[0:01] 529.

[0:22] Okay, I got it now.

[0:27] » Yes. Yeah.

[0:30] importing now.

[0:34] » Okay, so these are correct.

[0:39] » Hi, I didn't see you come in. My back

[0:42] must have been

[1:00] Thanks.

[1:08] » Yeah.

[1:22] You have any um

[1:32] mine here. Thanks.

[2:09] It's okay.

[2:18] Yeah.

[2:32] Anyone

[2:40] need a copy of the phone that

[2:47] changes?

[2:48] >> Yeah. If anyone

[2:50] >> did she?

[2:51] >> Yeah.

[2:51] >> You have a new one. Okay.

[2:52] >> No one.

[2:55] >> Yes.

[2:57] The same as this, right? Same as

[3:08] » yeah,

[3:10] right? Revenue.

[3:12] >> How did we make that?

[3:13] >> No, we didn't make that. You just wanted

[3:15] a copy of his

[3:17] >> No, with the appropriate fund balance

[3:19] and then the uh

[3:22] >> Yes, you're right. I'll ask my give me

[3:24] about

[3:25] >> before you go. So, we have to align with

[3:27] Mr.

[3:29] Williams the numbers

[3:31] >> and then in

[3:35] » how far we are

[3:37] million against each members.

[3:41] >> So what else we had changes yesterday? I

[3:44] can do a couple

[3:48] that's Michael

[4:07] said with the money.

[4:09] >> Yes. um for that 2 million.

[4:17] The other ones were question.

[4:27] » No, I have

[4:29] >> Okay, you hear the first one. Thank you.

[4:31] >> That's that's that's all

[4:37] » I'm going to think.

[4:45] I would like to good evening everyone. I

[4:47] would like to call the finance committee

[4:48] to order for this evening and we'll

[4:50] continue our budget um discussion and we

[4:54] will continue from where we left off

[4:55] last evening

[4:58] as we wait for the revised sheet

[5:02] for some realignments. Uh we can

[5:04] conclude discussion.

[5:08] There were some questions asked and an

[5:10] answer was provided.

[5:13] So the members can go through the

[5:16] questions

[5:17] asked and look at the answer. If you

[5:20] need clarification,

[5:22] please uh do so.

[5:47] It's so

[6:15] assist.

[6:24] Yeah.

[8:13] Patrick, we left off last evening. You

[8:15] were going to look for additional

[8:17] recommendation.

[8:20] >> I sent a reminder today. Um, did you had

[8:22] a chance to

[8:22] >> I did not. I sent you back an email

[8:24] saying I wasn't going to be able to do

[8:26] anything else today. I had a series of

[8:28] meetings. So, I don't have any changes

[8:30] from the initial recommendations that I

[8:33] put in.

[8:33] >> So, are you going to work in it this

[8:34] evening?

[8:35] >> Depends on what happens tonight, but um

[8:38] I'm just waiting to see what what we do

[8:40] tonight, but no, I I don't know if I'll

[8:42] have time. It depends on what time we

[8:43] get home.

[8:45] >> Last night, I went home and went right

[8:46] to bed. So, yeah.

[8:48] >> So, so you don't have any suggestion

[8:49] right now at this point?

[8:51] >> I have the suggestions that I made

[8:53] before, but I don't have anything right

[8:54] now. I'm still reading what we just got

[8:56] uh today from the police.

[9:06] » Mr. Toro, you have any additional

[9:08] recommendation?

[9:09] >> I do not. Um, I'm just going over these items from the from the PB. Um, be

[9:18] where we are. And it looks like he asked

[9:20] me that extra revenue we put in there

[9:22] that they're really not in favor of all

[9:24] of them. And I kind of made my my

[9:26] position clear on on on revenue. And I

[9:29] just want to say that I think we're in

[9:31] this situation because of the series of

[9:33] past decisions that have led us here.

[9:35] and I repeatedly oppose the budget for

[9:38] this very reason since I've been on

[9:39] council. So, um continuing to overflate

[9:43] these revenues uh projections is I think

[9:46] fiscally irresponsible and will place

[9:48] our city in a financial condition that's

[9:51] a lot worse next year. Um I know we all

[9:55] want to try to keep this under the tax

[9:57] cap and that's our goal. um

[10:00] unfortunately going through um

[10:05] you know what we're going through and I look for your guidance and and of

[10:09] course the president's port's guidance

[10:11] to try and keep us uh under that but

[10:14] inflating these revenues I I my what

[10:17] I've put forward is is what I'm good

[10:19] with at this point. So yesterday you

[10:22] suggested that um you're not in favor of going over the

[10:27] tax colle

[10:30] how how how would you achieve that?

[10:32] >> Right. So I'm asking if you come down to

[10:34] my level with what I had on what I have

[10:37] on the line how would you move forward

[10:39] with keeping that under the under the

[10:41] test?

