no thank
you oh
shoot
he's
[Music]
thank like to call the connect the city
council committee meeting for
Friday October 18
we have the committee
Finance thank you madam president I
would like to call finance committee to
order and we will continue
our budget discussion on the proposed
2025 um budget but before I proceed
um don't have a copy of the revised
version Derek can we um make a copy of
the revised version for dor
please it
out dor doesn't have a copy and it's
kind like you looking for the
adjustments from yesterday no the
yes John this no no no budget that was
um the spreadsheet that he sent for us
no no the entire the entire budget that
wasion the Revis she means this she
means yes revised here you can I'm not
using m
yeah she dor wasn't here for that she
didn't
get okay that's
okay I do have one someplace and I I
don't use
it do have she doesn't have a copy of it
but how does that differ from I was expl
that's trying to exp to that it's not
much difference it's just a
separation different
no separ
the so I was talking to Dory today she
said she doesn't have a copy that she
can
discuss so I want to make sure all
members have um have a copy available so
that will be discussed we do not um put
oursel at um disadvantage you want me to
print a copy or you want yes I would
like one of the council members here uh
I would like you to print a copy for me
please is yours written on no I've been
using you're going to still using my
usual one you're going to I'm using
one as well so you don't need a copy of
the that well i' like a copy of
everything that was given out like I
said I take mine
away
yes thank you then she'll have
cop okay all right so before the end of
the meeting I would like a copy for um
to
this one two please yes I just want to
make sure everybody has all the
documentation and
[Music]
want me to test it for you I'll be like
a good everybody else has there still
test
her you don't like our
water um well it's not your water don't
take it personal it's just the water on
the table
water
[Music]
people this we went through last year
you know given the updated stuff out of
the charter amendments from 79 which are
clear that's
this is
incorrect he has a charer witer this
last year making copies bring it down
that's because it's
different all
right I
saw yeah that was reason was like it
doesn't buy the last year
[Music]
going say anony tonight yeah he said
last night he wouldn't be
here you have your laptop you have yourp
ready can't
it that's why it asked for $60,000 we're
taking CS for the team no that's why I
asked for $60,000 upgr all the
machine is that time to buy laptop
everyone desktops laptops the
6,000 desktop the desktops
[Music]
security
issues there
are I thought they weren't going to
replace all the desktops some of them
would be laptops
[Music]
don't worry dere you will get a
laptop so that mean you will have to
work seven days a week really from home
yep from your car from hotel
from at the L at the beach
all right
[Music]
sit
TR that happens
I hear
oh thank you
[Music]
okay I think I have
[Music]
I think I gave too many
all right so let's um let's
continue you should have in your package
some some reports that was requested
from last
evening and we'll just go through the
one with regards to
um the salary um recommendation
I did have a song I think you did
yeah um Mr Williams I think most of
these were brought up by you if I'm not
mistaken correct me you want to look at
it to make sure all are captured in this
spere and then Mr Farley you had a one
program I just want to add something
based on the email that s out all
of go ahead please so um everybody email
from another staff person the principal
planner who was not considered so I
would like us to um consider that
individual for raise as
well they do show up on the sheet that
Anthony gave up however it was not part
of the
recommendation and everybody got the
email pleas that email sure sorry I I
miss did everyone receive it oh okay yes
everyone receive email but uh if you
don't mind please it came from Sam
[Music]
get more
m
and that line is a 8686 if you need to
look in your um Bud
documents 86 a 8686
what page is that
[Music]
John
50 right just trying to get
their
for for
take
than
that
this B you just want
to that
well um as I said this this um
individual by their Supervisor was asked
to be considered for an increase and um
it was did not was not brought forward
and so um they were aware they as you
can read by the email and um so send
this email with more information that I
knew anyway uh and asking for an
increase and I feel like based on their
level of education and their years of
service to the city it's not an
unreasonable ask and would ask that um
council members would
that
discussion deing just the state of
numbers so 2024 salaries
84,3 33 and the proposed salary for 2025
is
86,00
863 and the recommendation from you is
to bring this up to
10% from
2024 that that would be yes that will
bring that number to
9336 that isn't the package on the
break that's what I'm getting up
from discussion of this
well I guess for me it's a little
concerning in that um maybe we should
have requested our HR department do a
market research for every department
head administrative positions that we're
opening up a door um for administrators
just if they don't I mean the the chief
executive officer does performance
evaluations and judges performance and
judges all of those things we don't work
with these folks that
closely and and can't speak to that I
mean I'm sure they're doing great jobs I
mean doing your jobs but I think it it just usurps the process and it opens
the door for and it puts us in positions
for every Department to come up and and
know that they're doing great service
for the
city um and saying no or or or saying
yes um and and I think um I mean that
that's kind of our job we have that
Authority but I'm just concerned concern
at the
president and their individual cases I'm
just concerned that of us doing that
then where does it where does it end um
and we have to be mindful that we're
looking at a tax
increase and a significant deficit next
year um and going to 10% increases in a
time where we're raising taxes is is I
think um concerning to me um we thank we
only have a couple folks requesting it
but we're opening up a door and and that
concerns me that we have a process in
place um maybe we can look at that or do
market analysis but this just just
concerns me this the way that they were doing
this stri favoritism more and put this
in a position um that I'm just not
comfortable with but I'm certainly open
that's that's my take on it go ahead
please Mr
chairman basically every management
employee asks for a raise greater than
what I put in
budget you know you have to balance it
to say some of what uh Mr ancini is
Raising creates conflict I sent an email
out today because the council's going
down this road of Peace mealing it you
know if people want pay raise they can
go directly
councel uh you know it's
just such the wrong
tone it does undermine my ability to
manage the
city have you just have any experience
as the department I would see that too
this is like you know this is my you put
me in this position of Voters but even a
department head to to to make those
recommendations and you know the county
would be the legislature something going
around me and the legislator doesn't
know the day-to-day activities and my
challenges that my make have
if I
felt I think I like the 3% raises
because it looks like it's pretty much
across the board except for those
special conditions that were Justified
um but doing it this way I think
everyone make that request that probably
could be something we wouldn't consider
but in the fiscal times that we're
facing right now and just the process of having someone like power department
now I think I'm come to people I'm going
to go to the I'm going to councel and
make a case for myself so thanks but no
thanks um that that concerns
me so speaking um so just to be clear
this person this person's recommendation
was from their department head from the
person that works with them day to day
so that's not they the recommendation
came from the department head I think
you were here for the meeting when the
recommendation was made and um and then
when it wasn't considered the individual
followed up say I was recommended and
here's the reasons and I'd like to give
you some back up on why I think that you
know I should be um considered and I
have to tell you this similar situation
happened several years ago um and there
was where an individual came to the
council and asked for it so this is not
the first time it's happened we've done
before so I as you talk about s
president had happened before and there
was no like anything sent out to the
entire staff say this person did it and
now you can do it it happened you know
um and so you know we voted that person
through they still work here doing a
great job so um I don't see that if if I don't know the the um what the
mayor does in terms of management coming
to him in terms of um that we can only
go with what we were given and this was
given to us by the finance department
that's the only thing that we got to see
so if there were other um
recommendations or or requests we don't
have any idea because this is the only
thing that was F
forward go ahead please I guess um so my
question would be because I can I can
see how like you know definitely that
can be a tough situation to kind of
navigate um and and somewh from our
advantage point I guess my question is
like are you suggesting
that you'd be comfortable with 3% raises
across the board for all department
heads or like because I you I know you
said in some special consideration some
cases like that were brought forward yes
and what were the cases that you're okay
with well not we didn't go with the the
Deputy Commissioner Finance we didn't go
with the complete ask we brought that
down that I'm I'm comfortable
with and that would be at the res to 3%
unless there was the rationale brought
forward to us to consider
go ahead please but I would say the
manner in which this request has been
submitted makes that same request with
it requiring Market evaluation based on
the needs at this position so would you
not agree that these would be presented
the
same well I'm I'm what I'm saying is
we're going to open the door for unless
we have our department HR department do
a market research on every department
and every assistant I mean the market
determines the need obvious ly I don't
know if planning is the same as Finance
in that regard I take um her word for it
that what she put here but I don't know
what market research was done it was
done how how well she did that and so if
we're going to do something like this
should we look at every administrator
and do a market analysis and maybe some
Sal to come down um I I don't know I
don't I we haven't done that and we're
doing it kind of to me arbitrary and so
every
department head and assistant
Administration can come in here and do
that I think we should have a better way
of negotiating a better process and
having the individual come up and do
that but it is what it is and we can
entertain or we
cannot I guess what I'm what I'm
thinking is and because there's a lot of
Mir of what you're saying but I guess
where I'm having trouble kind of looking
at the consistencies is because it's
like so there's an ask and we
brought it down but that ask the
original ask
was a part of the proposed budget and
then we made a determination to or was
suggested or it seems like at least some
council members were saying okay let's
you know we're not the thought go with
the full ask that was presented so once
we make that determination or that
distinction based on Merit and judgement
then I think we are compelled to look at
other cases because if not what we're
doing is saying
that whether it's an increase or a
decrease if we as a council are weighing
in on that then we're then that door is
open to weigh in on other situations and
then it can look and not even just look
up more concerned about what it is then
it can be a very inconsistent practice
because now we're saying well for this
department head we're not going to go
the full ask but we're going to even
reduce what the full ask was for this
and then but everyone else we're just
going to say 3% even though we've
already deliberated and had
conversations around that
one position so I just get concerned
about the inconsistencies but your
points well taken around maybe around
market research and and and I'm
addressing the potential tax increase
that that I mean 3% raises is is minimal
but looking at from what I see they're good salaries um but I think we
should do a better look at it and a
deeper dive um into doing it across the
board if we're going to do it um or if
we can't find somebody that ask can
always be made at any point in the year
with that position where they become
vacant where the person was going to
lead we done that as well but us doing
it just it's concerning for them all
right but I I understand what your
concerns are and I would just say if
we're going to do it then we have to do
it and make it available for everyone if
we're not going to do it then we
shouldn't be touching it at all
whatsoever um and then if we're not
touching it at all um at what point do
we what happens if we see
um inconsistencies or or unintentional
inequities that was prop for in the
budget like what is our responsibility
to tease that out as a body that's so
those are just the questions that I
would
have I mean those are valid points from both sides here um you know it was
a compelling um discussion that we had
in terms of Mr Ferrari in terms of why
he wanted to
um increase the Deputy Commissioner of
finance and um he gave us uh you know
many options and told us that the high
end of that is you know the minimum is
100,000 that's Market Fe market for that
position and I think looking at this Lev
here um it's it's a detail letter with a
market um you know salary
range I am not against looking across
the board for a a salary range for
department head and to increase them and
bring them in compatible today's market
across the board but then how do we do
that as I always said if we to increase
salary we have to find money from
somewhere to offset this and how do we
do that in terms of this yes taxes are
going up but at the same time we have to
make sure that we we increase um salary
so bring it up the part so that we keep
these employees in their position to
provide the service needed for our city
and at the same time you know we don't
want it to go anywhere so we want to
keep
them in salary is only one comp to the
compensation package and the city still
offers Lifetime Health insurance for
retirees after a certain level of
service that's very rare in the market
anymore huge value to that so it's not
just selling it's the total package is
the uh way to evaluate it and so just on
salary is overly simplistic yeah and I
think know department head are know
they're listening to these um these
debates not these hearings not debate
these hearings sorry um you know they
they're they're Glu um gluing into it so
when uh when we talk about okay we want
to bring someone uh in U incompatible
with today's market for their position
then the others I would be I will be
doing the same thing I I I've done that
in my private sector job I mean I am I'm
in that position just like everyone else
I should be compensate for that for my
time and my work here and I can be wrong
with them
I have to support them and I I don't
know if they're chosing the right path
to to bring it to us I don't know it
could be you know they're supposed to be
you know channeled that to the mayor to
us as long as I've been on this Council
here we have every year deal with um
department head come in directly to us
or send us email or phone call to ask
for um salary um adjustment from the
proposed U budget so it's nothing new
it's been happening all the all the
years and how do we address
it maybe we just go back and you know
ask May it's a recommendation to go back
and do evaluation on on all the
department head but then um how do we
sustain that in a budget that we're
driving taxes
up go ahead please sorry I agree with
the mayor that I do not think it's the
most appropriate venue for City r city
employees to come to the city council
however being presented with those
positions I think we are respons
responsible and obligated to respond in a manner appropriate to the authority
that was presented to us as elected
officials so in our capacity we
represent the city and we function in
partnership with the mayor so I would
hope that in these capacities to your
question of favoritism we are operating
in an ethical Manner and not using our
positions inappropriately to benefit
ourselves so I think it's a narrative we
constantly hear all the time that we're
supporting our base and supporting our
friends I can guarantee you if that was
the case I would not be living where I
live so not finished I think it is
important that we fully vet these
positions that we're currently standing
at so if we're going to do a market
adjustment let's do a market adjustment
however in no way were we singling out
any IND indidual department or any
individual person in the presentation as
uh the Comm chair has highlighted we
offered everyone the opportunity to
present what you've been doing for the
year and how those department heads used
that time was up to them but if an
individual brought up a topic of concern
again is our responsibility to respond
to it as did I with my recommendations
any other council member and their
capacity could either push back or add
