[0:01] no thank
[0:05] you oh
[0:10] shoot
[0:11] he's
[0:13] [Music]
[0:23] thank like to call the connect the city
[0:25] council committee meeting for
[0:28] Friday October 18
[0:31] we have the committee
[0:33] Finance thank you madam president I
[0:35] would like to call finance committee to
[0:38] order and we will continue
[0:42] our budget discussion on the proposed
[0:45] 2025 um budget but before I proceed
[0:52] um don't have a copy of the revised
[0:54] version Derek can we um make a copy of
[0:58] the revised version for dor
[1:02] please it
[1:04] out dor doesn't have a copy and it's
[1:07] kind like you looking for the
[1:08] adjustments from yesterday no the
[1:13] yes John this no no no budget that was
[1:17] um the spreadsheet that he sent for us
[1:20] no no the entire the entire budget that
[1:22] wasion the Revis she means this she
[1:25] means yes revised here you can I'm not
[1:29] using m
[1:30] yeah she dor wasn't here for that she
[1:32] didn't
[1:34] get okay that's
[1:37] okay I do have one someplace and I I
[1:40] don't use
[1:42] it do have she doesn't have a copy of it
[1:46] but how does that differ from I was expl
[1:49] that's trying to exp to that it's not
[1:50] much difference it's just a
[1:53] separation different
[1:56] no separ
[2:00] the so I was talking to Dory today she
[2:01] said she doesn't have a copy that she
[2:03] can
[2:05] discuss so I want to make sure all
[2:07] members have um have a copy available so
[2:11] that will be discussed we do not um put
[2:14] oursel at um disadvantage you want me to
[2:16] print a copy or you want yes I would
[2:18] like one of the council members here uh
[2:21] I would like you to print a copy for me
[2:23] please is yours written on no I've been
[2:25] using you're going to still using my
[2:28] usual one you're going to I'm using
[2:30] one as well so you don't need a copy of
[2:32] the that well i' like a copy of
[2:34] everything that was given out like I
[2:35] said I take mine
[2:38] away
[2:40] yes thank you then she'll have
[2:45] cop okay all right so before the end of
[2:47] the meeting I would like a copy for um
[2:50] to
[2:53] this one two please yes I just want to
[2:57] make sure everybody has all the
[2:58] documentation and
[3:11] [Music]
[3:15] want me to test it for you I'll be like
[3:17] a good everybody else has there still
[3:18] test
[3:22] her you don't like our
[3:24] water um well it's not your water don't
[3:26] take it personal it's just the water on
[3:28] the table
[3:33] water
[3:42] [Music]
[3:46] people this we went through last year
[3:49] you know given the updated stuff out of
[3:52] the charter amendments from 79 which are
[3:56] clear that's
[4:03] this is
[4:04] incorrect he has a charer witer this
[4:09] last year making copies bring it down
[4:12] that's because it's
[4:14] different all
[4:17] right I
[4:24] saw yeah that was reason was like it
[4:27] doesn't buy the last year
[4:31] [Music]
[4:47] going say anony tonight yeah he said
[4:50] last night he wouldn't be
[4:56] here you have your laptop you have yourp
[5:00] ready can't
[5:03] it that's why it asked for $60,000 we're
[5:06] taking CS for the team no that's why I
[5:08] asked for $60,000 upgr all the
[5:11] machine is that time to buy laptop
[5:13] everyone desktops laptops the
[5:17] 6,000 desktop the desktops
[5:29] [Music]
[5:38] security
[5:42] issues there
[5:45] are I thought they weren't going to
[5:47] replace all the desktops some of them
[5:49] would be laptops
[5:59] [Music]
[6:10] don't worry dere you will get a
[6:12] laptop so that mean you will have to
[6:14] work seven days a week really from home
[6:18] yep from your car from hotel
[6:21] from at the L at the beach
[6:34] all right
[7:05] [Music]
[7:21] sit
[7:58] TR that happens
[8:27] I hear
[8:52] oh thank you
[9:00] [Music]
[9:01] okay I think I have
[9:13] [Music]
[9:41] I think I gave too many
[10:24] all right so let's um let's
[10:27] continue you should have in your package
[10:35] some some reports that was requested
[10:38] from last
[10:40] evening and we'll just go through the
[10:42] one with regards to
[10:44] um the salary um recommendation
[11:27] I did have a song I think you did
[11:31] yeah um Mr Williams I think most of
[11:33] these were brought up by you if I'm not
[11:35] mistaken correct me you want to look at
[11:38] it to make sure all are captured in this
[11:40] spere and then Mr Farley you had a one
[11:50] program I just want to add something
[11:52] based on the email that s out all
[11:55] of go ahead please so um everybody email
[11:59] from another staff person the principal
[12:01] planner who was not considered so I
[12:04] would like us to um consider that
[12:07] individual for raise as
[12:11] well they do show up on the sheet that
[12:13] Anthony gave up however it was not part
[12:16] of the
[12:18] recommendation and everybody got the
[12:21] email pleas that email sure sorry I I
[12:25] miss did everyone receive it oh okay yes
[12:28] everyone receive email but uh if you
[12:30] don't mind please it came from Sam
[12:57] [Music]
[13:02] get more
[13:58] m
[14:07] and that line is a 8686 if you need to
[14:10] look in your um Bud
[14:14] documents 86 a 8686
[14:29] what page is that
[14:33] [Music]
[14:35] John
[14:42] 50 right just trying to get
[14:58] their
[15:27] for for
[16:45] take
[17:04] than
[17:47] that
[18:24] this B you just want
[18:26] to that
[18:29] well um as I said this this um
[18:32] individual by their Supervisor was asked
[18:34] to be considered for an increase and um
[18:37] it was did not was not brought forward
[18:40] and so um they were aware they as you
[18:42] can read by the email and um so send
[18:45] this email with more information that I
[18:47] knew anyway uh and asking for an
[18:49] increase and I feel like based on their
[18:51] level of education and their years of
[18:53] service to the city it's not an
[18:55] unreasonable ask and would ask that um
[18:57] council members would
[19:03] that
[19:11] discussion deing just the state of
[19:13] numbers so 2024 salaries
[19:16] 84,3 33 and the proposed salary for 2025
[19:21] is
[19:22] 86,00
[19:26] 863 and the recommendation from you is
[19:29] to bring this up to
[19:31] 10% from
[19:34] 2024 that that would be yes that will
[19:37] bring that number to
[19:43] 9336 that isn't the package on the
[19:48] break that's what I'm getting up
[19:52] from discussion of this
[19:58] well I guess for me it's a little
[20:01] concerning in that um maybe we should
[20:05] have requested our HR department do a
[20:07] market research for every department
[20:10] head administrative positions that we're
[20:13] opening up a door um for administrators
[20:18] just if they don't I mean the the chief
[20:21] executive officer does performance
[20:23] evaluations and judges performance and
[20:25] judges all of those things we don't work
[20:27] with these folks that
[20:29] closely and and can't speak to that I
[20:32] mean I'm sure they're doing great jobs I
[20:35] mean doing your jobs but I think it it just usurps the process and it opens
[20:40] the door for and it puts us in positions
[20:43] for every Department to come up and and
[20:44] know that they're doing great service
[20:46] for the
[20:47] city um and saying no or or or saying
[20:51] yes um and and I think um I mean that
[20:55] that's kind of our job we have that
[20:56] Authority but I'm just concerned concern
[20:58] at the
[20:59] president and their individual cases I'm
[21:02] just concerned that of us doing that
[21:04] then where does it where does it end um
[21:07] and we have to be mindful that we're
[21:09] looking at a tax
[21:10] increase and a significant deficit next
[21:13] year um and going to 10% increases in a
[21:16] time where we're raising taxes is is I
[21:18] think um concerning to me um we thank we
[21:23] only have a couple folks requesting it
[21:25] but we're opening up a door and and that
[21:27] concerns me that we have a process in
[21:31] place um maybe we can look at that or do
[21:34] market analysis but this just just
[21:38] concerns me this the way that they were doing
[21:40] this stri favoritism more and put this
[21:44] in a position um that I'm just not
[21:47] comfortable with but I'm certainly open
[21:50] that's that's my take on it go ahead
[21:53] please Mr
[21:55] chairman basically every management
[21:58] employee asks for a raise greater than
[22:01] what I put in
[22:04] budget you know you have to balance it
[22:07] to say some of what uh Mr ancini is
[22:12] Raising creates conflict I sent an email
[22:16] out today because the council's going
[22:18] down this road of Peace mealing it you
[22:20] know if people want pay raise they can
[22:22] go directly
[22:23] councel uh you know it's
[22:27] just such the wrong
[22:29] tone it does undermine my ability to
[22:32] manage the
[22:34] city have you just have any experience
[22:36] as the department I would see that too
[22:38] this is like you know this is my you put
[22:41] me in this position of Voters but even a
[22:44] department head to to to make those
[22:47] recommendations and you know the county
[22:50] would be the legislature something going
[22:51] around me and the legislator doesn't
[22:54] know the day-to-day activities and my
[22:56] challenges that my make have
[22:59] if I
[23:00] felt I think I like the 3% raises
[23:02] because it looks like it's pretty much
[23:03] across the board except for those
[23:05] special conditions that were Justified
[23:08] um but doing it this way I think
[23:10] everyone make that request that probably
[23:13] could be something we wouldn't consider
[23:16] but in the fiscal times that we're
[23:18] facing right now and just the process of having someone like power department
[23:24] now I think I'm come to people I'm going
[23:26] to go to the I'm going to councel and
[23:29] make a case for myself so thanks but no
[23:32] thanks um that that concerns
[23:36] me so speaking um so just to be clear
[23:39] this person this person's recommendation
[23:42] was from their department head from the
[23:44] person that works with them day to day
[23:45] so that's not they the recommendation
[23:48] came from the department head I think
[23:49] you were here for the meeting when the
[23:50] recommendation was made and um and then
[23:54] when it wasn't considered the individual
[23:57] followed up say I was recommended and
[23:59] here's the reasons and I'd like to give
[24:01] you some back up on why I think that you
[24:03] know I should be um considered and I
[24:06] have to tell you this similar situation
[24:09] happened several years ago um and there
[24:13] was where an individual came to the
[24:16] council and asked for it so this is not
[24:19] the first time it's happened we've done
[24:20] before so I as you talk about s
[24:22] president had happened before and there
[24:24] was no like anything sent out to the
[24:27] entire staff say this person did it and
[24:29] now you can do it it happened you know
[24:33] um and so you know we voted that person
[24:36] through they still work here doing a
[24:38] great job so um I don't see that if if I don't know the the um what the
[24:46] mayor does in terms of management coming
[24:47] to him in terms of um that we can only
[24:51] go with what we were given and this was
[24:53] given to us by the finance department
[24:54] that's the only thing that we got to see
[24:56] so if there were other um
[24:58] recommendations or or requests we don't
[25:00] have any idea because this is the only
[25:02] thing that was F
[25:05] forward go ahead please I guess um so my
[25:08] question would be because I can I can
[25:10] see how like you know definitely that
[25:14] can be a tough situation to kind of
[25:17] navigate um and and somewh from our
[25:21] advantage point I guess my question is
[25:22] like are you suggesting
[25:25] that you'd be comfortable with 3% raises
[25:28] across the board for all department
[25:29] heads or like because I you I know you
[25:32] said in some special consideration some
[25:35] cases like that were brought forward yes
[25:37] and what were the cases that you're okay
[25:40] with well not we didn't go with the the
[25:43] Deputy Commissioner Finance we didn't go
[25:45] with the complete ask we brought that
[25:47] down that I'm I'm comfortable
[25:50] with and that would be at the res to 3%
[25:53] unless there was the rationale brought
[25:56] forward to us to consider
[26:00] go ahead please but I would say the
[26:02] manner in which this request has been
[26:04] submitted makes that same request with
[26:07] it requiring Market evaluation based on
[26:10] the needs at this position so would you
[26:12] not agree that these would be presented
[26:14] the
[26:15] same well I'm I'm what I'm saying is
[26:18] we're going to open the door for unless
[26:20] we have our department HR department do
[26:22] a market research on every department
[26:24] and every assistant I mean the market
[26:26] determines the need obvious ly I don't
[26:29] know if planning is the same as Finance
[26:31] in that regard I take um her word for it
[26:35] that what she put here but I don't know
[26:37] what market research was done it was
[26:39] done how how well she did that and so if
[26:43] we're going to do something like this
[26:44] should we look at every administrator
[26:46] and do a market analysis and maybe some
[26:48] Sal to come down um I I don't know I
[26:52] don't I we haven't done that and we're
[26:55] doing it kind of to me arbitrary and so
[26:57] every
[26:59] department head and assistant
[27:01] Administration can come in here and do
[27:02] that I think we should have a better way
[27:04] of negotiating a better process and
[27:06] having the individual come up and do
[27:08] that but it is what it is and we can
[27:11] entertain or we
[27:14] cannot I guess what I'm what I'm
[27:16] thinking is and because there's a lot of
[27:18] Mir of what you're saying but I guess
[27:21] where I'm having trouble kind of looking
[27:23] at the consistencies is because it's
[27:25] like so there's an ask and we
[27:29] brought it down but that ask the
[27:32] original ask
[27:34] was a part of the proposed budget and
[27:37] then we made a determination to or was
[27:42] suggested or it seems like at least some
[27:44] council members were saying okay let's
[27:47] you know we're not the thought go with
[27:49] the full ask that was presented so once
[27:53] we make that determination or that
[27:56] distinction based on Merit and judgement
[27:59] then I think we are compelled to look at
[28:02] other cases because if not what we're
[28:04] doing is saying
[28:07] that whether it's an increase or a
[28:10] decrease if we as a council are weighing
[28:14] in on that then we're then that door is
[28:16] open to weigh in on other situations and
[28:19] then it can look and not even just look
[28:22] up more concerned about what it is then
[28:24] it can be a very inconsistent practice
[28:27] because now we're saying well for this
[28:28] department head we're not going to go
[28:30] the full ask but we're going to even
[28:33] reduce what the full ask was for this
[28:36] and then but everyone else we're just
[28:37] going to say 3% even though we've
[28:40] already deliberated and had
[28:42] conversations around that
[28:44] one position so I just get concerned
[28:46] about the inconsistencies but your
[28:48] points well taken around maybe around
[28:50] market research and and and I'm
[28:53] addressing the potential tax increase
[28:55] that that I mean 3% raises is is minimal
[28:58] but looking at from what I see they're good salaries um but I think we
[29:05] should do a better look at it and a
[29:06] deeper dive um into doing it across the
[29:10] board if we're going to do it um or if
[29:13] we can't find somebody that ask can
[29:16] always be made at any point in the year
[29:19] with that position where they become
[29:20] vacant where the person was going to
[29:22] lead we done that as well but us doing
[29:25] it just it's concerning for them all
[29:27] right but I I understand what your
[29:30] concerns are and I would just say if
[29:31] we're going to do it then we have to do
[29:35] it and make it available for everyone if
[29:38] we're not going to do it then we
[29:40] shouldn't be touching it at all
[29:42] whatsoever um and then if we're not
[29:46] touching it at all um at what point do
[29:49] we what happens if we see
[29:53] um inconsistencies or or unintentional
[29:57] inequities that was prop for in the
[29:59] budget like what is our responsibility
[30:01] to tease that out as a body that's so
[30:03] those are just the questions that I
[30:05] would
[30:06] have I mean those are valid points from both sides here um you know it was
[30:12] a compelling um discussion that we had
[30:15] in terms of Mr Ferrari in terms of why
[30:18] he wanted to
[30:20] um increase the Deputy Commissioner of
[30:22] finance and um he gave us uh you know
[30:25] many options and told us that the high
[30:28] end of that is you know the minimum is
[30:30] 100,000 that's Market Fe market for that
[30:33] position and I think looking at this Lev
[30:35] here um it's it's a detail letter with a
[30:39] market um you know salary
[30:41] range I am not against looking across
[30:45] the board for a a salary range for
[30:49] department head and to increase them and
[30:50] bring them in compatible today's market
[30:53] across the board but then how do we do
[30:55] that as I always said if we to increase
[30:58] salary we have to find money from
[31:00] somewhere to offset this and how do we
[31:03] do that in terms of this yes taxes are
[31:06] going up but at the same time we have to
[31:08] make sure that we we increase um salary
[31:11] so bring it up the part so that we keep
[31:13] these employees in their position to
[31:15] provide the service needed for our city
[31:18] and at the same time you know we don't
[31:19] want it to go anywhere so we want to
[31:21] keep
[31:24] them in salary is only one comp to the
[31:28] compensation package and the city still
[31:31] offers Lifetime Health insurance for
[31:35] retirees after a certain level of
[31:37] service that's very rare in the market
[31:40] anymore huge value to that so it's not
[31:44] just selling it's the total package is
[31:48] the uh way to evaluate it and so just on
[31:52] salary is overly simplistic yeah and I
[31:55] think know department head are know
[31:57] they're listening to these um these
[31:58] debates not these hearings not debate
[32:00] these hearings sorry um you know they
[32:03] they're they're Glu um gluing into it so
[32:06] when uh when we talk about okay we want
[32:07] to bring someone uh in U incompatible
[32:10] with today's market for their position
[32:13] then the others I would be I will be
[32:14] doing the same thing I I I've done that
[32:16] in my private sector job I mean I am I'm
[32:19] in that position just like everyone else
[32:20] I should be compensate for that for my
[32:23] time and my work here and I can be wrong
[32:27] with them
[32:28] I have to support them and I I don't
[32:30] know if they're chosing the right path
[32:32] to to bring it to us I don't know it
[32:35] could be you know they're supposed to be
[32:37] you know channeled that to the mayor to
[32:39] us as long as I've been on this Council
[32:42] here we have every year deal with um
[32:46] department head come in directly to us
[32:48] or send us email or phone call to ask
[32:51] for um salary um adjustment from the
[32:56] proposed U budget so it's nothing new
[32:59] it's been happening all the all the
[33:01] years and how do we address
[33:04] it maybe we just go back and you know
[33:07] ask May it's a recommendation to go back
[33:09] and do evaluation on on all the
[33:10] department head but then um how do we
[33:13] sustain that in a budget that we're
[33:16] driving taxes
[33:19] up go ahead please sorry I agree with
[33:22] the mayor that I do not think it's the
[33:24] most appropriate venue for City r city
[33:28] employees to come to the city council
[33:30] however being presented with those
[33:32] positions I think we are respons
[33:34] responsible and obligated to respond in a manner appropriate to the authority
[33:40] that was presented to us as elected
[33:41] officials so in our capacity we
[33:44] represent the city and we function in
[33:48] partnership with the mayor so I would
[33:50] hope that in these capacities to your
[33:54] question of favoritism we are operating
[33:57] in an ethical Manner and not using our
[34:00] positions inappropriately to benefit
[34:02] ourselves so I think it's a narrative we
[34:04] constantly hear all the time that we're
[34:05] supporting our base and supporting our
[34:07] friends I can guarantee you if that was
[34:09] the case I would not be living where I
[34:12] live so not finished I think it is
[34:15] important that we fully vet these
[34:19] positions that we're currently standing
[34:20] at so if we're going to do a market
[34:22] adjustment let's do a market adjustment
[34:24] however in no way were we singling out
[34:27] any IND indidual department or any
[34:28] individual person in the presentation as
[34:32] uh the Comm chair has highlighted we
[34:34] offered everyone the opportunity to
[34:37] present what you've been doing for the
[34:38] year and how those department heads used
[34:40] that time was up to them but if an
[34:43] individual brought up a topic of concern
[34:45] again is our responsibility to respond
[34:47] to it as did I with my recommendations
[34:49] any other council member and their
[34:51] capacity could either push back or add
[34:54] additional um again that is in your
[34:56] purview um but I think it is more than
[34:59] appropriate for us to hear out the city
[35:00] staff and it is our responsibility to
[35:03] hear them
[35:05] out go ahead please and and I think what
[35:08] I'm saying um is maybe a little more
[35:13] basic than what we the larger
[35:16] conversation here I think it's more
[35:17] specific to the fact that if we're
[35:20] saying that one Department had based on
[35:25] this uh metric
[35:28] should be getting this salary and if
[35:32] that's the ruler that we're using I
[35:33] think this is where we need to be
[35:35] consistent about we're saying that that