[10:42] >> We're 1.2 million. We need 4 million

[10:44] more and based on my conversation on

[10:47] what

[10:47] >> you had told us yesterday that you would

[10:50] like to see the

[10:52] >> tax. I would love to stay under the the

[10:54] tax cap. Um

[10:58] unfortunately

[11:01] these revenues are all inflated and

[11:04] >> so then what would you suggest then to

[11:07] keep it under the tax cap?

[11:08] >> Well, that's not

[11:10] >> Mr. I'm sorry. Yeah. Like to hear what

[11:13] everyone else's position are, especially

[11:15] when we get to but I I don't agree with

[11:18] this yesterday.

[11:20] I made my point my position clear. Thank

[11:23] you. Thank you.

[11:24] >> But I I just want to clarify. We can't say something and do something

[11:27] else. If you are in favor of keeping it

[11:29] under the tax cap,

[11:30] >> then you have to work towards a number.

[11:33] You can't say that you want to keep it

[11:35] under the tax cap,

[11:36] >> which is $5.2 million. When you come in

[11:39] with $1.2 2 million. That is not keeping

[11:41] it on a tax. So you have you have to be

[11:43] straight with the taxpayers.

[11:44] >> I am I'm very strict with the taxpayers

[11:47] because I'm not going to put them in a

[11:48] position next year where the tax rate

[11:50] could go up 30%. I'm not doing it.

[11:53] >> So then you are not so

[11:56] under the tax.

[11:57] >> I think at this point in time we just

[11:59] need to try to figure out how to get to

[12:00] this because this is a circular

[12:02] conversation. It's been three days of

[12:04] back and forth and I'm disappointed that

[12:06] I've been asking over and over for

[12:08] recommendation

[12:10] >> and some members are not making

[12:12] recommendations.

[12:14] >> But given all my recommendations,

[12:15] >> okay, that's that's not going to change.

[12:17] So,

[12:20] » see if you guys can come down.

[12:23] So, if our goal Yes. is to not see the

[12:26] tax cap, then Mukamak has told us it's

[12:29] 5.2 million. We need to get there.

[12:32] And if we can't, it means that although

[12:35] we all want to be down in that step, we

[12:39] might not be able to get there.

[12:41] Mr. I want to be clear that I put that

[12:43] directive out to departments. It's just

[12:45] the numbers are not there.

[12:49] It's a difficult position. It was hard

[12:52] for me to put forth this budget with

[12:54] those numbers in it, but that's the

[12:56] reality that we're dealing.

[13:05] M go ahead. Some um I don't I don't see

[13:08] some of the answers in terms of saying

[13:10] where we need to go. Um some of the

[13:12] questions regarding CBG if there's

[13:15] additional funding that's available to

[13:17] that. um you know there's a lot of

[13:20] discussion about the contingency and

[13:21] whether that is in fact correct and my

[13:24] understanding is those numbers are

[13:25] correct and that money is available and um any any outstanding invoices were

[13:32] deducted from that. So that is the given

[13:34] number with this might be out here to

[13:37] take away from it. That's my

[13:38] understanding of that process. um

[13:40] without knowing the additionary CBG

[13:43] funding that's available. I think that's

[13:45] huge that we should be able to um I know

[13:47] that last but I thought that we hadn't

[13:50] reconciled it but we need to know that

[13:52] number because if there's funding

[13:53] available to be able to budget on we

[13:56] should have access to that information

[13:58] and be able to do that.

[14:04] » At this point in time we're facing a

[14:05] very hard deadline.

[14:08] that we have to we have to get to where

[14:10] we need to get to.

[14:29] » I'll continue that. And so we asked the

[14:32] police department about various things.

[14:34] They did respond to they responded about

[14:37] a line that we didn't ask for. So I did

[14:39] respond to a 201.

[14:41] We did not need to ask that response. So

[14:43] there's a response to it. We didn't ask

[14:45] um a 2610B to find parking. Um

[14:50] they said there uh they had 910,000 was

[14:54] their revenue was there a function but

[14:57] they were willing to vote to 1.1

[14:58] million. So there is some level of

[15:01] movement there different than what we

[15:03] had but more than what they originally

[15:05] said.

[15:07] Um and they did make a comment about um

[15:12] the adding the additional overtime of

[15:14] 50,000 which was a suggestion and um

[15:19] they didn't think that that was um a

[15:21] good way to go because it felt that

[15:24] would just create negative interactions

[15:26] with the community.

[15:28] Um and then finally in A210M

[15:32] final building for parking again year to

[15:35] date the budget 140 and um they they

[15:39] still only expected 170 and then a

[15:43] September

[15:46] safety fines

[15:50] they estimated for jobs in baseball

[15:52] current outstanding tickets but there's

[15:54] not a mechanism in place but they felt

[15:57] the law department to give input on how

[15:59] we like those additional those

[16:01] additional tickets. So I interpret it to

[16:03] mean there's an opportunity to redo the

[16:05] revenue and put them in the law.

[16:08] >> Yeah.

[16:10] Corporation council Thursday but I mean

[16:14] look for the full judgments but that's

[16:16] just getting the judgments not so much

[16:18] the collection. So that's one part and

[16:20] then if that's not successful then we'll

[16:23] be partnering with uh the thought is

[16:26] partnering with the bus patrol company

[16:29] to hire a collections agency because

[16:31] they they're entitled part of the money

[16:32] as well as far as the split between the

[16:36] city and the vendor.