additional um again that is in your
purview um but I think it is more than
appropriate for us to hear out the city
staff and it is our responsibility to
hear them
out go ahead please and and I think what
I'm saying um is maybe a little more
basic than what we the larger
conversation here I think it's more
specific to the fact that if we're
saying that one Department had based on
this uh metric
should be getting this salary and if
that's the ruler that we're using I
think this is where we need to be
consistent about we're saying that that
is the ruler that we're using
then if another department head comes
forward and says well based on market
value and that same ruler then I should
be here I think that that's that's
something that we should expect that's
going to happen and if we're going to
make decisions we should just be making
them using the same uh
guge that's that's really my thing so
either if we were to
do do it we do it with the same
measurement for all or don't do it at
all then okay but I think that if we get
into the place where we're bringing
forth certain department heads based on
a roller then use a different measure
for somebody El
get that's should be concerning for me
Mr tur how to handle on please thank you
excuse me thank you so in the past I I I think uh other than this year for the
past six years we've actually had a t uh
tax decrease or taxes uh no rise in
taxes at all so things were different
the city was in a different position uh
back then um I think with the city
facing the deficit that we are um
raising taxes it's it's it's just
sending the wrong message yes we work
for the city we work for the uh
employees of the city but we must to
work for the residents of the city and I
think it's just sending them the wrong
message right now uh to to give these
races but I do want to commend all these
department heads I mean we've reached
out to
them daily for for me for three years
you for a lot longer and they go above
and beyond to help the residents of the
city who we're also here to help I just
um that's just all I wanted to
say let me tou yes that's true we we
have we're we're lucky and fortunate to
have such good department heads in the
city have connected here to help help
the city to drive the city forward with
the m i mean they do fantastic jobs in
and out some of them 7 days a week
regardless of what and um the topic is
that we have yes giving raises when we
raising tax when we're raising taxes um
we have to make sure we have to make
sure that we uh we compensate them for
the time that they've been here and the
years of service they have provided to
the city some of them here way on in the
20 years or plus and the reason why they
stay here because they love the city
they love what they're doing and you
know they're providing taxpayers with
the service and they they're running the
department day in and day out and
um any budget you have to raise um
salary especially for inflation or for
cost of living adjustment so 3% 4% 2%
I've been here when we have raised them
2% I don't know maybe we did 1% we did
we always do an increment of something
across and then we do have some some employees with you know higher than
normal because we want this is one of
them I think what the the Bing topic is
the proposed budget has a 51% increase
for one um one position and I think um
that's where the calls are coming in
from but we understand that that
position because we want to Market you
know that position and to align that
position into next year U into the
finance department now the department is
seeing that and they're asking question
and they have a right to ask they have a
right to ask as Mr William says and we
have to you know entertain
it but how far do we go that's the
biggest question on the
table so I I don't think I said we were
showing favoritism I said it it could
lend perception like if it were me in a
department head door just calls
me I think and the mayor said no I
requested
this I will appeal to the mayor I don't
I think we're usurping the
process they present to us with the
budget I'm just not comfortable with
that and I would tell the person thank
you but there's a a way for you to go
about this um if I felt real strongly I
you know because I have a friend at the
department hey help me out here right
now I obviously if I know the person I'm
going to have some kind of bias I think
you're doing a great job but I don't
know the day-to-day activities of that
individual I don't know they don't work
for me I'm not comfortable with it as a
public official as a I'm not comfortable
with doing that because that's my role
is not to supervise their day-to-day
activities and make those
recommendations I mean we can but I
think we get into a dangerous um area on
doing that we have great department
heads and certainly but but we are
looking at these tax increases and we're
looking at the put time I think this
doing it this way is concerning to me
and that's you know that's all I want to
put out there because and we didn't have
that conversation I'm glad we had we
were saying yes and it felt good but
then I you know I actually wanted to say
wrestling because it just concerned me
that process it's the process certainly
not the people and that's why I think we
should be mindful and that's an issue
maybe we do a market research do
something a little bit differently but
individual that well that person was
pull enough which is great you
know I'm following the role of what you
know may or may boss didn't
know I'm not going to go around that
person um some would you know um that
felt that way and they're kind in a way
were
saying well you should have you should
have ignored his request and come to us
um because we'll welcome you and we're
not going to tell you you're the bad job
then you know I'm just
go ahead please I would ask the
rhetorical question is just what do you
think the role of city council is it's
to make it's to make policy decisions
certainly to make evalate the budget we
can the role is we can entertain that
I'm saying as my role as a city council
right in this I'm uncomfortable with it
um it's certainly within our purgy but
we have a process and we can we don't of
course we don't have to follow we can
make these decisions to me they seem a
little bit arbitrary because I don't
think we've done it with every every
administrator every assistant
administrator we haven't afforded them
that they would go no they accepted that
they didn't come to
us they didn't do what they did so sorry
we're not going to consider you I think
if we're going to do it and let's do it
from H and 3% might not get you to where
you should be if the market research and
then we're looking at a maybe five or
10% tax increase or whatever where does
it end I mean we have to have a process
and respect
that I think I think the city chter I'll
play that we can review the salary and
make adjustment not mistaken mayor has
any consideration given so kind of do
comprehensive review market analysis all
the
department talked about it but have not
undertaken
it is that something we can't ask you
can you make a request that you do this because
we don't want to you know Reit this next
year but we can put something in place
to kind of bring them up to power if
they are under above you know align them
so that we don't have to deal with this
going
forward how to we
it's Council sets the policy so if you
put forth something I'll manage it so I
think we should do that I think it's
wise idea for us to um you know do
something and kind of like um as request
the mayor to kind of do a market
analysis on all the department head and
to provide that report to us I think it
would be very very helpful because I
hate to see Department had work you know
15 10 12 15 years and they have to leave
for municipality because they offer
$5,000 $10,000 more where we can do
something in house and adjust that and
keep
them sorry so listen to what my council
members are saying here I guess because
I think that I know you earlier s that
there's good points on both sides I I
don't just in my assessment I don't
think that there's that there's
necessarily two sides here I think that
everyone's kind of like working in the
same direction trying to figure out
what's the best formula to do that so I
that's so like that's where I'm like
trying to get some clarification as to
like
so uh Mr turo were you saying like
suggesting that we don't that everyone
just gets a 3% raise like all department
has just that and then we just leave it
at that is that your position or is your
position no Department air raises or or
kind of like just make it like 3% across
the board I'm trying to figure and then Joe if you want
to answer that too then then Mr Williams
then we can all kind of at least know
where we're at I think we're all saying
some similar stuff here so just try to
some clarity right
yeah yeah so um again with the deficit we're
facing in our city the mayor's presented
us with a balance budget it's 3%
sometimes 4% I didn't go to reach
department head um that was the ask
that's what's there um I
don't like to have an
increase in
ask from department
heads when every department head has an
opportunity to come before us and where
does that leave us giving everyone a 10
15 20%
51% increase where does that leave us as
taxpayers which we all are as
well right and and to your point like to
that makes a lot of sense to me that's
what I'm saying but I know what was
presented to us wasn't 3 4% for everyone
across the board it wasn't that it was 3
4% and then and then
individual was like how much there were
some positions that was upwards of what
was the percentage for the highest you
said 51% 51 so I think that there's a
lot of daylight I said that three and
four and then 51% again we discussed
that that was going to fill a position
that we needed to fill and we had to
bring it up to salary so um
again with the position that we're in as
a city and the deficit we're facing I
know somebody coming in I think once
before
um auto warranty I'm
sure selling
Insurance to donate
money they're going to settle this one
and for but for clearity I wasn't so
again the time when the ask was before
we were in a much different position we
facing a you know a much different
position now than we were 3 four 6 5
years ago so I was just trying to make
sure you understood the nature of my
question like I was wasn't dis right
sure so um yes we are facing deficit but
again we want to keep as I said we want
to keep good employees and that just
does not narrow down to one employee so
I think we should take that in
consideration as well um I'm guessing
that because still here that the
Mayfields are valuable employees and
that they're doing their job so uh when
we talk about that I know that we have
tax increases that's the nature of of of
inflation and all the other things that are a part of it so I don't say
that we say to employees well
[Music]
because the you know we're having this
time that you can't get additional you
know because they're they're facing
inflation as well so you can't get
raises based on the work that you do for
the city and if we're trying to talk
about keep good employees then I think
that we that needs to be
consideration and it was stated that you
know we shouldn't be um setting salaries
when this clearly states right here that
that's one of our responsibilities to
set the salaries for the staff I don't
know I know that when it comes to the
bargaining unit that's a whole different
process and um maybe there needs to be a
similar process for the management I
don't know but there this is the process
we have right now
and this is how we have to deal with it
so I also have a question is the
recommendation that we do this whole
market analysis and try to get in time
for this budget because I don't see that
well that's that's I was going to ask a
question we got
deadine if um in order to do that do we
have to do a formal resolution or
just yeah that's how the council
takes so I think we we should we should
address that and do a formal resolution
to um ask the mayor request the mayor to look into that and we have that ready
for you know
next
so that he said it's not going to be in
time for this bud so we have to deal
with the issues at hand yes so so yes I
understand but I think um we should put
that in place so that we don't have to
be repeating this again next time that
we have that study so Sam can you please
um put that on the agenda for us to do
that formal um stuff and um
and we get that um to the mayor so that
study can be start and complete and
provided to us sometimes and we thanks
here thank you I'm sure also sure these
studies aren't free that's
okay here we are just just documents
just saying um you know not even
familiar with what it might be but I'm
sure it's in the upd so thousands and
thousands of dollars well we have an HR
department so I don't think they going
to H want to do a a market analysis that
HR can do that and every every HR
department does that well yes it's going
to cost us if we decide to implement it
to come Inc compatible but then that's
what we're going to look at and then we
can say as a council and as the mayor
and
administration are we ready to do this
and that will be the biggest question on
the table but I think we need to do that
market
analysis go ahead please um I think
folks are making great points all around
the table um and I do
appreciate the idea of being consistent
um I do think it's a good idea to do the
market analysis um I absolutely do not
think we're going to be able to do it in
time for this budget um but I think it's
something that we should move forward
with um one solution I think I I support
the 3% raise um I think that's where we
should land um this evening I think that
um is what has come to us um via uh the
disc discussions that the mayor had with
department heads um I don't have a
problem if there's an individual that
because there's a justification there in
terms of the retirement that that might
be coming down the pipe but again I
think we could kind of um revisit that
um but um I think one solution might be
to move forward from this and have to
come back um at another another time in
the year and think about whether we have to make any adjustments by via
budget amendments um which we have done
in the past as well but um so I I think
we should stay consistent now um I
really appreciate the fact that we're
raising taxes so I don't think that I
think the 3% raise is fair um across the
board um I do appreciate the idea of
having a market analysis later um and
that perhaps we can revisit mid year um
at least look at what the results of the
market analysis and at least start
planning for what we might do in the
future well I think that's what I'm
trying to that is once we we we
requested that formally and study is out
and then we look at it as a council and
then we said okay and if we are in
agreement to move forward then we'll
have to do a budget reappropriation at
some point in time if there's agreement
across the board to do that and we have
the funding most important thing right
have the funding to do it so just so I'm
clear Mr Patrick you're saying
3% across the board
with
no are you saying but that 3% across the
board with no exceptions no I'm saying
3% across the board I'd be open to to
still considering the race for that one
individual who might be moving into a
role that um sooner rather than later um
but I'm open to continuing the
discussion
but all right thanks I can be
compromising those yeah that's that's
what I'm trying to do as well go ahead
please I just also want to be clear when
you talk about the market study and then
we revisit this mid year are you saying
that at this point in time we will not
consider any other races and then
M I'm not saying that loud too loud but
uhis I'm going to whisper that um
I'm trying to sense it in a feeling that
um do the study we know where we're
Landing we're not guessing at number
this is coming from professional where
here we're going to have a realistic
number in terms of position and we
revisit it at that point in time I am
not against it the majority of the
council would like to move forward on on
one or two and the exception of one or
two that I'm fine with that but um I
will overall revisit it next year each
and every single dep Department here but
again I'm I'm willing I'm on this table
here and I'm willing to make compromise
as I've said it from the beginning and
to move forward I am not going to dig my
heel in the sand I made it very clear
and I encourage everyone of us to do
that that's compromised let's move
forward and let's do what we have to do
I I don't think um you know we we're
sending a message to everyone of them
we're at we appreciate everything that
they're doing we're in crunch time we're
raising taxes to maintain the services
that we're providing to our
taxpayers and we have to make sure that
we have their backs at all times too so
I I just want to Echo some of that and
say that I don't think I I agree and I
think that this this is a very could be
a potentially very contentious
conversation but I do appreciate the way
that it's happening at the table I think
everyone at the table um is acting in
good faith and um you know and I was
asking council members what their
position were I think that it's a
appropriate that I would say my position
would be um I wouldn't be comfortable
with
3% across the board and then one or
two positions at 50% I think that that
is a
drastic comparison and distinction
that even with the variables that were
presented so I think again we have to
your point maybe we just have to to take
a step back and I think that maybe this
is something that we
um move for uh efficiency sake move
