was from their department head from the

[23:44] person that works with them day to day

[23:45] so that's not they the recommendation

[23:48] came from the department head I think

[23:49] you were here for the meeting when the

[23:50] recommendation was made and um and then

[23:54] when it wasn't considered the individual

[23:57] followed up say I was recommended and

[23:59] here's the reasons and I'd like to give

[24:01] you some back up on why I think that you

[24:03] know I should be um considered and I

[24:06] have to tell you this similar situation

[24:09] happened several years ago um and there

[24:13] was where an individual came to the

[24:16] council and asked for it so this is not

[24:19] the first time it's happened we've done

[24:20] before so I as you talk about s

[24:22] president had happened before and there

[24:24] was no like anything sent out to the

[24:27] entire staff say this person did it and

[24:29] now you can do it it happened you know

[24:33] um and so you know we voted that person

[24:36] through they still work here doing a

[24:38] great job so um I don't see that if if I don't know the the um what the

[24:46] mayor does in terms of management coming

[24:47] to him in terms of um that we can only

[24:51] go with what we were given and this was

[24:53] given to us by the finance department

[24:54] that's the only thing that we got to see

[24:56] so if there were other um

[24:58] recommendations or or requests we don't

[25:00] have any idea because this is the only

[25:02] thing that was F

[25:05] forward go ahead please I guess um so my

[25:08] question would be because I can I can

[25:10] see how like you know definitely that

[25:14] can be a tough situation to kind of

[25:17] navigate um and and somewh from our

[25:21] advantage point I guess my question is

[25:22] like are you suggesting

[25:25] that you'd be comfortable with 3% raises

[25:28] across the board for all department

[25:29] heads or like because I you I know you

[25:32] said in some special consideration some

[25:35] cases like that were brought forward yes

[25:37] and what were the cases that you're okay

[25:40] with well not we didn't go with the the

[25:43] Deputy Commissioner Finance we didn't go

[25:45] with the complete ask we brought that

[25:47] down that I'm I'm comfortable

[25:50] with and that would be at the res to 3%

[25:53] unless there was the rationale brought

[25:56] forward to us to consider

[26:00] go ahead please but I would say the

[26:02] manner in which this request has been

[26:04] submitted makes that same request with

[26:07] it requiring Market evaluation based on

[26:10] the needs at this position so would you

[26:12] not agree that these would be presented

[26:14] the

[26:15] same well I'm I'm what I'm saying is

[26:18] we're going to open the door for unless

[26:20] we have our department HR department do

[26:22] a market research on every department

[26:24] and every assistant I mean the market

[26:26] determines the need obvious ly I don't

[26:29] know if planning is the same as Finance

[26:31] in that regard I take um her word for it

[26:35] that what she put here but I don't know

[26:37] what market research was done it was

[26:39] done how how well she did that and so if

[26:43] we're going to do something like this

[26:44] should we look at every administrator

[26:46] and do a market analysis and maybe some

[26:48] Sal to come down um I I don't know I

[26:52] don't I we haven't done that and we're

[26:55] doing it kind of to me arbitrary and so

[26:57] every

[26:59] department head and assistant

[27:01] Administration can come in here and do

[27:02] that I think we should have a better way

[27:04] of negotiating a better process and

[27:06] having the individual come up and do

[27:08] that but it is what it is and we can

[27:11] entertain or we

[27:14] cannot I guess what I'm what I'm

[27:16] thinking is and because there's a lot of

[27:18] Mir of what you're saying but I guess

[27:21] where I'm having trouble kind of looking

[27:23] at the consistencies is because it's

[27:25] like so there's an ask and we

[27:29] brought it down but that ask the

[27:32] original ask

[27:34] was a part of the proposed budget and

[27:37] then we made a determination to or was

[27:42] suggested or it seems like at least some

[27:44] council members were saying okay let's

[27:47] you know we're not the thought go with

[27:49] the full ask that was presented so once

[27:53] we make that determination or that

[27:56] distinction based on Merit and judgement

[27:59] then I think we are compelled to look at

[28:02] other cases because if not what we're

[28:04] doing is saying

[28:07] that whether it's an increase or a

[28:10] decrease if we as a council are weighing

[28:14] in on that then we're then that door is

[28:16] open to weigh in on other situations and

[28:19] then it can look and not even just look

[28:22] up more concerned about what it is then

[28:24] it can be a very inconsistent practice

[28:27] because now we're saying well for this

[28:28] department head we're not going to go

[28:30] the full ask but we're going to even

[28:33] reduce what the full ask was for this

[28:36] and then but everyone else we're just

[28:37] going to say 3% even though we've

[28:40] already deliberated and had

[28:42] conversations around that

[28:44] one position so I just get concerned

[28:46] about the inconsistencies but your

[28:48] points well taken around maybe around

[28:50] market research and and and I'm

[28:53] addressing the potential tax increase

[28:55] that that I mean 3% raises is is minimal

[28:58] but looking at from what I see they're good salaries um but I think we

[29:05] should do a better look at it and a

[29:06] deeper dive um into doing it across the

[29:10] board if we're going to do it um or if

[29:13] we can't find somebody that ask can

[29:16] always be made at any point in the year

[29:19] with that position where they become

[29:20] vacant where the person was going to

[29:22] lead we done that as well but us doing

[29:25] it just it's concerning for them all

[29:27] right but I I understand what your

[29:30] concerns are and I would just say if

[29:31] we're going to do it then we have to do

[29:35] it and make it available for everyone if

[29:38] we're not going to do it then we

[29:40] shouldn't be touching it at all

[29:42] whatsoever um and then if we're not

[29:46] touching it at all um at what point do

[29:49] we what happens if we see

[29:53] um inconsistencies or or unintentional

[29:57] inequities that was prop for in the

[29:59] budget like what is our responsibility

[30:01] to tease that out as a body that's so

[30:03] those are just the questions that I

[30:05] would

[30:06] have I mean those are valid points from both sides here um you know it was

[30:12] a compelling um discussion that we had

[30:15] in terms of Mr Ferrari in terms of why

[30:18] he wanted to

[30:20] um increase the Deputy Commissioner of

[30:22] finance and um he gave us uh you know

[30:25] many options and told us that the high

[30:28] end of that is you know the minimum is

[30:30] 100,000 that's Market Fe market for that

[30:33] position and I think looking at this Lev

[30:35] here um it's it's a detail letter with a

[30:39] market um you know salary

[30:41] range I am not against looking across

[30:45] the board for a a salary range for

[30:49] department head and to increase them and

[30:50] bring them in compatible today's market

[30:53] across the board but then how do we do

[30:55] that as I always said if we to increase

[30:58] salary we have to find money from

[31:00] somewhere to offset this and how do we

[31:03] do that in terms of this yes taxes are

[31:06] going up but at the same time we have to

[31:08] make sure that we we increase um salary

[31:11] so bring it up the part so that we keep

[31:13] these employees in their position to

[31:15] provide the service needed for our city

[31:18] and at the same time you know we don't

[31:19] want it to go anywhere so we want to

[31:21] keep

[31:24] them in salary is only one comp to the

[31:28] compensation package and the city still

[31:31] offers Lifetime Health insurance for

[31:35] retirees after a certain level of

[31:37] service that's very rare in the market

[31:40] anymore huge value to that so it's not

[31:44] just selling it's the total package is

[31:48] the uh way to evaluate it and so just on

[31:52] salary is overly simplistic yeah and I

[31:55] think know department head are know

[31:57] they're listening to these um these

[31:58] debates not these hearings not debate

[32:00] these hearings sorry um you know they

[32:03] they're they're Glu um gluing into it so

[32:06] when uh when we talk about okay we want

[32:07] to bring someone uh in U incompatible

[32:10] with today's market for their position

[32:13] then the others I would be I will be

[32:14] doing the same thing I I I've done that

[32:16] in my private sector job I mean I am I'm

[32:19] in that position just like everyone else

[32:20] I should be compensate for that for my

[32:23] time and my work here and I can be wrong

[32:27] with them

[32:28] I have to support them and I I don't

[32:30] know if they're chosing the right path

[32:32] to to bring it to us I don't know it

[32:35] could be you know they're supposed to be

[32:37] you know channeled that to the mayor to

[32:39] us as long as I've been on this Council

[32:42] here we have every year deal with um

[32:46] department head come in directly to us

[32:48] or send us email or phone call to ask

[32:51] for um salary um adjustment from the

[32:56] proposed U budget so it's nothing new

[32:59] it's been happening all the all the

[33:01] years and how do we address

[33:04] it maybe we just go back and you know

[33:07] ask May it's a recommendation to go back

[33:09] and do evaluation on on all the

[33:10] department head but then um how do we

[33:13] sustain that in a budget that we're

[33:16] driving taxes

[33:19] up go ahead please sorry I agree with

[33:22] the mayor that I do not think it's the

[33:24] most appropriate venue for City r city

[33:28] employees to come to the city council

[33:30] however being presented with those

[33:32] positions I think we are respons

[33:34] responsible and obligated to respond in a manner appropriate to the authority

[33:40] that was presented to us as elected

[33:41] officials so in our capacity we

[33:44] represent the city and we function in

[33:48] partnership with the mayor so I would

[33:50] hope that in these capacities to your

[33:54] question of favoritism we are operating

[33:57] in an ethical Manner and not using our

[34:00] positions inappropriately to benefit

[34:02] ourselves so I think it's a narrative we

[34:04] constantly hear all the time that we're

[34:05] supporting our base and supporting our

[34:07] friends I can guarantee you if that was

[34:09] the case I would not be living where I

[34:12] live so not finished I think it is

[34:15] important that we fully vet these

[34:19] positions that we're currently standing

[34:20] at so if we're going to do a market

[34:22] adjustment let's do a market adjustment

[34:24] however in no way were we singling out

[34:27] any IND indidual department or any

[34:28] individual person in the presentation as

[34:32] uh the Comm chair has highlighted we

[34:34] offered everyone the opportunity to

[34:37] present what you've been doing for the

[34:38] year and how those department heads used

[34:40] that time was up to them but if an

[34:43] individual brought up a topic of concern

[34:45] again is our responsibility to respond

[34:47] to it as did I with my recommendations

[34:49] any other council member and their

[34:51] capacity could either push back or add

[34:54] additional um again that is in your

[34:56] purview um but I think it is more than

[34:59] appropriate for us to hear out the city

[35:00] staff and it is our responsibility to

[35:03] hear them

[35:05] out go ahead please and and I think what

[35:08] I'm saying um is maybe a little more

[35:13] basic than what we the larger

[35:16] conversation here I think it's more

[35:17] specific to the fact that if we're

[35:20] saying that one Department had based on

[35:25] this uh metric

[35:28] should be getting this salary and if

[35:32] that's the ruler that we're using I

[35:33] think this is where we need to be

[35:35] consistent about we're saying that that

[35:36] is the ruler that we're using

[35:39] then if another department head comes

[35:41] forward and says well based on market

[35:44] value and that same ruler then I should

[35:47] be here I think that that's that's

[35:49] something that we should expect that's

[35:50] going to happen and if we're going to

[35:52] make decisions we should just be making

[35:53] them using the same uh

[35:58] guge that's that's really my thing so

[36:00] either if we were to

[36:02] do do it we do it with the same

[36:06] measurement for all or don't do it at

[36:08] all then okay but I think that if we get

[36:09] into the place where we're bringing

[36:11] forth certain department heads based on

[36:13] a roller then use a different measure

[36:15] for somebody El

[36:17] get that's should be concerning for me

[36:20] Mr tur how to handle on please thank you

[36:24] excuse me thank you so in the past I I I think uh other than this year for the

[36:28] past six years we've actually had a t uh

[36:31] tax decrease or taxes uh no rise in

[36:34] taxes at all so things were different

[36:36] the city was in a different position uh

[36:38] back then um I think with the city

[36:40] facing the deficit that we are um

[36:43] raising taxes it's it's it's just

[36:46] sending the wrong message yes we work

[36:48] for the city we work for the uh

[36:50] employees of the city but we must to

[36:51] work for the residents of the city and I

[36:53] think it's just sending them the wrong

[36:55] message right now uh to to give these

[36:58] races but I do want to commend all these

[37:02] department heads I mean we've reached

[37:03] out to

[37:05] them daily for for me for three years

[37:09] you for a lot longer and they go above

[37:11] and beyond to help the residents of the

[37:13] city who we're also here to help I just

[37:16] um that's just all I wanted to

[37:19] say let me tou yes that's true we we

[37:22] have we're we're lucky and fortunate to

[37:24] have such good department heads in the

[37:27] city have connected here to help help

[37:29] the city to drive the city forward with

[37:31] the m i mean they do fantastic jobs in

[37:34] and out some of them 7 days a week

[37:36] regardless of what and um the topic is

[37:39] that we have yes giving raises when we

[37:41] raising tax when we're raising taxes um

[37:45] we have to make sure we have to make

[37:46] sure that we uh we compensate them for

[37:49] the time that they've been here and the

[37:51] years of service they have provided to

[37:52] the city some of them here way on in the

[37:54] 20 years or plus and the reason why they

[37:57] stay here because they love the city

[37:59] they love what they're doing and you

[38:00] know they're providing taxpayers with

[38:02] the service and they they're running the

[38:05] department day in and day out and

[38:09] um any budget you have to raise um

[38:14] salary especially for inflation or for

[38:16] cost of living adjustment so 3% 4% 2%

[38:21] I've been here when we have raised them

[38:22] 2% I don't know maybe we did 1% we did

[38:25] we always do an increment of something

[38:28] across and then we do have some some employees with you know higher than

[38:33] normal because we want this is one of

[38:35] them I think what the the Bing topic is

[38:38] the proposed budget has a 51% increase

[38:40] for one um one position and I think um

[38:44] that's where the calls are coming in

[38:45] from but we understand that that

[38:47] position because we want to Market you

[38:49] know that position and to align that

[38:52] position into next year U into the

[38:55] finance department now the department is

[38:58] seeing that and they're asking question

[38:59] and they have a right to ask they have a

[39:01] right to ask as Mr William says and we

[39:04] have to you know entertain

[39:06] it but how far do we go that's the

[39:10] biggest question on the

[39:13] table so I I don't think I said we were

[39:17] showing favoritism I said it it could

[39:21] lend perception like if it were me in a

[39:23] department head door just calls

[39:26] me I think and the mayor said no I

[39:29] requested

[39:30] this I will appeal to the mayor I don't

[39:34] I think we're usurping the

[39:36] process they present to us with the

[39:39] budget I'm just not comfortable with

[39:41] that and I would tell the person thank

[39:43] you but there's a a way for you to go

[39:45] about this um if I felt real strongly I

[39:49] you know because I have a friend at the

[39:51] department hey help me out here right

[39:55] now I obviously if I know the person I'm

[39:58] going to have some kind of bias I think

[40:00] you're doing a great job but I don't

[40:02] know the day-to-day activities of that

[40:03] individual I don't know they don't work

[40:05] for me I'm not comfortable with it as a

[40:07] public official as a I'm not comfortable

[40:10] with doing that because that's my role

[40:12] is not to supervise their day-to-day

[40:13] activities and make those

[40:14] recommendations I mean we can but I

[40:17] think we get into a dangerous um area on

[40:19] doing that we have great department

[40:21] heads and certainly but but we are

[40:24] looking at these tax increases and we're

[40:26] looking at the put time I think this

[40:29] doing it this way is concerning to me

[40:31] and that's you know that's all I want to

[40:33] put out there because and we didn't have

[40:34] that conversation I'm glad we had we

[40:36] were saying yes and it felt good but

[40:39] then I you know I actually wanted to say

[40:41] wrestling because it just concerned me

[40:42] that process it's the process certainly

[40:44] not the people and that's why I think we

[40:46] should be mindful and that's an issue

[40:48] maybe we do a market research do

[40:50] something a little bit differently but

[40:52] individual that well that person was

[40:55] pull enough which is great you

[40:58] know I'm following the role of what you

[41:02] know may or may boss didn't

[41:04] know I'm not going to go around that

[41:07] person um some would you know um that

[41:12] felt that way and they're kind in a way

[41:14] were

[41:15] saying well you should have you should

[41:18] have ignored his request and come to us

[41:22] um because we'll welcome you and we're

[41:23] not going to tell you you're the bad job

[41:25] then you know I'm just

[41:30] go ahead please I would ask the

[41:32] rhetorical question is just what do you

[41:34] think the role of city council is it's

[41:37] to make it's to make policy decisions

[41:39] certainly to make evalate the budget we

[41:42] can the role is we can entertain that

[41:44] I'm saying as my role as a city council

[41:47] right in this I'm uncomfortable with it

[41:50] um it's certainly within our purgy but

[41:54] we have a process and we can we don't of

[41:57] course we don't have to follow we can

[41:58] make these decisions to me they seem a

[42:01] little bit arbitrary because I don't

[42:02] think we've done it with every every

[42:04] administrator every assistant

[42:05] administrator we haven't afforded them

[42:08] that they would go no they accepted that

[42:11] they didn't come to

[42:12] us they didn't do what they did so sorry

[42:15] we're not going to consider you I think

[42:17] if we're going to do it and let's do it

[42:18] from H and 3% might not get you to where

[42:21] you should be if the market research and

[42:23] then we're looking at a maybe five or

[42:24] 10% tax increase or whatever where does

[42:27] it end I mean we have to have a process

[42:29] and respect

[42:31] that I think I think the city chter I'll

[42:34] play that we can review the salary and

[42:37] make adjustment not mistaken mayor has

[42:40] any consideration given so kind of do

[42:42] comprehensive review market analysis all

[42:45] the

[42:46] department talked about it but have not

[42:49] undertaken

[42:51] it is that something we can't ask you

[42:54] can you make a request that you do this because

[43:00] we don't want to you know Reit this next

[43:01] year but we can put something in place

[43:03] to kind of bring them up to power if

[43:05] they are under above you know align them

[43:07] so that we don't have to deal with this

[43:09] going

[43:11] forward how to we

[43:15] it's Council sets the policy so if you

[43:18] put forth something I'll manage it so I

[43:22] think we should do that I think it's

[43:24] wise idea for us to um you know do

[43:26] something and kind of like um as request

[43:29] the mayor to kind of do a market

[43:31] analysis on all the department head and

[43:34] to provide that report to us I think it

[43:37] would be very very helpful because I

[43:40] hate to see Department had work you know

[43:42] 15 10 12 15 years and they have to leave

[43:44] for municipality because they offer

[43:46] $5,000 $10,000 more where we can do

[43:49] something in house and adjust that and

[43:51] keep

[43:53] them sorry so listen to what my council

[43:57] members are saying here I guess because

[43:59] I think that I know you earlier s that

[44:03] there's good points on both sides I I

[44:05] don't just in my assessment I don't

[44:08] think that there's that there's

[44:09] necessarily two sides here I think that

[44:11] everyone's kind of like working in the

[44:13] same direction trying to figure out

[44:14] what's the best formula to do that so I

[44:16] that's so like that's where I'm like

[44:18] trying to get some clarification as to

[44:19] like

[44:21] so uh Mr turo were you saying like

[44:24] suggesting that we don't that everyone

[44:27] just gets a 3% raise like all department

[44:30] has just that and then we just leave it

[44:32] at that is that your position or is your

[44:35] position no Department air raises or or

[44:39] kind of like just make it like 3% across

[44:41] the board I'm trying to figure and then Joe if you want

[44:44] to answer that too then then Mr Williams

[44:48] then we can all kind of at least know

[44:50] where we're at I think we're all saying

[44:52] some similar stuff here so just try to

[44:54] some clarity right

[45:00] yeah yeah so um again with the deficit we're

[45:06] facing in our city the mayor's presented

[45:09] us with a balance budget it's 3%

[45:12] sometimes 4% I didn't go to reach

[45:14] department head um that was the ask

[45:16] that's what's there um I

[45:20] don't like to have an

[45:25] increase in

[45:27] ask from department

[45:31] heads when every department head has an

[45:34] opportunity to come before us and where

[45:36] does that leave us giving everyone a 10

[45:39] 15 20%

[45:41] 51% increase where does that leave us as

[45:43] taxpayers which we all are as

[45:46] well right and and to your point like to

[45:50] that makes a lot of sense to me that's

[45:52] what I'm saying but I know what was

[45:54] presented to us wasn't 3 4% for everyone

[45:58] across the board it wasn't that it was 3

[46:02] 4% and then and then

[46:06] individual was like how much there were

[46:08] some positions that was upwards of what

[46:11] was the percentage for the highest you

[46:13] said 51% 51 so I think that there's a

[46:15] lot of daylight I said that three and

[46:17] four and then 51% again we discussed

[46:20] that that was going to fill a position

[46:22] that we needed to fill and we had to

[46:24] bring it up to salary so um

[46:28] again with the position that we're in as

[46:30] a city and the deficit we're facing I

[46:34] know somebody coming in I think once

[46:37] before

[46:39] um auto warranty I'm

[46:43] sure selling

[46:45] Insurance to donate

[46:47] money they're going to settle this one

[46:49] and for but for clearity I wasn't so

[46:52] again the time when the ask was before

[46:54] we were in a much different position we

[46:57] facing a you know a much different

[46:58] position now than we were 3 four 6 5

[47:02] years ago so I was just trying to make

[47:05] sure you understood the nature of my

[47:07] question like I was wasn't dis right

[47:10] sure so um yes we are facing deficit but

[47:15] again we want to keep as I said we want

[47:17] to keep good employees and that just

[47:19] does not narrow down to one employee so

[47:21] I think we should take that in

[47:23] consideration as well um I'm guessing

[47:26] that because still here that the

[47:27] Mayfields are valuable employees and

[47:29] that they're doing their job so uh when

[47:32] we talk about that I know that we have

[47:34] tax increases that's the nature of of of

[47:38] inflation and all the other things that are a part of it so I don't say

[47:43] that we say to employees well

[47:46] [Music]