[35:36] is the ruler that we're using
[35:39] then if another department head comes
[35:41] forward and says well based on market
[35:44] value and that same ruler then I should
[35:47] be here I think that that's that's
[35:49] something that we should expect that's
[35:50] going to happen and if we're going to
[35:52] make decisions we should just be making
[35:53] them using the same uh
[35:58] guge that's that's really my thing so
[36:00] either if we were to
[36:02] do do it we do it with the same
[36:06] measurement for all or don't do it at
[36:08] all then okay but I think that if we get
[36:09] into the place where we're bringing
[36:11] forth certain department heads based on
[36:13] a roller then use a different measure
[36:15] for somebody El
[36:17] get that's should be concerning for me
[36:20] Mr tur how to handle on please thank you
[36:24] excuse me thank you so in the past I I I think uh other than this year for the
[36:28] past six years we've actually had a t uh
[36:31] tax decrease or taxes uh no rise in
[36:34] taxes at all so things were different
[36:36] the city was in a different position uh
[36:38] back then um I think with the city
[36:40] facing the deficit that we are um
[36:43] raising taxes it's it's it's just
[36:46] sending the wrong message yes we work
[36:48] for the city we work for the uh
[36:50] employees of the city but we must to
[36:51] work for the residents of the city and I
[36:53] think it's just sending them the wrong
[36:55] message right now uh to to give these
[36:58] races but I do want to commend all these
[37:02] department heads I mean we've reached
[37:03] out to
[37:05] them daily for for me for three years
[37:09] you for a lot longer and they go above
[37:11] and beyond to help the residents of the
[37:13] city who we're also here to help I just
[37:16] um that's just all I wanted to
[37:19] say let me tou yes that's true we we
[37:22] have we're we're lucky and fortunate to
[37:24] have such good department heads in the
[37:27] city have connected here to help help
[37:29] the city to drive the city forward with
[37:31] the m i mean they do fantastic jobs in
[37:34] and out some of them 7 days a week
[37:36] regardless of what and um the topic is
[37:39] that we have yes giving raises when we
[37:41] raising tax when we're raising taxes um
[37:45] we have to make sure we have to make
[37:46] sure that we uh we compensate them for
[37:49] the time that they've been here and the
[37:51] years of service they have provided to
[37:52] the city some of them here way on in the
[37:54] 20 years or plus and the reason why they
[37:57] stay here because they love the city
[37:59] they love what they're doing and you
[38:00] know they're providing taxpayers with
[38:02] the service and they they're running the
[38:05] department day in and day out and
[38:09] um any budget you have to raise um
[38:14] salary especially for inflation or for
[38:16] cost of living adjustment so 3% 4% 2%
[38:21] I've been here when we have raised them
[38:22] 2% I don't know maybe we did 1% we did
[38:25] we always do an increment of something
[38:28] across and then we do have some some employees with you know higher than
[38:33] normal because we want this is one of
[38:35] them I think what the the Bing topic is
[38:38] the proposed budget has a 51% increase
[38:40] for one um one position and I think um
[38:44] that's where the calls are coming in
[38:45] from but we understand that that
[38:47] position because we want to Market you
[38:49] know that position and to align that
[38:52] position into next year U into the
[38:55] finance department now the department is
[38:58] seeing that and they're asking question
[38:59] and they have a right to ask they have a
[39:01] right to ask as Mr William says and we
[39:04] have to you know entertain
[39:06] it but how far do we go that's the
[39:10] biggest question on the
[39:13] table so I I don't think I said we were
[39:17] showing favoritism I said it it could
[39:21] lend perception like if it were me in a
[39:23] department head door just calls
[39:26] me I think and the mayor said no I
[39:29] requested
[39:30] this I will appeal to the mayor I don't
[39:34] I think we're usurping the
[39:36] process they present to us with the
[39:39] budget I'm just not comfortable with
[39:41] that and I would tell the person thank
[39:43] you but there's a a way for you to go
[39:45] about this um if I felt real strongly I
[39:49] you know because I have a friend at the
[39:51] department hey help me out here right
[39:55] now I obviously if I know the person I'm
[39:58] going to have some kind of bias I think
[40:00] you're doing a great job but I don't
[40:02] know the day-to-day activities of that
[40:03] individual I don't know they don't work
[40:05] for me I'm not comfortable with it as a
[40:07] public official as a I'm not comfortable
[40:10] with doing that because that's my role
[40:12] is not to supervise their day-to-day
[40:13] activities and make those
[40:14] recommendations I mean we can but I
[40:17] think we get into a dangerous um area on
[40:19] doing that we have great department
[40:21] heads and certainly but but we are
[40:24] looking at these tax increases and we're
[40:26] looking at the put time I think this
[40:29] doing it this way is concerning to me
[40:31] and that's you know that's all I want to
[40:33] put out there because and we didn't have
[40:34] that conversation I'm glad we had we
[40:36] were saying yes and it felt good but
[40:39] then I you know I actually wanted to say
[40:41] wrestling because it just concerned me
[40:42] that process it's the process certainly
[40:44] not the people and that's why I think we
[40:46] should be mindful and that's an issue
[40:48] maybe we do a market research do
[40:50] something a little bit differently but
[40:52] individual that well that person was
[40:55] pull enough which is great you
[40:58] know I'm following the role of what you
[41:02] know may or may boss didn't
[41:04] know I'm not going to go around that
[41:07] person um some would you know um that
[41:12] felt that way and they're kind in a way
[41:14] were
[41:15] saying well you should have you should
[41:18] have ignored his request and come to us
[41:22] um because we'll welcome you and we're
[41:23] not going to tell you you're the bad job
[41:25] then you know I'm just
[41:30] go ahead please I would ask the
[41:32] rhetorical question is just what do you
[41:34] think the role of city council is it's
[41:37] to make it's to make policy decisions
[41:39] certainly to make evalate the budget we
[41:42] can the role is we can entertain that
[41:44] I'm saying as my role as a city council
[41:47] right in this I'm uncomfortable with it
[41:50] um it's certainly within our purgy but
[41:54] we have a process and we can we don't of
[41:57] course we don't have to follow we can
[41:58] make these decisions to me they seem a
[42:01] little bit arbitrary because I don't
[42:02] think we've done it with every every
[42:04] administrator every assistant
[42:05] administrator we haven't afforded them
[42:08] that they would go no they accepted that
[42:11] they didn't come to
[42:12] us they didn't do what they did so sorry
[42:15] we're not going to consider you I think
[42:17] if we're going to do it and let's do it
[42:18] from H and 3% might not get you to where
[42:21] you should be if the market research and
[42:23] then we're looking at a maybe five or
[42:24] 10% tax increase or whatever where does
[42:27] it end I mean we have to have a process
[42:29] and respect
[42:31] that I think I think the city chter I'll
[42:34] play that we can review the salary and
[42:37] make adjustment not mistaken mayor has
[42:40] any consideration given so kind of do
[42:42] comprehensive review market analysis all
[42:45] the
[42:46] department talked about it but have not
[42:49] undertaken
[42:51] it is that something we can't ask you
[42:54] can you make a request that you do this because
[43:00] we don't want to you know Reit this next
[43:01] year but we can put something in place
[43:03] to kind of bring them up to power if
[43:05] they are under above you know align them
[43:07] so that we don't have to deal with this
[43:09] going
[43:11] forward how to we
[43:15] it's Council sets the policy so if you
[43:18] put forth something I'll manage it so I
[43:22] think we should do that I think it's
[43:24] wise idea for us to um you know do
[43:26] something and kind of like um as request
[43:29] the mayor to kind of do a market
[43:31] analysis on all the department head and
[43:34] to provide that report to us I think it
[43:37] would be very very helpful because I
[43:40] hate to see Department had work you know
[43:42] 15 10 12 15 years and they have to leave
[43:44] for municipality because they offer
[43:46] $5,000 $10,000 more where we can do
[43:49] something in house and adjust that and
[43:51] keep
[43:53] them sorry so listen to what my council
[43:57] members are saying here I guess because
[43:59] I think that I know you earlier s that
[44:03] there's good points on both sides I I
[44:05] don't just in my assessment I don't
[44:08] think that there's that there's
[44:09] necessarily two sides here I think that
[44:11] everyone's kind of like working in the
[44:13] same direction trying to figure out
[44:14] what's the best formula to do that so I
[44:16] that's so like that's where I'm like
[44:18] trying to get some clarification as to
[44:19] like
[44:21] so uh Mr turo were you saying like
[44:24] suggesting that we don't that everyone
[44:27] just gets a 3% raise like all department
[44:30] has just that and then we just leave it
[44:32] at that is that your position or is your
[44:35] position no Department air raises or or
[44:39] kind of like just make it like 3% across
[44:41] the board I'm trying to figure and then Joe if you want
[44:44] to answer that too then then Mr Williams
[44:48] then we can all kind of at least know
[44:50] where we're at I think we're all saying
[44:52] some similar stuff here so just try to
[44:54] some clarity right
[45:00] yeah yeah so um again with the deficit we're
[45:06] facing in our city the mayor's presented
[45:09] us with a balance budget it's 3%
[45:12] sometimes 4% I didn't go to reach
[45:14] department head um that was the ask
[45:16] that's what's there um I
[45:20] don't like to have an
[45:25] increase in
[45:27] ask from department
[45:31] heads when every department head has an
[45:34] opportunity to come before us and where
[45:36] does that leave us giving everyone a 10
[45:39] 15 20%
[45:41] 51% increase where does that leave us as
[45:43] taxpayers which we all are as
[45:46] well right and and to your point like to
[45:50] that makes a lot of sense to me that's
[45:52] what I'm saying but I know what was
[45:54] presented to us wasn't 3 4% for everyone
[45:58] across the board it wasn't that it was 3
[46:02] 4% and then and then
[46:06] individual was like how much there were
[46:08] some positions that was upwards of what
[46:11] was the percentage for the highest you
[46:13] said 51% 51 so I think that there's a
[46:15] lot of daylight I said that three and
[46:17] four and then 51% again we discussed
[46:20] that that was going to fill a position
[46:22] that we needed to fill and we had to
[46:24] bring it up to salary so um
[46:28] again with the position that we're in as
[46:30] a city and the deficit we're facing I
[46:34] know somebody coming in I think once
[46:37] before
[46:39] um auto warranty I'm
[46:43] sure selling
[46:45] Insurance to donate
[46:47] money they're going to settle this one
[46:49] and for but for clearity I wasn't so
[46:52] again the time when the ask was before
[46:54] we were in a much different position we
[46:57] facing a you know a much different
[46:58] position now than we were 3 four 6 5
[47:02] years ago so I was just trying to make
[47:05] sure you understood the nature of my
[47:07] question like I was wasn't dis right
[47:10] sure so um yes we are facing deficit but
[47:15] again we want to keep as I said we want
[47:17] to keep good employees and that just
[47:19] does not narrow down to one employee so
[47:21] I think we should take that in
[47:23] consideration as well um I'm guessing
[47:26] that because still here that the
[47:27] Mayfields are valuable employees and
[47:29] that they're doing their job so uh when
[47:32] we talk about that I know that we have
[47:34] tax increases that's the nature of of of
[47:38] inflation and all the other things that are a part of it so I don't say
[47:43] that we say to employees well
[47:46] [Music]
[47:48] because the you know we're having this
[47:50] time that you can't get additional you
[47:51] know because they're they're facing
[47:53] inflation as well so you can't get
[47:55] raises based on the work that you do for
[47:57] the city and if we're trying to talk
[47:59] about keep good employees then I think
[48:00] that we that needs to be
[48:02] consideration and it was stated that you
[48:05] know we shouldn't be um setting salaries
[48:07] when this clearly states right here that
[48:09] that's one of our responsibilities to
[48:11] set the salaries for the staff I don't
[48:14] know I know that when it comes to the
[48:16] bargaining unit that's a whole different
[48:18] process and um maybe there needs to be a
[48:21] similar process for the management I
[48:22] don't know but there this is the process
[48:26] we have right now
[48:27] and this is how we have to deal with it
[48:28] so I also have a question is the
[48:31] recommendation that we do this whole
[48:33] market analysis and try to get in time
[48:34] for this budget because I don't see that
[48:36] well that's that's I was going to ask a
[48:41] question we got
[48:42] deadine if um in order to do that do we
[48:45] have to do a formal resolution or
[48:48] just yeah that's how the council
[48:51] takes so I think we we should we should
[48:54] address that and do a formal resolution
[48:57] to um ask the mayor request the mayor to look into that and we have that ready
[49:03] for you know
[49:04] next
[49:06] so that he said it's not going to be in
[49:08] time for this bud so we have to deal
[49:10] with the issues at hand yes so so yes I
[49:13] understand but I think um we should put
[49:15] that in place so that we don't have to
[49:17] be repeating this again next time that
[49:20] we have that study so Sam can you please
[49:22] um put that on the agenda for us to do
[49:24] that formal um stuff and um
[49:27] and we get that um to the mayor so that
[49:30] study can be start and complete and
[49:33] provided to us sometimes and we thanks
[49:35] here thank you I'm sure also sure these
[49:38] studies aren't free that's
[49:41] okay here we are just just documents
[49:45] just saying um you know not even
[49:48] familiar with what it might be but I'm
[49:50] sure it's in the upd so thousands and
[49:52] thousands of dollars well we have an HR
[49:55] department so I don't think they going
[49:56] to H want to do a a market analysis that
[49:58] HR can do that and every every HR
[50:01] department does that well yes it's going
[50:03] to cost us if we decide to implement it
[50:05] to come Inc compatible but then that's
[50:07] what we're going to look at and then we
[50:09] can say as a council and as the mayor
[50:11] and
[50:11] administration are we ready to do this
[50:14] and that will be the biggest question on
[50:15] the table but I think we need to do that
[50:17] market
[50:20] analysis go ahead please um I think
[50:22] folks are making great points all around
[50:24] the table um and I do
[50:27] appreciate the idea of being consistent
[50:30] um I do think it's a good idea to do the
[50:32] market analysis um I absolutely do not
[50:35] think we're going to be able to do it in
[50:36] time for this budget um but I think it's
[50:39] something that we should move forward
[50:40] with um one solution I think I I support
[50:44] the 3% raise um I think that's where we
[50:47] should land um this evening I think that
[50:51] um is what has come to us um via uh the
[50:56] disc discussions that the mayor had with
[50:58] department heads um I don't have a
[51:00] problem if there's an individual that
[51:03] because there's a justification there in
[51:04] terms of the retirement that that might
[51:06] be coming down the pipe but again I
[51:08] think we could kind of um revisit that
[51:11] um but um I think one solution might be
[51:16] to move forward from this and have to
[51:20] come back um at another another time in
[51:24] the year and think about whether we have to make any adjustments by via
[51:28] budget amendments um which we have done
[51:32] in the past as well but um so I I think
[51:34] we should stay consistent now um I
[51:37] really appreciate the fact that we're
[51:39] raising taxes so I don't think that I
[51:41] think the 3% raise is fair um across the
[51:44] board um I do appreciate the idea of
[51:48] having a market analysis later um and
[51:52] that perhaps we can revisit mid year um
[51:55] at least look at what the results of the
[51:56] market analysis and at least start
[51:58] planning for what we might do in the
[51:59] future well I think that's what I'm
[52:01] trying to that is once we we we
[52:04] requested that formally and study is out
[52:06] and then we look at it as a council and
[52:08] then we said okay and if we are in
[52:10] agreement to move forward then we'll
[52:11] have to do a budget reappropriation at
[52:13] some point in time if there's agreement
[52:14] across the board to do that and we have
[52:17] the funding most important thing right
[52:19] have the funding to do it so just so I'm
[52:22] clear Mr Patrick you're saying
[52:24] 3% across the board
[52:27] with
[52:28] no are you saying but that 3% across the
[52:32] board with no exceptions no I'm saying
[52:36] 3% across the board I'd be open to to
[52:39] still considering the race for that one
[52:41] individual who might be moving into a
[52:43] role that um sooner rather than later um
[52:47] but I'm open to continuing the
[52:51] discussion
[52:54] but all right thanks I can be
[52:57] compromising those yeah that's that's
[52:59] what I'm trying to do as well go ahead
[53:00] please I just also want to be clear when
[53:03] you talk about the market study and then
[53:04] we revisit this mid year are you saying
[53:07] that at this point in time we will not
[53:10] consider any other races and then
[53:15] M I'm not saying that loud too loud but
[53:23] uhis I'm going to whisper that um
[53:27] I'm trying to sense it in a feeling that
[53:29] um do the study we know where we're
[53:31] Landing we're not guessing at number
[53:34] this is coming from professional where
[53:36] here we're going to have a realistic
[53:38] number in terms of position and we
[53:40] revisit it at that point in time I am
[53:43] not against it the majority of the
[53:44] council would like to move forward on on
[53:46] one or two and the exception of one or
[53:49] two that I'm fine with that but um I
[53:52] will overall revisit it next year each
[53:55] and every single dep Department here but
[53:57] again I'm I'm willing I'm on this table
[54:00] here and I'm willing to make compromise
[54:03] as I've said it from the beginning and
[54:04] to move forward I am not going to dig my
[54:07] heel in the sand I made it very clear
[54:10] and I encourage everyone of us to do
[54:11] that that's compromised let's move
[54:13] forward and let's do what we have to do
[54:16] I I don't think um you know we we're
[54:19] sending a message to everyone of them
[54:20] we're at we appreciate everything that
[54:22] they're doing we're in crunch time we're
[54:25] raising taxes to maintain the services
[54:27] that we're providing to our
[54:29] taxpayers and we have to make sure that
[54:32] we have their backs at all times too so
[54:35] I I just want to Echo some of that and
[54:37] say that I don't think I I agree and I
[54:39] think that this this is a very could be
[54:42] a potentially very contentious
[54:43] conversation but I do appreciate the way
[54:45] that it's happening at the table I think
[54:46] everyone at the table um is acting in
[54:49] good faith and um you know and I was
[54:52] asking council members what their
[54:53] position were I think that it's a
[54:56] appropriate that I would say my position
[54:58] would be um I wouldn't be comfortable
[55:03] with
[55:04] 3% across the board and then one or
[55:09] two positions at 50% I think that that
[55:13] is a
[55:16] drastic comparison and distinction
[55:20] that even with the variables that were
[55:22] presented so I think again we have to
[55:25] your point maybe we just have to to take
[55:27] a step back and I think that maybe this
[55:29] is something that we
[55:31] um move for uh efficiency sake move
[55:35] further down the agenda in this process
[55:38] that's would be completely up to you um
[55:40] uh chair but maybe that's something but
[55:42] I just want I just want to Echo one to I
[55:44] mean if if there's any
[55:47] retirement May right to Agate someone or
[55:50] hire someone new that person will go
[55:52] into that position and that line is
[55:54] funded already so we we do have funding
[55:57] on that line and whoever the mayor
[56:00] choose to hire will go into that line so
[56:03] there if there's funding on the deputy
[56:04] line it will not affect that line the
[56:06] promotion or the the hire will take that
[56:09] funding from that line at a given time
[56:11] could you explain anything El so right
[56:14] now we have funding for the commissioner
[56:17] at 100
[56:19] propos
[56:22] 33,000 and the proposal for the um def
[56:28] is
[56:29] 120 I might be off a little sure sure so
[56:31] if there's a retirement that line
[56:33] becomes
[56:35] available if the May hire someone and
[56:38] put that person in the line there the
[56:39] salary continue that funding is there to
[56:42] continue that
[56:45] higher so if there's a promotion with
[56:48] him it just move upward and then that
[56:50] position become vacant until there's a
[56:53] promotion or hire to fill that out of
[56:55] line
[56:57] so we should consider that
[57:00] so I think back to uh the rhetorical
[57:03] question that Mr Williams asked I do
[57:05] think that our primary you know we're
