[0:02] and I just
[0:04] left Friday
[0:17] [Music]
[0:38] yes so to conclude with the um
[0:40] discussion with the youth
[0:42] program and also the um the revenue line
[0:46] of the delinquent violation fee in terms
[0:49] of increasing the
[0:52] revenue when we left off uh last Friday
[0:57] u in terms of um
[1:02] there are two two um two
[1:04] recommendations so you should have on um
[1:08] one was updated um late Friday by dere
[1:12] you should have that
[1:14] um that
[1:16] version and this version
[1:19] here showing the um adjustment to
[1:25] um salary line
[1:30] um you not
[1:35] have Sam can we make
[1:47] cop that one this copy here should have
[1:49] six
[1:53] items and then this one here is the
[1:55] course recommendation that we went
[1:57] through Friday
[1:58] and the entire council is an agreement
[2:01] for this one here this one here we did
[2:04] uh at the recomend uh Chang it to what
[2:07] was
[2:09] recommended and five ccil member are in
[2:13] agreement part as we hold this until we
[2:16] can continue discussion Monday on the
[2:19] you program
[2:21] line and here we are in terms of
[2:24] discussing that discussing the um the
[2:27] revenue on the delinquent um parking
[2:31] violation and then there's one item I
[2:33] want to add in terms of the mayor's um
[2:35] salary
[2:37] increase and to discuss that so we'll go back and the started discussion
[2:43] and not go back in detail but just you
[2:45] know continue we left off in terms of
[2:47] the you service and the the Hot Topic is
[2:50] funding source yeah some of us um is not
[2:54] in agreement in terms of taking that
[2:56] whatever is been recommended out of the
[2:58] general Reserve
[3:00] and we're asking to hold that and wait
[3:03] until the ARA reallocation and to then
[3:07] look at that at that point in
[3:09] time so the recommendation was on the
[3:12] table by majority was to keep it at 150
[3:14] as is and then revisit
[3:18] it so I'm opening for discussion on
[3:21] that okay well being it that was my
[3:24] recommendation Mr chairman so so I would
[3:27] think that so
[3:29] I think that the council is seems to be
[3:34] in agreeance around increasing that on
[3:37] youth budget line uh I guess
[3:40] the topic of the discussion is whether
[3:43] it comes out of the general front we
[3:45] wait until we retrieve some of the arpa
[3:47] money and go that route and
[3:52] I'm
[3:54] reluctantly okay with the latter I guess
[3:58] what I would need from the council from
[4:01] each member of the council would be that
[4:04] we could agree that the first $150
[4:07] $150,000 of ARA funds that that um comes
[4:11] back into the city um we would uh that
[4:14] would be the first use of it um and I
[4:17] guess if I could get that um commitment
[4:19] from Council Members then I would feel
[4:21] more
[4:24] comfortable go ahead please do you mean
[4:26] um after we take care of four items that already in our operating
[4:31] budget because yeah no I appreciate that point of clarity yeah because
[4:36] that's already within our operating
[4:37] budget so so yes I
[4:40] would yes as as we have mentioned
[4:43] majority of us have mentioned on Friday
[4:46] I don't think there's any issue funding
[4:47] this line it's an important line that we
[4:49] need to fund and expand as we go out
[4:52] years to come so I think there across
[4:55] the table Friday was there was an
[4:57] agreement to revisit that
[5:00] once the arle is back with us on use and
[5:04] funds and that should happen in the next
[5:06] couple weeks sure yeah so what I again
[5:09] what I'm saying is just that the first
[5:11] 150 um should be prioritized for this
[5:13] line and if that if I could get the
[5:15] council members to agree to that then I
[5:17] don't see any reason
[5:20] why I couldn't agree with
[5:23] that go ahead please yep
[5:26] I'm go ahead please I I don't have a
[5:29] problem with that I me as I said we all
[5:31] agree that it's I know that you had
[5:32] concerns about now versus that but that
[5:36] when that happens and before the end of
[5:38] the year um I would certainly support
[5:41] that I'm in agreement with
[5:44] it I'm going agreement with it I am I'm
[5:48] on board as I state to Friday I'm on
[5:50] board with it because it's service we
[5:51] need to provide and
[5:53] expand I'm on board for revisiting it
[5:55] and again you know I want to add to it
[5:58] um I can't say that I guarantee when that money comes back to the first
[6:02] $150,000 can it be appropriated to this
[6:05] when maybe we might have an emergency or
[6:06] coming up I'm in favor of putting that
[6:09] money there but I I I don't want to say
[6:11] right now that you know I would
[6:13] guarantee that that would happen on my
[6:24] part yes so we'll we'll revisit that at
[6:27] that point in time so we'll put that on
[6:30] until then funding increase of funding
[6:34] on that line yeah I'm just saying I just
[6:37] I appreciate that Mr actually I do
[6:38] appreciate but you're saying I just
[6:40] don't want it you know I I hope that you
[6:43] know we we just honor our words here
[6:46] that's
[6:51] all so have that Mark as something to to
[6:55] look at when we are addressing the on
[6:59] fun that has going come back to us the
[7:02] other I just remember that you also
[7:04] mentioned um the director of development
[7:08] um there was an agreement across um five
[7:11] of us to increase that to
[7:13] 8% and then some of the discussion that
[7:15] was Central Friday was in terms of the salary for the director of
[7:22] development against the principal
[7:25] planner they seems to be close to each
[7:27] other I think it you were pointing that
[7:30] out so do you want to address that
[7:33] because that was one of thing that you
[7:34] also WR I just remember that
[7:37] as um yeah Mr Williams the first we
[7:40] already clarifi it was 8% or 5% yeah Mr
[7:44] Farley had brought up some point I just
[7:45] want clarification on that so and I'll
[7:49] try to keep this as brief as I possibly
[7:50] can I just think that um but I have to
[7:54] give some context I'm of the thought
[7:56] number one that
[8:00] if we're going to as a counsel and it
[8:02] seems like we're going to um seems like
[8:05] what we're doing is visit you know
[8:07] trying to delve into you know what's
[8:10] appropriate pay for people and what do
[8:12] we if we're going to do it then I think
[8:16] that we need to do it in a more uniform
[8:20] way which seems like we're talking about
[8:22] the market research happening which will
[8:24] assist in that um
[8:27] so but I also just kind of want to say
[8:30] that if we're how we're getting to the
[8:32] decisions that we're getting thus far I
[8:35] don't think that it's been I I don't
[8:38] think that it's really been um
[8:41] consistent and or Equitable however you
[8:45] know with a commitment to revisit that
[8:48] um and you know I could I could I could
[8:51] see myself getting there I think that um
[8:54] the request was for
[8:55] 15% and I think that there was council
[8:58] members were are saying that they were
[9:01] okay with 8% and and then for the
[9:04] principal planner um it was 5% I think
[9:08] just a couple things we just need to
[9:09] keep in mind again is that if we're
[9:11] going to do it I don't even know that's something that we should be
[9:13] touching anyway I think that I I it
[9:16] probably be better if it was just 3%
[9:18] across the board for everyone until we
[9:20] get this uh market research done but
[9:23] being that we
[9:25] um having the conversation I just I
[9:28] think that you know that we should honor
[9:30] at least get closer
[9:32] to uh what the what the request was and
[9:35] I don't know how much of a impact that
[9:37] will be on overall budget seems to be
[9:39] pretty minimum to be at like a a 10% um
[9:43] and I don't know what the original Asos
[9:45] for the a principal planner but I Al I
[9:48] also want to make sure that we that
[9:49] there's
[9:52] some daylight an appropriate amount of a
[9:55] space between their salaries but
[9:57] considering their uh the service here as well here's a
[10:02] service this is why I think it's
[10:04] something that we it's a slippery slope
[10:06] that we're on if we're going to do it
[10:08] but I just want to make sure if we do it with integrity and and
[10:11] Equitable as we can and I don't think
[10:13] that that's happened th far however I'd
[10:14] like to see it get up to 10 and 18 and
[10:16] I'll be
[10:17] good Mr Mo again go ahead please um do
[10:20] we what was the salary that we landed on
[10:23] then for the planning
[10:25] officer she um 89 oh it's on 9 75 yes
[10:30] and the bottom on the
[10:34] top do you have it or you I don't have I
[10:37] must have the wrong one of those so
[10:39] 8975 let's um s do you have a copy there
[10:44] I didn't get a copy of that so I mean I
[10:47] can give you this copy it just doesn't
[10:48] have the columns cross the top you have
[10:50] to line it up yeah that's what
[10:52] I'm that's fine can we make a two copies
[10:57] please and this one has
[11:02] wait a second I do have I'm sorry I
[11:06] it I have sorry I was just using the one
[11:09] that I had
[11:10] my I'm
[11:12] all thank
[11:13] [Music]
[11:15] you so the other thing Mr Harley you
[11:19] know we we recommend that the study be
[11:21] done so I mean we can also wait on that
[11:23] at a point in time to make any move we
[11:26] see thank and then we look at the study
[11:29] and then um you know someone with a
[11:31] recommendation what do we do going
[11:35] forward I understand the mayor in that
[11:39] thought I just think that we can't act
[11:41] as if we're not taking action now so we
[11:44] there is an action that we're taking now
[11:45] and that action um needs to be um fair
[11:49] and Equitable and you know based on what
[11:52] was presented as to the justifications
[11:53] for the other increases in pay that
[11:55] we've seen um that argument can be made
[11:59] um for multiple other people's uh
[12:03] positions and out of those that came
[12:05] forward most certainly those are to be
[12:07] made so I
[12:09] do agree that we should make informed
[12:12] decisions based on the market research
[12:14] that we'll get but if we're going to
[12:17] take an action now then we should be
[12:19] doing our best to make sure that our
[12:21] actions are as um fair and Equitable and
[12:24] consistent um based on the people who've
[12:26] came
[12:27] forward Mr yeah please Mr fr so I
[12:32] understand concerns and um I had similar
[12:34] concerns but when I looked back at what
[12:37] the um adop salary was in 24 for these
[12:41] two positions we're talking about the
[12:43] director of development and the
[12:44] principal plan the amount between those
[12:47] two is just a little bit over
[12:49] $1,000 what we would thought to hear
[12:51] that's increased by like three times
[12:54] that so that that part of it them being
[12:58] Clos we've actually increased the amount
[13:01] between the two so I just want to make
[13:03] sure that that that's clear so that and
[13:06] that honestly I think that it was um I
[13:10] want to say it was no it was actually
[13:11] Derek who kind of brought that to our
[13:13] attention last time it wasn't it would
[13:15] be a concern of mine but initially it
[13:17] wasn't so he brought that um and I so I
[13:19] was like that's something obviously we
[13:20] need to pay attention to but that really