further down the agenda in this process
that's would be completely up to you um
uh chair but maybe that's something but
I just want I just want to Echo one to I
mean if if there's any
retirement May right to Agate someone or
hire someone new that person will go
into that position and that line is
funded already so we we do have funding
on that line and whoever the mayor
choose to hire will go into that line so
there if there's funding on the deputy
line it will not affect that line the
promotion or the the hire will take that
funding from that line at a given time
could you explain anything El so right
now we have funding for the commissioner
at 100
propos
33,000 and the proposal for the um def
is
120 I might be off a little sure sure so
if there's a retirement that line
becomes
available if the May hire someone and
put that person in the line there the
salary continue that funding is there to
continue that
higher so if there's a promotion with
him it just move upward and then that
position become vacant until there's a
promotion or hire to fill that out of
line
so we should consider that
so I think back to uh the rhetorical
question that Mr Williams asked I do
think that our primary you know we're
here for the residents and I think that one point of we're raising the
taxes um I think we have to be very
mindful of that in terms of this
discussion about raises
so and I would say in response to that is why I'm responding to the
proposed budget with that same
understanding in mind um I would
say hearing everyone around the table um
following the invitation for the number
of individuals in the email to respond
don't think we've gotten any further
responses am I not correct I'm not here
hi Mr sorry and an email that was sent
out later today were there any
additional responses from City
St I I didn't
in the last hour so I haven't received
any so this would be the final one I
would say in in the manner in which I've
been a member of this Council we've
entertained these such conversations so
I would not be opposed to taking this
into consideration as well as we
anticipate how we continue addressing
this issue next year I think it is
important to make sure we capture this
appropriately if we are doing a market
adjustment you're not giving the city
staff anything short of what they
deserve and what they've earned with
their knowledge skills and abilities
over the years Market evaluations are
continuing in the industry and often
times Market are evaluated annually I'm
not promoting that but I'm saying the
cost of running the city is the cost of
running the city so I think if we start
this we see it through to completion
however after making this a formal
opportunity for everyone to respond we
have only heard from this individual so
to your point everyone has been
presented with the same Fair
opportunity so I think in hearing that I
am comfortable responding to this email
as the
last as we currently have budget
meetings P
this and to add to that I think the
mayor was very directive uh when as an
email to his department heads to reach
out to the council or to be here at the
in 5:30 to kind of if they feel that
they need to discuss with us any salary
increase Chief Marina is
here forget about it chief he also
[Music]
wants Patrick yeah I think um I just
want to have a point of clarification we
haven't decided on any of the
um we haven't decided on the salary that
correct recomend and this actually um
came last looks like it went last night
so meeting I'm sorry like right after
our meeting yeah she's she's uh the
person is indicating that she was
watching our meeting and that that was
why so it wasn't that um that other
email went out this afternoon asking
people to send in requests um if they
were interested this was before that
actually just it said to show up we be
here all right I think disc we're
discussing at L I will ask we just move
on and we'll revisit this um before we
close and move to um other points um if
you don't mind yeah we can Mr probably
take that and just move to another
discussion and then we'll R this um it's
a hot discussion do we want to um Carl
let's go through um this list from the
top
down this l oh
okay man you send us an email this
afternoon yes I did late this
afternoon meetings all day
[Music]
want
certainly yesterday um the discussion
around the table was um the huge um you
progam
and currently in the budget is
$150,000 Mr parley had um recommend that
we consider increasing that by 100,000
to
250,000 and then there's an email today
this afternoon from Mr parley that to
bring that to $300,000 and to R name
that line to you Services Mr
Harley sure so I just think um you know
this is a unique line um I do have to
say that I'm um somewhat biased in this
because you know being the you know one
of the things that uh myself and the
mayor and council president was really
uh spearheading was trying to make sure
that the city for the first time ever
had a Youth Employment Program is a very needed thing so I guess what I
think there was some confusion yesterday
because I know that the lines had
we spent uh 90 something perc of the
money the first year and then the second
year we we didn't spend um quite as
anywhere near as much as that and I
think that that was more of a
programmatic shift than it was a shift
in need um um so it was I think on the city only has so much capacity um
and but the need is still great and I
think for you know for for the Youth
line I I think that we definitely I mean
I was really trying to and I hope you
guys received this in the right spirit I
was really trying to
uh be as uh conservative as I could with
that line um because I think that line
is unique in the way that it's not again
it's not just about the larger picture
big picture is you know keeping our
youth engaged in pro-social activities
you know I think that we all see what's
good about that but I think the piece
about that is that you know there's
money that's going to go into our local
economy and and much likely to
be you know spent inside of our local
economy unlike some of the other things
that we are funding for you
know even some of our nonprofits you
know things that we are this is
something that does goes directly to
Youth and can change the material
conditions of the people themselves as
to what some of our larger uh things
that we are funding are going to
nonprofits and some of that money um is
people who don't live in our city and
actually support other tax bases with
that so I think if we consider the fact
that the very clear need for our youth
um to be engaged in pro-social
activities you accompany that with the
fact that this is really an investment
because that money will circulate
through our local economy and then you
think about the accompany that with the
fact that we know that idle times for
youth will definitely increase our our
Public Safety cost and with our police
budget especially um I think that
there's a there's some compounding
factors there or we should really be
taking a look at that line 300 was or
doubling that line was really the best I
could
uh do without I still I still feel
that's very modest is what I'm saying
based on all those
things go ahead please so I my position
on this is that the the first year we
put 150,000 to it we didn't quite reach
it even with all the partners at the
table so um I understand the request I
certain as the request for additional I
don't
necessarily doubling it at this time
does that in my opinion would increase
it and spend you know and and see how we
do with with not just the city being
doing the program but others as well and
if there's need just like with anything
else then we just increase it you know
we go back and make an adjustment
because um because there's more of a
need the other thing we also discussed
last night in terms of increasing is
that when an person gets someone to work
for them that may they can also either
donate or um pay some comp part of the
compensation as opposed to be the entire
of the city because it was said that
they were getting free labor which you
know free is sometimes free is good but
um that they would also invest in that
in the the program themselves through
partially paying for that so for me I
don't see raising it up to the $300,000
level and excuse me yeah um and last night I walked away with the
thought that it was 250 sure so today
you know so so that's my position that
you know we have to like as as
everything based on on PRI history and
in 22 we didn't quite make it to the 150
so increasing it and then increasing our
Outreach and all that I say yes we do
that and also ask the people who are
getting people to work for them to also
partially invest in the program as well
and that so therefore the city is not as
much so I I would say so I think our the
first year we spent upwards of 140
something th000 the entire budget was
only 150 so if the the agency that's
managing
that once they get close to that 150 you
have to stop because if you don't stop
then you're going to be responsible for
paying youth whoever wherever they're at
so I think that like that first year
that spending 100
just say but it it was more than that
though it was a little bit over 140 yeah
so so I say like
$140,000 for the first year of that
program um I think that that I consider
that a pretty strong compelling reason
to say like that the need is there and
then the second year I really
can't you can't really calate that
because the model shifted so much so you
spent a third of of what was was done
the first year and I think that that was
just based on the programmatic shift um
and I think to your point around like
other people contributing um and
employers contributing um I think that's
a great idea and I think if that's the
case then we'll just have a larger
capacity to reach more youth in that way
so that's the way I would look at that
um but your your point is well taken um
and yesterday when I was I did uh say
I'd like to increase it by 100,000 that
was something that I did say at this
table and then once I uh looked at the numbers in the county um around the
amount of Youth that they sered and I
considered I started to really make the
consideration of like that's money
that's still going to live in our city
versus you know so we might get to
leverage that
300,000 uh dollars and I think I'm not
sure on the research but you know I
think that the money the the researcher
show that the money will circulate in
our community for almost six times
before it leaves based on you know where
we're funding some of these uh
nonprofits with with
uh largely a lot of their administrative
staff not living in the city that's a
drop in the bucket compared to what we
give to them and a lot of times those
dollars go to support other tax bases
and you and you don't get the value get
from money economic in the city um
increasing Public Safety and enriching
you so that's those would be my um
points on that but your pointed I I
understand as far as the form looking at
past years that would be my response to
that go ahead I would support increasing
the youth employment line um I think it
it's um we've been talking last week
several of us talked about you know the things that had happened in the city
school district the week before um I
mean I think it's really valid to think
about how are we fostering youth
leadership how are we supporting them I
think the income that I think it's
income that is needed but I also think
it's job skills and job skills training
that um I think all of us would also
support um so not sure about the number
um but I also we again I think this is a
place where using arpa funds taking arpa
funds away from an additional besides
the ones that um are already in our
operating budget based on on the four I
think it was that um Finance you know
that's in the budget I think there's
still an opportunity to look at those
arpa that arpa money and take this out
of that um and we would have to take it
away from someone um I get that but
um it will it will be a budgeted line
eventually it will be funded once we
start right I'm just saying I don't know
where we get I guess what I'm saying is
we have to figure out where we're going
to get the money from that's that's
there is an in andl we have that's right
saying when we get to the ARA discussion
there might be additional um ways that
we could get it there I'm just saying I
don't know where we get it from but um I
definitely would support increasing this
so just to be clear I have no objection
to supporting this level I would we
walked away last night 250 was the
number and I was like okay I'm good with
that and and I'm still good with
that go ahead please um I'm I'm
wondering like if we we put on the line
on the Youth Services
we it it we're going to commit to hoping
it goes toward deployment make it's open
where we have also the option if say
there certain Community there's schools
in every community and we have
complaints from neighborhood residents
that we have youth just no activities
nothing and I worked in a rock program
had a budget of $45,000 a year and it
was highly effective to get 80 kids
there at night is that we have that
flexibility say hey here's a h a spot
there's a lot of unstructured free time
which is you know one of those risk
factors for juvenile agency let's create
a program in that community and let's
started up we have the budget here we're
not using unemployment we could do
something like that and if that is
effective we can look to continue
funding yet if you look at my email I do
say um to change it from youth
employment to youth services for that
very point to have a bro I I do think I
mean just to go back a step um what we
were what we did I think in the past was
give it to the county for their youth
you know through that youth employment
that the county runs right so I think we
you know that's another consider yeah
that's the consideration too because um
you know that's program management I
mean
we we I guess I'm saying that I mean I'm
not I'm not I'm not sure that we should
take it back into the city because then
we'd have to have a staff person that
was you know coordinating it so I think
with some of you know some of the
flexibility really it's going to be if we do this it still would be with the
County's Youth Employment I think well
it was it was a partnership between the
county school in the school district in
the school district I actually wrote
that down too were you able to share
with us how how how were you able to
manage it last year does that well we
put people in departments so there was a
supervisory
structure there in place the year before
it was more broad-based and some of
those expens ures out of that line I
would classify as being
interesting just said they're
interesting they wouldn't have happened
had I reviewed the individual
expenditure well in terms of the county
what I can say they've run their program
for a long time and part of I know part
of it they paid staff but what I
understand we're talking about is this
money would only be to pay the youth or
are you talking about the people who
would also supervise so so my okay
well we consistently made investments in
the Parks and what I look at this money
is how do we go back to some of those
old days when there were Recreation
specialists in the Parks there's more
activities there it's not precluding any
the discussion whether it's a tonight or
uh in facilities that might not solely
be the parks so bringing in other
partners uh but it's the take that uh 8
10 weeks during the summer and how do
we spend the
money the simple thing is in the city
hiring people working in the Parks doing
activities there uh but more than open
to if there are other partners ERS to
their private businesses or other
entities uh this summer I had a
discussion with the superintendent of
schools he' just come into that role
we're looking to do more recruitment
for
uh kids within the schools and also
trying to match them up to
uh possible career paths in the city we
spent a lot of time focusing on Public
Safety police and
fire it's hard right now to find people
for water and waste
water and those are ones where you have
to have some math skills
uh and if it's environmental it's uh
very timely uh how do we get kids to
come in and uh be exposed to that
because most people don't even know
those jobs exist out there but they're
good career paths you go in you get
higher levels of
certification uh and
they're the reality is they're more
important than a lot of the other
positions we have because if water and
sore doesn't
work we're in trouble absolutely so this past year when we had people at the
um for the city did anybody work in the
waste waterer treatment plant were we
able to put anybody there no we had some
the year before but did not get any this
year and in terms of that there's that
um program EOS where they do a whole lot
of that you know environmental stuff so
and when we talk about partners that
might be a place because my
understanding of their program they have
gotten I've watched some of the videos
they've really gotten kids very very
interested in uh doing those kind of
things so then identifying those kind of
Partners where we're broadening the
scope of what we're offering to youth as
opposed to absolutely you working
nothing wrong with City Vault working
City Vault um but just because kids have
other interests they have a variety of
interests yeah the way some of our
department has a feeling we might need
them kids to come here and work cuz uh
we don't get them ra but now I think
that the
mayor the mayor was saying uh if we look
at you know those strategic Partnerships
um and I think we get the most value out of our dollar I just kind of want to
