[0:00] currently running
[0:06] this
[0:08] um
[0:09] actually it might be I'm not sure on
[0:12] that I would have to verify
[0:16] that
[0:17] [Music]
[0:22] um
[0:24] actually it might be I'm not sure that I
[0:27] would have to verify All right.
[0:32] Star Wars
[0:39] actually.
[0:41] I'm not sure that I have to verify
[0:54] the management. Oh,
[0:57] >> have one more thing about landing
[0:58] involvers. So, I'm looking at the budget
[1:04] and
[1:06] exactly
[1:07] so what's in here currently is we so
[1:10] that's the two that from the five that
[1:12] was last year the last budget for the
[1:15] seven that's currently showing
[1:16] >> five to seven.
[1:17] >> Okay. So it's no additional
[1:21] >> brackets five or two from the five to
[1:25] seven.
[1:27] >> Okay.
[1:28] >> And those five never left.
[1:31] How many of those are filled?
[1:43] » Any other questions?
[1:45] Okay, let's move to um
[1:48] the proposed management rates.
[1:53] » Are there any questions in particular
[1:55] about the reason for the conditions
[1:59] of receipts
[2:02] here? Now I I asked for this report just
[2:04] for comparison
[2:06] to look at the for us to look at dollar
[2:08] amounts
[2:13] » and it's going to cost us about $90,000
[2:15] approximately.
[2:16] >> No, sorry.
[2:17] >> No, that's not it. That's just going to
[2:20] go.
[2:22] >> So the
[2:24] So we need to this report complete.
[2:27] asked complete breakdown how much it's
[2:30] going to cost us 2026
[2:33] over all races.
[2:39] Just pull up a formula this sheet is
[2:42] available
[2:45] and do the delta between the two 20 256
[2:56] Essentially,
[2:58] it's probably located closer to 3%
[3:02] increase. Um, only a few slacks.
[3:06] So, doubt about four or 5% depending,
[3:10] but we'll get to that information again
[3:11] for you.
[3:20] The $90,000
[3:24] mask.
[3:30] was broken up by general fund and then
[3:33] water sewer
[3:36] couple notes the OS commissioners they
[3:39] were completing the general water sewer
[3:43] funds now uh to help out with the
[3:45] general fund spenders um they're just
[3:48] now split funds that they just had um so
[3:51] that's why you see a big jump in that so
[3:53] don't be alarmed in that That's a 3%
[3:56] increase uh from their rhythm sound
[3:59] >> with
[4:04] um the same uh thing is for the let's
[4:07] see there's one
[4:13] » which one
[4:14] >> so I have but
[4:16] there
[4:20] » oh that is to uh keep it in line with uh
[4:24] CS CCA raises. Uh there's some that
[4:27] staff now that are receiving uh lower
[4:29] salaries than uh CCA members
[4:34] >> due to the last contract that was signed
[4:36] by contract.
[4:39] >> And these aren't new position. These are
[4:41] just raises on the current position.
[4:43] >> Correct.
[4:45] >> And these are all management position
[4:49] or exclude from CSA.
[4:52] So the majority of work that you do see
[4:54] raises in is to uh for the reason like I
[4:56] stated the CCA increases uh management.
[5:00] Uh for example, if you look at
[5:01] purchasing supervisor uh if you look in
[5:04] that code um uh payable clerk is
[5:10] currently making more this year than um
[5:14] salary,000 for that individual.
[5:17] >> So we're trying to keep it in line.
[5:18] That's why you see some some position
[5:21] higher than 3%.
[5:23] >> Okay. So this is not what I asked for. I
[5:25] asked for the report to show the
[5:28] management prices that is outside of
[5:30] CSEA.
[5:32] >> They said all management.
[5:34] >> Yeah. But did you mention that CSA?
[5:36] >> I'm just making compared
[5:39] more than 3% comparing CSV.
[5:41] >> So is that report is all management?
[5:44] >> This is all management.
[5:44] >> Okay. All right. So I'm going to follow
[5:47] up on this because I I need to
[5:50] the difference between 2025 and 2026.
[5:55] This is going to help us to uh you know
[5:58] with our proposal from the council.
[6:01] >> Yeah, it would be sorry
[6:05] and then Mr.
[6:06] >> Thank you. Um, so, uh, Eric, um, when
[6:10] you spoke of the administrative
[6:12] assistant to keep up with the CSEA
[6:14] races, are we
[6:17] responsible to do that? Is there
[6:19] anything or is it just so that,
[6:23] you know, do we have to do that?
[6:26] >> Do we have 65%.
[6:28] >> No, but I I would most people would
[6:31] probably stop becoming manager and stay
[6:33] in the union position for the city. Uh I
[6:37] think I think people get really um the
[6:40] council should look at other contracts,
[6:42] fire, police and other unions and really
[6:44] see how much they're making. Um because
[6:47] we're going to pick that it's really
[6:49] going to hurt.
[6:52] >> But just a question.
[6:54] So listen
[6:57] I see it is as I understand that you
[6:59] don't want someone
[7:02] to make you know correct more than their
[7:04] supervisor which I think I might feel
[7:07] the same way by the time I was
[7:09] supervisor
[7:10] >> so so um if I can continue then I'm
[7:14] going to ask about all the rates that
[7:16] are over 3% and on page on the first
[7:19] page I had the accounting supervisor for
[7:21] the supervisor at 12% supervisor rece
[7:23] seats at 17, um purchasing supervis,
[7:31] and the supervisor with buildings at
[7:32] 9:00. So, um if you just kind of like
[7:35] give the direction all of those,
[7:37] >> of course. Um so, the executive
[7:39] secretary, uh that's for the mayor's
[7:41] office that has to keep in line with the
[7:43] executive secretary. That's a C member
[7:46] uh in the police department.
[7:48] >> Okay.
[7:49] the uh sup the accounting supervisor and
[7:53] supervisor for seats. They are two
[7:55] essential department heads within the
[7:57] city. Uh and this matches their
[8:00] counterparts and other um levels of um
[8:03] department heads within the city. So
[8:05] within the city, right? Correct. So
[8:07] these numbers are in line with other
[8:09] department heads at their level.
[8:10] >> What line are you talking about right
[8:11] now? Who are you talking about?
[8:12] >> Accounting supervisor. Supervisor overseas.
[8:16] >> Oh, so both of Okay.
[8:19] Mhm.
[8:20] >> So if you look for example, one of their
[8:22] counterparts is the assessment city
[8:25] assessor.
[8:26] >> Um so that'll give you an idea of why
[8:28] these uh dollars increased to this
[8:31] amount.
[8:32] >> So when we're sorry when we're doing
[8:36] that um I understand we're taking into
[8:38] account their positions. Are we also
[8:41] taking into account their longevity? How
[8:43] long you know because
[8:44] >> correctly someone could have been here
[8:46] for a period of time.
[8:47] >> Correct. So for these two individuals
[8:50] particularly
[8:51] >> both are one is 27 years and I believe
[8:54] one's between 20 25 years.
[8:56] >> Yeah
[8:57] >> the land base.
[9:00] >> I know we won't be able to like any new
[9:03] positions or anything but I think that
[9:04] it would be helpful if it seems like Mr.
[9:07] Müer might want you to do something a
[9:09] little different with this report. I
[9:11] would it would also be helpful to look
[9:13] at like what raises were given for these
[9:16] the percentage of raises that were given
[9:18] for these positions um in 2024 as well.
[9:21] I think that would be a good reference
[9:22] point for us.
[9:25] >> Yeah, we can do that. Um that shouldn't
[9:27] be a problem. Um
[9:30] there do you want to see all the
[9:32] management positions or just um
[9:33] >> just I guess just adding another column
[9:36] here in the spreadsheet that just
[9:38] reflects that. So therefore we can have
[9:40] like you know just like good reference
[9:42] 24
[9:48] » and then we do big
[9:51] >> comparison between 20 205 2026 2025
[9:56] >> total comparison
[9:58] >> no just those two years 2025 2026 let's
[10:01] look at a dollar
[10:02] >> okay I thought you mentioned you wanted
[10:04] the total fur management salary 25 yes
[10:07] so when you when you do the column. When
[10:09] you insert the column, you will do the
[10:10] um the delta dollar amount for each each
[10:14] position and then you do a total at the
[10:16] bottom.
[10:19] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry.
[10:21] >> I think um
[10:23] >> Oh, sorry. No,
[10:25] >> it was Thank you. It was I think you
[10:28] already clarified it or or uh Derek
[10:31] clarified it that um because when during
[10:34] their presentations, these folks had
[10:36] been here for like 28 years. Um, so they
[10:39] talked about it when we were having the
[10:41] department head when they presented to
[10:43] us.
[10:43] >> Right. I just wanted to make sure that
[10:44] we were talking about longevity of the
[10:47] disposition. The
[10:49] >> next guy I believe was the deputy
[10:50] regard. I think Sam
[10:53] said the same thing. Uh,
[10:56] member
[10:58] hired
[11:00] management individual.
[11:02] >> Supervisor buildings.
[11:04] >> Um, supervisory buildings. Um that was a
[11:09] recommendation
[11:10] uh from the OJS commissioner the deputy
[11:13] commissioner for the skill set that has
[11:16] been
[11:18] um and my discussion of that was on call
[11:23] 24/7
[11:25] >> really
[11:28] » but does that also mean
[11:30] >> file open actually so you would be able
[11:31] to do something
[11:33] you say it's the Um the most agreed
[11:37] thing um is the post budget and it
[11:40] should be cheap
[11:43] right before the general.
[11:49] » So So we're going to add um 20 24.
[11:53] So we can add 20 24 and then we're going
[11:56] to do the difference between 2026 and
[11:59] 2025 in terms of dollar amount. Anything
[12:02] else needed on this report? You want to
[12:03] total the column
[12:04] >> and then a total at the bottom of the
[12:06] column. Yes.
[12:07] >> Which I said 24
[12:10] >> 24 25 and
[12:11] >> adopted 24 adopted 25.
[12:13] >> Yes. Yes.
[12:14] >> And then proposed 26.
[12:16] >> Correct.
[12:17] >> And we just do uh comparisons between 25
[12:19] and 26 in dollar amount and then
[12:22] >> Okay. Do you want the water, sewer and
[12:27] golf? Cuz are we just looking strictly
[12:29] at general fund? everything the entire
[12:31] report
[12:36] » and and these are all filled, right? I
[12:37] just want to Yes.
[12:38] >> Yeah.
[12:42] » The question I have about this um
[12:45] supervisor is number
[12:48] 160 to 100 and there was a $3,000 for
[12:53] that position.
[13:01] Okay. And my other question was on the
[13:04] commission of public service. I see that
[13:06] it was 84% increase
[13:09] your top
[13:15] public service. Yes, that was I bought
[13:17] on my first uh first department.
[13:22] >> So that should be 3% from that. That's
[13:25] fire budget. Okay.
[13:27] But it was just a small typo
[13:30] >> in that line. It should be 3%.
[13:33] >> Yes,
[13:34] >> it's on the bottom of the previous page.
[13:36] I think
[13:38] >> that's that's the correct amount on the
[13:40] bottom of the uh first page. Uh rows up
[13:44] >> that small.
[13:51] Gotcha. Thank you.
[13:54] Actually,
[14:05] I'm sorry because now it's already gone
[14:08] upstairs, but Oh, no, it doesn't. Yep.
[14:11] Sorry.
[14:15] » The other document that we had there to
[14:18] see on yesterday, there was a
[14:20] conversation between the parks.
[14:23] >> Yeah. and the delinquent
[14:26] tickets.
[14:28] So this is the
[14:31] >> two pages and
[14:34] it shows where we are in terms of the
[14:36] recovery effort
[14:39] 20,000 that I mentioned yesterday
[14:42] and then the other page um they show
[14:46] that the activity that
[14:49] um the approach to
[14:52] without standing it's not clear where
[14:55] you're speaking
[14:56] >> the other factor
[14:58] the sent to us yesterday.
[15:00] >> No, this is separate. I discussed this
[15:02] yesterday, but we didn't we didn't bring
[15:04] this out.
[15:06] >> You're copy of this. This has to do with
[15:09] a PD from um
[15:13] assistant chief. Okay.
[15:14] >> Brian Little
[15:16] and we talk about the activity that
[15:18] they're doing in terms of outstanding
[15:20] ticket during the per 4hour period.
[15:22] >> Mhm. and they show the revenue that
[15:24] they're generating
[15:25] >> which is significant. So if you were to
[15:27] do our math within our welfare, we're
[15:29] talking about a significant stop here.
[15:31] >> So my question to get requested that the
[15:34] police be here?
[15:36] >> I don't see them here. Um did everybody
[15:39] uh follow up?
[15:42] I think I sent an out to the police uh
[15:47] today. Uh
[15:49] and from what the chief has stated is
[15:52] that
[15:54] the parking revenue is in line with
[15:55] what's expected is currently the highest
[15:58] been years. Uh that's the quick
[15:59] statement.
[16:01] >> That's interesting.
[16:02] >> Uh regarding toes um this is the uh toe
[16:06] increases in response to RA revenue
[16:10] to raise the toe search charge and
[16:12] deprive it until the contract be
[16:14] renegotiated.
[16:16] I I I don't think that was a question.
[16:18] The question was more of central we hire
[16:21] capital recovery to help us with the
[16:24] collection effort
[16:25] >> and when we discussed last year with the
[16:27] fee they were saying that the approach
[16:29] that they're going to be taking was a
[16:30] more aggressive approach approach and
[16:33] they're going to be using capital
[16:34] recovery to help us process and the
[16:37] number that was quoted was very
[16:39] significant in terms of the returns. So
[16:42] that's why I want to ask him where is
[16:43] the shortfall of what do we need to do
[16:46] as a council? How can we step in and
[16:47] help what I was asking last night in
[16:50] terms of what do we need to do at the
[16:51] council
[16:53] and to help along the process and to
[16:55] kind of speed it up because yes we have
[16:58] millions of dollars of spending that we
[17:00] were promised to recover. Now they will
[17:02] check it but the new ones.
[17:06] >> You're saying that not the older takes
[17:07] but
[17:08] >> the old some of them are in the millions
[17:09] but they're like 10 years. Okay.
[17:11] >> So, people pass on
[17:14] those are like
[17:15] >> might not be able to
[17:17] >> Yeah. less likely.
[17:19] >> So, we're focusing on the millions of
[17:21] dollar of the the new ones and the new
[17:23] takeout stocking for kids and so I I do
[17:27] remember that well some of that
[17:28] conversation. So, they
[17:32] essentially
[17:34] told us that they'd be able to recover.
[17:36] We're nowhere even near that right now.
[17:38] >> That Yes. and and occur and so we need
[17:42] how much are we paying?
[17:44] >> Well, that's what I want to know.
[17:46] >> They get percentage of what they
[17:47] collect. So, we're not losing any.
[17:52] So, so
[17:53] >> well I I don't want us to kind of you
[17:56] know hire a company and we're expecting
[17:58] them to collect some if there shortfall
[18:01] you need to know because this is that
[18:04] we're anticipating
[18:05] >> correct
[18:05] >> and if we're getting shortfall and it
[18:07] affect our budget year after year if
[18:10] it's not working then we need to come
[18:11] up.
[18:12] >> Mhm. it just
[18:14] but I think it's a significant line that
[18:16] we need to look at and I think we need
[18:17] to increase it and I think we need to
[18:19] work with the police department
[18:22] to have a more
[18:25] high level approach of how we do with
[18:27] recovery and assistant
[18:30] >> and I find um
[18:34] I feel like uh there was a very large
[18:37] number of uncollected parking fines um
[18:39] not not the revenue that we expected
[18:42] versus what we actually have here.
[18:44] >> Most of the reports from last year if
[18:45] you look at your reports on last year it
[18:48] was it was it was like over $100,000 I
[18:50] think that was uncollected
[18:53] >> in it's $170,000 in this.
[18:56] >> Yeah, it's millions of dollars.
[18:58] >> 2016
[19:00] millions of dollars uncollected park
[19:02] ticket.
[19:03] >> Oh
[19:05] fenders.
[19:06] >> That's what we want to help. We you know
[19:08] we're not saying that they're not doing
[19:10] a good job. They're doing a good job. We
[19:12] just need to um you know to step in and
[19:13] see where where help is needed. Maybe we
[19:16] need a new um collection um agency.
[19:21] >> I don't know. But I think we need to
[19:22] explore it.
[19:23] >> What is our year to date? I see what we
[19:25] budgeted last year. We're budgeting
[19:29] 30,000 more this year.
[19:32] Oh,
[19:35] revenue loan. It's a 2610
[19:39] is what Mr.
[19:41] >> Our
[19:43] is 122.
[19:44] >> That's all we are now.
[19:45] >> Yes.
[19:46] >> So, we didn't even reach maybe
[19:49] >> 140.
[19:51] >> We're upping it by 30,000.
[19:55] >> It's actually
[19:57] better do something.
[19:59] >> Wait a minute. That that line 2610
[20:02] though we're only 20. I'm looking at the
[20:05] report that was generated on October
[20:07] 9th, but um we've got almost 80% of the
[20:12] re we're at 80% of the budget. We still
[20:14] have, you know, November and December,
[20:17] most of October, November, and December.
[20:19] So, wouldn't that be in line if they
[20:21] continue doing it when we hit the 100%?
[20:24] >> Estimated to be close, too. It's going
[20:26] to be actually that number at the end of
[20:28] the year. Bless you.
[20:30] Well, it's it's not a line estimate
[20:34] if we exceed it.
[20:36] >> Oh, it's a good thing.
[20:37] >> No, no, I think the goal in my hand and
[20:40] I'm trying to get at is that we need to
[20:41] exceed that. Not because we budgeted,
[20:43] let's say for $140,000. Well, we should
[20:45] only achieve $140,000.
[20:47] We should achieve 1.5.4 million of all
[20:50] the outstanding $10 million plus.
[20:53] And when we budgeted that, did we budget
[20:55] that based on what they presented their
[20:58] ability to do or was that based on
[21:02] conservative? I guess
[21:03] >> that's what I wanted them to give us a
[21:05] snapshot. Hey,
[21:07] >> is that what you budgeted? Can you
[21:09] budget more
[21:10] >> or why did you arrive at 70,000?
[21:15] Can the expectation be more than that?
[21:21] H.
[21:22] >> So what's in the book
[21:26] on the
[21:28] six on the
[21:31] >> You have a copy?
[21:33] >> I I do now.
[21:34] >> Yeah. So if you look at there I don't
[21:36] want to kind of throw those numbers out.
[21:39] Where would that Where would that be
[21:40] under? Would that be under parking
[21:42] fines?
[21:46] » This is over 69,000.
[21:48] >> Yes. Would that be on the parking lines?
[21:51] Next question.
[21:55] » Which line?
[21:58] >> You believe that would be um but if
[22:01] we're going to talk about the link we
[22:02] see a command statement tomorrow at the
[22:04] meeting um discuss the parking and then
[22:08] these maps
[22:10] I'm sure person.
[22:12] >> Yeah because if you look at the the
[22:14] proposed 2026 um Taliban there for what
[22:17] is on the slide here.
[22:20] We're a million dollars up.
[22:25] » This is this is real.
[22:28] >> That's that's
[22:30] actually
[22:32] so we just need them to come in. I can't
[22:34] agree. But yes, they sent this to me.
[22:36] But I think the benefit for the entire
[22:37] council to kind of have a better
[22:40] understanding and to kind of interact
[22:42] with the community because this is if we
[22:45] look at these two item here, it could be
[22:47] significant revenue that we can
[22:48] estimate. It's all it's an estimate and
[22:52] we just need to make sure that the
[22:54] department did work towards um those
[22:56] estimates
[22:58] >> and um what what would be the
[23:01] approximate overtime for three officers
[23:03] for four hours?
[23:05] >> Sorry,
[23:06] >> what would be the approximate overtime
[23:08] for three officers for four hours each 5
[23:11] days a week? Any idea?
[23:13] >> There's multiple
[23:14] >> I know depending on rank and file,
[23:17] >> right?
[23:18] A lot of times don't right now
[23:21] >> high ranks take the local
[23:24] uh between those hours. Um just
[23:26] wondering out of that $69,000 are we
[23:29] giving back?
[23:33] » Just wondering what it means that we
[23:34] already pay him we already have it in
[23:36] the budget.
[23:36] >> It's already in the budget.
[23:38] >> So it's cost that we already
[23:40] >> absorbed right absorbed for this.
[23:42] >> So this is like revenue coming in. If
[23:44] for example they didn't go to do this we
[23:46] still have to pay. Absolutely.
[23:48] >> So this is more of a additional or new
[23:53] revenue additional revenue coming.
[23:54] >> Not really though, right? Because even
[23:56] though it's it's budgeted for over time,
[23:59] they won't have to use it
[24:01] >> if they budget it. I mean use
[24:04] >> Yeah. I'm just saying.
[24:05] >> But I'm saying that if they're not they
[24:07] generate revenue, it's not directly
[24:09] coming out from the revenue. It's coming
[24:11] out from
[24:16] Okay. Yeah.
[24:17] So, we're going to need to follow up with
[24:23] the PD and that is something that we
[24:25] should consider as the council and can
[24:27] we consider additional revenue to be
[24:28] added to those two loans.
