[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

2026 Schenectady City Budget Meeting, October 21, 2025

Transcript