keep that in front of our mind that this
it it looks like you know well and is we
classify it as you know this is a
expenditure on the city's behalf but
again that's money that's going to be in
our local economy that's money that is
going to help um you know curve some of
that idle time that results in public
safety cost so I just you're absolutely
correct in terms of an economic analysis
that type of expenditure has one of the
highest
multipliers of any dollars you spent so
if you want to go 500,000 I'm okay any
money we put towards this land here it's
an investment to our youth it's an
investment we have listened in 2023 I
think the success story or 2022 when
they did the first program through the
school with the city partnership with
the school the success story is kind of
you know it drives you to do more
because once we invest in our youth it's
a long-term effect putting money into
the local economy into the local um
houses so that they have money at the
disposal to spend and to take them back
into school and to buy supplies for them
new clothing New Bag new you know
Footwear and things like that I am not
opposed to any increase against L but uh
we have to find way to fund it m I have
been from day one I have been an
advocate for this um you can talk about
that we sit in a room every year of the
fund continue to fund on the county
$40,000 a year there were many
discussion me how do we bring this back
in house year after year but then do we
have the capacity do we have the
resource to do it and I have to agree
with the mayor we need to expand bring
in more agency because if we can
leverage whatever we put here into the
2025 budget we need to leverage with
other agency to expand it and I think
that's what I said yesterday we all need
to get on board we all need to bring
players to the table and expand the
service any other take on this item
unfortunately have another
commitment you can pass the budget there
we
[Music]
go take
over just
kidding this is a p this this as long I always use this as long as I've been
in the council this has been a
passionate line and I don't think anyone
of us here is against
it no not at all we are
support we have seen what's happening in
our society and we need to step up as a
council to provide whatever we have
available to them yeah we got we got to
fund it like it's got to get the money
we got to fund it we all we all agree so
we just need to identify number and then
where do we find the Gap so what is a
number right so that's the first
question go ahead just need a number so
let me just go back so yesterday
we there was a recommendation to bring
that up to 250,000 and then there's an
email this afternoon to kind of up that
up 50,000 more to bring that to
300,000 what are your position with that
in terms of the numbers mine's
300,000
250 I'm happy to go
250 so I would say if you do 250 and you
talk about some sort of split it does
still reach your desire of increasing
capacity and it allows us more time to
engage how propy fund is I feel like
that could be a compromise mrle I I
would have to get clarity on like what
kind of split I don't
understand what do you mean by that 250
versus 300 no no the split between the
employer and what this line would
potentially fund if you did 50/50 you're
essentially doubling it plus adding
money to the line also I think directly
for
employment what he means he means asking
we we talked about it's been mentioned
that we asked the employers to contrib
it oh sorry sorry sorry I I don't think
we can count on that so I think moving
for at least until we get the program up
and running and maybe next year we'd be
able to ask employers but I think I'm
comfortable with 250 and finding the
additional 100,000 I do want to point
out that we do need to continue you know
paying for the
lifeguards is that different that's not
effective sear that's separate
line yes okay no just wanted to make
sure okay um that thought so 250 go
please the um boys and girls club like
at sond you know that bring in the
summer programs did that come out of
this yes it's in here it's in our budget
here oh it come out no no no no no
service sear I was looking for it in
pool in is it in pool Parks or yes on
the parks a separate L that we fund
every year to um to pay for the the
guards and the um good so that's good so
really in essence we're giving if we
went with whatever number we come up
with here you can all in your heads
realize it's an additional 150 also to
still be hiring
youth yes yes an additional
150 you know what I mean I know what you
mean okays everything in other words if
we did 250 it's really in in the end it
would be $400,000 that would putting
into youth employment she saying there's
15 ready that's what I'm saying yeah but
it's not necessarily that's not
necessarily the thing though because
that is a that that money is part of a
larger contract that's with the boys and
girls club that's you know so I know
that's that some of the implications and
the outcome
is is
there however that to uh mind Joe's
earlier Point around like changing that
from just youth employment to Youth
Services so yeah oh yeah no I get that I
just like to ask Derek do you have any
idea where you might listening to the
conversation where we might be able to
fund this from that's I mean currently
looking at 2,000 no it was 300 was my
thing let's start
there 15,000 for that reduce expenditure
in general fund or looking at something
increasing the revenue mhm
sure
yeah that's consider sure so so yeah so
yeah it will be it will be a discussion
that you will have to have with
um Anthony or it's something
NE I a
decision increased
access
more yeah are we going to have you
PID most likely if you increase the
revenue be coming from apprpriate fund
balance um expend I don't know you take
on because it's a really tight
budget so so let's mark it them as a um
but most of these if we are not
increasing the revenue we'll potentially
have to come out of the general Reserve
sure so let's put that there as
tentative if we have an agreement to
move forward with that increase so
250,000 I actually 300 I'm comfortable
with 250
um
I I would like to hear where the other
council members stand 280 I know nobody wants to hear about
200
[Music]
200 50,000,000 compared to what we had
in there and
not that it's not important but again
we're tightening our belts uh if we
leverage it with the county the city the
this you're looking at two for $600,000
in there I I don't know just
saying I'm very if the let me just
address that with the county if we were
to what we have had in the past and this
is what the mayor was trying to bring it
in house many years and we had an
agreement with the county once we found
the county it's an employment we're
funding an employment for the entire
County that's true not just the city not
the city and this was a problem mayor
was pointing us to that many years and
that was an agreement we had and then uh
after give the May credit on that he
tried hard to bring it in house and
which we did and we are able to fund
this program for City resident only
rather than County resident that we been
funding for many years so we can't just
ask the county we can't we can't STI we
partner with a county we have to fund
the entire County so no so no so the
last so so you're I I think what you're
talking about uh is is is something that
happened that we were giving money we
were taking money and giving it to the
county and then the county was doing
what the county did it was youth
employment but to your point it was long
thing the program that that that we uh
launched what was it two years ago 22
yeah two years ago the program design it
was only that's why it was a partnership
with the city school district and the
county was was uh helping with the
administrative fees but these were all
City residents not $1 left the city
right so that would be what I yeah it's
a change to Dynamics yes that's what
brought
it I prefer that but not inh housee
in-house because we're training it's
going to be in addition to City staff
that still want other employers involved
in this as opposed to yeah yeah
I think that so why partnering with the
county the logic Ling partner with the
county is because they have the
infrastructure there but when we were
designing the program the conversation
was that it has to be on City residents
and the school district being a city
school district was able to that's why
those Partners made made sense however
what the school district was doing was
also partnering with some small
businesses so they were so to not get
into the weeds of the program stuff the
things that are important to us is that
it's we increase partnership which we
did and it stays in the city which it
did so that's a
fact and John say you got it at the
table it's back to 350 now 350
[Music]
350 back never
was every time John gets up on the table
when I'm talking that's what happens so
to make it an
inine right and you know you might not
be able to you know it's an Ara funding
now it is yes right so then the year
after 2026 it becomes inline it becomes
all ours and looking at our
future I don't want to put 300,000 on
there and not being able to fund it two
years from
that but that so why that difficult no no but that so why that make so why
that position makes sense for most other
things is different than this why this
is unique is because this is something
that if we
can if we have the money to help the
youth then we use the money to help the
youth and when we don't have the money
to help the youth then it's not real
decision because we just don't have it
but why this is a little different than
some of the other considerations we make
again is because this will to the
mayor's point which I was stressing
earlier is that it's not just an
expenditure the research shows that this
is leveraging this is the highest
leverage point investment that you can
make as a city so it's not just the
money that's going out it's the money
that's saving and hopefully the money
that we're saving bringing back in and
the money circulating our economy would
help with that looking down the line so
I just want to make sure it stays Point
yeah I think was very direct about that
he was leading towards that in terms of
his his comments towards us I mean I'm
not against um F line for
250 uh yesterday and then we revisit it
um you know next year because this is
our future and it's it's a future that
we're going to um permanently add into
the budget Way Beyond my time I would
like to see it there um I don't have
problem do 250 now and at the same time
expand this uh for
other
um players to get involved and to help
us support this program
School District
only I like that yeah I think that's
what they did in 2022 Oh you mean for
students for for
kids so Joe you at Joe's at
three I'll go
three three thank
you yeah I you know I think i' love to
see how you know the
outcomes as we move forward and in our
fac you know and then do we have toci it
or if it's working I think it'll be
pretty evident and I think that would be
something that will continue to
fund at that level okay I'm not seeing
it in the arpa so I don't know what I'm
missing no it's somebody just said
150,000 funded through our in the budget
into 2025 oh funded I see okay sorry sry
if we were to up it so whatever number
we agreed on here tonight no I I get you
it will be in the budget for 2025 but
when we do our roll back on the ARA
allocation we will have to put money
into that um blank to reappropriate
money into the youth service line just um one youth in a institution oh
yeah 400,000 Y what I'm sorry oh yeah yeah yeah no it's valuable use
that's what we're seeing it's an
investment in in our city that we all
going to be proud of
we just have to find the money I mean if
we're split and we have 300 300 I don't
mind go 300 look we we got to move
forward on this I I am $50,000 or
$20,000 is nothing in a $116 million
budget which is have to find the extra
150 be my
point where's your recommendation
outside ARA do you have an additional
one well we were told I Miss far last
evening that there are potential um yeah
there's some agency that might not
fulfill their requirement and we might
have to make amendments to to bring that
money back into the city when that money
is back into the city I was very allow
at that to make sure we keep that money
inh housee and to reallocate those money
to City programs and this is one of the
city program that we need to
fund how
we uh anticipate that money which we can
at this present point I'm in agreement
with that wasn't the discussion
yesterday we're only evaluating those
four projects yes because of the time
frame yes so it's how do we write that
in to our working understanding of
future money line which I am all in
favorable it's similar it's similar to fees that we're projecting that we're
going to make x amount next year on
fees that's projection and this is just
similar to projection we're saying that
we're going to spend $300,000 on youth
service and where we're getting it from
We're anticipating that the AR they will
be money that will be free up and we can
reallocate
money but not for this budget though we
have to because that money was we we
said yesterday we're not doing that for
this budget so if we get additional
50,000 well well it's going to be more
than 50 the additional whatever
additional money we need have to take in
the fund balance because we talk about
that money being over there and not here
that's what saying reappropriation so
we'll have a ticket out there and when
we bring back the arpo we will have to
replenish the general fund VI that our
company in D is that am I saying it I
mean I guess you could do it that way um
you consider not increasing this line um
and then Council recapture the money um
we do have oper project Cod which are
not in the general budget
so we could possibly leave this line to
150,000 and then when we do
recapture we
do then the council can decide how much
and um because we do have you know go
that you don't see here projects
yes I just wanted to clarify but it
would be above and beyond the four the
four projects are already in the budget
so we have an additional it have to be
some other project um right yeah okay
just want to make sure
clearing us done that we need to address
next week and I think M clear um October
23rd yeah those are the deadline that
was provided to some of the agency to
get back okay I'm confident we find the
money through those
Pro the what she talked about last night
was BC and I had like a million dollars
that they had not I guess I could say
the name of your that they had not used
and she was concerned that they wer
going to be able to and that that money
would have to come back in house um the
others uh not so sure what that's going
to happen but mil is enough to talk
about
yeah so let's so shall we move on or so
could we you a resolution C on so in
absence of adjusting this budget line
with monies that we haven't recuperated
yet could we do a resolution speaking to
our intent as a council that way when it
does come it also provides some
reassurances Council
table I the process I don't know I don't
think we can do
that I don't think we can do
that because where where where we fing
it from that we have to
direct we have to be direct so it's say
outside verbal commitment that any
additional money we get back I don't
know if that's an appropriate compromise
for Mr fary well I mean my only thing is
that you know obviously I know it it has
to come it would have to come from
somewhere but and I think that if we're
looking to um the ARA money that has not
been uh used well the AR money that has
not been reallocated reallocated yet
then
um then I guess we should you know i' be
looking for us to do better than than
what we're at now um but what I'll do
right now is I'll
U I'll put a pin in that for now and
then you know uh send you know what my
recommendations as to where that uh
money uh could come from in the existing
budget um and
then I'll make some more considerations
around that so we can move on well I
before we move on I mean are you saying
that you might look at our expenses in
the existing budget as opposed to arpa
to try to fund the rest of the program
I guess because I I don't I mean I think
we're really Bare Bones right now I mean
and I think the ARA
money there's there's I mean first of
all Mrs Carver actually mentioned as as
council president Porterfield I mean
there's definitely going to be enough
for an additional um 150 whatever we you
know um coming out of this I would not
be in favor of taking it out of our um
out of expenses the operating budget no we're not take
no I think I think he was just saying he
was going to take a look and and see
where it could come from but that's what
I'm
asking absolutely yeah no yeah no I
don't think it's it's not coming out of
expense it's coming out of the general U
Reserve if we are to fund if we are to
make a recommendation on the fund any
additional cost we have to find a bucket
that to pull it from and if we don't
have a bucket it has to come up from a
general Reserve so it's not an expense
we're not reducing any expense we
increasing the expense and reducing the
revenue um is that correct reducing
the fund balance yes and that's going to
be a big hit this year yeah I we already
are doing that so I mean I think my
first choice would be
arpa um before anything so the
conversation earlier was that the arpa
money once we do once we do Rec a cob
back to replenish that that's what was
said that's what I'm in favor of oh okay
take the ARA money back and put it into
the general reappropriate the money back
can we do that can we do that I don't