[24:32] Um the next one we asked for CDG
[24:36] >> what's going on with uh DDG and in terms
[24:40] of everything else in terms of uh
[24:42] surplus in terms of where the money is
[24:44] the revenue is being booked. So for I
[24:48] know there's discussion about codes and
[24:49] snap um so department
[24:54] uh above and beyond functions in order
[24:57] to utilize the CPC function. Um
[25:01] maybe again it may be a good idea to
[25:04] have those department heads in another
[25:07] budget hearing meeting discuss uh as
[25:10] well as have the director of development
[25:12] discuss why we're not reaching our goals
[25:15] and those lines.
[25:17] So, can we set that up for tomorrow?
[25:22] » Let's see if they're available
[25:24] >> because we're not meeting in ter
[25:29] if we could
[25:30] >> that's like a half a million dollars
[25:32] that we could take out of the
[25:34] >> Y
[25:36] exactly. That's actually I'm sorry.
[25:38] That's
[25:39] >> bring revenue. Bring
[25:41] >> That's revenue. So, if we're not making
[25:43] that revenue,
[25:45] >> well, what I'm I don't think we're not
[25:48] making a revenue.
[25:50] >> We want to know where where is the
[25:51] allocation?
[25:53] >> Uh if we if we're not spending money,
[25:56] can we bring that money back into the
[25:58] city?
[26:03] » I don't think so.
[26:04] >> Yeah.
[26:06] >> We go ahead. I thought the discussion
[26:09] yesterday from council was why are those
[26:11] lines at 0% usage? Uh I think it was
[26:15] snap and
[26:17] >> no it wasn't zero.
[26:19] >> Yeah. I need the only one with zero snap
[26:21] >> two specific
[26:22] >> two snap code enforcement
[26:26] >> 217
[26:28] >> earlier I had a conversation about CDBG
[26:31] funding positions in I don't touch but I
[26:35] agree it was with understandable
[26:39] zero
[26:39] >> yes
[26:40] >> so I'm looking at the the revenue here
[26:43] >> 2026
[26:45] >> Mhm. Mhm. And under SNAP zero under code
[26:49] enforcement is 100,000 under finance is
[26:51] 65,000
[26:52] >> and under development is 570. So that
[26:55] there's only one that is zero. No
[26:58] enforce
[27:03] I think was enforcement and finance and
[27:06] snap and code. Okay. SNAP and code. This
[27:09] year SNAP doesn't have anything. But but
[27:12] from last year's budget, SNAP and CO
[27:14] earn zero in terms of expenditures.
[27:17] >> In terms of is that expenditure or
[27:20] revenue though?
[27:20] >> Revenue.
[27:22] >> We have drawn it down
[27:23] >> from the federal government.
[27:27] Okay.
[27:27] >> Which I don't, you know, I don't know if
[27:30] that's a a reporting piece or, you know,
[27:33] does something need to happen
[27:35] >> administratively to get us that money?
[27:37] >> I think those are and that's what I was
[27:40] trying to get at yesterday in terms of
[27:42] um if we have this money and their
[27:43] agency will not kind of reallocate this
[27:45] money to various various um various
[27:49] category within the city and bring them
[27:52] in as revenue and do projects within
[27:53] their within the city. I believe my my
[27:56] understanding is that the CDBG has
[27:59] specific guidelines um within each of
[28:01] these lines on where the money can needs
[28:04] to go and so I don't think you can
[28:06] shuffle it. Um
[28:07] >> but that's why I said
[28:09] >> I so let's look at it various categories
[28:12] and see if we can reallocate it within
[28:15] the city and utilize that revenue.
[28:19] I think for example when you look at
[28:20] line 217BF
[28:24] >> um
[28:24] >> yes finance
[28:25] >> it has to be used on on finance
[28:28] >> that right do you agree
[28:29] >> I agree with that and in addition to
[28:31] that there I mean we have very restrict
[28:33] guidelines for for the clinic and in
[28:35] addition to that there's also caps
[28:37] >> of how much we need to spend in each
[28:39] category for it's not going to be as
[28:41] easy to move it around
[28:42] >> as we think it is and CDBG all comes
[28:45] through um department's belt
[28:48] >> oh That's our outcomes here.
[28:50] >> So we would have to we have some serious
[28:53] guidance on how we could do that.
[28:55] >> Well, that's why we need you the
[28:57] director to kind of guide us along in
[28:59] terms of what is available, where is the
[29:02] shortfall and what can we do
[29:04] >> as a city.
[29:04] >> I don't think that money for budget.
[29:07] >> No, no, no. We're not taking bringing in
[29:09] money.
[29:09] >> This is revenue that we haven't brought
[29:12] in
[29:13] >> other departments if we can.
[29:15] >> That's Yeah. the other departments.
[29:19] >> Go ahead.
[29:20] >> No, no, no. I'm just my thoughts. I I
[29:22] likely remember I remember I thought
[29:25] this conversation she was talking about
[29:26] money um that was in other departments
[29:29] from uh CDBG money that she's now
[29:31] bringing back into her department
[29:33] because they weren't being used.
[29:35] >> Yes.
[29:35] >> And I think that we're talking about the
[29:36] same thing.
[29:37] >> Yeah. So we can get some clarity. And
[29:39] that's exactly what I asked last night
[29:40] about um in terms of surplus and when we
[29:43] receive those surplus we do reallocate
[29:45] them to other agency can we keep those
[29:48] money in house
[29:49] >> and also spending within the various uh
[29:51] programs and department
[29:54] did it with the SNAP funding you see
[29:56] that's why it zeroed out in 26 and then
[29:59] increased to 570
[30:03] >> and then the
[30:05] >> yeah that's why I believe she increased
[30:07] that line Um well then she's available
[30:10] um at tomorrow for tomorrow night's
[30:12] meeting.
[30:14] >> Yes.
[30:15] >> Thank you. And I think that's where
[30:17] she's looking to get some money for our
[30:19] youth employment.
[30:20] >> Yes.
[30:21] >> That's that's that's once the money's
[30:23] available to bring in revenue and pass
[30:25] it all back as you know into the various
[30:29] expenditure categories. That probably
[30:31] would be that behind 2170G
[30:35] would be for youth if she's because I
[30:37] think that's where she gets her grants
[30:39] up, you know, the grants that go out to
[30:41] community groups and public services
[30:43] that have I think as well as it supports
[30:46] some of the staffing within development.
[30:50] >> Yeah. But I don't I mean my I don't know
[30:53] if we're talking about that right now,
[30:54] but being that we're mentioning it, I I
[30:57] my thought would be that's not a line
[31:00] that we can I I don't want to end up,
[31:03] you know, dealing with, you know, the
[31:05] possibilities of what the money's out
[31:08] there. That's a line that we need to
[31:09] secure funding for that we know is going
[31:11] to be here. Um and that's that's why I
[31:14] was going where I was going. So, but we
[31:17] could talk about that when we get there.
[31:18] CDG is the right approach to that as
[31:20] guaranteed fund
[31:21] >> and if it's a surplus we can reallocate
[31:24] the money into youth and also when we
[31:26] talk about youth we also have to look at
[31:27] the seniors because they have zero also
[31:30] >> so we have to we have to make sure that
[31:33] >> we love our youth
[31:35] >> we have to take care of them
[31:36] >> we have to love our seniors to and take
[31:38] care of them so we have to fund them to
[31:41] and funded programs
[31:42] >> that's perfect
[31:45] money take that money fun our senior our
[31:48] senior years. Take the money from the um
[31:50] golf course, fund our youth. Boom. Boom.
[31:53] So, we'll we'll follow make sure we have
[31:56] I like this convers
[32:02] with with a PD and CBD.
[32:06] >> If not tomorrow, then Friday is okay.
[32:09] >> But um in the early for us, they help us
[32:12] a lot.
[32:14] billion.
[32:16] The only caveat or word of caution would
[32:19] be that again remember this is money
[32:21] that comes to us from the federal
[32:23] government and this is the type of money
[32:25] >> I'm just being
[32:28] honest here that you know this this
[32:30] could very much be at risk under the
[32:32] present administration because this is
[32:34] the type of funding that
[32:38] >> uh he's not fond of in terms of the
[32:40] programs that it funds on the people
[32:42] that it serves. So, I just want to say
[32:46] that I think we need to have it in here
[32:49] um as a possible revenue source, but I
[32:52] think we also have to, you know, write
[32:54] letters, call and do everything we can
[32:56] to advocate to make sure that we get
[32:58] that funding.
[32:59] >> I think it's two category
[33:01] for me. We're talking about the surplus
[33:04] >> agency that not utilizing the allocation
[33:07] from the drawback. Absolutely. That's
[33:09] what I'm talking about because there are
[33:11] some agency that is not meeting up to
[33:13] the expectation that we need to apply
[33:14] active funding.
[33:15] >> Totally.
[33:16] >> So we don't want to give that up. So we
[33:17] reallocate that. That's what I'm
[33:19] pushing.
[33:20] >> I'm just saying current one if we can
[33:23] reallocate then yes but I'm looking more
[33:25] primarily at the agency that is not
[33:27] meeting expectations.
[33:29] >> So that's what so those are guaranteed.
[33:36] Um,
[33:38] so we'll follow up and make sure that we
[33:40] have the design to the garden back in
[33:43] the earlier the better.
[33:46] Um,
[33:50] are there any other questions? Um, think
[33:53] we have a couple questions uh about the
[33:55] mortgage tax
[33:58] in your packet of first
[34:02] time.
[34:06] Maybe you'll have this sheet. Um
[34:10] >> they did an analysis for the mortgage
[34:12] tax. Um currently at 388,000
[34:16] uh we budgeted 1.1 million I believe for
[34:20] 2026 we budgeted 942,000,000.
[34:32] Last year we received 894,000
[34:35] um received up to 894,000.
[34:40] Um so we're anticipating receiving
[34:43] approximately same uh maybe a little bit
[34:46] more about $900,000 probably more toward
[34:49] 950. Um that's uh put within the
[34:52] proposed budget. Um I just wanted to
[34:56] be about that so we're not inflating
[34:58] some numbers.
[35:01] Well, I don't think we'll wait later. I
[35:03] think we had a discussion yesterday
[35:05] myself
[35:07] everyone. We are looking at the trend of
[35:09] the the housing market and in terms of
[35:12] the pricing
[35:14] and you know the market is very high.
[35:18] The mortgage now on almost all the
[35:20] houses are higher than it will be 2
[35:24] years ago. So our expectation for that
[35:27] line should be higher
[35:29] because of the house the sale of these.
[35:33] >> That's how I was looking at I looking at
[35:35] the the
[35:38] house.
[35:40] Is that with this one? Does that look
[35:42] like
[35:42] >> No, it's just on page 11
[35:45] page 12 second line. We talked about
[35:49] this yesterday,
[35:49] >> right?
[35:50] >> And yeah, we did ask about the whole
[35:52] conversation was more of center around
[35:55] the housing trend market and the
[35:57] protection
[35:58] >> based on the uh the sale price.
[36:05] » So you think it should be higher than
[36:06] 950?
[36:07] >> Yes. cuz year to date, well, this is
[36:09] when I first looked at this, so I don't
[36:11] know what day
[36:12] >> 488534,
[36:14] >> but those are paid in quarter. So those
[36:16] >> Oh, that's right. You said that.
[36:17] >> So we should be double. So
[36:20] >> we'll make our
[36:22] we are in line for close upward to a
[36:24] million.
[36:25] >> Okay.
[36:29] You talking about revenue? Yeah, we're
[36:30] talking about revenue market
[36:33] >> page 12 second line.
[36:40] » So, do you have a recommended number on
[36:42] the end? What do we have
[36:44] for
[36:48] » I have a number recommended but I just
[36:50] want to you know
[36:51] >> consult to kind of like I don't want to
[36:53] throw a number out to them like how did
[36:55] you you know kind of reed them but want
[36:57] to look across the board in the trend
[36:58] that's happened above us the housing
[37:00] market we're selling houses for
[37:03] profitably we are seeing over the last
[37:05] four years from 5,000 and 10,000 four
[37:08] years from 5,000 and 10,000 to hundreds
[37:12] That was like 11.
[37:14] >> So why the dip in 2024 in the in the in
[37:17] that line?
[37:19] >> Okay. 824,
[37:21] >> right?
[37:22] >> Yeah.
[37:23] >> Pretty substantial.
[37:28] » Yeah.
[37:28] >> And and I was going to say possibly
[37:31] because like could be like the lingering
[37:33] effects of maybe CO, but really actually
[37:35] the housing market went crazy,
[37:38] so it really shouldn't be.
[37:41] I don't know. So,
[37:44] who would we ask that
[37:47] >> within our
[37:52] » Well, no. Yeah, it's right
[37:53] >> regardless.
[37:55] >> Yep.
[37:56] >> Let's Let's look at the future.
[37:58] Got it.
[38:00] >> Let's look at the future market. Look at
[38:01] the future trend.
[38:05] >> I'll be right.
[38:07] >> Yeah. It went down by 166, we actually
[38:15] » But I think to Mr. Mutar's point, if we
[38:17] went back maybe to 2021, we probably
[38:19] would see the
[38:21] [Music]
[38:23] >> we probably see the it it's going in the
[38:26] trend you're saying, but I still would
[38:28] like to just know why why that
[38:33] basically we know what that is. But I
[38:36] see what you're saying about
[38:40] Okay.
[38:46] We're increasing tax at the proposed
[38:47] rates
[38:49] slow down. So making sure that also
[38:55] um and I was going to say the
[38:57] conversation is continuing. It's
[38:59] difficult to not talk about the next
[39:01] line 309. um H
[39:08] » that the casino licensing fee is only
[39:11] going to give $100,000 with the
[39:13] introduction of our multi- tier arena.
[39:19] >> I think it's two different I think
[39:21] that's two different companies but it's
[39:24] going to
[39:25] >> Oh, I see what you're saying. They're
[39:26] going to the
[39:28] >> to some degree. Well, we don't we don't
[39:30] set the fees, right? Correct. That's my
[39:33] question. How was that determined? Mr.
[39:35] Mudar spoke about that briefly in terms
[39:37] of how it's determined.
[39:40] >> Is this number aligning with the
[39:42] committee?
[39:43] >> Yes. So these numbers um uh the 4.1 and
[39:47] our sales tax are I spoke with the
[39:50] county and the numbers are
[39:55] » I'm sorry.
[39:55] >> No, that's I'm with you.
[39:57] >> That was my question. uh well they
[40:00] provide us with a calculation for their sales for the sales tax um
[40:06] an estimate they provided us I could
[40:08] look to see what is driven by uh they
[40:11] provided us um the reasoning behind it
[40:14] um
[40:16] >> so in more basic terms so we can
[40:19] actually
[40:21] adjust that ourselves
[40:24] that's
[40:25] >> we could recommend it
[40:28] before the casino. Okay. Like help me
[40:31] walk me through that.
[40:32] >> Why you don't want to recommend that?
[40:34] >> Um, usually we base it off the counting
[40:36] numbers. Um, and there's a formula of I
[40:39] don't have it on me. Um, there's a
[40:42] formula uh for how it's split up.
[40:45] >> Mhm.
[40:45] >> And how much revenue is uh received by
[40:48] the city.
[40:50] >> So we so we Okay.
[40:54] >> They kind of tell us.
[40:56] >> Yeah. But we don't have to listen,
[40:58] right? Based on like
[40:59] >> we won't get it. They have to give it to
[41:00] us.
[41:00] >> Get a certain percentage.
[41:02] >> Okay. And they they give that to us.
[41:05] >> So I what I'm trying to figure out how
[41:07] do we get here? Who how what level of
[41:11] autonomy do we have as far as figuring
[41:13] out where that number that to me is
[41:15] pretty much the cuz if if something that
[41:18] we don't have any
[41:20] >> then nothing then we don't need to look
[41:23] at that. However,
[41:25] my next kind of thought about that is
[41:27] even if we don't have,
[41:30] you know, autonomy over how this looks,
[41:34] there's nothing stopping us for from the
[41:37] city perspective to go back to the
[41:38] casino and say that um well, we we would
[41:42] like uh
[41:44] them to uh contribute more,
[41:47] >> change the formula.
[41:50] Well, it could be it could be done by
[41:52] the state.
[41:52] >> It could this one map. It could go that
[41:54] way or it could be in the in the way of
[41:57] a of a new uh community benefit
[41:59] agreement. And I think that you know
[42:01] there's there's questions that can be
[42:03] asked
[42:04] >> overestimated
[42:05] revenue. Thank you for
[42:08] >> Yeah. But to your point earlier, it was
[42:10] just an estimate.
[42:11] >> So, you know what I mean? So,
[42:12] >> which is a good thing. But then I get to
[42:14] your point the 4.1
[42:16] if we exceeded that year are we going to
[42:18] exceed it in 2025
[42:22] but
[42:22] >> nobody else can
[42:25] I think um I just remember these
[42:27] discussions from previous years um about
[42:31] I think it is a negotiation
[42:33] um with the I think it's part of the
[42:36] sales tax negotiation that we have with
[42:38] the county not I know sales that that's
[42:40] a separate line but I think it might be
[42:42] that same discussion. I mean, I'd have
[42:44] to ask our commissioner, but I think
[42:46] >> two separate
[42:47] >> I know they're two separate separate,
[42:49] but I don't know. I just I don't know that
[42:53] we necessarily can drive it. I think
[42:55] that the county drives it.
[42:57] >> I don't have the agreement, but there's
[42:58] an agreement and it's split up by
[43:00] percentage.
[43:00] >> Yes, that's right.
[43:02] portion and there's different uh
[43:07] broken up.
[43:10] >> Yeah. I guess I mean my question would
[43:12] be not I'm certain that there's a
[43:16] formula in place but I'm saying is that
[43:19] who decides that formula what level of
[43:22] impact do we have to
[43:25] talk about what that formula could
[43:27] possibly look like? Um, and I think that
[43:29] right now times like this, those are the conversations we need to have. So,
[43:33] I'm saying like I'm going to figure that
[43:35] out.
[43:36] >> I think in terms of this budget, the um
[43:39] the for deciding
[43:41] >> and there's no room like between now and
[43:43] November 1st to renegotiate any of that.
[43:46] So,
[43:48] for me, my perspective is that we got
[43:50] almost 300,000 overed and then we
[43:54] increase that line based on the past
[43:57] year. questions, right?
[43:59] >> Yes, exactly. I was trying to compare
[44:01] that almost 300,000 2024. So, how would
[44:05] we approach
[44:07] >> I will say that I mean I listening I
[44:10] agree that perhaps
[44:13] I think we'd have to take a guess
[44:15] >> but if we think there's the new event
[44:18] center I mean if we think that people
[44:21] that are going to go to the event center
[44:22] would also go to the casino. I'm not
[44:24] sure that I do buy that. I mean, I think
[44:26] that if you think of the events that any
[44:27] of us have attended at the event center,
[44:29] you go you go to the event and you go
[44:31] home probably. But, um, Right. Right. I
[44:34] don't know. But I'm not really sure that
[44:37] um there's going to be I'm not I'm just
[44:40] raising it that maybe we could
[44:42] guesstimate that maybe we'd get a little
[44:44] bit extra because we have more people
[44:46] coming into town um by virtue of the
[44:50] event.
[44:52] Yeah.
[44:56] » No, I mean that's
[44:56] >> it's conjecture.
[44:57] >> Yeah, it would be totally conjecture.
[44:59] So, I think that we should not mess
[45:01] around with it too much.
[45:02] >> As far as bed tax, sales tax, what we
[45:04] get on the counter is I think that could
[45:06] be more.
[45:08] >> I agree too, but I think those are not
[45:11] things that we negotiated.
[45:13] >> Right. Right. And I guess my I'm seeking
[45:16] clarity as to but some sometimes what
[45:18] I've noticed is that sometimes things
[45:20] are done a certain way because they've
[45:23] always been done in that certain way not
[45:24] necessarily because it's just a matter
[45:26] of practice maybe not necessarily a
[45:28] matter of policy. So I'm like those are
[45:30] the things that we just have to kind of
[45:32] like have be clear on. Is it something
[45:34] that we have a level of
[45:37] 2025 we have 2,72,000
[45:41] >> casino
[45:43] >> 2 million
[45:44] >> 72 that's so that's two quarters so it's
[45:46] going to be close to 4 million
[45:48] >> so yeah so you're on par with 4 million
[45:53] let's say cash this year
[45:57] 4.1 was pretty solid
[46:00] >> so bas based on the trend for first two
[46:03] more than likely going to exceed your
[46:05] destiny.
[46:09] » I like to see us smile.
[46:12] >> Um, so just to be clear, right now we're
[46:15] trying to figure out ways to be
[46:17] increasing our revenue, right?
[46:19] >> Exactly. That's the purpose of this
[46:20] discussion here.
[46:23] So that pointed I mean you know as we
[46:27] continue to go through this question we
[46:29] can visit those those
[46:32] we need to to look at not only that line
[46:35] all the lines that we started yesterday
[46:38] what other question we have from
[46:39] yesterday
[46:40] >> um so
[46:41] >> okay can I can I go back for a minute on
[46:43] that one so you said it was 2 million 72
[46:47] >> and that's only two
[46:48] >> no 2 million
[46:51] that's You got to think 2 million.
[46:53] >> Oh, exactly.
[46:55] >> 2,ion72,000,
[46:57] not 100,000.
[46:59] >> Okay. Okay.
[47:01] I was like, wait, there's more money on
[47:02] the table.
[47:04] >> For for the record, I'm still suggesting
[47:07] we find a way to ask the casino for more
[47:08] money in layman's terms is what I'm
[47:10] saying.
[47:15] That will have to be maybe a separate um
[47:19] discussion, but take into consideration
[47:21] the casino is filing
[47:24] a grievance against your taxes.