[13:21] only addresses I would say probably the
[13:24] smaller part of kind of
[13:26] the unintentional in equable and Inc
[13:30] consistent
[13:33] practice but I also think that once the
[13:35] study is out it will
[13:38] address these uh these
[13:43] differences I I don't have the numbers
[13:45] in front of me I couldn't find my sheet
[13:46] but the um no no no not that sheet um
[13:49] the uh principal planner when um the the
[13:53] amount of the increase was proposed and
[13:55] they had done some research themselves
[13:57] it was anywhere from some 25,000 to
[14:00] 152,000 so I I mean you know who are we
[14:03] to decide when the study does come in
[14:06] are they worthy of the 100,000 120 152
[14:11] so again again I think it's a slippery
[14:13] kind of slope that that we're on that
[14:15] we're going there and as I stated before
[14:18] nobody references sour levels that are
[14:21] lower than
[14:23] theirs that's I said I don't have that
[14:26] she in front of me it's right here oh
[14:30] was so it was well it was 76,500 to 1527
[14:35] so yeah but then the average is well the
[14:38] average what I'm saying take into
[14:41] account benefit absolutely and general
[14:44] compliance with other aspects of the
[14:49] city that up yeah and then the study
[14:52] comes out before us they will address
[14:54] they will they will point us directly to
[14:56] what the recommendation yeah and and as
[15:00] I mentioned before you know the deficit
[15:01] we're facing increasing taxes I'm not in
[15:03] favor of the the pay increases but
[15:06] that's
[15:08] me well let me be specific on that city
[15:11] has a residency requirement these
[15:14] employees was not in compliance with
[15:16] that it's not in compliance with it now
[15:19] how do you want me to enforce
[15:21] that explain that a little further for
[15:24] he doesn't live in the city it's
[15:25] required to live in the
[15:27] city I wasn't that she that position
[15:31] doesn't live I think more than one
[15:34] individual right I know I've tried to
[15:37] enforce that you know the council in any
[15:38] respects has looked
[15:40] under go ahead please uh is that the
[15:43] only individual that would I'm going to
[15:45] just say it's not the only that's not
[15:48] the only individual that we're
[15:49] considering reasons for who Des reside
[15:50] in the city and we're aware of that and
[15:53] you
[15:54] know however it happen so um I just want
[15:57] to make sure that we considering that that is not the only
[16:01] person that that it applies
[16:03] to and since we on that topic The
[16:05] Residency board um should be you
[16:09] know reactivate that
[16:11] board word that board it's not
[16:14] functioning at this point in time so can
[16:16] we need to get that board up and and
[16:18] running and if it's the challenge has
[16:21] been to find someone who actually
[16:23] because of the what it consists of
[16:25] finding someone who really wants to be a
[16:27] member that's been my challenge me to
[16:30] say that to be on the board so that's
[16:33] been the challenge I think we need to
[16:35] look deeper and just get that board and
[16:38] the appointment is from you and the
[16:42] mayor 60% of the members are appointed
[16:44] by the city council president the mayor
[16:47] The Corporation Council are their
[16:49] designate and then three members
[16:51] appointed by the city council president
[16:54] so we know that one count was council
[16:55] member that um actually who actually
[16:57] brought forth Mr thank you who going to
[17:00] be and the other um would have to come
[17:02] they have to be a member of the city's
[17:04] staff so I think we need to look at it
[17:06] and get the board up and running put it
[17:08] on the agenda and let's discuss it at
[17:10] some point in time try to get the word
[17:12] out here and get
[17:15] members we can address U these concerns
[17:18] so as we're addressing this we're bring
[17:21] this in this discussion so where are we
[17:23] in terms of moving power but any any
[17:25] more adjustments
[17:30] go ahead please so I'm I'm you know
[17:32] based on what was recommended you know
[17:35] I'm not comfortable with
[17:38] um the large very large discrepancy of
[17:42] you
[17:44] know the uh suggested um percentage of
[17:48] raises I'm I mean I'm not there um I'd
[17:51] like to see us move the needle on a
[17:53] little bit I know that being that I
[17:56] committed to
[17:59] do you need some
[18:00] clarity no just not
[18:03] sure sure I was just trying to make sure
[18:06] that
[18:07] anyar so yeah I I think that that's um
[18:11] I'd like to see us get
[18:13] um closer to some s of a consistent
[18:20] um uh increase if were if the increase
[18:23] were based on the information that was
[18:26] shared at this table if there's out
[18:28] other out side factors that wasn't
[18:29] shared in this table then there's
[18:31] clearly no way that I could make a
[18:32] determination based on that but based on
[18:35] what was shared here at this table I'd
[18:36] like to see us be a little more fair and
[18:38] Equitable on what we're doing and you
[18:41] know
[18:42] literally three times percentage raise
[18:46] um for um some people who came forward
[18:49] or and then some people and
[18:53] then onethird of that for others I don't
[18:55] think that's I I haven't seen the
[18:58] justification from that being shared
[19:00] here and I know that there was talks
[19:03] about um an anticipation um of of Mr
[19:08] far's
[19:09] retirement um and I think at that point
[19:13] you know then we can of course we have
[19:15] to I think we have to cross that bridge
[19:17] when we get to it I don't know that we
[19:19] do that now and anticipation for that
[19:22] and I just feel that I'm just not there
[19:27] so I'd like to see us
[19:29] get a little more uh closer to what was
[19:34] originally
[19:37] asked what other council member thinking
[19:39] about this position be specific to the
[19:42] director of development because that's
[19:45] the one we're focusing on oh there that
[19:47] and then there's the principal planner
[19:48] as well but yeah I mean I guess I want
[19:51] to go back to um I think we were having
[19:56] an open discussion the other the other
[19:58] night and I think we were trying to come
[19:59] to some compromises but I do think also
[20:03] um looking at it with the yellow
[20:05] highlight on it um I mean I think we we
[20:08] also could look back to what the mayor's
[20:10] propos was um which might be the
[20:14] more in other words that was consistent
[20:17] except for the one
[20:19] position um so I don't know so the
[20:23] mayor's propos was right here okay so
[20:26] that was the percentage was it's three
[20:29] well uh um there 3% except for that one
[20:33] and what's that one which was what
[20:34] actually I was saying the other evening
[20:37] what you're saying before I decided that
[20:38] I would be have I would consider
[20:40] compromising to these I actually was
[20:43] still sticking with the down okay yeah
[20:46] on that I
[20:48] would I'm I don't even know how
[20:51] that yeah I I I don't I I couldn't get
[20:54] there from 3% for every other position
[20:57] and then 51%
[21:01] I mean that to me that's outrageous
[21:04] actually to
[21:05] me what what um go ahead please sorry I
[21:08] going say the reason for that is because
[21:11] he was only at 80,000 which was well
[21:13] below the position right position was no that I
[21:18] completely that's why it seems like
[21:22] whated that's right we're looking
[21:25] forward get to hire somebody when we
[21:29] that was the case yeah so but he was
[21:32] that position was below well Below based
[21:36] on
[21:37] what was
[21:40] Max
[21:44] okaying because when the mayor did his
[21:47] 3% or 4% the prior year he didn't
[21:50] complain about it that's why was well
[21:53] sure I'm not I'm my argue my argument is
[21:55] not that it's wasn't well below or below
[21:58] or that's not what I'm saying what I'm
[22:00] saying well Below based on what what you
[22:05] deter what uh Deputy Commissioners make
[22:09] or or Deputy controllers make in this
[22:11] area I'm talking about even the small
[22:13] cities that as you see in the paper
[22:15] today the uh controller from the town of
[22:19] this un this unit was hired today at I
[22:22] think 142,000 you know we're talking a
[22:25] place where 12,000 people a budget a
[22:28] budget of less than 20 million you know
[22:31] right you know we're talking 100 you
[22:34] know between the general Capital
[22:36] whatever we're talking over $200 million
[22:38] budget that's
[22:48] B6 so right so I'm again really really
[22:52] simply I'm not saying that it wasn't
[22:54] below I'm saying that if we delve into
[22:57] this then we have to make the same
[22:59] considerations for other um positions so
[23:03] did we look at what
[23:05] the surrounding municipalities do for
[23:07] positions that's comparable um to the
[23:10] other positions CU I did and in fact in Albany there's
[23:17] uh the structure is a little different
[23:19] but it's more
[23:21] of it's almost two
[23:24] positions um for what for what uh what
[23:27] we're talking about here so again I
[23:29] don't think that the position um is I I
[23:33] want us to be able to pay people uh uh
[23:35] and keep people here that's exactly what
[23:37] I'm saying all I'm saying is yes and we
[23:40] should be able we should be doing that
[23:42] for everyone who came forward on that
[23:43] same ruler using that same metric if not
[23:46] then we have things like a 3% for you
[23:48] and 51% for you and that to me is
[23:52] absolutely outrageous I can't
[23:55] even imagine that so that's what I'm
[23:58] saying
[23:59] so now that we moved
[24:01] closer I'd like to see us move closer I think that's the reason why I I I
[24:06] discuss about doing a study to address
[24:09] these um these variances and we're going
[24:11] to get to that and we're going to
[24:12] address it and then come back for
[24:13] discussion at that point in time I think
[24:15] when we discussed on Friday is that
[24:17] majority of the council um you know
[24:19] decide to move forward with a compromise
[24:21] because some were asking 15% some are
[24:24] asking 5% and then they end up uh with
[24:26] to being to being eight one being five
[24:29] and the four and the three with the
[24:31] small
[24:32] am and to leave the the mission at
[24:36] $100,000 recommend because it's market
[24:39] across the we were able to address that
[24:41] when we one of our hearing and we decide
[24:44] to move forward on that I would just ask
[24:46] a broad question are there support to
[24:49] increase the director of development
[24:52] from what was a recommendation from
[24:55] Friday Beyond 8%
[24:59] we we need to move forward with this
[25:01] conversation not prong so I just
[25:03] commented on that statement I originally
[25:05] proposed 10% and 15% and as the
[25:09] conversations continued I think that's
[25:10] when the compromise came I just very
[25:13] plainly want to not undo the work and
[25:15] extensive conversation we had on Friday
[25:17] do I concede to the fact that I accept
[25:20] this is not perfect and this is us being
[25:22] responsive to the individuals that came
[25:24] before us um which I very much stand on
[25:27] is one of our primary principles um