[57:08] here for the residents and I think that one point of we're raising the
[57:13] taxes um I think we have to be very
[57:16] mindful of that in terms of this
[57:18] discussion about raises
[57:20] so and I would say in response to that is why I'm responding to the
[57:25] proposed budget with that same
[57:27] understanding in mind um I would
[57:30] say hearing everyone around the table um
[57:35] following the invitation for the number
[57:38] of individuals in the email to respond
[57:40] don't think we've gotten any further
[57:41] responses am I not correct I'm not here
[57:45] hi Mr sorry and an email that was sent
[57:47] out later today were there any
[57:49] additional responses from City
[57:53] St I I didn't
[57:57] in the last hour so I haven't received
[57:59] any so this would be the final one I
[58:02] would say in in the manner in which I've
[58:06] been a member of this Council we've
[58:08] entertained these such conversations so
[58:10] I would not be opposed to taking this
[58:13] into consideration as well as we
[58:16] anticipate how we continue addressing
[58:19] this issue next year I think it is
[58:22] important to make sure we capture this
[58:23] appropriately if we are doing a market
[58:25] adjustment you're not giving the city
[58:27] staff anything short of what they
[58:29] deserve and what they've earned with
[58:31] their knowledge skills and abilities
[58:32] over the years Market evaluations are
[58:35] continuing in the industry and often
[58:38] times Market are evaluated annually I'm
[58:41] not promoting that but I'm saying the
[58:44] cost of running the city is the cost of
[58:46] running the city so I think if we start
[58:48] this we see it through to completion
[58:51] however after making this a formal
[58:55] opportunity for everyone to respond we
[58:57] have only heard from this individual so
[58:59] to your point everyone has been
[59:00] presented with the same Fair
[59:03] opportunity so I think in hearing that I
[59:06] am comfortable responding to this email
[59:09] as the
[59:10] last as we currently have budget
[59:13] meetings P
[59:15] this and to add to that I think the
[59:17] mayor was very directive uh when as an
[59:20] email to his department heads to reach
[59:23] out to the council or to be here at the
[59:26] in 5:30 to kind of if they feel that
[59:28] they need to discuss with us any salary
[59:34] increase Chief Marina is
[59:37] here forget about it chief he also
[59:46] [Music]
[59:49] wants Patrick yeah I think um I just
[59:52] want to have a point of clarification we
[59:54] haven't decided on any of the
[59:57] um we haven't decided on the salary that
[1:00:00] correct recomend and this actually um
[1:00:05] came last looks like it went last night
[1:00:08] so meeting I'm sorry like right after
[1:00:11] our meeting yeah she's she's uh the
[1:00:13] person is indicating that she was
[1:00:15] watching our meeting and that that was
[1:00:17] why so it wasn't that um that other
[1:00:19] email went out this afternoon asking
[1:00:21] people to send in requests um if they
[1:00:24] were interested this was before that
[1:00:26] actually just it said to show up we be
[1:00:29] here all right I think disc we're
[1:00:33] discussing at L I will ask we just move
[1:00:35] on and we'll revisit this um before we
[1:00:38] close and move to um other points um if
[1:00:41] you don't mind yeah we can Mr probably
[1:00:43] take that and just move to another
[1:00:45] discussion and then we'll R this um it's
[1:00:50] a hot discussion do we want to um Carl
[1:00:53] let's go through um this list from the
[1:00:56] top
[1:00:59] down this l oh
[1:01:06] okay man you send us an email this
[1:01:09] afternoon yes I did late this
[1:01:12] afternoon meetings all day
[1:01:15] [Music]
[1:01:18] want
[1:01:20] certainly yesterday um the discussion
[1:01:23] around the table was um the huge um you
[1:01:25] progam
[1:01:27] and currently in the budget is
[1:01:31] $150,000 Mr parley had um recommend that
[1:01:35] we consider increasing that by 100,000
[1:01:38] to
[1:01:39] 250,000 and then there's an email today
[1:01:42] this afternoon from Mr parley that to
[1:01:44] bring that to $300,000 and to R name
[1:01:48] that line to you Services Mr
[1:01:52] Harley sure so I just think um you know
[1:01:55] this is a unique line um I do have to
[1:01:59] say that I'm um somewhat biased in this
[1:02:02] because you know being the you know one
[1:02:05] of the things that uh myself and the
[1:02:07] mayor and council president was really
[1:02:10] uh spearheading was trying to make sure
[1:02:13] that the city for the first time ever
[1:02:15] had a Youth Employment Program is a very needed thing so I guess what I
[1:02:22] think there was some confusion yesterday
[1:02:24] because I know that the lines had
[1:02:26] we spent uh 90 something perc of the
[1:02:29] money the first year and then the second
[1:02:31] year we we didn't spend um quite as
[1:02:33] anywhere near as much as that and I
[1:02:35] think that that was more of a
[1:02:37] programmatic shift than it was a shift
[1:02:40] in need um um so it was I think on the city only has so much capacity um
[1:02:47] and but the need is still great and I
[1:02:50] think for you know for for the Youth
[1:02:53] line I I think that we definitely I mean
[1:02:57] I was really trying to and I hope you
[1:03:00] guys received this in the right spirit I
[1:03:01] was really trying to
[1:03:04] uh be as uh conservative as I could with
[1:03:08] that line um because I think that line
[1:03:11] is unique in the way that it's not again
[1:03:15] it's not just about the larger picture
[1:03:17] big picture is you know keeping our
[1:03:20] youth engaged in pro-social activities
[1:03:22] you know I think that we all see what's
[1:03:24] good about that but I think the piece
[1:03:26] about that is that you know there's
[1:03:29] money that's going to go into our local
[1:03:31] economy and and much likely to
[1:03:35] be you know spent inside of our local
[1:03:38] economy unlike some of the other things
[1:03:40] that we are funding for you
[1:03:42] know even some of our nonprofits you
[1:03:46] know things that we are this is
[1:03:48] something that does goes directly to
[1:03:50] Youth and can change the material
[1:03:51] conditions of the people themselves as
[1:03:55] to what some of our larger uh things
[1:03:57] that we are funding are going to
[1:03:59] nonprofits and some of that money um is
[1:04:04] people who don't live in our city and
[1:04:08] actually support other tax bases with
[1:04:10] that so I think if we consider the fact
[1:04:12] that the very clear need for our youth
[1:04:15] um to be engaged in pro-social
[1:04:16] activities you accompany that with the
[1:04:19] fact that this is really an investment
[1:04:21] because that money will circulate
[1:04:22] through our local economy and then you
[1:04:25] think about the accompany that with the
[1:04:27] fact that we know that idle times for
[1:04:30] youth will definitely increase our our
[1:04:34] Public Safety cost and with our police
[1:04:38] budget especially um I think that
[1:04:40] there's a there's some compounding
[1:04:41] factors there or we should really be
[1:04:43] taking a look at that line 300 was or
[1:04:46] doubling that line was really the best I
[1:04:50] could
[1:04:51] uh do without I still I still feel
[1:04:55] that's very modest is what I'm saying
[1:04:57] based on all those
[1:05:07] things go ahead please so I my position
[1:05:12] on this is that the the first year we
[1:05:14] put 150,000 to it we didn't quite reach
[1:05:17] it even with all the partners at the
[1:05:20] table so um I understand the request I
[1:05:22] certain as the request for additional I
[1:05:25] don't
[1:05:26] necessarily doubling it at this time
[1:05:28] does that in my opinion would increase
[1:05:31] it and spend you know and and see how we
[1:05:35] do with with not just the city being
[1:05:37] doing the program but others as well and
[1:05:39] if there's need just like with anything
[1:05:41] else then we just increase it you know
[1:05:43] we go back and make an adjustment
[1:05:45] because um because there's more of a
[1:05:48] need the other thing we also discussed
[1:05:50] last night in terms of increasing is
[1:05:52] that when an person gets someone to work
[1:05:54] for them that may they can also either
[1:05:58] donate or um pay some comp part of the
[1:06:01] compensation as opposed to be the entire
[1:06:04] of the city because it was said that
[1:06:06] they were getting free labor which you
[1:06:08] know free is sometimes free is good but
[1:06:10] um that they would also invest in that
[1:06:13] in the the program themselves through
[1:06:15] partially paying for that so for me I
[1:06:19] don't see raising it up to the $300,000
[1:06:21] level and excuse me yeah um and last night I walked away with the
[1:06:27] thought that it was 250 sure so today
[1:06:30] you know so so that's my position that
[1:06:32] you know we have to like as as
[1:06:34] everything based on on PRI history and
[1:06:37] in 22 we didn't quite make it to the 150
[1:06:40] so increasing it and then increasing our
[1:06:42] Outreach and all that I say yes we do
[1:06:45] that and also ask the people who are
[1:06:47] getting people to work for them to also
[1:06:49] partially invest in the program as well
[1:06:53] and that so therefore the city is not as
[1:06:56] much so I I would say so I think our the
[1:06:59] first year we spent upwards of 140
[1:07:03] something th000 the entire budget was
[1:07:05] only 150 so if the the agency that's
[1:07:09] managing
[1:07:11] that once they get close to that 150 you
[1:07:14] have to stop because if you don't stop
[1:07:16] then you're going to be responsible for
[1:07:18] paying youth whoever wherever they're at
[1:07:21] so I think that like that first year
[1:07:24] that spending 100
[1:07:27] just say but it it was more than that
[1:07:29] though it was a little bit over 140 yeah
[1:07:32] so so I say like
[1:07:34] $140,000 for the first year of that
[1:07:37] program um I think that that I consider
[1:07:41] that a pretty strong compelling reason
[1:07:46] to say like that the need is there and
[1:07:48] then the second year I really
[1:07:52] can't you can't really calate that
[1:07:56] because the model shifted so much so you
[1:08:00] spent a third of of what was was done
[1:08:03] the first year and I think that that was
[1:08:04] just based on the programmatic shift um
[1:08:08] and I think to your point around like
[1:08:10] other people contributing um and
[1:08:12] employers contributing um I think that's
[1:08:15] a great idea and I think if that's the
[1:08:16] case then we'll just have a larger
[1:08:18] capacity to reach more youth in that way
[1:08:20] so that's the way I would look at that
[1:08:23] um but your your point is well taken um
[1:08:26] and yesterday when I was I did uh say
[1:08:29] I'd like to increase it by 100,000 that
[1:08:31] was something that I did say at this
[1:08:33] table and then once I uh looked at the numbers in the county um around the
[1:08:39] amount of Youth that they sered and I
[1:08:42] considered I started to really make the
[1:08:43] consideration of like that's money
[1:08:45] that's still going to live in our city
[1:08:47] versus you know so we might get to
[1:08:49] leverage that
[1:08:51] 300,000 uh dollars and I think I'm not
[1:08:54] sure on the research but you know I
[1:08:56] think that the money the the researcher
[1:08:58] show that the money will circulate in
[1:09:00] our community for almost six times
[1:09:02] before it leaves based on you know where
[1:09:05] we're funding some of these uh
[1:09:07] nonprofits with with
[1:09:10] uh largely a lot of their administrative
[1:09:13] staff not living in the city that's a
[1:09:15] drop in the bucket compared to what we
[1:09:17] give to them and a lot of times those
[1:09:18] dollars go to support other tax bases
[1:09:21] and you and you don't get the value get
[1:09:23] from money economic in the city um
[1:09:26] increasing Public Safety and enriching
[1:09:28] you so that's those would be my um
[1:09:30] points on that but your pointed I I
[1:09:32] understand as far as the form looking at
[1:09:34] past years that would be my response to
[1:09:38] that go ahead I would support increasing
[1:09:41] the youth employment line um I think it
[1:09:44] it's um we've been talking last week
[1:09:47] several of us talked about you know the things that had happened in the city
[1:09:51] school district the week before um I
[1:09:53] mean I think it's really valid to think
[1:09:55] about how are we fostering youth
[1:09:56] leadership how are we supporting them I
[1:09:59] think the income that I think it's
[1:10:01] income that is needed but I also think
[1:10:04] it's job skills and job skills training
[1:10:06] that um I think all of us would also
[1:10:08] support um so not sure about the number
[1:10:12] um but I also we again I think this is a
[1:10:15] place where using arpa funds taking arpa
[1:10:18] funds away from an additional besides
[1:10:21] the ones that um are already in our
[1:10:23] operating budget based on on the four I
[1:10:25] think it was that um Finance you know
[1:10:28] that's in the budget I think there's
[1:10:30] still an opportunity to look at those
[1:10:31] arpa that arpa money and take this out
[1:10:34] of that um and we would have to take it
[1:10:36] away from someone um I get that but
[1:10:40] um it will it will be a budgeted line
[1:10:44] eventually it will be funded once we
[1:10:46] start right I'm just saying I don't know
[1:10:48] where we get I guess what I'm saying is
[1:10:50] we have to figure out where we're going
[1:10:51] to get the money from that's that's
[1:10:53] there is an in andl we have that's right
[1:10:55] saying when we get to the ARA discussion
[1:10:58] there might be additional um ways that
[1:11:00] we could get it there I'm just saying I
[1:11:02] don't know where we get it from but um I
[1:11:04] definitely would support increasing this
[1:11:06] so just to be clear I have no objection
[1:11:09] to supporting this level I would we
[1:11:12] walked away last night 250 was the
[1:11:13] number and I was like okay I'm good with
[1:11:15] that and and I'm still good with
[1:11:18] that go ahead please um I'm I'm
[1:11:20] wondering like if we we put on the line
[1:11:22] on the Youth Services
[1:11:25] we it it we're going to commit to hoping
[1:11:28] it goes toward deployment make it's open
[1:11:30] where we have also the option if say
[1:11:33] there certain Community there's schools
[1:11:35] in every community and we have
[1:11:38] complaints from neighborhood residents
[1:11:39] that we have youth just no activities
[1:11:42] nothing and I worked in a rock program
[1:11:44] had a budget of $45,000 a year and it
[1:11:47] was highly effective to get 80 kids
[1:11:48] there at night is that we have that
[1:11:50] flexibility say hey here's a h a spot
[1:11:53] there's a lot of unstructured free time
[1:11:55] which is you know one of those risk
[1:11:58] factors for juvenile agency let's create
[1:12:00] a program in that community and let's
[1:12:02] started up we have the budget here we're
[1:12:04] not using unemployment we could do
[1:12:06] something like that and if that is
[1:12:08] effective we can look to continue
[1:12:09] funding yet if you look at my email I do
[1:12:12] say um to change it from youth
[1:12:14] employment to youth services for that
[1:12:16] very point to have a bro I I do think I
[1:12:18] mean just to go back a step um what we
[1:12:21] were what we did I think in the past was
[1:12:24] give it to the county for their youth
[1:12:26] you know through that youth employment
[1:12:27] that the county runs right so I think we
[1:12:31] you know that's another consider yeah
[1:12:33] that's the consideration too because um
[1:12:37] you know that's program management I
[1:12:39] mean
[1:12:40] we we I guess I'm saying that I mean I'm
[1:12:44] not I'm not I'm not sure that we should
[1:12:46] take it back into the city because then
[1:12:47] we'd have to have a staff person that
[1:12:49] was you know coordinating it so I think
[1:12:51] with some of you know some of the
[1:12:53] flexibility really it's going to be if we do this it still would be with the
[1:12:58] County's Youth Employment I think well
[1:13:01] it was it was a partnership between the
[1:13:03] county school in the school district in
[1:13:05] the school district I actually wrote
[1:13:06] that down too were you able to share
[1:13:08] with us how how how were you able to
[1:13:10] manage it last year does that well we
[1:13:14] put people in departments so there was a
[1:13:17] supervisory
[1:13:18] structure there in place the year before
[1:13:22] it was more broad-based and some of
[1:13:24] those expens ures out of that line I
[1:13:26] would classify as being
[1:13:34] interesting just said they're
[1:13:40] interesting they wouldn't have happened
[1:13:42] had I reviewed the individual
[1:13:48] expenditure well in terms of the county
[1:13:50] what I can say they've run their program
[1:13:52] for a long time and part of I know part
[1:13:55] of it they paid staff but what I
[1:13:57] understand we're talking about is this
[1:13:59] money would only be to pay the youth or
[1:14:01] are you talking about the people who
[1:14:03] would also supervise so so my okay
[1:14:08] well we consistently made investments in
[1:14:11] the Parks and what I look at this money
[1:14:14] is how do we go back to some of those
[1:14:17] old days when there were Recreation
[1:14:19] specialists in the Parks there's more
[1:14:21] activities there it's not precluding any
[1:14:23] the discussion whether it's a tonight or
[1:14:26] uh in facilities that might not solely
[1:14:29] be the parks so bringing in other
[1:14:31] partners uh but it's the take that uh 8
[1:14:36] 10 weeks during the summer and how do
[1:14:40] we spend the
[1:14:43] money the simple thing is in the city
[1:14:45] hiring people working in the Parks doing
[1:14:48] activities there uh but more than open
[1:14:53] to if there are other partners ERS to
[1:14:56] their private businesses or other
[1:14:59] entities uh this summer I had a
[1:15:03] discussion with the superintendent of
[1:15:05] schools he' just come into that role
[1:15:08] we're looking to do more recruitment
[1:15:11] for
[1:15:12] uh kids within the schools and also
[1:15:16] trying to match them up to
[1:15:20] uh possible career paths in the city we
[1:15:24] spent a lot of time focusing on Public
[1:15:25] Safety police and
[1:15:28] fire it's hard right now to find people
[1:15:31] for water and waste
[1:15:33] water and those are ones where you have
[1:15:36] to have some math skills
[1:15:39] uh and if it's environmental it's uh
[1:15:44] very timely uh how do we get kids to
[1:15:46] come in and uh be exposed to that
[1:15:49] because most people don't even know
[1:15:50] those jobs exist out there but they're
[1:15:53] good career paths you go in you get
[1:15:55] higher levels of
[1:15:57] certification uh and
[1:16:00] they're the reality is they're more
[1:16:02] important than a lot of the other
[1:16:04] positions we have because if water and
[1:16:06] sore doesn't
[1:16:07] work we're in trouble absolutely so this past year when we had people at the
[1:16:13] um for the city did anybody work in the
[1:16:15] waste waterer treatment plant were we
[1:16:17] able to put anybody there no we had some
[1:16:20] the year before but did not get any this
[1:16:23] year and in terms of that there's that
[1:16:27] um program EOS where they do a whole lot
[1:16:29] of that you know environmental stuff so
[1:16:32] and when we talk about partners that
[1:16:34] might be a place because my
[1:16:36] understanding of their program they have
[1:16:37] gotten I've watched some of the videos
[1:16:39] they've really gotten kids very very
[1:16:41] interested in uh doing those kind of
[1:16:43] things so then identifying those kind of
[1:16:44] Partners where we're broadening the
[1:16:46] scope of what we're offering to youth as
[1:16:48] opposed to absolutely you working
[1:16:51] nothing wrong with City Vault working
[1:16:52] City Vault um but just because kids have
[1:16:55] other interests they have a variety of
[1:16:57] interests yeah the way some of our
[1:16:59] department has a feeling we might need
[1:17:00] them kids to come here and work cuz uh
[1:17:02] we don't get them ra but now I think
[1:17:04] that the
[1:17:06] mayor the mayor was saying uh if we look
[1:17:10] at you know those strategic Partnerships
[1:17:14] um and I think we get the most value out of our dollar I just kind of want to
[1:17:19] keep that in front of our mind that this
[1:17:23] it it looks like you know well and is we
[1:17:25] classify it as you know this is a
[1:17:27] expenditure on the city's behalf but
[1:17:29] again that's money that's going to be in
[1:17:31] our local economy that's money that is
[1:17:34] going to help um you know curve some of
[1:17:36] that idle time that results in public
[1:17:39] safety cost so I just you're absolutely
[1:17:41] correct in terms of an economic analysis
[1:17:44] that type of expenditure has one of the
[1:17:46] highest
[1:17:48] multipliers of any dollars you spent so
[1:17:50] if you want to go 500,000 I'm okay any
[1:17:52] money we put towards this land here it's
[1:17:55] an investment to our youth it's an
[1:17:58] investment we have listened in 2023 I
[1:18:01] think the success story or 2022 when
[1:18:04] they did the first program through the
[1:18:06] school with the city partnership with
[1:18:07] the school the success story is kind of
[1:18:10] you know it drives you to do more
[1:18:13] because once we invest in our youth it's
[1:18:16] a long-term effect putting money into
[1:18:19] the local economy into the local um
[1:18:22] houses so that they have money at the
[1:18:23] disposal to spend and to take them back
[1:18:25] into school and to buy supplies for them
[1:18:28] new clothing New Bag new you know
[1:18:31] Footwear and things like that I am not
[1:18:33] opposed to any increase against L but uh
[1:18:37] we have to find way to fund it m I have
[1:18:40] been from day one I have been an
[1:18:42] advocate for this um you can talk about