[47:48] because the you know we're having this

[47:50] time that you can't get additional you

[47:51] know because they're they're facing

[47:53] inflation as well so you can't get

[47:55] raises based on the work that you do for

[47:57] the city and if we're trying to talk

[47:59] about keep good employees then I think

[48:00] that we that needs to be

[48:02] consideration and it was stated that you

[48:05] know we shouldn't be um setting salaries

[48:07] when this clearly states right here that

[48:09] that's one of our responsibilities to

[48:11] set the salaries for the staff I don't

[48:14] know I know that when it comes to the

[48:16] bargaining unit that's a whole different

[48:18] process and um maybe there needs to be a

[48:21] similar process for the management I

[48:22] don't know but there this is the process

[48:26] we have right now

[48:27] and this is how we have to deal with it

[48:28] so I also have a question is the

[48:31] recommendation that we do this whole

[48:33] market analysis and try to get in time

[48:34] for this budget because I don't see that

[48:36] well that's that's I was going to ask a

[48:41] question we got

[48:42] deadine if um in order to do that do we

[48:45] have to do a formal resolution or

[48:48] just yeah that's how the council

[48:51] takes so I think we we should we should

[48:54] address that and do a formal resolution

[48:57] to um ask the mayor request the mayor to look into that and we have that ready

[49:03] for you know

[49:04] next

[49:06] so that he said it's not going to be in

[49:08] time for this bud so we have to deal

[49:10] with the issues at hand yes so so yes I

[49:13] understand but I think um we should put

[49:15] that in place so that we don't have to

[49:17] be repeating this again next time that

[49:20] we have that study so Sam can you please

[49:22] um put that on the agenda for us to do

[49:24] that formal um stuff and um

[49:27] and we get that um to the mayor so that

[49:30] study can be start and complete and

[49:33] provided to us sometimes and we thanks

[49:35] here thank you I'm sure also sure these

[49:38] studies aren't free that's

[49:41] okay here we are just just documents

[49:45] just saying um you know not even

[49:48] familiar with what it might be but I'm

[49:50] sure it's in the upd so thousands and

[49:52] thousands of dollars well we have an HR

[49:55] department so I don't think they going

[49:56] to H want to do a a market analysis that

[49:58] HR can do that and every every HR

[50:01] department does that well yes it's going

[50:03] to cost us if we decide to implement it

[50:05] to come Inc compatible but then that's

[50:07] what we're going to look at and then we

[50:09] can say as a council and as the mayor

[50:11] and

[50:11] administration are we ready to do this

[50:14] and that will be the biggest question on

[50:15] the table but I think we need to do that

[50:17] market

[50:20] analysis go ahead please um I think

[50:22] folks are making great points all around

[50:24] the table um and I do

[50:27] appreciate the idea of being consistent

[50:30] um I do think it's a good idea to do the

[50:32] market analysis um I absolutely do not

[50:35] think we're going to be able to do it in

[50:36] time for this budget um but I think it's

[50:39] something that we should move forward

[50:40] with um one solution I think I I support

[50:44] the 3% raise um I think that's where we

[50:47] should land um this evening I think that

[50:51] um is what has come to us um via uh the

[50:56] disc discussions that the mayor had with

[50:58] department heads um I don't have a

[51:00] problem if there's an individual that

[51:03] because there's a justification there in

[51:04] terms of the retirement that that might

[51:06] be coming down the pipe but again I

[51:08] think we could kind of um revisit that

[51:11] um but um I think one solution might be

[51:16] to move forward from this and have to

[51:20] come back um at another another time in

[51:24] the year and think about whether we have to make any adjustments by via

[51:28] budget amendments um which we have done

[51:32] in the past as well but um so I I think

[51:34] we should stay consistent now um I

[51:37] really appreciate the fact that we're

[51:39] raising taxes so I don't think that I

[51:41] think the 3% raise is fair um across the

[51:44] board um I do appreciate the idea of

[51:48] having a market analysis later um and

[51:52] that perhaps we can revisit mid year um

[51:55] at least look at what the results of the

[51:56] market analysis and at least start

[51:58] planning for what we might do in the

[51:59] future well I think that's what I'm

[52:01] trying to that is once we we we

[52:04] requested that formally and study is out

[52:06] and then we look at it as a council and

[52:08] then we said okay and if we are in

[52:10] agreement to move forward then we'll

[52:11] have to do a budget reappropriation at

[52:13] some point in time if there's agreement

[52:14] across the board to do that and we have

[52:17] the funding most important thing right

[52:19] have the funding to do it so just so I'm

[52:22] clear Mr Patrick you're saying

[52:24] 3% across the board

[52:27] with

[52:28] no are you saying but that 3% across the

[52:32] board with no exceptions no I'm saying

[52:36] 3% across the board I'd be open to to

[52:39] still considering the race for that one

[52:41] individual who might be moving into a

[52:43] role that um sooner rather than later um

[52:47] but I'm open to continuing the

[52:51] discussion

[52:54] but all right thanks I can be

[52:57] compromising those yeah that's that's

[52:59] what I'm trying to do as well go ahead

[53:00] please I just also want to be clear when

[53:03] you talk about the market study and then

[53:04] we revisit this mid year are you saying

[53:07] that at this point in time we will not

[53:10] consider any other races and then

[53:15] M I'm not saying that loud too loud but

[53:23] uhis I'm going to whisper that um

[53:27] I'm trying to sense it in a feeling that

[53:29] um do the study we know where we're

[53:31] Landing we're not guessing at number

[53:34] this is coming from professional where

[53:36] here we're going to have a realistic

[53:38] number in terms of position and we

[53:40] revisit it at that point in time I am

[53:43] not against it the majority of the

[53:44] council would like to move forward on on

[53:46] one or two and the exception of one or

[53:49] two that I'm fine with that but um I

[53:52] will overall revisit it next year each

[53:55] and every single dep Department here but

[53:57] again I'm I'm willing I'm on this table

[54:00] here and I'm willing to make compromise

[54:03] as I've said it from the beginning and

[54:04] to move forward I am not going to dig my

[54:07] heel in the sand I made it very clear

[54:10] and I encourage everyone of us to do

[54:11] that that's compromised let's move

[54:13] forward and let's do what we have to do

[54:16] I I don't think um you know we we're

[54:19] sending a message to everyone of them

[54:20] we're at we appreciate everything that

[54:22] they're doing we're in crunch time we're

[54:25] raising taxes to maintain the services

[54:27] that we're providing to our

[54:29] taxpayers and we have to make sure that

[54:32] we have their backs at all times too so

[54:35] I I just want to Echo some of that and

[54:37] say that I don't think I I agree and I

[54:39] think that this this is a very could be

[54:42] a potentially very contentious

[54:43] conversation but I do appreciate the way

[54:45] that it's happening at the table I think

[54:46] everyone at the table um is acting in

[54:49] good faith and um you know and I was

[54:52] asking council members what their

[54:53] position were I think that it's a

[54:56] appropriate that I would say my position

[54:58] would be um I wouldn't be comfortable

[55:03] with

[55:04] 3% across the board and then one or

[55:09] two positions at 50% I think that that

[55:13] is a

[55:16] drastic comparison and distinction

[55:20] that even with the variables that were

[55:22] presented so I think again we have to

[55:25] your point maybe we just have to to take

[55:27] a step back and I think that maybe this

[55:29] is something that we

[55:31] um move for uh efficiency sake move

[55:35] further down the agenda in this process

[55:38] that's would be completely up to you um

[55:40] uh chair but maybe that's something but

[55:42] I just want I just want to Echo one to I

[55:44] mean if if there's any

[55:47] retirement May right to Agate someone or

[55:50] hire someone new that person will go

[55:52] into that position and that line is

[55:54] funded already so we we do have funding

[55:57] on that line and whoever the mayor

[56:00] choose to hire will go into that line so

[56:03] there if there's funding on the deputy

[56:04] line it will not affect that line the

[56:06] promotion or the the hire will take that

[56:09] funding from that line at a given time

[56:11] could you explain anything El so right

[56:14] now we have funding for the commissioner

[56:17] at 100

[56:19] propos

[56:22] 33,000 and the proposal for the um def

[56:28] is

[56:29] 120 I might be off a little sure sure so

[56:31] if there's a retirement that line

[56:33] becomes

[56:35] available if the May hire someone and

[56:38] put that person in the line there the

[56:39] salary continue that funding is there to

[56:42] continue that

[56:45] higher so if there's a promotion with

[56:48] him it just move upward and then that

[56:50] position become vacant until there's a

[56:53] promotion or hire to fill that out of

[56:55] line

[56:57] so we should consider that

[57:00] so I think back to uh the rhetorical

[57:03] question that Mr Williams asked I do

[57:05] think that our primary you know we're

[57:08] here for the residents and I think that one point of we're raising the

[57:13] taxes um I think we have to be very

[57:16] mindful of that in terms of this

[57:18] discussion about raises

[57:20] so and I would say in response to that is why I'm responding to the

[57:25] proposed budget with that same

[57:27] understanding in mind um I would

[57:30] say hearing everyone around the table um

[57:35] following the invitation for the number

[57:38] of individuals in the email to respond

[57:40] don't think we've gotten any further

[57:41] responses am I not correct I'm not here

[57:45] hi Mr sorry and an email that was sent

[57:47] out later today were there any

[57:49] additional responses from City

[57:53] St I I didn't

[57:57] in the last hour so I haven't received

[57:59] any so this would be the final one I

[58:02] would say in in the manner in which I've

[58:06] been a member of this Council we've

[58:08] entertained these such conversations so

[58:10] I would not be opposed to taking this

[58:13] into consideration as well as we

[58:16] anticipate how we continue addressing

[58:19] this issue next year I think it is

[58:22] important to make sure we capture this

[58:23] appropriately if we are doing a market

[58:25] adjustment you're not giving the city

[58:27] staff anything short of what they

[58:29] deserve and what they've earned with

[58:31] their knowledge skills and abilities

[58:32] over the years Market evaluations are

[58:35] continuing in the industry and often

[58:38] times Market are evaluated annually I'm

[58:41] not promoting that but I'm saying the

[58:44] cost of running the city is the cost of

[58:46] running the city so I think if we start

[58:48] this we see it through to completion

[58:51] however after making this a formal

[58:55] opportunity for everyone to respond we

[58:57] have only heard from this individual so

[58:59] to your point everyone has been

[59:00] presented with the same Fair

[59:03] opportunity so I think in hearing that I

[59:06] am comfortable responding to this email

[59:09] as the

[59:10] last as we currently have budget

[59:13] meetings P

[59:15] this and to add to that I think the

[59:17] mayor was very directive uh when as an

[59:20] email to his department heads to reach

[59:23] out to the council or to be here at the

[59:26] in 5:30 to kind of if they feel that

[59:28] they need to discuss with us any salary

[59:34] increase Chief Marina is

[59:37] here forget about it chief he also

[59:46] [Music]

[59:49] wants Patrick yeah I think um I just

[59:52] want to have a point of clarification we

[59:54] haven't decided on any of the

[59:57] um we haven't decided on the salary that

[1:00:00] correct recomend and this actually um

[1:00:05] came last looks like it went last night

[1:00:08] so meeting I'm sorry like right after

[1:00:11] our meeting yeah she's she's uh the

[1:00:13] person is indicating that she was

[1:00:15] watching our meeting and that that was

[1:00:17] why so it wasn't that um that other

[1:00:19] email went out this afternoon asking

[1:00:21] people to send in requests um if they

[1:00:24] were interested this was before that

[1:00:26] actually just it said to show up we be

[1:00:29] here all right I think disc we're

[1:00:33] discussing at L I will ask we just move

[1:00:35] on and we'll revisit this um before we

[1:00:38] close and move to um other points um if

[1:00:41] you don't mind yeah we can Mr probably

[1:00:43] take that and just move to another

[1:00:45] discussion and then we'll R this um it's

[1:00:50] a hot discussion do we want to um Carl

[1:00:53] let's go through um this list from the

[1:00:56] top

[1:00:59] down this l oh

[1:01:06] okay man you send us an email this

[1:01:09] afternoon yes I did late this

[1:01:12] afternoon meetings all day

[1:01:15] [Music]

[1:01:18] want

[1:01:20] certainly yesterday um the discussion

[1:01:23] around the table was um the huge um you

[1:01:25] progam

[1:01:27] and currently in the budget is

[1:01:31] $150,000 Mr parley had um recommend that

[1:01:35] we consider increasing that by 100,000

[1:01:38] to

[1:01:39] 250,000 and then there's an email today

[1:01:42] this afternoon from Mr parley that to

[1:01:44] bring that to $300,000 and to R name

[1:01:48] that line to you Services Mr

[1:01:52] Harley sure so I just think um you know

[1:01:55] this is a unique line um I do have to

[1:01:59] say that I'm um somewhat biased in this

[1:02:02] because you know being the you know one

[1:02:05] of the things that uh myself and the

[1:02:07] mayor and council president was really

[1:02:10] uh spearheading was trying to make sure

[1:02:13] that the city for the first time ever

[1:02:15] had a Youth Employment Program is a very needed thing so I guess what I

[1:02:22] think there was some confusion yesterday

[1:02:24] because I know that the lines had

[1:02:26] we spent uh 90 something perc of the

[1:02:29] money the first year and then the second

[1:02:31] year we we didn't spend um quite as

[1:02:33] anywhere near as much as that and I

[1:02:35] think that that was more of a

[1:02:37] programmatic shift than it was a shift

[1:02:40] in need um um so it was I think on the city only has so much capacity um

[1:02:47] and but the need is still great and I

[1:02:50] think for you know for for the Youth

[1:02:53] line I I think that we definitely I mean

[1:02:57] I was really trying to and I hope you

[1:03:00] guys received this in the right spirit I

[1:03:01] was really trying to

[1:03:04] uh be as uh conservative as I could with

[1:03:08] that line um because I think that line

[1:03:11] is unique in the way that it's not again

[1:03:15] it's not just about the larger picture

[1:03:17] big picture is you know keeping our

[1:03:20] youth engaged in pro-social activities

[1:03:22] you know I think that we all see what's

[1:03:24] good about that but I think the piece

[1:03:26] about that is that you know there's

[1:03:29] money that's going to go into our local

[1:03:31] economy and and much likely to

[1:03:35] be you know spent inside of our local

[1:03:38] economy unlike some of the other things

[1:03:40] that we are funding for you

[1:03:42] know even some of our nonprofits you

[1:03:46] know things that we are this is

[1:03:48] something that does goes directly to

[1:03:50] Youth and can change the material

[1:03:51] conditions of the people themselves as

[1:03:55] to what some of our larger uh things

[1:03:57] that we are funding are going to

[1:03:59] nonprofits and some of that money um is

[1:04:04] people who don't live in our city and

[1:04:08] actually support other tax bases with

[1:04:10] that so I think if we consider the fact

[1:04:12] that the very clear need for our youth

[1:04:15] um to be engaged in pro-social

[1:04:16] activities you accompany that with the

[1:04:19] fact that this is really an investment

[1:04:21] because that money will circulate

[1:04:22] through our local economy and then you

[1:04:25] think about the accompany that with the

[1:04:27] fact that we know that idle times for

[1:04:30] youth will definitely increase our our

[1:04:34] Public Safety cost and with our police

[1:04:38] budget especially um I think that

[1:04:40] there's a there's some compounding

[1:04:41] factors there or we should really be

[1:04:43] taking a look at that line 300 was or

[1:04:46] doubling that line was really the best I

[1:04:50] could

[1:04:51] uh do without I still I still feel

[1:04:55] that's very modest is what I'm saying

[1:04:57] based on all those

[1:05:07] things go ahead please so I my position

[1:05:12] on this is that the the first year we

[1:05:14] put 150,000 to it we didn't quite reach

[1:05:17] it even with all the partners at the

[1:05:20] table so um I understand the request I

[1:05:22] certain as the request for additional I

[1:05:25] don't

[1:05:26] necessarily doubling it at this time

[1:05:28] does that in my opinion would increase

[1:05:31] it and spend you know and and see how we

[1:05:35] do with with not just the city being

[1:05:37] doing the program but others as well and

[1:05:39] if there's need just like with anything

[1:05:41] else then we just increase it you know

[1:05:43] we go back and make an adjustment

[1:05:45] because um because there's more of a

[1:05:48] need the other thing we also discussed

[1:05:50] last night in terms of increasing is

[1:05:52] that when an person gets someone to work

[1:05:54] for them that may they can also either

[1:05:58] donate or um pay some comp part of the

[1:06:01] compensation as opposed to be the entire

[1:06:04] of the city because it was said that

[1:06:06] they were getting free labor which you

[1:06:08] know free is sometimes free is good but

[1:06:10] um that they would also invest in that

[1:06:13] in the the program themselves through

[1:06:15] partially paying for that so for me I

[1:06:19] don't see raising it up to the $300,000

[1:06:21] level and excuse me yeah um and last night I walked away with the

[1:06:27] thought that it was 250 sure so today

[1:06:30] you know so so that's my position that

[1:06:32] you know we have to like as as

[1:06:34] everything based on on PRI history and

[1:06:37] in 22 we didn't quite make it to the 150

[1:06:40] so increasing it and then increasing our

[1:06:42] Outreach and all that I say yes we do

[1:06:45] that and also ask the people who are

[1:06:47] getting people to work for them to also

[1:06:49] partially invest in the program as well

[1:06:53] and that so therefore the city is not as

[1:06:56] much so I I would say so I think our the

[1:06:59] first year we spent upwards of 140

[1:07:03] something th000 the entire budget was

[1:07:05] only 150 so if the the agency that's

[1:07:09] managing

[1:07:11] that once they get close to that 150 you

[1:07:14] have to stop because if you don't stop

[1:07:16] then you're going to be responsible for

[1:07:18] paying youth whoever wherever they're at

[1:07:21] so I think that like that first year

[1:07:24] that spending 100

[1:07:27] just say but it it was more than that

[1:07:29] though it was a little bit over 140 yeah

[1:07:32] so so I say like

[1:07:34] $140,000 for the first year of that

[1:07:37] program um I think that that I consider

[1:07:41] that a pretty strong compelling reason

[1:07:46] to say like that the need is there and

[1:07:48] then the second year I really

[1:07:52] can't you can't really calate that

[1:07:56] because the model shifted so much so you

[1:08:00] spent a third of of what was was done

[1:08:03] the first year and I think that that was

[1:08:04] just based on the programmatic shift um

[1:08:08] and I think to your point around like

[1:08:10] other people contributing um and

[1:08:12] employers contributing um I think that's

[1:08:15] a great idea and I think if that's the

[1:08:16] case then we'll just have a larger

[1:08:18] capacity to reach more youth in that way

[1:08:20] so that's the way I would look at that

[1:08:23] um but your your point is well taken um

[1:08:26] and yesterday when I was I did uh say

[1:08:29] I'd like to increase it by 100,000 that

[1:08:31] was something that I did say at this

[1:08:33] table and then once I uh looked at the numbers in the county um around the