[16:39] So, uh I think in the short term they're

[16:42] looking to get default judgments on

[16:44] these and that's you know it's getting a

[16:47] judgment against somebody for the

[16:48] amount. Um but once again you have to

[16:51] collect it. So uh that's the difficulty

[16:54] but uh the thought is sometime next year

[16:58] depending on how the defaults see if

[17:00] that generates any

[17:03] attention from people who have defaulted

[17:04] on

[17:08] their tickets and if that's not

[17:10] generating money then

[17:12] collections agency in partnership with

[17:16] us.

[17:18] So that's and corporation council should

[17:21] be here Thursday or next meeting

[17:24] particulars but that's the general

[17:26] overview and so

[17:32] it's going to be tough it's not ready

[17:35] made

[17:38] » so

[17:40] I'm going to say that based on that I

[17:41] think there would still be a piece that

[17:42] wants to send me since there is a plan

[17:44] in place we shouldn't say that say

[17:47] exactly what it So I'm giving you talk

[17:49] about what that number should be but I

[17:51] think that we should definitely increase

[17:52] that line

[17:54] some based on the explanation because

[17:56] there will be

[17:58] to

[18:01] I thought that

[18:03] said they'd already

[18:08] » that's on

[18:11] the same

[18:16] thing department picking It's us the

[18:18] city

[18:20] >> which must control you're talking to the

[18:21] vendor the vendor who provided so

[18:26] that's what

[18:29] they

[18:48] So you have an image to look at the

[18:51] top section. So let's see

[18:58] how far we are, how close we are.

[19:08] The only one that's closest in Safari

[21:06] So 6.1 million is what

[21:10] available currently but it's actually

[21:13] 4.1.2

[21:16] the tattoo right there.

[21:34] Well, just to 6.1 is an unbalanced

[21:38] what's going to put in this balance in

[21:39] this budget. 4.1 is what remains and we

[21:43] have to keep in mind that to the

[21:44] negotiations that happened.

[22:12] I believe

[22:31] I recommend we read about lines based on

[22:34] the new information we received today.

[22:36] uh finish our conversations with the

[22:39] appropriate funds and regarding any

[22:43] expenses.

[22:44] the final agreement on staffing

[22:47] projections and I would suggest you

[22:49] close out with projects

[22:52] and also

[23:44] So if I may ask Mr.

[23:48] Let's review the revenue section. Move

[23:51] into

[23:54] movement to capital the new benefit ways

[23:57] we um

[24:00] are you recommended that we go to page

[24:02] line and see where we stand in terms of

[24:04] moving it out and can be

[24:08] expensive for for revenue

[24:12] and expense also any item that we're

[24:14] touching this evening. Uh I say

[24:16] definitely for revenue just we

[24:17] transition from this category. I thought

[24:20] we pretty much did that with expenses. I

[24:22] think the only open item was staff

[24:26] business.

[24:39] So let's we can do a one 0 02

[24:46] and we have four members are asking for a reduction

[24:55] for 2,50,000.

[25:14] Any

[25:29] discussion after that?

[25:33] » Any changes?

[25:38] » Mr.

[25:40] Zero.

[25:41] >> Yeah. Okay. I'm gonna I'm I'm staying

[25:45] 285 again.

[25:46] >> Never sected the rate

[25:52] » never

[26:08] right.

[26:09] >> Yes.

[26:10] Should

[26:14] we just keep going? Maybe Mr. Just go

[26:17] down the line.

[26:19] >> Well, we need to make a movement in

[26:20] terms of do we have the support to move

[26:21] this out of the finance community?

[26:24] Some of them we're going to have to

[26:25] adjust. Some of them we might have to

[26:27] pull out. So, we can I don't think we

[26:29] can make a movement on the entire

[26:31] section. Uh

[26:34] >> well, you only need two. We go line by

[26:36] line.

[26:36] >> Oh, yeah.

[26:36] >> And we just said there's there's a

[26:38] consensus. I'm guessing there's

[26:40] consensus in the um there's at least you

[26:43] asked that there's there's at least two

[26:45] people on the finance committee who are

[26:48] satisfied with the 2050,

[26:51] right?

[26:52] >> Yes.

[26:52] >> Okay. So then then we get a cannabis

[26:56] excise tax.

[26:56] >> Okay. So we can do that. I don't have

[26:58] that.

[26:59] >> That's what we should do.

[27:05] » So next is cannabis.

[27:06] >> Yes.

[27:08] So we have one, two, three, four, five

[27:11] members are asking to increase it by 150

[27:15] >> as a tour. Are you format that number?

[27:18] >> Uh what do I have? 100

[27:20] >> 100.

[27:22] >> Yeah, format it.

[27:24] >> Okay. So we have five the one there

[27:29] snap.

[27:33] We're moving um

[27:36] 200 2,000. Initially, everyone is in

[27:40] agreement. Are we still there?