[25:30] however I can accept that in the future
[25:32] a better compromise or better solution
[25:34] for all the city management staff is
[25:37] having this Market valuation and I think
[25:39] based with that understanding in mind I
[25:41] can at least speak for myself having
[25:43] that information it'll be prudent upon
[25:45] myself to act on it and I hope that's
[25:47] where the rest of the council is I know
[25:48] that as we take into consideration like
[25:50] how that impacts our budget line again
[25:53] this is not something you're giving to
[25:55] the city staff as I said before it is
[25:57] what they owed based on their talents
[25:59] and experience and I think it is our
[26:00] responsibility to make sure that that's
[26:02] reflected in their paychecks but doing
[26:05] that uh uh holistically rather than as
[26:08] people come and present themselves I
[26:10] think that's how we fix it so again we
[26:13] talked about this a lot I appreciate
[26:14] everyone's opinions and sentiments but
[26:17] to your point we have to move forward
[26:19] yes go ahead please and I just want to
[26:21] point out that when we're talking about
[26:22] salaries uh there's you know everybody's
[26:25] not equal in terms of because when you
[26:26] look at those salaries there's entry
[26:29] level there's mean there's meeting and
[26:31] then there's experience so when we're
[26:33] talking about that we have to also take
[26:35] those factors into consideration um so
[26:38] having said that I'm I'm comfortable
[26:40] with what we um you know because I took
[26:42] a lot of time to look into this so I'm
[26:44] comfortable uh what we came up with on
[26:47] Friday go ahead please yeah so so again
[26:51] appreciate the work that everyone does
[26:53] for the city um but I thought we were
[26:55] considering the position not the amount
[26:57] of time that was a position that someone
[26:58] was in a position because one of the
[27:00] positions someone's only been in a few
[27:02] months does have experience or a year or
[27:05] something so so again it's a position
[27:07] not
[27:08] the individual or the time that someone
[27:13] has in that position so just I just want
[27:16] to be clear that's not I just said
[27:17] nothing about time I'm talking about
[27:19] experience and I'm not talking about
[27:21] time I never said time so just clear
[27:22] I've never
[27:24] said so if if we are concerned about the
[27:27] impact of the budget and we're saying
[27:28] that we're going to do a map Market uh
[27:31] some market research to inform our
[27:33] decisions wouldn't wouldn't our best
[27:35] action be to give everybody um the same
[27:38] 3% across the board until we get that
[27:40] information and then
[27:45] move can I just get clarification so um
[27:48] you're saying everyone everyone like
[27:50] we're not we're not pulling anyone out
[27:52] of that every single employee gets 3%
[27:54] remember what we're considering here we
[27:56] take off the table not do not
[27:58] that's what I'm saying I'm saying that
[27:59] if we're going to do if we're going to
[28:02] if if if what the feedback I'm hearing
[28:04] is from my council members is hey let's
[28:06] move forward with what we have and then
[28:08] wait for the market um research to be
[28:11] done and I'm saying okay if we're going
[28:13] to wait for the market research to be
[28:15] done then we shouldn't be taking any
[28:16] action that could be um unfair and
[28:18] inequitable until we get set information
[28:21] but if we're but if we're going to take
[28:23] an action and that action is has um some
[28:26] people getting uh three three times
[28:29] matter raay as other people based on
[28:32] only solely based on what was presented
[28:34] here um and what Mr far says around a
[28:36] market then we need to make that same
[28:38] consideration for everyone that came
[28:39] through or we are absolutely being
[28:41] unfair and inequitable and I'm not
[28:44] comfortable with that I would be willing
[28:46] to if we were if if council members were
[28:50] willing to um uh move the needle to we
[28:53] to us get a little bit further in that
[28:55] direction which I think would have
[28:56] pretty minimum um impact uh to things
[28:59] and I I I just in this in
[29:02] the space of of of getting through this
[29:05] and making a very huge compromise I
[29:07] would do that but as it stands right now
[29:09] I can't I can't see myself getting there
[29:11] you guys can do what you want though
[29:12] yeah I think there was a lot of
[29:13] compromise but I didn't have to agree
[29:15] with Mr Williams a lot of compromise
[29:17] there it was not that something we
[29:18] wanted to do and you know we we can't
[29:21] prolong this we we have to come as I
[29:23] stated Friday we have to come to a
[29:24] conclusion at some point in time and the
[29:27] conclusion is this
[29:29] evening I
[29:31] umly say that we discuss this Friday at
[29:34] L 3 hours you just want to revisit that
[29:37] position it doesn't seems that there is
[29:40] going to be any movement here at this
[29:41] point in time so I says you know let's
[29:43] stick with what was recommended Friday
[29:45] and let's move forward and we'll address
[29:47] that when we do the market
[29:49] study and come back to us and we can
[29:51] make an adjustment to any variance up or
[29:54] down
[29:56] that's so
[29:59] see will just stick to what we had in
[30:01] terms of that Friday and I just want to
[30:03] go through this for summary in terms of
[30:05] the first recommendation I think
[30:07] everyone is in agreement with this
[30:09] recommendation only item I I ask for is
[30:12] to uh increase the delinquent um parking
[30:16] um violation to 60,000 80,000 so and
[30:21] then put that money back into
[30:22] contingency line how much I did 60 to
[30:26] 80,000
[30:28] for paring violation and to take that
[30:31] added revenue and place that into
[30:34] contingency L to bring that to Upward of
[30:37] 300,000 I think that's doable because
[30:39] when we were discussing the fee increase
[30:41] they are aggressive approach to to to go
[30:45] after this revenue and I think they're
[30:47] doing a good job they in you know going
[30:50] after working with the agency and
[30:53] they're putting resource behind that so
[30:54] I don't feel that um yes they have 6,000
[30:58] in that line I think we can double
[31:00] almost double that and we'll achieve
[31:02] it I just want to remind everyone that
[31:05] we also agreed that line 189 1989 499a
[31:11] that which is the senior center yes that
[31:13] is that isn't here as far recommendation
[31:15] all right 4, yes okay thank
[31:19] you yeah sorry yeah 40,000 on Friday yes okay um I did ask I thought um to
[31:28] get some totals of how much we've
[31:29] collected so far in the uh
[31:32] parking the last time we with numbers I
[31:35] got from a Brian was like
[31:37] $20,000,000 the first couple weeks when
[31:41] it started but I wonder how much the new
[31:43] what the um what the the date date on it
[31:46] was 30 60 90 days 120 days you know what this company thinks how far they're
[31:52] going to get back and what anticipation
[31:54] might be
[31:55] of you know dat it
[31:58] try to recall I think they were they
[32:00] were going to get six months and older
[32:01] or something like that yes I'm trying to
[32:04] recall the conversation that we had when
[32:06] we yes so it's about that and the reason
[32:09] I'm confident that they they can do more
[32:11] Revenue but they were very conservative
[32:13] because they're rolling it now and they
[32:16] were like okay we never approach this we
[32:18] don't know what we're getting yourself
[32:19] in but the feedback and the the response
[32:22] as being what they were looking for yes
[32:26] and they're but it's it's a lot of work
[32:28] you need to get done abely to to do it
[32:31] and I think that adding that Revenue
[32:33] it's not going anywhere sorry it's
[32:35] adding the revenue and keeping it in
[32:37] contingency line to help with these um
[32:40] fires and unforeseen um additional
[32:42] expense against the
[32:45] city that is my recommendation on that
[32:48] to increase it by um to bring it to
[32:51] 300,000 so that will be $80,000 plus
[32:54] $880,000 right now it's 220,000
[32:57] contingency
[33:01] L parking
[33:04] funds 20,000 that's 240 you're saying
[33:07] right no we're bringing the contingency
[33:09] line to 300,000 back to 300,000 okay and
[33:12] we're adding
[33:13] 80,000 okay so the parking delinquent
[33:16] parking
[33:18] ,000 parking 8 8 Z it's going from 6 are
[33:22] you going to add 80 you're going to go
[33:23] from 60 to 140 yes oh okay I thought
[33:28] joh can you just tell me the line please
[33:30] oh revenue revenue line yeah 20
[33:36] a261 m m like Mar because when the
[33:39] adjustment was done against this here
[33:41] because
[33:43] um Anthony has Anthony took out the
[33:45] money against the police on the fire
[33:47] over time and we were like no not don't
[33:50] do that and then you went and took it
[33:52] out against the contingency but then
[33:55] they there's there is you know room to
[33:58] increase the revenue on one line and and
[34:00] bring it back into the contingency okay
[34:02] so the uh inqu parking now is gone from
[34:05] 60,000 to 140 that's correct and your
[34:09] contingency is going up to
[34:12] 300,000 so he an in and out go ahead Mr
[34:17] I distinctly remember that you wanted to
[34:19] double yeah I was looking at the top one
[34:21] here 240 but then I realized there's
[34:24] another contingency draw down here so
[34:27] the first one was 240,000 balance but
[34:29] then there was another 20,000 that came
[34:32] out to to reduce it by another
[34:35] 20,000 now we're going to put it back to
[34:39] 300,000 and 140,000 140,000
[34:49] yes are there any any other discuss on
[34:52] that any um
[35:01] okay so we did we did I did U do strong
[35:04] on this and everybody is okay and five
[35:07] indiv um council member are okay with
[35:09] this um we'll just go to um before we
[35:12] wrap up we'll go to um when we were
[35:14] discussing the public hearing budget May
[35:18] Mr chairman um last week when I sent the
[35:21] communication around increasing the
[35:23] youth uh budget line I also um requested
[35:27] that we talk about um that we uh fund
[35:30] anti-racism training for city employees
[35:32] that was in that email Friday we
[35:34] neglected to get there so I wanted to
[35:36] make sure that we
[35:38] didn't CL over
[35:42] that you want to fund that for the city
[35:44] employee or for the police department
[35:46] back the bud so but so my thought was
[35:50] that it should be funded for city
[35:52] employees including the police actually
[35:58] go ahead please I think that um what we
[36:00] did I don't know was it two years ago I
[36:02] can't remember but again through our MVP
[36:06] I believe that the HR department was
[36:08] able to bring in some anti-racism
[36:10] training for no cost to all city
[36:12] employees wasn't that remember I think
[36:14] you and I you and I went to that I do
[36:16] remember um so I I guess I would rather
[36:19] see if we could try to do the no cost
[36:22] thing again through HR oh that's what we
[36:24] did right as I I don't know
[36:28] [Music]
[36:33] hold on I can't I'm I'm lost what you
[36:35] say we have other programs that we have
[36:37] through HR department work SP is one