[47:27] >> But they've done it for for several
[47:28] years.
[47:29] >> So we have to be careful what is going
[47:31] on there because if that ever happen to
[47:34] get approved,
[47:35] >> we'd be in trouble.
[47:36] >> Yeah, exactly.
[47:38] Trouble. They got to be in trouble.
[47:39] pulling at the at the
[47:43] >> so let's be mindful of what uh what is
[47:46] happening over there and hope it doesn't
[47:49] >> I'm sure we'll have to take care of it
[47:51] for
[47:52] >> um any other question
[47:56] >> have anything
[47:57] >> I think there was a comment last time
[47:59] about the allowing for accessed
[48:03] uh analysis uh
[48:08] » Mhm.
[48:09] uh you can see you'll see prior years
[48:13] 2014 2016 that's the back
[48:16] budgeted and then the allowance for
[48:18] actual this is the actual allowance for
[48:21] uh unleffected taxes. So you can see
[48:23] that this number historically increases
[48:26] when the tax levy increases so I
[48:28] wouldn't recommend that's actually below
[48:31] that 2.8
[48:34] » when tax levy increased look in 2023
[48:37] it was 31.6 6 million.
[48:40] >> Yes,
[48:40] >> we 3.2 in 2024 we 2.1
[48:44] >> correct
[48:46] and the allowance went up
[48:47] >> the allowance for factors. So when that
[48:50] number goes up that means revenues
[48:53] produce.
[48:54] >> Mhm.
[48:57] >> So you see that 3 million if you look
[49:00] like 2 million.2
[49:02] 3 million.
[49:04] >> Yeah. The negative will reduce. Yes. All
[49:06] right. So, so you were indicating that
[49:09] we could take the 2.8 million and bring
[49:12] that number down.
[49:13] >> I'm glad you did that analysis because
[49:16] look at the trend for I mean 2023 31.6
[49:20] 3.2 negative
[49:23] 2024 32.1
[49:26] just over $3 million. 2025 33.3 million
[49:31] 2.8 eight.
[49:33] We're $6 million
[49:36] higher in terms of um revenue.
[49:40] >> Why is this the same?
[49:44] We have 6 million.
[49:45] >> I'm not I'm not understanding what
[49:47] you're saying.
[49:48] >> No, not the same. But the tax um
[49:50] property tax, real property tax $9.3
[49:53] million.
[49:55] >> You're not looking at this. You're
[49:56] looking at
[49:57] >> you're looking at he's going over this
[49:59] with us.
[50:04] » One of the packets that that we got for
[50:06] that
[50:06] >> I think it's under
[50:09] second.
[50:10] >> I just saw it.
[50:13] Yeah.
[50:17] There was one of the fact that the dead
[50:22] » take a look.
[50:25] >> It should be behind the magic raises.
[50:40] » Can I run in and make
[50:41] >> Can we just make chocolate, please?
[50:46] He said it. He said it.
[50:48] >> Okay.
[50:51] >> Yeah. I'm not really understanding it.
[50:53] >> Start from the top.
[50:54] >> So, um, you had a tax year 24 to 2016,
[50:59] the tax levy, which would be the A1101,
[51:02] the real property.
[51:05] >> Um,
[51:06] and you see the allowance for collected
[51:09] taxes. Um there was a statement I
[51:12] believe it was yesterday that we could
[51:13] possibly reduce that that $2.8 million
[51:17] to lower than 2 million or 1.8 million
[51:21] which would then uh help our bottom line
[51:24] out.
[51:25] >> Mhm.
[51:25] >> Um so that number at 2.8 million is
[51:28] actually low. We were predicting it's
[51:31] more around 3.3 million. Um so that
[51:35] number is um below um the analysis. You
[51:39] see where it says this is actually too
[51:40] low.
[51:42] >> Yeah.
[51:43] >> Uh and this is just a representation to
[51:45] show you exactly what our amounts on
[51:48] collecting taxes were in previous years.
[51:50] So I wouldn't recommend lowering that uh
[51:52] number.
[51:53] >> Yeah. But the reason why I'm asking for
[51:55] that um to look at it because last last
[51:57] year we budgeted 33.3 million in
[52:00] republic tax
[52:02] >> and this year we're budgeting $39.3
[52:04] million. That's not $6 million
[52:07] difference.
[52:09] >> Wait a minute. Let me see. I'm on the
[52:11] budget target of eight. Our exposure
[52:14] should be reduced. So then why where are
[52:16] you getting this this
[52:19] 8%.
[52:22] Is that standard or is that something
[52:24] that we try to maintain?
[52:26] >> That's the lowest. So if you look in 22
[52:29] M as percentage, that's the lowest
[52:31] percentage.
[52:35] So we took that number and times that.
[52:38] >> Okay. So it's not something that is
[52:39] standard. Did you just look at the
[52:40] lowest one and then Okay.
[52:43] >> To be cautious.
[52:45] >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So be cautious.
[52:48] >> I I think 2.8 is I spoke with our
[52:50] finance team
[52:52] individual. I mentioned that you've been
[52:55] here for 25 plus years. That's all the
[52:57] knowledge and he says even this number
[52:59] is uh low. So
[53:05] Okay.
[53:06] >> Yeah. But then those years we we've seen
[53:11] over the years that the real property
[53:13] tax has started. So, you know, it's
[53:15] moving upward.
[53:18] >> So, $6 million within within a year and
[53:22] you're telling me your exposure to UNC
[53:24] color is the same. Uh I don't think that
[53:30] » the exposure I the exposure is too much.
[53:33] >> You recommended to lowering that amount?
[53:35] >> Yes.
[53:37] >> Cuz if we are anticipating or saying
[53:39] okay we're going to collect $39 million
[53:41] and um you know pray to God that we
[53:44] collect more than that then our exposure
[53:46] should not be the same as last year this
[53:48] year into next year. I think it would
[53:51] help to your point Mr. We had a proposed
[53:56] allowance for flooded taxes for 23 and
[53:58] 24.
[53:59] >> Was that sorry to understand how close
[54:02] the recommendations from the budget
[54:07] are not at least courtesy? I think that
[54:10] would help support how on spot they are
[54:13] in regards to like seven.
[54:16] Yeah. We did we did exceed our
[54:18] collection um last year and the year
[54:20] before and we are lying to exceed that
[54:22] this year.
[54:24] >> The real property tax
[54:26] >> for real property tax 32 million and 31
[54:29] million for 24 and 23 respectively.
[54:33] >> It's on here. Yeah,
[54:34] >> it's it's on
[54:36] >> but we're getting
[54:37] >> page eight
[54:39] line.
[54:43] » Yeah, you're seeing the actual
[54:45] >> how much it be.
[54:50] » I was supporting what Mr. Williams was
[54:52] saying budget for 23 and 24 for
[54:55] allowance of unallocated taxes. I think
[54:57] would support whether John's saying I
[55:00] think the formula can use some
[55:02] adjustment
[55:03] and then whether the kind of lean more
[55:05] towards fire team saying we have an
[55:07] individual saying
[55:10] the adopted for allowance for collective
[55:13] taxes for 230 with 3 million and for 24
[55:18] um was 2.8 million.
[55:19] >> No, we're talking about the next line
[55:21] >> now. We're talking about real property
[55:22] >> real property tax lines. How much did we
[55:25] >> How much did we um we exceed the
[55:28] collection?
[55:29] >> So we budgeted in um
[55:32] >> that's the very first one the whole
[55:34] package
[55:34] >> in 23 we budgeted 31 million.
[55:37] >> He actually received the 31 million. Um
[55:41] in 24 we budgeted uh 32 million.
[55:44] >> Wait wait wait on you have 31.629
[55:47] here.
[55:48] >> He's ask he's estimate he's telling you
[55:51] what he got by. We we we exceed by
[55:53] 600,000.
[55:54] >> No. So, excuse me. So, 2023 adopted
[55:57] revenue this year from 2024 budgeted
[56:01] budget.
[56:01] >> Mhm.
[56:02] >> The 23 adopted revenue for real property
[56:05] tax is 30,629,000.
[56:09] And we nailed that right on the head for
[56:11] actual revenues.
[56:13] >> Exactly.
[56:13] Y
[56:15] >> because they know I mean that
[56:17] >> that would be a formula sometimes would
[56:18] happen and sometimes it doesn't. So for
[56:21] 24 um 32 million
[56:24] >> 32 million60,000 is the adopted revenue
[56:27] actual revenue is 32,136,42.
[56:32] » It's not it's a large amount
[56:35] >> and then okay
[56:38] >> 2025 you have those. Yeah, I'm looking at the actual as well, but
[56:43] we haven't finished. But
[56:46] >> so about 90,000 million.
[56:49] >> Yeah, you're 99.9%
[56:51] on this report. So, we'll make it, but
[56:54] we'll exceed it, don't you think?
[56:56] >> For the adopted revenues.
[56:58] >> No, for the um I'm looking at the actual
[57:01] 101.
[57:03] >> Maybe I'm misreading it, but it looks
[57:04] like you've already collected 99.9%.
[57:07] Well, as of October 9th.
[57:09] >> Yeah. So,
[57:11] >> yeah. Yeah, it should be right.
[57:13] >> Oh, so that's it. That this was the last quarter, so you won't get any more.
[57:19] Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha.
[57:21] >> People still pay late
[57:24] now.
[57:26] >> So 20. So 25 is going to end up at
[57:36] probably exactly what you budgeted
[57:39] >> pretty on target.
[57:41] >> So now6
[57:44] that's that's exactly relating to my
[57:46] point. If we budget for that and we are
[57:48] achieving our targeted estimate, then
[57:52] our exposure should be should lower for
[57:55] next year because we're budgeting $6
[57:57] million more
[58:00] than 2025.
[58:03] So then why do we our exposure
[58:06] is the same from 2025 into 2026.
[58:10] >> So when you say 2026
[58:13] collected like people who are not going
[58:14] to pay Mhm.
[58:16] But we anticipated this year $2.8
[58:18] million of uncollected taxes were
[58:21] empowered to receive that amount.
[58:23] >> Mhm.
[58:24] >> If you're saying that we're going to
[58:25] collect $39 million,
[58:29] >> then why our exposure is the same?
[58:31] Because we budgeting expecting more. So
[58:35] our risk should be less.
[58:38] >> That's how that's how it works.
[58:45] the risk would be more
[58:49] we've seen we've seen the the base
[58:51] effect
[58:53] actually
[58:54] >> did the corporation council even tell us
[58:56] that I don't know because I could be
[58:58] misquing but did she not say that we
[59:00] were getting more taxes in that we were
[59:03] getting more collection
[59:04] >> yes exactly one of her more people are
[59:06] coming
[59:07] >> more people are coming forward to pay
[59:08] the taxes and to avoid foreclosure than
[59:10] what used to happen in the last couple
[59:12] years people just ignore it. They don't
[59:14] care. They go to foreclosure. We
[59:15] foreclose on property with $500.
[59:18] >> So, so I guess I'd still and I'm sorry
[59:20] that I'm being a little confused.
[59:22] >> You want to carry?
[59:23] >> I just want to make sure. So, I just
[59:25] want to follow along what you're saying
[59:27] and hope that I understand it. So are
[59:29] you suggesting in other words I think
[59:30] that I would say that the 2026 proposed
[59:33] budget of 39343
[59:36] on real property taxes A101
[59:40] >> is good and and we shouldn't touch that
[59:43] and they definitely have a formula and
[59:45] it seems like the formula is working.
[59:47] He's hitting the nail on the head. But
[59:49] now I think it's a separate thing that
[59:51] you're using that number to then say
[59:54] well then for line the next line
[59:57] >> next line
[59:58] >> uh 102
[1:00:00] you think that 2850
[1:00:04] oh
[1:00:05] >> should be
[1:00:07] >> less less and they're actually telling
[1:00:11] us that they think that it's too low
[1:00:14] that we should raise it from 2850
[1:00:17] >> 309
[1:00:19] Yeah, but we have seen a trend of people
[1:00:20] paying their taxes. We we're not seeing
[1:00:22] no dip in the collection over the last
[1:00:24] four years.
[1:00:26] >> It's still 12.7% of taxes.
[1:00:30] >> So, you know, it's something that we can
[1:00:32] revisit. So, it's you know, as property
[1:00:35] values increase, then people are more
[1:00:38] likely to pay their even though taxes
[1:00:40] increase, they're more likely to pay
[1:00:41] their taxes. So, they're not losing type
[1:00:42] of session. You're not forclosing for
[1:00:44] 500 bucks. It's not happen.
[1:00:46] >> Somebody said that too.
[1:00:48] Corporation council.
[1:00:49] >> Yes, exactly. We heard that from
[1:00:50] corporation council yesterday that in
[1:00:52] terms of coming in taxes, we're getting
[1:00:54] less lesser foreclosure and then we're
[1:00:56] going to touch on the revenue line and
[1:00:58] the housing also because we have three uh foreclosure lined up.
[1:01:04] So process two is
[1:01:05] >> right
[1:01:05] >> one is in the court, one is in the court
[1:01:07] and another one is lining up to the to
[1:01:09] get there. So we have to deal with three
[1:01:11] set of foreclosure for the next year.
[1:01:13] But we did talk about that yesterday. So
[1:01:15] that's going to touch on my point. So
[1:01:16] the revenue for the housing sales that's
[1:01:19] still that trend.
[1:01:23] » So I I still think that we we need to
[1:01:26] reduce our um uncowments
[1:01:29] for uncollected
[1:01:30] >> and they think that we should raise
[1:01:33] >> No, I I think they a trend. They're
[1:01:35] looking at
[1:01:36] >> that's they Yes. They think that they
[1:01:40] think that we should hold it at the
[1:01:41] lowest level the lowest percentage
[1:01:46] for 2022.
[1:01:48] But those were tough years.
[1:01:51] And these are
[1:01:52] >> okay
[1:01:54] those were years that we were giving
[1:01:55] people extension to to and taking off u
[1:01:59] penalties and and you know giving them
[1:02:01] time to pay their tax for 6 months and
[1:02:04] >> yeah
[1:02:07] corporation council almost to be
[1:02:11] vaccines uh Miss Barash said um with
[1:02:16] foreclosures number one which should
[1:02:17] close out by the end of the year six or
[1:02:19] seven properties do Do you know how many
[1:02:21] are in two and three for next year or
[1:02:24] can you find that out for us?
[1:02:26] >> I can.
[1:02:27] >> Sure. Thank you.
[1:02:28] >> Three.
[1:02:31] >> She said that so one is closing out this
[1:02:34] year. One set of foreclosers and
[1:02:37] properties in it.
[1:02:38] >> Two cycles more coming forward in 2026.
[1:02:42] I mean if it's 10 12 15 properties
[1:02:44] >> more than it's more than that and then
[1:02:46] they talking about the property in Bra
[1:02:51] about half a million dollars. So those
[1:02:54] will come in until 2026.
[1:02:56] >> So
[1:02:57] >> and then there's another property we
[1:02:58] talk about the he said right the big one
[1:03:01] >> the big one um up there.
[1:03:03] >> Yes. So hopefully that they close this
[1:03:05] year. If not that will next year. So
[1:03:08] that's another line I wanted to touch on
[1:03:10] in terms of revenue, the house sale. I
[1:03:12] think we need to up that to the to the
[1:03:16] 2025 numbers.
[1:03:23] My my question we're
[1:03:27] hitting property taxes year over year
[1:03:30] since 2023.
[1:03:32] What is the impact of budgeting millions
[1:03:35] of dollars from collected taxes? Where
[1:03:37] does that go?
[1:03:40] >> It's it's a it's a line of pushing
[1:03:42] there. So kind of like in
[1:03:46] a push for who and for what for the
[1:03:51] >> Just in case.
[1:03:53] though.
[1:03:56] >> So I I try to think
[1:03:59] I I know you're trying to get out there.
[1:04:01] Why are we putting that? If we're going
[1:04:02] up and we're we're collecting 100% or
[1:04:05] exceeding 100% of yesterday, then why
[1:04:08] are we putting that number there? And
[1:04:10] that's the reason why I wanted to open
[1:04:12] because I think our exposure is limited
[1:04:15] as we move forward. The tax base is
[1:04:17] expanding. People are paying their
[1:04:18] taxes. The housing market is expanding.
[1:04:21] The house value is going up as Mr.
[1:04:24] Farley mentioned and that is no secret
[1:04:26] across the city. We have seen um we
[1:04:28] talked about it yesterday the price of
[1:04:30] houses that are being sold on the market
[1:04:34] 300 250 300,000
[1:04:37] and it was one of the point I mentioned
[1:04:39] about the mortgage tax
[1:04:41] that also drive that mortgage tax. So
[1:04:45] you're so you're asking that we lower
[1:04:46] that
[1:04:48] >> what?
[1:04:50] >> Yes.
[1:04:51] >> When we lower that that goes. Okay.
[1:04:54] >> Yes.
[1:04:54] >> All right.
[1:05:00] » Also then since we're touch talking
[1:05:02] about that the the sale the home sales
[1:05:06] right now we budgeted that three $3
[1:05:08] million last year but this year is 4.5.
[1:05:12] I would like to see that um kind of
[1:05:14] remain at 4.5
[1:05:18] because we've heard from council there's
[1:05:20] a aggressive approach in terms of the
[1:05:21] foreclosure there will be no lagging
[1:05:23] like what used to happen four courts are
[1:05:26] piled up in the office on top of each
[1:05:28] other and they can't get them out
[1:05:30] because of you know situations beyond
[1:05:34] our control but I you know based on the
[1:05:37] what we were told yesterday that those
[1:05:38] are an aggressive approach
[1:05:40] >> so we want
[1:05:42] A2660
[1:05:44] A.5
[1:05:48] days.
[1:05:49] >> Yes.
[1:05:55] » So, Mr. M in our discussions, I know
[1:05:57] we're trying to like find out.
[1:06:00] What number are you trying to excuse me?
[1:06:03] >> Well, it's not it's not a number. We're
[1:06:05] discussing here. That's my suggestion in
[1:06:06] terms of where we are. M
[1:06:09] >> if there's a consensus then we know put
[1:06:12] a total on everything
[1:06:14] >> but I want to make sure that
[1:06:17] >> and
[1:06:18] >> I want it to be we are you know kind of
[1:06:20] thing
[1:06:22] >> there's a push back if you put back just
[1:06:24] tell me but
[1:06:25] >> yeah but I I think um you know
[1:06:32] >> what we yesterday I'm more confident
[1:06:34] that we we can achieve um 4 million like
[1:06:37] 4.5 million.
[1:06:38] >> Okay.
[1:06:40] >> But let me reframe my question. We're
[1:06:42] trying not to at least I'm trying to
[1:06:45] that we do not see that. So
[1:06:48] >> Mr. told us it's Do you have an exact
[1:06:51] number for us how much that would be
[1:06:53] >> or two?
[1:06:55] >> Two. Yes.
[1:06:56] >> What the tax cap?
[1:06:57] >> No. What is What would um in order not
[1:07:01] to see the tax cap?
[1:07:03] >> Yeah.
[1:07:03] >> Approximately 6 million.
[1:07:05] So we would
[1:07:08] have to um reduce it by that or increase
[1:07:11] revenue. That's so that's what I'm
[1:07:13] trying to say. What do we what's our
[1:07:15] goal for tonight in terms of our number
[1:07:28] in terms of the revenue?
[1:07:29] >> Yeah, I know. Is there a goal? Is there
[1:07:31] a goal? Is the number we're trying to
[1:07:32] hit?
[1:07:34] >> We just heard it. So I'm asking
[1:07:38] that is the goal 6 million. Do we do we
[1:07:40] get that or do we we push for
[1:07:44] >> I I think that that's what the that's
[1:07:46] what
[1:08:05] So is
[1:08:08] Mr. Google again I'm not a financial
[1:08:11] analyst but how you explain if there are
[1:08:14] no property taxes if that second line
[1:08:18] and it's for whether we meet that or not
[1:08:22] in layman terms can you just describe
[1:08:24] why that even exists if we continue to
[1:08:27] hit
[1:08:33] » claiming the y
[1:08:35] >> good point
[1:08:37] >> I don't have some mushroom is good, but
[1:08:39] I was described by Mr. Barry. It's the
[1:08:43] bank inefficiencies in the city.
[1:08:45] >> And that and that's not really revenue
[1:08:46] then, right?
[1:08:47] >> No, it's not.
[1:08:48] >> It's a loss in participating in revenue,
[1:08:52] but it's not actually preparing for it
[1:08:55] and that presents in the budget that
[1:08:58] fund. So it's the city protecting itself
[1:09:01] >> which is why
[1:09:04] it
[1:09:04] >> but at this point in time we we can't
[1:09:06] over protect oursel we we need to cloud
[1:09:09] back a little so that we can able to get
[1:09:10] some revenue so that we can offset all
[1:09:12] this this increase that is floating
[1:09:14] around us.
[1:09:16] So please not
[1:09:19] so what I'll do is I will uh put
[1:09:22] together more information um more
[1:09:24] understandable for the council um
[1:09:28] tomorrow's meeting um so everyone has
[1:09:30] more clarification uh but you know
[1:09:33] collecting tax and how that affects and
[1:09:35] how we account for real property taxes
[1:09:38] >> and I respect that individuals that
[1:09:41] might have that lived experience might
[1:09:43] not want to come and sit in front of us
[1:09:45] because we're such a happy group of
[1:09:46] people. Um, if it if it's an opportunity
[1:09:49] to come during the day, I I will. That
[1:09:52] means I can have that one-on-one
[1:09:54] conversation.