[27:43] >> I don't see any changes on the sheet.

[27:45] >> Okay, go ahead.

[27:46] >> Looks like we're all

[27:47] >> I'm sorry. I just didn't hear anything

[27:48] back from Miss Car. It said it's still

[27:50] needed. She still needed some time on

[27:52] that. Did we get something back after

[27:53] that?

[27:55] We're still waiting for um development

[27:58] staff

[28:02] together.

[28:06] Hopefully hopefully tomorrow

[28:09] I told this morning 4:00 today the

[28:14] calculations

[28:15] more complex and go back and forth. So

[28:20] >> got my phone

[28:25] What what are we paying for in terms of

[28:26] the costs on the departments

[28:29] >> reconciling those accounts?

[28:36] » I'm trying to recall when I when I when

[28:38] we had a discussion with Miss Miss Car,

[28:42] she I want to make sure I'm speaking

[28:45] correctly because I don't want to

[28:46] miscode anyone.

[28:48] She had told us that um she had asked

[28:50] the department head or met with them to

[28:53] kind of go over if there are any

[28:54] outstanding invoices

[28:56] and I can recall that only one invoice

[28:59] that was outstanding or she was able to

[29:01] collect from code enforcement like

[29:03] 40,000ish don't quote me on that

[29:06] somewhere around there. So kind of like

[29:09] if she hasn't met she mess with them,

[29:11] they're telling her that they didn't

[29:12] find any is actually different than

[29:15] what's been represented. There were

[29:16] things that were submitted to

[29:17] development that apparently were

[29:20] insufficient. They didn't have as much

[29:22] information as they needed. They're

[29:24] going back and documenting that, putting

[29:27] it in manner that compliant with the HUD

[29:30] regulations

[29:32] and appropriately

[29:35] charging

[29:37] for crediting the departments the

[29:38] activities the students doing.

[29:41] >> So So then this lead Sorry I just found

[29:43] a couple here and then So then if we

[29:46] were to back it out this 202,000

[29:49] and then this um

[29:52] this 206

[29:55] then that will go back to general fund.

[29:58] So there will be more more funds

[30:01] available on the general fund to help us

[30:04] with additional expense. So I mean I

[30:07] repeat this yesterday but um it's a

[30:09] internal stuff that needs to get done

[30:11] but the money will not disappear. It

[30:13] will just end up in the general fund for

[30:15] us to to use.

[30:18] So either way it's a good thing but you

[30:21] know I say again is disappointed that

[30:25] the department is taking so long to

[30:26] submit invoice and if there are errors

[30:28] they should have corrected

[30:30] uh from 2001 for 2025

[30:35] >> 21

[30:36] >> 2021

[30:38] >> for 2025

[30:42] » it's kind of disappointed that it's

[30:44] taking so long for them to recon All

[30:49] right. So, but it remains the thing,

[30:51] Miss Carter was abundantly clear.

[30:53] >> Yes.

[30:53] >> That any money that was paid was

[30:56] accounted for in this accounting. So,

[30:58] whether we put it back in the general

[31:00] fund, whether we use it here, in my

[31:02] mind, it's still available for this

[31:03] budget. And that that amount 202,000.

[31:12] » Go ahead.

[31:13] So I there's seems to be a a lack of

[31:17] clarity here and I don't and it almost

[31:21] feels like we should have this

[31:24] information. I feel like we got

[31:26] information and I can't wrap my head

[31:29] around if saying that are we saying that

[31:31] the information is incorrect. Mr.

[31:34] McLaren, you just said made the point

[31:36] that you made around the money being uh

[31:38] available and it would just go back into

[31:40] the general fund. Commissioner, do you

[31:42] agree with that? I'm sure do you agree

[31:44] with that assessment?

[31:46] >> If what is budgeted

[31:48] for this amount of proposed budget 202

[31:51] and 306, it's just an account similar

[31:56] uh basically they're drawing down for

[31:58] CDBG funds and replenishing um these

[32:02] accounts.

[32:03] >> So the money's there.

[32:06] >> Yes.

[32:06] >> Okay. according according to the

[32:08] director and speak within IDS the

[32:11] statement she provided.

[32:25] » Are you saying there's a scenario where

[32:26] the money's not there?

[32:30] It depends if the team is able to

[32:34] capture

[32:35] the codes and stats

[32:38] out in

[32:40] um which they're working on

[32:44] the pages

[32:46] each one and see which

[32:49] they're working on.

[32:51] So commissioner, are you saying that

[32:53] these are outstanding invoice externally

[32:57] >> from 2021?

[32:58] >> That's not what I'm saying. I don't know

[33:00] what they are.

[33:00] >> So then why are you making the

[33:02] assumption that then money is not going

[33:04] to be available?

[33:05] This is I I made I thought we were clear

[33:08] yesterday. This is an internal

[33:09] reconciliation.

[33:13] » This is why I'm why why are we doing

[33:16] this?

[33:19] money's current right now.

[33:22] >> So if we if there is an invoice out

[33:24] there, it can be drawn down.