[36:40] of go through and basically
[36:43] take antidiscrimination
[36:46] anti-racism
[36:51] I know so I was saying um I agree we
[36:54] should fund the budget line and if we
[36:56] have someone to come to do anti-racism
[36:58] training for free then let's do that
[37:01] that's of course but in
[37:05] the I don't think that it's something
[37:07] that we can just like hope that we can
[37:09] find for free I think that we have to
[37:11] prioritize that um as a you know
[37:14] institutionally but it was part of the
[37:16] health the health MVP program not
[37:20] MVP
[37:21] Insurance Prov and they provided free of
[37:24] cost so why we can tap into that again
[37:26] and see that that's there because if we
[37:29] were to if we were to put a cost to this
[37:31] what is the
[37:32] cost so I well I think that um it was
[37:36] funded on the police line prior but but
[37:39] I so I would say to at least just um get
[37:42] back get back to where we were um and I
[37:45] think that there's a there's a there
[37:48] might be um some distinctions that have
[37:49] to be made behind discrimination
[37:52] policies and training and anti-racism um
[37:55] training um so they might have to make
[37:57] those distinct those distinctions for
[37:59] the council members um I think that
[38:01] especially uh since um George Floyd's
[38:06] murder and um you know things that we'
[38:09] that we've witnessed we've institutions
[38:11] have start to not honor their commitment
[38:13] to be anti-racist because you know
[38:15] there's no longer the social political
[38:17] Capital associated with and I really
[38:18] want to make sure that the people of the
[38:20] city of concy know that that's not our
[38:21] position so I would say that we should
[38:23] fund that line and indeed if we can find
[38:26] a service to to do for free Let's Do It
[38:29] um did anyone here at the council go to
[38:30] the anti-racism um training that as
[38:33] council members yes um it was through
[38:36] our insurance yes yes company I think it
[38:38] was just council president Porterfield
[38:40] and myself that attended is that right
[38:42] that's correct okay oh cuz I cuz I
[38:45] thought that that training was anti- uh
[38:47] discrimination no this one was
[38:48] anti-racism anti-discrimination is
[38:50] definitely different than anti-racism
[38:52] mhm yeah I think we it was anti-racism
[38:55] training that was taking I don't know
[38:57] that that was the
[38:58] case let me say this I did you worked
[39:02] with Mar book remember we had so many
[39:04] dates I'm not let's just be clear yeah
[39:07] counil I didn't I did not book that
[39:10] training all right let's not talk please
[39:13] I not book that training we were looking
[39:15] for trainers outside of that and we
[39:18] could not get a consensus on Council
[39:20] Members with the date to attend that
[39:22] training that was how that happened and
[39:24] then um I'm assuming that the mayor gave
[39:26] a director to HR to bring somebody in
[39:29] and that is what happen Okay so I did
[39:32] attend the training and um I've attended
[39:36] multiple trainers that met including one
[39:39] by the police department and I have to
[39:41] say uh that one in in my opinion was
[39:44] left
[39:44] wanting I think it needs to be really
[39:47] much more intense it was very limited
[39:49] time that was spent on it so um I don't
[39:52] necessarily recommend I don't n I'm
[39:54] going to take out necessarily I do not
[39:55] recommend that we use that same process
[39:58] I recommend that we use some because the
[40:02] with our insurance companies like they
[40:04] say they bring somebody in who does it
[40:05] all the time that was not my takeaway
[40:07] from that training and so um although I
[40:10] went to a training with the police
[40:12] department once and I was it was much
[40:14] more intense training I thought was
[40:15] great down right down zone five I don't
[40:17] know who that who they brought in to do
[40:19] that but there was a it was very
[40:21] distinct and what they were willing to
[40:24] address and how they were going to
[40:26] address it and it was also much more
[40:28] interactive which to me is a better way
[40:30] to have takeaways from training this
[40:32] training wasn't it was more they asked
[40:33] for interaction but there really wasn't
[40:36] a lot however that one was structured
[40:38] that was very interactive and there was
[40:39] a lot more that people took away and
[40:41] conversations happened amongst people
[40:43] that were the training so the one the
[40:44] police department did was much better I
[40:46] can say that and I'm not talking about
[40:48] this recent one I'm talking about one
[40:49] maybe two years ago own five so uh so uh
[40:54] I I don't I don't remember any other
[40:56] council member going to that one but you
[40:59] may have yeah I came to the police one
[41:01] um so I apologize for that but so if
[41:03] we're going to do it then then we're
[41:05] going to do it and we're going to just
[41:06] not do it so that we check the box say
[41:08] we did do it we should if we're going to
[41:10] we should really invest in it and get an
[41:13] organization or individual or a company
[41:15] or whatever we're doing who really does
[41:18] it on a regular basis and we can really
[41:19] derive something
[41:21] from
[41:23] that's go ahead so if I remember
[41:26] correctly that training that the council
[41:28] president was talking about was actually
[41:30] an implicit bias training was the
[41:31] language that we use um it wasn't an
[41:33] anti-racism training um though they do
[41:36] cover similar topic are there's key
[41:38] distinctions um the same way that we
[41:41] would say like workplace violence is one
[41:43] training but sexual harassment in the
[41:45] workplace is a different training even
[41:46] though the two overlap there there are
[41:48] some key distinctions um and and through
[41:51] those conversations I was strongly
[41:53] suggesting that we look at anti-racism
[41:55] training as a Council body because our
[41:59] biggest you know Duty as a council
[42:01] member is to really is to oversee the
[42:03] allocation of funds and if we're not
[42:05] careful we can start to perpetuate some
[42:08] of those inequities and institutional
[42:10] racism through through our lens even
[42:12] though that's not our intention we all
[42:14] capable of doing that so I think
[42:15] especially um in in light of recent
[42:17] discussions that's something that we
[42:19] should really be looking at and and and
[42:21] doing something and making sure that it
[42:22] is exactly that not something to check a
[42:24] box or something else that will kind of
[42:27] touch on it but doesn't really deal with
[42:29] it and so no to everyone's um
[42:31] clarification we have not have any
[42:33] anti-racism training for sees employees
[42:35] of
[42:36] connected besides the police office
[42:38] there go ahead besides what the police
[42:40] office there for that one okay U so what
[42:43] is your in terms of all the various
[42:45] trainings what is your position on thei
[42:47] training as opposed to anti-racism
[42:51] so um I think that depending on you know
[42:54] we can get I don't want to get too much
[42:56] into this semantics but and so just for
[42:59] now you know for distinction here for
[43:01] people uh Dei training Dei is diversity
[43:05] equity and inclusion okay diversity
[43:07] Equity inclusion diversity is something
[43:09] that exists we all are diversity is not
[43:11] something that we do we just are
[43:12] everyone's diverse in very multiple ways
[43:14] Equity is making sure that we're
[43:15] allocating resources to what people's
[43:17] needs um and inclusion is just that
[43:20] inclusive space um anti-racism training
[43:23] is really looking at the Historical um
[43:26] disp arities that have happened in
[43:28] institutions such as a city hall such
[43:30] you know we're not exempt from that um
[43:33] by any means even through our best
[43:35] efforts myself included we often
[43:36] perpetuate some of those um inequities
[43:38] and racist policies so that's why
[43:41] there's a clear distinction
[43:43] and that's why I would say that we need
[43:45] to go under anti-racism
[43:51] chain if we were toach a dollar amount
[43:54] what are you looking at um I don't what was the police
[43:57] uh what was it funded at it wasn't it's
[44:01] not yeah I think cuz I think they do it
[44:03] like they don't do it annually was the
[44:06] first put the
[44:12] budgeted
[44:13] 23 to pay for it in
[44:17] 24 looking to do it every two
[44:21] years that's what that's what um AC told
[44:25] us during his presentation that they
[44:27] were going to do it next year you
[44:30] know yeah they do they do it every two
[44:32] years which
[44:34] is and that's for the police it's not
[44:38] for so so hold on please let's let's okay I'm sorry you you were
[44:44] speaking Mr no I was just trying to U
[44:46] answer there's nothing on that line so
[44:48] that's I'm we don't have anything in our
[44:50] budget plan to show so we need to attach
[44:53] a number it was what 50,000 50,000 why
[44:56] would I would just that but to the
[44:59] mayor's Point
[45:00] um you know I think the
[45:03] mayor yeah
[45:07] 50,000 that's for 120 individuals maybe
[45:11] 28,800 spent this year L 20,800 corre
[45:17] anti-racism training line okay say
[45:20] 20,000 and that's for the
[45:22] PD
[45:24] 20 so that's just you pay by the person
[45:28] is that what why you're
[45:29] saying line just total I'm assuming it's
[45:32] encumbered from previous year oh
[45:41] okaying in fact don't have the numbers
[45:43] here but it's lying
[45:47] 83120
[45:49] 4
[45:53] 2 yeah we don't have for
[45:58] back
[46:05] 22000 I mean there's you know there an
[46:07] inservice training line I mean maybe that just got charged to a
[46:11] different line I don't know but he said
[46:14] it wasn't going to happen in
[46:16] 2025 he said he did it January
[46:21] 24 go ahead please but I what I hear
[46:23] from Mr Farley saying is that every
[46:26] other year he you feel sufficient well
[46:28] we do so I think like most places
[46:30] there's um annual trainings that happen
[46:33] um and sometimes we uh do I'm just
[46:36] talking about like other institutions
[46:37] that I've been a part of we do like um
[46:40] universal precautions uh workplace
[46:43] violence sexual harassment those
[46:44] trainings happen annually um so I would
[46:47] say the best practice would be to
[46:48] incorporate that training for our all
[46:51] cities employees an annually and I think
[46:54] that to my knowledge that would uh
[46:57] $20,000 would absolutely cover that um I wouldn't even suggest that that that
[47:02] we needed to make uh such an investment
[47:04] I would say we could be really safe
[47:06] about doing that with half
[47:08] that in 2023 was adopted
[47:12] $60,000 see see what I mean like how we
[47:15] went like from like oh this is really
[47:17] important to us and then things cha off
[47:19] and but I will say though to uh to the mayor and and police chief's
[47:25] credit the training we went to was very
[47:27] good I think that the police training
[47:29] has to be a little different cuz it has
[47:30] to be a little more specific um so I
[47:32] think that there is a niche thing there
[47:34] which why needs to happen where there's