[1:18:45] that we sit in a room every year of the
[1:18:48] fund continue to fund on the county
[1:18:51] $40,000 a year there were many
[1:18:53] discussion me how do we bring this back
[1:18:54] in house year after year but then do we
[1:18:57] have the capacity do we have the
[1:18:58] resource to do it and I have to agree
[1:19:00] with the mayor we need to expand bring
[1:19:01] in more agency because if we can
[1:19:03] leverage whatever we put here into the
[1:19:06] 2025 budget we need to leverage with
[1:19:08] other agency to expand it and I think
[1:19:11] that's what I said yesterday we all need
[1:19:13] to get on board we all need to bring
[1:19:15] players to the table and expand the
[1:19:22] service any other take on this item
[1:19:27] unfortunately have another
[1:19:29] commitment you can pass the budget there
[1:19:32] we
[1:19:32] [Music]
[1:19:34] go take
[1:19:36] over just
[1:19:41] kidding this is a p this this as long I always use this as long as I've been
[1:19:46] in the council this has been a
[1:19:47] passionate line and I don't think anyone
[1:19:50] of us here is against
[1:19:52] it no not at all we are
[1:19:56] support we have seen what's happening in
[1:19:58] our society and we need to step up as a
[1:20:01] council to provide whatever we have
[1:20:04] available to them yeah we got we got to
[1:20:06] fund it like it's got to get the money
[1:20:07] we got to fund it we all we all agree so
[1:20:09] we just need to identify number and then
[1:20:11] where do we find the Gap so what is a
[1:20:14] number right so that's the first
[1:20:16] question go ahead just need a number so
[1:20:18] let me just go back so yesterday
[1:20:21] we there was a recommendation to bring
[1:20:24] that up to 250,000 and then there's an
[1:20:26] email this afternoon to kind of up that
[1:20:28] up 50,000 more to bring that to
[1:20:32] 300,000 what are your position with that
[1:20:34] in terms of the numbers mine's
[1:20:37] 300,000
[1:20:39] 250 I'm happy to go
[1:20:41] 250 so I would say if you do 250 and you
[1:20:45] talk about some sort of split it does
[1:20:47] still reach your desire of increasing
[1:20:50] capacity and it allows us more time to
[1:20:53] engage how propy fund is I feel like
[1:20:55] that could be a compromise mrle I I
[1:20:59] would have to get clarity on like what
[1:21:00] kind of split I don't
[1:21:02] understand what do you mean by that 250
[1:21:05] versus 300 no no the split between the
[1:21:07] employer and what this line would
[1:21:09] potentially fund if you did 50/50 you're
[1:21:12] essentially doubling it plus adding
[1:21:14] money to the line also I think directly
[1:21:17] for
[1:21:18] employment what he means he means asking
[1:21:21] we we talked about it's been mentioned
[1:21:23] that we asked the employers to contrib
[1:21:24] it oh sorry sorry sorry I I don't think
[1:21:27] we can count on that so I think moving
[1:21:30] for at least until we get the program up
[1:21:32] and running and maybe next year we'd be
[1:21:34] able to ask employers but I think I'm
[1:21:36] comfortable with 250 and finding the
[1:21:38] additional 100,000 I do want to point
[1:21:40] out that we do need to continue you know
[1:21:42] paying for the
[1:21:43] lifeguards is that different that's not
[1:21:45] effective sear that's separate
[1:21:48] line yes okay no just wanted to make
[1:21:51] sure okay um that thought so 250 go
[1:21:56] please the um boys and girls club like
[1:21:59] at sond you know that bring in the
[1:22:01] summer programs did that come out of
[1:22:03] this yes it's in here it's in our budget
[1:22:05] here oh it come out no no no no no
[1:22:09] service sear I was looking for it in
[1:22:11] pool in is it in pool Parks or yes on
[1:22:14] the parks a separate L that we fund
[1:22:17] every year to um to pay for the the
[1:22:21] guards and the um good so that's good so
[1:22:25] really in essence we're giving if we
[1:22:27] went with whatever number we come up
[1:22:29] with here you can all in your heads
[1:22:32] realize it's an additional 150 also to
[1:22:34] still be hiring
[1:22:37] youth yes yes an additional
[1:22:40] 150 you know what I mean I know what you
[1:22:46] mean okays everything in other words if
[1:22:50] we did 250 it's really in in the end it
[1:22:52] would be $400,000 that would putting
[1:22:54] into youth employment she saying there's
[1:22:56] 15 ready that's what I'm saying yeah but
[1:22:59] it's not necessarily that's not
[1:23:02] necessarily the thing though because
[1:23:04] that is a that that money is part of a
[1:23:06] larger contract that's with the boys and
[1:23:07] girls club that's you know so I know
[1:23:10] that's that some of the implications and
[1:23:12] the outcome
[1:23:13] is is
[1:23:15] there however that to uh mind Joe's
[1:23:20] earlier Point around like changing that
[1:23:22] from just youth employment to Youth
[1:23:23] Services so yeah oh yeah no I get that I
[1:23:28] just like to ask Derek do you have any
[1:23:30] idea where you might listening to the
[1:23:32] conversation where we might be able to
[1:23:35] fund this from that's I mean currently
[1:23:39] looking at 2,000 no it was 300 was my
[1:23:44] thing let's start
[1:23:46] there 15,000 for that reduce expenditure
[1:23:51] in general fund or looking at something
[1:23:53] increasing the revenue mhm
[1:23:56] sure
[1:23:58] yeah that's consider sure so so yeah so
[1:24:03] yeah it will be it will be a discussion
[1:24:05] that you will have to have with
[1:24:07] um Anthony or it's something
[1:24:14] NE I a
[1:24:17] decision increased
[1:24:19] access
[1:24:22] more yeah are we going to have you
[1:24:28] PID most likely if you increase the
[1:24:30] revenue be coming from apprpriate fund
[1:24:33] balance um expend I don't know you take
[1:24:37] on because it's a really tight
[1:24:40] budget so so let's mark it them as a um
[1:24:44] but most of these if we are not
[1:24:45] increasing the revenue we'll potentially
[1:24:48] have to come out of the general Reserve
[1:24:50] sure so let's put that there as
[1:24:52] tentative if we have an agreement to
[1:24:54] move forward with that increase so
[1:24:57] 250,000 I actually 300 I'm comfortable
[1:25:00] with 250
[1:25:05] um
[1:25:07] I I would like to hear where the other
[1:25:09] council members stand 280 I know nobody wants to hear about
[1:25:16] 200
[1:25:17] [Music]
[1:25:19] 200 50,000,000 compared to what we had
[1:25:23] in there and
[1:25:25] not that it's not important but again
[1:25:26] we're tightening our belts uh if we
[1:25:29] leverage it with the county the city the
[1:25:32] this you're looking at two for $600,000
[1:25:34] in there I I don't know just
[1:25:37] saying I'm very if the let me just
[1:25:41] address that with the county if we were
[1:25:43] to what we have had in the past and this
[1:25:46] is what the mayor was trying to bring it
[1:25:47] in house many years and we had an
[1:25:50] agreement with the county once we found
[1:25:52] the county it's an employment we're
[1:25:54] funding an employment for the entire
[1:25:56] County that's true not just the city not
[1:25:59] the city and this was a problem mayor
[1:26:01] was pointing us to that many years and
[1:26:04] that was an agreement we had and then uh
[1:26:06] after give the May credit on that he
[1:26:08] tried hard to bring it in house and
[1:26:10] which we did and we are able to fund
[1:26:13] this program for City resident only
[1:26:16] rather than County resident that we been
[1:26:18] funding for many years so we can't just
[1:26:21] ask the county we can't we can't STI we
[1:26:24] partner with a county we have to fund
[1:26:26] the entire County so no so no so the
[1:26:29] last so so you're I I think what you're
[1:26:32] talking about uh is is is something that
[1:26:35] happened that we were giving money we
[1:26:37] were taking money and giving it to the
[1:26:38] county and then the county was doing
[1:26:40] what the county did it was youth
[1:26:42] employment but to your point it was long
[1:26:43] thing the program that that that we uh
[1:26:48] launched what was it two years ago 22
[1:26:51] yeah two years ago the program design it
[1:26:55] was only that's why it was a partnership
[1:26:57] with the city school district and the
[1:26:59] county was was uh helping with the
[1:27:02] administrative fees but these were all
[1:27:04] City residents not $1 left the city
[1:27:06] right so that would be what I yeah it's
[1:27:08] a change to Dynamics yes that's what
[1:27:09] brought
[1:27:10] it I prefer that but not inh housee
[1:27:13] in-house because we're training it's
[1:27:15] going to be in addition to City staff
[1:27:17] that still want other employers involved
[1:27:20] in this as opposed to yeah yeah
[1:27:24] I think that so why partnering with the
[1:27:27] county the logic Ling partner with the
[1:27:28] county is because they have the
[1:27:29] infrastructure there but when we were
[1:27:31] designing the program the conversation
[1:27:34] was that it has to be on City residents
[1:27:38] and the school district being a city
[1:27:41] school district was able to that's why
[1:27:44] those Partners made made sense however
[1:27:47] what the school district was doing was
[1:27:49] also partnering with some small
[1:27:50] businesses so they were so to not get
[1:27:52] into the weeds of the program stuff the
[1:27:54] things that are important to us is that
[1:27:56] it's we increase partnership which we
[1:27:59] did and it stays in the city which it
[1:28:00] did so that's a
[1:28:02] fact and John say you got it at the
[1:28:05] table it's back to 350 now 350
[1:28:08] [Music]
[1:28:09] 350 back never
[1:28:12] was every time John gets up on the table
[1:28:14] when I'm talking that's what happens so
[1:28:16] to make it an
[1:28:17] inine right and you know you might not
[1:28:22] be able to you know it's an Ara funding
[1:28:24] now it is yes right so then the year
[1:28:27] after 2026 it becomes inline it becomes
[1:28:30] all ours and looking at our
[1:28:33] future I don't want to put 300,000 on
[1:28:36] there and not being able to fund it two
[1:28:38] years from
[1:28:39] that but that so why that difficult no no but that so why that make so why
[1:28:47] that position makes sense for most other
[1:28:51] things is different than this why this
[1:28:52] is unique is because this is something
[1:28:55] that if we
[1:28:56] can if we have the money to help the
[1:28:59] youth then we use the money to help the
[1:29:02] youth and when we don't have the money
[1:29:03] to help the youth then it's not real
[1:29:06] decision because we just don't have it
[1:29:07] but why this is a little different than
[1:29:09] some of the other considerations we make
[1:29:11] again is because this will to the
[1:29:13] mayor's point which I was stressing
[1:29:16] earlier is that it's not just an
[1:29:19] expenditure the research shows that this
[1:29:21] is leveraging this is the highest
[1:29:23] leverage point investment that you can
[1:29:25] make as a city so it's not just the
[1:29:27] money that's going out it's the money
[1:29:29] that's saving and hopefully the money
[1:29:30] that we're saving bringing back in and
[1:29:32] the money circulating our economy would
[1:29:34] help with that looking down the line so
[1:29:36] I just want to make sure it stays Point
[1:29:38] yeah I think was very direct about that
[1:29:41] he was leading towards that in terms of
[1:29:43] his his comments towards us I mean I'm
[1:29:48] not against um F line for
[1:29:51] 250 uh yesterday and then we revisit it
[1:29:56] um you know next year because this is
[1:29:59] our future and it's it's a future that
[1:30:02] we're going to um permanently add into
[1:30:05] the budget Way Beyond my time I would
[1:30:07] like to see it there um I don't have
[1:30:10] problem do 250 now and at the same time
[1:30:13] expand this uh for
[1:30:15] other
[1:30:17] um players to get involved and to help
[1:30:21] us support this program
[1:30:25] School District
[1:30:27] only I like that yeah I think that's
[1:30:30] what they did in 2022 Oh you mean for
[1:30:32] students for for
[1:30:34] kids so Joe you at Joe's at
[1:30:39] three I'll go
[1:30:41] three three thank
[1:30:44] you yeah I you know I think i' love to
[1:30:47] see how you know the
[1:30:49] outcomes as we move forward and in our
[1:30:51] fac you know and then do we have toci it
[1:30:55] or if it's working I think it'll be
[1:30:56] pretty evident and I think that would be
[1:30:58] something that will continue to
[1:31:01] fund at that level okay I'm not seeing
[1:31:05] it in the arpa so I don't know what I'm
[1:31:07] missing no it's somebody just said
[1:31:10] 150,000 funded through our in the budget
[1:31:13] into 2025 oh funded I see okay sorry sry
[1:31:16] if we were to up it so whatever number
[1:31:18] we agreed on here tonight no I I get you
[1:31:21] it will be in the budget for 2025 but
[1:31:23] when we do our roll back on the ARA
[1:31:26] allocation we will have to put money
[1:31:29] into that um blank to reappropriate
[1:31:32] money into the youth service line just um one youth in a institution oh
[1:31:40] yeah 400,000 Y what I'm sorry oh yeah yeah yeah no it's valuable use
[1:31:47] that's what we're seeing it's an
[1:31:48] investment in in our city that we all
[1:31:50] going to be proud of
[1:31:54] we just have to find the money I mean if
[1:31:55] we're split and we have 300 300 I don't
[1:31:58] mind go 300 look we we got to move
[1:32:01] forward on this I I am $50,000 or
[1:32:05] $20,000 is nothing in a $116 million
[1:32:09] budget which is have to find the extra
[1:32:12] 150 be my
[1:32:16] point where's your recommendation
[1:32:18] outside ARA do you have an additional
[1:32:22] one well we were told I Miss far last
[1:32:25] evening that there are potential um yeah
[1:32:28] there's some agency that might not
[1:32:30] fulfill their requirement and we might
[1:32:32] have to make amendments to to bring that
[1:32:35] money back into the city when that money
[1:32:37] is back into the city I was very allow
[1:32:40] at that to make sure we keep that money
[1:32:43] inh housee and to reallocate those money
[1:32:46] to City programs and this is one of the
[1:32:49] city program that we need to
[1:32:52] fund how
[1:32:54] we uh anticipate that money which we can
[1:32:58] at this present point I'm in agreement
[1:33:00] with that wasn't the discussion
[1:33:01] yesterday we're only evaluating those
[1:33:03] four projects yes because of the time
[1:33:06] frame yes so it's how do we write that
[1:33:08] in to our working understanding of
[1:33:10] future money line which I am all in
[1:33:13] favorable it's similar it's similar to fees that we're projecting that we're
[1:33:18] going to make x amount next year on
[1:33:20] fees that's projection and this is just
[1:33:22] similar to projection we're saying that
[1:33:24] we're going to spend $300,000 on youth
[1:33:27] service and where we're getting it from
[1:33:29] We're anticipating that the AR they will
[1:33:31] be money that will be free up and we can
[1:33:34] reallocate
[1:33:35] money but not for this budget though we
[1:33:38] have to because that money was we we
[1:33:39] said yesterday we're not doing that for
[1:33:41] this budget so if we get additional
[1:33:43] 50,000 well well it's going to be more
[1:33:46] than 50 the additional whatever
[1:33:47] additional money we need have to take in
[1:33:49] the fund balance because we talk about
[1:33:51] that money being over there and not here
[1:33:54] that's what saying reappropriation so
[1:33:55] we'll have a ticket out there and when
[1:33:57] we bring back the arpo we will have to
[1:33:59] replenish the general fund VI that our
[1:34:03] company in D is that am I saying it I
[1:34:08] mean I guess you could do it that way um
[1:34:12] you consider not increasing this line um
[1:34:16] and then Council recapture the money um
[1:34:19] we do have oper project Cod which are
[1:34:22] not in the general budget
[1:34:24] so we could possibly leave this line to
[1:34:28] 150,000 and then when we do
[1:34:30] recapture we
[1:34:33] do then the council can decide how much
[1:34:37] and um because we do have you know go
[1:34:40] that you don't see here projects
[1:34:46] yes I just wanted to clarify but it
[1:34:48] would be above and beyond the four the
[1:34:50] four projects are already in the budget
[1:34:53] so we have an additional it have to be
[1:34:55] some other project um right yeah okay
[1:34:58] just want to make sure
[1:35:00] clearing us done that we need to address
[1:35:03] next week and I think M clear um October
[1:35:07] 23rd yeah those are the deadline that
[1:35:10] was provided to some of the agency to
[1:35:12] get back okay I'm confident we find the
[1:35:16] money through those
[1:35:18] Pro the what she talked about last night
[1:35:21] was BC and I had like a million dollars
[1:35:24] that they had not I guess I could say
[1:35:26] the name of your that they had not used
[1:35:28] and she was concerned that they wer
[1:35:30] going to be able to and that that money
[1:35:32] would have to come back in house um the
[1:35:36] others uh not so sure what that's going
[1:35:39] to happen but mil is enough to talk
[1:35:40] about
[1:35:42] yeah so let's so shall we move on or so
[1:35:45] could we you a resolution C on so in
[1:35:50] absence of adjusting this budget line
[1:35:53] with monies that we haven't recuperated
[1:35:55] yet could we do a resolution speaking to
[1:35:57] our intent as a council that way when it
[1:35:59] does come it also provides some
[1:36:01] reassurances Council
[1:36:04] table I the process I don't know I don't
[1:36:07] think we can do
[1:36:10] that I don't think we can do
[1:36:12] that because where where where we fing
[1:36:15] it from that we have to
[1:36:20] direct we have to be direct so it's say
[1:36:23] outside verbal commitment that any
[1:36:24] additional money we get back I don't
[1:36:26] know if that's an appropriate compromise
[1:36:28] for Mr fary well I mean my only thing is
[1:36:31] that you know obviously I know it it has
[1:36:32] to come it would have to come from
[1:36:34] somewhere but and I think that if we're
[1:36:36] looking to um the ARA money that has not
[1:36:39] been uh used well the AR money that has
[1:36:43] not been reallocated reallocated yet
[1:36:46] then
[1:36:48] um then I guess we should you know i' be
[1:36:51] looking for us to do better than than
[1:36:53] what we're at now um but what I'll do
[1:36:55] right now is I'll
[1:36:57] U I'll put a pin in that for now and
[1:37:00] then you know uh send you know what my
[1:37:02] recommendations as to where that uh
[1:37:04] money uh could come from in the existing
[1:37:06] budget um and
[1:37:09] then I'll make some more considerations
[1:37:11] around that so we can move on well I
[1:37:15] before we move on I mean are you saying
[1:37:16] that you might look at our expenses in
[1:37:19] the existing budget as opposed to arpa
[1:37:21] to try to fund the rest of the program
[1:37:24] I guess because I I don't I mean I think
[1:37:25] we're really Bare Bones right now I mean
[1:37:27] and I think the ARA
[1:37:29] money there's there's I mean first of
[1:37:31] all Mrs Carver actually mentioned as as
[1:37:35] council president Porterfield I mean
[1:37:37] there's definitely going to be enough
[1:37:40] for an additional um 150 whatever we you
[1:37:43] know um coming out of this I would not
[1:37:46] be in favor of taking it out of our um
[1:37:49] out of expenses the operating budget no we're not take
[1:37:54] no I think I think he was just saying he
[1:37:55] was going to take a look and and see
[1:37:57] where it could come from but that's what
[1:37:59] I'm
[1:38:00] asking absolutely yeah no yeah no I
[1:38:03] don't think it's it's not coming out of
[1:38:05] expense it's coming out of the general U
[1:38:08] Reserve if we are to fund if we are to
[1:38:11] make a recommendation on the fund any
[1:38:13] additional cost we have to find a bucket
[1:38:16] that to pull it from and if we don't
[1:38:18] have a bucket it has to come up from a
[1:38:19] general Reserve so it's not an expense
[1:38:22] we're not reducing any expense we
[1:38:24] increasing the expense and reducing the
[1:38:27] revenue um is that correct reducing
[1:38:31] the fund balance yes and that's going to
[1:38:34] be a big hit this year yeah I we already
[1:38:36] are doing that so I mean I think my
[1:38:38] first choice would be
[1:38:40] arpa um before anything so the
[1:38:43] conversation earlier was that the arpa
[1:38:46] money once we do once we do Rec a cob
[1:38:50] back to replenish that that's what was
[1:38:53] said that's what I'm in favor of oh okay
[1:38:57] take the ARA money back and put it into
[1:38:59] the general reappropriate the money back
[1:39:02] can we do that can we do that I don't
[1:39:04] know if we can use our money well all
[1:39:08] right make a project on its own um it
[1:39:11] would be out of the general fund um I
[1:39:13] don't know if the council wants to do
[1:39:15] that but there are project City projects
[1:39:17] there you know the council have funded
[1:39:21] uh nonprofits that are not F budget I
[1:39:24] don't know if that's something that the
[1:39:25] council's looking at you so it wouldn't
[1:39:28] show in the general f could could we ask
[1:39:32] that you in finance come you know you've
[1:39:35] heard the conversation you see what we
[1:39:37] want to spend what you know can you come
[1:39:39] back to us with what your best
[1:39:41] recommendation would be for the best way
[1:39:43] to do that to increase this line
[1:39:47] General and what would be your
[1:39:48] recommendation in terms of the in out
[1:39:51] yeah where we get the money from
[1:39:56] problem you have to take it from fund
[1:40:00] balance decre expense somewhere else
[1:40:02] within the fund right so we have to take
[1:40:05] from another expense from another line
[1:40:07] I'm not even say a name because then
[1:40:10] like yeah she said
[1:40:11] that but so we have to take an expense
[1:40:13] from another line in order to fund this
[1:40:16] another right chares or some other
[1:40:20] inrease or um take then I don't think
[1:40:23] that we can then we because we're
[1:40:25] already taking money from the fund