[1:08:39] amount of Youth that they sered and I

[1:08:42] considered I started to really make the

[1:08:43] consideration of like that's money

[1:08:45] that's still going to live in our city

[1:08:47] versus you know so we might get to

[1:08:49] leverage that

[1:08:51] 300,000 uh dollars and I think I'm not

[1:08:54] sure on the research but you know I

[1:08:56] think that the money the the researcher

[1:08:58] show that the money will circulate in

[1:09:00] our community for almost six times

[1:09:02] before it leaves based on you know where

[1:09:05] we're funding some of these uh

[1:09:07] nonprofits with with

[1:09:10] uh largely a lot of their administrative

[1:09:13] staff not living in the city that's a

[1:09:15] drop in the bucket compared to what we

[1:09:17] give to them and a lot of times those

[1:09:18] dollars go to support other tax bases

[1:09:21] and you and you don't get the value get

[1:09:23] from money economic in the city um

[1:09:26] increasing Public Safety and enriching

[1:09:28] you so that's those would be my um

[1:09:30] points on that but your pointed I I

[1:09:32] understand as far as the form looking at

[1:09:34] past years that would be my response to

[1:09:38] that go ahead I would support increasing

[1:09:41] the youth employment line um I think it

[1:09:44] it's um we've been talking last week

[1:09:47] several of us talked about you know the things that had happened in the city

[1:09:51] school district the week before um I

[1:09:53] mean I think it's really valid to think

[1:09:55] about how are we fostering youth

[1:09:56] leadership how are we supporting them I

[1:09:59] think the income that I think it's

[1:10:01] income that is needed but I also think

[1:10:04] it's job skills and job skills training

[1:10:06] that um I think all of us would also

[1:10:08] support um so not sure about the number

[1:10:12] um but I also we again I think this is a

[1:10:15] place where using arpa funds taking arpa

[1:10:18] funds away from an additional besides

[1:10:21] the ones that um are already in our

[1:10:23] operating budget based on on the four I

[1:10:25] think it was that um Finance you know

[1:10:28] that's in the budget I think there's

[1:10:30] still an opportunity to look at those

[1:10:31] arpa that arpa money and take this out

[1:10:34] of that um and we would have to take it

[1:10:36] away from someone um I get that but

[1:10:40] um it will it will be a budgeted line

[1:10:44] eventually it will be funded once we

[1:10:46] start right I'm just saying I don't know

[1:10:48] where we get I guess what I'm saying is

[1:10:50] we have to figure out where we're going

[1:10:51] to get the money from that's that's

[1:10:53] there is an in andl we have that's right

[1:10:55] saying when we get to the ARA discussion

[1:10:58] there might be additional um ways that

[1:11:00] we could get it there I'm just saying I

[1:11:02] don't know where we get it from but um I

[1:11:04] definitely would support increasing this

[1:11:06] so just to be clear I have no objection

[1:11:09] to supporting this level I would we

[1:11:12] walked away last night 250 was the

[1:11:13] number and I was like okay I'm good with

[1:11:15] that and and I'm still good with

[1:11:18] that go ahead please um I'm I'm

[1:11:20] wondering like if we we put on the line

[1:11:22] on the Youth Services

[1:11:25] we it it we're going to commit to hoping

[1:11:28] it goes toward deployment make it's open

[1:11:30] where we have also the option if say

[1:11:33] there certain Community there's schools

[1:11:35] in every community and we have

[1:11:38] complaints from neighborhood residents

[1:11:39] that we have youth just no activities

[1:11:42] nothing and I worked in a rock program

[1:11:44] had a budget of $45,000 a year and it

[1:11:47] was highly effective to get 80 kids

[1:11:48] there at night is that we have that

[1:11:50] flexibility say hey here's a h a spot

[1:11:53] there's a lot of unstructured free time

[1:11:55] which is you know one of those risk

[1:11:58] factors for juvenile agency let's create

[1:12:00] a program in that community and let's

[1:12:02] started up we have the budget here we're

[1:12:04] not using unemployment we could do

[1:12:06] something like that and if that is

[1:12:08] effective we can look to continue

[1:12:09] funding yet if you look at my email I do

[1:12:12] say um to change it from youth

[1:12:14] employment to youth services for that

[1:12:16] very point to have a bro I I do think I

[1:12:18] mean just to go back a step um what we

[1:12:21] were what we did I think in the past was

[1:12:24] give it to the county for their youth

[1:12:26] you know through that youth employment

[1:12:27] that the county runs right so I think we

[1:12:31] you know that's another consider yeah

[1:12:33] that's the consideration too because um

[1:12:37] you know that's program management I

[1:12:39] mean

[1:12:40] we we I guess I'm saying that I mean I'm

[1:12:44] not I'm not I'm not sure that we should

[1:12:46] take it back into the city because then

[1:12:47] we'd have to have a staff person that

[1:12:49] was you know coordinating it so I think

[1:12:51] with some of you know some of the

[1:12:53] flexibility really it's going to be if we do this it still would be with the

[1:12:58] County's Youth Employment I think well

[1:13:01] it was it was a partnership between the

[1:13:03] county school in the school district in

[1:13:05] the school district I actually wrote

[1:13:06] that down too were you able to share

[1:13:08] with us how how how were you able to

[1:13:10] manage it last year does that well we

[1:13:14] put people in departments so there was a

[1:13:17] supervisory

[1:13:18] structure there in place the year before

[1:13:22] it was more broad-based and some of

[1:13:24] those expens ures out of that line I

[1:13:26] would classify as being

[1:13:34] interesting just said they're

[1:13:40] interesting they wouldn't have happened

[1:13:42] had I reviewed the individual

[1:13:48] expenditure well in terms of the county

[1:13:50] what I can say they've run their program

[1:13:52] for a long time and part of I know part

[1:13:55] of it they paid staff but what I

[1:13:57] understand we're talking about is this

[1:13:59] money would only be to pay the youth or

[1:14:01] are you talking about the people who

[1:14:03] would also supervise so so my okay

[1:14:08] well we consistently made investments in

[1:14:11] the Parks and what I look at this money

[1:14:14] is how do we go back to some of those

[1:14:17] old days when there were Recreation

[1:14:19] specialists in the Parks there's more

[1:14:21] activities there it's not precluding any

[1:14:23] the discussion whether it's a tonight or

[1:14:26] uh in facilities that might not solely

[1:14:29] be the parks so bringing in other

[1:14:31] partners uh but it's the take that uh 8

[1:14:36] 10 weeks during the summer and how do

[1:14:40] we spend the

[1:14:43] money the simple thing is in the city

[1:14:45] hiring people working in the Parks doing

[1:14:48] activities there uh but more than open

[1:14:53] to if there are other partners ERS to

[1:14:56] their private businesses or other

[1:14:59] entities uh this summer I had a

[1:15:03] discussion with the superintendent of

[1:15:05] schools he' just come into that role

[1:15:08] we're looking to do more recruitment

[1:15:11] for

[1:15:12] uh kids within the schools and also

[1:15:16] trying to match them up to

[1:15:20] uh possible career paths in the city we

[1:15:24] spent a lot of time focusing on Public

[1:15:25] Safety police and

[1:15:28] fire it's hard right now to find people

[1:15:31] for water and waste

[1:15:33] water and those are ones where you have

[1:15:36] to have some math skills

[1:15:39] uh and if it's environmental it's uh

[1:15:44] very timely uh how do we get kids to

[1:15:46] come in and uh be exposed to that

[1:15:49] because most people don't even know

[1:15:50] those jobs exist out there but they're

[1:15:53] good career paths you go in you get

[1:15:55] higher levels of

[1:15:57] certification uh and

[1:16:00] they're the reality is they're more

[1:16:02] important than a lot of the other

[1:16:04] positions we have because if water and

[1:16:06] sore doesn't

[1:16:07] work we're in trouble absolutely so this past year when we had people at the

[1:16:13] um for the city did anybody work in the

[1:16:15] waste waterer treatment plant were we

[1:16:17] able to put anybody there no we had some

[1:16:20] the year before but did not get any this

[1:16:23] year and in terms of that there's that

[1:16:27] um program EOS where they do a whole lot

[1:16:29] of that you know environmental stuff so

[1:16:32] and when we talk about partners that

[1:16:34] might be a place because my

[1:16:36] understanding of their program they have

[1:16:37] gotten I've watched some of the videos

[1:16:39] they've really gotten kids very very

[1:16:41] interested in uh doing those kind of

[1:16:43] things so then identifying those kind of

[1:16:44] Partners where we're broadening the

[1:16:46] scope of what we're offering to youth as

[1:16:48] opposed to absolutely you working

[1:16:51] nothing wrong with City Vault working

[1:16:52] City Vault um but just because kids have

[1:16:55] other interests they have a variety of

[1:16:57] interests yeah the way some of our

[1:16:59] department has a feeling we might need

[1:17:00] them kids to come here and work cuz uh

[1:17:02] we don't get them ra but now I think

[1:17:04] that the

[1:17:06] mayor the mayor was saying uh if we look

[1:17:10] at you know those strategic Partnerships

[1:17:14] um and I think we get the most value out of our dollar I just kind of want to

[1:17:19] keep that in front of our mind that this

[1:17:23] it it looks like you know well and is we

[1:17:25] classify it as you know this is a

[1:17:27] expenditure on the city's behalf but

[1:17:29] again that's money that's going to be in

[1:17:31] our local economy that's money that is

[1:17:34] going to help um you know curve some of

[1:17:36] that idle time that results in public

[1:17:39] safety cost so I just you're absolutely

[1:17:41] correct in terms of an economic analysis

[1:17:44] that type of expenditure has one of the

[1:17:46] highest

[1:17:48] multipliers of any dollars you spent so

[1:17:50] if you want to go 500,000 I'm okay any

[1:17:52] money we put towards this land here it's

[1:17:55] an investment to our youth it's an

[1:17:58] investment we have listened in 2023 I

[1:18:01] think the success story or 2022 when

[1:18:04] they did the first program through the

[1:18:06] school with the city partnership with

[1:18:07] the school the success story is kind of

[1:18:10] you know it drives you to do more

[1:18:13] because once we invest in our youth it's

[1:18:16] a long-term effect putting money into

[1:18:19] the local economy into the local um

[1:18:22] houses so that they have money at the

[1:18:23] disposal to spend and to take them back

[1:18:25] into school and to buy supplies for them

[1:18:28] new clothing New Bag new you know

[1:18:31] Footwear and things like that I am not

[1:18:33] opposed to any increase against L but uh

[1:18:37] we have to find way to fund it m I have

[1:18:40] been from day one I have been an

[1:18:42] advocate for this um you can talk about

[1:18:45] that we sit in a room every year of the

[1:18:48] fund continue to fund on the county

[1:18:51] $40,000 a year there were many

[1:18:53] discussion me how do we bring this back

[1:18:54] in house year after year but then do we

[1:18:57] have the capacity do we have the

[1:18:58] resource to do it and I have to agree

[1:19:00] with the mayor we need to expand bring

[1:19:01] in more agency because if we can

[1:19:03] leverage whatever we put here into the

[1:19:06] 2025 budget we need to leverage with

[1:19:08] other agency to expand it and I think

[1:19:11] that's what I said yesterday we all need

[1:19:13] to get on board we all need to bring

[1:19:15] players to the table and expand the

[1:19:22] service any other take on this item

[1:19:27] unfortunately have another

[1:19:29] commitment you can pass the budget there

[1:19:32] we

[1:19:32] [Music]

[1:19:34] go take

[1:19:36] over just

[1:19:41] kidding this is a p this this as long I always use this as long as I've been

[1:19:46] in the council this has been a

[1:19:47] passionate line and I don't think anyone

[1:19:50] of us here is against

[1:19:52] it no not at all we are

[1:19:56] support we have seen what's happening in

[1:19:58] our society and we need to step up as a

[1:20:01] council to provide whatever we have

[1:20:04] available to them yeah we got we got to

[1:20:06] fund it like it's got to get the money

[1:20:07] we got to fund it we all we all agree so

[1:20:09] we just need to identify number and then

[1:20:11] where do we find the Gap so what is a

[1:20:14] number right so that's the first

[1:20:16] question go ahead just need a number so

[1:20:18] let me just go back so yesterday

[1:20:21] we there was a recommendation to bring

[1:20:24] that up to 250,000 and then there's an

[1:20:26] email this afternoon to kind of up that

[1:20:28] up 50,000 more to bring that to

[1:20:32] 300,000 what are your position with that

[1:20:34] in terms of the numbers mine's

[1:20:37] 300,000

[1:20:39] 250 I'm happy to go

[1:20:41] 250 so I would say if you do 250 and you

[1:20:45] talk about some sort of split it does

[1:20:47] still reach your desire of increasing

[1:20:50] capacity and it allows us more time to

[1:20:53] engage how propy fund is I feel like

[1:20:55] that could be a compromise mrle I I

[1:20:59] would have to get clarity on like what

[1:21:00] kind of split I don't

[1:21:02] understand what do you mean by that 250

[1:21:05] versus 300 no no the split between the

[1:21:07] employer and what this line would

[1:21:09] potentially fund if you did 50/50 you're

[1:21:12] essentially doubling it plus adding

[1:21:14] money to the line also I think directly

[1:21:17] for

[1:21:18] employment what he means he means asking

[1:21:21] we we talked about it's been mentioned

[1:21:23] that we asked the employers to contrib

[1:21:24] it oh sorry sorry sorry I I don't think

[1:21:27] we can count on that so I think moving

[1:21:30] for at least until we get the program up

[1:21:32] and running and maybe next year we'd be

[1:21:34] able to ask employers but I think I'm

[1:21:36] comfortable with 250 and finding the

[1:21:38] additional 100,000 I do want to point

[1:21:40] out that we do need to continue you know

[1:21:42] paying for the

[1:21:43] lifeguards is that different that's not

[1:21:45] effective sear that's separate

[1:21:48] line yes okay no just wanted to make

[1:21:51] sure okay um that thought so 250 go

[1:21:56] please the um boys and girls club like

[1:21:59] at sond you know that bring in the

[1:22:01] summer programs did that come out of

[1:22:03] this yes it's in here it's in our budget

[1:22:05] here oh it come out no no no no no

[1:22:09] service sear I was looking for it in

[1:22:11] pool in is it in pool Parks or yes on

[1:22:14] the parks a separate L that we fund

[1:22:17] every year to um to pay for the the

[1:22:21] guards and the um good so that's good so

[1:22:25] really in essence we're giving if we

[1:22:27] went with whatever number we come up

[1:22:29] with here you can all in your heads

[1:22:32] realize it's an additional 150 also to

[1:22:34] still be hiring

[1:22:37] youth yes yes an additional

[1:22:40] 150 you know what I mean I know what you

[1:22:46] mean okays everything in other words if

[1:22:50] we did 250 it's really in in the end it

[1:22:52] would be $400,000 that would putting

[1:22:54] into youth employment she saying there's

[1:22:56] 15 ready that's what I'm saying yeah but

[1:22:59] it's not necessarily that's not

[1:23:02] necessarily the thing though because

[1:23:04] that is a that that money is part of a

[1:23:06] larger contract that's with the boys and

[1:23:07] girls club that's you know so I know

[1:23:10] that's that some of the implications and

[1:23:12] the outcome

[1:23:13] is is

[1:23:15] there however that to uh mind Joe's

[1:23:20] earlier Point around like changing that

[1:23:22] from just youth employment to Youth

[1:23:23] Services so yeah oh yeah no I get that I

[1:23:28] just like to ask Derek do you have any

[1:23:30] idea where you might listening to the

[1:23:32] conversation where we might be able to

[1:23:35] fund this from that's I mean currently

[1:23:39] looking at 2,000 no it was 300 was my

[1:23:44] thing let's start

[1:23:46] there 15,000 for that reduce expenditure

[1:23:51] in general fund or looking at something

[1:23:53] increasing the revenue mhm

[1:23:56] sure

[1:23:58] yeah that's consider sure so so yeah so

[1:24:03] yeah it will be it will be a discussion

[1:24:05] that you will have to have with

[1:24:07] um Anthony or it's something

[1:24:14] NE I a

[1:24:17] decision increased

[1:24:19] access

[1:24:22] more yeah are we going to have you

[1:24:28] PID most likely if you increase the

[1:24:30] revenue be coming from apprpriate fund

[1:24:33] balance um expend I don't know you take

[1:24:37] on because it's a really tight

[1:24:40] budget so so let's mark it them as a um

[1:24:44] but most of these if we are not

[1:24:45] increasing the revenue we'll potentially

[1:24:48] have to come out of the general Reserve

[1:24:50] sure so let's put that there as

[1:24:52] tentative if we have an agreement to

[1:24:54] move forward with that increase so

[1:24:57] 250,000 I actually 300 I'm comfortable

[1:25:00] with 250

[1:25:05] um

[1:25:07] I I would like to hear where the other

[1:25:09] council members stand 280 I know nobody wants to hear about

[1:25:16] 200

[1:25:17] [Music]

[1:25:19] 200 50,000,000 compared to what we had

[1:25:23] in there and

[1:25:25] not that it's not important but again

[1:25:26] we're tightening our belts uh if we

[1:25:29] leverage it with the county the city the

[1:25:32] this you're looking at two for $600,000

[1:25:34] in there I I don't know just

[1:25:37] saying I'm very if the let me just

[1:25:41] address that with the county if we were

[1:25:43] to what we have had in the past and this

[1:25:46] is what the mayor was trying to bring it

[1:25:47] in house many years and we had an

[1:25:50] agreement with the county once we found

[1:25:52] the county it's an employment we're

[1:25:54] funding an employment for the entire

[1:25:56] County that's true not just the city not

[1:25:59] the city and this was a problem mayor

[1:26:01] was pointing us to that many years and

[1:26:04] that was an agreement we had and then uh

[1:26:06] after give the May credit on that he

[1:26:08] tried hard to bring it in house and

[1:26:10] which we did and we are able to fund

[1:26:13] this program for City resident only

[1:26:16] rather than County resident that we been

[1:26:18] funding for many years so we can't just

[1:26:21] ask the county we can't we can't STI we

[1:26:24] partner with a county we have to fund

[1:26:26] the entire County so no so no so the

[1:26:29] last so so you're I I think what you're

[1:26:32] talking about uh is is is something that

[1:26:35] happened that we were giving money we

[1:26:37] were taking money and giving it to the

[1:26:38] county and then the county was doing

[1:26:40] what the county did it was youth

[1:26:42] employment but to your point it was long

[1:26:43] thing the program that that that we uh

[1:26:48] launched what was it two years ago 22

[1:26:51] yeah two years ago the program design it

[1:26:55] was only that's why it was a partnership

[1:26:57] with the city school district and the

[1:26:59] county was was uh helping with the

[1:27:02] administrative fees but these were all

[1:27:04] City residents not $1 left the city

[1:27:06] right so that would be what I yeah it's

[1:27:08] a change to Dynamics yes that's what

[1:27:09] brought

[1:27:10] it I prefer that but not inh housee

[1:27:13] in-house because we're training it's

[1:27:15] going to be in addition to City staff

[1:27:17] that still want other employers involved

[1:27:20] in this as opposed to yeah yeah

[1:27:24] I think that so why partnering with the

[1:27:27] county the logic Ling partner with the

[1:27:28] county is because they have the

[1:27:29] infrastructure there but when we were

[1:27:31] designing the program the conversation

[1:27:34] was that it has to be on City residents

[1:27:38] and the school district being a city

[1:27:41] school district was able to that's why

[1:27:44] those Partners made made sense however

[1:27:47] what the school district was doing was

[1:27:49] also partnering with some small

[1:27:50] businesses so they were so to not get

[1:27:52] into the weeds of the program stuff the

[1:27:54] things that are important to us is that

[1:27:56] it's we increase partnership which we

[1:27:59] did and it stays in the city which it

[1:28:00] did so that's a

[1:28:02] fact and John say you got it at the

[1:28:05] table it's back to 350 now 350

[1:28:08] [Music]