[47:36] a more broader training that for all
[47:38] city employees and of course City
[47:39] Council Members all right so if we if we
[47:42] were to attach a number here for 30,000
[47:44] be something 50,000 we need a number so
[47:47] we can move forward and let's let's go
[47:49] around the table and ask if that we have
[47:51] the support for it go ahead please well
[47:53] I was just going to say I mean I think
[47:55] our HR department does does do regular
[47:57] trainings for all the city employees I
[47:59] know they've done sexual harassment we
[48:01] do a lot of cyber security so I think we
[48:04] need to look overall training the
[48:07] training budget I mean it doesn't and I
[48:09] think that M to Mr Farley's Point put
[48:12] some money into the police budget
[48:15] separate maybe but I
[48:17] mean you see what I'm saying like I
[48:19] think we I think you touch a good point
[48:22] because May those training are mandatory
[48:24] that rolls out every year for all
[48:29] especially sexual harassment and workpl
[48:32] violence yes so those those training at
[48:35] there and employee must complete the
[48:38] choice they have they must complete his
[48:40] mandatory
[48:41] SS so let's put a number there let's you
[48:44] know address it and see where we where
[48:47] we are in terms of support and let's
[48:48] move forward I'm fine with putting money
[48:51] into it I would like to put money into
[48:53] it but I just don't know where in the
[48:55] budget it would go It Go HR in training
[48:58] or you see what I'm saying so I don't
[49:01] really need to make that I don't need to
[49:03] be a part of that I mean it's really
[49:05] it's an it's an HR it's an HR kind of
[49:08] thing yes go ahead please so an HR line
[49:14] 1430 406 in service training is that
[49:18] what currently covers it it's
[49:20] $15,000 oh so there is $15,000 there but
[49:24] maybe that's for a auto training yeah
[49:26] that all of the training but but again I
[49:28] think that I'm sure that um you can hear
[49:32] but I mean I know that some of the
[49:34] trainings that they offer through HR are
[49:37] part of what we I think get through
[49:40] either through some insurance I don't I
[49:44] don't let me so maybe they're free no
[49:47] they're not free but you know we're
[49:49] paying for it in another way go ahead
[49:51] and in 2023 our actual expenses on that
[49:54] line was 29,5
[49:57] 76 so I guess we we allocated in 2022 I
[50:02] mean excuse me 2022 was 1,400 in 2023 it
[50:05] would have like double so we'd have to
[50:09] figure out what happened there and then
[50:11] in 2024 our adopted budget was 15,000 at
[50:15] on this line um do you know what our
[50:17] what we paid out so far
[50:19] 1430 406 this is under HR and service
[50:23] train 1430 406
[50:29] of the
[50:30] old the
[50:33] original if there $15,000 currently on
[50:36] that line budgeted 2025 right and
[50:40] nothing was spent in 2024 go ahead
[50:42] please service training is is training
[50:44] for uh the members in the in the staff
[50:49] only yeah okay so nothing's been spent
[50:52] so far on that line so where's the other
[50:54] training coming from
[50:58] go ahead please so it's say compromise
[51:00] because I think part of the response is
[51:02] just because you can do something
[51:03] doesn't mean you are the best person to
[51:05] do that um and I think also we look at
[51:09] like comparative advantages versus
[51:10] absolute advantages so I think if we
[51:12] have this budget line I do agree that HR
[51:15] would be the best entity to capture this
[51:19] uh within City Hall but I think we need
[51:22] to give them the proper tools and
[51:24] resources if we're trying to use aign
[51:26] that hasn't been used previous year so I
[51:29] think as a compromise we could look to
[51:32] send them to a train and trainer type
[51:34] course um or look at segmenting and
[51:38] taking a portion of this money and
[51:39] attributing it to order recommending
[51:42] trying to find an in-house or not an
[51:44] in-house like a training uh entity with
[51:47] a part of that line of
[51:49] $155,000 or two
[51:52] recommendations go ahead please I don't
[51:54] think the is nearly enough to do that if
[51:56] we're going to do that Mr Farley is
[51:58] saying that 15 15,000 is just for the
[52:01] staff and HR and that's
[52:03] it excuse me Mr
[52:17] Ferrari no you know what this was for
[52:19] the 15 for the FL RIS that was for the
[52:22] FL RIS where the groups that we had come
[52:25] here to do the train for us
[52:27] what the companies called f risk they were they were part of the
[52:32] companies that came in and did some of
[52:33] the training for us for all employees
[52:35] you mean for all employees
[52:38] yeah we Haven haven't spent the D yet
[52:41] yes that's because I think it's because
[52:42] of get an annual cost not not even not
[52:45] only that I think the Bill's going to
[52:47] come up but uh the problem is too is we
[52:49] had an influx with Excuse me with the
[52:53] persons in
[52:56] El Mr T I'm just saying I I you know
[53:00] just in the police budget alone and if
[53:03] we want training for everyone and that's
[53:05] 28,000 for staff plus police to say
[53:09] maybe 150 people and how many employees
[53:12] are there so I mean to to to get an
[53:14] appropriate amount on that line it would
[53:16] have to be I would thinking excess of
[53:19] $100,000 just thing so then add a
[53:21] nauseum if you're going to add something
[53:24] to the so if we're going to put number
[53:26] on it which we have to where is that
[53:28] number going to come from and that needs
[53:30] to be the next answer from
[53:39] someone okay so so I I would say that if
[53:42] we funded the line uh previously
[53:47] at 60,000 yeah so then I I I would say
[53:51] that and in in my limited scope I mean I
[53:54] do know a lot about this in different
[53:57] organizations that do it but I will say
[53:58] that's limited um to some degree I would
[54:01] say that I think that we could
[54:02] accomplish that with a budget line of
[54:05] $115,000 I think that you could have two
[54:08] trainings um and yeah just talking
[54:13] racism let him finish please but
[54:16] understand you're saying or 5 well no
[54:18] I'm saying five I'm talking about just
[54:21] anti-racism okay yeah you should be able
[54:23] to add that um for
[54:28] $155,000 I think that you be able to do
[54:30] for the anti-racism training 50,000 yes
[54:32] sir and where would you suest take it
[54:34] out from
[54:36] General you like to increase revenue or
[54:38] take it out to General take it out
[54:40] General funds that's what I would
[54:46] say go ahead please you can also reduce
[54:49] the contingency by 15,000 there you go
[54:56] the mayor had two emergency demo U this
[54:59] week last week into this week 40,000 45
[55:02] 43 45,000 that's 100,000 right there the
[55:05] second CL that he calls us to make sure
[55:07] we have enough money
[55:08] to okay go ahead have a question so with
[55:12] those emergency demos are the insurance
[55:14] company reimbursing us at any level we
[55:17] try and get 100% sometimes we're lucky
[55:21] sometimes we're not uh again the method
[55:25] I use
[55:27] is there all these State rules and stuff
[55:31] it's the fire chief takes control of the
[55:33] scene fire chief takes control of the
[55:36] scene has absolute control any other
[55:38] regulations is put to the side I do not
[55:42] let the fire chief release the scene
[55:44] until the building is demolished and
[55:46] nobody's challenged that they come in
[55:48] and talk about asbest and contamination
[55:51] and other things those things are all
[55:53] good but I'm not going to let the
[55:55] building sit there for years and that's
[55:57] what happens to other
[55:58] communities so that costs more money I
[56:02] have to have firefighters which staff
[56:04] that scene time and a half this last
[56:08] one uh which is still being evaluated we
[56:12] also treated as a potential crime scene
[56:16] so police officers also staff it so that
[56:18] becomes time and a half so you can run
[56:21] up several
[56:23] thousand very easily there and some of
[56:26] those costs we don't get reimbursed for
[56:29] even though we try to
[56:31] get reimbursed well Al I mean if they
[56:35] have insurance on insurance they don't
[56:37] have insurance on the building sometimes
[56:39] they don't have insurance or the
[56:40] building is under insured yes so it's
[56:43] the city is at at risk most all the time
[56:47] somebody go ahead yeah I would just
[56:49] caution us not even though I don't think
[56:50] that's the intention here that I don't
[56:52] we don't want to frame it um for the
[56:54] larger public that it's you know know
[56:57] anti-racism training or uh you know
[57:01] supplying our our contingency fund
[57:03] that's not I don't want to to have I
[57:06] think that there's a false Choice here
[57:07] thank you the contingency appreciate you
[57:10] Mr thank you for that so 15,000 15,000
[57:13] is been recommended by Mr Harley to add
[57:16] to the anti-racism
[57:17] training go ahead i' like to make a
[57:20] point I like to ask a question first of
[57:22] all are you when you say 15,000 is this
[57:24] for the entire city incl police fire and
[57:28] every city employee so no I believe that
[57:31] the police already have um money in
[57:34] their budget to do that they do it every
[57:35] other year they don't they won't do it
[57:39] won't be anything in 25 25 budget doing
[57:43] it 24 we'll do it 25 then in 26 we will
[57:47] and the reality with that is just there
[57:49] are some training that has to occur
[57:52] every year and then there's some that is
[57:54] done on a uh
[57:56] longer time plan and this seems to be
[57:59] one of those that fits in so that we can
[58:01] you know balance the amount of time that
[58:03] we have the amount of service or paying
[58:05] him overtime to do training yeah U Mr
[58:08] Mayor I I again I witnessed the training
[58:10] on the one time and it was a very good
[58:13] Training I you know I definitely could
[58:15] tell that it was vetted what I'm saying
[58:16] is that um their training is specific to the police um and I think so and it
[58:23] does need to be so I'm not saying to
[58:25] really necessarily change anything as
[58:27] far as what they have going on I'm
[58:28] saying that if we put $115,000 in the
[58:31] budget we could offer um I'm sure that
[58:34] we could find a vendor to offer those
[58:36] trainings um maybe two trainings um and
[58:40] or maybe two or three trainings for that
[58:42] number and then obviously police and
[58:44] fire and everyone City polies will be
[58:46] welcome to attend uh set trainings but I
[58:48] think that that that' be a place to
[58:50] start again we're not going you know
[58:52] we're not in a position to operate off
[58:54] our wish list I just think that this is
[58:56] something that's that should be a
[58:57] priority it's part of our expressed
[58:59] values and what we have expressed to the
[59:00] public I think that we need to honor
[59:03] that I apologize I don't know what we do
[59:07] like in ogs so like with office staff
[59:11] here can schedule okay you're going to
[59:12] come in here for a day for 4 hours
[59:16] whatever it is with people the waste
[59:22] collection I still have to do the full
[59:24] day's work so we have to and I not quite