know if we can use our money well all
right make a project on its own um it
would be out of the general fund um I
don't know if the council wants to do
that but there are project City projects
there you know the council have funded
uh nonprofits that are not F budget I
don't know if that's something that the
council's looking at you so it wouldn't
show in the general f could could we ask
that you in finance come you know you've
heard the conversation you see what we
want to spend what you know can you come
back to us with what your best
recommendation would be for the best way
to do that to increase this line
General and what would be your
recommendation in terms of the in out
yeah where we get the money from
problem you have to take it from fund
balance decre expense somewhere else
within the fund right so we have to take
from another expense from another line
I'm not even say a name because then
like yeah she said
that but so we have to take an expense
from another line in order to fund this
another right chares or some other
inrease or um take then I don't think
that we can then we because we're
already taking money from the fund
balance that's at a very large amount so
I would not be comfortable with
that and so um I like the idea of us and
I'm I'm certainly committed to it and I
wouldn't go back on that that we use the
ARA money that we're going to bring back
because Miss car says we're going to
bring some back and as the mayor say we
don't take it all back we're taking some
back would be enough to to fund this um
I just want to caution we did talk about
this post of planting thing and it was
definitely about federal funds and it
speaks specifically to something you've
already budgeted and then you have other
money put it back so I think we would
have to take a look at
that
something I'm not asking
about this particular I'm talking about
these phones and supp planting not
Police
Department yeah go ahead please but I
would also say the number we put in this
line is arbitrary because if as you're
implementing it you recognize the
tangibles that you and Mr Man are
highlighting we can just make a budget
amendment but I think if we use this
year as a case study I think everyone
has made abundantly clear we're on we're
in favor of making this a permanent line
we're just trying to identify to what
extent what I think if this meets all
the objectives that you highlighted and
I do not doubt in any manner that it
won't I think we can then look at how do
we leverage some of our other Public
Safety Investments to support this
effort as a way to restructure how do we
respond to these types of ongoing
incidents throughout the community so I think if we can just get a number
here getting into the year we'll be able
to adjust it as fit we're all in support
of Mr oh yeah no I know I just well all
right let me how much we support is is I think that we that that is
demonstrated by our level of investment
and I think that I'm not it's so let me
be clear cuz I don't want anyone to
misinterpret what I'm saying I don't
think that anyone
is against investing in our youth I
think everyone here is saying that and I
think that I think that there's a
justification for I guess the way I
would frame is I think that there's a
justification for a larger investment
than what other council members are
comfortable with and that's okay because
that's part of our
job but I I I
strongly feel
that what I would
reasonable we're going to hear something
next week about the um
those other
agency that is not up to par in terms of
um documentation in terms of their
additional funding so why don't we hold
tight on the 150 with an understanding
from the seven of us that once the arpa
is back with the city the ARA funding we
will do the first re um
reappropriation for $100,000 from the
ARA to fund this and to increase it to
$250,000 then I think and free up the U
the kind of like the stress right now on
the general
Reserve we can say that and all agree to
it but we don't know ARA money coming
back back to us we we well we know that
for a fact how much is coming back you
know who could get their their ducks in
a row before whatever I mean why could
we I don't think we should depend on
something that we don't so us as a
council holding strip on 150 okay I'm
okay with that but what if all of a
sudden you know next week who's stepping
up everything and the ARA money's I
don't want to say gone by any means but
there's people have other plans I don't
know it's just something I'm really not
comfortable uh saying right now if we're
going to put $100,000 into the line has
to go into the line yeah I think the
mayor also made mention that there are
project that will come in with some
savings that will also come back into
the city um for you know to use in other
um projects or programs so we have to
move forward at some point in time here
we can't stuck on this so we uh we find find where refund this and move
forward or we put it on hold until next
week when we get another update from
Miss car of the other agencies and then
we as a council would have to have to
meet u a special meeting reappropriate
make amendments and reapo uh
reappropriate these money
then I just need some clarity so first
of all um in terms of what Miss Carver
was saying yesterday she was pretty
confident that that this the money come
back she specifically called out an
agency and said not only do they have
this money which they haven't touched
there's other money that they haven't
touched she was 100% confident that that
there is some money coming back in well
over the amount the other thing is
though when we we finished last night we
did say we left at 250 but now I'm
hearing we're going to hold at 150 and
then when the AR real allocation comes
in to bring the other Mr Farley would
say 150 in so is that that's what I'm
recommended at this
time and I I think that that's that's a
doable stuff for us because you listen
to miss car she was very direct in terms
of money coming back and I think she
would not do that publicly if she did
not have concrete
information and I trust
her not that I trust her I support that
I'm not I do not support taking the
extra $100,000 from another expense line
um so I do support using the what's
going to come back from arpa to do this
and I feel strongly that we're all
obviously wanting to make this
investment but I am not in favor of
touching any expense any expense is here
for a purpose right and if we were to
drop an
expense an expenditure line then we
we're jeopardizing a service to our
community if we want to increase it we
have to find Revenue we either increase
the revenue line or we take it out from
the Reserve I I the only two option we
have two options we have y so my
recommendation to hold tight on 150 we
come back as early as we can and make a
budget re appropriation we have done
that in the past way before the budget
into the into the new year I can recall
we we have done that I think maybe
another option to just think is maybe
the council dig deep and see if there's
local partners that may want to
donate um to Youth Services uh to the
that might be a possibility as well I
think I I agree I think that is a
possibility but I also think that if we
do that then it just increases our
capacity to serve more Youth and I
wouldn't really be um I for one wouldn't
be comfortable um frankly I'm not
comfortable um taking such an important
thing and leaving it up
to the generosity of others or because I
don't know where people you know some
people you know look at the position
we're in we want to do we want to fund
more but
we're strapped a little bit we're trying
to figure out how to do that I think
that that might be the case across our
community so I I wouldn't feel
comfortable um solely depending on that
um how do you feel that Mr ear if you
don't mind me ask about the the um what
Mr Mr M saying about doing the now then
the AR when it comes back to and before
just be clear that would happen before
the end of 2024 has to and then we we we
um appropriate some of those funds to
then um then fund that to the level
that's that's you're requesting because
my concern is and we you know we ask
Corporation Council I did talk to Mr um
Sean Ryan about this but but for
something different that we put the
money in and then from the fund balance
and put it in and then take it back out
and then put this money in and then we
could be considered supplanting because
this is federal money and there's a real
thing about that yeah oh absolutely I
mean I would anything that we do um you
know has to be in compliance with the
parameters you know so so I'm definitely
not suggesting we do anything that um
would uh find we could find ourselves
liable for misappropriation of funds um
I don't think anyone's saying that but I
so I I consider um Mr moari scenario um
right now I'm not comfort able with ag
green to that right now but uh I'd like
a little bit more time to uh ponder that
and see what that could look like I
think that's that's a fair
answer okay move on any other question
this Mr Williams you want to go true um
no no no no no sorry um I'm reading and
asking you at the same time we just to
go back up to yours U your
recommendation part U development
Administration and the director of
development the owning officer homes I
just wait for if you don't mind
here miss Patrick oh let's wait on Miss
Patrick it would be fa
take a two minute
recess I think we should recess Finance
till next
Tuesday it's been an exhausting
week I was hoping to get this thing
[Music]
no and this money going to get back if
you
get I just recall something around the
conversation that we couldn't we can't
put it in this
budget so when we get a call back when
we get money back we'll have to do
yes for our programs outside of this
budget so you have to be a
reappropriation to the and what does it
take to do that simple resolution simple
amending the resolution taking a money
back from those agency and reappropriate
to the city and then we'll have to list
programs the city yes now let me ask you
a question so with this whole process
that began our where people put in
applications now all of a sudden there's
money back into the city we have to be
absolutely no go well you say you say no
but we've already had another aspect we
having asked for for a baseball
basketball okay so I I'm just bringing
that no no no I am going to be straight
up and I made it very clear in in the
budget meeting and and beyond that I am
not supporting any money that is coming
back to us to go outside of the city let
it is going to stay I was very clear
during budget hearing money is going to
state in house when you say back to the
city you mean back to the city city of
conect budget not to agencies or any
other programs outside of the city I
would not support that just yeah and on
red card again not because I hear what
you're saying though that's a good point
to bring up but no we we we shouldn't do
that and I I think we should do that but
no we
shouldn't what if just
hypothetically what if and I don't know
can we keep talking yeah slide be
careful what you're saying um but I mean
hypothetically there might be many more
projects that the money would come back
um so
then could we do okay so we can't like
okay we should not consider anything
outside we're done are okay to the
agency outside and we should keep
that okay nobody would change my mind on
that
I don't care what they what
they I straight forward that to keep it
to help us with our projects our call
and to address anything that is related
excuse me sorry the youth the youth
service youth program is City program
okay
this little
warm I'm going to go through L um both
recommendation um one by one see where
stands and we wrap up I okay thank
you okay let's continue I will do um
item by item and V recommendation that
is before us and let's move on and then
we'll go to the next one and then we'll
um conclude because I don't see that we
have a conclusion this um this evening
so let's deal with um the one that we
receiv received today Department of um
development Administration director of
development yesterday there was a
recommendation to increase
that to 10%
Mr Williams my
recommendation on that sheet okay yes is
that sheet that I Shar with you
today what is the council take on this
can I please have your input go ahead
please so I just want to take it from
the larger perspective and um we are
talking about um that this is going to
the the amount that where would you say
we would be getting that amount from the
91,000 916 where were they Happ we did
not identify okay where it's coming from
so larger perspective and let me also
keep keep in mind that this amount these
things already include the 250 they
don't include 150 so there's that so um
do we my in order to not spend 91,000 of
the
um of the fund balance then I would
suggest that maybe you can lower some of
these um simply because it's more going
to be more than 4% but also it's going
to it's um not maybe not be quite T the
level that these are at because within
this number we haven't
included the person from the email the
new one cor so just want to put that out
there that it could be something you can
consider so it's not the full what we
decided last year last point I didn't
frankly
that
97,000 I'm sorry 97 individual
10% at their 2024
salary be
9336 would be the new salary the council
didn't make that change and a difference
of
$593 um that over variance
97609 609 yeah 9769
and and I just also want to point out
while we're talking about it um when we
originally got the asks for these
Physicians the director of development
the ask was at 15 so we already reduced
it on the ask so this initial ask for
the other position the principal planner
the initial ask was at 10 so we've
already started to um make it less than
the asked on all of them every single
one I think said no two of them for the smaller amounts for the uh
development Administration and Community
Development um they were like really
small amounts and so we didn't lower
those however Administration for
Department of development started at 15
and I don't know what your what the
original ask was in the city Cork's
office and the finance Administration
started at 51 so we've already started
to reduce those so you should keep that
in mind
as we're looking at this so it started
at 10 so do we keep it at 10 or do we
reduce the based on what we've done so
far
okay for for the sake of time to respect
everybody's time I'm going to
ask right before us we have a
recommendation for
10% what what are this for for the 10%
that is
20 that is my direct
question I to the table I feel like we
went around the table earlier this
evening about this um didn't we kind of
about the we didn't we didn't talk about
this one oh oh no not about the specific
I want to be specific I guess I want to
hear what other people say I guess I was
talking about trying to stick with the
3% so I'd like to hear what other people
say you say lower it from the 10% to to a a number what is that I mean across
even with all of these too I'm not you
know that's what we're talking about
yeah not
just what I'm saying is that we should
try not to go into the fund
balance and so and again I'm going to
sayate that the 250 is already in here
so it doesn't
include if we if we took out the 150
that because which is that's what you're
saying is to move there and then we can
be there but the 250 is already in
this you wouldn't be taking anything at
that addition
100,000 you actually ruc balance by
3,000 or
8,000 that
individual you
know but we also have to hear from Mr
far how he feels about that um what was
proposed so
I'm I'm getting the two things kind of
completed here me too yeah you are too
yeah okay
so I you're talking you're talking right
now about the the youth line I'm talking
about everything in here all oh okay okay use lines in here yes yes yes I'm talking about everything
that exists on this piece of
paper and what so and let me better
understand what your question is am I am
I okay with the 250 because it's already
in here is that what it's time to no I'm
ask so what was the end of the last
conversation was that we would leave it
as is in the budget currently which is
150 M if we did that then this would not
be over at all and it would change the
conversation you're saying that that if
we did that if we left it at 150 then
that other $100,000 would be up for the
negoti for the negotiation of what we
will have $3,000 on the right side right be balance we would we wouldn't
have we so I think we have to make that
decision before we start deciding
whether these amounts are are what we
can do because if we take that out then
there's no we don't have to go to the
fund balance actually there's a little
bit more to the fund
balance so that to me is part of the
discussion and the decision that we make
before we discuss this
because know Mr Farley understand where
you're coming from and I you know in the past and historically
when on this Council here we sometimes
we agree and and then we back pedal
certain times and it happened a lot of
time I've been here as long as Miss
bfield I know this is my 11 budget I'm
getting too old for this place here so
yes I understand where you're coming
from and um you are skeptical I can see
that but I'm going to repeat again that
when the arpo money is back with us we
can do a budget
reappropriation and put an additional
100,000 against this
C in the next couple weeks once that is
finalized for youth for youth services
for Youth
Services if we can back that $100,000
Outback we have $3,000 Plus on the right
side yes yes you keep the
Sal separate first we're talking about the youth
services you're talking overall