[1:09:54] >> You know, it's always awesome.
[1:09:57] I make the time to hear that.
[1:10:00] I'd
[1:10:00] >> love to day possibility. Um, I'm sure um
[1:10:05] we have all information together
[1:10:07] meeting. Um, that does suffice and
[1:10:09] answer your questions and look into that
[1:10:12] for the future.
[1:10:13] >> Thank you.
[1:10:14] >> Yes.
[1:10:16] I guess I just you know looking at the
[1:10:18] history
[1:10:20] >> I don't know
[1:10:22] >> the history doesn't tell you nothing
[1:10:24] that was that is the estimated
[1:10:26] >> turn into actually but there's nothing
[1:10:29] no movement it's a number that was
[1:10:31] placed there as an
[1:10:33] >> as uncollected
[1:10:36] >> I just feel like it seems like our
[1:10:38] experts are
[1:10:40] >> you know recommending something and
[1:10:43] we don't seem to have the same knowledge
[1:10:45] Okay. So I
[1:10:46] >> I I would be cautious of saying you know
[1:10:48] expert
[1:10:50] no disrespect but um but in terms of the
[1:10:53] trend we have to look at the trend. It's
[1:10:55] a number. It's a negative number being
[1:10:56] placed there as an allowance for
[1:10:58] uncollected tax.
[1:11:01] We're now
[1:11:02] >> but if we add it back into the budget I
[1:11:05] mean in other words if we take it away
[1:11:08] >> and we say okay there's 3 million of the
[1:11:10] 6 million right there.
[1:11:12] >> 5 million. Oh yeah, because of the two
[1:11:14] lines,
[1:11:14] >> we're not taking
[1:11:16] >> I mean, if we say zero in both of those
[1:11:18] lines,
[1:11:19] >> yes,
[1:11:19] >> to get to the 5 million,
[1:11:22] >> 3 million right here
[1:11:24] >> out of the 6 million that we need,
[1:11:25] that's 5 million.
[1:11:27] >> Um, and then let's say, don't even fall
[1:11:29] off the chair, but I mean, don't, you
[1:11:32] know, then we take a million more from
[1:11:34] the reserves, which leaves us with like
[1:11:35] nothing, by the way, which I would not
[1:11:37] recommend doing. I'm just saying.
[1:11:39] There's your $6 million. But I guess to
[1:11:44] me it's just going against
[1:11:47] I don't know. I mean I think we would be
[1:11:49] taking a huge risk of of doing that and
[1:11:52] >> well that's why let's say I think that's
[1:11:55] why we're listening. Let's be cautious
[1:11:56] on what we do because we we as a body we
[1:11:59] have an obligation and that's what we're
[1:12:00] doing to go through this budget and to
[1:12:02] make a determination of what do we
[1:12:05] proceed with.
[1:12:06] >> Mhm.
[1:12:07] >> If yes they're expert out there on their
[1:12:10] recommendation
[1:12:13] and if the recommendation is saying this
[1:12:15] no then we should go to the budget and
[1:12:16] move on and negotiate nothing. It is our
[1:12:19] job to kind of go through the lines and
[1:12:20] make sure that we understand what is
[1:12:22] happening.
[1:12:23] >> Um $2.8 $8 million there negative.
[1:12:27] If everything goes well and everything
[1:12:29] is going to go well into the next year,
[1:12:31] that is $2 million there set aside as a
[1:12:34] negative. It goes back into general
[1:12:36] fund. Now, can we afford that at this
[1:12:39] point in time to be raising 70% taxes to
[1:12:43] have a high negative like that? I think
[1:12:46] we need to drop it.
[1:12:49] I'm not saying we take the whole thing
[1:12:51] and conserve. We we need to agree on a
[1:12:53] certain number.
[1:12:57] So
[1:13:00] try so
[1:13:02] that allowance for uncollected taxes in
[1:13:05] previous years
[1:13:07] you're saying has been spot on.
[1:13:10] >> Mhm.
[1:13:11] >> No. Right.
[1:13:11] >> No.
[1:13:12] >> But the uncollected taxes.
[1:13:14] >> Yeah. Sorry, for 2024
[1:13:18] the Obama was 3 million
[1:13:21] 20,13 and then the actual
[1:13:25] I mean yeah
[1:13:28] >> he's been right on in 2023 and 24 budget
[1:13:33] allowance for collected taxes actual uh
[1:13:36] let's say uh for the um 20 for 21.8 80
[1:13:42] million for 22 is 2.6 million. Uh for 23
[1:13:47] 3.2 for 24 3 million.
[1:13:53] » So he's
[1:13:55] been right on.
[1:14:01] » How about $6 million now to jump?
[1:14:03] >> That's that's how I'm factoring my my
[1:14:08] year were flat years. We have 30 31 32
[1:14:12] 33.
[1:14:13] >> Now we're looking at um 39.
[1:14:15] >> So you're talking about because
[1:14:16] >> because the the
[1:14:18] >> 6 million increase of 6 million this
[1:14:20] year.
[1:14:23] >> Oh, if if that was 34 million, I
[1:14:25] wouldn't be talking about that.
[1:14:27] >> I would I would be like, "Nope, can't
[1:14:29] touch it."
[1:14:33] Okay.
[1:14:36] kind of a great informative
[1:14:40] diagnost.
[1:14:41] >> So what what a little concise summary
[1:14:44] for your account
[1:14:46] incorporate some other texts that were
[1:14:48] adapted yesterday.
[1:14:51] >> That's a good point.
[1:14:54] » I think just because you raised it by
[1:14:56] that amount doesn't mean you're going to
[1:14:57] collect that entire
[1:15:00] property taxes.
[1:15:01] >> Well, we can take your house.
[1:15:04] >> What? We'll take the house but then it
[1:15:06] brings the u the sale.
[1:15:09] >> Yeah. Next. So the list of rocks
[1:15:13] properties approximately 75% of the
[1:15:15] people redeem them. So we don't get
[1:15:17] them. And I just wrote a summary
[1:15:18] judgement motion for property that was
[1:15:21] foreclosed on originally in 2021.
[1:15:24] >> So I think it's just very fluid with how
[1:15:27] quick the courts are and getting back to
[1:15:29] us. But I do know we at least have two
[1:15:30] properties that are coming back to us.
[1:15:32] one is going to be in February and then
[1:15:34] one is going to be in March or April.
[1:15:37] >> Um but I can give you more specifics
[1:15:39] talking to Maxine. I think the list is
[1:15:41] just I would say approximately to bear
[1:15:42] on the side of caution to say 75.8% 80%
[1:15:45] of the people will redeem it within a
[1:15:47] statuto period of time before we can
[1:15:48] foreclose.
[1:15:50] And that kind of answer the question in
[1:15:52] terms of the um
[1:15:54] >> taxes the real tax
[1:15:59] we're going to we're going to reach
[1:16:00] achieve that goal of the estimated 29
[1:16:02] million
[1:16:04] >> right because if if I mean there's a lot
[1:16:07] of variables here but if we if we're not
[1:16:09] we're just moving the goalpost depending
[1:16:12] on the scenario then you know we're
[1:16:14] going to be chasing our tails here
[1:16:16] to
[1:16:20] So, what numbers are you signed?
[1:16:24] >> I think we should bring it to know about
[1:16:27] $2 million or just under 2 million.
[1:16:32] I think it's about $8900.
[1:16:42] » Yeah.
[1:16:45] That's my number. I'm I'm okay here.
[1:16:48] We're we're discussing here but uh you
[1:16:50] know we as a council will have to
[1:16:51] deliberate on it and yes any
[1:16:53] recommendation but you have to realize
[1:16:56] that all the recommendation from agency
[1:16:58] are very cautious and we as a valuable
[1:17:01] something you have to take risk
[1:17:03] >> and this is what this estimate is is
[1:17:05] risk in anticipation that we're going to
[1:17:08] achieve these numbers because we can
[1:17:10] budget for $39 million and god forbid we
[1:17:13] only collect $30 million. Well, but
[1:17:15] that's what I'm saying. The numbers are
[1:17:17] real. I mean, and and if history is
[1:17:20] showing that it is, I I I agree with you
[1:17:22] on that. Like, if
[1:17:24] >> we've been collecting what we said we're
[1:17:26] going to collect and now we're saying
[1:17:27] that we're going to collect 39, then
[1:17:30] >> we should the formula should reflect us
[1:17:32] collecting 39. If not, then what? Why?
[1:17:35] does it say 39?
[1:17:37] >> And that's why I have no objection
[1:17:40] against the $39.3 million.
[1:17:42] >> Yeah. No, I I'm saying I want us to
[1:17:45] achieve that. I want us to collect more
[1:17:46] than that,
[1:17:47] >> but we should be limited.
[1:17:50] >> We should drop the allowance for unc
[1:17:55] I'm informed with that.
[1:17:58] >> No report.
[1:18:04] » But I'm I'm okay. I'm not I'm fine with
[1:18:07] that, but I'm I'm I'm okay with the
[1:18:10] report. I'm okay to discuss that.
[1:18:14] Mr.
[1:18:15] >> Have you ever decreased it in the past
[1:18:17] to any type of
[1:18:19] >> No, because what happened is if you look
[1:18:21] at the trend 30 million, 31 million, 32
[1:18:24] million, 33 million, it was like a
[1:18:27] >> couple hundred thousand 100,000. No,
[1:18:29] within a million of each other or less,
[1:18:31] >> right?
[1:18:32] >> But then if you look 2025 to 2026,
[1:18:36] >> $6 billion, it's not a million.
[1:18:41] So I guess another question becomes
[1:18:44] since we're not the other number how did
[1:18:46] we arrive at 33 million
[1:18:50] >> what what I'm sorry what' you say
[1:18:51] >> how did we arrive that we're going to um
[1:18:54] excuse me
[1:18:56] how did we arrive that we're going to
[1:18:58] have that significant increase in real
[1:19:01] property tax
[1:19:04] so we have a formula that essentially
[1:19:08] give the tax value um that we input
[1:19:11] from. It's a predeterminable preliminary
[1:19:14] number that we received from the
[1:19:16] assessments office.
[1:19:17] >> Uh uh factor that in um and it's
[1:19:21] basically a calculation that shows us so
[1:19:23] we're looking for a certain number since
[1:19:25] we have a gap of say 6 million.
[1:19:30] you fill that gap to and that's how we
[1:19:33] get the rate of it was what 1577
[1:19:38] >> with different variables at two pilot
[1:19:40] comes off goes on
[1:19:44] the uh assessible values increase
[1:19:48] variables that change the taxable rate
[1:19:51] >> but the formula doesn't change though
[1:19:53] this is the same formula we use now that
[1:19:55] you use in fast cover okay the nail on
[1:19:58] the head
[1:19:58] >> so then exactly point.
[1:20:02] >> So yeah, the tax levy is standard
[1:20:04] whatever. Yes, that that's correct.
[1:20:06] We've been using that all the years is
[1:20:08] that whatever is recommended from the
[1:20:10] assessor's office that's the formula is
[1:20:11] used with those numbers and calculate
[1:20:14] the the real property real property tax
[1:20:18] line.
[1:20:24] Okay. So, this part I was getting to
[1:20:27] when I was thinking about I think when I
[1:20:30] was thinking about wave like we use it
[1:20:32] to chase money instead of holding
[1:20:34] apartments within boundaries and I know
[1:20:36] it's difficult with staffing and like
[1:20:38] increases yearoveryear but I think
[1:20:40] that's part of the issue.
[1:20:42] >> What do you mean chasing chasing staff? So, you have to find the
[1:20:46] shortfall 6 million. So went right to
[1:20:49] that median line
[1:20:51] >> of revenue.
[1:20:52] >> That's a but instead of identifying
[1:20:56] other areas to see if there were other
[1:20:58] inefficiencies.
[1:21:00] >> Well, I think that's
[1:21:01] >> I think we're going to though. I mean I
[1:21:03] think you know we still have to
[1:21:05] >> because we have to that wasn't
[1:21:08] identified in post budget how I'm
[1:21:10] interpreting. I I kind of miss who did
[1:21:13] it if you don't mind. Sorry.
[1:21:20] » So, we're chasing dollars from a
[1:21:21] community instead of evaluating whether
[1:21:23] there could be more efficiencies
[1:21:24] internally.
[1:21:28] » Well, I feel like we're going to do that
[1:21:30] first of all, but remember that
[1:21:32] department heads were all asked to cut
[1:21:33] their budgets by 20%. Um, and there were
[1:21:37] some budgets as I listened to your
[1:21:39] overviews
[1:21:42] uh before our department heads
[1:21:43] presented.
[1:21:44] >> I think there was a budget that went up
[1:21:46] 11%. I mean, I know the police
[1:21:48] department hit the 20% reduction. Um,
[1:21:52] you know what I'm saying? Like it varied
[1:21:54] like some of them were able to
[1:21:55] >> then we looked at yearly
[1:21:58] a lot of apartments are definitely went
[1:22:01] down from 2025. there are driving
[1:22:04] factors you have health insurance
[1:22:06] retirement
[1:22:08] so that's I mean we don't really have
[1:22:13] >> we get those numbers so the retirements
[1:22:14] we get from the state so it's all
[1:22:16] contracted too so for example uh you
[1:22:20] know the uh police department recently
[1:22:23] got 383 so that spiked up our FRMS
[1:22:27] numbers for retirement
[1:22:29] >> so there's different factors at play um
[1:22:32] department what they could do to reduce
[1:22:34] the budgets they did uh recently. Um you
[1:22:37] did did have the police department that
[1:22:40] um you look at some of the lower
[1:22:41] deadlines are
[1:22:43] >> say not legitimate.
[1:22:44] >> Um but that's I guess have to decide
[1:22:49] expanding on your comment though
[1:22:51] contracts reside with the mayor and it's
[1:22:53] a comment that I'm willing to make as
[1:22:54] soon as he's present. So giving him the
[1:22:56] discretion of not being at the meeting.
[1:22:58] Um we're accountable to what was brought
[1:23:00] from those discussions and time and time
[1:23:02] again the statement is give me your
[1:23:04] vision. These are conversations I'm
[1:23:05] having respect the outcome. That's what
[1:23:08] we're told. So we're here based on two
[1:23:10] outcomes in part by police.
[1:23:14] >> Absolutely. And I I'm glad you touched
[1:23:16] that because they hear you talk about
[1:23:18] the police um the over the time line is
[1:23:21] it's low but that what was presented to
[1:23:24] us the council did that even touch that
[1:23:27] line or even I don't hear anybody
[1:23:30] talking about that that line. So I want
[1:23:32] to make that very clear about what's
[1:23:33] here and what is listening
[1:23:37] that that number was presented to us. So
[1:23:39] if we're saying that it's low then it's
[1:23:42] question should be directed at the mayor
[1:23:44] and the uh the person who created that
[1:23:47] budget from
[1:23:47] >> we also know that line isn't accurate.
[1:23:50] It's not right. It's what's presented to
[1:23:52] us but we know the function. Again the
[1:23:55] presentation is one thing but the actual
[1:23:57] practice is different and that's why we
[1:23:59] need to know like what the chances are.
[1:24:00] So if I come in and say I have this line
[1:24:03] for overtime and then and this is and
[1:24:06] this is true for all departments is
[1:24:07] which is why I wanted the information as where the transfers are going. What's
[1:24:11] happening is we're saying in line A
[1:24:14] >> we we're budgeted $100,000 in overtime.
[1:24:18] Um and then in line and and then but the
[1:24:22] actuality when the year closes out we
[1:24:24] spent $150,000
[1:24:27] in overtime and then we go well where
[1:24:28] did the extra $50,000 come from? Oh it
[1:24:30] came from line C and D from these two
[1:24:32] positions in Connecticut.
[1:24:34] >> So the thing is if we're not looking at
[1:24:35] the real numbers we're not having a real
[1:24:36] conversation. So
[1:24:38] >> we will we and we will never get the
[1:24:40] real number because regardless of if you
[1:24:42] were to if that line came into us with
[1:24:44] $2 million and anybody any department
[1:24:47] exceed that line they will go to the
[1:24:49] other lines and where they
[1:24:51] >> right
[1:24:52] >> left over money and they will take that
[1:24:54] money
[1:24:55] >> and and substitute for that line
[1:24:58] >> and I think that's what we heard from
[1:25:00] the department. Yeah, that's what I'm
[1:25:01] saying. That's why that's why it's kind
[1:25:02] of it's not a
[1:25:04] >> we're not starting off from
[1:25:07] packet too for council review back
[1:25:12] for years for the whole year for 24 and
[1:25:16] for
[1:25:18] maybe not something
[1:25:20] tonight. Um, but you need to take your
[1:25:23] time and book it.
[1:25:31] » I guess I guess I don't know. I mean,
[1:25:35] that's budgeting, right? I mean,
[1:25:36] whenever you at at our jobs when we
[1:25:39] present a department budget to someone,
[1:25:44] you know, you be realistic, you be
[1:25:47] conservative, you ask hopefully for
[1:25:50] stuff that, you know, maybe you're not
[1:25:52] going to get, and you know that at the
[1:25:54] end, I mean, I don't know all the
[1:25:56] accounting terms, but I mean, at the end
[1:25:58] of the day, if if my department budget
[1:26:02] was $200,000, I can't even remember, but
[1:26:05] And you know, in one line, I missed it
[1:26:10] by 20 grand, but I went over another
[1:26:12] line by 20 grand. My bottom line is
[1:26:15] still going to be what I projected to be
[1:26:16] in my budget.
[1:26:17] >> That's exactly what we're trying to get
[1:26:18] at.
[1:26:19] >> No, I know. That's what I'm saying.
[1:26:20] That's budget. I mean, that is just
[1:26:22] budgeting. It is
[1:26:23] >> It is It is budgeting. However,
[1:26:25] everywhere.
[1:26:25] >> Yeah. However, we make decisions based
[1:26:29] on the priority of the line. In other
[1:26:32] words, we make decisions saying like,
[1:26:34] "Oh, well, overtime is super necessary
[1:26:36] for these reasons, right? We might say
[1:26:39] this other line C doesn't necessarily
[1:26:42] have that same priority as overtime, for
[1:26:44] example." So, when we put together the
[1:26:47] budget based on the information that's
[1:26:49] presented to us, that's how we're making
[1:26:52] our decisions. So we so it is I
[1:26:54] understand for saying it it evens out
[1:26:56] but really if we know that that line C
[1:26:59] is available with money in it then maybe
[1:27:01] that line C money goes someplace else so
[1:27:05] like so we can be we just have to have
[1:27:07] the the real numbers in front of us to
[1:27:09] make a better informed decision. That's
[1:27:11] what I'm saying
[1:27:13] >> but sometimes
[1:27:14] >> but it does affect how we prioritize and
[1:27:17] that does affect the bottom line. Most
[1:27:19] of the time it's salary line and someone
[1:27:20] will retire years after 6 months
[1:27:23] available salary and benefits. So that
[1:27:25] line and you know some you know in that
[1:27:27] people you know not available in that
[1:27:29] line in each department.
[1:27:31] >> So that money there that 6 month 8 month
[1:27:33] whatever that time line is will go
[1:27:36] towards as a cushion towards those. So
[1:27:39] there is no stop of service. So there
[1:27:42] won't be there won't be a stop of
[1:27:43] service provided by any department in
[1:27:45] the city because that line is not
[1:27:47] funded.
[1:27:48] >> That's right.
[1:27:50] >> We're still have to pay.
[1:27:51] >> Exactly. Regardless, there is money
[1:27:53] always in in every department to help
[1:27:56] push it. So you so I think it would be
[1:28:00] to have a more genuine conversation to
[1:28:03] say this is our cushion budget. Don't
[1:28:06] call it space rocket line C if that's
[1:28:10] not what it is. That's what I'm saying.
[1:28:12] >> I I I think if we want to then we give
[1:28:15] but then we'd be like saying we're going
[1:28:18] to have to give another million dollars
[1:28:19] to the police overtime budget or we're
[1:28:21] going to have to give another million
[1:28:22] dollars to the fire department overtime
[1:28:24] budget. But
[1:28:25] >> but we're saying that anyway. But we're
[1:28:26] saying that anyway with a wink and an
[1:28:28] eye.
[1:28:29] >> I know. But I mean we're trying to like stay within a
[1:28:33] certain
[1:28:34] >> That's that's the happy to do the real
[1:28:37] number, but then you're going to have to
[1:28:38] have a higher tax rate than 17
[1:28:40] something%.
[1:28:41] >> But I just we I think I think we're
[1:28:44] going around in the same circle here.
[1:28:46] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:28:46] >> Yeah.
[1:28:48] >> Every department they have a budget,
[1:28:50] >> right?
[1:28:50] >> And they have many lines that they will
[1:28:52] not utilize on 100% in any given budget
[1:28:55] at any given year.
[1:28:56] >> Well, that's why we're going
[1:28:57] >> and that's why that's why they have in
[1:28:59] every department they have cushion. So
[1:29:02] if you come to me and say well I I
[1:29:05] wanted a million dollar but I only
[1:29:07] budgeted for $850
[1:29:09] >> then you were asked to make a reduction
[1:29:11] in your overall budget because because
[1:29:13] of the the situation that is in front of
[1:29:16] us. So
[1:29:19] people need to understand it to live
[1:29:21] within their means and to do what they
[1:29:23] have and if you're shortfall there will
[1:29:26] be lines that you can go after and
[1:29:28] recoup some money and help you keep
[1:29:30] floating and move on.