[1:28:09] 350 back never

[1:28:12] was every time John gets up on the table

[1:28:14] when I'm talking that's what happens so

[1:28:16] to make it an

[1:28:17] inine right and you know you might not

[1:28:22] be able to you know it's an Ara funding

[1:28:24] now it is yes right so then the year

[1:28:27] after 2026 it becomes inline it becomes

[1:28:30] all ours and looking at our

[1:28:33] future I don't want to put 300,000 on

[1:28:36] there and not being able to fund it two

[1:28:38] years from

[1:28:39] that but that so why that difficult no no but that so why that make so why

[1:28:47] that position makes sense for most other

[1:28:51] things is different than this why this

[1:28:52] is unique is because this is something

[1:28:55] that if we

[1:28:56] can if we have the money to help the

[1:28:59] youth then we use the money to help the

[1:29:02] youth and when we don't have the money

[1:29:03] to help the youth then it's not real

[1:29:06] decision because we just don't have it

[1:29:07] but why this is a little different than

[1:29:09] some of the other considerations we make

[1:29:11] again is because this will to the

[1:29:13] mayor's point which I was stressing

[1:29:16] earlier is that it's not just an

[1:29:19] expenditure the research shows that this

[1:29:21] is leveraging this is the highest

[1:29:23] leverage point investment that you can

[1:29:25] make as a city so it's not just the

[1:29:27] money that's going out it's the money

[1:29:29] that's saving and hopefully the money

[1:29:30] that we're saving bringing back in and

[1:29:32] the money circulating our economy would

[1:29:34] help with that looking down the line so

[1:29:36] I just want to make sure it stays Point

[1:29:38] yeah I think was very direct about that

[1:29:41] he was leading towards that in terms of

[1:29:43] his his comments towards us I mean I'm

[1:29:48] not against um F line for

[1:29:51] 250 uh yesterday and then we revisit it

[1:29:56] um you know next year because this is

[1:29:59] our future and it's it's a future that

[1:30:02] we're going to um permanently add into

[1:30:05] the budget Way Beyond my time I would

[1:30:07] like to see it there um I don't have

[1:30:10] problem do 250 now and at the same time

[1:30:13] expand this uh for

[1:30:15] other

[1:30:17] um players to get involved and to help

[1:30:21] us support this program

[1:30:25] School District

[1:30:27] only I like that yeah I think that's

[1:30:30] what they did in 2022 Oh you mean for

[1:30:32] students for for

[1:30:34] kids so Joe you at Joe's at

[1:30:39] three I'll go

[1:30:41] three three thank

[1:30:44] you yeah I you know I think i' love to

[1:30:47] see how you know the

[1:30:49] outcomes as we move forward and in our

[1:30:51] fac you know and then do we have toci it

[1:30:55] or if it's working I think it'll be

[1:30:56] pretty evident and I think that would be

[1:30:58] something that will continue to

[1:31:01] fund at that level okay I'm not seeing

[1:31:05] it in the arpa so I don't know what I'm

[1:31:07] missing no it's somebody just said

[1:31:10] 150,000 funded through our in the budget

[1:31:13] into 2025 oh funded I see okay sorry sry

[1:31:16] if we were to up it so whatever number

[1:31:18] we agreed on here tonight no I I get you

[1:31:21] it will be in the budget for 2025 but

[1:31:23] when we do our roll back on the ARA

[1:31:26] allocation we will have to put money

[1:31:29] into that um blank to reappropriate

[1:31:32] money into the youth service line just um one youth in a institution oh

[1:31:40] yeah 400,000 Y what I'm sorry oh yeah yeah yeah no it's valuable use

[1:31:47] that's what we're seeing it's an

[1:31:48] investment in in our city that we all

[1:31:50] going to be proud of

[1:31:54] we just have to find the money I mean if

[1:31:55] we're split and we have 300 300 I don't

[1:31:58] mind go 300 look we we got to move

[1:32:01] forward on this I I am $50,000 or

[1:32:05] $20,000 is nothing in a $116 million

[1:32:09] budget which is have to find the extra

[1:32:12] 150 be my

[1:32:16] point where's your recommendation

[1:32:18] outside ARA do you have an additional

[1:32:22] one well we were told I Miss far last

[1:32:25] evening that there are potential um yeah

[1:32:28] there's some agency that might not

[1:32:30] fulfill their requirement and we might

[1:32:32] have to make amendments to to bring that

[1:32:35] money back into the city when that money

[1:32:37] is back into the city I was very allow

[1:32:40] at that to make sure we keep that money

[1:32:43] inh housee and to reallocate those money

[1:32:46] to City programs and this is one of the

[1:32:49] city program that we need to

[1:32:52] fund how

[1:32:54] we uh anticipate that money which we can

[1:32:58] at this present point I'm in agreement

[1:33:00] with that wasn't the discussion

[1:33:01] yesterday we're only evaluating those

[1:33:03] four projects yes because of the time

[1:33:06] frame yes so it's how do we write that

[1:33:08] in to our working understanding of

[1:33:10] future money line which I am all in

[1:33:13] favorable it's similar it's similar to fees that we're projecting that we're

[1:33:18] going to make x amount next year on

[1:33:20] fees that's projection and this is just

[1:33:22] similar to projection we're saying that

[1:33:24] we're going to spend $300,000 on youth

[1:33:27] service and where we're getting it from

[1:33:29] We're anticipating that the AR they will

[1:33:31] be money that will be free up and we can

[1:33:34] reallocate

[1:33:35] money but not for this budget though we

[1:33:38] have to because that money was we we

[1:33:39] said yesterday we're not doing that for

[1:33:41] this budget so if we get additional

[1:33:43] 50,000 well well it's going to be more

[1:33:46] than 50 the additional whatever

[1:33:47] additional money we need have to take in

[1:33:49] the fund balance because we talk about

[1:33:51] that money being over there and not here

[1:33:54] that's what saying reappropriation so

[1:33:55] we'll have a ticket out there and when

[1:33:57] we bring back the arpo we will have to

[1:33:59] replenish the general fund VI that our

[1:34:03] company in D is that am I saying it I

[1:34:08] mean I guess you could do it that way um

[1:34:12] you consider not increasing this line um

[1:34:16] and then Council recapture the money um

[1:34:19] we do have oper project Cod which are

[1:34:22] not in the general budget

[1:34:24] so we could possibly leave this line to

[1:34:28] 150,000 and then when we do

[1:34:30] recapture we

[1:34:33] do then the council can decide how much

[1:34:37] and um because we do have you know go

[1:34:40] that you don't see here projects

[1:34:46] yes I just wanted to clarify but it

[1:34:48] would be above and beyond the four the

[1:34:50] four projects are already in the budget

[1:34:53] so we have an additional it have to be

[1:34:55] some other project um right yeah okay

[1:34:58] just want to make sure

[1:35:00] clearing us done that we need to address

[1:35:03] next week and I think M clear um October

[1:35:07] 23rd yeah those are the deadline that

[1:35:10] was provided to some of the agency to

[1:35:12] get back okay I'm confident we find the

[1:35:16] money through those

[1:35:18] Pro the what she talked about last night

[1:35:21] was BC and I had like a million dollars

[1:35:24] that they had not I guess I could say

[1:35:26] the name of your that they had not used

[1:35:28] and she was concerned that they wer

[1:35:30] going to be able to and that that money

[1:35:32] would have to come back in house um the

[1:35:36] others uh not so sure what that's going

[1:35:39] to happen but mil is enough to talk

[1:35:40] about

[1:35:42] yeah so let's so shall we move on or so

[1:35:45] could we you a resolution C on so in

[1:35:50] absence of adjusting this budget line

[1:35:53] with monies that we haven't recuperated

[1:35:55] yet could we do a resolution speaking to

[1:35:57] our intent as a council that way when it

[1:35:59] does come it also provides some

[1:36:01] reassurances Council

[1:36:04] table I the process I don't know I don't

[1:36:07] think we can do

[1:36:10] that I don't think we can do

[1:36:12] that because where where where we fing

[1:36:15] it from that we have to

[1:36:20] direct we have to be direct so it's say

[1:36:23] outside verbal commitment that any

[1:36:24] additional money we get back I don't

[1:36:26] know if that's an appropriate compromise

[1:36:28] for Mr fary well I mean my only thing is

[1:36:31] that you know obviously I know it it has

[1:36:32] to come it would have to come from

[1:36:34] somewhere but and I think that if we're

[1:36:36] looking to um the ARA money that has not

[1:36:39] been uh used well the AR money that has

[1:36:43] not been reallocated reallocated yet

[1:36:46] then

[1:36:48] um then I guess we should you know i' be

[1:36:51] looking for us to do better than than

[1:36:53] what we're at now um but what I'll do

[1:36:55] right now is I'll

[1:36:57] U I'll put a pin in that for now and

[1:37:00] then you know uh send you know what my

[1:37:02] recommendations as to where that uh

[1:37:04] money uh could come from in the existing

[1:37:06] budget um and

[1:37:09] then I'll make some more considerations

[1:37:11] around that so we can move on well I

[1:37:15] before we move on I mean are you saying

[1:37:16] that you might look at our expenses in

[1:37:19] the existing budget as opposed to arpa

[1:37:21] to try to fund the rest of the program

[1:37:24] I guess because I I don't I mean I think

[1:37:25] we're really Bare Bones right now I mean

[1:37:27] and I think the ARA

[1:37:29] money there's there's I mean first of

[1:37:31] all Mrs Carver actually mentioned as as

[1:37:35] council president Porterfield I mean

[1:37:37] there's definitely going to be enough

[1:37:40] for an additional um 150 whatever we you

[1:37:43] know um coming out of this I would not

[1:37:46] be in favor of taking it out of our um

[1:37:49] out of expenses the operating budget no we're not take

[1:37:54] no I think I think he was just saying he

[1:37:55] was going to take a look and and see

[1:37:57] where it could come from but that's what

[1:37:59] I'm

[1:38:00] asking absolutely yeah no yeah no I

[1:38:03] don't think it's it's not coming out of

[1:38:05] expense it's coming out of the general U

[1:38:08] Reserve if we are to fund if we are to

[1:38:11] make a recommendation on the fund any

[1:38:13] additional cost we have to find a bucket

[1:38:16] that to pull it from and if we don't

[1:38:18] have a bucket it has to come up from a

[1:38:19] general Reserve so it's not an expense

[1:38:22] we're not reducing any expense we

[1:38:24] increasing the expense and reducing the

[1:38:27] revenue um is that correct reducing

[1:38:31] the fund balance yes and that's going to

[1:38:34] be a big hit this year yeah I we already

[1:38:36] are doing that so I mean I think my

[1:38:38] first choice would be

[1:38:40] arpa um before anything so the

[1:38:43] conversation earlier was that the arpa

[1:38:46] money once we do once we do Rec a cob

[1:38:50] back to replenish that that's what was

[1:38:53] said that's what I'm in favor of oh okay

[1:38:57] take the ARA money back and put it into

[1:38:59] the general reappropriate the money back

[1:39:02] can we do that can we do that I don't

[1:39:04] know if we can use our money well all

[1:39:08] right make a project on its own um it

[1:39:11] would be out of the general fund um I

[1:39:13] don't know if the council wants to do

[1:39:15] that but there are project City projects

[1:39:17] there you know the council have funded

[1:39:21] uh nonprofits that are not F budget I

[1:39:24] don't know if that's something that the

[1:39:25] council's looking at you so it wouldn't

[1:39:28] show in the general f could could we ask

[1:39:32] that you in finance come you know you've

[1:39:35] heard the conversation you see what we

[1:39:37] want to spend what you know can you come

[1:39:39] back to us with what your best

[1:39:41] recommendation would be for the best way

[1:39:43] to do that to increase this line

[1:39:47] General and what would be your

[1:39:48] recommendation in terms of the in out

[1:39:51] yeah where we get the money from

[1:39:56] problem you have to take it from fund

[1:40:00] balance decre expense somewhere else

[1:40:02] within the fund right so we have to take

[1:40:05] from another expense from another line

[1:40:07] I'm not even say a name because then

[1:40:10] like yeah she said

[1:40:11] that but so we have to take an expense

[1:40:13] from another line in order to fund this

[1:40:16] another right chares or some other

[1:40:20] inrease or um take then I don't think

[1:40:23] that we can then we because we're

[1:40:25] already taking money from the fund

[1:40:27] balance that's at a very large amount so

[1:40:29] I would not be comfortable with

[1:40:31] that and so um I like the idea of us and

[1:40:35] I'm I'm certainly committed to it and I

[1:40:37] wouldn't go back on that that we use the

[1:40:39] ARA money that we're going to bring back

[1:40:41] because Miss car says we're going to

[1:40:43] bring some back and as the mayor say we

[1:40:45] don't take it all back we're taking some

[1:40:47] back would be enough to to fund this um

[1:40:52] I just want to caution we did talk about

[1:40:54] this post of planting thing and it was

[1:40:55] definitely about federal funds and it

[1:40:58] speaks specifically to something you've

[1:41:00] already budgeted and then you have other

[1:41:01] money put it back so I think we would

[1:41:04] have to take a look at

[1:41:05] that

[1:41:09] something I'm not asking

[1:41:11] about this particular I'm talking about

[1:41:14] these phones and supp planting not

[1:41:15] Police

[1:41:17] Department yeah go ahead please but I

[1:41:20] would also say the number we put in this

[1:41:23] line is arbitrary because if as you're

[1:41:26] implementing it you recognize the

[1:41:28] tangibles that you and Mr Man are

[1:41:30] highlighting we can just make a budget

[1:41:32] amendment but I think if we use this

[1:41:34] year as a case study I think everyone

[1:41:37] has made abundantly clear we're on we're

[1:41:38] in favor of making this a permanent line

[1:41:40] we're just trying to identify to what

[1:41:42] extent what I think if this meets all

[1:41:44] the objectives that you highlighted and

[1:41:46] I do not doubt in any manner that it

[1:41:47] won't I think we can then look at how do

[1:41:49] we leverage some of our other Public

[1:41:51] Safety Investments to support this

[1:41:53] effort as a way to restructure how do we

[1:41:56] respond to these types of ongoing

[1:41:58] incidents throughout the community so I think if we can just get a number

[1:42:02] here getting into the year we'll be able

[1:42:05] to adjust it as fit we're all in support

[1:42:08] of Mr oh yeah no I know I just well all

[1:42:13] right let me how much we support is is I think that we that that is

[1:42:20] demonstrated by our level of investment

[1:42:23] and I think that I'm not it's so let me

[1:42:25] be clear cuz I don't want anyone to

[1:42:26] misinterpret what I'm saying I don't

[1:42:28] think that anyone

[1:42:30] is against investing in our youth I

[1:42:34] think everyone here is saying that and I

[1:42:36] think that I think that there's a

[1:42:39] justification for I guess the way I

[1:42:41] would frame is I think that there's a

[1:42:42] justification for a larger investment

[1:42:44] than what other council members are

[1:42:46] comfortable with and that's okay because

[1:42:48] that's part of our

[1:42:50] job but I I I

[1:42:53] strongly feel

[1:42:56] that what I would

[1:43:00] reasonable we're going to hear something

[1:43:02] next week about the um

[1:43:05] those other

[1:43:07] agency that is not up to par in terms of

[1:43:10] um documentation in terms of their

[1:43:13] additional funding so why don't we hold

[1:43:16] tight on the 150 with an understanding

[1:43:19] from the seven of us that once the arpa

[1:43:23] is back with the city the ARA funding we

[1:43:27] will do the first re um

[1:43:30] reappropriation for $100,000 from the

[1:43:33] ARA to fund this and to increase it to

[1:43:36] $250,000 then I think and free up the U

[1:43:41] the kind of like the stress right now on

[1:43:44] the general

[1:43:45] Reserve we can say that and all agree to

[1:43:49] it but we don't know ARA money coming

[1:43:52] back back to us we we well we know that

[1:43:57] for a fact how much is coming back you

[1:43:59] know who could get their their ducks in

[1:44:01] a row before whatever I mean why could

[1:44:03] we I don't think we should depend on

[1:44:05] something that we don't so us as a

[1:44:07] council holding strip on 150 okay I'm

[1:44:11] okay with that but what if all of a

[1:44:12] sudden you know next week who's stepping

[1:44:15] up everything and the ARA money's I

[1:44:17] don't want to say gone by any means but

[1:44:21] there's people have other plans I don't

[1:44:23] know it's just something I'm really not

[1:44:26] comfortable uh saying right now if we're

[1:44:29] going to put $100,000 into the line has

[1:44:31] to go into the line yeah I think the

[1:44:33] mayor also made mention that there are

[1:44:34] project that will come in with some

[1:44:37] savings that will also come back into

[1:44:39] the city um for you know to use in other

[1:44:43] um projects or programs so we have to

[1:44:47] move forward at some point in time here

[1:44:49] we can't stuck on this so we uh we find find where refund this and move

[1:44:54] forward or we put it on hold until next

[1:44:57] week when we get another update from

[1:45:00] Miss car of the other agencies and then

[1:45:03] we as a council would have to have to

[1:45:05] meet u a special meeting reappropriate

[1:45:08] make amendments and reapo uh

[1:45:10] reappropriate these money

[1:45:12] then I just need some clarity so first

[1:45:15] of all um in terms of what Miss Carver

[1:45:18] was saying yesterday she was pretty

[1:45:19] confident that that this the money come

[1:45:21] back she specifically called out an

[1:45:23] agency and said not only do they have

[1:45:25] this money which they haven't touched

[1:45:27] there's other money that they haven't

[1:45:28] touched she was 100% confident that that

[1:45:31] there is some money coming back in well

[1:45:33] over the amount the other thing is

[1:45:35] though when we we finished last night we

[1:45:38] did say we left at 250 but now I'm

[1:45:40] hearing we're going to hold at 150 and

[1:45:43] then when the AR real allocation comes

[1:45:45] in to bring the other Mr Farley would

[1:45:48] say 150 in so is that that's what I'm

[1:45:52] recommended at this

[1:45:54] time and I I think that that's that's a

[1:45:56] doable stuff for us because you listen

[1:45:59] to miss car she was very direct in terms

[1:46:03] of money coming back and I think she

[1:46:05] would not do that publicly if she did

[1:46:08] not have concrete

[1:46:10] information and I trust

[1:46:13] her not that I trust her I support that

[1:46:16] I'm not I do not support taking the

[1:46:18] extra $100,000 from another expense line

[1:46:21] um so I do support using the what's

[1:46:24] going to come back from arpa to do this

[1:46:26] and I feel strongly that we're all

[1:46:27] obviously wanting to make this

[1:46:29] investment but I am not in favor of

[1:46:31] touching any expense any expense is here

[1:46:33] for a purpose right and if we were to

[1:46:36] drop an

[1:46:37] expense an expenditure line then we

[1:46:40] we're jeopardizing a service to our

[1:46:43] community if we want to increase it we

[1:46:45] have to find Revenue we either increase

[1:46:48] the revenue line or we take it out from

[1:46:51] the Reserve I I the only two option we

[1:46:54] have two options we have y so my

[1:46:56] recommendation to hold tight on 150 we

[1:46:59] come back as early as we can and make a

[1:47:03] budget re appropriation we have done

[1:47:05] that in the past way before the budget

[1:47:07] into the into the new year I can recall

[1:47:11] we we have done that I think maybe

[1:47:13] another option to just think is maybe

[1:47:15] the council dig deep and see if there's

[1:47:17] local partners that may want to

[1:47:19] donate um to Youth Services uh to the

[1:47:24] that might be a possibility as well I

[1:47:27] think I I agree I think that is a

[1:47:29] possibility but I also think that if we

[1:47:31] do that then it just increases our

[1:47:32] capacity to serve more Youth and I

[1:47:34] wouldn't really be um I for one wouldn't

[1:47:37] be comfortable um frankly I'm not

[1:47:40] comfortable um taking such an important

[1:47:43] thing and leaving it up

[1:47:46] to the generosity of others or because I

[1:47:50] don't know where people you know some

[1:47:53] people you know look at the position

[1:47:55] we're in we want to do we want to fund

[1:47:57] more but

[1:47:58] we're strapped a little bit we're trying

[1:48:01] to figure out how to do that I think

[1:48:02] that that might be the case across our

[1:48:04] community so I I wouldn't feel

[1:48:06] comfortable um solely depending on that

[1:48:09] um how do you feel that Mr ear if you

[1:48:12] don't mind me ask about the the um what

[1:48:16] Mr Mr M saying about doing the now then

[1:48:19] the AR when it comes back to and before

[1:48:21] just be clear that would happen before

[1:48:22] the end of 2024 has to and then we we we

[1:48:27] um appropriate some of those funds to

[1:48:30] then um then fund that to the level

[1:48:33] that's that's you're requesting because

[1:48:35] my concern is and we you know we ask

[1:48:38] Corporation Council I did talk to Mr um

[1:48:41] Sean Ryan about this but but for

[1:48:43] something different that we put the

[1:48:45] money in and then from the fund balance

[1:48:47] and put it in and then take it back out

[1:48:49] and then put this money in and then we

[1:48:51] could be considered supplanting because

[1:48:53] this is federal money and there's a real

[1:48:55] thing about that yeah oh absolutely I

[1:48:56] mean I would anything that we do um you

[1:48:59] know has to be in compliance with the

[1:49:01] parameters you know so so I'm definitely

[1:49:03] not suggesting we do anything that um

[1:49:06] would uh find we could find ourselves

[1:49:08] liable for misappropriation of funds um

[1:49:11] I don't think anyone's saying that but I

[1:49:14] so I I consider um Mr moari scenario um

[1:49:21] right now I'm not comfort able with ag

[1:49:23] green to that right now but uh I'd like

[1:49:27] a little bit more time to uh ponder that

[1:49:29] and see what that could look like I

[1:49:30] think that's that's a fair

[1:49:36] answer okay move on any other question

[1:49:44] this Mr Williams you want to go true um

[1:49:53] no no no no no sorry um I'm reading and

[1:49:56] asking you at the same time we just to

[1:49:58] go back up to yours U your

[1:49:59] recommendation part U development

[1:50:02] Administration and the director of

[1:50:05] development the owning officer homes I

[1:50:08] just wait for if you don't mind

[1:50:12] here miss Patrick oh let's wait on Miss

[1:50:15] Patrick it would be fa

[1:50:23] take a two minute

[1:50:28] recess I think we should recess Finance

[1:50:30] till next

[1:50:31] Tuesday it's been an exhausting

[1:50:36] week I was hoping to get this thing

[1:50:43] [Music]