[59:28] sure how we do some of that so budget
[59:31] some of those trains they done online
[59:34] different things for and that's worker
[59:36] safety some of the equipment that can uh
[59:39] do it but that would actually have a
[59:42] bigger impact in terms of the budget or
[59:44] have to pay you know everybody overtime
[59:47] to do the training MH okay so so there
[59:51] is $15,000 against us so I mean against
[59:54] us flying anti-racism TR 15,000 being
[59:57] suggested do we have um support for this
[1:00:00] yes yes yeah so before answer do we
[1:00:04] incorporate that reduction in uh line A1
[1:00:08] 1989 499a the senior center program
[1:00:12] because we could just attribute $115,000
[1:00:15] from that we already took that out
[1:00:17] already we brought it down to 40,000
[1:00:19] right great was it already incorporated
[1:00:21] into the budget CU I know we kind of
[1:00:23] Sprint it out on Friday yeah was not
[1:00:28] adjusted look at
[1:00:31] that no that came out of um that came
[1:00:34] out of contingency there was no Mone for
[1:00:36] Sen program 300,000 contingency 60,000
[1:00:40] to part0 and then at the bottom of the
[1:00:42] page they took another 20,000 bring it
[1:00:44] to two party so that's why I suggest to up that up back to 300,000 so we do
[1:00:49] not have it you will have to come out
[1:00:50] from Dem Reserve so if we were willing
[1:00:53] to spend out contingency for the C
[1:00:56] can't we just spend a compl for this
[1:00:58] very important training
[1:01:01] great do that I thought that's what we
[1:01:03] were
[1:01:04] doing I don't have an objection on that
[1:01:07] 15,000 out of that I will make it 285
[1:01:11] 25 still positive
[1:01:18] yes I know I saw like broken record on
[1:01:20] the oper money but I don't we don't have
[1:01:22] any
[1:01:24] $846 know I mean when we take some money
[1:01:27] back
[1:01:29] yeah all right what what is the support
[1:01:31] for
[1:01:32] this support support support support okay supp 20 yeah $15,000 I
[1:01:41] [Music]
[1:01:43] support
[1:01:44] alliz this we'll have to move this out
[1:01:47] to committee and have time to clear it
[1:01:50] out so we have on we all on the same
[1:01:52] page of the recommended changes last
[1:01:55] when we were um discussing raises and I
[1:01:58] was discussing with the mayor why no why
[1:02:00] the May didn't put in any raises and
[1:02:02] then there are certain regulation in
[1:02:04] terms of that and then our follow
[1:02:06] transition is that may I would like to
[1:02:08] see um what is in the in the law the
[1:02:10] city CH and I ask Miss bar to look at
[1:02:14] how we how come up with a recommendation
[1:02:17] how do we proceed in terms of the May is
[1:02:20] and what's in the city Char and I know
[1:02:23] you submit some documents us last Friday
[1:02:26] and today would you like to kind of walk
[1:02:28] us through as to where we are what what
[1:02:30] we need to
[1:02:31] do just make sure we're clear what my
[1:02:34] position is I came in here as mayor had
[1:02:38] uh difficult Financial Times first cycle
[1:02:41] didn't ask for anything and my uh
[1:02:45] compensation is still probably $35
[1:02:47] $40,000 less than my
[1:02:50] predecessor uh the overall
[1:02:53] package uh going back full 5 years ago
[1:02:57] what the charter says is that the May
[1:03:00] will be given pay raises equal to other
[1:03:02] management employees I had that number
[1:03:05] calculated I forget it was 14,000 or
[1:03:08] 16,000 the council rejected that and
[1:03:12] gave me 4%
[1:03:15] raise this cycle I didn't put anything
[1:03:18] in because the law is quite clear and
[1:03:20] you're talented group here you've gone
[1:03:22] over every line
[1:03:26] uh nothing's been left unchallenged or
[1:03:29] unanalyzed and so last year you gave
[1:03:32] every management employee arrays except
[1:03:35] me uh so I can take a hint on that and
[1:03:38] really what I'm looking to do is you
[1:03:41] can't give pay raises during the term
[1:03:44] but I got to clear it up for other
[1:03:45] individuals to be sitting in the seat
[1:03:48] and so really looking to litigate it
[1:03:50] would like it to be so the members of
[1:03:52] the council are liable for that that
[1:03:54] wasn't paid to me but it'll make sure
[1:03:57] that in future councils and Mayors
[1:03:59] people are going to live up to what the
[1:04:01] code is or the Char if you don't like
[1:04:04] that you have the ability to change it
[1:04:06] you haven't done that and so you know
[1:04:09] I'm open to discussions but I'm
[1:04:12] generally not happy with the way the
[1:04:14] council's proceeded on
[1:04:16] that the other question is
[1:04:20] that can official salary within their t
[1:04:26] salary increase salary increase sorry
[1:04:29] thank
[1:04:29] you and I think that was part of one of
[1:04:32] the U documents that it says that
[1:04:35] elected official are not supposed to
[1:04:38] receive salary increase within the term
[1:04:40] so how do we go about if we were to get
[1:04:43] that management raised to an individual
[1:04:46] how would that apply four positions were
[1:04:49] raised as of January 1st of this year
[1:04:51] and three remain at the lower level
[1:04:54] because you're in the mid portion return
[1:04:57] the power to fix and determine salaries
[1:04:59] compensation and benefits of all city
[1:05:00] employees officers the city council
[1:05:04] shall determine and
[1:05:06] establish great one the annual
[1:05:10] budget
[1:05:14] uh you can't get that's the
[1:05:18] spage the middle
[1:05:21] turn but then there's a section all the
[1:05:23] way down to page uh
[1:05:28] um four four four
[1:05:31] yes um section
[1:05:36] F I'm
[1:05:41] ask
[1:05:43] Miss obri so can I explain this in terms
[1:05:47] of you're saying that okay you can
[1:05:49] receive this salary inre between your T
[1:05:52] but then this part
[1:05:54] here w what the position is I've taken
[1:05:57] is the salary should be adjusted every
[1:05:59] four years every four years right so my
[1:06:03] term was up before I put in for a race
[1:06:05] the council rejected that and this time
[1:06:10] a year ago I didn't put anything in
[1:06:12] because I know the council's
[1:06:14] so detailed in their analysis that they
[1:06:17] would do what is fair and Equitable and
[1:06:19] live up to the Charter but you didn't
[1:06:28] just just for you know regarding a
[1:06:31] little bit of Charter his history the
[1:06:34] references that are being made here as
[1:06:36] far as the the the strong Mater law came
[1:06:40] into went to a referendum in
[1:06:43] 78 and that was the strong
[1:06:47] mayor
[1:06:49] referendum
[1:06:51] and in that and you've been given copies
[1:06:54] of yes section 90 of the on page 352 of
[1:06:58] the the code of the minute it says the
[1:07:01] administrative and executive powers the
[1:07:03] administrative and executive powers of
[1:07:05] the city including the power appointment
[1:07:07] of officers and employees are vested in
[1:07:09] the elected mayor with the executive
[1:07:11] powers he shall receive such
[1:07:13] compensation be fixed by by the councel
[1:07:16] by ordinance or by law so that's was
[1:07:19] approved by the voters back back in back
[1:07:21] in the day in
[1:07:22] 78 so then the following year city
[1:07:25] council passed the local law and it
[1:07:30] said it said um local law number four is is amended okay as amended the
[1:07:39] section 90 has amended by number for the
[1:07:42] base
[1:07:43] salary the we're talking about the base
[1:07:45] salary so in
[1:07:47] 78 the city counts the the what goes to
[1:07:51] before the voters is saying the
[1:07:53] compensation is going to be set by the
[1:07:55] city council for the mayor the following
[1:07:57] year in 1979 the council passes a local
[1:08:01] law that says the base salary for the
[1:08:04] mayor is set at
[1:08:05] 26,100 a year beginning January 1 198
[1:08:09] okay so it's set set a base and then it
[1:08:12] goes on to say any salary adjustment
[1:08:14] granted from time to appointed officers and employees
[1:08:20] not covered by a collective bargaining
[1:08:21] agreement is to apply to the salary of
[1:08:24] the mayor so so that's if you read the
[1:08:26] two
[1:08:29] together this the council sets the in
[1:08:32] the first year they they set the set the
[1:08:34] salary and then the second year they
[1:08:37] pass a local law that says here's the
[1:08:39] base and from time to time when you're
[1:08:43] when they adjustments to other
[1:08:44] management employees the man the mayor
[1:08:47] will get adjustments so it makes sense
[1:08:52] it's saying the salary if you're giving
[1:08:55] raises to other employees management
[1:08:57] employees then by operation of that
[1:09:00] local law that would apply to the mayor
[1:09:02] as well so it's anticipating
[1:09:06] that
[1:09:08] um you from time to time appointed
[1:09:11] officers not covered by the comple is to
[1:09:13] apply to the salary
[1:09:17] so it anticipates that from time to time
[1:09:20] that may be somebody's
[1:09:24] turn you know maybe somebody's term so
[1:09:29] because it has carved that out saying
[1:09:33] that how that can be done so you can
[1:09:35] make the argument that it's be done from
[1:09:38] time to time and the idea was I
[1:09:41] think that there's the base from time to
[1:09:45] time that salary will go up as
[1:09:47] management people get so that was the
[1:09:49] base from which started now over the
[1:09:53] years has that happened
[1:09:56] no no and so that that's where you know
[1:10:00] that's where we are that that
[1:10:03] Norm yeah but there there hasn't been
[1:10:05] that normal progression that if you look
[1:10:07] at okay if you're giving management
[1:10:09] employees a 3% raise just throwing under
[1:10:12] out um the mayor will get a 3% ra
[1:10:15] management is getting a
[1:10:17] 5% then management confidential
[1:10:20] employees would that would include the
[1:10:22] mayor um but that apparently you know
[1:10:24] has not done it's been the salary has
[1:10:27] been sporadically increased over the
[1:10:30] years but you know going back to that
[1:10:32] time period you read the two set those
[1:10:34] two local laws together you get you get
[1:10:37] it and it's the reason why I'm bringing
[1:10:40] it up for discussion we need to address
[1:10:42] it and you know we need to find a
[1:10:44] pathway to address this and so this
[1:10:47] continue to
[1:10:50] happen go ahead please but but I think
[1:10:53] it's important to address the comment
[1:10:55] the Mayors speaking to like the morality
[1:10:57] or efficacy of our decisions I can only
[1:10:59] speak for myself and know do countless
[1:11:02] professional and personal experiences
[1:11:04] it's always said do not assume um I know
[1:11:06] coming into the city council uh I'm in
[1:11:09] my third
[1:11:11] year under my understanding as a
[1:11:13] legislator within the city it is my
[1:11:16] responsibility to present my opinions in
[1:11:19] a fair and objective manner consistently
[1:11:23] I would say it is the expectation from
[1:11:25] myself onto the Corporation Council to
[1:11:27] let me know if I can or can't do what
[1:11:29] I'm recommending and I would say based
[1:11:31] under that understanding we were
[1:11:33] collaboratively to make sure that we are
[1:11:34] supporting the residents of our