[1:29:32] So I'm not I'm not even worried about
[1:29:34] someone talking about well we have a
[1:29:36] shortfall from line or two. I agree
[1:29:38] >> at the end of the year it all evens out.
[1:29:42] We don't
[1:29:43] >> well it does happen.
[1:29:46] >> So just just accident
[1:29:48] >> No, I mean overall the overall
[1:29:50] >> Miss Patrick, you mentioned that that
[1:29:51] the budget came in at 20% across all
[1:29:53] department.
[1:29:54] >> No, no, I didn't say that. I I said that
[1:29:56] that's what they were asked to do and
[1:29:58] they were the goal.
[1:30:00] >> Oh, that was the goal to so we didn't
[1:30:02] reduce our the tax cap.
[1:30:05] >> But that didn't happen.
[1:30:09] » Okay. I want to clear that because that
[1:30:11] >> we heard that. I mean as I mean I think
[1:30:13] you started every department head
[1:30:15] conversation with what the
[1:30:18] >> increase or the decrease was um in your
[1:30:21] general what was that called the general
[1:30:23] overview of each department.
[1:30:25] >> So so so let's wrap up this um this this
[1:30:29] >> I couldn't go
[1:30:30] >> this allowance this uncollect um
[1:30:34] allowance for uncollected. We're going
[1:30:36] to wait till tomorrow have the report.
[1:30:38] But I think this is a global line for us
[1:30:41] to look at seriously in terms of the
[1:30:44] trend from 43.3 million to 49.3 million.
[1:30:49] That is a $6 million difference. I have
[1:30:51] it as follows for tomorrow.
[1:30:57] » Any any other questions, Sam? We did
[1:30:59] cover all of that. The only thing I
[1:31:01] didn't was the um when will the to
[1:31:04] contract be negotiated? I know the law
[1:31:06] department has a copy to know when
[1:31:08] everybody um
[1:31:10] let me ask who has
[1:31:12] >> so
[1:31:14] yesterday we saw in revenue line
[1:31:20] so our to uh day 1789 in revenue the
[1:31:24] search charge doubled for towing search
[1:31:27] charge and it doubled for the impound
[1:31:28] time. So my question was you know
[1:31:33] >> what why is that like what's happening
[1:31:35] to justify that
[1:31:38] >> um
[1:31:40] mentioned prior went over the u armies
[1:31:45] uh briefly um the chief indicated that
[1:31:49] uh new to contract would have been
[1:31:52] negotiated
[1:31:54] and council
[1:31:56] >> and so and this is projected based on
[1:31:59] that
[1:32:00] >> the new contract
[1:32:01] >> new contract the possibility for a
[1:32:03] contract to the cler
[1:32:04] >> correct
[1:32:05] >> so when but that's your back to your
[1:32:07] question then when are they going to
[1:32:08] know right that was your original
[1:32:11] question
[1:32:12] >> but we don't know that
[1:32:13] >> so I'd say this is sincerely the same
[1:32:15] conversation we had with least last year
[1:32:18] I feel very comfortable with the
[1:32:20] hypothetical when we'll have the
[1:32:22] discussion when we'll deal
[1:32:31] Yes.
[1:32:33] Currently implemented in the city
[1:32:36] trying to forecast a conversation that
[1:32:38] will and may happen because contract
[1:32:40] discussions go plainly and smoothly at
[1:32:43] all times. Right.
[1:32:45] >> That was sarcastic people.
[1:32:47] >> Sorry. Again, I think going off of the
[1:32:50] assurances that we've gotten before, I I
[1:32:53] think at some point we need to call a
[1:32:55] state. I I I think what does it say?
[1:32:58] Fool me once. Shame on me or listening
[1:33:00] to to historical precedents that we want
[1:33:02] to highlight. Um I think historically
[1:33:05] this council has been presented with
[1:33:10] things are going to present the way that
[1:33:11] they are. I'm confident this will
[1:33:13] happen. what happens when those fall in
[1:33:16] the bowl and then we fill it with
[1:33:18] general fund balance. I'm saying at this
[1:33:21] point we should not continue that. If we
[1:33:23] do not have a contract in place, we
[1:33:25] should not be anticipating something.
[1:33:29] If those conversations happen at least
[1:33:31] start at least not done. think that's
[1:33:33] improved.
[1:33:35] >> Okay, I have to that we're anticipating
[1:33:37] that people that we're speaking to are
[1:33:39] going to say, "Oh, yes, I don't mind
[1:33:40] being by this." And what if they say no?
[1:33:45] What do we do? And I think it's
[1:33:47] interesting how we got to double
[1:33:51] >> that would be a question for the chief.
[1:33:53] >> Okay, that that's that's sign double
[1:33:55] everything.
[1:33:56] >> So that's the question we need the
[1:33:57] answer to. So So I I guess what are you
[1:34:00] recommending that we
[1:34:03] um both you Mr. Farley and Mr. Williams
[1:34:05] recommend that we not double the amount
[1:34:07] in terms of revenue.
[1:34:08] >> So I think the question is the the first
[1:34:10] question is the question for the chief
[1:34:12] to say like you know why why doubling it
[1:34:16] instead of increasing it why increasing
[1:34:18] it but double I think that that's a fair
[1:34:20] question and then the second question
[1:34:22] would be when do we anticipate these
[1:34:26] contract negotiations to uh start take
[1:34:29] place? sure if they are available
[1:34:32] tomorrow
[1:34:36] questions.
[1:34:43] » Okay, go ahead please.
[1:34:45] >> Do I remember something um that we had
[1:34:47] maybe in
[1:34:50] executive session or somewhere
[1:34:53] different contracts or um for this
[1:34:57] particular line?
[1:35:00] I don't
[1:35:00] >> companies were being
[1:35:02] No.
[1:35:03] >> Okay.
[1:35:03] >> I don't remember talking about
[1:35:08] » we did something.
[1:35:11] >> Oh, yeah.
[1:35:13] >> I don't think they have
[1:35:16] >> that.
[1:35:18] Well,
[1:35:18] >> yeah, but that might have
[1:35:20] >> like don't Yeah.
[1:35:22] >> I mean, that's why when we when they get
[1:35:23] here, we just ask and then we'll know
[1:35:25] like how longive session.
[1:35:27] >> Yeah. Just asking how we got here.
[1:35:31] >> You're right. I remember now.
[1:35:43] » So you got a hand.
[1:35:45] >> Not about
[1:35:49] me.
[1:35:50] >> M you want you had some recommendation.
[1:35:54] >> Yeah. So I really wanted to visit the L
[1:35:59] 1081.
[1:36:02] Our increase was um
[1:36:06] from 24 to
[1:36:09] 25 we had you know like 136,000 I
[1:36:13] believe and then now we're going up
[1:36:15] 300,000. But um
[1:36:19] my concern here is that we're
[1:36:21] continually increasing taxes on
[1:36:24] residents and then our our our pilots
[1:36:28] are not really increasing at that low.
[1:36:30] So um I currently we have 154 pilots in
[1:36:36] the county. They're not all in the city,
[1:36:37] but we do have them. And so how do we
[1:36:42] and by the way 3 months ago I started
[1:36:44] asking for information about the pilots
[1:36:46] because I knew we were going to be here
[1:36:48] and haven't gotten everything that I
[1:36:49] need. So it's takes some time. I think
[1:36:52] we really need to talk about how we
[1:36:57] anticipate revenue from the pilots. Now
[1:36:59] we may not be able to change things and
[1:37:01] not in time to like change the revenue
[1:37:02] in this budget. However, I also feel
[1:37:05] that there still warrants the fund
[1:37:07] balance quite frankly. And so my
[1:37:09] calculation here is going into the fund
[1:37:12] balance how we can replenish it. I say
[1:37:14] that pilots is the place that we should
[1:37:16] be looking in terms of that. So um I
[1:37:20] don't know that we can I mean I'm
[1:37:21] waiting for all the information about
[1:37:22] the pilots to see what's dropped off and
[1:37:24] if we can even be putting more revenue
[1:37:26] in here. Hopefully I'll have that for
[1:37:28] the end of this week. But if I if I
[1:37:31] don't I'm really pushing for it if I
[1:37:33] don't. But we should talk about as we
[1:37:36] have to go not below 15% but we have to
[1:37:39] go more into the fund balance in order
[1:37:41] to fill the gaps in this budget that how
[1:37:45] we then replenish the fund balance and
[1:37:47] that for me is one of the areas that we
[1:37:49] need to do that.
[1:37:51] >> So Mr. Mary.
[1:37:52] >> Yeah. As it currently stands, that would
[1:37:55] involve a conversation with the
[1:37:56] metroplex some
[1:37:58] >> which I think could happen between now
[1:37:59] and budget season and I don't know if we
[1:38:02] discuss removing or including factors to
[1:38:06] those discussions with the council like
[1:38:09] removing the ability to enter these
[1:38:11] agreements
[1:38:12] or putting in place stipulations where
[1:38:16] they have to inform the tax assessor the
[1:38:18] initial stage of when these are
[1:38:20] conceptualized.
[1:38:22] Um or we can just pause it
[1:38:26] indefinitely.
[1:38:29] >> Well, I I I would say pause it because
[1:38:31] we need development. We need people to
[1:38:34] come in and open these business. But I
[1:38:36] agree with you. We need to revisit it.
[1:38:38] We need
[1:38:39] >> not the conversation
[1:38:41] uh pilots but no
[1:38:45] responding.
[1:38:45] >> I I we shouldn't suggest that because uh
[1:38:48] it will affect investment. Yes, we yes,
[1:38:52] every municipality they do have these
[1:38:54] programs, but I think yes, we need to
[1:38:56] revisit it. We need to get more
[1:38:58] involved.
[1:38:59] >> We need to know what's happening. We
[1:39:00] don't need to wait until every budget
[1:39:02] and then we're seeing the numbers and
[1:39:04] seeing how many pilots are we having.
[1:39:07] >> Like I said, I started asking this
[1:39:08] question a few months ago, so I wasn't
[1:39:10] down here. And so, um, I'm going to say
[1:39:13] that
[1:39:14] >> I don't know if we need to pause it, but
[1:39:15] I understand that, you know, that's what
[1:39:17] development is to welcome development to
[1:39:19] our city. But the whole purpose when we
[1:39:21] started was the pilots when there was a
[1:39:23] time when we needed really a lot of
[1:39:25] development but as the mayor currently
[1:39:27] states where the envy of so many places.
[1:39:29] So are we do we still need to do pilots
[1:39:31] at the level that we're doing them is
[1:39:33] really a question and and how much and are our pilots extending what the
[1:39:38] recommended time frame is. So um yes
[1:39:43] extremely involved in the decision maker
[1:39:45] frankly on the pilots but that's the
[1:39:47] entire city. So we do need to have more
[1:39:51] involvement in how this is. Um and also
[1:39:55] I'd like to see like this is the
[1:39:57] recommendation and so this this number
[1:39:59] came from the assessor's office as well.
[1:40:01] >> This was it in conversation with uh
[1:40:05] supervisor receipts. Uh I believe there
[1:40:08] were six to between six and nine
[1:40:10] additions to uh the pilots. That's why
[1:40:14] this number increased by
[1:40:16] >> it's it's I wrote it down when we had we
[1:40:18] asked the question
[1:40:20] presentations I wrote down 95 that's
[1:40:23] what that number represents I mean it's
[1:40:25] obviously an economic development tool
[1:40:27] it's how it's going to be did get to the
[1:40:31] thought um and it is a metroplex um
[1:40:34] negotiation um you know I read the book
[1:40:39] metroplex but um you know I If you want
[1:40:43] to have Mr. Gillan came in, he did send
[1:40:45] an email to you that listed all the
[1:40:47] pilots and listed information about it.
[1:40:50] But he would be the person that you
[1:40:51] would need to have
[1:40:52] >> in touch with him and and just he did
[1:40:54] send that and corresponded
[1:40:56] >> other county too. I mean, you'd have to
[1:40:58] talk to the county and
[1:41:00] >> well
[1:41:02] that yes, we'd have to talk to the
[1:41:03] county, but um are we really getting
[1:41:05] what we should be getting in these
[1:41:06] pilots? I think you have to, again, I'm
[1:41:09] not the expert, but I mean, I think
[1:41:11] talking to them, but I mean, I think
[1:41:12] you'd have to balance. Do we want to
[1:41:14] continue to try to bring new businesses
[1:41:16] into town? Um, especially, you know, as
[1:41:19] businesses leave, as businesses grow, as
[1:41:21] businesses of outer pilot. Um, do we
[1:41:25] want to keep having that economic
[1:41:26] development happening or do we want to
[1:41:29] pause it to use the word that I mean,
[1:41:32] you know, you know what I'm saying? We
[1:41:33] have to it all and it's all one big
[1:41:35] puzzle, right? It's all how does how
[1:41:37] does what how does our education system
[1:41:40] come into play? How does our housing
[1:41:42] market come into play? Um you know all
[1:41:45] of it works together in terms of how we
[1:41:47] bring um people and and businesses to
[1:41:51] town. Um so it's it's it's a very large
[1:41:54] >> I I think over the years and I think we
[1:41:57] have this over time and time again on
[1:41:59] this council here that um
[1:42:01] >> we need to get more involved and I
[1:42:04] appreciate uh Mr. William bringing us
[1:42:06] back and for discussion here you know at
[1:42:08] this time
[1:42:09] >> miss poor you know so um we have talked
[1:42:14] I can remember as long as on this
[1:42:15] council here that um we need to get more
[1:42:18] involved because we we don't know what's
[1:42:21] happening
[1:42:22] and to ask for report and we're not
[1:42:24] getting it then that's that's a no no
[1:42:26] for us. We should be
[1:42:29] >> we should be having those those report
[1:42:31] accessible to us at any given time and
[1:42:33] there should be no reason why the
[1:42:35] council shouldn't get those reports. So
[1:42:38] we should follow up and make sure that
[1:42:39] reports available and shared to the
[1:42:41] council. But I think it's I don't think uh we want to stop
[1:42:45] investment coming but I think we need to
[1:42:48] get we need to get a more more better
[1:42:50] understanding of what's happening and is
[1:42:53] it the right numbers that they're given
[1:42:56] to these business can we get more
[1:43:00] >> the time I mean like look at 5 years ago
[1:43:02] versus now we're very competitive now
[1:43:05] >> yes we are
[1:43:05] >> 5 years ago or 10 years ago when people
[1:43:08] were saying okay come invest we'll give
[1:43:09] you whatever you want
[1:43:10] >> right Now we're hot bad for investment
[1:43:14] now. So it's two different ball game
[1:43:17] here. So I think we need to to find out
[1:43:19] to make sure we're getting our fair
[1:43:21] share in terms of this pilot and to
[1:43:23] continue it make sure that the school
[1:43:26] and the city and everybody in the county
[1:43:28] is getting the the the right amount of
[1:43:30] money
[1:43:31] >> from this from these programs.
[1:43:34] >> Messed up.
[1:43:35] >> Excuse me. I just want to make
[1:43:36] clarifying points about something that
[1:43:38] you said that we weren't getting
[1:43:39] reports. We did get there was a group
[1:43:42] asked and we did get a report. However,
[1:43:44] it did not contain the information that
[1:43:47] I received. So, we did get a
[1:43:49] >> Oh, I'm sorry. So I I just said can you
[1:43:52] please uh you should reply to the email
[1:43:54] and just kind of like let you know as
[1:43:56] >> I already done that already done that
[1:43:58] just but I just want to make sure that
[1:43:59] everybody understands I did ask for
[1:44:01] something and what I've got was not the
[1:44:02] information I was seeking and so I asked
[1:44:04] for additional information and right now
[1:44:07] um the assessor's office is actually
[1:44:09] putting something together as well. She
[1:44:10] just said it's going to take a while
[1:44:12] because um so just for for information
[1:44:16] sake the contracts are negotiated and
[1:44:18] then given to the assessor. So it's not
[1:44:20] even like we may have some say in it.
[1:44:24] It's all done tied with a ribbon and
[1:44:26] deliberately.
[1:44:27] >> So that needs to change and I'm not
[1:44:31] >> um
[1:44:32] >> well we a council we could discuss that
[1:44:34] and and and try to get a better
[1:44:36] understanding of what is our
[1:44:38] responsibility. Do we have capacity to
[1:44:41] do any change and to kind of reinforce
[1:44:43] it and how do we get information prior
[1:44:48] to as you said tying the revolver?
[1:44:51] >> So, so the I guess the point I'm trying
[1:44:55] to make I think we're heading down that
[1:44:57] road is that it's not just about us
[1:44:59] getting the information after the fact.
[1:45:02] Um it's like where are where are the
[1:45:05] checks and balances
[1:45:07] to because right now we're here trying
[1:45:10] to figure out how these things impact
[1:45:14] the city. So the city so my question
[1:45:17] again and I know it might sound like a
[1:45:19] basic question but I think that
[1:45:22] sometimes we get asked those basic
[1:45:23] questions why why don't we have why
[1:45:27] don't we have the ability to approve
[1:45:32] pilots or or disapprove pilots? Why is
[1:45:34] it structured like that? I'm sure
[1:45:37] there's a lot of reasons why, but
[1:45:39] >> I'm sure.
[1:45:40] >> But again, a lot of times when we look
[1:45:42] at things how they're done, it's like,
[1:45:44] well, that's the way we did it for the
[1:45:46] last 10 years. And now we're looking at
[1:45:49] a very city, a very different city right
[1:45:51] now that we did 10 years ago. So in
[1:45:53] order to use that same formula that
[1:45:55] we've been using 10 years ago, makes no
[1:45:58] sense.
[1:45:58] >> So that's what that's what I just said.
[1:46:01] Or maybe they are
[1:46:02] >> 5 10 years ago.
[1:46:04] >> Maybe they're not. Well, maybe they're
[1:46:06] not using the same formula, but they're
[1:46:07] still using the same decision making
[1:46:09] formula.
[1:46:10] >> Correct.
[1:46:11] >> Yeah.
[1:46:12] >> That's not giving our perspectives.
[1:46:17] » So, how do we change that? That's the
[1:46:19] question. Any ideas?
[1:46:23] >> I'm next. Sorry.
[1:46:24] >> I I was next.
[1:46:26] >> I didn't know if you were done though.
[1:46:28] >> Yeah, I was saying any ideas how we
[1:46:29] change it.
[1:46:30] >> Go ahead. Well, I I guess my suggestion
[1:46:32] would be that you know we invite Mr.
[1:46:35] Gillan to come to a meeting and or and
[1:46:38] or we also could find out. I don't know
[1:46:41] if their meetings are open. I I think
[1:46:43] they are. In other words, we could go to
[1:46:45] their Metroplex board meeting or anybody
[1:46:47] could
[1:46:48] >> um and you know ask the questions of the
[1:46:51] Metroplex board and um you know observe
[1:46:54] it um the way you would anything that
[1:46:57] any of us go to to try to learn more. Um
[1:47:01] but those would be my two suggestions
[1:47:02] that we invite folks here to talk to us
[1:47:05] about that maybe a special meeting or
[1:47:07] during a committee meeting I guess. um
[1:47:09] and or we probably could be invited or
[1:47:12] ask if we could attend a Metroplex Board
[1:47:15] meeting and find out a little ask some
[1:47:16] questions at those. So those you know go
[1:47:18] to the source.
[1:47:19] >> Um and then I think also you'd have to
[1:47:22] probably ask Mr. Gardner to come in from
[1:47:25] the county because he obviously has
[1:47:27] quite a leadership role in this process
[1:47:29] as well. Um so
[1:47:33] >> well the Yeah, that's
[1:47:34] >> Do you think that he I'm sorry. Do you
[1:47:36] think that he has a
[1:47:38] >> I'm not sure about negotiating those
[1:47:40] contracts?
[1:47:41] >> I don't know if he has a leadership role
[1:47:42] in it, but I'm just saying
[1:47:43] >> I was going to say I think we're we're
[1:47:45] stepping here.
[1:47:47] >> We need to find out we we need to find
[1:47:49] out as the body here. What is our roles
[1:47:52] and responsibility with regards to the
[1:47:54] pilot and then we move forward because
[1:47:57] we're not going to go fishing for
[1:47:58] information from XYZ. What is our roles
[1:48:01] and responsibility as a council and then
[1:48:03] take it from there. Maybe we have we have some rules that
[1:48:08] >> maybe we don't know about it.
[1:48:10] >> I So yes and
[1:48:14] sorry
[1:48:16] uniform. Okay. Sorry.
[1:48:18] >> So I think the the
[1:48:22] additional question is not just defining
[1:48:25] what are our roles and responsibilities
[1:48:27] as they currently exist. I guess the
[1:48:30] question is why are our roles
[1:48:33] responsibilities the way they ought as
[1:48:36] it currently exists? Because
[1:48:39] and I don't think that you know
[1:48:42] these agreements are made somehow.
[1:48:45] Sometimes it's like oh there's state
[1:48:47] legislation that says this and it's like
[1:48:48] oh that's why it's done that way. And
[1:48:51] sometimes it's like because
[1:48:54] we were in a tough spot and we really
[1:48:56] needed this help but now we're just two
[1:48:59] or three people are deciding making
[1:49:01] these big decisions and that's not a so
[1:49:04] it's like not only what our
[1:49:06] responsibility is viable. So maybe
[1:49:07] that's even something corporation
[1:49:09] council could start to look at and say
[1:49:11] how do we decide that
[1:49:12] >> and and I about to say this is something
[1:49:14] that we should be if you're passionate
[1:49:17] about it here we should bring it as an
[1:49:20] item on the committee meeting and
[1:49:22] cooperation council will kind of do some
[1:49:24] research for us and you know kind of
[1:49:26] like okay where do we stand in terms of
[1:49:28] this because and just to add to that the
[1:49:31] ID we we know that the ID uh city
[1:49:35] council is responsible for um putting
[1:49:38] members there. How much of us know that
[1:49:41] we have the responsibility
[1:49:43] >> to to recommend a member to that board?