[33:27] >> So if that is drawn down on say it's

[33:29] 100,000 out of the line snap, that means

[33:32] it will be 102,000 available for 26.

[33:37] >> Can I just hear what you're saying?

[33:39] >> For further clarification, are you

[33:41] talking about invoices from 2025?

[33:44] Because I we wouldn't be going back

[33:47] against what the mayor says. to be

[33:48] closed together.

[33:50] >> That's what the team is going through

[33:51] right now. I'm not aware of what year

[33:53] they're looking at documentation trying

[33:56] to put it together toward council.

[33:58] That's what they're working.

[34:00] >> Um that's still not clear for me because

[34:03] if we're in 2025 and there's other years

[34:06] that we you've closed your books on and

[34:08] that means that's been paid. So even if we spent the money out of the general

[34:12] fund and this money is now here, it just

[34:14] goes back to the general fund. And if

[34:16] we're talking about 2025, and as I

[34:18] understand it, the HUD year is different

[34:20] than your

[34:21] >> your year. So, um, so if it's if it's

[34:25] 2025, my understanding is what what Miss

[34:28] Carter said when she was here is that

[34:29] she's accounted for any outstanding

[34:31] invoice that she has currently received

[34:33] in 2025.

[34:35] I

[34:37] you know I would really need you to

[34:39] explain to me about outstanding invoices

[34:41] from prior years and why we why we

[34:44] wouldn't just have they already paid why

[34:46] would you not be punching the jail sign

[34:50] and I I mean M we could spend a lot of

[34:53] time talking about this I

[34:55] >> well my my

[34:58] issue is that this is this impacts the

[35:01] budget in a significant way

[35:03] >> and based on the information that um we

[35:06] received and some of the information

[35:08] that we've yet to receive. I'm I I I'm

[35:12] curious as to what level of impact

[35:16] other money is out in the same scenario

[35:19] that we might be able to draw on and to

[35:24] give it back to the taxpayers.

[35:28] And if not, if we're not getting that

[35:30] information, and I requested that

[35:33] information um yesterday, and I don't

[35:36] want it to be a waiting game where we're

[35:38] running out the clock, and we're not

[35:40] getting the information that that we

[35:41] need in order to make an informed

[35:42] decision. And

[35:45] you know, seven right now, we're talking

[35:47] about $600,000

[35:50] right now in this one incident that

[35:53] we're that we're discussing. If we have,

[35:56] you know, two or three more incidents

[35:59] that are similar to this, that puts us

[36:01] in a completely different space as far

[36:03] as figuring out this budget. So,

[36:08] the money's there right now. It's

[36:09] available, but then so are we creating

[36:12] invoices right now to draw from this

[36:14] money now from here from 2021?

[36:18] Is that what's happening?

[36:20] That's a question for mayor

[36:22] commissioner.

[36:24] >> They're going back through all the years

[36:27] and all current.

[36:31] >> But but may

[36:33] that is a good thing they're doing to go

[36:35] back there and to draw down and to

[36:37] utilize funding that is available. But

[36:40] once that internal reconciliation is

[36:42] done, that money will go back. It's an

[36:44] in and out internal in and out

[36:46] transaction. Right? So that money will

[36:48] go back in the general.

[36:50] >> Not arguing.

[36:51] >> So that's I'm trying to tell the

[36:52] commissioner but we're not getting any

[36:54] >> it may not

[36:56] >> if the money's expended in 22 25 it

[37:00] won't be available necessarily for 26.

[37:04] >> The question

[37:05] >> I don't think this is 25 numbers

[37:09] >> it's a private in 2021

[37:13] I don't think we have rehoo vendors from

[37:15] 2021. We have to close and beat

[37:18] everybody.

[37:21] >> Sure. I'm

[37:22] >> so I don't know why we went around

[37:23] circles trying to circle around and I

[37:26] don't think that we're getting adequate

[37:27] answers.

[37:28] >> We're not

[37:30] I'm disappointed with the CDBG the lines

[37:34] and try to go around and say well we

[37:36] have invoice

[37:38] at this time discussed in last week

[37:40] nobody would have be aware of this

[37:42] >> and I'm I'm very concerned that there

[37:44] are more pockets of money available.

[37:46] That's that's what mines that point.

[37:49] >> So I think we may have to call for a for

[37:52] a forensic scrub on the entire CDBG

[37:56] >> for what?

[37:56] >> Forensic scrub on it. Accounting scrub

[37:59] on it. See where we um where money is

[38:01] from 2021 to 2025. And if we need to do

[38:04] internal reconciliation, let's do it and

[38:07] put back the money into the into the

[38:09] general fund. But I think we're right

[38:11] where we're at are right now is what are

[38:14] we going to do with 252 and 26?

[38:16] >> I'm confident with the numbers that was

[38:18] presented to us. I am

[38:20] >> I believe Miss Carva she had her sheet

[38:23] of her and she was going through line by

[38:25] line with us

[38:26] >> and she is credible.

[38:30] >> Yeah, that's not even a question for me.