[1:51:03] no and this money going to get back if

[1:51:08] you

[1:51:09] get I just recall something around the

[1:51:12] conversation that we couldn't we can't

[1:51:14] put it in this

[1:51:17] budget so when we get a call back when

[1:51:20] we get money back we'll have to do

[1:51:25] yes for our programs outside of this

[1:51:27] budget so you have to be a

[1:51:29] reappropriation to the and what does it

[1:51:31] take to do that simple resolution simple

[1:51:34] amending the resolution taking a money

[1:51:36] back from those agency and reappropriate

[1:51:39] to the city and then we'll have to list

[1:51:42] programs the city yes now let me ask you

[1:51:44] a question so with this whole process

[1:51:47] that began our where people put in

[1:51:49] applications now all of a sudden there's

[1:51:51] money back into the city we have to be

[1:51:54] absolutely no go well you say you say no

[1:51:58] but we've already had another aspect we

[1:52:00] having asked for for a baseball

[1:52:03] basketball okay so I I'm just bringing

[1:52:06] that no no no I am going to be straight

[1:52:08] up and I made it very clear in in the

[1:52:10] budget meeting and and beyond that I am

[1:52:13] not supporting any money that is coming

[1:52:15] back to us to go outside of the city let

[1:52:19] it is going to stay I was very clear

[1:52:21] during budget hearing money is going to

[1:52:22] state in house when you say back to the

[1:52:24] city you mean back to the city city of

[1:52:26] conect budget not to agencies or any

[1:52:29] other programs outside of the city I

[1:52:31] would not support that just yeah and on

[1:52:35] red card again not because I hear what

[1:52:37] you're saying though that's a good point

[1:52:39] to bring up but no we we we shouldn't do

[1:52:41] that and I I think we should do that but

[1:52:44] no we

[1:52:46] shouldn't what if just

[1:52:49] hypothetically what if and I don't know

[1:52:52] can we keep talking yeah slide be

[1:52:55] careful what you're saying um but I mean

[1:52:59] hypothetically there might be many more

[1:53:01] projects that the money would come back

[1:53:04] um so

[1:53:06] then could we do okay so we can't like

[1:53:10] okay we should not consider anything

[1:53:12] outside we're done are okay to the

[1:53:15] agency outside and we should keep

[1:53:18] that okay nobody would change my mind on

[1:53:22] that

[1:53:23] I don't care what they what

[1:53:25] they I straight forward that to keep it

[1:53:29] to help us with our projects our call

[1:53:32] and to address anything that is related

[1:53:35] excuse me sorry the youth the youth

[1:53:37] service youth program is City program

[1:53:40] okay

[1:53:53] this little

[1:54:05] warm I'm going to go through L um both

[1:54:09] recommendation um one by one see where

[1:54:12] stands and we wrap up I okay thank

[1:54:20] you okay let's continue I will do um

[1:54:23] item by item and V recommendation that

[1:54:26] is before us and let's move on and then

[1:54:29] we'll go to the next one and then we'll

[1:54:31] um conclude because I don't see that we

[1:54:35] have a conclusion this um this evening

[1:54:38] so let's deal with um the one that we

[1:54:39] receiv received today Department of um

[1:54:41] development Administration director of

[1:54:44] development yesterday there was a

[1:54:47] recommendation to increase

[1:54:50] that to 10%

[1:54:56] Mr Williams my

[1:55:00] recommendation on that sheet okay yes is

[1:55:02] that sheet that I Shar with you

[1:55:05] today what is the council take on this

[1:55:08] can I please have your input go ahead

[1:55:10] please so I just want to take it from

[1:55:11] the larger perspective and um we are

[1:55:17] talking about um that this is going to

[1:55:19] the the amount that where would you say

[1:55:21] we would be getting that amount from the

[1:55:23] 91,000 916 where were they Happ we did

[1:55:25] not identify okay where it's coming from

[1:55:29] so larger perspective and let me also

[1:55:34] keep keep in mind that this amount these

[1:55:36] things already include the 250 they

[1:55:38] don't include 150 so there's that so um

[1:55:41] do we my in order to not spend 91,000 of

[1:55:47] the

[1:55:48] um of the fund balance then I would

[1:55:51] suggest that maybe you can lower some of

[1:55:53] these um simply because it's more going

[1:55:57] to be more than 4% but also it's going

[1:56:00] to it's um not maybe not be quite T the

[1:56:03] level that these are at because within

[1:56:05] this number we haven't

[1:56:06] included the person from the email the

[1:56:09] new one cor so just want to put that out

[1:56:13] there that it could be something you can

[1:56:15] consider so it's not the full what we

[1:56:18] decided last year last point I didn't

[1:56:20] frankly

[1:56:23] that

[1:56:26] 97,000 I'm sorry 97 individual

[1:56:30] 10% at their 2024

[1:56:35] salary be

[1:56:37] 9336 would be the new salary the council

[1:56:40] didn't make that change and a difference

[1:56:42] of

[1:56:44] $593 um that over variance

[1:56:48] 97609 609 yeah 9769

[1:56:53] and and I just also want to point out

[1:56:55] while we're talking about it um when we

[1:56:58] originally got the asks for these

[1:57:00] Physicians the director of development

[1:57:03] the ask was at 15 so we already reduced

[1:57:06] it on the ask so this initial ask for

[1:57:09] the other position the principal planner

[1:57:11] the initial ask was at 10 so we've

[1:57:14] already started to um make it less than

[1:57:18] the asked on all of them every single

[1:57:20] one I think said no two of them for the smaller amounts for the uh

[1:57:26] development Administration and Community

[1:57:28] Development um they were like really

[1:57:31] small amounts and so we didn't lower

[1:57:33] those however Administration for

[1:57:36] Department of development started at 15

[1:57:39] and I don't know what your what the

[1:57:42] original ask was in the city Cork's

[1:57:44] office and the finance Administration

[1:57:46] started at 51 so we've already started

[1:57:48] to reduce those so you should keep that

[1:57:51] in mind

[1:57:53] as we're looking at this so it started

[1:57:55] at 10 so do we keep it at 10 or do we

[1:57:59] reduce the based on what we've done so

[1:58:02] far

[1:58:04] okay for for the sake of time to respect

[1:58:07] everybody's time I'm going to

[1:58:08] ask right before us we have a

[1:58:11] recommendation for

[1:58:14] 10% what what are this for for the 10%

[1:58:18] that is

[1:58:19] 20 that is my direct

[1:58:22] question I to the table I feel like we

[1:58:25] went around the table earlier this

[1:58:26] evening about this um didn't we kind of

[1:58:29] about the we didn't we didn't talk about

[1:58:31] this one oh oh no not about the specific

[1:58:33] I want to be specific I guess I want to

[1:58:35] hear what other people say I guess I was

[1:58:37] talking about trying to stick with the

[1:58:39] 3% so I'd like to hear what other people

[1:58:43] say you say lower it from the 10% to to a a number what is that I mean across

[1:58:50] even with all of these too I'm not you

[1:58:52] know that's what we're talking about

[1:58:53] yeah not

[1:58:56] just what I'm saying is that we should

[1:58:59] try not to go into the fund

[1:59:01] balance and so and again I'm going to

[1:59:05] sayate that the 250 is already in here

[1:59:06] so it doesn't

[1:59:08] include if we if we took out the 150

[1:59:11] that because which is that's what you're

[1:59:12] saying is to move there and then we can

[1:59:14] be there but the 250 is already in

[1:59:18] this you wouldn't be taking anything at

[1:59:22] that addition

[1:59:23] 100,000 you actually ruc balance by

[1:59:27] 3,000 or

[1:59:29] 8,000 that

[1:59:32] individual you

[1:59:35] know but we also have to hear from Mr

[1:59:37] far how he feels about that um what was

[1:59:41] proposed so

[1:59:44] I'm I'm getting the two things kind of

[1:59:46] completed here me too yeah you are too

[1:59:48] yeah okay

[1:59:50] so I you're talking you're talking right

[1:59:54] now about the the youth line I'm talking

[1:59:58] about everything in here all oh okay okay use lines in here yes yes yes I'm talking about everything

[2:00:05] that exists on this piece of

[2:00:07] paper and what so and let me better

[2:00:10] understand what your question is am I am

[2:00:13] I okay with the 250 because it's already

[2:00:17] in here is that what it's time to no I'm

[2:00:19] ask so what was the end of the last

[2:00:21] conversation was that we would leave it

[2:00:24] as is in the budget currently which is

[2:00:26] 150 M if we did that then this would not

[2:00:31] be over at all and it would change the

[2:00:33] conversation you're saying that that if

[2:00:35] we did that if we left it at 150 then

[2:00:37] that other $100,000 would be up for the

[2:00:41] negoti for the negotiation of what we

[2:00:44] will have $3,000 on the right side right be balance we would we wouldn't