[1:40:27] balance that's at a very large amount so
[1:40:29] I would not be comfortable with
[1:40:31] that and so um I like the idea of us and
[1:40:35] I'm I'm certainly committed to it and I
[1:40:37] wouldn't go back on that that we use the
[1:40:39] ARA money that we're going to bring back
[1:40:41] because Miss car says we're going to
[1:40:43] bring some back and as the mayor say we
[1:40:45] don't take it all back we're taking some
[1:40:47] back would be enough to to fund this um
[1:40:52] I just want to caution we did talk about
[1:40:54] this post of planting thing and it was
[1:40:55] definitely about federal funds and it
[1:40:58] speaks specifically to something you've
[1:41:00] already budgeted and then you have other
[1:41:01] money put it back so I think we would
[1:41:04] have to take a look at
[1:41:05] that
[1:41:09] something I'm not asking
[1:41:11] about this particular I'm talking about
[1:41:14] these phones and supp planting not
[1:41:15] Police
[1:41:17] Department yeah go ahead please but I
[1:41:20] would also say the number we put in this
[1:41:23] line is arbitrary because if as you're
[1:41:26] implementing it you recognize the
[1:41:28] tangibles that you and Mr Man are
[1:41:30] highlighting we can just make a budget
[1:41:32] amendment but I think if we use this
[1:41:34] year as a case study I think everyone
[1:41:37] has made abundantly clear we're on we're
[1:41:38] in favor of making this a permanent line
[1:41:40] we're just trying to identify to what
[1:41:42] extent what I think if this meets all
[1:41:44] the objectives that you highlighted and
[1:41:46] I do not doubt in any manner that it
[1:41:47] won't I think we can then look at how do
[1:41:49] we leverage some of our other Public
[1:41:51] Safety Investments to support this
[1:41:53] effort as a way to restructure how do we
[1:41:56] respond to these types of ongoing
[1:41:58] incidents throughout the community so I think if we can just get a number
[1:42:02] here getting into the year we'll be able
[1:42:05] to adjust it as fit we're all in support
[1:42:08] of Mr oh yeah no I know I just well all
[1:42:13] right let me how much we support is is I think that we that that is
[1:42:20] demonstrated by our level of investment
[1:42:23] and I think that I'm not it's so let me
[1:42:25] be clear cuz I don't want anyone to
[1:42:26] misinterpret what I'm saying I don't
[1:42:28] think that anyone
[1:42:30] is against investing in our youth I
[1:42:34] think everyone here is saying that and I
[1:42:36] think that I think that there's a
[1:42:39] justification for I guess the way I
[1:42:41] would frame is I think that there's a
[1:42:42] justification for a larger investment
[1:42:44] than what other council members are
[1:42:46] comfortable with and that's okay because
[1:42:48] that's part of our
[1:42:50] job but I I I
[1:42:53] strongly feel
[1:42:56] that what I would
[1:43:00] reasonable we're going to hear something
[1:43:02] next week about the um
[1:43:05] those other
[1:43:07] agency that is not up to par in terms of
[1:43:10] um documentation in terms of their
[1:43:13] additional funding so why don't we hold
[1:43:16] tight on the 150 with an understanding
[1:43:19] from the seven of us that once the arpa
[1:43:23] is back with the city the ARA funding we
[1:43:27] will do the first re um
[1:43:30] reappropriation for $100,000 from the
[1:43:33] ARA to fund this and to increase it to
[1:43:36] $250,000 then I think and free up the U
[1:43:41] the kind of like the stress right now on
[1:43:44] the general
[1:43:45] Reserve we can say that and all agree to
[1:43:49] it but we don't know ARA money coming
[1:43:52] back back to us we we well we know that
[1:43:57] for a fact how much is coming back you
[1:43:59] know who could get their their ducks in
[1:44:01] a row before whatever I mean why could
[1:44:03] we I don't think we should depend on
[1:44:05] something that we don't so us as a
[1:44:07] council holding strip on 150 okay I'm
[1:44:11] okay with that but what if all of a
[1:44:12] sudden you know next week who's stepping
[1:44:15] up everything and the ARA money's I
[1:44:17] don't want to say gone by any means but
[1:44:21] there's people have other plans I don't
[1:44:23] know it's just something I'm really not
[1:44:26] comfortable uh saying right now if we're
[1:44:29] going to put $100,000 into the line has
[1:44:31] to go into the line yeah I think the
[1:44:33] mayor also made mention that there are
[1:44:34] project that will come in with some
[1:44:37] savings that will also come back into
[1:44:39] the city um for you know to use in other
[1:44:43] um projects or programs so we have to
[1:44:47] move forward at some point in time here
[1:44:49] we can't stuck on this so we uh we find find where refund this and move
[1:44:54] forward or we put it on hold until next
[1:44:57] week when we get another update from
[1:45:00] Miss car of the other agencies and then
[1:45:03] we as a council would have to have to
[1:45:05] meet u a special meeting reappropriate
[1:45:08] make amendments and reapo uh
[1:45:10] reappropriate these money
[1:45:12] then I just need some clarity so first
[1:45:15] of all um in terms of what Miss Carver
[1:45:18] was saying yesterday she was pretty
[1:45:19] confident that that this the money come
[1:45:21] back she specifically called out an
[1:45:23] agency and said not only do they have
[1:45:25] this money which they haven't touched
[1:45:27] there's other money that they haven't
[1:45:28] touched she was 100% confident that that
[1:45:31] there is some money coming back in well
[1:45:33] over the amount the other thing is
[1:45:35] though when we we finished last night we
[1:45:38] did say we left at 250 but now I'm
[1:45:40] hearing we're going to hold at 150 and
[1:45:43] then when the AR real allocation comes
[1:45:45] in to bring the other Mr Farley would
[1:45:48] say 150 in so is that that's what I'm
[1:45:52] recommended at this
[1:45:54] time and I I think that that's that's a
[1:45:56] doable stuff for us because you listen
[1:45:59] to miss car she was very direct in terms
[1:46:03] of money coming back and I think she
[1:46:05] would not do that publicly if she did
[1:46:08] not have concrete
[1:46:10] information and I trust
[1:46:13] her not that I trust her I support that
[1:46:16] I'm not I do not support taking the
[1:46:18] extra $100,000 from another expense line
[1:46:21] um so I do support using the what's
[1:46:24] going to come back from arpa to do this
[1:46:26] and I feel strongly that we're all
[1:46:27] obviously wanting to make this
[1:46:29] investment but I am not in favor of
[1:46:31] touching any expense any expense is here
[1:46:33] for a purpose right and if we were to
[1:46:36] drop an
[1:46:37] expense an expenditure line then we
[1:46:40] we're jeopardizing a service to our
[1:46:43] community if we want to increase it we
[1:46:45] have to find Revenue we either increase
[1:46:48] the revenue line or we take it out from
[1:46:51] the Reserve I I the only two option we
[1:46:54] have two options we have y so my
[1:46:56] recommendation to hold tight on 150 we
[1:46:59] come back as early as we can and make a
[1:47:03] budget re appropriation we have done
[1:47:05] that in the past way before the budget
[1:47:07] into the into the new year I can recall
[1:47:11] we we have done that I think maybe
[1:47:13] another option to just think is maybe
[1:47:15] the council dig deep and see if there's
[1:47:17] local partners that may want to
[1:47:19] donate um to Youth Services uh to the
[1:47:24] that might be a possibility as well I
[1:47:27] think I I agree I think that is a
[1:47:29] possibility but I also think that if we
[1:47:31] do that then it just increases our
[1:47:32] capacity to serve more Youth and I
[1:47:34] wouldn't really be um I for one wouldn't
[1:47:37] be comfortable um frankly I'm not
[1:47:40] comfortable um taking such an important
[1:47:43] thing and leaving it up
[1:47:46] to the generosity of others or because I
[1:47:50] don't know where people you know some
[1:47:53] people you know look at the position
[1:47:55] we're in we want to do we want to fund
[1:47:57] more but
[1:47:58] we're strapped a little bit we're trying
[1:48:01] to figure out how to do that I think
[1:48:02] that that might be the case across our
[1:48:04] community so I I wouldn't feel
[1:48:06] comfortable um solely depending on that
[1:48:09] um how do you feel that Mr ear if you
[1:48:12] don't mind me ask about the the um what
[1:48:16] Mr Mr M saying about doing the now then
[1:48:19] the AR when it comes back to and before
[1:48:21] just be clear that would happen before
[1:48:22] the end of 2024 has to and then we we we
[1:48:27] um appropriate some of those funds to
[1:48:30] then um then fund that to the level
[1:48:33] that's that's you're requesting because
[1:48:35] my concern is and we you know we ask
[1:48:38] Corporation Council I did talk to Mr um
[1:48:41] Sean Ryan about this but but for
[1:48:43] something different that we put the
[1:48:45] money in and then from the fund balance
[1:48:47] and put it in and then take it back out
[1:48:49] and then put this money in and then we
[1:48:51] could be considered supplanting because
[1:48:53] this is federal money and there's a real
[1:48:55] thing about that yeah oh absolutely I
[1:48:56] mean I would anything that we do um you
[1:48:59] know has to be in compliance with the
[1:49:01] parameters you know so so I'm definitely
[1:49:03] not suggesting we do anything that um
[1:49:06] would uh find we could find ourselves
[1:49:08] liable for misappropriation of funds um
[1:49:11] I don't think anyone's saying that but I
[1:49:14] so I I consider um Mr moari scenario um
[1:49:21] right now I'm not comfort able with ag
[1:49:23] green to that right now but uh I'd like
[1:49:27] a little bit more time to uh ponder that
[1:49:29] and see what that could look like I
[1:49:30] think that's that's a fair
[1:49:36] answer okay move on any other question
[1:49:44] this Mr Williams you want to go true um
[1:49:53] no no no no no sorry um I'm reading and
[1:49:56] asking you at the same time we just to
[1:49:58] go back up to yours U your
[1:49:59] recommendation part U development
[1:50:02] Administration and the director of
[1:50:05] development the owning officer homes I
[1:50:08] just wait for if you don't mind
[1:50:12] here miss Patrick oh let's wait on Miss
[1:50:15] Patrick it would be fa
[1:50:23] take a two minute
[1:50:28] recess I think we should recess Finance
[1:50:30] till next
[1:50:31] Tuesday it's been an exhausting
[1:50:36] week I was hoping to get this thing
[1:50:43] [Music]
[1:51:03] no and this money going to get back if
[1:51:08] you
[1:51:09] get I just recall something around the
[1:51:12] conversation that we couldn't we can't
[1:51:14] put it in this
[1:51:17] budget so when we get a call back when
[1:51:20] we get money back we'll have to do
[1:51:25] yes for our programs outside of this
[1:51:27] budget so you have to be a
[1:51:29] reappropriation to the and what does it
[1:51:31] take to do that simple resolution simple
[1:51:34] amending the resolution taking a money
[1:51:36] back from those agency and reappropriate
[1:51:39] to the city and then we'll have to list
[1:51:42] programs the city yes now let me ask you
[1:51:44] a question so with this whole process
[1:51:47] that began our where people put in
[1:51:49] applications now all of a sudden there's
[1:51:51] money back into the city we have to be
[1:51:54] absolutely no go well you say you say no
[1:51:58] but we've already had another aspect we
[1:52:00] having asked for for a baseball
[1:52:03] basketball okay so I I'm just bringing
[1:52:06] that no no no I am going to be straight
[1:52:08] up and I made it very clear in in the
[1:52:10] budget meeting and and beyond that I am
[1:52:13] not supporting any money that is coming
[1:52:15] back to us to go outside of the city let
[1:52:19] it is going to stay I was very clear
[1:52:21] during budget hearing money is going to
[1:52:22] state in house when you say back to the
[1:52:24] city you mean back to the city city of
[1:52:26] conect budget not to agencies or any
[1:52:29] other programs outside of the city I
[1:52:31] would not support that just yeah and on
[1:52:35] red card again not because I hear what
[1:52:37] you're saying though that's a good point
[1:52:39] to bring up but no we we we shouldn't do
[1:52:41] that and I I think we should do that but
[1:52:44] no we
[1:52:46] shouldn't what if just
[1:52:49] hypothetically what if and I don't know
[1:52:52] can we keep talking yeah slide be
[1:52:55] careful what you're saying um but I mean
[1:52:59] hypothetically there might be many more
[1:53:01] projects that the money would come back
[1:53:04] um so
[1:53:06] then could we do okay so we can't like
[1:53:10] okay we should not consider anything
[1:53:12] outside we're done are okay to the
[1:53:15] agency outside and we should keep
[1:53:18] that okay nobody would change my mind on
[1:53:22] that
[1:53:23] I don't care what they what
[1:53:25] they I straight forward that to keep it
[1:53:29] to help us with our projects our call
[1:53:32] and to address anything that is related
[1:53:35] excuse me sorry the youth the youth
[1:53:37] service youth program is City program
[1:53:40] okay
[1:53:53] this little
[1:54:05] warm I'm going to go through L um both
[1:54:09] recommendation um one by one see where
[1:54:12] stands and we wrap up I okay thank
[1:54:20] you okay let's continue I will do um
[1:54:23] item by item and V recommendation that
[1:54:26] is before us and let's move on and then
[1:54:29] we'll go to the next one and then we'll
[1:54:31] um conclude because I don't see that we
[1:54:35] have a conclusion this um this evening
[1:54:38] so let's deal with um the one that we
[1:54:39] receiv received today Department of um
[1:54:41] development Administration director of
[1:54:44] development yesterday there was a
[1:54:47] recommendation to increase
[1:54:50] that to 10%
[1:54:56] Mr Williams my
[1:55:00] recommendation on that sheet okay yes is
[1:55:02] that sheet that I Shar with you
[1:55:05] today what is the council take on this
[1:55:08] can I please have your input go ahead
[1:55:10] please so I just want to take it from
[1:55:11] the larger perspective and um we are
[1:55:17] talking about um that this is going to
[1:55:19] the the amount that where would you say
[1:55:21] we would be getting that amount from the
[1:55:23] 91,000 916 where were they Happ we did
[1:55:25] not identify okay where it's coming from
[1:55:29] so larger perspective and let me also
[1:55:34] keep keep in mind that this amount these
[1:55:36] things already include the 250 they
[1:55:38] don't include 150 so there's that so um
[1:55:41] do we my in order to not spend 91,000 of
[1:55:47] the
[1:55:48] um of the fund balance then I would
[1:55:51] suggest that maybe you can lower some of
[1:55:53] these um simply because it's more going
[1:55:57] to be more than 4% but also it's going
[1:56:00] to it's um not maybe not be quite T the
[1:56:03] level that these are at because within
[1:56:05] this number we haven't
[1:56:06] included the person from the email the
[1:56:09] new one cor so just want to put that out
[1:56:13] there that it could be something you can
[1:56:15] consider so it's not the full what we
[1:56:18] decided last year last point I didn't
[1:56:20] frankly
[1:56:23] that
[1:56:26] 97,000 I'm sorry 97 individual
[1:56:30] 10% at their 2024
[1:56:35] salary be
[1:56:37] 9336 would be the new salary the council
[1:56:40] didn't make that change and a difference
[1:56:42] of
[1:56:44] $593 um that over variance
[1:56:48] 97609 609 yeah 9769
[1:56:53] and and I just also want to point out
[1:56:55] while we're talking about it um when we
[1:56:58] originally got the asks for these
[1:57:00] Physicians the director of development
[1:57:03] the ask was at 15 so we already reduced
[1:57:06] it on the ask so this initial ask for
[1:57:09] the other position the principal planner
[1:57:11] the initial ask was at 10 so we've
[1:57:14] already started to um make it less than
[1:57:18] the asked on all of them every single
[1:57:20] one I think said no two of them for the smaller amounts for the uh
[1:57:26] development Administration and Community
[1:57:28] Development um they were like really
[1:57:31] small amounts and so we didn't lower
[1:57:33] those however Administration for
[1:57:36] Department of development started at 15
[1:57:39] and I don't know what your what the
[1:57:42] original ask was in the city Cork's
[1:57:44] office and the finance Administration
[1:57:46] started at 51 so we've already started
[1:57:48] to reduce those so you should keep that
[1:57:51] in mind
[1:57:53] as we're looking at this so it started
[1:57:55] at 10 so do we keep it at 10 or do we
[1:57:59] reduce the based on what we've done so
[1:58:02] far
[1:58:04] okay for for the sake of time to respect
[1:58:07] everybody's time I'm going to
[1:58:08] ask right before us we have a
[1:58:11] recommendation for
[1:58:14] 10% what what are this for for the 10%
[1:58:18] that is
[1:58:19] 20 that is my direct
[1:58:22] question I to the table I feel like we
[1:58:25] went around the table earlier this
[1:58:26] evening about this um didn't we kind of
[1:58:29] about the we didn't we didn't talk about
[1:58:31] this one oh oh no not about the specific
[1:58:33] I want to be specific I guess I want to
[1:58:35] hear what other people say I guess I was
[1:58:37] talking about trying to stick with the
[1:58:39] 3% so I'd like to hear what other people
[1:58:43] say you say lower it from the 10% to to a a number what is that I mean across
[1:58:50] even with all of these too I'm not you
[1:58:52] know that's what we're talking about
[1:58:53] yeah not
[1:58:56] just what I'm saying is that we should
[1:58:59] try not to go into the fund
[1:59:01] balance and so and again I'm going to
[1:59:05] sayate that the 250 is already in here
[1:59:06] so it doesn't
[1:59:08] include if we if we took out the 150
[1:59:11] that because which is that's what you're
[1:59:12] saying is to move there and then we can
[1:59:14] be there but the 250 is already in
[1:59:18] this you wouldn't be taking anything at
[1:59:22] that addition
[1:59:23] 100,000 you actually ruc balance by
[1:59:27] 3,000 or
[1:59:29] 8,000 that
[1:59:32] individual you
[1:59:35] know but we also have to hear from Mr
[1:59:37] far how he feels about that um what was
[1:59:41] proposed so
[1:59:44] I'm I'm getting the two things kind of
[1:59:46] completed here me too yeah you are too
[1:59:48] yeah okay
[1:59:50] so I you're talking you're talking right
[1:59:54] now about the the youth line I'm talking
[1:59:58] about everything in here all oh okay okay use lines in here yes yes yes I'm talking about everything
[2:00:05] that exists on this piece of
[2:00:07] paper and what so and let me better
[2:00:10] understand what your question is am I am
[2:00:13] I okay with the 250 because it's already
[2:00:17] in here is that what it's time to no I'm
[2:00:19] ask so what was the end of the last
[2:00:21] conversation was that we would leave it
[2:00:24] as is in the budget currently which is
[2:00:26] 150 M if we did that then this would not
[2:00:31] be over at all and it would change the
[2:00:33] conversation you're saying that that if
[2:00:35] we did that if we left it at 150 then
[2:00:37] that other $100,000 would be up for the
[2:00:41] negoti for the negotiation of what we
[2:00:44] will have $3,000 on the right side right be balance we would we wouldn't
[2:00:48] have we so I think we have to make that
[2:00:50] decision before we start deciding
[2:00:52] whether these amounts are are what we
[2:00:55] can do because if we take that out then
[2:00:58] there's no we don't have to go to the
[2:00:59] fund balance actually there's a little
[2:01:01] bit more to the fund
[2:01:03] balance so that to me is part of the
[2:01:05] discussion and the decision that we make
[2:01:08] before we discuss this
[2:01:10] because know Mr Farley understand where
[2:01:12] you're coming from and I you know in the past and historically
[2:01:18] when on this Council here we sometimes
[2:01:21] we agree and and then we back pedal
[2:01:23] certain times and it happened a lot of
[2:01:25] time I've been here as long as Miss
[2:01:27] bfield I know this is my 11 budget I'm
[2:01:30] getting too old for this place here so
[2:01:33] yes I understand where you're coming
[2:01:34] from and um you are skeptical I can see
[2:01:37] that but I'm going to repeat again that
[2:01:42] when the arpo money is back with us we
[2:01:44] can do a budget
[2:01:47] reappropriation and put an additional
[2:01:51] 100,000 against this
[2:01:53] C in the next couple weeks once that is
[2:01:56] finalized for youth for youth services
[2:01:58] for Youth
[2:02:01] Services if we can back that $100,000
[2:02:03] Outback we have $3,000 Plus on the right
[2:02:09] side yes yes you keep the
[2:02:16] Sal separate first we're talking about the youth
[2:02:24] services you're talking overall
[2:02:26] everything yes so and are we using the
[2:02:29] um are we using Mr Williams's
[2:02:32] suggestions of now yes and then we then
[2:02:35] we'll have to get or are we using just
[2:02:37] you know
[2:02:38] what we're using both we're using the
[2:02:41] May's 2025 proposal to align with that
[2:02:45] and also align with the conso um Mr
[2:02:48] Williams um change
[2:02:53] and also the suggestion from the finance
[2:02:56] commissioner the Deputy Commissioner of
[2:03:01] Finance new salary
[2:03:09] in5 Al so we're ask we're kind of asking
[2:03:12] a couple different questions in here
[2:03:13] actually get
[2:03:17] start so that's why I said let's are we
[2:03:20] going to even that 250 one additional
[2:03:23] and that's why that's why I th that all
[2:03:24] back is that very clear with that
[2:03:27] moments ago in terms of how we should
[2:03:29] proceed with
[2:03:31] that so then that changes changes this
[2:03:34] Dynamic so it's we won't be over so that
[2:03:37] for me was one of the questions so that
[2:03:39] answers the question for me
[2:03:52] so what are we going to do about that
[2:03:53] are weing it out right
[2:03:54] now
[2:03:56] 100,000 the 100,000 out of the arpa
[2:03:59] funding that's going to come back to us
[2:04:00] for Youth Services I'm supportive of