[1:49:47] >> But I think there's a limit but I just
[1:49:49] you know I would like to really dive
[1:49:51] that deep
[1:49:51] >> because it's not relable.
[1:49:52] >> We can't do anything about it right now.
[1:49:54] >> So um there is an organizing document
[1:49:56] and so I appreciate you saying that we
[1:49:58] should have a corporation council but
[1:50:00] I'm also always of the opinion that all
[1:50:02] of us can do our own research. So there
[1:50:05] is a document that um an organizing
[1:50:08] document for metroplex I can share with
[1:50:10] all of you so that we can read through
[1:50:12] and then be more well informed as we
[1:50:14] continue with this budget. go um and
[1:50:18] make sure that we're getting everything
[1:50:19] we need. But again, my it circles back
[1:50:21] to me for how can we increase the amount
[1:50:25] that we're getting in pilots so that
[1:50:28] it's it's helping our budget because
[1:50:30] essentially what is happening without
[1:50:32] doing that is that our residents
[1:50:36] are absorbing more of the cost for that
[1:50:39] as opposed to the developers who are
[1:50:41] we're all benefiting but who are getting
[1:50:42] the initial benefit.
[1:50:48] So I was going to highlight that in my
[1:50:51] opinion why this bell that Miss Ferill
[1:50:53] has been ringing for the past few months
[1:50:55] is sounding louder now is because out of
[1:50:58] the many functions that we have are most
[1:51:00] vital to the city is the budget. So I
[1:51:02] think leveraging the conversations that
[1:51:04] we're required to have that force a
[1:51:06] response
[1:51:08] is part of the calculation that we all
[1:51:10] have to make. Um so I think um putting
[1:51:14] out a request of having Mr. Gillan here
[1:51:17] and in the next few days before we are
[1:51:20] required to have a determination
[1:51:22] presented to the city and to the mayor
[1:51:23] to review. Um I think that is what we
[1:51:27] have at our mercy. Um because what I've
[1:51:30] come to find is once removed from the
[1:51:33] budget sometimes we are given second
[1:51:35] consideration.
[1:51:43] » That's not a bad idea. I think we can
[1:51:45] move forward and not drop it because
[1:51:47] many time we discuss it and sometimes we
[1:51:52] I don't know pick it up and move
[1:51:54] forward.
[1:51:56] change up
[1:51:59] management
[1:52:04] affect
[1:52:18] » any comments.
[1:52:19] >> Oh, yeah. Sorry.
[1:52:22] I I don't I mean what's done is done
[1:52:25] moving forward definitely we should be
[1:52:27] getting more more money off of a pilot
[1:52:29] contractually whatever whoever does
[1:52:31] these pilots if we want more and more at
[1:52:34] the role of it moving forward I think we
[1:52:36] should look into that but as far as
[1:52:38] having our budget proceedings I I can't
[1:52:43] see the sense of that that
[1:52:46] earlier so let's film that's
[1:52:51] We can't get more pilots than today.
[1:52:56] >> Sorry.
[1:52:57] >> Right. Just help me out here. So
[1:53:00] >> I can't help you understand. You told me
[1:53:02] what you're not understand.
[1:53:06] » So Miss Porterfield, how much more money
[1:53:08] do you think we could get from these
[1:53:10] pilots for this year's budget?
[1:53:12] >> So I'm not saying that we get it this
[1:53:14] year. I'm not saying that. What I am
[1:53:16] saying I am saying is that we I feel
[1:53:20] like we're going to have to go into the
[1:53:21] fund balance
[1:53:22] >> and if we're going to have to do that
[1:53:25] then um then we're going to need a way
[1:53:28] to refund that. So this to me is one. So
[1:53:30] the reason and also the reason I asked
[1:53:32] for the pilot report is to see like
[1:53:34] really um deeply and you know it's it's
[1:53:37] too late now to change anything that
[1:53:38] well I don't know what the reason
[1:53:40] because it's conceivable that we are um
[1:53:44] there are pilots that were are still
[1:53:46] getting their pilot actually their pilot
[1:53:48] agreement has um expired. So yes, it's very possible and you know I went
[1:53:56] to a training um about this and the
[1:53:59] other thing is that generally pilots
[1:54:01] generally are 10 years and we so what
[1:54:03] I'm looking for is how long our pilots
[1:54:05] do we have any that have expired and
[1:54:07] they're still getting their pilot and do
[1:54:08] we automatically get that money but I
[1:54:10] need the report to to fix to do that and
[1:54:14] I guess conceivably we could if that's
[1:54:16] the case put money in this budget I
[1:54:19] don't know but that's where
[1:54:21] >> case in this number can change
[1:54:23] throughout the year based on
[1:54:24] conversations that are had absent the
[1:54:26] council. So that's truly the relevance
[1:54:28] of having this now and I don't think it
[1:54:30] is unrealistic to how I'm going to deal
[1:54:31] with percent year
[1:54:32] >> in the next few days
[1:54:35] ascertain the how this budget line
[1:54:38] functions because quite honestly if we
[1:54:40] do not understand it how can you pass a
[1:54:41] budget
[1:54:42] >> without a clear understanding of how
[1:54:44] each line functions
[1:54:49] Patrick and then go ahead
[1:54:52] >> um yeah I think that would be good to
[1:54:54] have him come if we condemn um over the
[1:54:57] next couple of days um and see if
[1:54:58] there's and maybe I don't know if our
[1:55:00] finance people know if there's
[1:55:01] flexibility on that number or if that's
[1:55:03] just a number given to us and even like
[1:55:06] you know what I said earlier
[1:55:08] I mean I think we do need to understand
[1:55:10] you know who is involved in in you know
[1:55:14] maybe I said maybe Mr. Gardner is I
[1:55:16] don't know if that's for sure or not I'm
[1:55:18] not I don't know you see what I'm saying
[1:55:19] like so I think having Mr. Gillan come.
[1:55:22] No. Exactly. Exactly. So, what I'm
[1:55:24] saying is
[1:55:25] >> I don't know and I don't know if I if
[1:55:28] I'm accurate. So, I agree that having
[1:55:30] someone come in like Mr. Gillan, right,
[1:55:33] and kind of explain the process and
[1:55:35] >> talk to us about it would be a good
[1:55:38] thing.
[1:55:39] >> Understanding the pilot and how it works
[1:55:41] is going to be beneficial to all of us,
[1:55:43] >> right? And that's how it's a starting
[1:55:45] point for us to say what is our roles
[1:55:48] and responsibility and what do we do
[1:55:51] move forward into the next year or this
[1:55:53] budget or into the next budget. How do
[1:55:56] we move forward?
[1:55:57] >> Yeah.
[1:55:58] >> I'm sorry.
[1:55:59] >> It's one of it's one of thing that we
[1:56:01] over years we asked we will get the
[1:56:04] report and that's all we getting and the
[1:56:07] numbers.
[1:56:09] So, and I think it's important that we
[1:56:11] recognize that even though we're dealing
[1:56:13] with the budget one year at a time, the
[1:56:16] implications of our budget don't fall
[1:56:17] within the calendar year.
[1:56:19] >> That's right.
[1:56:19] >> So,
[1:56:20] >> we are here today based on prior
[1:56:24] decisions and practices. So, I think
[1:56:25] it's completely appropriate for us to be
[1:56:28] talking about that having that
[1:56:31] conversation now cuz there is a
[1:56:33] possibility cuz you don't know what you
[1:56:35] don't know. There might be a possibility
[1:56:37] to where there is money that can enter
[1:56:39] in. We can increase revenue in this
[1:56:41] budget based on that conversation. But
[1:56:44] at least we can talk we can look towards
[1:56:48] our future forecast to say okay because
[1:56:50] there will be another budget process
[1:56:52] happening at this table a year from now
[1:56:55] and our responsibility is really to
[1:56:58] ensure the ensure the future. This
[1:57:00] doesn't just happen in a in a silo for
[1:57:02] this budget. So m to Mr. Williams
[1:57:05] appointment but it's very yellow and
[1:57:06] miss
[1:57:09] >> as well as I'm sorry
[1:57:11] >> no I just wanted to make sure we were
[1:57:12] all on the same picture
[1:57:13] >> so between um 24 23 and 24 the actual
[1:57:18] the pilot the difference was $75,000 to
[1:57:21] $600
[1:57:23] >> and
[1:57:23] >> which way
[1:57:25] >> so we increased by that just by $75,000
[1:57:29] >> so it I think you know just looking
[1:57:32] around we've had a tremendous amount of
[1:57:36] development within that time frame. So
[1:57:38] $75,000
[1:57:40] and then the next time
[1:57:46] uh it was $130,000. So
[1:57:50] >> this time from oh I'm sorry from 20 uh
[1:57:53] well we don't know the actual yet that
[1:57:55] was the adopted so we in anticipating
[1:57:57] that we would get another 30. So I don't
[1:58:00] have the actual and we don't have all
[1:58:01] the dates. I mean we mentioned that the
[1:58:04] other day
[1:58:04] >> all the year dates should be
[1:58:09] » right. So um which I have here. So I
[1:58:12] that's why we need to be taking those
[1:58:14] weren't those weren't significant in my
[1:58:16] opinion. Those weren't significant
[1:58:17] increases given the level of development
[1:58:19] that we have.
[1:58:21] So for what we need to do directly if
[1:58:23] you can help us with this report here
[1:58:24] can kind of reach out to metroplex uh
[1:58:27] ask for a report we should also when we
[1:58:29] ask for the report for the pilot we
[1:58:31] should also ask for the last two or
[1:58:33] three years in terms of the pilot how
[1:58:37] many was added how many dropped off and
[1:58:40] how many renewals
[1:58:43] will shape the numbers in a in where we
[1:58:46] are because we may look the number up or
[1:58:48] down but we don't know if anybody got it
[1:58:50] if any dropped off any added any
[1:58:52] extension and how much will release for
[1:58:55] the tax base for the full full assess uh
[1:58:58] tax.
[1:59:01] >> I think that report is would be helpful.
[1:59:06] >> I Okay. I mean I've kind of I've asked
[1:59:08] for that but we can and I can tell you
[1:59:10] what the um response was but we can ask
[1:59:13] again perhaps coming from the more
[1:59:15] >> well that's why I ask you finance
[1:59:18] commission also to ask for that report
[1:59:21] >> in the last 3 years including 2025
[1:59:25] >> total pilot
[1:59:28] >> new pilot how many was dropped off and
[1:59:30] how many hit the regular tax base
[1:59:34] >> actually we're on we're already over
[1:59:36] what we did anticipate in 2025.
[1:59:39] >> Yeah,
[1:59:40] >> we're at 105%.
[1:59:43] >> But I do think it's worth noting because
[1:59:45] individuals listening to this
[1:59:46] conversation at the table and at the
[1:59:47] room when certain comments are made
[1:59:49] about being stuck in considerations, I
[1:59:51] know we cannot put individuals on the
[1:59:53] spot, but I only want to hear what those
[1:59:55] responses had or have not been when
[1:59:57] those requests were submitted.
[2:00:04] » Yep. We we can get those report and we
[2:00:06] can reach out to them.
[2:00:09] Michelates.
[2:00:14] » I would recommend both.
[2:00:15] >> Okay.
[2:00:18] >> We have tomorrow on Friday.
[2:00:20] >> So you be reaching out on our behalf and
[2:00:24] >> commission.
[2:00:27] And you also have a report to
[2:00:29] >> I was going to say I recommend the
[2:00:31] council and myself
[2:00:33] >> both.
[2:00:35] >> Yes. Okay.
[2:00:38] » Are you going to come back to your
[2:00:40] report?
[2:00:41] >> I'm going to I'm going to forward the
[2:00:42] report that that that I have that's not
[2:00:45] everything because there's as I said
[2:00:46] there's 154 and I'll just forward the um
[2:00:49] report that I have which is not so for
[2:00:52] all of you that actually look at that
[2:00:53] while he's asking for that. We did this
[2:00:56] electronically too what you just
[2:00:58] >> gave
[2:01:03] Eric speak about management uh report
[2:01:06] perfect
[2:01:08] council members just four points I want
[2:01:11] to make about this
[2:01:12] >> one is that
[2:01:15] fulfill the request that we have here
[2:01:16] tonight I created it from scratch I did
[2:01:20] not I created this document from scratch
[2:01:23] so it was done in a very very peaceful
[2:01:27] manner. So if you do see a typo, please
[2:01:32] don't hold me. You know,
[2:01:33] >> I'm impressed that you're able to do
[2:01:34] that.
[2:01:35] >> To um the 2024
[2:01:40] expenses, if if you look at your 2026
[2:01:44] uh proposed budget, it excludes every
[2:01:47] single division line goes into the
[2:01:52] department cost. So I added all those
[2:01:55] manually also.
[2:01:56] >> Oh jeez.
[2:01:59] >> Three on this second page.
[2:02:03] Um the percentages we see 80 and 5%
[2:02:07] respectively
[2:02:09] on the 24 to the 25 and the 25 to the
[2:02:12] 26. Uh the comparison lines again
[2:02:16] faculty.
[2:02:18] Those numbers are not representative
[2:02:22] which will go into my fourth point which
[2:02:25] is when you look at management and
[2:02:28] you're not getting an accurate number.
[2:02:31] For example,
[2:02:33] if a
[2:02:35] management position existed in 24 and
[2:02:40] not in 26,
[2:02:42] >> that is going to mess around with those
[2:02:46] percentages. Moreover, if a management
[2:02:50] leads the management and goes into a
[2:02:53] union job where vice versa,
[2:02:57] the only way to compare athletes to
[2:02:59] athletes is to look at all positions
[2:03:02] regardless if it's management or if it's
[2:03:05] union. So the this total line should be
[2:03:09] taking
[2:03:11] sand.
[2:03:16] We'll take the science.
[2:03:21] » Gotcha.
[2:03:23] >> So you can see just for example, you see
[2:03:25] the parallel to the line. Uh you would
[2:03:26] see in 24 and 25, but it did in 26. So
[2:03:31] numbers percentages will be um a little
[2:03:34] different uh based on the totals
[2:03:38] total fills in each um budget year.
[2:03:44] I try to keep it at so much and disturb
[2:03:48] the mission of the mom's report and
[2:03:51] digest.
[2:03:53] Thank you.
[2:04:06] » Any question regarding this report?
[2:04:08] The numbers look high but we just have
[2:04:10] to look at the fill the positions by
[2:04:13] maybe 80,000 79,000 position and things
[2:04:16] like that driving your numbers up. So if
[2:04:19] you exclude those those positions it
[2:04:22] will drive you towards the um
[2:04:26] the increase
[2:04:33] you want to continue. Oh, so the other
[2:04:36] thing that I was looking at, um, there
[2:04:38] were cannabis excise stats which went
[2:04:41] down.
[2:04:43] Um, as I stated yesterday, there are,
[2:04:46] um, we have seven in the city
[2:04:50] and what I have attempted to determine
[2:04:54] is when
[2:04:57] they came and Miss Michael did provide
[2:05:00] me with
[2:05:02] your mom's papers. um um a list of I was
[2:05:07] trying to determine when they came on
[2:05:09] when they came to the city.
[2:05:11] >> And so she provided them with her first
[2:05:14] 30-day list of
[2:05:17] when um
[2:05:20] when they 30 days they're going to be on
[2:05:22] board. So
[2:05:30] » okay. So this list more like um more
[2:05:34] like we have um there's one dispensary
[2:05:36] that's been there since 23
[2:05:41] and some of these dispensaries that
[2:05:43] they're not even open yet. Um there's
[2:05:44] one that's been there since 24. The
[2:05:46] people's joint opening in the 24. So, I
[2:05:50] was trying to see if there's money that
[2:05:53] we haven't
[2:05:56] accounted for or when they came on
[2:05:59] board, but it looks like we only had one
[2:06:00] new one open in 25. All of these have
[2:06:02] been open since 23.
[2:06:06] » I don't think they could have opened in
[2:06:08] 23 though. I think they may have said
[2:06:10] they wanted to, but it took a while. So,
[2:06:12] I I need I know.
[2:06:14] >> Yeah, I we can't figure out the exact
[2:06:17] date that they opened and that's what we
[2:06:18] need to know. I went on the office of
[2:06:20] cannabis management website. I asked for
[2:06:22] call. So I'm trying to um find out if
[2:06:26] they actually opened in the city so we
[2:06:28] can better determine determine rather um
[2:06:32] what how much money we could be getting
[2:06:34] beyond um 700,000 down from private
[2:06:40] people in order to get your cannabis
[2:06:42] license. People could like submit their
[2:06:44] paperwork and it could be a while before
[2:06:46] they ever got it. The one at the harbor
[2:06:48] for instance submitted their paperwork
[2:06:50] for quite some quite some time ago.
[2:06:52] There was all the stuff legal stuff tied
[2:06:54] up and they only recently opened. So we
[2:06:57] need to know exactly when they open so
[2:06:58] we can have the benefit
[2:07:00] how much money we need to get two
[2:07:03] months.
[2:07:04] >> That street open.
[2:07:08] Yeah. They apply for their store
[2:07:10] paperwork and that's all we have but
[2:07:12] they provide. We apply here even on the
[2:07:15] website. It doesn't take time to actual
[2:07:16] date. So we need to know the actual
[2:07:18] dates that he's open and then I think we
[2:07:20] can have a better determination of what
[2:07:22] possible revenue um the one I mentioned
[2:07:26] harbor um harbor side drive it they they
[2:07:31] sent their paperwork in 23 but they
[2:07:32] didn't open in 23
[2:07:35] those active dates I've asked the office
[2:07:38] of cannabis management you know any
[2:07:39] other way we can get those
[2:07:42] open the businesses like with the
[2:07:44] information residing
[2:07:48] say the codes might not be answered
[2:07:52] >> certificate you will still give you that
[2:07:54] information will have all that
[2:07:56] information
[2:07:58] >> so we can I think and I'll have that for
[2:08:00] you by tomorrow so if we look at what
[2:08:03] people actually open I think we should
[2:08:04] take a look at that line and see
[2:08:07] >> as as a matter of fact the law
[2:08:09] department would have that information
[2:08:10] also they want to sign off from the
[2:08:12] certificate codes will definitely we
[2:08:15] could find information.
[2:08:16] >> All right. You want the list of the um I
[2:08:18] can give you a list of the um
[2:08:20] >> Yeah.
[2:08:21] >> of the Yep. I'll do that.
[2:08:26] » Go ahead, please.
[2:08:27] >> So, just to add to that discussion, just
[2:08:29] so everybody's I mean, the year to date
[2:08:32] is only 302477
[2:08:35] and some cents. So,
[2:08:39] >> that's okay. Thank you. Thank you for
[2:08:41] that.
[2:08:44] >> Yep. Yep. I should have taken that note.
[2:08:47] >> So that's 3/4
[2:08:51] » 302.
[2:08:52] >> There's two orders there.
[2:08:55] >> So it should be okay. So then we might
[2:08:57] be on track.
[2:08:58] >> Yes,
[2:08:58] >> we will be on track. Okay.
[2:09:02] >> Thank you. Sorry about that.
[2:09:04] >> So no that was I think that was it for
[2:09:07] my um
[2:09:10] Thank you. Um my I had a question. No,
[2:09:13] somebody already asked about the
[2:09:14] franchises
[2:09:16] >> and the manage licenses.
[2:09:20] » I do have a a question about that
[2:09:23] certificates revenue.
[2:09:28] » I'm sorry.
[2:09:33] I'm just going through the ones, but
[2:09:34] it's not going to stop.
[2:09:36] So, I don't need to bring it back again.
[2:09:38] Um I do want to kind of question the 20
[2:09:42] 200 2 million 300,000 in Steve cameras
[2:09:48] with only the anticipation that someone
[2:09:51] how was this question really answered
[2:09:53] that we talked about how do we
[2:09:54] communicate that number?
[2:09:59] » I can provide you what I was given from
[2:10:02] the police department office. Um they
[2:10:06] based it off from my knowledge they felt
[2:10:08] like they received in two years and it
[2:10:10] was over $6 million. Um, so they from
[2:10:15] what they explained to me that they were
[2:10:17] anticipating less than $3 million a year
[2:10:20] and they felt comfortable 2.3. Uh, maybe
[2:10:23] this be another point to bring up and
[2:10:26] man staff
[2:10:28] collection.
[2:10:29] >> You could send us the analysis like you
[2:10:31] said whatever they sent you.
[2:10:33] >> Uh, I don't have an analysis on me.
[2:10:35] >> No, I mean you can send it to us.
[2:10:37] >> They Well, I think they have it. They
[2:10:39] never provided me. just having a verbal
[2:10:42] conversation.
[2:10:43] >> Okay. So, could you request that for
[2:10:45] them and then share it out with us
[2:10:46] couple?
[2:10:49] >> No.
[2:10:50] >> Okay. So, I think that was that um all
[2:10:53] the other questions points that I had
[2:10:54] were covered by other council members.