[2:00:48] have we so I think we have to make that

[2:00:50] decision before we start deciding

[2:00:52] whether these amounts are are what we

[2:00:55] can do because if we take that out then

[2:00:58] there's no we don't have to go to the

[2:00:59] fund balance actually there's a little

[2:01:01] bit more to the fund

[2:01:03] balance so that to me is part of the

[2:01:05] discussion and the decision that we make

[2:01:08] before we discuss this

[2:01:10] because know Mr Farley understand where

[2:01:12] you're coming from and I you know in the past and historically

[2:01:18] when on this Council here we sometimes

[2:01:21] we agree and and then we back pedal

[2:01:23] certain times and it happened a lot of

[2:01:25] time I've been here as long as Miss

[2:01:27] bfield I know this is my 11 budget I'm

[2:01:30] getting too old for this place here so

[2:01:33] yes I understand where you're coming

[2:01:34] from and um you are skeptical I can see

[2:01:37] that but I'm going to repeat again that

[2:01:42] when the arpo money is back with us we

[2:01:44] can do a budget

[2:01:47] reappropriation and put an additional

[2:01:51] 100,000 against this

[2:01:53] C in the next couple weeks once that is

[2:01:56] finalized for youth for youth services

[2:01:58] for Youth

[2:02:01] Services if we can back that $100,000

[2:02:03] Outback we have $3,000 Plus on the right

[2:02:09] side yes yes you keep the

[2:02:16] Sal separate first we're talking about the youth

[2:02:24] services you're talking overall

[2:02:26] everything yes so and are we using the

[2:02:29] um are we using Mr Williams's

[2:02:32] suggestions of now yes and then we then

[2:02:35] we'll have to get or are we using just

[2:02:37] you know

[2:02:38] what we're using both we're using the

[2:02:41] May's 2025 proposal to align with that

[2:02:45] and also align with the conso um Mr

[2:02:48] Williams um change

[2:02:53] and also the suggestion from the finance

[2:02:56] commissioner the Deputy Commissioner of

[2:03:01] Finance new salary

[2:03:09] in5 Al so we're ask we're kind of asking

[2:03:12] a couple different questions in here

[2:03:13] actually get

[2:03:17] start so that's why I said let's are we

[2:03:20] going to even that 250 one additional

[2:03:23] and that's why that's why I th that all

[2:03:24] back is that very clear with that

[2:03:27] moments ago in terms of how we should

[2:03:29] proceed with

[2:03:31] that so then that changes changes this

[2:03:34] Dynamic so it's we won't be over so that

[2:03:37] for me was one of the questions so that

[2:03:39] answers the question for me

[2:03:52] so what are we going to do about that

[2:03:53] are weing it out right

[2:03:54] now

[2:03:56] 100,000 the 100,000 out of the arpa

[2:03:59] funding that's going to come back to us

[2:04:00] for Youth Services I'm supportive of

[2:04:03] making that

[2:04:05] 250,000 yeah this is totally different

[2:04:07] is that what we're talking about right

[2:04:08] now that's what I'm trying to ask so

[2:04:10] what what I'm talking about is that what

[2:04:13] Mr M said at the end of the last

[2:04:15] conversation in terms of youth programs

[2:04:16] that we would leave it at 150 which is

[2:04:19] currently within the budget that's what

[2:04:21] he said mhm this however reflects the

[2:04:24] additional 100,000 which means it at

[2:04:28] 250 but if we're going with what was

[2:04:31] suggested at the end to use the 150 now

[2:04:34] and then get take some money from when

[2:04:36] it's recouped um from the programs that

[2:04:39] weren't able to use it and then fund it

[2:04:41] then that means that this goes down to

[2:04:43] 150

[2:04:44] here but we still haven't decided where

[2:04:46] we want to actually do these raises

[2:04:48] right I mean no no that's I'm saying we

[2:04:50] didn't touch on that we're just talking

[2:04:51] about yes to the youth services is my

[2:04:53] I'm not sure about these raises I I

[2:04:55] think I made my statement clear earlier

[2:04:57] about the raises all right so that's a

[2:04:59] no for all the raises from

[2:05:02] this let her say it I actually no she

[2:05:05] said that she said

[2:05:07] that just let's speak for each other

[2:05:10] please yeah um well I'd like to hear

[2:05:13] what other people say before I make a

[2:05:15] final car on that I mean the 25 Council

[2:05:19] changes

[2:05:22] what well I'm looking at the column that

[2:05:24] says counil

[2:05:34] changes how how do other people feel

[2:05:36] about

[2:05:37] these salary

[2:05:40] increases I definitely think there need

[2:05:41] to be increases that's not a question so

[2:05:45] I can answer that and I don't mean just

[2:05:47] for one position

[2:06:00] and I'll State again that this is

[2:06:02] already reduction from what was asked

[2:06:04] was and if we're adding the

[2:06:07] additional ask that we got the email for

[2:06:10] and that was at 10% then in my mind that

[2:06:13] means that we also um reduced that for

[2:06:15] the original ask as well that's my

[2:06:18] opinion

[2:06:27] so I will be the first person at this

[2:06:29] point to recommend solid numbers I'm

[2:06:31] recommending we return the youth program

[2:06:34] line to 150 which will balance all of

[2:06:38] the recommendations I previously

[2:06:40] highlighted plus the additional person

[2:06:42] that presented uh today with the cost

[2:06:46] savings to the fund balance that is my

[2:06:49] recommendation and I would say if no one

[2:06:51] else is prepared to respond in a similar

[2:06:53] manner then I'm going to ask for a

[2:06:55] recess because at that point we are just

[2:06:56] going around in circles about wouldes

[2:06:58] and could have and Sh if no one is going

[2:07:01] to just put out a number and I mean that

[2:07:03] as respectfully as

[2:07:05] possible I think I put out my number and

[2:07:07] just we need to reduce the other person

[2:07:09] so I'm good with this and we should just

[2:07:11] reduce the additional one we got because

[2:07:13] going by what we did before we reduce

[2:07:15] everybody from 15 to 10 so if the ask is

[2:07:18] 10 then we should look at the number to

[2:07:20] reduce and uncomfortable with everything

[2:07:22] else on here so so so you're good with

[2:07:25] the console 20 2025 percentage change

[2:07:29] except for the youth

[2:07:32] programs I was the I'm I'm trying to get

[2:07:37] the to move on from here yes yes except

[2:07:40] for the adding in the planner comes to

[2:07:43] 97609 is what I'm

[2:07:45] hearing 9

[2:07:48] 97609 is what I think that's the

[2:07:52] variance yeah an additional but if you

[2:07:55] remove the the youth program back to 150

[2:07:59] then that will be on the right side of

[2:08:03] $33,000 plus not negative go ahead yes

[2:08:07] and as I stated earlier I just I just

[2:08:09] think it's sending a wrong message to to

[2:08:12] a lot of different people we're facing a

[2:08:14] huge deficit this year moving forward

[2:08:16] next year um and at this point I I I

[2:08:20] don't think I I I'm not I'm not in favor

[2:08:22] of considering any of these

[2:08:25] raises none none of them not

[2:08:29] here no raisers beyond

[2:08:32] that hold on I don't I don't understand

[2:08:36] what why you doing that I'm just trying

[2:08:38] to get some clarification I understand

[2:08:40] what that is so I'm

[2:08:42] trying yeah I just I just hear people

[2:08:45] saying different things so when I'm

[2:08:46] saying I stated it earlier I'm not in

[2:08:49] favor not not with the the deficit

[2:08:52] not not in favor does not reflect the

[2:08:53] number that and that's what we need to

[2:08:55] know numbers in order to hold on a

[2:08:56] second let me finish what I'm saying

[2:08:57] please not in favor doesn't give us a

[2:08:59] number we need numbers in order to make

[2:09:00] informed decisions so what I'm asking

[2:09:02] you is that are you saying that you are

[2:09:06] not in favor of any raises or are you in favor of 3% raises across the

[2:09:11] board or what are you in favor of is

[2:09:14] what I'm saying well we're talking about

[2:09:15] this year right now so you're saying

[2:09:16] you're not in favor of this okay so even

[2:09:19] with the youth programs you're not in

[2:09:21] favor any of that well the the youth

[2:09:23] program we all discussed we're in favor

[2:09:25] of increasing the youth I I don't like

[2:09:28] depending on AR money especially it's a

[2:09:30] blue line now I want to know what it's

[2:09:32] going to be in

[2:09:34] 2026 I want it on the line and I'm in

[2:09:37] favor of increasing it on the line yes

[2:09:40] Youth Services yes yep that's what so

[2:09:43] that's but not these additional physici

[2:09:45] races okay I would support

[2:09:49] that yes to the youth and no to these

[2:09:52] other we have

[2:09:53] to just keeping it at the 3% for the

[2:09:58] others saying keep it at 3% for everyone

[2:10:01] or are you saying 3% and then but the

[2:10:04] but certain positions were going to go I

[2:10:07] guess I'm going to have to um compromise

[2:10:09] and I I was interested in the uh Deputy

[2:10:13] Finance but um I I'm happy to compromise

[2:10:16] if I need to so you're so so you're

[2:10:19] saying 3% across the Bo for department

[2:10:22] heads the way that the way that it has

[2:10:23] been yeah these well actually these are already in

[2:10:30] the budget the one that we were handed

[2:10:33] originally is already in the budget I

[2:10:35] believe right the First Column the

[2:10:38] column where says 3% that's in the

[2:10:40] budget oh gotcha right in the proposed

[2:10:43] budget yes in right gotcha gotcha except for the deputy Finance

[2:10:50] right now I get that so then can we look

[2:10:53] at what the numbers would be if we if

[2:10:55] everyone got what we should look at we

[2:10:57] got that so we have that before us

[2:11:00] there's a sheep

[2:11:03] here this she here

[2:11:15] yes I mean some of these are very very

[2:11:17] minor

[2:11:23] you know what I mean you look at the

[2:11:25] difference column some of them are very

[2:11:28] minor so I'd be happy to think about

[2:11:32] those

[2:11:33] too I got to hear from other

[2:11:35] people listen you're telling me so at

[2:11:39] least yeah I'm

[2:11:41] J this is um this piece that we got um

[2:11:45] we didn't get it we got it yes everybody

[2:11:47] should have a copy got two copies one

[2:11:50] with name I ask you not to mention names

[2:11:53] just mention the position this

[2:11:57] is yes looking at one without the

[2:12:01] names I mean I I have to agree with m p

[2:12:04] there are some there are some of here

[2:12:07] $179

[2:12:09] 32

[2:12:11] 67 those will not make an impact on

[2:12:15] this and we can we can compromise and

[2:12:20] you make a recommendation to the finance

[2:12:23] make a recommendation to the media but

[2:12:26] um you know IAS but you know let's let's

[2:12:30] compromise I mean in terms of the raises

[2:12:33] my position on the recommendation from

[2:12:35] Mr Mr Will Williams I mean if I have to

[2:12:39] compromise I I you know I will suggest

[2:12:44] 5% leave the second and third as is get

[2:12:49] a small adjustment

[2:12:52] um leave the the second to last one as

[2:12:56] is as recommended by the finance

[2:12:58] commission to bring that up to par

[2:13:02] 100,000 and the youth service let's hold

[2:13:04] that at 150 and we will have that

[2:13:07] Amendment budget amendment before the

[2:13:10] year out to bring that in

[2:13:12] line with a number that we all can

[2:13:15] agreed on and that will be funded by the

[2:13:19] arpa allocation at that point in time we

[2:13:21] take the money back from those

[2:13:24] agencies I don't know bet I can do at

[2:13:26] this point in time can that I mean that

[2:13:30] that's a big compromise there I don't

[2:13:32] think it's a lot of money it's minor

[2:13:34] because it's adjusting for the 15% it's

[2:13:36] 10% recommendation we split it in half

[2:13:40] first line leave the second and third

[2:13:42] line as is fourth line

[2:13:45] 5% um

[2:13:48] commissioner I'm sticking with Mr Mr

[2:13:50] Ferrari Rec Commendation on that line

[2:13:53] let's hold tight on the other one and

[2:13:54] that's it and sorry the um principal

[2:13:58] plan also 5% on top of the mayor's

[2:14:02] recommendation so let's just be clear

[2:14:04] and make sure we we do the math on the

[2:14:06] principal planner and direct of

[2:14:08] development that that in terms of and

[2:14:13] the um amount that's going to be and um

[2:14:15] and frankly my recommendation would have

[2:14:17] been higher I was I was going more

[2:14:19] towards 8% but no that's that's my

[2:14:22] recommendation that's yours so I I am I

[2:14:25] throw that out

[2:14:26] there and that that's my compromise I

[2:14:30] think you know for the sake of moving

[2:14:33] forward we need that out for us or was

[2:14:35] that what he's saying so I can look at

[2:14:36] it and reference it so I just like to

[2:14:38] see what that would look like on paper

[2:14:40] so I reference it better could we do

[2:14:42] that well we don't have a

[2:14:44] lot percentages I'll do it but everyone

[2:14:47] has different IDE What percentages to be

[2:14:50] it's going to be yeah M okay I don't so

[2:14:53] I was hearing some level of agreeance

[2:14:56] from um council members so I was just

[2:14:59] trying to see if

[2:15:00] that's a starting point at least but

[2:15:04] it's fine if not then okay we have to go

[2:15:08] one line by line

[2:15:18] I just for the sake of PL this is what

[2:15:21] my my suggestion

[2:15:23] [Music]

[2:15:24] is 5% on those lines that I highlighted

[2:15:28] onto the

[2:15:29] right no just pass it's fine and you

[2:15:33] know if you have any suggestion you know

[2:15:36] say out

[2:15:38] let's let's discuss it and let's move

[2:15:40] for if you can't have an agreement let's

[2:15:42] move to the next item we're not we're

[2:15:45] not going to

[2:16:01] can I take that thank

[2:16:05] you it's so confusing about this

[2:16:18] paper excuse me

[2:16:59] well based on these recommendations then

[2:17:01] we

[2:17:02] have one position getting a 25%

[2:17:07] increase and other positions

[2:17:10] getting 5%

[2:17:12] increase but that's the fact that's

[2:17:14] recommendation to finance sh sure sure

[2:17:18] no with his recommendation to bring

[2:17:22] so um I just like to offer that so my

[2:17:25] recommendation is more like eight and because I know that five is is the

[2:17:29] recommendation on the table five is half

[2:17:31] of the already lower so I was starting

[2:17:33] at what they ask was and taking that in

[2:17:36] half and that becomes 7.5 or8 as opposed

[2:17:40] to taking we we already reduced and

[2:17:42] dividing that in half so that's how I

[2:17:43] came up with the number eight

[2:17:54] John um these percentages that you've

[2:17:57] put in this

[2:17:58] column is that is this with that would

[2:18:01] align with um 25 counil changes or not

[2:18:05] it will be the 3% plus the five

[2:18:08] 3%

[2:18:09] [Music]

[2:18:10] gotcha just want to point out to I don't

[2:18:13] know if it makes any difference but you

[2:18:15] have the position Char Who overseas the

[2:18:18] principal planner and so you

[2:18:21] oh suggested it's very close what I'm

[2:18:29] saying yeah the director would have to

[2:18:31] be higher than

[2:18:33] the mle

[2:18:35] plan sorry that's what I'm saying if we

[2:18:37] started at 15 and we went to eight which

[2:18:40] is like half 15 and then we started at

[2:18:42] 10 we went to five for that princial

[2:18:45] planning position that's half of that

[2:18:46] but that still keeps them below I I need

[2:18:49] to see the salaries I that's what you're

[2:18:51] saying too I need to see the act the

[2:18:53] actual

[2:18:55] numbers go from 10% still you're giving

[2:18:59] the same percentage is still going to be

[2:19:01] very close unless you're going to give

[2:19:04] the director 8%

[2:19:13] still Mr will you're staying with your

[2:19:16] recommendation is there any

[2:19:19] adjustment I will just to the 8% if you

[2:19:23] like are you hard at your

[2:19:25] recommendations hard I'm trying to you

[2:19:26] know compromise and I would say I

[2:19:28] compromise Miss pfi's

[2:19:33] recommendation anybody

[2:19:37] else the money

[2:19:43] to you do 8% on all of these no no no

[2:19:48] not all just no I mean these these these

[2:19:50] that are on Mr Williams sheets yes sheet

[2:19:53] the one that currently says 10 would be

[2:19:58] eight well there's two that yeah be

[2:20:05] two and stay with

[2:20:07] 25%

[2:20:15] yes I mean I know this sounds crazy but we're not suggesting 8% for the two

[2:20:21] that are one that's one that's 4.01% and

[2:20:23] one we're only talking about the ones

[2:20:24] that currently at 10 to put them in

[2:20:26] eight the other ones I think the state

[2:20:28] are just because of the the amount the

[2:20:29] variance is so low that we can just you

[2:20:32] know make a recommendation to finance to

[2:20:35] say you know what our recommendation is

[2:20:37] to just Mr Williams has recommendation

[2:20:40] here so have those just added so it be 8

[2:20:45] 4.01 3.26 8 25% and then youth programs

[2:20:50] you've already decided be

[2:20:53] out I would compromise there me

[2:20:59] to I hear you

[2:21:02] yeah I'm find that compromise I we got

[2:21:06] to move somewhere we got to send a

[2:21:07] recommendation over and the May is going

[2:21:09] to come back to us you know he has all

[2:21:11] right to come back to us and you know

[2:21:13] with his um feedback so you're you're

[2:21:16] saying no no yeah I'm not I'm not I

[2:21:18] can't get there I can't quite get there

[2:21:20] with uh recommendation that's on the

[2:21:22] table right now I'm going to go back to

[2:21:24] 3%

[2:21:27] um supp

[2:21:30] Bo which which one you

[2:21:34] um you wanted to stay um at the

[2:21:38] 10% well I guess um

[2:21:42] my my larger issue here is is really the

[2:21:45] uh the youth program increase being out

[2:21:48] and I understand that you know that that

[2:21:50] there talks around you know our

[2:21:52] perunding for that um but I'm just not

[2:21:56] there it is

[2:21:59] okay I think we all want to do the youth

[2:22:02] one you know I mean want to in this

[2:22:06] respectfully you know I I think we all

[2:22:08] do so want that but so M Farley where

[2:22:12] would you recommend we take this 100,000

[2:22:15] from so because you're because we're

[2:22:17] talking

[2:22:18] about two different things here and I

[2:22:21] don't want to frame it as it's like so

[2:22:24] it's it's like we're talking about staff

[2:22:26] increases and we're talking about um

[2:22:30] youth programs and we're saying that

[2:22:32] they will

[2:22:33] essentially essentially close to zero

[2:22:36] each other out right because what you're

[2:22:39] saying is that with the youth program

[2:22:41] out then that leaves the money in the

[2:22:43] exist and what's being proposed here or

[2:22:45] any variation of that to

[2:22:48] fund the positions

[2:22:51] this propos correct including including

[2:22:53] the youth position at including that not

[2:22:56] 100 1250 but including right no yeah no no I understand I understand that

[2:23:02] yeah right so we're talking so again so

[2:23:04] I would say we're talking about kind

[2:23:06] of two different things and you know I I

[2:23:10] would be okay with uh compromising to

[2:23:15] um the the percentages that are on the

[2:23:20] table now now but I would also say that

[2:23:22] we need to leave that $100,000 in there

[2:23:24] for for the youth programs okay my

[2:23:26] position where would you like us to

[2:23:27] suggest to take that all from where are

[2:23:29] you going to get the money for where are

[2:23:30] we taking the money from to increase

[2:23:33] salaries where are we getting that

[2:23:36] from fund balance the fund balance then

[2:23:40] same

[2:23:41] place that's some of them right uh some

[2:23:45] are some areund position some okay well

[2:23:48] it's runed position did you design

[2:23:50] us

[2:23:52] which

[2:23:57] the okay so even well I guess my point

[2:24:00] would be that it' be this you know same

[2:24:03] place where we're finding um where we

[2:24:05] would find money for these increases are

[2:24:08] well that's a good

[2:24:10] point well bear in mind it's 100,000 or

[2:24:13] it says

[2:24:16] 5,000 big difference so the salary ra

[2:24:19] I'm saying

[2:24:21] 5,000 8,000 that we're talking about

[2:24:23] there it's not a big D and versus

[2:24:26] 100,000 from the general um fun just

[2:24:29] want to highlight that so the increase

[2:24:32] might look it's the percentage might

[2:24:35] saying eight when you calculate that to

[2:24:38] add that it's it's not it's not a big

[2:24:40] number of that's true that's true yes

[2:24:43] okay no that's true yeah yeah help help

[2:24:45] me get there so you're saying that

[2:24:46] you're saying

[2:24:48] 8% the wiggle room is easier in terms of

[2:24:51] the offering budget sure I'm just

[2:24:54] talking about the just just the numbers

[2:24:56] John you're saying

[2:24:57] that the proposed

[2:25:00] increases on the

[2:25:03] sheet are is equal up to how much money

[2:25:07] what you're

[2:25:08] saying we'd have to recalculate have to

[2:25:10] recate but even if we just if we just no

[2:25:14] I'm just you can I'm just using

[2:25:16] comparison sure I'm not not that's what

[2:25:18] I'm trying to do so say simply put the

[2:25:21] original ask for the Deputy Commissioner

[2:25:24] finance that reduction alone would cover

[2:25:27] yes all of the

[2:25:29] recommendations plus and not saying

[2:25:32] that's going to be perfectly but to Mr M

[2:25:34] point the amount that we'd have to

[2:25:36] remove from the fund Downs would be

[2:25:39] margin at best

[2:25:43] exactly can I point out one other thing

[2:25:46] go ahead the I don't know if this is

[2:25:49] really C what we wanted we wanted so it

[2:25:52] looks like to me like you've included

[2:25:53] the mayor's 3% and then 10% on top of

[2:26:00] that which is this 10% is what

[2:26:05] the suggested car so that's from the

[2:26:09] adopted 2024 salary so you're you did

[2:26:12] 10% from here

[2:26:15] correct so you did 10% on a 24 correct

[2:26:19] oh

[2:26:21] it's not 10% of the that be 13% yeah

[2:26:25] right right and that is more or

[2:26:30] less all right we got we got to move

[2:26:34] on all right so we have numbers I ask

[2:26:38] that you

[2:26:41] know party is 50 you would like to see

[2:26:46] the 250 and the money coming out of the

[2:26:49] fund balance well I'm and I think five

[2:26:51] of us are saying that they're good with

[2:26:53] um with 8% for the first line 8% for the

[2:26:57] um fourth line the second to last line

[2:27:00] remain the same and the um reduce the

[2:27:04] use service to 150 until we can

[2:27:06] reallocate um our funding in the next

[2:27:09] several of weeks and 5% the plan and 5%

[2:27:13] for the principal plan I'm going to five

[2:27:17] of us I think compromise on that I will

[2:27:19] leave that for um discussion I will ask

[2:27:23] the um Deputy um Finance commissioner to

[2:27:28] work those numbers for us for tonight

[2:27:31] not for tonight no absolutely no I will

[2:27:33] do that to you um if you you have you

[2:27:36] have the notes I

[2:27:38] have Dam well let's finish off this

[2:27:41] because I but those are the numbers I

[2:27:43] have here let's turn to this page here

[2:27:45] because this was a for recommendation

[2:27:47] let's address this and yes if we we can

[2:27:49] wait and and have update that and come

[2:27:52] back to us oh oh we're back here it's

[2:27:56] multiple pages on this this one

[2:28:00] here a previous packet say 2025 Bud

[2:28:04] changes

[2:28:06] yes I'm going to go to each one of them

[2:28:08] and ask what your position is and let's

[2:28:10] move

[2:28:17] forward so

[2:28:21] but we only have to talk about the ones

[2:28:22] that we didn't just talk about on this

[2:28:24] sheet no we don't we don't have no it's

[2:28:26] not on here almost everything no none of

[2:28:27] these are on the she this is

[2:28:32] [Music]

[2:28:43] separate yes I thought we already I

[2:28:46] thought we did this and everybody agreed

[2:28:47] no we' been through but I don't think

[2:28:49] everybody anybody had any agreement to

[2:28:51] move forward it was just a proposal okay

[2:28:54] it wasn't like what we what we're doing

[2:28:55] here right now to compromise them to say

[2:28:58] or we have XYZ and go with it okay so

[2:29:01] let's address the first

[2:29:03] one um 1410 100 City Clark salary that's

[2:29:08] a movement from the 5,000 from the

[2:29:10] register to the city

[2:29:13] clerk and adjusting the S to $3,000 that

[2:29:17] has been there for the S been there for

[2:29:19] several years

[2:29:23] instead of doing what's on this

[2:29:27] sheet city is a different title yeah but

[2:29:30] it's a different she's a register in

[2:29:32] addition that's that's that's that's a

[2:29:34] salary adjustment this is a this is a

[2:29:37] register what we call the money that is

[2:29:39] set aside for the register to move that

[2:29:41] from the STP in it doesn't belong to

[2:29:43] typen it belongs to that salary L separ

[2:29:46] Sal what we're doing is reducing the

[2:29:48] deputy Clerk's salary

[2:29:50] there is Deputy register I'm sorry reg

[2:29:56] is there's not then I'm thinking of the

[2:29:58] Deputy clerk right we Havey clerk okay

[2:30:01] Deputy

[2:30:03] regist I

[2:30:08] see are there any objection to this so

[2:30:12] on this basically that that salary would

[2:30:15] be

[2:30:18] um 8889 2 is that what this comes out to

[2:30:21] [Music]

[2:30:24] 885 bej because if you're open 8% City

[2:30:28] Park be little

[2:30:31] more2 be a small adjustment in

[2:30:34] this so I would stick with what's on the

[2:30:36] sheet not on the sheet for which one

[2:30:41] we're on the first one the city

[2:30:43] clerk I think it's two different

[2:30:47] titles I'm looking at something that

[2:30:49] says cler here but 1410 100 so we have

[2:30:54] to choose between either 88 well it's going to be more than 88892

[2:31:01] right so I don't know what 8% I don't

[2:31:04] know what 8% is

[2:31:06] not being factored in this is just the

[2:31:08] stien this is not a salary

[2:31:11] adjustment this is a stien for part be

[2:31:15] in that role I think I I provide that

[2:31:17] Miss Michael okay

[2:31:22] it's more of an allowance it's an

[2:31:24] allowance to be in that

[2:31:28] capacity I think that was explained in

[2:31:30] the document that was provided to us so

[2:31:33] this should not be considered as a

[2:31:35] salary it's in the salary line but not

[2:31:37] it's

[2:31:38] salary is that correct

[2:31:42] dere it it's it's it's a what I would

[2:31:46] say a an allowance

[2:31:50] yeah

[2:31:52] reg I guess it's a better

[2:31:56] terms additional amount that will be

[2:32:00] reing yes it's away from the salary and

[2:32:04] we already approved that in the other

[2:32:07] yes so we we're saying that we we're

[2:32:10] okay to proceive the

[2:32:12] 8% salary inrease and then there's

[2:32:14] moving this allowance out from stien

[2:32:17] which it didn't belongs to and to

[2:32:19] account for s correctly as

[2:32:25] $3,000 it is not as typend it just makes

[2:32:28] it more

[2:32:29] transparent go ahead please but it's a different line it's still part of