everything yes so and are we using the
um are we using Mr Williams's
suggestions of now yes and then we then
we'll have to get or are we using just
you know
what we're using both we're using the
May's 2025 proposal to align with that
and also align with the conso um Mr
Williams um change
and also the suggestion from the finance
commissioner the Deputy Commissioner of
Finance new salary
in5 Al so we're ask we're kind of asking
a couple different questions in here
actually get
start so that's why I said let's are we
going to even that 250 one additional
and that's why that's why I th that all
back is that very clear with that
moments ago in terms of how we should
proceed with
that so then that changes changes this
Dynamic so it's we won't be over so that
for me was one of the questions so that
answers the question for me
so what are we going to do about that
are weing it out right
now
100,000 the 100,000 out of the arpa
funding that's going to come back to us
for Youth Services I'm supportive of
making that
250,000 yeah this is totally different
is that what we're talking about right
now that's what I'm trying to ask so
what what I'm talking about is that what
Mr M said at the end of the last
conversation in terms of youth programs
that we would leave it at 150 which is
currently within the budget that's what
he said mhm this however reflects the
additional 100,000 which means it at
250 but if we're going with what was
suggested at the end to use the 150 now
and then get take some money from when
it's recouped um from the programs that
weren't able to use it and then fund it
then that means that this goes down to
150
here but we still haven't decided where
we want to actually do these raises
right I mean no no that's I'm saying we
didn't touch on that we're just talking
about yes to the youth services is my
I'm not sure about these raises I I
think I made my statement clear earlier
about the raises all right so that's a
no for all the raises from
this let her say it I actually no she
said that she said
that just let's speak for each other
please yeah um well I'd like to hear
what other people say before I make a
final car on that I mean the 25 Council
changes
what well I'm looking at the column that
says counil
changes how how do other people feel
about
these salary
increases I definitely think there need
to be increases that's not a question so
I can answer that and I don't mean just
for one position
and I'll State again that this is
already reduction from what was asked
was and if we're adding the
additional ask that we got the email for
and that was at 10% then in my mind that
means that we also um reduced that for
the original ask as well that's my
opinion
so I will be the first person at this
point to recommend solid numbers I'm
recommending we return the youth program
line to 150 which will balance all of
the recommendations I previously
highlighted plus the additional person
that presented uh today with the cost
savings to the fund balance that is my
recommendation and I would say if no one
else is prepared to respond in a similar
manner then I'm going to ask for a
recess because at that point we are just
going around in circles about wouldes
and could have and Sh if no one is going
to just put out a number and I mean that
as respectfully as
possible I think I put out my number and
just we need to reduce the other person
so I'm good with this and we should just
reduce the additional one we got because
going by what we did before we reduce
everybody from 15 to 10 so if the ask is
10 then we should look at the number to
reduce and uncomfortable with everything
else on here so so so you're good with
the console 20 2025 percentage change
except for the youth
programs I was the I'm I'm trying to get
the to move on from here yes yes except
for the adding in the planner comes to
97609 is what I'm
hearing 9
97609 is what I think that's the
variance yeah an additional but if you
remove the the youth program back to 150
then that will be on the right side of
$33,000 plus not negative go ahead yes
and as I stated earlier I just I just
think it's sending a wrong message to to
a lot of different people we're facing a
huge deficit this year moving forward
next year um and at this point I I I
don't think I I I'm not I'm not in favor
of considering any of these
raises none none of them not
here no raisers beyond
that hold on I don't I don't understand
what why you doing that I'm just trying
to get some clarification I understand
what that is so I'm
trying yeah I just I just hear people
saying different things so when I'm
saying I stated it earlier I'm not in
favor not not with the the deficit
not not in favor does not reflect the
number that and that's what we need to
know numbers in order to hold on a
second let me finish what I'm saying
please not in favor doesn't give us a
number we need numbers in order to make
informed decisions so what I'm asking
you is that are you saying that you are
not in favor of any raises or are you in favor of 3% raises across the
board or what are you in favor of is
what I'm saying well we're talking about
this year right now so you're saying
you're not in favor of this okay so even
with the youth programs you're not in
favor any of that well the the youth
program we all discussed we're in favor
of increasing the youth I I don't like
depending on AR money especially it's a
blue line now I want to know what it's
going to be in
2026 I want it on the line and I'm in
favor of increasing it on the line yes
Youth Services yes yep that's what so
that's but not these additional physici
races okay I would support
that yes to the youth and no to these
other we have
to just keeping it at the 3% for the
others saying keep it at 3% for everyone
or are you saying 3% and then but the
but certain positions were going to go I
guess I'm going to have to um compromise
and I I was interested in the uh Deputy
Finance but um I I'm happy to compromise
if I need to so you're so so you're
saying 3% across the Bo for department
heads the way that the way that it has
been yeah these well actually these are already in
the budget the one that we were handed
originally is already in the budget I
believe right the First Column the
column where says 3% that's in the
budget oh gotcha right in the proposed
budget yes in right gotcha gotcha except for the deputy Finance
right now I get that so then can we look
at what the numbers would be if we if
everyone got what we should look at we
got that so we have that before us
there's a sheep
here this she here
yes I mean some of these are very very
minor
you know what I mean you look at the
difference column some of them are very
minor so I'd be happy to think about
those
too I got to hear from other
people listen you're telling me so at
least yeah I'm
J this is um this piece that we got um
we didn't get it we got it yes everybody
should have a copy got two copies one
with name I ask you not to mention names
just mention the position this
is yes looking at one without the
names I mean I I have to agree with m p
there are some there are some of here
$179
32
67 those will not make an impact on
this and we can we can compromise and
you make a recommendation to the finance
make a recommendation to the media but
um you know IAS but you know let's let's
compromise I mean in terms of the raises
my position on the recommendation from
Mr Mr Will Williams I mean if I have to
compromise I I you know I will suggest
5% leave the second and third as is get
a small adjustment
um leave the the second to last one as
is as recommended by the finance
commission to bring that up to par
100,000 and the youth service let's hold
that at 150 and we will have that
Amendment budget amendment before the
year out to bring that in
line with a number that we all can
agreed on and that will be funded by the
arpa allocation at that point in time we
take the money back from those
agencies I don't know bet I can do at
this point in time can that I mean that
that's a big compromise there I don't
think it's a lot of money it's minor
because it's adjusting for the 15% it's
10% recommendation we split it in half
first line leave the second and third
line as is fourth line
5% um
commissioner I'm sticking with Mr Mr
Ferrari Rec Commendation on that line
let's hold tight on the other one and
that's it and sorry the um principal
plan also 5% on top of the mayor's
recommendation so let's just be clear
and make sure we we do the math on the
principal planner and direct of
development that that in terms of and
the um amount that's going to be and um
and frankly my recommendation would have
been higher I was I was going more
towards 8% but no that's that's my
recommendation that's yours so I I am I
throw that out
there and that that's my compromise I
think you know for the sake of moving
forward we need that out for us or was
that what he's saying so I can look at
it and reference it so I just like to
see what that would look like on paper
so I reference it better could we do
that well we don't have a
lot percentages I'll do it but everyone
has different IDE What percentages to be
it's going to be yeah M okay I don't so
I was hearing some level of agreeance
from um council members so I was just
trying to see if
that's a starting point at least but
it's fine if not then okay we have to go
one line by line
I just for the sake of PL this is what
my my suggestion
[Music]
is 5% on those lines that I highlighted
onto the
right no just pass it's fine and you
know if you have any suggestion you know
say out
let's let's discuss it and let's move
for if you can't have an agreement let's
move to the next item we're not we're
not going to
can I take that thank
you it's so confusing about this
paper excuse me
well based on these recommendations then
we
have one position getting a 25%
increase and other positions
getting 5%
increase but that's the fact that's
recommendation to finance sh sure sure
no with his recommendation to bring
so um I just like to offer that so my
recommendation is more like eight and because I know that five is is the
recommendation on the table five is half
of the already lower so I was starting
at what they ask was and taking that in
half and that becomes 7.5 or8 as opposed
to taking we we already reduced and
dividing that in half so that's how I
came up with the number eight
John um these percentages that you've
put in this
column is that is this with that would
align with um 25 counil changes or not
it will be the 3% plus the five
3%
[Music]
gotcha just want to point out to I don't
know if it makes any difference but you
have the position Char Who overseas the
principal planner and so you
oh suggested it's very close what I'm
saying yeah the director would have to
be higher than
the mle
plan sorry that's what I'm saying if we
started at 15 and we went to eight which
is like half 15 and then we started at
10 we went to five for that princial
planning position that's half of that
but that still keeps them below I I need
to see the salaries I that's what you're
saying too I need to see the act the
actual
numbers go from 10% still you're giving
the same percentage is still going to be
very close unless you're going to give
the director 8%
still Mr will you're staying with your
recommendation is there any
adjustment I will just to the 8% if you
like are you hard at your
recommendations hard I'm trying to you
know compromise and I would say I
compromise Miss pfi's
recommendation anybody
else the money
to you do 8% on all of these no no no
not all just no I mean these these these
that are on Mr Williams sheets yes sheet
the one that currently says 10 would be
eight well there's two that yeah be
two and stay with
25%
yes I mean I know this sounds crazy but we're not suggesting 8% for the two
that are one that's one that's 4.01% and
one we're only talking about the ones
that currently at 10 to put them in
eight the other ones I think the state
are just because of the the amount the
variance is so low that we can just you
know make a recommendation to finance to
say you know what our recommendation is
to just Mr Williams has recommendation
here so have those just added so it be 8
4.01 3.26 8 25% and then youth programs
you've already decided be
out I would compromise there me
to I hear you
yeah I'm find that compromise I we got
to move somewhere we got to send a
recommendation over and the May is going
to come back to us you know he has all
right to come back to us and you know
with his um feedback so you're you're
saying no no yeah I'm not I'm not I
can't get there I can't quite get there
with uh recommendation that's on the
table right now I'm going to go back to
3%
um supp
Bo which which one you
um you wanted to stay um at the
10% well I guess um
my my larger issue here is is really the
uh the youth program increase being out
and I understand that you know that that
there talks around you know our
perunding for that um but I'm just not
there it is
okay I think we all want to do the youth
one you know I mean want to in this
respectfully you know I I think we all
do so want that but so M Farley where
would you recommend we take this 100,000
from so because you're because we're
talking
about two different things here and I
don't want to frame it as it's like so
it's it's like we're talking about staff
increases and we're talking about um
youth programs and we're saying that
they will
essentially essentially close to zero
each other out right because what you're
saying is that with the youth program
out then that leaves the money in the
exist and what's being proposed here or
any variation of that to
fund the positions
this propos correct including including
the youth position at including that not
100 1250 but including right no yeah no no I understand I understand that
yeah right so we're talking so again so
I would say we're talking about kind
of two different things and you know I I
would be okay with uh compromising to
um the the percentages that are on the
table now now but I would also say that
we need to leave that $100,000 in there
for for the youth programs okay my
position where would you like us to
suggest to take that all from where are
you going to get the money for where are
we taking the money from to increase
salaries where are we getting that
from fund balance the fund balance then
same
place that's some of them right uh some
are some areund position some okay well
it's runed position did you design
us
which
the okay so even well I guess my point
would be that it' be this you know same
place where we're finding um where we
would find money for these increases are
well that's a good
point well bear in mind it's 100,000 or
it says
5,000 big difference so the salary ra
I'm saying
5,000 8,000 that we're talking about
there it's not a big D and versus
100,000 from the general um fun just
want to highlight that so the increase
might look it's the percentage might
saying eight when you calculate that to
add that it's it's not it's not a big
number of that's true that's true yes
okay no that's true yeah yeah help help
me get there so you're saying that
you're saying
8% the wiggle room is easier in terms of
the offering budget sure I'm just
talking about the just just the numbers
John you're saying
that the proposed
increases on the
sheet are is equal up to how much money
what you're
saying we'd have to recalculate have to
recate but even if we just if we just no
I'm just you can I'm just using
comparison sure I'm not not that's what
I'm trying to do so say simply put the
original ask for the Deputy Commissioner
finance that reduction alone would cover
yes all of the
recommendations plus and not saying
that's going to be perfectly but to Mr M
point the amount that we'd have to
remove from the fund Downs would be
margin at best
exactly can I point out one other thing
go ahead the I don't know if this is
really C what we wanted we wanted so it
looks like to me like you've included
the mayor's 3% and then 10% on top of
that which is this 10% is what
the suggested car so that's from the
adopted 2024 salary so you're you did
10% from here
correct so you did 10% on a 24 correct
oh
it's not 10% of the that be 13% yeah
right right and that is more or
less all right we got we got to move
on all right so we have numbers I ask
that you
know party is 50 you would like to see
the 250 and the money coming out of the
fund balance well I'm and I think five
of us are saying that they're good with
um with 8% for the first line 8% for the
um fourth line the second to last line
remain the same and the um reduce the
use service to 150 until we can
reallocate um our funding in the next
several of weeks and 5% the plan and 5%
for the principal plan I'm going to five
of us I think compromise on that I will
leave that for um discussion I will ask
the um Deputy um Finance commissioner to
work those numbers for us for tonight
not for tonight no absolutely no I will
do that to you um if you you have you
have the notes I
have Dam well let's finish off this
because I but those are the numbers I
have here let's turn to this page here
because this was a for recommendation
let's address this and yes if we we can
wait and and have update that and come
back to us oh oh we're back here it's
multiple pages on this this one
here a previous packet say 2025 Bud
changes
yes I'm going to go to each one of them
and ask what your position is and let's
move
forward so
but we only have to talk about the ones
that we didn't just talk about on this
sheet no we don't we don't have no it's
not on here almost everything no none of
these are on the she this is
[Music]
separate yes I thought we already I
thought we did this and everybody agreed
no we' been through but I don't think
everybody anybody had any agreement to