[38:32] I I don't again my only question is that

[38:36] I requested the information for

[38:38] that money and from all departments

[38:41] because anytime that we're facing such a

[38:43] deficit and

[38:46] you know

[38:48] close to $700,000

[38:51] you know is discovered which is a really

[38:54] good thing. I want to go back in that

[38:56] same spot and look to see if there's

[38:58] other money and we haven't gotten that

[39:00] information. And so if we act on the

[39:02] information that we have right now, I'm

[39:04] okay with doing that.

[39:07] But I'm concerned that we might end up

[39:09] passing a budget with a with a burden on

[39:12] taxpayers that could be lessensed if we

[39:14] have all the information in front of us.

[39:16] And I don't think that that is a very

[39:18] difficult or

[39:20] ask to have especially when the

[39:22] information

[39:24] is there.

[39:27] And I don't

[39:30] I'm almost feeling like maybe I am I

[39:36] Does anyone else see like a strong issue

[39:39] with us talking about possible invoices

[39:41] from 2021 and 2022 and 2023?

[39:44] >> Well, that to me is

[39:47] I don't I'm not com I'm just going to

[39:50] tell you I feel like that that I'm not

[39:51] comfortable with that.

[39:52] >> Well, I think we're all in the same

[39:54] place, Mr. Farley. and we're saying that

[39:56] we're not that we're saying that we feel

[39:58] that this money is here although and

[40:00] it's just internal reconciliation. So I

[40:02] say that we're all comfortable with this

[40:03] number and with the fact that the funds

[40:06] are available.

[40:11] » Go ahead.

[40:12] >> So that the code 2021

[40:15] these are money that's been put forth uh

[40:21] by the council for program. So even

[40:24] though sometimes the money is put out

[40:27] say 2021

[40:29] you may not expend it in 2021 it might

[40:32] not be drawn down until the subsequent

[40:34] year some period of time after and that

[40:38] is what some of that was co came in

[40:40] there things held up some of the program

[40:43] some of the delivery and it's not that

[40:45] there are things that are from 2021 but

[40:50] expenses or activities that were subsequ

[40:53] went to that and even this year I used

[40:57] example of this house on Dwayne Avenue

[41:00] we knocked down and it was one uh I

[41:04] think I said Robinson Street was

[41:05] actually division street that

[41:09] were

[41:11] they were unplanned events and so those

[41:13] are expenses that would be charged out

[41:16] of those accounts

[41:19] and as I understand the appropriate

[41:23] method of that is

[41:27] if there's money from 2021, you wouldn't

[41:30] take it out of the 2025

[41:33] money. It should go out of the 2021

[41:35] budget to then back up to the current

[41:40] appropriation for the same thing would

[41:42] apply to some of the paving programs or

[41:44] whatever. Some of the money gets held

[41:46] over. We use the oldest money first and

[41:49] then ordered up to the most current.

[41:52] Some of that

[41:55] invoices were sent to development that

[41:57] were

[41:59] insufficient. So they may not have had

[42:03] the proper address on it. They may not

[42:05] have had section block

[42:08] and so that they weren't properly

[42:11] debited or credited depending on what

[42:14] direction the money was going. supposed

[42:16] to report if I give him a spot. Um the

[42:19] CDBG line that we're talking about is

[42:21] SNAP and code enforcement.

[42:23] Majority of this funding out was

[42:26] directed toward sol

[42:31] the the demo that we're talking about

[42:32] with the adjustment that we were trying

[42:34] to make on the contingency.

[42:37] the proposed $400,000

[42:40] in your proposed budget. Now, we would

[42:42] say that based on the composition that

[42:43] we had, uh they are $200 plus,000 the

[42:48] demo, but instead of taking

[42:52] $400,000 from the demo fund, why don't

[42:55] we take $200,000 from the CDP and say

[42:59] Mark for them? But that I'm not arguing.

[43:02] >> Yeah.

[43:04] I totally have the numbers ready by 4:00

[43:06] today. the process is more

[43:10] enumbering. I want whatever comes out to

[43:12] be accurate.

[43:13] >> Yes. Correct.

[43:13] >> So, we're talking three different

[43:14] things. Um the CDBG

[43:17] snap line and code for line is for

[43:20] salary that was not drawn on.

[43:22] >> We already paid these individuals

[43:24] already from a general fund. the

[43:26] contingency we're talking about the demo

[43:29] >> and if they have invoice that they need

[43:31] to brought down against demo line from

[43:33] the CDBJ then we just need to do a

[43:36] reversal on the contingency line and to

[43:39] just do away with the CDBG 200,000

[43:42] and then go directly back into the uh

[43:44] fund for the 400,000

[43:46] >> so the CD the two lines there is not

[43:48] control remaining because those were

[43:51] salary set for salary and it was never

[43:54] drawn on it

[43:55] >> correct

[43:56] So if my comment was going to be part of

[43:58] Miss Carp's conversation was identifying

[44:01] that this is a federal program

[44:04] >> reported and to not acknowledge the 2020

[44:07] 2025 closed out. So I would hope moving

[44:10] forward we just continue with

[44:12] understanding that these funds are

[44:13] available and that these department

[44:15] heads understand the expectations for

[44:17] submitting uh um full and complete

[44:20] invoices so that they can be submitted

[44:22] appropriately and timely. I would hope

[44:24] that we are not going back because I

[44:26] think that is a mute point if the system

[44:29] is already closed federally. So I am

[44:32] safe to say after this extended

[44:34] conversation I think understanding how

[44:37] we got here is a separate conversation

[44:39] and we are understanding how we are

[44:41] here. Thank you Miss Carver and her team

[44:42] for identifying this funds. I think we

[44:45] can move on.