[2:32:33] the salary is that Derek rate what we

[2:32:35] decided on so registar is a different

[2:32:38] title than a

[2:32:39] clerk issue with past years it

[2:32:44] was in the salary it was out of the

[2:32:47] salary I think this year put in the city

[2:32:51] CLK salary

[2:32:53] line from what the commissioner has put

[2:32:58] together but I'm going to ask this

[2:33:00] question yeah why why is it why is the

[2:33:03] movement and not keep it in the same

[2:33:05] line and hire

[2:33:06] someone okay so the movement is because

[2:33:09] since I started in 2019 I trained

[2:33:12] several people in that position and I've

[2:33:16] been carrying the duties myself on it

[2:33:19] has been

[2:33:20] all the register our duties I have not

[2:33:24] been able to fully depend on the w and

[2:33:27] we have a new Deputy

[2:33:29] again and you're not going to so you're

[2:33:32] going to be taking that you're going to

[2:33:34] continue to take that responsibility

[2:33:36] that is

[2:33:40] correct including the weekend calls the

[2:33:44] evening calls

[2:33:46] everything and the weekends on evening

[2:33:48] call what what it has to do with this

[2:33:50] position that has to do with our Funeral

[2:33:53] Directors

[2:33:56] okay and just to be clear you take them

[2:33:59] even if you're not here if I'm across

[2:34:01] the other side of the globe I take those

[2:34:03] CS I those is a must we can

[2:34:08] ask and and I I will say from from that

[2:34:12] position they need to be available 24

[2:34:15] hours a day 365 days a year oh yes okay

[2:34:19] yes I got you so I I just I thought

[2:34:22] there was just a different

[2:34:23] placement instead of putting in the city

[2:34:25] clerks I thought there was going to be a

[2:34:26] seied regist but I I don't have an issue

[2:34:29] yeah so we that and that's why I asked

[2:34:32] for the clarification because this this

[2:34:33] line we have discussed it last year we

[2:34:35] have discussed with the year before and

[2:34:37] it seems to be um every year discussion

[2:34:40] and that's why I ask for documentation

[2:34:42] to be shared to us so they can better

[2:34:44] help

[2:34:46] us I'm going to ask everybody what is

[2:34:48] your position on this for

[2:34:52] it

[2:34:54] yes anybody have any objection on

[2:34:57] this I'm just going to mark all on this

[2:35:00] the first two next one let's move to

[2:35:02] senior Senior Center

[2:35:05] Program tou

[2:35:08] this I do have a question I do have a

[2:35:11] question about this it started out there

[2:35:13] were three how many senior programs are

[2:35:14] there currently there's there's um two

[2:35:17] Monday well there's Monday Tuesday

[2:35:19] Wednesday Thursday and Friday oh but

[2:35:21] this is just locations right there's a

[2:35:25] Friday and Wednesday Mondays Mondays and

[2:35:27] Fridays the middle one didn't um pan out

[2:35:32] we we've been a couple different places

[2:35:33] we had some different attendance issues

[2:35:35] and we've been to different places

[2:35:36] Tuesday and Thursday is

[2:35:38] fine so I guess my question is this if

[2:35:42] we were funding three then then we were

[2:35:44] funding three at $20,000 each yes yeah

[2:35:47] that's now we're funding two well well

[2:35:51] this is also includes um money that we

[2:35:53] need to um put towards the program

[2:35:55] that's on Tuesdays and Thursdays because

[2:35:57] they get some money from

[2:35:59] cdbg um but it doesn't cover the cost of

[2:36:01] their program it does they have it's my

[2:36:04] understanding that they still have money

[2:36:05] um money there left over in that cdbg to

[2:36:08] cover the C Center the high Hall I to

[2:36:10] take a

[2:36:12] look don't

[2:36:15] number please I originally it was 45

[2:36:20] D um for for the entire program right

[2:36:23] for for our program not our program

[2:36:25] senior program um and then I thought

[2:36:29] what we got from Catholic Charities that

[2:36:31] for a budget in fact Miss Patrick had

[2:36:33] asked them to come speak to the council

[2:36:35] but they never did but it's up it's just

[2:36:38] they need the $60,000 just for

[2:36:41] to but I didn't know anything

[2:36:45] about I have to I think that's that's a

[2:36:47] lot of ask for the two program because I

[2:36:49] know over the years not a lot of not a

[2:36:51] lot of uh activities happening I

[2:36:53] actually I would be okay actually with

[2:36:56] um if that has to be reduced 40 on yeah

[2:37:00] well at least

[2:37:01] the kind of re configure with them right

[2:37:05] so but I don't want to hurt the

[2:37:07] Hibernian one because that one's very were we giving some of this to them

[2:37:13] it's highb burning Hall has been funded

[2:37:15] by cdbg for from the beginning they have

[2:37:17] and they always have funding there

[2:37:20] always funding I believe that that it's

[2:37:23] about $112,000 that would need to come

[2:37:25] out of this funding to make them

[2:37:28] hold when last year we try to add

[2:37:32] this for period period um zero for spent

[2:37:39] for a

[2:37:42] 19894 z yes so let

[2:37:45] me this program has not

[2:37:48] been and had been providing a lot of

[2:37:50] service to the seniors for this feeding

[2:37:53] program and if we are to fund it we need

[2:37:56] to step up all of us and to kind of like

[2:37:58] what help do they need to to to improve

[2:38:01] the

[2:38:02] service to make to make people aware

[2:38:04] that the service is there and to utilize

[2:38:06] it right now it's not being utilized to

[2:38:09] the capacity and I have witnessed it so

[2:38:11] I'm talking for a s so I don't have a

[2:38:15] problem funding it continue to fund it

[2:38:16] but how do we improve it it is not we

[2:38:20] need to we need to improve it we need to

[2:38:21] improve attendance the best senior

[2:38:23] service we have right now is h i I agree

[2:38:27] and we all get we all have witness and

[2:38:29] disae absolutely but we wanted in in

[2:38:31] different neighborhoods yes and we

[2:38:33] wanted it five days a week no absolutely

[2:38:36] in all neighborhood but at the same

[2:38:38] point if we don't Market the service

[2:38:40] there and people are not showing up then

[2:38:41] we all are we're

[2:38:44] failing Mr M can I just ask if we

[2:38:48] consider what's on the line right now

[2:38:50] and if there's any expansionary

[2:38:51] conversations we have those at the

[2:38:53] committee it's reduction that would

[2:38:55] happen I just I think because this this

[2:38:58] money was to fund three and we only have

[2:39:00] two so I was thinking right here right

[2:39:02] now just take it

[2:39:04] out well we have we have two from

[2:39:07] Catholic Charities and we have the

[2:39:09] Hibernians which is funded by cdbg it's

[2:39:12] not completely funded by cdbg by the

[2:39:14] time it gets to the end of the year I I spoke with them before we went into

[2:39:19] budget

[2:39:19] process to to find what is our actual EV

[2:39:23] for that specific program out there do

[2:39:25] you any chance for this year um let's

[2:39:29] look at last year I mean this year if

[2:39:32] it's senior funding and they need it

[2:39:34] then keep it

[2:39:36] in I'm okay with keeping it in yeah I I

[2:39:39] don't

[2:39:41] know what the conversation was no if the

[2:39:44] money used to help on the H Buran senior

[2:39:46] I have no way you with that but I'm just

[2:39:48] talking out loud on the last year total

[2:39:50] was

[2:39:53] $1,355 is what we

[2:39:56] spent so we still that's the that would

[2:40:04] be how much

[2:40:07] so all right all right so hold on I

[2:40:10] can't I don't I'm a lot of information

[2:40:12] here and I'm trying to make a decision

[2:40:14] based on something CU I feel like we're

[2:40:16] not being clear so you said that last

[2:40:19] year year $10,000 was spent out of this

[2:40:21] line 10,400 approximately and we

[2:40:24] budgeted and this proposed budget is for

[2:40:27] $60,000 last year it was 60 also hold

[2:40:31] say it again last year last year it was

[2:40:32] 60,000 we budgeted for 60,000 they spent

[2:40:35] 10,000 it's

[2:40:38] odd they they send you invoices right

[2:40:41] and that's how they get reimbursed

[2:40:46] I'm uh one of the reason to um is that

[2:40:51] the poor attendance sometime they are

[2:40:52] two three no we I I met with them we met

[2:40:55] with them relatively recently it's a

[2:40:57] full attendant so we need to all get on

[2:40:59] board and to to get it out there to kind

[2:41:02] of like you know sell it to our seniors

[2:41:04] to get out there and access a service

[2:41:07] similarly to what we're doing for Honan

[2:41:09] they are full capacity I mean capacity

[2:41:12] so I think we need to do all of us need

[2:41:14] to do the same thing for the other two

[2:41:15] centers I I think our the other centers

[2:41:18] the two day are uh course connec

[2:41:21] residents only sometimes it's difficult

[2:41:25] um you know the locations that we we did

[2:41:27] choose we're close to uh senior housing

[2:41:31] um of course the the cafe up there I

[2:41:33] mean which is that fall capacity yeah 45

[2:41:37] people every week with some small chair

[2:41:40] yoga um MVP still does the for free for

[2:41:44] us I think it's important for our then

[2:41:47] there are some members from H who attend

[2:41:49] these they do oh they definitely do they

[2:41:53] so but everything what are we what are

[2:41:55] we to talk about this let's move on from

[2:41:56] the 6,000 45,000 leaving on the L I'm

[2:42:00] good with I mean if we only spent 10 I'm

[2:42:02] good with take mil centers there was

[2:42:04] another Center is not there I'm good

[2:42:06] with moving it down to

[2:42:09] 40

[2:42:11] yeah I mean cath Charles would just have

[2:42:14] to adjust it might mean that they'll cut

[2:42:16] back the other day just have Friday they

[2:42:19] cut back I don't think they have to cut

[2:42:20] back because right well why would they

[2:42:25] cut back if they're only spending 10

[2:42:26] they only spending then they don't have

[2:42:27] to cut back it's just that they have to

[2:42:29] keep promoting the service and if they

[2:42:31] decide to spend more then they come back

[2:42:32] to us it seems like if we if we were to

[2:42:34] fund it at 40 then they could then they

[2:42:36] could increase it uh four times let me

[2:42:39] see you could always leave the $6,000 I

[2:42:43] can say that the attendance are very low

[2:42:45] and that's why the numbers are so low I I know the attendance is low and

[2:42:49] except on Fridays yeah theying Tuesdays

[2:42:52] and Thursdays it's very low so that

[2:42:54] could be the possibility by the $10,000

[2:42:57] there for last year is what well they pay $5 yes well well the

[2:43:04] individuals do the other but it's a

[2:43:07] $15 meal so um that's why I I I think

[2:43:12] they they haven't made sent for all the

[2:43:14] Reimers I mean if last year they spent

[2:43:17] 10,000 10 months

[2:43:20] so it's it's $15 to say for 45 people on

[2:43:23] up is times 52 weeks equals

[2:43:31] no here let's move on what what what

[2:43:34] let's agre on the number here and move

[2:43:41] forward and

[2:43:50] okay willing to purce $4,000 yeah let's

[2:43:53] do yes and that will free back the money

[2:43:56] into the contingency

[2:43:58] line

[2:44:00] $40,000 do do I have all all in

[2:44:02] agreement with

[2:44:03] us okay let's move to um out of grade

[2:44:08] for record

[2:44:09] access what does that

[2:44:12] mean position

[2:44:17] department so can you tell us which um which position that goes with

[2:44:30] [Music]

[2:44:38] access

[2:44:42] minute so John or anybody do you know

[2:44:46] why there's an other grade pay there for

[2:44:47] that one there was a I believe there was

[2:44:50] a r of some sort last year and in seven

[2:44:56] um and they currently receiving gr pay

[2:45:00] um we felt that it was best to keep

[2:45:03] grade pay for 2025 the

[2:45:07] C okay so this is an internal adustment

[2:45:12] I I I'm okay with this I'm okay with

[2:45:14] this too anybody else have objection on

[2:45:17] thisal L and they just took it out of

[2:45:20] judgment and claim it's not affecting

[2:45:22] anything do I have any objection on this

[2:45:25] no okay the next one is um Public Safety

[2:45:28] Foundation we're adding um 20,000 to

[2:45:31] that line and bringing that um in line

[2:45:34] with the um five Department

[2:45:37] $225,000 any objection to

[2:45:40] this I'm going to mark all in favor and

[2:45:44] then we go to Capital um

[2:45:47] fund and those are are some alignments

[2:45:50] with um well this is not ours this is

[2:45:52] alignment with regards to um Mr Wallen

[2:45:55] and

[2:45:56] um daily I'm fine with this and this I'm

[2:46:00] not going to ask because this this is

[2:46:01] from them directly and then there's a

[2:46:03] movement from um water to Su that's not

[2:46:06] our recommendation that's from

[2:46:11] them and then there's an adjustment

[2:46:13] because of the rental zero that line

[2:46:17] out yep

[2:46:19] and that money that 5,000 um offset by

[2:46:22] taking that out of the light power and

[2:46:24] gas so that a zero impact so I can

[2:46:28] safely say that all of us are in

[2:46:29] agreement with these

[2:46:31] changes all right I like that

[2:46:38] so direct

[2:46:42] you would you

[2:46:44] mind take a couple minutes and just

[2:46:47] adjust this

[2:46:50] you want to hold on you want to hold on

[2:46:52] for a few minutes yes yes wait yes and I

[2:46:57] I'll just make one more attempt let see

[2:46:59] where everybody is and you know what I

[2:47:01] just need to know where we stand so that

[2:47:04] way we can go into the weekend and

[2:47:06] knowing that we have some things to to

[2:47:09] work

[2:47:12] on do we have anything else to discuss

[2:47:25] [Music]

[2:47:27] this this document I requested from a

[2:47:29] Corporation Council in ter of better

[2:47:33] understanding how how do we give how can

[2:47:36] we recommend

[2:47:38] um raises to elected

[2:47:41] official so uh it was more of a guidance

[2:47:44] how do

[2:47:47] we how do we approve or consider raises

[2:47:50] to elected it sounds like it looks like

[2:47:52] from a quick reading that we can't yes so I wanted to because I was talking

[2:47:56] to the May in terms of When I Was Here

[2:47:58] we talking about the hearing why he

[2:48:00] didn't submit any recommendation for a

[2:48:03] raise and he was he was referring to the

[2:48:04] city Charter and I wanted U

[2:48:08] Miss barage to can explain us so what

[2:48:12] our disposal in terms of how do we go

[2:48:14] about doing those raises

[2:48:19] last

[2:48:21] Monday okay CU just a quick reading of

[2:48:24] it so this is just for our reading and

[2:48:26] understanding it yeah last year uh we

[2:48:28] did receive um a memo in terms of what

[2:48:31] we

[2:48:32] can do but this is more inde depth to

[2:48:35] kind of outline all the

[2:48:38] sections so that we understand going

[2:48:42] forward that

[2:48:45] um we're not seconding guing our so

[2:48:50] those were

[2:49:00] helpful tired are you tired I am

[2:49:06] [Music]

[2:49:15] yes this is the for uh

[2:49:19] so first meeting we we're having without

[2:49:21] a um Corporation Council

[2:49:25] representation good point

[2:49:28] yeah that should not

[2:49:30] happen if um bar was leaving someone

[2:49:33] else should have stepped in to replace

[2:49:35] that because they are you know I could

[2:49:37] have discussed this Le stuff here that

[2:49:39] we have in our package here it's

[2:49:42] unfortunate

[2:49:57] please

[2:50:01] dinner any

[2:50:05] dinner she's got over

[2:50:12] oh she does my mouth is good don't tell

[2:50:16] me I'm so hungry oh pleas oh no

[2:50:19] makes dinner almost every night that's

[2:50:21] really great last night we just had a sh

[2:50:23] crew

[2:50:24] report everything in the

[2:50:26] refrigerator that's the way to do

[2:50:32] it for

[2:50:35] the well he

[2:50:53] [Music]

[2:50:56] no don't have to ask question

[2:50:58] [Music]

[2:51:00] then she can M while we're talking until

[2:51:03] he comes

[2:51:05] back we can just talk to somebody's

[2:51:07] going to shut up at the podium and say

[2:51:09] I'll be muted because we're doing

[2:51:10] something well you can see they can see

[2:51:12] very clearly that we're in a very

[2:51:13] relaxed stage

[2:51:15] here not discussing anything

[2:51:26] said oh my

[2:51:28] gosh now it's getting warm in here so

[2:51:30] when do we make our final

[2:51:36] decision how

[2:51:38] much how much is it in the vending Mach

[2:51:41] well I'm going to wait I want to eat

[2:51:43] real food just that's can be eating what

[2:51:47] you know look

[2:51:52] be like the other kids if you can't be

[2:51:54] eating you got to share I'm get really

[2:51:57] hot did just get really hot in here oh

[2:51:59] my gosh it's getting very warm in here

[2:52:04] yeah

[2:52:10] that's we're going to do this as fast as

[2:52:12] we can but then so we're not going be a

[2:52:15] to we have to come back so when are we

[2:52:18] going to do that I'm going to recess

[2:52:19] Monday and we'll meet at a committee

[2:52:21] meeting all the finance and then recess

[2:52:23] it ah so we can do it during the 5:30

[2:52:26] after the 5:30

[2:52:29] right I think that would be a long

[2:52:31] meeting it is because there's a big

[2:52:33] agenda there's a lot

[2:52:36] on look um I was hoping that today would

[2:52:40] have been yeah me too I was finger cross

[2:52:45] after we finish this particular

[2:52:47] discussion that we're in right now what do we have to do next on the

[2:52:53] budget no once if we can come up with

[2:52:56] some sort of an agreement of these these

[2:52:59] Hot Topics

[2:53:00] here and if we can see a pad then

[2:53:07] tonight well let's do the number come

[2:53:09] back okay and if we can come with some

[2:53:11] sort of stuff we'll make a

[2:53:13] recommendation if not we'll come back

[2:53:14] Monday and revisit it okay and then make

[2:53:16] a recommendation if not we'll have so

[2:53:18] reset for

[2:53:20] Tuesday keep

[2:53:24] going is there any water in that

[2:53:26] one

[2:53:28] please thank

[2:53:30] you

[2:53:33] thank time get add on

[2:53:37] the 2025 budget same it's part of the

[2:53:41] review review discussion because we had

[2:53:43] the Public Public is

[2:53:46] different for the operating

[2:53:49] yes that's that's it is public hearing

[2:53:51] any

[2:53:52] comments that would be of the whole

[2:53:55] thing

[2:53:56] though I mean if you want it as a

[2:53:58] separate thing can that yes let's let's

[2:54:00] put it 2025 operating uh budget same

[2:54:05] desri okay as a separate item okay at

[2:54:08] that item I will move to recess that

[2:54:10] item to the to the end of okay that's

[2:54:13] what it says it just says review of the

[2:54:16] same title

[2:54:19] but it says review discussion now review

[2:54:22] SL

[2:54:23] discussion there the title

[2:54:32] still get

[2:54:43] slice and you going to add that on the

[2:54:45] agenda for

[2:54:48] yeah not

[2:54:50] finish you add that um discussion to um

[2:54:56] or recommend what did I say just about

[2:54:59] salary um

[2:55:04] analysis form oh the formal resolution

[2:55:06] for mayor to do research analysis on

[2:55:08] employment for department heads yes that

[2:55:11] okay and you said you wanted a separate

[2:55:14] line for discussion separate line that's

[2:55:17] yeah yeah I I think we do that and just

[2:55:19] give the mayor and his HR to go and look

[2:55:22] at that and come back to us and you know

[2:55:24] it is what it is if we have to realign

[2:55:27] them in the year and if we have the

[2:55:29] funding and the May is with it we Reit

[2:55:31] it and we'll realign and bring them up

[2:55:34] to par I mean we could even discuss it

[2:55:36] mid year yes as soon as the report is

[2:55:40] avable as soon as the

[2:55:46] report thank you sir thank

[2:55:51] [Music]

[2:56:09] you I have another

[2:56:14] one this this is even

[2:56:16] better here we can look

[2:56:20] [Music]