move forward it was just a proposal okay
it wasn't like what we what we're doing
here right now to compromise them to say
or we have XYZ and go with it okay so
let's address the first
one um 1410 100 City Clark salary that's
a movement from the 5,000 from the
register to the city
clerk and adjusting the S to $3,000 that
has been there for the S been there for
several years
instead of doing what's on this
sheet city is a different title yeah but
it's a different she's a register in
addition that's that's that's that's a
salary adjustment this is a this is a
register what we call the money that is
set aside for the register to move that
from the STP in it doesn't belong to
typen it belongs to that salary L separ
Sal what we're doing is reducing the
deputy Clerk's salary
there is Deputy register I'm sorry reg
is there's not then I'm thinking of the
Deputy clerk right we Havey clerk okay
Deputy
regist I
see are there any objection to this so
on this basically that that salary would
be
um 8889 2 is that what this comes out to
[Music]
885 bej because if you're open 8% City
Park be little
more2 be a small adjustment in
this so I would stick with what's on the
sheet not on the sheet for which one
we're on the first one the city
clerk I think it's two different
titles I'm looking at something that
says cler here but 1410 100 so we have
to choose between either 88 well it's going to be more than 88892
right so I don't know what 8% I don't
know what 8% is
not being factored in this is just the
stien this is not a salary
adjustment this is a stien for part be
in that role I think I I provide that
Miss Michael okay
it's more of an allowance it's an
allowance to be in that
capacity I think that was explained in
the document that was provided to us so
this should not be considered as a
salary it's in the salary line but not
it's
salary is that correct
dere it it's it's it's a what I would
say a an allowance
yeah
reg I guess it's a better
terms additional amount that will be
reing yes it's away from the salary and
we already approved that in the other
yes so we we're saying that we we're
okay to proceive the
8% salary inrease and then there's
moving this allowance out from stien
which it didn't belongs to and to
account for s correctly as
$3,000 it is not as typend it just makes
it more
transparent go ahead please but it's a different line it's still part of
the salary is that Derek rate what we
decided on so registar is a different
title than a
clerk issue with past years it
was in the salary it was out of the
salary I think this year put in the city
CLK salary
line from what the commissioner has put
together but I'm going to ask this
question yeah why why is it why is the
movement and not keep it in the same
line and hire
someone okay so the movement is because
since I started in 2019 I trained
several people in that position and I've
been carrying the duties myself on it
has been
all the register our duties I have not
been able to fully depend on the w and
we have a new Deputy
again and you're not going to so you're
going to be taking that you're going to
continue to take that responsibility
that is
correct including the weekend calls the
evening calls
everything and the weekends on evening
call what what it has to do with this
position that has to do with our Funeral
Directors
okay and just to be clear you take them
even if you're not here if I'm across
the other side of the globe I take those
CS I those is a must we can
ask and and I I will say from from that
position they need to be available 24
hours a day 365 days a year oh yes okay
yes I got you so I I just I thought
there was just a different
placement instead of putting in the city
clerks I thought there was going to be a
seied regist but I I don't have an issue
yeah so we that and that's why I asked
for the clarification because this this
line we have discussed it last year we
have discussed with the year before and
it seems to be um every year discussion
and that's why I ask for documentation
to be shared to us so they can better
help
us I'm going to ask everybody what is
your position on this for
it
yes anybody have any objection on
this I'm just going to mark all on this
the first two next one let's move to
senior Senior Center
Program tou
this I do have a question I do have a
question about this it started out there
were three how many senior programs are
there currently there's there's um two
Monday well there's Monday Tuesday
Wednesday Thursday and Friday oh but
this is just locations right there's a
Friday and Wednesday Mondays Mondays and
Fridays the middle one didn't um pan out
we we've been a couple different places
we had some different attendance issues
and we've been to different places
Tuesday and Thursday is
fine so I guess my question is this if
we were funding three then then we were
funding three at $20,000 each yes yeah
that's now we're funding two well well
this is also includes um money that we
need to um put towards the program
that's on Tuesdays and Thursdays because
they get some money from
cdbg um but it doesn't cover the cost of
their program it does they have it's my
understanding that they still have money
um money there left over in that cdbg to
cover the C Center the high Hall I to
take a
look don't
number please I originally it was 45
D um for for the entire program right
for for our program not our program
senior program um and then I thought
what we got from Catholic Charities that
for a budget in fact Miss Patrick had
asked them to come speak to the council
but they never did but it's up it's just
they need the $60,000 just for
to but I didn't know anything
about I have to I think that's that's a
lot of ask for the two program because I
know over the years not a lot of not a
lot of uh activities happening I
actually I would be okay actually with
um if that has to be reduced 40 on yeah
well at least
the kind of re configure with them right
so but I don't want to hurt the
Hibernian one because that one's very were we giving some of this to them
it's highb burning Hall has been funded
by cdbg for from the beginning they have
and they always have funding there
always funding I believe that that it's
about $112,000 that would need to come
out of this funding to make them
hold when last year we try to add
this for period period um zero for spent
for a
19894 z yes so let
me this program has not
been and had been providing a lot of
service to the seniors for this feeding
program and if we are to fund it we need
to step up all of us and to kind of like
what help do they need to to to improve
the
service to make to make people aware
that the service is there and to utilize
it right now it's not being utilized to
the capacity and I have witnessed it so
I'm talking for a s so I don't have a
problem funding it continue to fund it
but how do we improve it it is not we
need to we need to improve it we need to
improve attendance the best senior
service we have right now is h i I agree
and we all get we all have witness and
disae absolutely but we wanted in in
different neighborhoods yes and we
wanted it five days a week no absolutely
in all neighborhood but at the same
point if we don't Market the service
there and people are not showing up then
we all are we're
failing Mr M can I just ask if we
consider what's on the line right now
and if there's any expansionary
conversations we have those at the
committee it's reduction that would
happen I just I think because this this
money was to fund three and we only have
two so I was thinking right here right
now just take it
out well we have we have two from
Catholic Charities and we have the
Hibernians which is funded by cdbg it's
not completely funded by cdbg by the
time it gets to the end of the year I I spoke with them before we went into
budget
process to to find what is our actual EV
for that specific program out there do
you any chance for this year um let's
look at last year I mean this year if
it's senior funding and they need it
then keep it
in I'm okay with keeping it in yeah I I
don't
know what the conversation was no if the
money used to help on the H Buran senior
I have no way you with that but I'm just
talking out loud on the last year total
was
$1,355 is what we
spent so we still that's the that would
be how much
so all right all right so hold on I
can't I don't I'm a lot of information
here and I'm trying to make a decision
based on something CU I feel like we're
not being clear so you said that last
year year $10,000 was spent out of this
line 10,400 approximately and we
budgeted and this proposed budget is for
$60,000 last year it was 60 also hold
say it again last year last year it was
60,000 we budgeted for 60,000 they spent
10,000 it's
odd they they send you invoices right
and that's how they get reimbursed
I'm uh one of the reason to um is that
the poor attendance sometime they are
two three no we I I met with them we met
with them relatively recently it's a
full attendant so we need to all get on
board and to to get it out there to kind
of like you know sell it to our seniors
to get out there and access a service
similarly to what we're doing for Honan
they are full capacity I mean capacity
so I think we need to do all of us need
to do the same thing for the other two
centers I I think our the other centers
the two day are uh course connec
residents only sometimes it's difficult
um you know the locations that we we did
choose we're close to uh senior housing
um of course the the cafe up there I
mean which is that fall capacity yeah 45
people every week with some small chair
yoga um MVP still does the for free for
us I think it's important for our then
there are some members from H who attend
these they do oh they definitely do they
so but everything what are we what are
we to talk about this let's move on from
the 6,000 45,000 leaving on the L I'm
good with I mean if we only spent 10 I'm
good with take mil centers there was
another Center is not there I'm good
with moving it down to
40
yeah I mean cath Charles would just have
to adjust it might mean that they'll cut
back the other day just have Friday they
cut back I don't think they have to cut
back because right well why would they
cut back if they're only spending 10
they only spending then they don't have
to cut back it's just that they have to
keep promoting the service and if they
decide to spend more then they come back
to us it seems like if we if we were to
fund it at 40 then they could then they
could increase it uh four times let me
see you could always leave the $6,000 I
can say that the attendance are very low
and that's why the numbers are so low I I know the attendance is low and
except on Fridays yeah theying Tuesdays
and Thursdays it's very low so that
could be the possibility by the $10,000
there for last year is what well they pay $5 yes well well the
individuals do the other but it's a
$15 meal so um that's why I I I think
they they haven't made sent for all the
Reimers I mean if last year they spent
10,000 10 months
so it's it's $15 to say for 45 people on
up is times 52 weeks equals
no here let's move on what what what
let's agre on the number here and move
forward and
okay willing to purce $4,000 yeah let's
do yes and that will free back the money
into the contingency
line
$40,000 do do I have all all in
agreement with
us okay let's move to um out of grade
for record
access what does that
mean position
department so can you tell us which um which position that goes with
[Music]
access
minute so John or anybody do you know
why there's an other grade pay there for
that one there was a I believe there was
a r of some sort last year and in seven
um and they currently receiving gr pay
um we felt that it was best to keep
grade pay for 2025 the
C okay so this is an internal adustment
I I I'm okay with this I'm okay with
this too anybody else have objection on
thisal L and they just took it out of
judgment and claim it's not affecting
anything do I have any objection on this
no okay the next one is um Public Safety
Foundation we're adding um 20,000 to
that line and bringing that um in line
with the um five Department
$225,000 any objection to
this I'm going to mark all in favor and
then we go to Capital um
fund and those are are some alignments
with um well this is not ours this is
alignment with regards to um Mr Wallen
and
um daily I'm fine with this and this I'm
not going to ask because this this is
from them directly and then there's a
movement from um water to Su that's not
our recommendation that's from
them and then there's an adjustment
because of the rental zero that line
out yep
and that money that 5,000 um offset by
taking that out of the light power and
gas so that a zero impact so I can
safely say that all of us are in
agreement with these
changes all right I like that
so direct
you would you
mind take a couple minutes and just
adjust this
you want to hold on you want to hold on
for a few minutes yes yes wait yes and I
I'll just make one more attempt let see
where everybody is and you know what I
just need to know where we stand so that
way we can go into the weekend and
knowing that we have some things to to
work
on do we have anything else to discuss
[Music]
this this document I requested from a
Corporation Council in ter of better
understanding how how do we give how can
we recommend
um raises to elected
official so uh it was more of a guidance
how do
we how do we approve or consider raises
to elected it sounds like it looks like
from a quick reading that we can't yes so I wanted to because I was talking
to the May in terms of When I Was Here
we talking about the hearing why he
didn't submit any recommendation for a
raise and he was he was referring to the
city Charter and I wanted U
Miss barage to can explain us so what
our disposal in terms of how do we go
about doing those raises
last
Monday okay CU just a quick reading of
it so this is just for our reading and
understanding it yeah last year uh we
did receive um a memo in terms of what
we
can do but this is more inde depth to
kind of outline all the
sections so that we understand going
forward that
um we're not seconding guing our so
those were
helpful tired are you tired I am
[Music]
yes this is the for uh
so first meeting we we're having without
a um Corporation Council
representation good point
yeah that should not
happen if um bar was leaving someone
else should have stepped in to replace
that because they are you know I could
have discussed this Le stuff here that
we have in our package here it's
unfortunate
please
dinner any
dinner she's got over
oh she does my mouth is good don't tell
me I'm so hungry oh pleas oh no
makes dinner almost every night that's
really great last night we just had a sh
crew
report everything in the
refrigerator that's the way to do
it for
the well he
[Music]
no don't have to ask question
[Music]
then she can M while we're talking until
he comes
back we can just talk to somebody's
going to shut up at the podium and say
I'll be muted because we're doing
something well you can see they can see
very clearly that we're in a very
relaxed stage
here not discussing anything
said oh my
gosh now it's getting warm in here so
when do we make our final
decision how
much how much is it in the vending Mach
well I'm going to wait I want to eat
real food just that's can be eating what
you know look
be like the other kids if you can't be
eating you got to share I'm get really
hot did just get really hot in here oh
my gosh it's getting very warm in here
yeah
that's we're going to do this as fast as
we can but then so we're not going be a
to we have to come back so when are we
going to do that I'm going to recess
Monday and we'll meet at a committee
meeting all the finance and then recess
it ah so we can do it during the 5:30
after the 5:30
right I think that would be a long
meeting it is because there's a big
agenda there's a lot
on look um I was hoping that today would
have been yeah me too I was finger cross
after we finish this particular
discussion that we're in right now what do we have to do next on the
budget no once if we can come up with
some sort of an agreement of these these
Hot Topics
here and if we can see a pad then
tonight well let's do the number come
back okay and if we can come with some
sort of stuff we'll make a
recommendation if not we'll come back
Monday and revisit it okay and then make
a recommendation if not we'll have so
reset for
Tuesday keep
going is there any water in that
one
please thank
you
thank time get add on
the 2025 budget same it's part of the
review review discussion because we had
the Public Public is
different for the operating
yes that's that's it is public hearing
any
comments that would be of the whole
thing
though I mean if you want it as a
separate thing can that yes let's let's
put it 2025 operating uh budget same
desri okay as a separate item okay at
that item I will move to recess that
item to the to the end of okay that's
what it says it just says review of the
same title
but it says review discussion now review
SL
discussion there the title
still get
slice and you going to add that on the
agenda for
yeah not
finish you add that um discussion to um
or recommend what did I say just about
salary um
analysis form oh the formal resolution
for mayor to do research analysis on
employment for department heads yes that
okay and you said you wanted a separate
line for discussion separate line that's
yeah yeah I I think we do that and just
give the mayor and his HR to go and look
at that and come back to us and you know
it is what it is if we have to realign
them in the year and if we have the
funding and the May is with it we Reit
it and we'll realign and bring them up
to par I mean we could even discuss it