[44:50] » Yes.

[44:53] What I would like to see after the

[44:54] budget and the committee cycle that we

[44:57] have on the agenda to discuss this in

[44:58] more detail

[44:59] >> the CDBG and available funding for each

[45:03] department.

[45:03] >> Yeah, we should have it by now.

[45:05] >> Yes.

[45:07] Okay.

[45:08] >> Well, then I would like a commitment

[45:09] from the council that if after the

[45:12] budget is passed, if we don't have any

[45:15] um information before the budget is

[45:18] passed and we later find out that there

[45:21] is money that can be used to offset the

[45:24] budget and and put money back into uh

[45:27] the hands of taxpayers that we're going

[45:30] to amend our budget and and let it

[45:32] reflect accordingly.

[45:34] And I for as far as we then what I'm

[45:39] saying is very simply is that

[45:42] I did my my my my homework based on the

[45:45] numbers that was given to us and

[45:49] we have a responsibility to identify all

[45:53] available funding sources as we're

[45:57] working through this budget. That is our

[45:58] responsibility to people who are

[46:00] depending on us to make sure that we're

[46:02] doing that. And what I so what I'm

[46:05] saying is that I for one I I already put

[46:08] my numbers. Okay. I've already did what

[46:09] you what we've been asking to do. So I'm

[46:11] not holding up the process.

[46:14] So

[46:16] seems to me that there's money that

[46:18] that's that's there and and I and I have

[46:20] a strong inclination that there's

[46:23] probably more and and we really need to

[46:25] be talking about that

[46:27] as a way to offset some of this cost.

[46:32] And That's just my position. If everyone

[46:35] wants to just move on.

[46:37] >> Certainly.

[46:38] >> At this point, I think we can have to

[46:40] move on, but I would agree with you that

[46:42] definitely would have been a budget if

[46:43] we find out that there's other fun. It

[46:46] just it makes sense.

[46:47] >> And just to go on record, I agree with

[46:49] that comment. Definitely that forensic

[46:52] research should not be halted, but we do

[46:55] have to continue on and if there are

[46:57] more funding sources identified to Mr.

[47:00] problem is the least consideration we

[47:03] can be responsive to the conditions that

[47:05] we are presenting the community with

[47:07] financially.

[47:17] Okay, let's move on to

[47:20] a 56

[47:22] Bing.

[47:27] All of us had 20. We received that in

[47:31] mail

[47:33] >> and they suggesting that they more like

[47:35] a million dollar 1.1 million.

[47:38] >> So we are $30,000.

[47:40] So I'm comfortable with $30,000. This is

[47:43] an estimate.

[47:45] >> So

[47:45] >> I mean $30,000 the recommendation is not

[47:48] it's not a bad. We're not far apart.

[47:51] >> Are you saying to leave the 30? I'm

[47:53] suggesting that we leave the one 1

[47:55] million130.

[47:56] >> Okay.

[47:58] >> Cuz we're not far apart.

[48:03] » I I would caution the other way. I would

[48:06] need that to be considerate of what

[48:08] Chief has responded.

[48:11] >> I think that would be

[48:14] >> still taking a lot of risk, but I think

[48:16] that is taking or putting a strong

[48:18] weight on his comments as well.

[48:22] I would agree.

[48:23] >> Me too.

[48:24] >> We're bringing in 1.1 million across the

[48:26] board.

[48:26] >> 910

[48:29] is what he said.

[48:30] >> 1.1.

[48:31] >> Yes.

[48:33] >> So I'm I'm comfortable flexible to to

[48:35] bring that down.

[48:36] >> The compromise. So can you make note of

[48:39] that please? First line. This one here

[48:42] making notes. Not the first line. This

[48:43] is a force change. Um except that I

[48:48] think in uh

[48:51] Ripple's email to us,

[48:55] >> he said he's going to they're going to

[48:56] try to read the 910

[49:00] » connect

[49:07] third line from the bottom at the very

[49:08] beginning. He says I'm comfortable on

[49:11] that.

[49:12] >> Yeah,

[49:13] >> I'm okay. because it was one of the only

[49:15] ones we all agreed on.

[49:18] >> Okay,

[49:19] >> good. Thank you.

[49:21] >> You have one. Everyone is one.

[49:23] >> Yeah.

[49:24] >> Okay. So, we'll we'll mark it as for

[49:27] change.

[49:32] » The next line is the parking times.