[2:56:22] thank

[2:56:29] you we are missing no we're not missing

[2:56:41] sorry one two three four five six

[2:56:54] so that is given us 9,900 with this with

[2:56:56] these changes as

[2:56:59] proposed they giving

[2:57:01] 9,957 back to the general fund but I

[2:57:05] have to um bring something how is that

[2:57:08] how did we give money back if we're

[2:57:10] making raises how are we giving money

[2:57:12] back because there's a drop of $20,000

[2:57:15] on the second last oh so that's where

[2:57:19] the offset

[2:57:21] is

[2:57:24] um it was a good point that was made by

[2:57:28] um by D that the salaries uh in

[2:57:33] development are very very close like a grand apart not even

[2:57:53] yeah the first one and the last

[2:58:00] one so this is the I'm sorry but I was

[2:58:03] going to say they already were so i' say

[2:58:05] Tak in consideration their years of

[2:58:07] service I think

[2:58:10] that okay that is also a a true

[2:58:15] Factor oh well it's actually a little

[2:58:17] bit more with our proposed ch so okay

[2:58:19] yeah I agree with that yes years of

[2:58:22] service yes but it's it's it's a little

[2:58:24] bit more without our changes so

[2:58:26] okay yes it's a position that high but

[2:58:29] then look

[2:58:30] at the service that associated with

[2:58:34] position it's just I had to look for the

[2:58:36] problem because this time it's no no

[2:58:38] heading that's

[2:58:41] okay I just put it right here and put it

[2:58:44] over here sh so I guess my only question

[2:58:47] would be then so then we're making

[2:58:49] calculations not based on the position

[2:58:51] but the person then

[2:58:54] right the

[2:58:56] shop what do mean that's true the

[2:58:59] position and I what I mean is that if

[2:59:02] our justification for that is years of

[2:59:05] service then we're factoring a person

[2:59:07] how long they've been

[2:59:09] here um and and again I would just so

[2:59:14] are we talking about the individual

[2:59:16] person or are we talking about the

[2:59:17] position

[2:59:18] I think we're to me we're talking about

[2:59:21] I think we're talking about the position

[2:59:23] and when you would like any position if

[2:59:26] you've been there longer than me then

[2:59:28] you're going to make more money just by

[2:59:29] the fact that you've been there longer

[2:59:31] and if it's a lower position you might

[2:59:32] be close to me or I might be close to

[2:59:34] your salary but I think you're talking

[2:59:36] about how long about the position

[2:59:38] because a certain position you're going

[2:59:39] to make a certain salary and I also

[2:59:41] think that we're talking about when

[2:59:43] you're in a certain position for a

[2:59:44] certain amount of time there's an

[2:59:45] expectation that your Sal sure I mean

[2:59:50] how I no I I I what I'm saying is I I

[2:59:53] hear the justification for what I'm

[2:59:56] saying is that I'm not as concerned as

[2:59:59] the justification as I am the

[3:00:01] calculation so because if we're

[3:00:03] calculating that well then that's

[3:00:05] something that we need to factor in

[3:00:07] again this is

[3:00:12] where so if this person who's been here

[3:00:15] for as long if they've been here they

[3:00:18] leave we hire someone that walks in new

[3:00:22] then we reduce that is that that's

[3:00:25] saying it would go back to yeah okay so

[3:00:29] and so if we're making that calculation

[3:00:31] then I would just think that we would

[3:00:33] just have to be little mindful of like

[3:00:36] what other calculations are we making or

[3:00:37] what other things are we not

[3:00:39] considering

[3:00:42] like well I think then we have to look

[3:00:45] at like

[3:00:49] so our director of development

[3:00:54] is is

[3:00:57] almost seeing almost like overseeing

[3:00:59] like two two departments

[3:01:02] right no what it's one department but

[3:01:04] it's a lot of um titles that is

[3:01:08] associated PHS are associated with that

[3:01:12] department so it's one department but

[3:01:14] it's what can make that distinction from

[3:01:17] me again Mr

[3:01:18] you're saying it's one department but

[3:01:19] it's a multiple

[3:01:21] position that department but it's

[3:01:23] multiple positions under that director

[3:01:25] that person right as to what other

[3:01:28] departments it's the same thing for

[3:01:30] other department thats you have Parks

[3:01:32] you have facility you have all that

[3:01:35] legal yeah yeah like o just right the

[3:01:40] ogs comprise of a whole bunch

[3:01:43] of enforcement Falls ongs m

[3:01:48] yeah guess slot all right go ahead so

[3:01:54] I maybe

[3:01:57] I um well maybe so the uh did go Deputy

[3:02:02] Commissioner of

[3:02:04] Finance just in the conversations we had

[3:02:07] I I almost thought that that

[3:02:10] position we wanted to fund that line so

[3:02:13] that we could hire someone into that

[3:02:16] position um and the start rate we talked

[3:02:18] about the other night the starting range

[3:02:20] would be like from 94 up to 120

[3:02:22] something anticipating a retirement

[3:02:25] where this Deputy uh position may go

[3:02:29] into the commissioner Finance position

[3:02:32] so we're talking about a position um

[3:02:35] that's may not even be open right now

[3:02:39] that is correct yes right okay so so I I

[3:02:43] I'm going to step back that I would be

[3:02:46] in favor of that that line and that line

[3:02:48] only oh okay that's my my error okay

[3:02:52] that line at what percentage here at the recommendation from U Mr Ferrari for

[3:02:59] that 12803 uh we we were all over the

[3:03:02] map so the third colum is the council

[3:03:04] changes yeah no the 25% is yeah Mr

[3:03:07] Ferrari recommend

[3:03:09] that far to 100,000 and I think

[3:03:12] everybody was in line with his

[3:03:15] recommendation of 100,000

[3:03:19] yes so you are in favor of that and that

[3:03:23] only yeah okay thank

[3:03:28] you I thought that Mr Ferrari

[3:03:30] recommended

[3:03:32] 120,000 oh he recommend I see he

[3:03:34] recommend 100,000 and that's okay yeah

[3:03:37] no I have it Anthony 100,000 of I have

[3:03:40] it I have it I wrote it down even

[3:03:44] yes

[3:03:45] okay I'm going to go around the table

[3:03:47] just because of the sake of time yeah

[3:03:51] um Mr Joe I'm I'm good with this you're

[3:03:54] good with across the board y okay

[3:03:59] um M for field I'm fine with

[3:04:03] this car yes

[3:04:09] the

[3:04:14] yes I'm in favor of this

[3:04:18] respect your

[3:04:19] position I respect everybody having say

[3:04:22] the table and express yourself and it's

[3:04:25] respect it don't feel any way it just to

[3:04:29] be clear we had you said no right I said

[3:04:32] no no yeah Mr Mr said no I wasn't sure

[3:04:35] if you heard it Mr said no right you

[3:04:39] says no I thought you said no I thought

[3:04:41] you said yes no no no um yes on one no

[3:04:46] on all the others and you saying the

[3:04:48] question was about all everything right

[3:04:49] yes okay okay yeah so you're saying no

[3:04:52] across the board yeah I'm saying no yeah

[3:04:56] okay so there's five yes on this to

[3:04:59] compromise on this here okay uh nothing

[3:05:02] wrong with that I appreciate your your honesty on that any other so this

[3:05:09] is all the recommendation that we have

[3:05:10] at this point time the one

[3:05:13] recommendation that I spoke about last

[3:05:15] night is to increase the re line on the

[3:05:18] delinquent violation fee right now it's

[3:05:21] at 60,000 and based on conversation when

[3:05:24] we were doing the fee alignment we talk

[3:05:27] about and assistant chief brought us to

[3:05:30] um in line with that that they did um a

[3:05:32] couple months ago or a couple weeks and

[3:05:34] we brought in $30,000 already so I'm

[3:05:37] thinking 60,000 might be you know too

[3:05:40] conservative so I would like to

[3:05:41] recommend that we look at that um you

[3:05:43] open mind on Monday to may be possible

[3:05:46] look at doubling that because I think

[3:05:48] they have the capacity and the resource

[3:05:51] now with the agency on board to to go

[3:05:55] well beyond

[3:05:56] down i' just like to ask the the chief

[3:05:59] or who m is running it um that $30,000

[3:06:02] thatll came in because I I did mention

[3:06:04] Mr Ferrari last night well we hadn't

[3:06:06] written that that that off a long time

[3:06:08] ago and he said that that he couldn't is

[3:06:10] that correct sorry that writing off the

[3:06:13] debt of the I mean it's been how many

[3:06:16] years we should have written off by now

[3:06:18] oh that's what you're talking about but

[3:06:19] so but my I guess my next question is

[3:06:21] that 30,000 how many is that for the

[3:06:25] past one year two year three year you

[3:06:27] know I because I don't think we're going

[3:06:28] to personally recover 10 12 years oh

[3:06:31] yeah oh no no no we're not that's I'm

[3:06:33] saying I'd like to know what that 30,000

[3:06:36] was from yeah it's it's for um the newer set of violation not the older one

[3:06:41] there if we were to look at the all

[3:06:43] entire it's about $4 million it's

[3:06:45] impossible for us to do that oh yeah

[3:06:47] nobody I I understand that but the the

[3:06:49] money that's coming in is it recent

[3:06:50] money is it 90 days 60 days 90 days it's

[3:06:53] over it's over mon did mention it's over

[3:06:56] 6 months outstanding but it's it's

[3:06:58] what's the recovery rate prior to that

[3:07:02] well that's what they're working now

[3:07:03] with new ageny to aggressively go after

[3:07:06] these um delinquent um fees and to

[3:07:10] understood get paid but I mean they

[3:07:12] started up in the last couple of months

[3:07:14] and they you know give them credit

[3:07:16] they're doing a good job in terms of

[3:07:17] collecting that additional Revenue but I

[3:07:20] still think it's too low I'm not asking

[3:07:22] I think it should double but I'm not

[3:07:24] asking anybody at this point in time I'm

[3:07:26] just throwing that up for Monday table

[3:07:28] that I can ask Brian to come back in be

[3:07:31] good and to give us a little snapshat

[3:07:33] more than that to refresh us but it's

[3:07:36] something that we can

[3:07:38] increase one Revenue at least to help

[3:07:41] offset some of these in and out here

[3:07:43] that is going on here because I would

[3:07:45] like to still see that the road that we

[3:07:48] maintain our contingency at

[3:07:51] 300,000 and that's one of my focuses to

[3:07:54] look at if we can up that line we will

[3:07:56] put that back that Revenue okay into

[3:07:59] contingency because this this adjustment

[3:08:01] that we're making here it's negative so

[3:08:03] it's not it's it's a good impact on the

[3:08:05] general

[3:08:08] fund all right I think we start out we I

[3:08:12] think we ended a little good yes now

[3:08:14] where we want it to be but um we are

[3:08:16] going to

[3:08:18] so there's no other business am I

[3:08:20] missing anything now just so before

[3:08:23] Monday

[3:08:25] um if we if the council

[3:08:28] can try just help me with like kind of

[3:08:32] the rationale as to like what the

[3:08:34] justification is for where we raises

[3:08:38] that we gotten you guys want to just

[3:08:40] like you could shoot an email or

[3:08:41] something like that what was the

[3:08:42] justification yeah cuz yeah so I guess

[3:08:46] I'm I'm a little confused cuz I feel

[3:08:50] like there's we're we're

[3:08:53] making

[3:08:55] considerations based

[3:08:58] on like what one Department had is

[3:09:01] saying but then we're not making

[3:09:05] our our um considerations based on

[3:09:08] another department head and I just want

[3:09:11] to make sure that how we're make how

[3:09:13] we're making our decision so it'll be

[3:09:15] good for me to see it out and then maybe

[3:09:17] it might maybe I can get there maybe I'm just not catching I think it

[3:09:20] was discussed here so I don't not sure

[3:09:22] what why M so let me just recap you want

[3:09:27] me to clarify the question no I got I got a question but

[3:09:32] um these that are on this here

[3:09:37] mhm came before us and asked for

[3:09:40] consideration and some of them we are

[3:09:43] looking at $600 and $179

[3:09:47] those were default sure those two happen

[3:09:50] by default we're not going to even

[3:09:51] discuss that that's not my question the

[3:09:53] other three came before us for

[3:09:56] recommendation and that's so the May

[3:09:58] sent out an email today asking his

[3:10:00] department head if they if they have any

[3:10:03] question about their salary they should

[3:10:05] show up at the meeting and be ready to

[3:10:08] speak and ask the council right for

[3:10:10] recommendation that's salary that's the

[3:10:14] question yeah no I'm trying to say

[3:10:16] you're rational the rational is that

[3:10:19] here we have people coming here and

[3:10:20] making a page yes because they weren't

[3:10:22] satisfied yes and today there was an

[3:10:24] email asking the entire depart all the

[3:10:27] department head to come if they have if

[3:10:29] they're not satisfied to come before

[3:10:32] us right

[3:10:34] that's so again that's so I think he I'm

[3:10:38] not put no no it's fine I welcome it cuz

[3:10:41] my question everything you just said I

[3:10:42] Agreed 100% so we're we're on the same

[3:10:44] page with that yeah what I'm saying is

[3:10:46] that what I'm hearing hearing via the

[3:10:48] conversation around the table is that

[3:10:50] there's things that considering like you

[3:10:52] know years of service in one situation

[3:10:54] I'm like okay I I could see why that

[3:10:56] would make sense um and then that might

[3:10:59] not be the same scenario for other

[3:11:02] people who've came forward so maybe we

[3:11:04] don't have to make that consideration

[3:11:06] cuz it's not there but um there's a

[3:11:09] significant um

[3:11:13] uh difference in some of these

[3:11:16] percentages is here and the largest one

[3:11:19] what I heard was uh Mr Ferrari who's the

[3:11:22] department head he made that

[3:11:24] recommendation and we all woman his

[3:11:26] recommendation so okay I finish that definitely was said I'm not saying

[3:11:31] you said that I'm saying but that say

[3:11:33] original recommendation lowered no I I I

[3:11:35] no I understand what the let's let's not have any debate let's talk I'm

[3:11:40] not debating no just so what so what I'm

[3:11:43] saying I'm just saying based on what I'm

[3:11:45] heard so what I'm saying is that I want to just get the rationale

[3:11:49] behind why we would take the

[3:11:53] recommendation of one department head

[3:11:56] and maybe not another why we would

[3:11:59] consider

[3:12:01] um positions that are

[3:12:09] not are vacant not vacant yet like

[3:12:12] there's other calculations that are

[3:12:14] happening in one consideration so I'm

[3:12:16] just trying to see like what's a

[3:12:18] rationale for know to see if we're doing

[3:12:20] that in a in an equitable Manner and the

[3:12:22] way I would be able to do that is if I

[3:12:23] had those rationals and you know because

[3:12:27] I'm hearing different things at

[3:12:28] different times and points of

[3:12:29] conversation so if I had something to go

[3:12:31] okay this this council member says I

[3:12:34] agree with this because of the

[3:12:36] department head I'm just using that

[3:12:37] because that's the glaring most glaring

[3:12:39] example well you're saying that because

[3:12:41] the department head uh made that

[3:12:45] recommendation well our Department had

[3:12:48] made other another department had made

[3:12:50] other recommendations so I guess that's

[3:12:52] why I'm trying to figure out the ration

[3:12:54] now that's

[3:12:57] all you want individuals to email you

[3:13:00] first I mean just

[3:13:02] what to try to help okay yeah just so I

[3:13:05] could you know cuz

[3:13:06] I the conversation has definitely taken

[3:13:11] on

[3:13:12] different well CU we're all individuals

[3:13:15] right right which is why no no I mean

[3:13:17] even individuals like I'm hearing like

[3:13:19] first it's this and then well then

[3:13:21] you're considering that all valid

[3:13:22] considerations I'm just saying I would

[3:13:24] just like to see make sure that we're

[3:13:25] doing that in an equitable Manner and I

[3:13:27] would and the way you do that is by kind

[3:13:29] of looking at the data points so what

[3:13:31] I'm taking away from this is that we

[3:13:32] need to reach out to miss Cara and Mr

[3:13:34] Ferrari for a rationale as to why no but

[3:13:39] I'm taking no not asking that yeah

[3:13:41] that's but that I mean that would then

[3:13:43] um you'd be able to see why I mean the

[3:13:46] one position

[3:13:47] if you're asking me what my question is

[3:13:48] you got to allow me to tell you cuz cuz

[3:13:50] that's not because what I'm saying it's

[3:13:52] based on the information that we got if

[3:13:54] they've given you a ration

[3:13:56] now that's okay they but what we're

[3:13:58] saying that you're going on the

[3:14:00] recommendation based of the department

[3:14:01] head so what I'm saying to you if we're

[3:14:03] going to go on a recommendation based on

[3:14:05] one department head and not another one

[3:14:06] I'd like to figure out why that is well

[3:14:09] I do want to just say though that if you

[3:14:11] look at the positions that are there

[3:14:13] just those um

[3:14:17] we did go well we didn't go on the

[3:14:20] recommendation of the well we did go on

[3:14:22] the recommendation of the department had

[3:14:23] as a compromise that that department had

[3:14:25] made a compromise but the other person

[3:14:27] on there that's the department head um

[3:14:29] is recommending um that person's own

[3:14:32] salary um because that's not what her

[3:14:36] particular Supervisor was recommending

[3:14:40] actually right sure but but didn't

[3:14:44] another department head recommend their

[3:14:46] own salary too I don't think so I'm

[3:14:50] looking at those

[3:14:52] five maybe um we but that department was

[3:14:56] before us and made that

[3:14:58] recommendation I'm sorry that department

[3:15:00] head was here and made that

[3:15:03] recommendation before

[3:15:06] us that's all I mean sorry department

[3:15:11] head was before us miss Ferrari Miss car

[3:15:15] and they both recommend

[3:15:18] that yes it was discussed

[3:15:25] publicly all

[3:15:27] right if you need any clarification we

[3:15:29] can have more clarification yeah just

[3:15:30] send it to me that's no we'll have Mr

[3:15:33] Ferrari is going to be here

[3:15:37] Monday okay and we'll have him U make

[3:15:41] that Rec Miss car unfortunately will not

[3:15:43] be here I was understanding for for

[3:15:46] clearity I wasn't confused as to what Mr

[3:15:49] Ferrari's recommendation was but my

[3:15:51] confus is as the function of the council

[3:15:53] is I want to trying to better get a

[3:15:55] clear understanding as to how we got to

[3:15:57] the decision because based on what I'm

[3:15:59] hearing at the table how we're getting

[3:16:01] to the decision is what I heard at the

[3:16:04] table was the department head

[3:16:06] recommended that and that's what we went

[3:16:08] with that well I'm saying there was

[3:16:09] another department head who recommended

[3:16:11] something else too so I'm just saying

[3:16:14] let's really be yeah but I think how we

[3:16:15] arve with it Miss Patrick is is so

[3:16:17] correct it was a compromise because I

[3:16:20] going to say it was a compromise I was

[3:16:22] going to that's exactly what I was going

[3:16:23] to say because remember that I started

[3:16:26] out by only wanting to do 3% so um the

[3:16:30] whole thing was a compromise on my in

[3:16:32] terms of my decision making personally

[3:16:35] um I was compromising to meet the will

[3:16:37] of the larger group um because I would

[3:16:39] not have given the higher raises um

[3:16:42] except for that one individual I mean I

[3:16:44] think I made that clear earlier remember

[3:16:46] yeah but

[3:16:47] except for that one not that one

[3:16:48] individual but that one position is what

[3:16:50] you're saying one position right just

[3:16:52] for clear I understand what you're

[3:16:53] saying but um but yeah so I mean I was

[3:16:56] compromising up in my Regard in my case

[3:17:00] and I think that you you said no right

[3:17:02] so you didn't you

[3:17:05] know help me here sure you just want you

[3:17:08] know help him get some that out help him

[3:17:12] because also it was you know it's always

[3:17:14] been about the position not the

[3:17:17] [Music]

[3:17:18] so help him understand why doing what

[3:17:21] you're doing in an email and he SPS a

[3:17:25] little more

[3:17:27] clarification correct correct I I feel

[3:17:30] like I've been what I'm saying is that I

[3:17:32] want to get where others are at and I

[3:17:37] believe people are acting in good faith

[3:17:39] again I know we're tired and we're

[3:17:40] getting frustrated what I'm saying is

[3:17:42] that it would help me understand how you

[3:17:45] got me be able to maybe get there if I

[3:17:47] understood how you got there cuz based

[3:17:49] on what the conversation is at the table

[3:17:51] tonight from what I'm hearing there's

[3:17:54] different factors that are being

[3:17:55] considered that are being considered for

[3:17:57] different positions and I want to make

[3:18:01] sure that if I say oh yeah that's okay

[3:18:04] that makes sense to me I'd like to make

[3:18:06] sure that we're making those decisions

[3:18:07] in an equitable

[3:18:10] manner that's all

[3:18:17] any any other

[3:18:22] discussion okay so we're we're going to

[3:18:25] have to recess until 5:30 I'm putting

[3:18:28] this item on the finance committee we'll

[3:18:30] call the finance committee to order

[3:18:31] recess and then complete the business

[3:18:33] for that day and then we'll um reconvene

[3:18:36] at the end and continue with a budget

[3:18:38] discussion on

[3:18:41] Monday okay any other business for the

[3:18:44] finance committee so now I ask a motion

[3:18:47] to recess until 5:30 next Monday sove

[3:18:51] all in favor I thank you so much have

[3:18:55] weekend questions as usual there is

[3:18:58] standing there he's not going

[3:19:02] home yes that's what

[3:19:15] saying

[3:19:45] e e

[3:30:41] [Music]

Schenectady City Council Budget Meeting, October 18, 2024

Transcript