[1:11:35] community I would say if at any point in
[1:11:37] time we weren't doing that or or
[1:11:40] proceeding in a consistent manner I
[1:11:42] would think it would be I'm not pointing
[1:11:43] at you Mr BR you recently joined us or
[1:11:46] you Mr O'Brien I would say if we are
[1:11:48] doing something or acting out of good
[1:11:49] conscious I can already hear Mr Farley's
[1:11:52] comment of two things can be right so so
[1:11:55] two things can be true two things can be
[1:11:57] true sorry sorry sorry uh I've been
[1:11:59] saying it more recently from my employer
[1:12:01] it's give each other Grace and I think
[1:12:03] as we're having this conversation right
[1:12:05] now I can uh say that I haven't looked
[1:12:08] at the stagnancy with a raised eyebrow
[1:12:12] as I see other salary lines increasing
[1:12:15] um however taking the mayor's proposed
[1:12:18] budget as the mayor's proposed budget I
[1:12:21] looked at it as as it was presented so
[1:12:23] as it's been informed to us that this is
[1:12:25] an issue that we need to correct let's
[1:12:28] continue this conversation so back to
[1:12:30] coration
[1:12:31] council what do we need to do what
[1:12:34] recommendation that you need to this
[1:12:37] Council that we move in the right
[1:12:40] direction you can May the
[1:12:45] race I ask for it
[1:12:50] 3%
[1:12:52] most yeah that's what that's what the
[1:12:54] general prob the
[1:12:56] at% I don't want to go ahead and then so
[1:12:59] I just want to be clear mayor are you
[1:13:00] saying that the prior mayor made more
[1:13:02] than you compensation was more I don't
[1:13:05] take the retirement don't take the
[1:13:08] health care sold the mayor's car pay for
[1:13:11] my own cell phone don't incur any of
[1:13:13] those other expenses that my
[1:13:14] predecessors
[1:13:16] have Miss
[1:13:18] Patrick I was wondering um because I
[1:13:21] don't think that we've given the mayor a
[1:13:23] raise since I've been Council couple
[1:13:26] years well a couple of years ago four
[1:13:28] year five years yeah all
[1:13:34] that
[1:13:36] was
[1:13:40] forgot 19 what
[1:13:43] 2019
[1:13:51] 1998
[1:13:53] question what do we need to do 3% but
[1:13:56] does does that mean that it may have
[1:13:57] come January course he's entitled to
[1:14:00] this 3% or that's that's not that's not
[1:14:04] the level of equity that that intent in
[1:14:07] the code says it's the position cannot
[1:14:12] get a raise
[1:14:14] midterm well that that's because that's
[1:14:17] it's a it's a conflict in in in in in in
[1:14:20] the law and the code but there's there's
[1:14:25] controller's opinion for that that we
[1:14:28] haven't taken a deep dive and this is
[1:14:30] just something we've taken a look at so
[1:14:33] in
[1:14:33] which this sort of this sort of uh
[1:14:38] automatic pay raise if you will puru to
[1:14:40] the local law is is okay even though
[1:14:43] it's in the middle of the
[1:14:45] term so
[1:14:48] because but we have to look at in detail
[1:14:51] that that
[1:14:53] opinion because it's anticipating that
[1:14:56] if you read if you're reading the that
[1:14:59] the four corners of that local law it
[1:15:02] anticipates that during the course of
[1:15:04] somebody's term it's going to be going
[1:15:05] up
[1:15:07] yes so if there's
[1:15:10] you controllers opinion and they're not
[1:15:12] recent controllers opinions that have to
[1:15:15] take a look at but um and I thought some
[1:15:20] of those were based on we use the
[1:15:22] example
[1:15:25] like
[1:15:25] longevity so that every city employee
[1:15:28] gets a bonus at five years 10 years if
[1:15:33] that is in normal salary structure in
[1:15:36] the mayor is in 10 years sorry get that
[1:15:41] and it happens to be in midterm
[1:15:45] it's applicable yeah
[1:15:49] so I'm trying to how how can we move
[1:15:52] forward in terms of addressing all that
[1:15:55] apply a salary
[1:15:58] increase and the mayor's entit January
[1:16:02] 1st based on the that recommendation
[1:16:05] there that's only appli to the mayor but
[1:16:08] not any other elected
[1:16:10] official there there's there's also you
[1:16:13] the municipal home rule La you know
[1:16:16] section 24 that says that you can do a a
[1:16:19] pay raise you for I think that was last
[1:16:22] year council members got pay raise but
[1:16:25] the the pay raise wasn't affected until
[1:16:27] 45 days after the period that somebody
[1:16:29] could submit a a a petition which is
[1:16:32] referred to as a permissive referendum
[1:16:34] in other words somebody somebody would
[1:16:36] have to go out and collect signatures or
[1:16:38] a group of people would have to go out
[1:16:40] and collect a few a bunch of signatures
[1:16:43] to satisfy the
[1:16:44] requirement but that was not what was
[1:16:47] used last year as pay raise took effect
[1:16:49] the beginning of their new
[1:16:51] term the law wasn't in fact December
[1:16:56] 21st ter effect January
[1:17:01] 1st that's the other rule law section 24
[1:17:05] deals with Miss referendums somebody's
[1:17:07] getting a pay increase in the middle of
[1:17:09] their time but can we address that by
[1:17:11] amending the city um
[1:17:14] Charter so would that be a
[1:17:17] recommendation from the Department to
[1:17:19] address that to go for to going forward
[1:17:21] every year just not have to you know
[1:17:25] pile up only wa four years or does it
[1:17:27] happen every January 1st or then elected
[1:17:30] city council member in the
[1:17:32] future it's up to the council it's up to
[1:17:35] the council to to to push that
[1:17:37] amendments okay go ahead please so I
[1:17:41] it's kind of awkward I guess to ask
[1:17:44] somebody if their boss deserve a raise
[1:17:47] so but I guess so if we're I'm wondering
[1:17:50] like what we would what metric we would
[1:17:53] use because like again like so we have
[1:17:55] some people that are getting 5% other
[1:17:58] people are getting
[1:17:59] 25% um and some of that justification
[1:18:03] was as long as somebody worked here but
[1:18:06] then but that to the mayor's point I
[1:18:08] believe that the long longevity is
[1:18:10] already built into a person to
[1:18:12] managements is it not to all management
[1:18:15] employees except May oh okay so that's
[1:18:19] probably that's what I mean that's
[1:18:20] probably something that we should some
[1:18:21] people said that it does apply to the
[1:18:23] mar just never take because it doesn't specifically exclude the mayor
[1:18:29] okay so that's what we got um Friday
[1:18:32] that's what that was a factor when we
[1:18:34] were talking about the principal planner
[1:18:36] position you're saying around um for
[1:18:38] years of service but it seems like
[1:18:40] longevity already calculated in that so
[1:18:42] that's just another thing that we have
[1:18:44] to well the longevities carried in a
[1:18:46] separate
[1:18:48] line okay in their
[1:18:52] budget do you have any idea what other
[1:18:55] Mayors in the area
[1:18:56] make not
[1:19:01] enough the right you have
[1:19:05] any makes
[1:19:21] Troy what would be your recommendation
[1:19:23] from the Law Department
[1:19:25] on
[1:19:27] as um our
[1:19:29] recation would be uh to back the last
[1:19:32] time the mayor had a raise um the
[1:19:35] finance department would have to do that
[1:19:37] and look at the amount that management
[1:19:40] was increased each year since sun and
[1:19:43] take a look at that number see what it
[1:19:45] comes
[1:19:48] to go
[1:19:49] retroactive yeah yeah one at a time yeah
[1:19:52] please
[1:19:54] question would it would he get a raise
[1:19:56] every fourth year of his election or
[1:19:58] every year every fourth year every
[1:20:01] fourth year so so it me the fourth year
[1:20:03] if we got 4% he wouldn't like say for four years it's four four four four
[1:20:09] yes he wouldn't get 16% yes he would get
[1:20:11] 16% oh okay that's what I put in for
[1:20:15] five years ago and the council rejected
[1:20:17] it was the number was considered to be
[1:20:20] too big even though You' given it to
[1:20:21] everybody else
[1:20:25] so that would be the
[1:20:27] recommendation
[1:20:28] recation so so Anthony is it possible
[1:20:31] that you can U or dere work up that
[1:20:33] number for us and come back to us did a
[1:20:36] research we're going to need it tonight
[1:20:38] from 2019 yes was that the last was the
[1:20:42] last phas that
[1:20:44] 2019 my position would be that that was
[1:20:47] inadequate and didn't
[1:20:53] comply far back you
[1:20:57] 2019 would that be a recommendation of
[1:21:00] 2019 all the way to
[1:21:05] 20124 so the mayor's saying that that's
[1:21:08] he doesn't feel that's sufficient even
[1:21:09] every four if we went every four years
[1:21:12] at whatever percentage with it I think
[1:21:13] it was mostly four during those years
[1:21:15] for the management but you're saying um
[1:21:18] based on the last the last increase was
[1:21:21] not adequate you feel that that would
[1:21:23] not be adequate
[1:21:26] correct and I'm really looking going
[1:21:29] forward the council can convince me of
[1:21:32] some way that's going to ensure was ever
[1:21:34] sitting on the council and sitting in
[1:21:36] this position that it'll be addressed
[1:21:39] yeah these numbers just so that's why
[1:21:42] I'm kind of asking if we can just go
[1:21:44] back and just do a calculation from 2019
[1:21:47] to 2024 and let's come up with a number
[1:21:49] and then bring it for discussion and
[1:21:51] move forward you know thank you I look
[1:21:54] forward how can be address this I mean
[1:21:57] if you go back to the last increase in
[1:21:59] 2000 yes you know they were back and
[1:22:01] forth on the council like remember that
[1:22:03] you know it was it was a challenge to to
[1:22:06] get uh members to approve it and it was
[1:22:08] not easy at that time in
[1:22:10] 2019 go ahead so there it's my
[1:22:13] understanding that sometimes like um
[1:22:15] some some management positions they'll
[1:22:17] be uh ra like raises will be built in on
[1:22:21] different lines sometimes and like it
[1:22:23] might not be as a parent when you're
[1:22:24] looking at it like so someone can be
[1:22:28] manager here and then like their raise
[1:22:31] could be a percentage um and then it
[1:22:34] could be like a 0 five over here in a
[1:22:36] different space is that is that true
[1:22:38] talking about certain
[1:22:43] positions Char different funds I'm not
[1:22:45] going to get into any oh no I'm just
[1:22:47] asking for clarity from
[1:22:49] myself to be there so it's clear yeah I
[1:22:52] know but I'm asking Derek a question
[1:22:54] though so I can so I can make a informed
[1:22:56] decision like so could you give me like
[1:22:58] an example of like like the police
[1:23:01] commissioner charged out of police and
[1:23:03] fire so there two lines poon is charged
[1:23:06] out of water
[1:23:09] sewer operating fund so sometimes we've
[1:23:12] done that based on the
[1:23:13] workload don't we do that with Masons
[1:23:16] too like during the summer the Masons
[1:23:19] they get more money according to the
[1:23:20] contract during the summer yeah it comes
[1:23:23] out of a different fun so it's matching
[1:23:25] up what the actual work that is that
[1:23:27] they're doing okay so so it wouldn't be
[1:23:29] like a manager like we say okay everyone
[1:23:31] gets a A 3% raise um that would be a 3%
[1:23:35] of their