[2:10:57] So I um
[2:10:59] I see anything instrument
[2:11:03] >> since we're there. The bus patrol safety
[2:11:05] fines. I mean we've seen it started in
[2:11:09] 2024
[2:11:11] and in 25 we thought we hit 600 and then
[2:11:15] we're dropping it in 2026. So we talked
[2:11:19] about it yesterday in terms of being
[2:11:21] compliant,
[2:11:22] >> right? But um how much of that is you
[2:11:26] know true. We still have people you know
[2:11:30] passing these buses and
[2:11:34] >> so we are lowering the number because of
[2:11:37] the trend of what the actual is this
[2:11:40] year.
[2:11:42] >> Yes. Year to date. Um,
[2:11:46] maybe
[2:11:51] » we're basing numbers on year to dates
[2:11:54] and from what we received in the
[2:11:56] previous year.
[2:12:01] » I think that explanation makes sense as
[2:12:04] you enforce there is a level of
[2:12:06] compliance and I think that was in
[2:12:08] relying on bees as continuous
[2:12:11] regenerating lines. That's naturally
[2:12:13] want people to adhere. You have risk
[2:12:15] enforcement versus the balance.
[2:12:19] >> So definitely proceed with caution.
[2:12:23] >> No pun intended.
[2:12:26] >> All right. Question and then I go to
[2:12:28] >> Well, just some a consideration. So, I I
[2:12:30] know we it seems like we're based our
[2:12:33] numbers based on what happened in
[2:12:34] Auburn, but I also know that Albany
[2:12:38] um has been in a lot of litigation
[2:12:40] around being able to enforce tickets
[2:12:43] given by the traffic.
[2:12:47] Um, I don't know exactly that might be
[2:12:49] more something for corporation council
[2:12:51] to talk about, maybe research for us a
[2:12:53] little bit, but I think that
[2:12:56] I'm sure, you know, if we bring in
[2:12:58] millions, it'll certainly offset our
[2:12:59] legal cost, but I think it's just
[2:13:00] something to consider because I know
[2:13:02] that there's um
[2:13:05] people have been successful in
[2:13:07] challenging tickets based on how the
[2:13:09] function of how they been getting. Mhm.
[2:13:16] » Question. It's the total.
[2:13:18] >> Yes. Thank you. I just
[2:13:21] >> No, just one line here for um city clerk
[2:13:24] birth and death certificates.
[2:13:25] >> What number is that please?
[2:13:26] >> Uh a 25458.
[2:13:31] » So with the trend down um from actuals
[2:13:34] 23 to 24, we've increased by over
[2:13:36] $30,000 projected for this year. um was
[2:13:41] wondering,
[2:13:43] you know, it's really no words in the
[2:13:45] city of Skipony. I know you put in to
[2:13:48] raise the death certificates, but um
[2:13:50] took $15, but that hasn't
[2:13:54] we didn't do that. So, we didn't
[2:13:56] increase. Pardon me. We didn't increase
[2:13:58] further death fees. Oh, I thought you
[2:14:01] were putting in but then because of the
[2:14:05] climate with record being people being
[2:14:09] able to obtain their records um council
[2:14:11] would not go forward and pass
[2:14:14] legislation because it would have to be
[2:14:15] a home,
[2:14:16] >> right?
[2:14:19] >> Okay. So, I I just wonder where how
[2:14:21] you're projecting an extra $32,000
[2:14:25] in certificate fees.
[2:14:27] >> We're at 81120. So yeah, look at the
[2:14:30] actual
[2:14:30] >> Oh, the projected
[2:14:31] >> the actual.
[2:14:34] » So based on the actual that's kind of
[2:14:37] forecast into the next year.
[2:14:39] >> Okay.
[2:14:39] >> So
[2:14:40] >> I think
[2:14:41] >> so that report is that report looking at
[2:14:44] the 10,000 is September the end of
[2:14:46] September.
[2:14:47] >> October. Oh yeah. Yeah. Right. That's forgetting.
[2:14:51] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[2:14:56] So if we
[2:14:59] >> we should reconsider.
[2:15:00] >> I mean maybe make it a little higher.
[2:15:02] But
[2:15:03] >> Mr. Party
[2:15:06] next year.
[2:15:08] >> I mean I think that would be like a very
[2:15:10] small increase if you wanted to change
[2:15:12] it from 100 to 120 or something like
[2:15:14] that. But and also
[2:15:17] >> it's not a line that we can. It might
[2:15:19] look like a small amount, but it helps
[2:15:21] offset the cost in each department to
[2:15:24] pay for you know sort of a potent.
[2:15:27] >> Okay, Mr. T, anything else? No
[2:15:30] suggestion?
[2:15:31] >> No.
[2:15:32] >> Any questions?
[2:15:34] >> No, I got all my questions answered.
[2:15:35] Well, this has been very informative,
[2:15:37] but
[2:15:37] >> yeah,
[2:15:38] >> my initial questions got answered.
[2:15:41] >> Thank you.
[2:15:46] So what do we do in terms of adding
[2:15:48] revenue, offsetting costs, reducing the proposed um
[2:15:55] tax increase
[2:15:58] and also look at the waste uh proposed
[2:16:00] waste fee because uh whatever we do we
[2:16:04] have to it has to be driven by
[2:16:08] increased revenue
[2:16:10] >> and offsetting cost.
[2:16:12] Go ahead.
[2:16:15] We have two more meetings planned and it
[2:16:17] sounds like we have some just
[2:16:20] presentations to receive. I think we put
[2:16:22] a lot of um almost getting those
[2:16:25] individuals in speak to those issues or
[2:16:28] concerns we have. I think we end
[2:16:30] tomorrow's meeting of talking about
[2:16:32] numbers. I think we can go into our
[2:16:33] final schedule meeting on Thursday with
[2:16:36] the intent to have
[2:16:38] >> Friday.
[2:16:41] I did start last year on the project.
[2:16:43] >> Mhm.
[2:16:44] >> I mean the kind of running it is just a
[2:16:47] customary
[2:16:48] um understanding just to see what
[2:16:50] numbers look like. I think I
[2:16:55] go ahead.
[2:16:59] >> Well, I think Okay. I mean, I don't know
[2:17:01] if we're done for today.
[2:17:02] >> No, no, we're not done.
[2:17:04] >> To answer your question, I think, you
[2:17:06] know, we still could talk about the fund
[2:17:08] balance.
[2:17:09] >> Yeah. I
[2:17:10] >> well
[2:17:13] we should because we whatever we do will
[2:17:15] affect it
[2:17:17] >> up or down and it's a matter of concern
[2:17:21] right we talk about the fundamentals but
[2:17:23] you know what uh yes we would like to
[2:17:25] have 15 20 million in there but um in
[2:17:29] those days
[2:17:31] financially
[2:17:33] um it was the old good old days now we
[2:17:37] don't want to site to use for pushing
[2:17:40] like this to help offset these increase.
[2:17:43] But then we have to be cautious of how
[2:17:45] much do we draw from the uh from that
[2:17:49] fund
[2:17:50] >> just going back on balance. Uh so for
[2:17:54] this year um we're essentially using 50%
[2:17:58] of with approximately 12 million. Um we
[2:18:02] have the 5.4 4 plus the 700,000
[2:18:05] incumbances from 24 to 25. Um so there's
[2:18:09] 6.1 of unassigned fund balance. We're
[2:18:12] anticipating 2 million currently. So
[2:18:13] that brings that to 4.1 approximately.
[2:18:16] Then we have we're in negotiations with
[2:18:19] the fire department and 1037. So
[2:18:21] whatever's negotiated with the council
[2:18:23] approves that'll come out of fund
[2:18:25] balance.
[2:18:29] » Now you mentioned the restricted
[2:18:32] Mhm.
[2:18:33] >> Um are there anything in the restriction
[2:18:35] that we can take back like POS and
[2:18:38] things like that? The ones those are
[2:18:40] like locked in. Yeah. It's locked in gas
[2:18:43] station 54
[2:18:44] >> but you could reserve
[2:18:47] >> reserve
[2:18:50] sign.
[2:18:50] >> Mhm.
[2:18:51] >> Be signed is the 5.4es.
[2:18:56] Um and then I need you to list them all
[2:19:00] restricted. Um and then we have to have
[2:19:02] those in place.
[2:19:03] >> Yes.
[2:19:06] >> So we provide that
[2:19:08] >> the POS and everything.
[2:19:09] >> Yeah, we do. Yeah. I just want a
[2:19:11] clarification. So you know we say
[2:19:13] discuss the fun.
[2:19:18] So So there So what so what is the fund
[2:19:20] balance that we can pull from? What's that number? It seems like you
[2:19:24] just started to cut.
[2:19:24] >> Yeah. So,
[2:19:27] as of now, with input of the proposed
[2:19:30] budget 2 million, we only have 4.1 to
[2:19:33] play with. And again, if depending what
[2:19:37] the fire is negotiated at, we're we're
[2:19:41] in mediation currently.
[2:19:43] And at 10:37 their contracts at the end
[2:19:46] of 25, end of 2025, whatever they're
[2:19:49] negotiated at, it's directly going to
[2:19:51] affect our fund numbers.
[2:19:55] >> We can't even give projection based on
[2:19:57] prior things.
[2:20:00] >> I guess we could
[2:20:03] >> go ahead finish off. But for example, um
[2:20:07] just say uh for the fire department um
[2:20:10] just say they got a 3% increase probably
[2:20:13] 600,000 maybe more.
[2:20:19] » Well, the fire department is smaller than the police. I'm talking
[2:20:24] about the fire department. Fire
[2:20:25] department.
[2:20:27] >> So you're comparing the police number.
[2:20:30] Okay. What about
[2:20:36] you?
[2:20:38] CS
[2:20:41] >> not
[2:20:48] give or take I don't maybe or million
[2:20:50] but it really depends on the percentages
[2:20:52] and
[2:20:55] >> no at the end of the day it's presented
[2:20:56] from a council council can say no these
[2:20:59] increases
[2:21:07] Um the other thing that I wanted to
[2:21:09] bring up was about the capital budget
[2:21:11] and I know when we talked about it um
[2:21:15] it was like well it's not something
[2:21:16] right now we have to bond later but I
[2:21:18] think you mentioned at the table that as
[2:21:20] we're making these decisions we
[2:21:21] shouldn't just be making decision that
[2:21:23] impact us right now and this year
[2:21:25] because we're in this tight situation.
[2:21:27] We don't know what next year is going to
[2:21:28] bring or the year after that's going to
[2:21:30] bring. So how much of the things that we
[2:21:33] um are looking at the capital budget do
[2:21:35] we really really have to do? Um I'm
[2:21:38] looking at um the purchase of various
[2:21:43] equipment trucks etc and see what did we
[2:21:46] purchase last year and how many gas for
[2:21:49] this year and can we buy one month less
[2:21:52] and just kind of stretch this down the
[2:21:54] road. So I think we should also be
[2:21:56] looking at our capital projects and
[2:22:03] » Mr. Williams brought it up on several
[2:22:07] recommendations and the mayor said that
[2:22:09] it doesn't affect his budget which is
[2:22:10] correct
[2:22:11] >> but it affect and I we mentioned this
[2:22:13] yesterday it affect what's going to
[2:22:15] happen in 2027 who's paying for it the
[2:22:18] taxpayer and we have to you know make
[2:22:20] recommendation and put that aside pay
[2:22:22] for this
[2:22:23] >> the whole thing is that and echo that
[2:22:26] >> do we really need to make all these
[2:22:27] purchase this year I mean 2026
[2:22:30] >> purchases can yes can we push these off
[2:22:33] into 2027 7 2028 can they use these uh
[2:22:37] these these vehicle these mach
[2:22:42] are question that you know we as a body
[2:22:44] we have to come up with and say because
[2:22:48] this this is millions of dollars here
[2:22:51] that's going to be added on the back of
[2:22:53] taxpayers to pay in 2027 and beyond
[2:22:58] this point in time adding more is is
[2:23:00] increasing the the burden that taxpayers
[2:23:03] So let's be cautious of what we're
[2:23:05] doing. I mean yes we did had a
[2:23:06] conversation yesterday about it but um
[2:23:09] whatever we take away here I have no
[2:23:12] impact and what we're trying to do with
[2:23:14] the tax
[2:23:15] >> right
[2:23:15] >> this is separate from overall budget.
[2:23:19] >> Go ahead.
[2:23:19] >> Was Mr. Did you have your hand up?
[2:23:22] >> No. Oh okay. Um, yeah. I just also want
[2:23:25] to say I I hear what you're saying, but
[2:23:26] I also think we need to like think about
[2:23:29] age of vehicles because we also, you
[2:23:32] know, would have to do it next year. I
[2:23:34] mean, on some of these things if they
[2:23:35] break down, if they and it also affects
[2:23:37] our services. So, if we're looking at
[2:23:39] certain pieces of equipment, how does
[2:23:41] how do they affect our our paving? How
[2:23:44] do they affect our snow plowing? How do
[2:23:45] they affect um, you know, services that
[2:23:48] we try to provide to our residents um,
[2:23:50] in terms of infrastructure needs? So I
[2:23:52] hear what you're saying it doesn't this
[2:23:54] year's general I mean this year's um
[2:23:56] >> yeah it has no impact on on
[2:23:58] >> but it will
[2:23:59] >> on the cost recovery is going to be this
[2:24:01] is more of a long-term recovery and tax
[2:24:03] pay if we were to say okay let's let's
[2:24:05] go buy all the equipment we're looking
[2:24:08] at how are we going to pay for it in
[2:24:10] 2027
[2:24:12] very same role say we have to increase
[2:24:14] taxes so that we can pay for all these
[2:24:17] now and this is what we talk about is
[2:24:18] that every department the next year or
[2:24:20] two has to go along with getting tight
[2:24:23] started tightening the belt and started
[2:24:25] to look at how can we do more with less.
[2:24:27] I know that's that's a hard people don't
[2:24:29] like to hear that term. How can we do
[2:24:31] more with less? I do.
[2:24:33] >> I think the time has come for us to do
[2:24:34] that at this point in time is, you know,
[2:24:36] we don't have to wait
[2:24:39] >> because if we look at 4.1 million and if
[2:24:41] you're looking at $600,000, $250,000
[2:24:44] of anticipated cost to where and yes,
[2:24:47] we're going to have we're looking at
[2:24:48] maybe potentially using some of that
[2:24:50] money towards offset increase to to keep
[2:24:54] the tax below what is what is proposed.
[2:24:58] that everything is on the table
[2:25:02] >> and and I'll just start I'll just repeat
[2:25:04] how we can look at what we put in the
[2:25:06] budget last year for this. I'm not just
[2:25:08] recommending they just do away with it,
[2:25:09] but let's look at what we I have last
[2:25:11] year's budget for. I wrote it all down
[2:25:13] too.
[2:25:14] >> Um what we asked for last year and can
[2:25:16] we you know how much how much longer can
[2:25:19] we go? Can we go another year or two?
[2:25:21] Um, but I think we have to take a look
[2:25:23] at those long-term impacts that on with
[2:25:27] it to our taxes to our budget.
[2:25:30] I know I don't think that this year, but
[2:25:32] eventually if you put it off, it'll
[2:25:34] catch up.
[2:25:36] >> Yeah. Eventually, it's going to fall in
[2:25:37] place because we're looking at I mean,
[2:25:39] this is not going to be forever. Things
[2:25:40] going to get better and the tax base is
[2:25:43] expanding. people paying taxes and think
[2:25:45] money will be available to spend in in
[2:25:47] the future years and and then you know
[2:25:50] we expand and buy more in terms
[2:25:52] even even equipment apart from the
[2:25:55] vehicle and the things that we need to
[2:25:57] take care of the parts and things like
[2:25:59] that but also look at um software
[2:26:01] hardware
[2:26:03] stuff do we really need to change all
[2:26:05] those things this next year or can we
[2:26:07] just you know do parking here and and
[2:26:10] those things are those those are those
[2:26:12] are hard questions
[2:26:14] And we need them to kind of make a
[2:26:16] determination of pushing off for a year
[2:26:19] and release the 2027
[2:26:22] back
[2:26:24] and let us recoup more revenue.
[2:26:28] >> Um in terms of the um IT stuff, I don't recommend this but the way that
[2:26:33] things change so much and people have
[2:26:35] opportunities to get into people's
[2:26:38] personal information, all that. I would
[2:26:40] not recommend that we like kind of old
[2:26:42] school fraud at this point in time. So,
[2:26:44] let me just make that clear in terms of
[2:26:47] when I look at the capital. I'm not I'm
[2:26:48] not suggesting that at all.
[2:26:51] >> I agree.
[2:26:52] >> There have been too many breaches, you
[2:26:53] know, I get letters all the time like
[2:26:55] this particular company that I'm with a
[2:26:58] breach and maybe your information
[2:26:59] >> where where do we have to learn about
[2:27:03] pain?
[2:27:03] >> Yeah. And that's
[2:27:05] >> no no we have we have no we have no
[2:27:07] software upgrade. The machine is all
[2:27:10] being upgraded this year because we
[2:27:12] allocated $60,000 last to this year
[2:27:16] budget
[2:27:17] >> and they're they're replacing all the
[2:27:18] equipments and softwares and things like
[2:27:20] that. So bring them to speed with in
[2:27:23] terms of that and and prepare themselves
[2:27:24] for that. I think you mentioned software
[2:27:26] that's why I said
[2:27:27] >> well I you know across you know but I
[2:27:30] think an it here
[2:27:32] >> so utilities and it is different I think
[2:27:34] that this the smart node upgrade is it
[2:27:38] >> it is but I think it was banan that
[2:27:41] >> it's part of his IT
[2:27:44] >> it's just not in his right I mean I
[2:27:46] don't think it's in I think that
[2:27:48] >> correct me but didn't we move stuff that
[2:27:51] might have been in his budget before
[2:27:52] into the department or was it the other
[2:27:55] way. We took things that were in
[2:27:56] department budgets and put it in his
[2:27:58] budget.
[2:27:59] >> Not stirring the software package that
[2:28:01] we like civic plus that separated into
[2:28:04] different departments. So now we
[2:28:06] consolidated into a better track.
[2:28:08] >> Gotcha.
[2:28:08] >> Track.
[2:28:10] >> So I'm recommending that um
[2:28:15] that is not really a software. That is
[2:28:17] like equipment outside.
[2:28:19] >> I'm not talking about civic bus. Silence
[2:28:22] from us and all that to make sure we
[2:28:25] have that's what I had said.
[2:28:27] >> Okay, go ahead.
[2:28:28] >> I have a note from from
[2:28:31] uh smart nodes must have to promote
[2:28:33] safety. That's what he said.
[2:28:36] >> What what line is um it can do you
[2:28:39] remember 91?
[2:28:40] >> Oh, thank you.
[2:28:42] >> Not the capital. Not the capital. Not
[2:28:44] the capital, but Oh,
[2:28:45] >> it's not the capital. Oh, you talked
[2:28:47] about the
[2:28:48] >> That's what I was just
[2:28:48] >> so I thought, but I thought I wanted to
[2:28:52] actually look at his
[2:28:55] >> within his budget
[2:28:56] >> page 28.
[2:28:57] >> Thank you.
[2:29:02] » So, yeah, when we talked about that and
[2:29:04] I have notes here that we um about
[2:29:08] mobile device management, image filters.
[2:29:12] >> I'm not talking about any of that,
[2:29:13] >> right?
[2:29:16] Oh,
[2:29:18] >> I thought you meant that that's what you
[2:29:19] don't want to change that line. Um,
[2:29:23] >> I was only talking about things in the
[2:29:25] capital budget. No, I
[2:29:26] >> I do not.
[2:29:28] >> Mr. Larry kind of mentioned it and then
[2:29:30] I think it took us down the road that he
[2:29:32] wasn't even talking about, but he said
[2:29:33] software. I'm like, no,
[2:29:35] >> no, no, no. Darling, there's no
[2:29:36] software.
[2:29:37] >> I think we're agreeing
[2:29:38] >> in our um we allocated money last year
[2:29:40] and they are spending that money and Mr.
[2:29:43] Uh number one I mentioned that yes he's
[2:29:45] going to he's going to utilize all the
[2:29:48] funding and upgrade all the machine and
[2:29:50] as the machine upgrade it comes with new
[2:29:53] software
[2:29:54] >> to kind of protect us from the cyber
[2:29:57] security and those malicious attack.
[2:30:01] >> Mhm.
[2:30:09] » So we need to dive deeper. we need to
[2:30:11] dive in terms of revenue where do we where do we pull this now
[2:30:17] the other thing is do we go into
[2:30:19] departments and and and look at the
[2:30:21] departments each department and kind of
[2:30:23] come up with some recommendation
[2:30:26] I think that's that's our next step in
[2:30:28] terms of looking at the department and
[2:30:30] see um in terms of feature service do we
[2:30:34] really need all those feature service
[2:30:36] can we come back you know I'm making
[2:30:37] suggestion I'm not
[2:30:40] I'm was asking, are you doing that
[2:30:41] tonight or do you want to do that for
[2:30:43] like Thursday night? No, what's today?
[2:30:46] Tuesday. So, we have tomorrow morning.
[2:30:48] >> I I would like each of each of us to
[2:30:50] come up with something. We're not not
[2:30:52] because we say it we're going to do it,
[2:30:54] but it's some type of recommendation,
[2:30:56] something to talk about and say, let's
[2:30:58] look to the department if um and say,
[2:31:02] okay, we need a question. We need to
[2:31:03] bring it back to the department head. I
[2:31:05] guess we can do that to kind of like
[2:31:07] clarify any information in terms of
[2:31:10] >> do you really need it?
[2:31:11] >> What what can we what can we do better
[2:31:13] in terms of help to reduce your
[2:31:16] expenditure in each department?