[2:04:03] making that
[2:04:05] 250,000 yeah this is totally different
[2:04:07] is that what we're talking about right
[2:04:08] now that's what I'm trying to ask so
[2:04:10] what what I'm talking about is that what
[2:04:13] Mr M said at the end of the last
[2:04:15] conversation in terms of youth programs
[2:04:16] that we would leave it at 150 which is
[2:04:19] currently within the budget that's what
[2:04:21] he said mhm this however reflects the
[2:04:24] additional 100,000 which means it at
[2:04:28] 250 but if we're going with what was
[2:04:31] suggested at the end to use the 150 now
[2:04:34] and then get take some money from when
[2:04:36] it's recouped um from the programs that
[2:04:39] weren't able to use it and then fund it
[2:04:41] then that means that this goes down to
[2:04:43] 150
[2:04:44] here but we still haven't decided where
[2:04:46] we want to actually do these raises
[2:04:48] right I mean no no that's I'm saying we
[2:04:50] didn't touch on that we're just talking
[2:04:51] about yes to the youth services is my
[2:04:53] I'm not sure about these raises I I
[2:04:55] think I made my statement clear earlier
[2:04:57] about the raises all right so that's a
[2:04:59] no for all the raises from
[2:05:02] this let her say it I actually no she
[2:05:05] said that she said
[2:05:07] that just let's speak for each other
[2:05:10] please yeah um well I'd like to hear
[2:05:13] what other people say before I make a
[2:05:15] final car on that I mean the 25 Council
[2:05:19] changes
[2:05:22] what well I'm looking at the column that
[2:05:24] says counil
[2:05:34] changes how how do other people feel
[2:05:36] about
[2:05:37] these salary
[2:05:40] increases I definitely think there need
[2:05:41] to be increases that's not a question so
[2:05:45] I can answer that and I don't mean just
[2:05:47] for one position
[2:06:00] and I'll State again that this is
[2:06:02] already reduction from what was asked
[2:06:04] was and if we're adding the
[2:06:07] additional ask that we got the email for
[2:06:10] and that was at 10% then in my mind that
[2:06:13] means that we also um reduced that for
[2:06:15] the original ask as well that's my
[2:06:18] opinion
[2:06:27] so I will be the first person at this
[2:06:29] point to recommend solid numbers I'm
[2:06:31] recommending we return the youth program
[2:06:34] line to 150 which will balance all of
[2:06:38] the recommendations I previously
[2:06:40] highlighted plus the additional person
[2:06:42] that presented uh today with the cost
[2:06:46] savings to the fund balance that is my
[2:06:49] recommendation and I would say if no one
[2:06:51] else is prepared to respond in a similar
[2:06:53] manner then I'm going to ask for a
[2:06:55] recess because at that point we are just
[2:06:56] going around in circles about wouldes
[2:06:58] and could have and Sh if no one is going
[2:07:01] to just put out a number and I mean that
[2:07:03] as respectfully as
[2:07:05] possible I think I put out my number and
[2:07:07] just we need to reduce the other person
[2:07:09] so I'm good with this and we should just
[2:07:11] reduce the additional one we got because
[2:07:13] going by what we did before we reduce
[2:07:15] everybody from 15 to 10 so if the ask is
[2:07:18] 10 then we should look at the number to
[2:07:20] reduce and uncomfortable with everything
[2:07:22] else on here so so so you're good with
[2:07:25] the console 20 2025 percentage change
[2:07:29] except for the youth
[2:07:32] programs I was the I'm I'm trying to get
[2:07:37] the to move on from here yes yes except
[2:07:40] for the adding in the planner comes to
[2:07:43] 97609 is what I'm
[2:07:45] hearing 9
[2:07:48] 97609 is what I think that's the
[2:07:52] variance yeah an additional but if you
[2:07:55] remove the the youth program back to 150
[2:07:59] then that will be on the right side of
[2:08:03] $33,000 plus not negative go ahead yes
[2:08:07] and as I stated earlier I just I just
[2:08:09] think it's sending a wrong message to to
[2:08:12] a lot of different people we're facing a
[2:08:14] huge deficit this year moving forward
[2:08:16] next year um and at this point I I I
[2:08:20] don't think I I I'm not I'm not in favor
[2:08:22] of considering any of these
[2:08:25] raises none none of them not
[2:08:29] here no raisers beyond
[2:08:32] that hold on I don't I don't understand
[2:08:36] what why you doing that I'm just trying
[2:08:38] to get some clarification I understand
[2:08:40] what that is so I'm
[2:08:42] trying yeah I just I just hear people
[2:08:45] saying different things so when I'm
[2:08:46] saying I stated it earlier I'm not in
[2:08:49] favor not not with the the deficit
[2:08:52] not not in favor does not reflect the
[2:08:53] number that and that's what we need to
[2:08:55] know numbers in order to hold on a
[2:08:56] second let me finish what I'm saying
[2:08:57] please not in favor doesn't give us a
[2:08:59] number we need numbers in order to make
[2:09:00] informed decisions so what I'm asking
[2:09:02] you is that are you saying that you are
[2:09:06] not in favor of any raises or are you in favor of 3% raises across the
[2:09:11] board or what are you in favor of is
[2:09:14] what I'm saying well we're talking about
[2:09:15] this year right now so you're saying
[2:09:16] you're not in favor of this okay so even
[2:09:19] with the youth programs you're not in
[2:09:21] favor any of that well the the youth
[2:09:23] program we all discussed we're in favor
[2:09:25] of increasing the youth I I don't like
[2:09:28] depending on AR money especially it's a
[2:09:30] blue line now I want to know what it's
[2:09:32] going to be in
[2:09:34] 2026 I want it on the line and I'm in
[2:09:37] favor of increasing it on the line yes
[2:09:40] Youth Services yes yep that's what so
[2:09:43] that's but not these additional physici
[2:09:45] races okay I would support
[2:09:49] that yes to the youth and no to these
[2:09:52] other we have
[2:09:53] to just keeping it at the 3% for the
[2:09:58] others saying keep it at 3% for everyone
[2:10:01] or are you saying 3% and then but the
[2:10:04] but certain positions were going to go I
[2:10:07] guess I'm going to have to um compromise
[2:10:09] and I I was interested in the uh Deputy
[2:10:13] Finance but um I I'm happy to compromise
[2:10:16] if I need to so you're so so you're
[2:10:19] saying 3% across the Bo for department
[2:10:22] heads the way that the way that it has
[2:10:23] been yeah these well actually these are already in
[2:10:30] the budget the one that we were handed
[2:10:33] originally is already in the budget I
[2:10:35] believe right the First Column the
[2:10:38] column where says 3% that's in the
[2:10:40] budget oh gotcha right in the proposed
[2:10:43] budget yes in right gotcha gotcha except for the deputy Finance
[2:10:50] right now I get that so then can we look
[2:10:53] at what the numbers would be if we if
[2:10:55] everyone got what we should look at we
[2:10:57] got that so we have that before us
[2:11:00] there's a sheep
[2:11:03] here this she here
[2:11:15] yes I mean some of these are very very
[2:11:17] minor
[2:11:23] you know what I mean you look at the
[2:11:25] difference column some of them are very
[2:11:28] minor so I'd be happy to think about
[2:11:32] those
[2:11:33] too I got to hear from other
[2:11:35] people listen you're telling me so at
[2:11:39] least yeah I'm
[2:11:41] J this is um this piece that we got um
[2:11:45] we didn't get it we got it yes everybody
[2:11:47] should have a copy got two copies one
[2:11:50] with name I ask you not to mention names
[2:11:53] just mention the position this
[2:11:57] is yes looking at one without the
[2:12:01] names I mean I I have to agree with m p
[2:12:04] there are some there are some of here
[2:12:07] $179
[2:12:09] 32
[2:12:11] 67 those will not make an impact on
[2:12:15] this and we can we can compromise and
[2:12:20] you make a recommendation to the finance
[2:12:23] make a recommendation to the media but
[2:12:26] um you know IAS but you know let's let's
[2:12:30] compromise I mean in terms of the raises
[2:12:33] my position on the recommendation from
[2:12:35] Mr Mr Will Williams I mean if I have to
[2:12:39] compromise I I you know I will suggest
[2:12:44] 5% leave the second and third as is get
[2:12:49] a small adjustment
[2:12:52] um leave the the second to last one as
[2:12:56] is as recommended by the finance
[2:12:58] commission to bring that up to par
[2:13:02] 100,000 and the youth service let's hold
[2:13:04] that at 150 and we will have that
[2:13:07] Amendment budget amendment before the
[2:13:10] year out to bring that in
[2:13:12] line with a number that we all can
[2:13:15] agreed on and that will be funded by the
[2:13:19] arpa allocation at that point in time we
[2:13:21] take the money back from those
[2:13:24] agencies I don't know bet I can do at
[2:13:26] this point in time can that I mean that
[2:13:30] that's a big compromise there I don't
[2:13:32] think it's a lot of money it's minor
[2:13:34] because it's adjusting for the 15% it's
[2:13:36] 10% recommendation we split it in half
[2:13:40] first line leave the second and third
[2:13:42] line as is fourth line
[2:13:45] 5% um
[2:13:48] commissioner I'm sticking with Mr Mr
[2:13:50] Ferrari Rec Commendation on that line
[2:13:53] let's hold tight on the other one and
[2:13:54] that's it and sorry the um principal
[2:13:58] plan also 5% on top of the mayor's
[2:14:02] recommendation so let's just be clear
[2:14:04] and make sure we we do the math on the
[2:14:06] principal planner and direct of
[2:14:08] development that that in terms of and
[2:14:13] the um amount that's going to be and um
[2:14:15] and frankly my recommendation would have
[2:14:17] been higher I was I was going more
[2:14:19] towards 8% but no that's that's my
[2:14:22] recommendation that's yours so I I am I
[2:14:25] throw that out
[2:14:26] there and that that's my compromise I
[2:14:30] think you know for the sake of moving
[2:14:33] forward we need that out for us or was
[2:14:35] that what he's saying so I can look at
[2:14:36] it and reference it so I just like to
[2:14:38] see what that would look like on paper
[2:14:40] so I reference it better could we do
[2:14:42] that well we don't have a
[2:14:44] lot percentages I'll do it but everyone
[2:14:47] has different IDE What percentages to be
[2:14:50] it's going to be yeah M okay I don't so
[2:14:53] I was hearing some level of agreeance
[2:14:56] from um council members so I was just
[2:14:59] trying to see if
[2:15:00] that's a starting point at least but
[2:15:04] it's fine if not then okay we have to go
[2:15:08] one line by line
[2:15:18] I just for the sake of PL this is what
[2:15:21] my my suggestion
[2:15:23] [Music]
[2:15:24] is 5% on those lines that I highlighted
[2:15:28] onto the
[2:15:29] right no just pass it's fine and you
[2:15:33] know if you have any suggestion you know
[2:15:36] say out
[2:15:38] let's let's discuss it and let's move
[2:15:40] for if you can't have an agreement let's
[2:15:42] move to the next item we're not we're
[2:15:45] not going to
[2:16:01] can I take that thank
[2:16:05] you it's so confusing about this
[2:16:18] paper excuse me
[2:16:59] well based on these recommendations then
[2:17:01] we
[2:17:02] have one position getting a 25%
[2:17:07] increase and other positions
[2:17:10] getting 5%
[2:17:12] increase but that's the fact that's
[2:17:14] recommendation to finance sh sure sure
[2:17:18] no with his recommendation to bring
[2:17:22] so um I just like to offer that so my
[2:17:25] recommendation is more like eight and because I know that five is is the
[2:17:29] recommendation on the table five is half
[2:17:31] of the already lower so I was starting
[2:17:33] at what they ask was and taking that in
[2:17:36] half and that becomes 7.5 or8 as opposed
[2:17:40] to taking we we already reduced and
[2:17:42] dividing that in half so that's how I
[2:17:43] came up with the number eight
[2:17:54] John um these percentages that you've
[2:17:57] put in this
[2:17:58] column is that is this with that would
[2:18:01] align with um 25 counil changes or not
[2:18:05] it will be the 3% plus the five
[2:18:08] 3%
[2:18:09] [Music]
[2:18:10] gotcha just want to point out to I don't
[2:18:13] know if it makes any difference but you
[2:18:15] have the position Char Who overseas the
[2:18:18] principal planner and so you
[2:18:21] oh suggested it's very close what I'm
[2:18:29] saying yeah the director would have to
[2:18:31] be higher than
[2:18:33] the mle
[2:18:35] plan sorry that's what I'm saying if we
[2:18:37] started at 15 and we went to eight which
[2:18:40] is like half 15 and then we started at
[2:18:42] 10 we went to five for that princial
[2:18:45] planning position that's half of that
[2:18:46] but that still keeps them below I I need
[2:18:49] to see the salaries I that's what you're
[2:18:51] saying too I need to see the act the
[2:18:53] actual
[2:18:55] numbers go from 10% still you're giving
[2:18:59] the same percentage is still going to be
[2:19:01] very close unless you're going to give
[2:19:04] the director 8%
[2:19:13] still Mr will you're staying with your
[2:19:16] recommendation is there any
[2:19:19] adjustment I will just to the 8% if you
[2:19:23] like are you hard at your
[2:19:25] recommendations hard I'm trying to you
[2:19:26] know compromise and I would say I
[2:19:28] compromise Miss pfi's
[2:19:33] recommendation anybody
[2:19:37] else the money
[2:19:43] to you do 8% on all of these no no no
[2:19:48] not all just no I mean these these these
[2:19:50] that are on Mr Williams sheets yes sheet
[2:19:53] the one that currently says 10 would be
[2:19:58] eight well there's two that yeah be
[2:20:05] two and stay with
[2:20:07] 25%
[2:20:15] yes I mean I know this sounds crazy but we're not suggesting 8% for the two
[2:20:21] that are one that's one that's 4.01% and
[2:20:23] one we're only talking about the ones
[2:20:24] that currently at 10 to put them in
[2:20:26] eight the other ones I think the state
[2:20:28] are just because of the the amount the
[2:20:29] variance is so low that we can just you
[2:20:32] know make a recommendation to finance to
[2:20:35] say you know what our recommendation is
[2:20:37] to just Mr Williams has recommendation
[2:20:40] here so have those just added so it be 8
[2:20:45] 4.01 3.26 8 25% and then youth programs
[2:20:50] you've already decided be
[2:20:53] out I would compromise there me
[2:20:59] to I hear you
[2:21:02] yeah I'm find that compromise I we got
[2:21:06] to move somewhere we got to send a
[2:21:07] recommendation over and the May is going
[2:21:09] to come back to us you know he has all
[2:21:11] right to come back to us and you know
[2:21:13] with his um feedback so you're you're
[2:21:16] saying no no yeah I'm not I'm not I
[2:21:18] can't get there I can't quite get there
[2:21:20] with uh recommendation that's on the
[2:21:22] table right now I'm going to go back to
[2:21:24] 3%
[2:21:27] um supp
[2:21:30] Bo which which one you
[2:21:34] um you wanted to stay um at the
[2:21:38] 10% well I guess um
[2:21:42] my my larger issue here is is really the
[2:21:45] uh the youth program increase being out
[2:21:48] and I understand that you know that that
[2:21:50] there talks around you know our
[2:21:52] perunding for that um but I'm just not
[2:21:56] there it is
[2:21:59] okay I think we all want to do the youth
[2:22:02] one you know I mean want to in this
[2:22:06] respectfully you know I I think we all
[2:22:08] do so want that but so M Farley where
[2:22:12] would you recommend we take this 100,000
[2:22:15] from so because you're because we're
[2:22:17] talking
[2:22:18] about two different things here and I
[2:22:21] don't want to frame it as it's like so
[2:22:24] it's it's like we're talking about staff
[2:22:26] increases and we're talking about um
[2:22:30] youth programs and we're saying that
[2:22:32] they will
[2:22:33] essentially essentially close to zero
[2:22:36] each other out right because what you're
[2:22:39] saying is that with the youth program
[2:22:41] out then that leaves the money in the
[2:22:43] exist and what's being proposed here or
[2:22:45] any variation of that to
[2:22:48] fund the positions
[2:22:51] this propos correct including including
[2:22:53] the youth position at including that not
[2:22:56] 100 1250 but including right no yeah no no I understand I understand that
[2:23:02] yeah right so we're talking so again so
[2:23:04] I would say we're talking about kind
[2:23:06] of two different things and you know I I
[2:23:10] would be okay with uh compromising to
[2:23:15] um the the percentages that are on the
[2:23:20] table now now but I would also say that
[2:23:22] we need to leave that $100,000 in there
[2:23:24] for for the youth programs okay my
[2:23:26] position where would you like us to
[2:23:27] suggest to take that all from where are
[2:23:29] you going to get the money for where are
[2:23:30] we taking the money from to increase
[2:23:33] salaries where are we getting that
[2:23:36] from fund balance the fund balance then
[2:23:40] same
[2:23:41] place that's some of them right uh some
[2:23:45] are some areund position some okay well
[2:23:48] it's runed position did you design
[2:23:50] us
[2:23:52] which
[2:23:57] the okay so even well I guess my point
[2:24:00] would be that it' be this you know same
[2:24:03] place where we're finding um where we
[2:24:05] would find money for these increases are
[2:24:08] well that's a good
[2:24:10] point well bear in mind it's 100,000 or
[2:24:13] it says
[2:24:16] 5,000 big difference so the salary ra
[2:24:19] I'm saying
[2:24:21] 5,000 8,000 that we're talking about
[2:24:23] there it's not a big D and versus
[2:24:26] 100,000 from the general um fun just
[2:24:29] want to highlight that so the increase
[2:24:32] might look it's the percentage might
[2:24:35] saying eight when you calculate that to
[2:24:38] add that it's it's not it's not a big
[2:24:40] number of that's true that's true yes
[2:24:43] okay no that's true yeah yeah help help
[2:24:45] me get there so you're saying that
[2:24:46] you're saying
[2:24:48] 8% the wiggle room is easier in terms of
[2:24:51] the offering budget sure I'm just
[2:24:54] talking about the just just the numbers
[2:24:56] John you're saying
[2:24:57] that the proposed
[2:25:00] increases on the
[2:25:03] sheet are is equal up to how much money
[2:25:07] what you're
[2:25:08] saying we'd have to recalculate have to
[2:25:10] recate but even if we just if we just no
[2:25:14] I'm just you can I'm just using
[2:25:16] comparison sure I'm not not that's what
[2:25:18] I'm trying to do so say simply put the
[2:25:21] original ask for the Deputy Commissioner
[2:25:24] finance that reduction alone would cover
[2:25:27] yes all of the
[2:25:29] recommendations plus and not saying
[2:25:32] that's going to be perfectly but to Mr M
[2:25:34] point the amount that we'd have to
[2:25:36] remove from the fund Downs would be
[2:25:39] margin at best
[2:25:43] exactly can I point out one other thing
[2:25:46] go ahead the I don't know if this is
[2:25:49] really C what we wanted we wanted so it
[2:25:52] looks like to me like you've included
[2:25:53] the mayor's 3% and then 10% on top of
[2:26:00] that which is this 10% is what
[2:26:05] the suggested car so that's from the
[2:26:09] adopted 2024 salary so you're you did
[2:26:12] 10% from here
[2:26:15] correct so you did 10% on a 24 correct
[2:26:19] oh
[2:26:21] it's not 10% of the that be 13% yeah
[2:26:25] right right and that is more or
[2:26:30] less all right we got we got to move
[2:26:34] on all right so we have numbers I ask
[2:26:38] that you
[2:26:41] know party is 50 you would like to see
[2:26:46] the 250 and the money coming out of the
[2:26:49] fund balance well I'm and I think five
[2:26:51] of us are saying that they're good with
[2:26:53] um with 8% for the first line 8% for the
[2:26:57] um fourth line the second to last line
[2:27:00] remain the same and the um reduce the
[2:27:04] use service to 150 until we can
[2:27:06] reallocate um our funding in the next
[2:27:09] several of weeks and 5% the plan and 5%
[2:27:13] for the principal plan I'm going to five
[2:27:17] of us I think compromise on that I will
[2:27:19] leave that for um discussion I will ask
[2:27:23] the um Deputy um Finance commissioner to
[2:27:28] work those numbers for us for tonight
[2:27:31] not for tonight no absolutely no I will
[2:27:33] do that to you um if you you have you
[2:27:36] have the notes I
[2:27:38] have Dam well let's finish off this
[2:27:41] because I but those are the numbers I
[2:27:43] have here let's turn to this page here
[2:27:45] because this was a for recommendation
[2:27:47] let's address this and yes if we we can
[2:27:49] wait and and have update that and come
[2:27:52] back to us oh oh we're back here it's
[2:27:56] multiple pages on this this one
[2:28:00] here a previous packet say 2025 Bud
[2:28:04] changes
[2:28:06] yes I'm going to go to each one of them
[2:28:08] and ask what your position is and let's
[2:28:10] move
[2:28:17] forward so
[2:28:21] but we only have to talk about the ones
[2:28:22] that we didn't just talk about on this
[2:28:24] sheet no we don't we don't have no it's
[2:28:26] not on here almost everything no none of
[2:28:27] these are on the she this is
[2:28:32] [Music]
[2:28:43] separate yes I thought we already I
[2:28:46] thought we did this and everybody agreed
[2:28:47] no we' been through but I don't think
[2:28:49] everybody anybody had any agreement to
[2:28:51] move forward it was just a proposal okay
[2:28:54] it wasn't like what we what we're doing
[2:28:55] here right now to compromise them to say
[2:28:58] or we have XYZ and go with it okay so
[2:29:01] let's address the first
[2:29:03] one um 1410 100 City Clark salary that's
[2:29:08] a movement from the 5,000 from the
[2:29:10] register to the city
[2:29:13] clerk and adjusting the S to $3,000 that
[2:29:17] has been there for the S been there for
[2:29:19] several years
[2:29:23] instead of doing what's on this
[2:29:27] sheet city is a different title yeah but
[2:29:30] it's a different she's a register in
[2:29:32] addition that's that's that's that's a
[2:29:34] salary adjustment this is a this is a
[2:29:37] register what we call the money that is
[2:29:39] set aside for the register to move that
[2:29:41] from the STP in it doesn't belong to