mid year yes as soon as the report is
avable as soon as the
report thank you sir thank
[Music]
you I have another
one this this is even
better here we can look
[Music]
thank
you we are missing no we're not missing
sorry one two three four five six
so that is given us 9,900 with this with
these changes as
proposed they giving
9,957 back to the general fund but I
have to um bring something how is that
how did we give money back if we're
making raises how are we giving money
back because there's a drop of $20,000
on the second last oh so that's where
the offset
is
um it was a good point that was made by
um by D that the salaries uh in
development are very very close like a grand apart not even
yeah the first one and the last
one so this is the I'm sorry but I was
going to say they already were so i' say
Tak in consideration their years of
service I think
that okay that is also a a true
Factor oh well it's actually a little
bit more with our proposed ch so okay
yeah I agree with that yes years of
service yes but it's it's it's a little
bit more without our changes so
okay yes it's a position that high but
then look
at the service that associated with
position it's just I had to look for the
problem because this time it's no no
heading that's
okay I just put it right here and put it
over here sh so I guess my only question
would be then so then we're making
calculations not based on the position
but the person then
right the
shop what do mean that's true the
position and I what I mean is that if
our justification for that is years of
service then we're factoring a person
how long they've been
here um and and again I would just so
are we talking about the individual
person or are we talking about the
position
I think we're to me we're talking about
I think we're talking about the position
and when you would like any position if
you've been there longer than me then
you're going to make more money just by
the fact that you've been there longer
and if it's a lower position you might
be close to me or I might be close to
your salary but I think you're talking
about how long about the position
because a certain position you're going
to make a certain salary and I also
think that we're talking about when
you're in a certain position for a
certain amount of time there's an
expectation that your Sal sure I mean
how I no I I I what I'm saying is I I
hear the justification for what I'm
saying is that I'm not as concerned as
the justification as I am the
calculation so because if we're
calculating that well then that's
something that we need to factor in
again this is
where so if this person who's been here
for as long if they've been here they
leave we hire someone that walks in new
then we reduce that is that that's
saying it would go back to yeah okay so
and so if we're making that calculation
then I would just think that we would
just have to be little mindful of like
what other calculations are we making or
what other things are we not
considering
like well I think then we have to look
at like
so our director of development
is is
almost seeing almost like overseeing
like two two departments
right no what it's one department but
it's a lot of um titles that is
associated PHS are associated with that
department so it's one department but
it's what can make that distinction from
me again Mr
you're saying it's one department but
it's a multiple
position that department but it's
multiple positions under that director
that person right as to what other
departments it's the same thing for
other department thats you have Parks
you have facility you have all that
legal yeah yeah like o just right the
ogs comprise of a whole bunch
of enforcement Falls ongs m
yeah guess slot all right go ahead so
I maybe
I um well maybe so the uh did go Deputy
Commissioner of
Finance just in the conversations we had
I I almost thought that that
position we wanted to fund that line so
that we could hire someone into that
position um and the start rate we talked
about the other night the starting range
would be like from 94 up to 120
something anticipating a retirement
where this Deputy uh position may go
into the commissioner Finance position
so we're talking about a position um
that's may not even be open right now
that is correct yes right okay so so I I
I'm going to step back that I would be
in favor of that that line and that line
only oh okay that's my my error okay
that line at what percentage here at the recommendation from U Mr Ferrari for
that 12803 uh we we were all over the
map so the third colum is the council
changes yeah no the 25% is yeah Mr
Ferrari recommend
that far to 100,000 and I think
everybody was in line with his
recommendation of 100,000
yes so you are in favor of that and that
only yeah okay thank
you I thought that Mr Ferrari
recommended
120,000 oh he recommend I see he
recommend 100,000 and that's okay yeah
no I have it Anthony 100,000 of I have
it I have it I wrote it down even
yes
okay I'm going to go around the table
just because of the sake of time yeah
um Mr Joe I'm I'm good with this you're
good with across the board y okay
um M for field I'm fine with
this car yes
the
yes I'm in favor of this
respect your
position I respect everybody having say
the table and express yourself and it's
respect it don't feel any way it just to
be clear we had you said no right I said
no no yeah Mr Mr said no I wasn't sure
if you heard it Mr said no right you
says no I thought you said no I thought
you said yes no no no um yes on one no
on all the others and you saying the
question was about all everything right
yes okay okay yeah so you're saying no
across the board yeah I'm saying no yeah
okay so there's five yes on this to
compromise on this here okay uh nothing
wrong with that I appreciate your your honesty on that any other so this
is all the recommendation that we have
at this point time the one
recommendation that I spoke about last
night is to increase the re line on the
delinquent violation fee right now it's
at 60,000 and based on conversation when
we were doing the fee alignment we talk
about and assistant chief brought us to
um in line with that that they did um a
couple months ago or a couple weeks and
we brought in $30,000 already so I'm
thinking 60,000 might be you know too
conservative so I would like to
recommend that we look at that um you
open mind on Monday to may be possible
look at doubling that because I think
they have the capacity and the resource
now with the agency on board to to go
well beyond
down i' just like to ask the the chief
or who m is running it um that $30,000
thatll came in because I I did mention
Mr Ferrari last night well we hadn't
written that that that off a long time
ago and he said that that he couldn't is
that correct sorry that writing off the
debt of the I mean it's been how many
years we should have written off by now
oh that's what you're talking about but
so but my I guess my next question is
that 30,000 how many is that for the
past one year two year three year you
know I because I don't think we're going
to personally recover 10 12 years oh
yeah oh no no no we're not that's I'm
saying I'd like to know what that 30,000
was from yeah it's it's for um the newer set of violation not the older one
there if we were to look at the all
entire it's about $4 million it's
impossible for us to do that oh yeah
nobody I I understand that but the the
money that's coming in is it recent
money is it 90 days 60 days 90 days it's
over it's over mon did mention it's over
6 months outstanding but it's it's
what's the recovery rate prior to that
well that's what they're working now
with new ageny to aggressively go after
these um delinquent um fees and to
understood get paid but I mean they
started up in the last couple of months
and they you know give them credit
they're doing a good job in terms of
collecting that additional Revenue but I
still think it's too low I'm not asking
I think it should double but I'm not
asking anybody at this point in time I'm
just throwing that up for Monday table
that I can ask Brian to come back in be
good and to give us a little snapshat
more than that to refresh us but it's
something that we can
increase one Revenue at least to help
offset some of these in and out here
that is going on here because I would
like to still see that the road that we
maintain our contingency at
300,000 and that's one of my focuses to
look at if we can up that line we will
put that back that Revenue okay into
contingency because this this adjustment
that we're making here it's negative so
it's not it's it's a good impact on the
general
fund all right I think we start out we I
think we ended a little good yes now
where we want it to be but um we are
going to
so there's no other business am I
missing anything now just so before
Monday
um if we if the council
can try just help me with like kind of
the rationale as to like what the
justification is for where we raises
that we gotten you guys want to just
like you could shoot an email or
something like that what was the
justification yeah cuz yeah so I guess
I'm I'm a little confused cuz I feel
like there's we're we're
making
considerations based
on like what one Department had is
saying but then we're not making
our our um considerations based on
another department head and I just want
to make sure that how we're make how
we're making our decision so it'll be
good for me to see it out and then maybe
it might maybe I can get there maybe I'm just not catching I think it
was discussed here so I don't not sure
what why M so let me just recap you want
me to clarify the question no I got I got a question but
um these that are on this here
mhm came before us and asked for
consideration and some of them we are
looking at $600 and $179
those were default sure those two happen
by default we're not going to even
discuss that that's not my question the
other three came before us for
recommendation and that's so the May
sent out an email today asking his
department head if they if they have any
question about their salary they should
show up at the meeting and be ready to
speak and ask the council right for
recommendation that's salary that's the
question yeah no I'm trying to say
you're rational the rational is that
here we have people coming here and
making a page yes because they weren't
satisfied yes and today there was an
email asking the entire depart all the
department head to come if they have if
they're not satisfied to come before
us right
that's so again that's so I think he I'm
not put no no it's fine I welcome it cuz
my question everything you just said I
Agreed 100% so we're we're on the same
page with that yeah what I'm saying is
that what I'm hearing hearing via the
conversation around the table is that
there's things that considering like you
know years of service in one situation
I'm like okay I I could see why that
would make sense um and then that might
not be the same scenario for other
people who've came forward so maybe we
don't have to make that consideration
cuz it's not there but um there's a
significant um
uh difference in some of these
percentages is here and the largest one
what I heard was uh Mr Ferrari who's the
department head he made that
recommendation and we all woman his
recommendation so okay I finish that definitely was said I'm not saying
you said that I'm saying but that say
original recommendation lowered no I I I
no I understand what the let's let's not have any debate let's talk I'm
not debating no just so what so what I'm
saying I'm just saying based on what I'm
heard so what I'm saying is that I want to just get the rationale
behind why we would take the
recommendation of one department head
and maybe not another why we would
consider
um positions that are
not are vacant not vacant yet like
there's other calculations that are
happening in one consideration so I'm
just trying to see like what's a
rationale for know to see if we're doing
that in a in an equitable Manner and the
way I would be able to do that is if I
had those rationals and you know because
I'm hearing different things at
different times and points of
conversation so if I had something to go
okay this this council member says I
agree with this because of the
department head I'm just using that
because that's the glaring most glaring
example well you're saying that because
the department head uh made that
recommendation well our Department had
made other another department had made
other recommendations so I guess that's
why I'm trying to figure out the ration
now that's
all you want individuals to email you
first I mean just
what to try to help okay yeah just so I
could you know cuz
I the conversation has definitely taken
on
different well CU we're all individuals
right right which is why no no I mean
even individuals like I'm hearing like
first it's this and then well then
you're considering that all valid
considerations I'm just saying I would
just like to see make sure that we're
doing that in an equitable Manner and I
would and the way you do that is by kind
of looking at the data points so what
I'm taking away from this is that we
need to reach out to miss Cara and Mr
Ferrari for a rationale as to why no but
I'm taking no not asking that yeah
that's but that I mean that would then
um you'd be able to see why I mean the
one position
if you're asking me what my question is
you got to allow me to tell you cuz cuz
that's not because what I'm saying it's
based on the information that we got if
they've given you a ration
now that's okay they but what we're
saying that you're going on the
recommendation based of the department
head so what I'm saying to you if we're
going to go on a recommendation based on
one department head and not another one
I'd like to figure out why that is well
I do want to just say though that if you
look at the positions that are there
just those um
we did go well we didn't go on the
recommendation of the well we did go on
the recommendation of the department had
as a compromise that that department had
made a compromise but the other person
on there that's the department head um
is recommending um that person's own
salary um because that's not what her
particular Supervisor was recommending
actually right sure but but didn't
another department head recommend their
own salary too I don't think so I'm
looking at those
five maybe um we but that department was
before us and made that
recommendation I'm sorry that department
head was here and made that
recommendation before
us that's all I mean sorry department
head was before us miss Ferrari Miss car
and they both recommend
that yes it was discussed
publicly all
right if you need any clarification we
can have more clarification yeah just
send it to me that's no we'll have Mr
Ferrari is going to be here
Monday okay and we'll have him U make
that Rec Miss car unfortunately will not
be here I was understanding for for
clearity I wasn't confused as to what Mr
Ferrari's recommendation was but my
confus is as the function of the council
is I want to trying to better get a
clear understanding as to how we got to
the decision because based on what I'm
hearing at the table how we're getting
to the decision is what I heard at the
table was the department head
recommended that and that's what we went
with that well I'm saying there was
another department head who recommended
something else too so I'm just saying
let's really be yeah but I think how we
arve with it Miss Patrick is is so
correct it was a compromise because I
going to say it was a compromise I was
going to that's exactly what I was going
to say because remember that I started
out by only wanting to do 3% so um the
whole thing was a compromise on my in
terms of my decision making personally
um I was compromising to meet the will
of the larger group um because I would
not have given the higher raises um
except for that one individual I mean I
think I made that clear earlier remember
yeah but
except for that one not that one
individual but that one position is what
you're saying one position right just
for clear I understand what you're
saying but um but yeah so I mean I was
compromising up in my Regard in my case
and I think that you you said no right
so you didn't you
know help me here sure you just want you
know help him get some that out help him
because also it was you know it's always
been about the position not the
[Music]
so help him understand why doing what
you're doing in an email and he SPS a
little more
clarification correct correct I I feel
like I've been what I'm saying is that I
want to get where others are at and I
believe people are acting in good faith
again I know we're tired and we're
getting frustrated what I'm saying is
that it would help me understand how you
got me be able to maybe get there if I
understood how you got there cuz based
on what the conversation is at the table
tonight from what I'm hearing there's
different factors that are being
considered that are being considered for
different positions and I want to make
sure that if I say oh yeah that's okay
that makes sense to me I'd like to make
sure that we're making those decisions
in an equitable
manner that's all
any any other
discussion okay so we're we're going to
have to recess until 5:30 I'm putting
this item on the finance committee we'll
call the finance committee to order
recess and then complete the business
for that day and then we'll um reconvene
at the end and continue with a budget
discussion on
Monday okay any other business for the
finance committee so now I ask a motion
to recess until 5:30 next Monday sove
all in favor I thank you so much have
weekend questions as usual there is
standing there he's not going
home yes that's what
saying
e e
[Music]