[1:23:37] total so it's not like a 3% raise in
[1:23:39] this line or anything added in another
[1:23:41] line that couldn't be the case right
[1:23:43] okay so go ahead please I was going to
[1:23:46] say for the sake of asking it the mayor
[1:23:47] said that the current rate was
[1:23:50] inadequate to save some time and
[1:23:52] additional L work to have inadequate
[1:23:54] number Mr I haven't calcul we did the
[1:23:58] calculations up 219 that was I put that
[1:24:01] in the budget Council rejected I wasn't
[1:24:04] remember that budget you have to
[1:24:05] remember so so here the recommendation
[1:24:07] is go go and make a finance P yes but
[1:24:11] let's look at 19 20 21 22 23 24 and come
[1:24:14] up with a number and then we'll move
[1:24:16] forward and move this budget out tonight
[1:24:18] it's going to happen tonight sorry I'm confused because I thought the mayor
[1:24:23] said every four years not every year but
[1:24:25] we have to address all these years that
[1:24:27] was not accounted for yeah so yes and
[1:24:30] then we need to move forward whatever
[1:24:32] that number is wa so you're saying when
[1:24:34] it comes to every the fourth year mayor
[1:24:36] that you're the three years that
[1:24:38] preceded it they should calculate into
[1:24:40] the
[1:24:42] that okay I just want to make sure
[1:24:45] question where where would that money
[1:24:47] come
[1:24:48] from what what where would that money
[1:24:51] come from do you have any suggestions
[1:24:53] chair on where that money would come
[1:24:54] from General General Reserve where
[1:24:56] salary salary line that money comes out
[1:24:59] for
[1:25:01] salary come from comes
[1:25:04] out General
[1:25:06] Reserve take yesal sorry so can we get
[1:25:11] those numbers please okay we start right
[1:25:14] now yeah thank you yes from 2019 so
[1:25:18] we're saying that comes out of the fund
[1:25:19] balance yes oh so now yall all ready to
[1:25:21] take money out the fund balance again
[1:25:23] okay all right
[1:25:25] going on here no we asked where
[1:25:27] like supped to come from
[1:25:31] sucy and nobody has any objection that
[1:25:41] right I think it's because we're
[1:25:43] correcting an inequity that this
[1:25:53] happened
[1:26:23] e e
[2:16:35] sa
[2:16:36] trees want one I don't need it Sean you
[2:16:40] have one
[2:16:42] Sean you need to go through it and I'll
[2:16:45] take it I'll take it go through this yes
[2:16:48] you exra here I
[2:17:01] [Music]
[2:17:15] Cofe remember my kid
[2:17:21] [Music]
[2:17:23] very beautiful
[2:17:25] kids they look like the
[2:17:37] mother so what you have before you is is
[2:17:39] a list of all the changes on one
[2:17:45] sheet and you also include the um the
[2:17:48] capital the adjustment that capital
[2:17:51] there some movements on the capital
[2:17:54] side and the first two sheet is the
[2:17:58] um council's
[2:18:03] um
[2:18:05] change Anthony just want to highlight
[2:18:08] that I like which
[2:18:11] part okay let's start from the beginning
[2:18:14] I'm going to do uh going to do with
[2:18:16] expenses first the first is the city
[2:18:19] clerk salary uh which the May of
[2:18:22] proposed budget was
[2:18:23] 8235 um we raised the fee by$
[2:18:28] 4,41 and then again we added the 5,000
[2:18:32] for the register and it brings her up to
[2:18:35] 92376 uh the depy
[2:18:38] regist is because she's not because the
[2:18:41] city Kirk is doing the regar is going to
[2:18:42] be reduced by 5,000 to 4
[2:18:46] 47462 and the Sten which was 8,000 in
[2:18:50] the budget is going to be reduced to
[2:18:52] 3,000 which is uh for the uh city clerk
[2:18:56] our senior center program ARA is going
[2:18:59] to be increased uh by 40,000 as we
[2:19:03] requested uh we have the AOG grade uh uh
[2:19:06] for M MOA with csca
[2:19:09] for
[2:19:11] 8,348
[2:19:13] uh Maxine that's for
[2:19:17] your the record access person okay then
[2:19:21] we increased the uh the public safety
[2:19:24] Foundation from 5,000 to 25,000 so
[2:19:27] that's the other 25
[2:19:28] 2,000 we are adding in the
[2:19:32] anti-ra racism
[2:19:35] training from 0 to
[2:19:38] 15,000 uh and then we have the uh
[2:19:40] development raises we have the director
[2:19:42] of development going up 4,000 272 to 92
[2:19:46] 281 the zoning officer is going up 657
[2:19:50] to
[2:19:51] 67,500 you have the principal planner uh
[2:19:55] going up 1697 to 8975 and on the back of
[2:19:59] the Cent page we have the home
[2:20:01] coordinator going from uh
[2:20:04] 69821 to
[2:20:07] 70,000 uh we have the uh Deputy
[2:20:10] Commissioner which was in the Mar's
[2:20:11] budget at 12803 to 100,000 so reduces by
[2:20:16] 20, 803 and then uh we have the mayor
[2:20:19] salary going from 1, 568 to 118
[2:20:24] 849 how do we get those right and uh how
[2:20:28] do we get that we're uh we're reducing
[2:20:31] we're increasing the we parking finance
[2:20:33] by 80,000 and at the same time uh we're
[2:20:37] also reducing the appropriated fund out
[2:20:40] by
[2:20:40] $1600 so we still which is good yes and
[2:20:46] that equals the
[2:20:49] 78324 equal
[2:20:52] 78,000
[2:20:57] 24 um want to go to water yes go ahead
[2:21:00] something the water uh what we did we
[2:21:03] took there's not going to be any rental
[2:21:06] of that property because of the shape
[2:21:07] the building's in so we we just
[2:21:09] subtracted the 5,000 out of Revenue and
[2:21:12] we took that 5,000 out of expenses of
[2:21:16] light p and gas so it's - 5 -5 on each
[2:21:19] side
[2:21:22] last but not least is the Capal projects
[2:21:25] uh which reduces borrowing by
[2:21:28] 25,000 as you can see
[2:21:36] [Music]
[2:22:17] questions go ahead please s timately no
[2:22:21] adjustments to the contingency
[2:22:23] line there's no adjustments to the concy
[2:22:26] line stays at 300,000 which is a
[2:22:28] proposed in the
[2:22:30] budget but I thought there was some
[2:22:33] movement along that line that be
[2:22:35] reflected on
[2:22:37] this there was no move because we we
[2:22:40] didn't touch it we're not changing we're
[2:22:43] not
[2:22:45] changing they fig you fig Senior Center
[2:22:49] 40,000 coming out of the linkoln parking
[2:22:52] the 15,000 is coming out of the LOL
[2:22:54] parking the May salary is coming out of
[2:22:56] the linoln parking and the rest is
[2:22:57] coming to the reduction of of salary
[2:23:03] of finance that so so we just added what
[2:23:17] essentially what 35 75,000 8,324 to the
[2:23:22] buget but we added that we took it from
[2:23:25] we just added it into projected money
[2:23:27] from the parking
[2:23:29] correct I thought we just added to
[2:23:31] delinquent parking prior to this didn't
[2:23:34] we do that to
[2:23:35] add no 60 added 80 okay so that's a
[2:23:41] revenue and we we offset it by the
[2:23:44] expenses okay right so what I'm saying
[2:23:47] is that Friday
[2:23:51] I think uh Mr Mudan was suggesting that
[2:23:53] we increase delinquent
[2:23:56] parking which no right but we increased
[2:23:59] it how much 80,000 no that's all
[2:24:01] together that's including tonight no 60
[2:24:04] plus 80 140 okay so no just tonight we
[2:24:08] just increased it he discussed it and
[2:24:09] actually said 6 Friday and then 80 today
[2:24:12] so we didn't do it on Friday discussed
[2:24:14] it in I don't believe it's reflected
[2:24:16] here oh okay it's not reflected here not
[2:24:18] the 60 because this is what we got now
[2:24:22] so is that all the money that we think
[2:24:23] that we can get out of the link partner
[2:24:25] cuz if there's more money over there
[2:24:26] then could we just if it seems like
[2:24:29] it's that's the money pot that's a yeah
[2:24:32] I I think that's a good number for the
[2:24:34] first
[2:24:39] year they're pushing it you know we're
[2:24:42] really trying to get them going you know
[2:24:45] M we're contacting the company almost
[2:24:48] every day no yeah no I'm saying this is
[2:24:51] seems kind
[2:24:52] of all right so how much
[2:24:56] the
[2:25:00] addition the projected increase in so
[2:25:04] you used yes I used
[2:25:05] everything and and I I used the
[2:25:08] difference I reduced our appropriated F
[2:25:10] balance and the use of it instead of
[2:25:13] using you know you know 594 65 we're
[2:25:17] going to use 5946
[2:25:25] any other
[2:25:28] [Music]
[2:25:30] question all right seeing n so I'm going
[2:25:33] to ask for the move in motion for the
[2:25:36] budget ordinance for 2025 can I just
[2:25:38] make a statement before we do that
[2:25:40] please it's not a question but it's a
[2:25:41] statement go ahead so I just first I
[2:25:44] want to say thank you everyone for this
[2:25:45] process I there was a very this thus far
[2:25:48] has been a lot smoother been managed a
[2:25:51] lot better than um uh my last year's
[2:25:54] experience so I want to thank all the
[2:25:55] council members for that um including
[2:25:57] our chair I think that uh you handled
[2:25:59] this uh well this year um but with that
[2:26:03] I just want to say that me personally
[2:26:06] due to the fact that you know I didn't
[2:26:09] get the UN unanimous um commitment from
[2:26:13] the council from some members I did but
[2:26:16] not unanimous commitment to increase
[2:26:18] that youth uh line via
[2:26:21] and I think that there's some some
[2:26:23] inequitable
[2:26:26] um formulas um that we're getting to
[2:26:29] where we're at I that's I I can't
[2:26:31] support the budget that's my position
[2:26:33] quite frankly I don't think the mayor is
[2:26:34] going to either but that's just my guess
[2:26:37] so but I do think that the process was
[2:26:39] done in good faith and I appreciate you
[2:26:40] guys time for doing that just the
[2:26:45] finance no I understand that I know that
[2:26:47] I know I know the process I'm just
[2:26:48] saying okay yeah so the motion U for the
[2:26:54] budget ordinance for 2025 operating and
[2:26:57] capital budget as
[2:27:02] amended motion is on the Flor second all in favor
[2:27:08] I thank you
[2:27:15] everyone we're going to vote on Monday business finance
[2:27:21] Mr chairman just for for the council
[2:27:24] members we will G we'll get a draft
[2:27:26] ordinance to you by no later than
[2:27:29] Thursday so you can look at it Thursday
[2:27:31] at the latest Wednesday hopefully and
[2:27:33] we'll be working a lot arm work with the
[2:27:35] finance department to go through the
[2:27:37] numbers and and and you know look at the
[2:27:39] numbers and put them into the ordinance
[2:27:42] and as you know the Amendments will be
[2:27:44] attached to the proposed budget and
[2:27:47] that's all part of the so will go on the
[2:27:52] before you next Monday so that's just
[2:27:54] some housekeeping way ahead for you
[2:27:58] all um Mr M should we do a stra pole to
[2:28:02] see
[2:28:04] because because if it's not going to
[2:28:06] pass maybe we should be having meetings
[2:28:09] before I I think we we did that Friday I
[2:28:11] mean oh okay we did that Friday okay we
[2:28:14] can do it back again um no okay we can
[2:28:16] do it back before we close okay
[2:28:22] ex okay no we don't need to do it again
[2:28:25] that's my
[2:28:29] now any other business will find a
[2:28:32] motion
[2:28:34] to Second all in favor thank
[2:28:38] you
[2:28:41] [Music]
[2:28:44] thank
[2:28:46] what oh these
[2:28:50] [Music]
[2:29:19] only
[2:29:22] have to come
[2:29:25] [Music]
[2:29:43] back
[2:29:49] that's
[2:30:18] e e