[2:31:20] >> So we we'd want to keep going tonight, I
[2:31:22] think, because we'd want to have them
[2:31:23] back tomorrow night so that we can make
[2:31:25] a final budget decision on Friday.
[2:31:30] » Let me hear Mr. Park and then we'll be
[2:31:32] able to come back. So I I guess I was
[2:31:35] thinking that so based on like you know
[2:31:37] the recommendations is it you know that
[2:31:40] now I think I have some more information
[2:31:42] that I can kind of make some
[2:31:43] recommendations can I send them to you
[2:31:46] to say this is what I'm recommending
[2:31:49] this is what I'm I'm recommending and
[2:31:51] you can produce like a bud a budget
[2:31:54] impact summary based on what I'm
[2:31:56] presenting to you and then and then we
[2:31:59] can so by the time we get to the table
[2:32:00] we have we have some real numbers in
[2:32:03] front of us.
[2:32:04] >> Yes, you can. We could call it like a
[2:32:06] mock bud to say okay.
[2:32:08] >> Yeah, just just like this. This is what
[2:32:09] I'm thinking across different
[2:32:11] departments that are about can you just
[2:32:12] run a scenario budget impacts of
[2:32:14] >> if I were to do this this what's going
[2:32:16] to this is the impact it's going to if
[2:32:18] you were to perceive it as
[2:32:19] >> just number by now the conservative
[2:32:21] >> I I think that what we've done before I I mean I hate to say this but we've
[2:32:28] done it like right now we would we would
[2:32:30] do that and then these guys would go
[2:32:32] upstairs or go down the hall uh and they
[2:32:36] would come back to us they would come
[2:32:38] back to us. We would sit no but we would
[2:32:41] sit here and wait and then they would
[2:32:42] come back to us with Exactly what you're
[2:32:44] saying. It would be it would be like
[2:32:47] council budget. I mean it would be like
[2:32:48] revised budget based on the discussion
[2:32:51] that but I guess what I'm saying is for
[2:32:53] timing purposes I would think. I hate to
[2:32:56] say this but I think we have to do that
[2:32:58] tonight if we want to
[2:33:01] be able to make a final budget
[2:33:03] recommendation on Friday
[2:33:06] >> because we're not meeting Thursday.
[2:33:09] Unless we meet Saturday.
[2:33:11] >> I don't anticipate in front of any
[2:33:12] department heads between now and our
[2:33:14] final budget. I think it's I think that
[2:33:16] would be unrealistic without even
[2:33:18] hearing our schedules. I like the
[2:33:19] conversations we've had about the
[2:33:20] capital budget, the in-depth
[2:33:22] conversations we had about the revenue.
[2:33:25] >> I think the notes that we all took
[2:33:27] during presentations, I think we have to
[2:33:29] miss to Miss Patrick's point. I think
[2:33:31] I've been kind of afraid we haven't
[2:33:33] identified real numbers yet. I think in
[2:33:35] years past we've at least tried to reach
[2:33:38] a consensus in finance so that if there
[2:33:40] or Mr. Group is not building 15 M
[2:33:44] schedules um even though I imagine Mr.
[2:33:46] Eric would cheerfully want to go back
[2:33:49] and for doing that I appreciate the
[2:33:51] swift response on that other request. Um
[2:33:54] I think we need to start having those
[2:33:55] tough discussions of where do we agree
[2:33:57] on what's been presented and then that's
[2:34:00] my previous point going into tomorrow
[2:34:01] with some recommendations.
[2:34:04] We haven't had any real discussions
[2:34:05] about numbers or where do people stand
[2:34:07] with which you can talk a lot about
[2:34:09] things to get started going down on what
[2:34:12] is realistically something the council
[2:34:14] is willing to leave for
[2:34:18] I'm at that place where I'm going to
[2:34:20] send you what I what I'm thinking and
[2:34:23] then you can help me understand the
[2:34:26] impact what that would have on the
[2:34:27] budget and then then I get back to the
[2:34:30] table I can say a
[2:34:35] So just on an idea, you're going to be
[2:34:36] sending a list of all account codes
[2:34:40] with imposed and the adjustment.
[2:34:42] >> Certainly
[2:34:44] >> I I'm not also going to do that, but I I did make some some direct points in
[2:34:49] terms of the revenue
[2:34:51] >> in terms of the uncollect.
[2:34:53] >> I was think I made it, you know, bring
[2:34:55] that up to about $2 million from 2.8.
[2:34:59] the cannabis tax I I I still up I think
[2:35:02] that needs to go up. I I I have notes
[2:35:06] about $300,000,
[2:35:09] you know, give or take. The fines for
[2:35:12] the parking, I have a question mark on
[2:35:14] that. I wanted to kind of talk to the PD
[2:35:16] more about that because with what we
[2:35:19] discussed last year into this year know
[2:35:22] when we increase the fee and the
[2:35:24] proposal before I can attach a number in
[2:35:27] that but the the link um parking sorry
[2:35:32] the fines for parking we have budgeted
[2:35:35] right now like 10,000
[2:35:38] with the approach that they're taking
[2:35:39] let me take that back the approach that
[2:35:41] they're taking I think it's it's it's
[2:35:43] going to be it's a good create a good
[2:35:45] pathway what they're doing. But how can
[2:35:47] we look at the numbers based on the
[2:35:49] email that we have at those six to 9,000
[2:35:52] >> and if we can do the math on that I
[2:35:54] think it's going to be far higher than
[2:35:55] 910,000
[2:35:57] and anything else that factor into that.
[2:36:00] The delinquent parking I think we need
[2:36:03] to revisit that in terms of the outside
[2:36:05] collection agency and we need to have a
[2:36:07] more aggressive approach. I think that
[2:36:10] should go up. I'm I'm suggesting that we
[2:36:12] pop that by $230,000.
[2:36:15] the home sale I am recommended that we
[2:36:18] keep that level the last this year 4.5
[2:36:20] increase of $1.5 million and the
[2:36:23] mortgage tax I am based in my trend um
[2:36:27] the way how I see the housing market is
[2:36:29] connected that we should bring that
[2:36:33] upward 1.5 million
[2:36:38] >> that is my recommendation doesn't mean
[2:36:39] that you're going to take it out
[2:36:41] >> well I want I want I want
[2:36:45] my colleagues that kind of like said,
[2:36:46] "John, no. Uh, we shouldn't do market
[2:36:48] tax 1.5. We should maybe 1.2."
[2:36:51] >> But are we waiting to do that
[2:36:53] conversation to tomorrow night or
[2:36:55] >> we could we can we can look at line by
[2:36:58] line based on
[2:36:59] >> we can revisit the revenue because based
[2:37:01] on what we do with the revenue and if
[2:37:04] that's feasible
[2:37:05] that that will give us a driving force
[2:37:07] in the numbers that we had play with.
[2:37:13] Okay.
[2:37:15] >> So, I'd say based on that, I found
[2:37:17] myself more in line with your uh uh
[2:37:20] topics of discussion and with how you
[2:37:22] were discussing items with revenue. Just
[2:37:24] because we're seeing projections doesn't
[2:37:25] mean that's how we're going to vote. I
[2:37:27] think having that representation on
[2:37:29] paper helps us understand it better. And
[2:37:31] we
[2:37:32] >> and have the city staff have that as a
[2:37:34] reference into their discussions or
[2:37:36] building up anformational packet. I
[2:37:38] think that helps them guide how to
[2:37:41] better us based on what they're seeing.
[2:37:44] So I don't know if you would write that
[2:37:46] down
[2:37:47] >> and give back which is what you were
[2:37:49] saying.
[2:37:49] >> That's what I was saying.
[2:37:50] >> I definitely given this to to the
[2:37:53] commissioner this evening or yes. So
[2:37:56] this number need that's why we need to
[2:37:58] flush it out and kind of like let them
[2:37:59] start to look at this and say let's come
[2:38:02] back to it and say this is how it's
[2:38:04] working. Oh the other thing I don't I
[2:38:07] don't have a number is parking fine but
[2:38:09] that's budgeting 910 and I think that's
[2:38:12] that can go up a little bit more
[2:38:15] in a million.
[2:38:22] So let's have we need to have a I'm not
[2:38:24] going to put a number to that until I
[2:38:26] have a conversation with the uh the PE
[2:38:28] and based on the email that we have and
[2:38:30] the numbers swooping around.
[2:38:32] >> Yeah. Can you tell me that you were when
[2:38:34] we were before the meeting started and
[2:38:35] we were just looking at the memo um can
[2:38:38] you had kind of multiplied it out?
[2:38:40] >> Yeah. If you look at the 6 to 9,000 by 7
[2:38:44] by you know the days and weeks a month.
[2:38:48] Maybe we should pick a number like 7,000
[2:38:50] which is between
[2:38:51] >> I I picked the lowest you can Oh, six.
[2:38:53] Okay. I I I didn't go to the highest
[2:38:55] number.
[2:38:56] >> And then you want to even maybe be safe
[2:38:57] and trend that down just a little bit.
[2:38:59] >> That's exactly doesn't mean that I'm
[2:39:01] going to say no it's 2.1 million.
[2:39:05] >> So 5 * 4 * 52 was what you did. Okay.
[2:39:12] So just but I wanted to talk to them for
[2:39:14] some of that
[2:39:15] >> because I can we can sit here and
[2:39:17] multiply six by by seven by by 4 by 12
[2:39:22] >> and they may not do it every single day.
[2:39:24] >> That's exactly so I would not doing it
[2:39:26] seven days a week. If it's treated that
[2:39:28] it's worth it 5 days a week
[2:39:31] at that number that will drive it
[2:39:33] because if I looked at my number here
[2:39:37] >> it's a treatment not even touching
[2:39:42] >> well let's look at it I mean look it's
[2:39:44] an estimate we have over the years
[2:39:45] sometimes we have high estimate we fall
[2:39:49] short but it's not at the end of the
[2:39:51] world it's like okay it's a projected
[2:39:54] I'm just being conservative too. Looking
[2:39:57] at the trend here,
[2:40:00] the the highest one I have here is the
[2:40:02] home sales. what I'm looking at what we
[2:40:04] have this year into next year and based
[2:40:07] on the conversation last night in terms
[2:40:09] of closure
[2:40:11] the aggressiveness from the office the
[2:40:14] corporation council office foreclosure I
[2:40:16] think we can achieve that
[2:40:20] because and the reason I'm saying that
[2:40:22] because in the past it was like we are
[2:40:24] lagging behind the foreclosure I have
[2:40:27] complained many times why are we noting
[2:40:29] why are we not selling these houses and
[2:40:31] I was like, well, we don't have the
[2:40:34] staff. We don't have the capacity.
[2:40:37] But now that that is not the case,
[2:40:41] they're fully staffed and they're able
[2:40:42] to they have the resource to move
[2:40:44] forward with this for closure on a
[2:40:45] timely basis.
[2:40:48] And that's how I'm driving my my
[2:40:49] numbers.
[2:40:53] So I would just suggest as a matter of
[2:40:55] process that based on some of the
[2:40:57] information that we got here tonight, I
[2:40:59] feel like, you know, I I do want to sit
[2:41:01] with a little bit of this, but I I say
[2:41:03] that we send uh finance our plus and
[2:41:08] minuses via email, give them an
[2:41:11] opportunity to obviously code them out
[2:41:13] for you, you know, and then then when we
[2:41:16] reconvene
[2:41:18] or even before then possibly, we have
[2:41:21] those numbers as far as budget impact
[2:41:24] goes and therefore I think that's a
[2:41:25] great place to start a conversation when
[2:41:27] we can kind of go through just I'm just
[2:41:30] my suggestion as a matter of process I
[2:41:32] think Mr. lawyers has already done some
[2:41:33] of that. Um, we could just kind of
[2:41:35] refine it based on what what information
[2:41:37] that we have figured in that that's the
[2:41:40] best way to move forward that I think
[2:41:43] that you got a lot of suggestion.
[2:41:46] Uh just the one point I want to touch on
[2:41:48] in terms of the healthare costs
[2:41:51] that you
[2:41:55] are those are those numbers like conform
[2:41:59] numbers that there's no flexibility up
[2:42:01] or down.
[2:42:04] >> So uh that's that's probably worst case
[2:42:09] scenario that you're looking at. Uh
[2:42:13] our internal numbers we're looking at
[2:42:16] approximately for the general fund for
[2:42:18] health um over 17 million. Um so
[2:42:25] >> but that's worst case
[2:42:27] >> what 17 million
[2:42:29] >> for this year for around 17 million.
[2:42:33] That's pretty much what we're estimating
[2:42:35] that 19 million was proposals for 2026,
[2:42:41] but we managers to reduce that by doing
[2:42:44] different formula
[2:42:46] to reduce that drastically about $2
[2:42:48] million budget of $1,700 in the 2017.
[2:43:00] So follow
[2:43:03] based on the recommendation from the
[2:43:06] consultant is it a consultant using well
[2:43:10] consultant maybe consultant for the
[2:43:11] healthcare and health insurance uh the
[2:43:14] discussions with um proactiating
[2:43:20] um we got that number down
[2:43:24] we don't know I constantly strive cost
[2:43:26] pharmacy spend medical everything is
[2:43:30] some of it if they don't control
[2:43:35] um the savings proactive
[2:43:40] driving that savings
[2:43:42] >> and if you're not if you're not doing um
[2:43:44] if you're not utilizing proact and you
[2:43:47] charge an additional
[2:43:48] >> are you I think you're talking about
[2:43:50] maintenance prescriptions go to the
[2:43:52] pharmacy
[2:43:55] » um you have to do the mail order you're
[2:43:57] doing maintenance um same availability
[2:44:00] of counterex. So there are individuals
[2:44:04] that are locked in stuff
[2:44:06] more retirees maybe they like the face
[2:44:08] to face with the pharmacy
[2:44:11] uh we're trying to get them to go intox
[2:44:15] want to save them money and it saves us money.
[2:44:18] >> Yeah, it's great programs.
[2:44:21] uh uh historically uh we can feel and I
[2:44:24] can speak on this healthcare online we
[2:44:27] have seen I'm not saying we're doing
[2:44:30] this for how many we have seen couple
[2:44:33] years that when we hear you know many
[2:44:35] years that that line
[2:44:39] sometime
[2:44:42] but I'm not you that's before your time
[2:44:44] so that's what I'm saying what I'm
[2:44:46] saying put that directly to you but we
[2:44:49] have seen that remember a couple years
[2:44:51] where we we reduce that line and we
[2:44:53] still fall short of that, you know,
[2:44:55] exceeding the the estimate uh a few
[2:44:58] years.
[2:44:59] >> Well, when I just want to make sure
[2:45:03] in terms of the the the way that it's
[2:45:06] been calculated for 2026, I mean, do we
[2:45:10] already know? I mean, like, will MVP be
[2:45:12] raising the rates? I mean, do we know
[2:45:14] all those answers? Is there a risk that
[2:45:16] it'll be higher than Well, I mean, you
[2:45:18] said that 19 was actually what you
[2:45:21] >> so
[2:45:22] >> actually thought it would be, but you
[2:45:23] put in for 17
[2:45:26] >> for 25 budgeted um
[2:45:29] national.
[2:45:33] » Well, we're definitely going to oversee
[2:45:35] that estimates and I think you saw the
[2:45:37] consultants numbers and where they're
[2:45:39] from. Um
[2:45:42] but yes we have uh we've working hard to
[2:45:45] reduce the um percentage increases for
[2:45:48] each renewal. Um you know Delta Dental
[2:45:53] MP um Medicare Advantage that's been
[2:45:56] rough.
[2:45:59] >> So we've actually reduced that greatly.
[2:46:01] Um
[2:46:02] >> they're originally coding
[2:46:04] numbers just because the environment
[2:46:06] we're in, but we got them down to uh
[2:46:08] they originally 60% um got down to 15.
[2:46:12] >> Wow.
[2:46:13] >> Um and we actually were sort of sold
[2:46:17] into
[2:46:19] the other plans and everything was very,
[2:46:22] you know, very high. So 15 was pretty
[2:46:25] solid. It's a local company we're using.
[2:46:27] So figured stick with them at this
[2:46:29] point. Mhm.
[2:46:35] I mean you also don't know you know
[2:46:37] somebody could have a cat catastrophic
[2:46:40] I mean there could be an illness or I
[2:46:42] mean all sorts of things also
[2:46:44] >> transition
[2:46:45] >> hopefully you know your retirees but
[2:46:47] >> transition between you know another
[2:46:50] company so that process
[2:46:53] >> and then we have to make sure that
[2:46:57] >> everything that we're providing the
[2:46:59] employees is the same exact
[2:47:02] >> coverage.
[2:47:03] >> Mhm.
[2:47:05] >> Then whether they be higher premiums. Um but um for now they look
[2:47:14] pretty comfortable. You said the
[2:47:15] formulary adjusted.
[2:47:18] >> Um
[2:47:20] just uh it's a tough market.
[2:47:22] >> Yeah.
[2:47:26] » Mr. you have missing suggested removals.
[2:47:29] Can you put that in in a summary with a
[2:47:34] total cost and if you can send that off
[2:47:37] to because that can also factor into
[2:47:40] because as we increase the revenue we
[2:47:42] reduce so it's kind of work
[2:47:45] and you touched on some good
[2:47:47] recommendation maybe we need to explore
[2:47:49] it more and kind of getting consensus on
[2:47:52] this thing and then you also had some u
[2:47:55] some other stuff in your proposal later
[2:47:58] so I'm going to submit
[2:48:00] revenue but I'm going to go more into
[2:48:02] department so I encourage everybody make
[2:48:04] suggestions it's not harming anything
[2:48:06] just making life easy for us and we
[2:48:09] explored so if we need to ask more
[2:48:11] question hard question we can reach out
[2:48:12] to the mayor reach out to commissioner
[2:48:15] reach out to the department head for
[2:48:16] them to kind of clarify any you know to
[2:48:20] help us with the decision that we plan
[2:48:22] to make
[2:48:26] » should we do that perhaps through
[2:48:28] >> I encourage everybody
[2:48:29] decision of tomorrow.
[2:48:31] >> Mhm.
[2:48:32] >> So when we we're now meeting we're
[2:48:34] meeting tomorrow.
[2:48:36] >> Tomorrow. So tomorrow morning you please
[2:48:39] um submit it
[2:48:41] >> recommendation.
[2:48:43] >> Submit it tonight. Submit it tomorrow.
[2:48:45] >> Please come to the table. Here are the scenario that we were to do this
[2:48:52] and then if there if there's something
[2:48:54] that u the commissioner and the may
[2:48:56] reach out to the department for
[2:48:57] clarification we can get that ahead of
[2:49:00] time. So I encourage we need to take a
[2:49:02] more high level approach now tomorrow
[2:49:04] into Friday. We we need to kind of like
[2:49:07] say okay here's my number here's my
[2:49:09] suggestion put it in writing it
[2:49:12] so we lessen the the kind of lengthy
[2:49:15] discussion here while we're dealing with
[2:49:17] numbers
[2:49:18] >> right
[2:49:20] >> and I encourage everyone yes myself
[2:49:26] Williams
[2:49:29] please
[2:49:32] suggestion
[2:49:34] is needed
[2:49:36] So just um point of clarification are we
[2:49:38] asking that excuse me for Mr. um
[2:49:43] Mr. Gil to be on Wednesday tomorrow?
[2:49:45] >> Well, I don't know if it is
[2:49:46] availability,
[2:49:47] >> right? So because otherwise
[2:49:51] there's no daylight.
[2:49:52] >> If he if he if he's available tomorrow
[2:49:54] and can come in here for a quick get in
[2:49:56] and out at 5:30.
[2:49:58] >> All right. So yeah, I don't know makes
[2:50:00] that happen. And so I will forward you
[2:50:03] um
[2:50:05] the wedding sent in terms of what's
[2:50:08] going to expire and all that and then
[2:50:09] we'll all have that. But again, I know
[2:50:12] it may or may not be outstanding. But
[2:50:16] just keep in mind that I'm trying to
[2:50:18] >> look at what we can do differently and
[2:50:21] better and get more income in terms of
[2:50:23] our pilots move forward.
[2:50:31] We have a game plan. We have homework to
[2:50:33] do. It's like school week.
[2:50:37] Yeah. So, yes, I'm I'm going to submit
[2:50:40] mine and get my words in. I'm going to
[2:50:42] copy everyone and you submit your stuff.
[2:50:45] Please, if you don't mind copy us so we
[2:50:47] all on the same
[2:50:50] understanding in the same level and kind
[2:50:52] of reviewing what what is being
[2:50:54] submitted.
[2:50:57] I'm going to go with Max and Sean and
[2:50:59] I'll learn the certificate
[2:51:02] and also I'll look at the past
[2:51:03] properties and ones have foreclosed and
[2:51:06] presented have been redeemed and then
[2:51:07] the ones for the next year.
[2:51:12] » Yes. So you'll get the opening dates
[2:51:14] that we have better
[2:51:14] >> for the camera. Yes.
[2:51:16] >> Yeah. It's pretty.
[2:51:20] » Anything else?
[2:51:25] You owe us dinner.
[2:51:26] >> No. Um,
[2:51:28] >> we can go now. Oh,
[2:51:31] >> all right. Anything anything before
[2:51:32] finance motion to recess until tomorrow
[2:51:36] 5:30.
[2:51:38] >> So moved.
[2:51:38] >> Second.
[2:51:39] >> All in favor?
[2:51:40] >> I thank you.
[2:51:58] send