[2:29:43] typen it belongs to that salary L separ
[2:29:46] Sal what we're doing is reducing the
[2:29:48] deputy Clerk's salary
[2:29:50] there is Deputy register I'm sorry reg
[2:29:56] is there's not then I'm thinking of the
[2:29:58] Deputy clerk right we Havey clerk okay
[2:30:01] Deputy
[2:30:03] regist I
[2:30:08] see are there any objection to this so
[2:30:12] on this basically that that salary would
[2:30:15] be
[2:30:18] um 8889 2 is that what this comes out to
[2:30:21] [Music]
[2:30:24] 885 bej because if you're open 8% City
[2:30:28] Park be little
[2:30:31] more2 be a small adjustment in
[2:30:34] this so I would stick with what's on the
[2:30:36] sheet not on the sheet for which one
[2:30:41] we're on the first one the city
[2:30:43] clerk I think it's two different
[2:30:47] titles I'm looking at something that
[2:30:49] says cler here but 1410 100 so we have
[2:30:54] to choose between either 88 well it's going to be more than 88892
[2:31:01] right so I don't know what 8% I don't
[2:31:04] know what 8% is
[2:31:06] not being factored in this is just the
[2:31:08] stien this is not a salary
[2:31:11] adjustment this is a stien for part be
[2:31:15] in that role I think I I provide that
[2:31:17] Miss Michael okay
[2:31:22] it's more of an allowance it's an
[2:31:24] allowance to be in that
[2:31:28] capacity I think that was explained in
[2:31:30] the document that was provided to us so
[2:31:33] this should not be considered as a
[2:31:35] salary it's in the salary line but not
[2:31:37] it's
[2:31:38] salary is that correct
[2:31:42] dere it it's it's it's a what I would
[2:31:46] say a an allowance
[2:31:50] yeah
[2:31:52] reg I guess it's a better
[2:31:56] terms additional amount that will be
[2:32:00] reing yes it's away from the salary and
[2:32:04] we already approved that in the other
[2:32:07] yes so we we're saying that we we're
[2:32:10] okay to proceive the
[2:32:12] 8% salary inrease and then there's
[2:32:14] moving this allowance out from stien
[2:32:17] which it didn't belongs to and to
[2:32:19] account for s correctly as
[2:32:25] $3,000 it is not as typend it just makes
[2:32:28] it more
[2:32:29] transparent go ahead please but it's a different line it's still part of
[2:32:33] the salary is that Derek rate what we
[2:32:35] decided on so registar is a different
[2:32:38] title than a
[2:32:39] clerk issue with past years it
[2:32:44] was in the salary it was out of the
[2:32:47] salary I think this year put in the city
[2:32:51] CLK salary
[2:32:53] line from what the commissioner has put
[2:32:58] together but I'm going to ask this
[2:33:00] question yeah why why is it why is the
[2:33:03] movement and not keep it in the same
[2:33:05] line and hire
[2:33:06] someone okay so the movement is because
[2:33:09] since I started in 2019 I trained
[2:33:12] several people in that position and I've
[2:33:16] been carrying the duties myself on it
[2:33:19] has been
[2:33:20] all the register our duties I have not
[2:33:24] been able to fully depend on the w and
[2:33:27] we have a new Deputy
[2:33:29] again and you're not going to so you're
[2:33:32] going to be taking that you're going to
[2:33:34] continue to take that responsibility
[2:33:36] that is
[2:33:40] correct including the weekend calls the
[2:33:44] evening calls
[2:33:46] everything and the weekends on evening
[2:33:48] call what what it has to do with this
[2:33:50] position that has to do with our Funeral
[2:33:53] Directors
[2:33:56] okay and just to be clear you take them
[2:33:59] even if you're not here if I'm across
[2:34:01] the other side of the globe I take those
[2:34:03] CS I those is a must we can
[2:34:08] ask and and I I will say from from that
[2:34:12] position they need to be available 24
[2:34:15] hours a day 365 days a year oh yes okay
[2:34:19] yes I got you so I I just I thought
[2:34:22] there was just a different
[2:34:23] placement instead of putting in the city
[2:34:25] clerks I thought there was going to be a
[2:34:26] seied regist but I I don't have an issue
[2:34:29] yeah so we that and that's why I asked
[2:34:32] for the clarification because this this
[2:34:33] line we have discussed it last year we
[2:34:35] have discussed with the year before and
[2:34:37] it seems to be um every year discussion
[2:34:40] and that's why I ask for documentation
[2:34:42] to be shared to us so they can better
[2:34:44] help
[2:34:46] us I'm going to ask everybody what is
[2:34:48] your position on this for
[2:34:52] it
[2:34:54] yes anybody have any objection on
[2:34:57] this I'm just going to mark all on this
[2:35:00] the first two next one let's move to
[2:35:02] senior Senior Center
[2:35:05] Program tou
[2:35:08] this I do have a question I do have a
[2:35:11] question about this it started out there
[2:35:13] were three how many senior programs are
[2:35:14] there currently there's there's um two
[2:35:17] Monday well there's Monday Tuesday
[2:35:19] Wednesday Thursday and Friday oh but
[2:35:21] this is just locations right there's a
[2:35:25] Friday and Wednesday Mondays Mondays and
[2:35:27] Fridays the middle one didn't um pan out
[2:35:32] we we've been a couple different places
[2:35:33] we had some different attendance issues
[2:35:35] and we've been to different places
[2:35:36] Tuesday and Thursday is
[2:35:38] fine so I guess my question is this if
[2:35:42] we were funding three then then we were
[2:35:44] funding three at $20,000 each yes yeah
[2:35:47] that's now we're funding two well well
[2:35:51] this is also includes um money that we
[2:35:53] need to um put towards the program
[2:35:55] that's on Tuesdays and Thursdays because
[2:35:57] they get some money from
[2:35:59] cdbg um but it doesn't cover the cost of
[2:36:01] their program it does they have it's my
[2:36:04] understanding that they still have money
[2:36:05] um money there left over in that cdbg to
[2:36:08] cover the C Center the high Hall I to
[2:36:10] take a
[2:36:12] look don't
[2:36:15] number please I originally it was 45
[2:36:20] D um for for the entire program right
[2:36:23] for for our program not our program
[2:36:25] senior program um and then I thought
[2:36:29] what we got from Catholic Charities that
[2:36:31] for a budget in fact Miss Patrick had
[2:36:33] asked them to come speak to the council
[2:36:35] but they never did but it's up it's just
[2:36:38] they need the $60,000 just for
[2:36:41] to but I didn't know anything
[2:36:45] about I have to I think that's that's a
[2:36:47] lot of ask for the two program because I
[2:36:49] know over the years not a lot of not a
[2:36:51] lot of uh activities happening I
[2:36:53] actually I would be okay actually with
[2:36:56] um if that has to be reduced 40 on yeah
[2:37:00] well at least
[2:37:01] the kind of re configure with them right
[2:37:05] so but I don't want to hurt the
[2:37:07] Hibernian one because that one's very were we giving some of this to them
[2:37:13] it's highb burning Hall has been funded
[2:37:15] by cdbg for from the beginning they have
[2:37:17] and they always have funding there
[2:37:20] always funding I believe that that it's
[2:37:23] about $112,000 that would need to come
[2:37:25] out of this funding to make them
[2:37:28] hold when last year we try to add
[2:37:32] this for period period um zero for spent
[2:37:39] for a
[2:37:42] 19894 z yes so let
[2:37:45] me this program has not
[2:37:48] been and had been providing a lot of
[2:37:50] service to the seniors for this feeding
[2:37:53] program and if we are to fund it we need
[2:37:56] to step up all of us and to kind of like
[2:37:58] what help do they need to to to improve
[2:38:01] the
[2:38:02] service to make to make people aware
[2:38:04] that the service is there and to utilize
[2:38:06] it right now it's not being utilized to
[2:38:09] the capacity and I have witnessed it so
[2:38:11] I'm talking for a s so I don't have a
[2:38:15] problem funding it continue to fund it
[2:38:16] but how do we improve it it is not we
[2:38:20] need to we need to improve it we need to
[2:38:21] improve attendance the best senior
[2:38:23] service we have right now is h i I agree
[2:38:27] and we all get we all have witness and
[2:38:29] disae absolutely but we wanted in in
[2:38:31] different neighborhoods yes and we
[2:38:33] wanted it five days a week no absolutely
[2:38:36] in all neighborhood but at the same
[2:38:38] point if we don't Market the service
[2:38:40] there and people are not showing up then
[2:38:41] we all are we're
[2:38:44] failing Mr M can I just ask if we
[2:38:48] consider what's on the line right now
[2:38:50] and if there's any expansionary
[2:38:51] conversations we have those at the
[2:38:53] committee it's reduction that would
[2:38:55] happen I just I think because this this
[2:38:58] money was to fund three and we only have
[2:39:00] two so I was thinking right here right
[2:39:02] now just take it
[2:39:04] out well we have we have two from
[2:39:07] Catholic Charities and we have the
[2:39:09] Hibernians which is funded by cdbg it's
[2:39:12] not completely funded by cdbg by the
[2:39:14] time it gets to the end of the year I I spoke with them before we went into
[2:39:19] budget
[2:39:19] process to to find what is our actual EV
[2:39:23] for that specific program out there do
[2:39:25] you any chance for this year um let's
[2:39:29] look at last year I mean this year if
[2:39:32] it's senior funding and they need it
[2:39:34] then keep it
[2:39:36] in I'm okay with keeping it in yeah I I
[2:39:39] don't
[2:39:41] know what the conversation was no if the
[2:39:44] money used to help on the H Buran senior
[2:39:46] I have no way you with that but I'm just
[2:39:48] talking out loud on the last year total
[2:39:50] was
[2:39:53] $1,355 is what we
[2:39:56] spent so we still that's the that would
[2:40:04] be how much
[2:40:07] so all right all right so hold on I
[2:40:10] can't I don't I'm a lot of information
[2:40:12] here and I'm trying to make a decision
[2:40:14] based on something CU I feel like we're
[2:40:16] not being clear so you said that last
[2:40:19] year year $10,000 was spent out of this
[2:40:21] line 10,400 approximately and we
[2:40:24] budgeted and this proposed budget is for
[2:40:27] $60,000 last year it was 60 also hold
[2:40:31] say it again last year last year it was
[2:40:32] 60,000 we budgeted for 60,000 they spent
[2:40:35] 10,000 it's
[2:40:38] odd they they send you invoices right
[2:40:41] and that's how they get reimbursed
[2:40:46] I'm uh one of the reason to um is that
[2:40:51] the poor attendance sometime they are
[2:40:52] two three no we I I met with them we met
[2:40:55] with them relatively recently it's a
[2:40:57] full attendant so we need to all get on
[2:40:59] board and to to get it out there to kind
[2:41:02] of like you know sell it to our seniors
[2:41:04] to get out there and access a service
[2:41:07] similarly to what we're doing for Honan
[2:41:09] they are full capacity I mean capacity
[2:41:12] so I think we need to do all of us need
[2:41:14] to do the same thing for the other two
[2:41:15] centers I I think our the other centers
[2:41:18] the two day are uh course connec
[2:41:21] residents only sometimes it's difficult
[2:41:25] um you know the locations that we we did
[2:41:27] choose we're close to uh senior housing
[2:41:31] um of course the the cafe up there I
[2:41:33] mean which is that fall capacity yeah 45
[2:41:37] people every week with some small chair
[2:41:40] yoga um MVP still does the for free for
[2:41:44] us I think it's important for our then
[2:41:47] there are some members from H who attend
[2:41:49] these they do oh they definitely do they
[2:41:53] so but everything what are we what are
[2:41:55] we to talk about this let's move on from
[2:41:56] the 6,000 45,000 leaving on the L I'm
[2:42:00] good with I mean if we only spent 10 I'm
[2:42:02] good with take mil centers there was
[2:42:04] another Center is not there I'm good
[2:42:06] with moving it down to
[2:42:09] 40
[2:42:11] yeah I mean cath Charles would just have
[2:42:14] to adjust it might mean that they'll cut
[2:42:16] back the other day just have Friday they
[2:42:19] cut back I don't think they have to cut
[2:42:20] back because right well why would they
[2:42:25] cut back if they're only spending 10
[2:42:26] they only spending then they don't have
[2:42:27] to cut back it's just that they have to
[2:42:29] keep promoting the service and if they
[2:42:31] decide to spend more then they come back
[2:42:32] to us it seems like if we if we were to
[2:42:34] fund it at 40 then they could then they
[2:42:36] could increase it uh four times let me
[2:42:39] see you could always leave the $6,000 I
[2:42:43] can say that the attendance are very low
[2:42:45] and that's why the numbers are so low I I know the attendance is low and
[2:42:49] except on Fridays yeah theying Tuesdays
[2:42:52] and Thursdays it's very low so that
[2:42:54] could be the possibility by the $10,000
[2:42:57] there for last year is what well they pay $5 yes well well the
[2:43:04] individuals do the other but it's a
[2:43:07] $15 meal so um that's why I I I think
[2:43:12] they they haven't made sent for all the
[2:43:14] Reimers I mean if last year they spent
[2:43:17] 10,000 10 months
[2:43:20] so it's it's $15 to say for 45 people on
[2:43:23] up is times 52 weeks equals
[2:43:31] no here let's move on what what what
[2:43:34] let's agre on the number here and move
[2:43:41] forward and
[2:43:50] okay willing to purce $4,000 yeah let's
[2:43:53] do yes and that will free back the money
[2:43:56] into the contingency
[2:43:58] line
[2:44:00] $40,000 do do I have all all in
[2:44:02] agreement with
[2:44:03] us okay let's move to um out of grade
[2:44:08] for record
[2:44:09] access what does that
[2:44:12] mean position
[2:44:17] department so can you tell us which um which position that goes with
[2:44:30] [Music]
[2:44:38] access
[2:44:42] minute so John or anybody do you know
[2:44:46] why there's an other grade pay there for
[2:44:47] that one there was a I believe there was
[2:44:50] a r of some sort last year and in seven
[2:44:56] um and they currently receiving gr pay
[2:45:00] um we felt that it was best to keep
[2:45:03] grade pay for 2025 the
[2:45:07] C okay so this is an internal adustment
[2:45:12] I I I'm okay with this I'm okay with
[2:45:14] this too anybody else have objection on
[2:45:17] thisal L and they just took it out of
[2:45:20] judgment and claim it's not affecting
[2:45:22] anything do I have any objection on this
[2:45:25] no okay the next one is um Public Safety
[2:45:28] Foundation we're adding um 20,000 to
[2:45:31] that line and bringing that um in line
[2:45:34] with the um five Department
[2:45:37] $225,000 any objection to
[2:45:40] this I'm going to mark all in favor and
[2:45:44] then we go to Capital um
[2:45:47] fund and those are are some alignments
[2:45:50] with um well this is not ours this is
[2:45:52] alignment with regards to um Mr Wallen
[2:45:55] and
[2:45:56] um daily I'm fine with this and this I'm
[2:46:00] not going to ask because this this is
[2:46:01] from them directly and then there's a
[2:46:03] movement from um water to Su that's not
[2:46:06] our recommendation that's from
[2:46:11] them and then there's an adjustment
[2:46:13] because of the rental zero that line
[2:46:17] out yep
[2:46:19] and that money that 5,000 um offset by
[2:46:22] taking that out of the light power and
[2:46:24] gas so that a zero impact so I can
[2:46:28] safely say that all of us are in
[2:46:29] agreement with these
[2:46:31] changes all right I like that
[2:46:38] so direct
[2:46:42] you would you
[2:46:44] mind take a couple minutes and just
[2:46:47] adjust this
[2:46:50] you want to hold on you want to hold on
[2:46:52] for a few minutes yes yes wait yes and I
[2:46:57] I'll just make one more attempt let see
[2:46:59] where everybody is and you know what I
[2:47:01] just need to know where we stand so that
[2:47:04] way we can go into the weekend and
[2:47:06] knowing that we have some things to to
[2:47:09] work
[2:47:12] on do we have anything else to discuss
[2:47:25] [Music]
[2:47:27] this this document I requested from a
[2:47:29] Corporation Council in ter of better
[2:47:33] understanding how how do we give how can
[2:47:36] we recommend
[2:47:38] um raises to elected
[2:47:41] official so uh it was more of a guidance
[2:47:44] how do
[2:47:47] we how do we approve or consider raises
[2:47:50] to elected it sounds like it looks like
[2:47:52] from a quick reading that we can't yes so I wanted to because I was talking
[2:47:56] to the May in terms of When I Was Here
[2:47:58] we talking about the hearing why he
[2:48:00] didn't submit any recommendation for a
[2:48:03] raise and he was he was referring to the
[2:48:04] city Charter and I wanted U
[2:48:08] Miss barage to can explain us so what
[2:48:12] our disposal in terms of how do we go
[2:48:14] about doing those raises
[2:48:19] last
[2:48:21] Monday okay CU just a quick reading of
[2:48:24] it so this is just for our reading and
[2:48:26] understanding it yeah last year uh we
[2:48:28] did receive um a memo in terms of what
[2:48:31] we
[2:48:32] can do but this is more inde depth to
[2:48:35] kind of outline all the
[2:48:38] sections so that we understand going
[2:48:42] forward that
[2:48:45] um we're not seconding guing our so
[2:48:50] those were
[2:49:00] helpful tired are you tired I am
[2:49:06] [Music]
[2:49:15] yes this is the for uh
[2:49:19] so first meeting we we're having without
[2:49:21] a um Corporation Council
[2:49:25] representation good point
[2:49:28] yeah that should not
[2:49:30] happen if um bar was leaving someone
[2:49:33] else should have stepped in to replace
[2:49:35] that because they are you know I could
[2:49:37] have discussed this Le stuff here that
[2:49:39] we have in our package here it's
[2:49:42] unfortunate
[2:49:57] please
[2:50:01] dinner any
[2:50:05] dinner she's got over
[2:50:12] oh she does my mouth is good don't tell
[2:50:16] me I'm so hungry oh pleas oh no
[2:50:19] makes dinner almost every night that's
[2:50:21] really great last night we just had a sh
[2:50:23] crew
[2:50:24] report everything in the
[2:50:26] refrigerator that's the way to do
[2:50:32] it for
[2:50:35] the well he
[2:50:53] [Music]
[2:50:56] no don't have to ask question
[2:50:58] [Music]
[2:51:00] then she can M while we're talking until
[2:51:03] he comes
[2:51:05] back we can just talk to somebody's
[2:51:07] going to shut up at the podium and say
[2:51:09] I'll be muted because we're doing
[2:51:10] something well you can see they can see
[2:51:12] very clearly that we're in a very
[2:51:13] relaxed stage
[2:51:15] here not discussing anything
[2:51:26] said oh my
[2:51:28] gosh now it's getting warm in here so
[2:51:30] when do we make our final
[2:51:36] decision how
[2:51:38] much how much is it in the vending Mach
[2:51:41] well I'm going to wait I want to eat
[2:51:43] real food just that's can be eating what
[2:51:47] you know look
[2:51:52] be like the other kids if you can't be
[2:51:54] eating you got to share I'm get really
[2:51:57] hot did just get really hot in here oh
[2:51:59] my gosh it's getting very warm in here
[2:52:04] yeah
[2:52:10] that's we're going to do this as fast as
[2:52:12] we can but then so we're not going be a
[2:52:15] to we have to come back so when are we
[2:52:18] going to do that I'm going to recess
[2:52:19] Monday and we'll meet at a committee
[2:52:21] meeting all the finance and then recess
[2:52:23] it ah so we can do it during the 5:30
[2:52:26] after the 5:30
[2:52:29] right I think that would be a long
[2:52:31] meeting it is because there's a big
[2:52:33] agenda there's a lot
[2:52:36] on look um I was hoping that today would
[2:52:40] have been yeah me too I was finger cross
[2:52:45] after we finish this particular
[2:52:47] discussion that we're in right now what do we have to do next on the
[2:52:53] budget no once if we can come up with
[2:52:56] some sort of an agreement of these these
[2:52:59] Hot Topics
[2:53:00] here and if we can see a pad then
[2:53:07] tonight well let's do the number come
[2:53:09] back okay and if we can come with some
[2:53:11] sort of stuff we'll make a
[2:53:13] recommendation if not we'll come back
[2:53:14] Monday and revisit it okay and then make
[2:53:16] a recommendation if not we'll have so
[2:53:18] reset for
[2:53:20] Tuesday keep
[2:53:24] going is there any water in that
[2:53:26] one
[2:53:28] please thank
[2:53:30] you
[2:53:33] thank time get add on
[2:53:37] the 2025 budget same it's part of the
[2:53:41] review review discussion because we had
[2:53:43] the Public Public is
[2:53:46] different for the operating
[2:53:49] yes that's that's it is public hearing
[2:53:51] any
[2:53:52] comments that would be of the whole
[2:53:55] thing
[2:53:56] though I mean if you want it as a
[2:53:58] separate thing can that yes let's let's
[2:54:00] put it 2025 operating uh budget same
[2:54:05] desri okay as a separate item okay at
[2:54:08] that item I will move to recess that
[2:54:10] item to the to the end of okay that's
[2:54:13] what it says it just says review of the
[2:54:16] same title
[2:54:19] but it says review discussion now review
[2:54:22] SL
[2:54:23] discussion there the title
[2:54:32] still get
[2:54:43] slice and you going to add that on the
[2:54:45] agenda for
[2:54:48] yeah not
[2:54:50] finish you add that um discussion to um
[2:54:56] or recommend what did I say just about
[2:54:59] salary um
[2:55:04] analysis form oh the formal resolution
[2:55:06] for mayor to do research analysis on
[2:55:08] employment for department heads yes that
[2:55:11] okay and you said you wanted a separate
[2:55:14] line for discussion separate line that's
[2:55:17] yeah yeah I I think we do that and just
[2:55:19] give the mayor and his HR to go and look
[2:55:22] at that and come back to us and you know
[2:55:24] it is what it is if we have to realign
[2:55:27] them in the year and if we have the
[2:55:29] funding and the May is with it we Reit
[2:55:31] it and we'll realign and bring them up
[2:55:34] to par I mean we could even discuss it
[2:55:36] mid year yes as soon as the report is
[2:55:40] avable as soon as the
[2:55:46] report thank you sir thank
[2:55:51] [Music]
[2:56:09] you I have another
[2:56:14] one this this is even
[2:56:16] better here we can look
[2:56:20] [Music]
[2:56:22] thank
[2:56:29] you we are missing no we're not missing
[2:56:41] sorry one two three four five six
[2:56:54] so that is given us 9,900 with this with
[2:56:56] these changes as
[2:56:59] proposed they giving
[2:57:01] 9,957 back to the general fund but I
[2:57:05] have to um bring something how is that
[2:57:08] how did we give money back if we're
[2:57:10] making raises how are we giving money
[2:57:12] back because there's a drop of $20,000
[2:57:15] on the second last oh so that's where
[2:57:19] the offset
[2:57:21] is
[2:57:24] um it was a good point that was made by
[2:57:28] um by D that the salaries uh in
[2:57:33] development are very very close like a grand apart not even
[2:57:53] yeah the first one and the last
[2:58:00] one so this is the I'm sorry but I was
[2:58:03] going to say they already were so i' say
[2:58:05] Tak in consideration their years of
[2:58:07] service I think
[2:58:10] that okay that is also a a true
[2:58:15] Factor oh well it's actually a little
[2:58:17] bit more with our proposed ch so okay
[2:58:19] yeah I agree with that yes years of
[2:58:22] service yes but it's it's it's a little
[2:58:24] bit more without our changes so
[2:58:26] okay yes it's a position that high but
[2:58:29] then look
[2:58:30] at the service that associated with
[2:58:34] position it's just I had to look for the
[2:58:36] problem because this time it's no no
[2:58:38] heading that's
[2:58:41] okay I just put it right here and put it
[2:58:44] over here sh so I guess my only question
[2:58:47] would be then so then we're making
[2:58:49] calculations not based on the position
[2:58:51] but the person then
[2:58:54] right the
[2:58:56] shop what do mean that's true the
[2:58:59] position and I what I mean is that if
[2:59:02] our justification for that is years of
[2:59:05] service then we're factoring a person
[2:59:07] how long they've been
[2:59:09] here um and and again I would just so
[2:59:14] are we talking about the individual
[2:59:16] person or are we talking about the
[2:59:17] position
[2:59:18] I think we're to me we're talking about
[2:59:21] I think we're talking about the position
[2:59:23] and when you would like any position if
[2:59:26] you've been there longer than me then
[2:59:28] you're going to make more money just by
[2:59:29] the fact that you've been there longer
[2:59:31] and if it's a lower position you might
[2:59:32] be close to me or I might be close to
[2:59:34] your salary but I think you're talking
[2:59:36] about how long about the position
[2:59:38] because a certain position you're going
[2:59:39] to make a certain salary and I also
[2:59:41] think that we're talking about when
[2:59:43] you're in a certain position for a
[2:59:44] certain amount of time there's an
[2:59:45] expectation that your Sal sure I mean
[2:59:50] how I no I I I what I'm saying is I I
[2:59:53] hear the justification for what I'm
[2:59:56] saying is that I'm not as concerned as
[2:59:59] the justification as I am the
[3:00:01] calculation so because if we're
[3:00:03] calculating that well then that's
[3:00:05] something that we need to factor in
[3:00:07] again this is
[3:00:12] where so if this person who's been here
[3:00:15] for as long if they've been here they
[3:00:18] leave we hire someone that walks in new
[3:00:22] then we reduce that is that that's
[3:00:25] saying it would go back to yeah okay so
[3:00:29] and so if we're making that calculation
[3:00:31] then I would just think that we would
[3:00:33] just have to be little mindful of like
[3:00:36] what other calculations are we making or
[3:00:37] what other things are we not
[3:00:39] considering
[3:00:42] like well I think then we have to look
[3:00:45] at like
[3:00:49] so our director of development
[3:00:54] is is
[3:00:57] almost seeing almost like overseeing
[3:00:59] like two two departments
[3:01:02] right no what it's one department but
[3:01:04] it's a lot of um titles that is
[3:01:08] associated PHS are associated with that
[3:01:12] department so it's one department but
[3:01:14] it's what can make that distinction from
[3:01:17] me again Mr
[3:01:18] you're saying it's one department but
[3:01:19] it's a multiple
[3:01:21] position that department but it's
[3:01:23] multiple positions under that director
[3:01:25] that person right as to what other
[3:01:28] departments it's the same thing for
[3:01:30] other department thats you have Parks
[3:01:32] you have facility you have all that
[3:01:35] legal yeah yeah like o just right the
[3:01:40] ogs comprise of a whole bunch
[3:01:43] of enforcement Falls ongs m
[3:01:48] yeah guess slot all right go ahead so
[3:01:54] I maybe
[3:01:57] I um well maybe so the uh did go Deputy
[3:02:02] Commissioner of
[3:02:04] Finance just in the conversations we had
[3:02:07] I I almost thought that that
[3:02:10] position we wanted to fund that line so
[3:02:13] that we could hire someone into that
[3:02:16] position um and the start rate we talked
[3:02:18] about the other night the starting range
[3:02:20] would be like from 94 up to 120
[3:02:22] something anticipating a retirement
[3:02:25] where this Deputy uh position may go
[3:02:29] into the commissioner Finance position
[3:02:32] so we're talking about a position um
[3:02:35] that's may not even be open right now
[3:02:39] that is correct yes right okay so so I I
[3:02:43] I'm going to step back that I would be
[3:02:46] in favor of that that line and that line
[3:02:48] only oh okay that's my my error okay
[3:02:52] that line at what percentage here at the recommendation from U Mr Ferrari for
[3:02:59] that 12803 uh we we were all over the
[3:03:02] map so the third colum is the council
[3:03:04] changes yeah no the 25% is yeah Mr
[3:03:07] Ferrari recommend
[3:03:09] that far to 100,000 and I think
[3:03:12] everybody was in line with his
[3:03:15] recommendation of 100,000
[3:03:19] yes so you are in favor of that and that
[3:03:23] only yeah okay thank
[3:03:28] you I thought that Mr Ferrari
[3:03:30] recommended
[3:03:32] 120,000 oh he recommend I see he
[3:03:34] recommend 100,000 and that's okay yeah
[3:03:37] no I have it Anthony 100,000 of I have
[3:03:40] it I have it I wrote it down even
[3:03:44] yes
[3:03:45] okay I'm going to go around the table
[3:03:47] just because of the sake of time yeah
[3:03:51] um Mr Joe I'm I'm good with this you're
[3:03:54] good with across the board y okay
[3:03:59] um M for field I'm fine with
[3:04:03] this car yes
[3:04:09] the
[3:04:14] yes I'm in favor of this
[3:04:18] respect your
[3:04:19] position I respect everybody having say
[3:04:22] the table and express yourself and it's
[3:04:25] respect it don't feel any way it just to
[3:04:29] be clear we had you said no right I said
[3:04:32] no no yeah Mr Mr said no I wasn't sure
[3:04:35] if you heard it Mr said no right you
[3:04:39] says no I thought you said no I thought
[3:04:41] you said yes no no no um yes on one no
[3:04:46] on all the others and you saying the
[3:04:48] question was about all everything right
[3:04:49] yes okay okay yeah so you're saying no
[3:04:52] across the board yeah I'm saying no yeah
[3:04:56] okay so there's five yes on this to
[3:04:59] compromise on this here okay uh nothing
[3:05:02] wrong with that I appreciate your your honesty on that any other so this
[3:05:09] is all the recommendation that we have
[3:05:10] at this point time the one
[3:05:13] recommendation that I spoke about last
[3:05:15] night is to increase the re line on the
[3:05:18] delinquent violation fee right now it's
[3:05:21] at 60,000 and based on conversation when
[3:05:24] we were doing the fee alignment we talk
[3:05:27] about and assistant chief brought us to
[3:05:30] um in line with that that they did um a
[3:05:32] couple months ago or a couple weeks and
[3:05:34] we brought in $30,000 already so I'm
[3:05:37] thinking 60,000 might be you know too
[3:05:40] conservative so I would like to
[3:05:41] recommend that we look at that um you
[3:05:43] open mind on Monday to may be possible
[3:05:46] look at doubling that because I think
[3:05:48] they have the capacity and the resource
[3:05:51] now with the agency on board to to go
[3:05:55] well beyond
[3:05:56] down i' just like to ask the the chief
[3:05:59] or who m is running it um that $30,000
[3:06:02] thatll came in because I I did mention
[3:06:04] Mr Ferrari last night well we hadn't
[3:06:06] written that that that off a long time
[3:06:08] ago and he said that that he couldn't is
[3:06:10] that correct sorry that writing off the
[3:06:13] debt of the I mean it's been how many
[3:06:16] years we should have written off by now
[3:06:18] oh that's what you're talking about but
[3:06:19] so but my I guess my next question is
[3:06:21] that 30,000 how many is that for the
[3:06:25] past one year two year three year you
[3:06:27] know I because I don't think we're going
[3:06:28] to personally recover 10 12 years oh
[3:06:31] yeah oh no no no we're not that's I'm
[3:06:33] saying I'd like to know what that 30,000
[3:06:36] was from yeah it's it's for um the newer set of violation not the older one
[3:06:41] there if we were to look at the all
[3:06:43] entire it's about $4 million it's
[3:06:45] impossible for us to do that oh yeah
[3:06:47] nobody I I understand that but the the
[3:06:49] money that's coming in is it recent
[3:06:50] money is it 90 days 60 days 90 days it's
[3:06:53] over it's over mon did mention it's over
[3:06:56] 6 months outstanding but it's it's
[3:06:58] what's the recovery rate prior to that
[3:07:02] well that's what they're working now
[3:07:03] with new ageny to aggressively go after
[3:07:06] these um delinquent um fees and to
[3:07:10] understood get paid but I mean they
[3:07:12] started up in the last couple of months
[3:07:14] and they you know give them credit
[3:07:16] they're doing a good job in terms of
[3:07:17] collecting that additional Revenue but I
[3:07:20] still think it's too low I'm not asking
[3:07:22] I think it should double but I'm not
[3:07:24] asking anybody at this point in time I'm
[3:07:26] just throwing that up for Monday table
[3:07:28] that I can ask Brian to come back in be
[3:07:31] good and to give us a little snapshat
[3:07:33] more than that to refresh us but it's
[3:07:36] something that we can
[3:07:38] increase one Revenue at least to help
[3:07:41] offset some of these in and out here
[3:07:43] that is going on here because I would
[3:07:45] like to still see that the road that we
[3:07:48] maintain our contingency at
[3:07:51] 300,000 and that's one of my focuses to
[3:07:54] look at if we can up that line we will
[3:07:56] put that back that Revenue okay into
[3:07:59] contingency because this this adjustment
[3:08:01] that we're making here it's negative so
[3:08:03] it's not it's it's a good impact on the
[3:08:05] general
[3:08:08] fund all right I think we start out we I
[3:08:12] think we ended a little good yes now
[3:08:14] where we want it to be but um we are
[3:08:16] going to
[3:08:18] so there's no other business am I
[3:08:20] missing anything now just so before
[3:08:23] Monday
[3:08:25] um if we if the council
[3:08:28] can try just help me with like kind of
[3:08:32] the rationale as to like what the
[3:08:34] justification is for where we raises
[3:08:38] that we gotten you guys want to just
[3:08:40] like you could shoot an email or
[3:08:41] something like that what was the
[3:08:42] justification yeah cuz yeah so I guess
[3:08:46] I'm I'm a little confused cuz I feel
[3:08:50] like there's we're we're
[3:08:53] making
[3:08:55] considerations based
[3:08:58] on like what one Department had is
[3:09:01] saying but then we're not making
[3:09:05] our our um considerations based on
[3:09:08] another department head and I just want
[3:09:11] to make sure that how we're make how
[3:09:13] we're making our decision so it'll be
[3:09:15] good for me to see it out and then maybe
[3:09:17] it might maybe I can get there maybe I'm just not catching I think it
[3:09:20] was discussed here so I don't not sure
[3:09:22] what why M so let me just recap you want
[3:09:27] me to clarify the question no I got I got a question but
[3:09:32] um these that are on this here
[3:09:37] mhm came before us and asked for
[3:09:40] consideration and some of them we are
[3:09:43] looking at $600 and $179
[3:09:47] those were default sure those two happen
[3:09:50] by default we're not going to even
[3:09:51] discuss that that's not my question the
[3:09:53] other three came before us for
[3:09:56] recommendation and that's so the May
[3:09:58] sent out an email today asking his
[3:10:00] department head if they if they have any
[3:10:03] question about their salary they should
[3:10:05] show up at the meeting and be ready to
[3:10:08] speak and ask the council right for
[3:10:10] recommendation that's salary that's the
[3:10:14] question yeah no I'm trying to say
[3:10:16] you're rational the rational is that
[3:10:19] here we have people coming here and
[3:10:20] making a page yes because they weren't
[3:10:22] satisfied yes and today there was an
[3:10:24] email asking the entire depart all the
[3:10:27] department head to come if they have if
[3:10:29] they're not satisfied to come before
[3:10:32] us right
[3:10:34] that's so again that's so I think he I'm
[3:10:38] not put no no it's fine I welcome it cuz
[3:10:41] my question everything you just said I
[3:10:42] Agreed 100% so we're we're on the same
[3:10:44] page with that yeah what I'm saying is
[3:10:46] that what I'm hearing hearing via the
[3:10:48] conversation around the table is that
[3:10:50] there's things that considering like you
[3:10:52] know years of service in one situation
[3:10:54] I'm like okay I I could see why that
[3:10:56] would make sense um and then that might
[3:10:59] not be the same scenario for other
[3:11:02] people who've came forward so maybe we
[3:11:04] don't have to make that consideration
[3:11:06] cuz it's not there but um there's a
[3:11:09] significant um
[3:11:13] uh difference in some of these
[3:11:16] percentages is here and the largest one
[3:11:19] what I heard was uh Mr Ferrari who's the
[3:11:22] department head he made that
[3:11:24] recommendation and we all woman his
[3:11:26] recommendation so okay I finish that definitely was said I'm not saying
[3:11:31] you said that I'm saying but that say
[3:11:33] original recommendation lowered no I I I
[3:11:35] no I understand what the let's let's not have any debate let's talk I'm
[3:11:40] not debating no just so what so what I'm
[3:11:43] saying I'm just saying based on what I'm
[3:11:45] heard so what I'm saying is that I want to just get the rationale
[3:11:49] behind why we would take the
[3:11:53] recommendation of one department head
[3:11:56] and maybe not another why we would
[3:11:59] consider
[3:12:01] um positions that are
[3:12:09] not are vacant not vacant yet like
[3:12:12] there's other calculations that are
[3:12:14] happening in one consideration so I'm
[3:12:16] just trying to see like what's a
[3:12:18] rationale for know to see if we're doing
[3:12:20] that in a in an equitable Manner and the
[3:12:22] way I would be able to do that is if I
[3:12:23] had those rationals and you know because
[3:12:27] I'm hearing different things at
[3:12:28] different times and points of
[3:12:29] conversation so if I had something to go
[3:12:31] okay this this council member says I
[3:12:34] agree with this because of the
[3:12:36] department head I'm just using that
[3:12:37] because that's the glaring most glaring
[3:12:39] example well you're saying that because
[3:12:41] the department head uh made that
[3:12:45] recommendation well our Department had
[3:12:48] made other another department had made
[3:12:50] other recommendations so I guess that's
[3:12:52] why I'm trying to figure out the ration
[3:12:54] now that's
[3:12:57] all you want individuals to email you
[3:13:00] first I mean just
[3:13:02] what to try to help okay yeah just so I
[3:13:05] could you know cuz
[3:13:06] I the conversation has definitely taken
[3:13:11] on
[3:13:12] different well CU we're all individuals
[3:13:15] right right which is why no no I mean
[3:13:17] even individuals like I'm hearing like
[3:13:19] first it's this and then well then
[3:13:21] you're considering that all valid
[3:13:22] considerations I'm just saying I would
[3:13:24] just like to see make sure that we're
[3:13:25] doing that in an equitable Manner and I
[3:13:27] would and the way you do that is by kind
[3:13:29] of looking at the data points so what
[3:13:31] I'm taking away from this is that we
[3:13:32] need to reach out to miss Cara and Mr
[3:13:34] Ferrari for a rationale as to why no but
[3:13:39] I'm taking no not asking that yeah
[3:13:41] that's but that I mean that would then
[3:13:43] um you'd be able to see why I mean the
[3:13:46] one position
[3:13:47] if you're asking me what my question is
[3:13:48] you got to allow me to tell you cuz cuz
[3:13:50] that's not because what I'm saying it's
[3:13:52] based on the information that we got if
[3:13:54] they've given you a ration
[3:13:56] now that's okay they but what we're
[3:13:58] saying that you're going on the
[3:14:00] recommendation based of the department
[3:14:01] head so what I'm saying to you if we're
[3:14:03] going to go on a recommendation based on
[3:14:05] one department head and not another one
[3:14:06] I'd like to figure out why that is well
[3:14:09] I do want to just say though that if you
[3:14:11] look at the positions that are there
[3:14:13] just those um
[3:14:17] we did go well we didn't go on the
[3:14:20] recommendation of the well we did go on
[3:14:22] the recommendation of the department had
[3:14:23] as a compromise that that department had
[3:14:25] made a compromise but the other person
[3:14:27] on there that's the department head um
[3:14:29] is recommending um that person's own
[3:14:32] salary um because that's not what her
[3:14:36] particular Supervisor was recommending
[3:14:40] actually right sure but but didn't
[3:14:44] another department head recommend their
[3:14:46] own salary too I don't think so I'm
[3:14:50] looking at those
[3:14:52] five maybe um we but that department was
[3:14:56] before us and made that
[3:14:58] recommendation I'm sorry that department
[3:15:00] head was here and made that
[3:15:03] recommendation before
[3:15:06] us that's all I mean sorry department
[3:15:11] head was before us miss Ferrari Miss car
[3:15:15] and they both recommend
[3:15:18] that yes it was discussed
[3:15:25] publicly all
[3:15:27] right if you need any clarification we
[3:15:29] can have more clarification yeah just
[3:15:30] send it to me that's no we'll have Mr
[3:15:33] Ferrari is going to be here
[3:15:37] Monday okay and we'll have him U make
[3:15:41] that Rec Miss car unfortunately will not
[3:15:43] be here I was understanding for for
[3:15:46] clearity I wasn't confused as to what Mr
[3:15:49] Ferrari's recommendation was but my
[3:15:51] confus is as the function of the council
[3:15:53] is I want to trying to better get a
[3:15:55] clear understanding as to how we got to
[3:15:57] the decision because based on what I'm
[3:15:59] hearing at the table how we're getting
[3:16:01] to the decision is what I heard at the
[3:16:04] table was the department head
[3:16:06] recommended that and that's what we went
[3:16:08] with that well I'm saying there was
[3:16:09] another department head who recommended
[3:16:11] something else too so I'm just saying
[3:16:14] let's really be yeah but I think how we
[3:16:15] arve with it Miss Patrick is is so
[3:16:17] correct it was a compromise because I
[3:16:20] going to say it was a compromise I was
[3:16:22] going to that's exactly what I was going
[3:16:23] to say because remember that I started
[3:16:26] out by only wanting to do 3% so um the
[3:16:30] whole thing was a compromise on my in
[3:16:32] terms of my decision making personally
[3:16:35] um I was compromising to meet the will
[3:16:37] of the larger group um because I would
[3:16:39] not have given the higher raises um
[3:16:42] except for that one individual I mean I
[3:16:44] think I made that clear earlier remember
[3:16:46] yeah but
[3:16:47] except for that one not that one
[3:16:48] individual but that one position is what
[3:16:50] you're saying one position right just
[3:16:52] for clear I understand what you're
[3:16:53] saying but um but yeah so I mean I was
[3:16:56] compromising up in my Regard in my case
[3:17:00] and I think that you you said no right
[3:17:02] so you didn't you
[3:17:05] know help me here sure you just want you
[3:17:08] know help him get some that out help him
[3:17:12] because also it was you know it's always
[3:17:14] been about the position not the
[3:17:17] [Music]
[3:17:18] so help him understand why doing what
[3:17:21] you're doing in an email and he SPS a
[3:17:25] little more
[3:17:27] clarification correct correct I I feel
[3:17:30] like I've been what I'm saying is that I
[3:17:32] want to get where others are at and I
[3:17:37] believe people are acting in good faith
[3:17:39] again I know we're tired and we're
[3:17:40] getting frustrated what I'm saying is
[3:17:42] that it would help me understand how you
[3:17:45] got me be able to maybe get there if I
[3:17:47] understood how you got there cuz based
[3:17:49] on what the conversation is at the table
[3:17:51] tonight from what I'm hearing there's
[3:17:54] different factors that are being
[3:17:55] considered that are being considered for
[3:17:57] different positions and I want to make
[3:18:01] sure that if I say oh yeah that's okay
[3:18:04] that makes sense to me I'd like to make
[3:18:06] sure that we're making those decisions
[3:18:07] in an equitable
[3:18:10] manner that's all
[3:18:17] any any other
[3:18:22] discussion okay so we're we're going to
[3:18:25] have to recess until 5:30 I'm putting
[3:18:28] this item on the finance committee we'll
[3:18:30] call the finance committee to order
[3:18:31] recess and then complete the business
[3:18:33] for that day and then we'll um reconvene
[3:18:36] at the end and continue with a budget
[3:18:38] discussion on
[3:18:41] Monday okay any other business for the
[3:18:44] finance committee so now I ask a motion
[3:18:47] to recess until 5:30 next Monday sove
[3:18:51] all in favor I thank you so much have
[3:18:55] weekend questions as usual there is
[3:18:58] standing there he's not going
[3:19:02] home yes that's what
[3:19:15] saying
[3:19:45] e e
[3:30:41] [Music]