[49:37] Um,

[49:43] » some of those are closed, some

[49:45] >> bar.

[49:47] >> That one we definitely did notice there

[49:49] in terms of the changes.

[49:54] » 340 500 370

[49:57] >> I think 70 500

[50:00] >> 170.

[50:00] >> Mhm.

[50:02] >> Recommendation coming from the police

[50:04] department is to stay at 170. 170.

[50:11] I'm okay with 170,

[50:19] » but I still think I was really

[50:21] overestimating the approach that they're

[50:22] taking and with the system up and

[50:25] running last November,

[50:27] we've seen today the actual year to date

[50:30] as of today is 133,000

[50:34] >> and the program is just up and running

[50:36] this year and into next year. So the

[50:39] number is going to be driving up,

[50:41] but they are a couple million dollars of

[50:43] outstanding

[50:46] less than 3 years.

[50:49] >> So they started November 2024 with their

[50:52] program.

[50:53] >> Yes.

[50:54] >> And this is not even a year.

[50:55] >> Yes.

[50:57] And that's how I'm basing my basing the

[51:00] conversation I had. Yes. is an

[51:01] aggressive approach and uh you know

[51:04] production agency

[51:06] ramp up um

[51:08] mailing

[51:11] so the outstanding games the outstanding

[51:13] tickets I mean I'm flexible to move my

[51:16] number down I mean I

[51:17] >> me too

[51:18] >> yes

[51:19] >> I mean I don't have to stay where I am

[51:23] but I think we should know

[51:31] Well, I think we just need to come up on

[51:33] that particular line. We all had a

[51:34] different Well, I think uh Mr. Mudarin

[51:36] and I had the same, right?

[51:38] >> Yes.

[51:39] >> But everybody else, let's see. Well, no,

[51:41] two two folks had

[51:43] >> 170.

[51:44] >> Yeah,

[51:44] >> I don't have a problem moving down to

[51:46] 170.

[51:47] >> Well, 170 is the um

[51:50] >> proposed budget.

[51:51] >> That's what he says here that he's

[51:54] projected revenues. So if we go over the

[51:57] 170, we're definitely not going with the

[51:59] recommendation from the PD.

[52:06] » So it looks like we have to discuss this

[52:08] one.

[52:09] >> Yeah, I'm willing to to bring mine down

[52:11] to

[52:15] 300,000 from 500,000.

[52:20] That's an increase of 130,000

[52:24] from 300,000. 330,000 on board.

[52:35] I think that uh you and I, Mr. Mutiver,

[52:38] were going off the uh what we heard from

[52:41] the presentation. However, um now that

[52:45] we've gotten the revised

[52:48] memo today from the police department,

[52:51] I'm questioning myself on putting in

[52:55] that high a figure. So, um I mean maybe

[52:58] go. We all are well over that figure uh

[53:02] in terms of what is being recommended by

[53:04] the police department. So, I don't know

[53:06] what are folks feeling

[53:10] cuz they're saying 170, right? You find

[53:13] that one.

[53:14] >> Yeah.

[53:16] >> What will be your number?

[53:18] >> Well, I mean, I'm going to have to go

[53:20] down from 500 to either 170. So, I mean,

[53:23] I could see maybe 200, but we're still

[53:26] then going over the what what they're

[53:28] comfortable

[53:29] seeing as a as something that we can

[53:32] collect. I just don't want to, you know,

[53:34] inflate something and then not be able

[53:36] to make it. So, but I mean, obviously,

[53:38] I'm well over I I have to change my

[53:40] number. So, I'm interested to hear what

[53:41] other people say.

[53:52] » 500 obviously do it.

[53:59] Again,

[54:08] going back to what they said when they

[54:10] presented it,

[54:11] >> it sounded like it was going to be

[54:12] significantly more.

[54:14] >> Mhm.

[54:16] >> You could even present the gist analysis

[54:19] of how many they had.

[54:22] >> Yes. one year, two year, three years,

[54:24] and you'll think the millions of dollars

[54:26] that the agency is is going to fight for

[54:30] over the next year or two.

[54:32] >> I mean, I will say that again, I think

[54:36] I'm just speaking for myself, but you

[54:38] and I might have been in the same um

[54:40] thought pattern here, Mr. Mutter, but

[54:42] because that was the three years were

[54:44] less.

[54:45] >> Yes. Um so maybe um

[54:49] I mean obviously anything over that is

[54:51] going to be re you know like impossible

[54:53] to collect but they also had a figure

[54:56] for the six months right Braden was 130

[55:01] 605

[55:03] um I think we were just trying to figure

[55:06] out some additional revenue but they're

[55:08] now saying that they would be

[55:10] comfortable at 170 but

[55:13] >> so I'm just trying to see what other

[55:15] people are

[55:15] >> the presentation they talk about um the

[55:17] 1.2

[55:19] >> it was one point yeah 1.2 too.

[55:21] >> And it's going to be different uh time

[55:23] bracket

[55:25] that um the agency is going to start

[55:27] sending out notices.

[55:30] >> Well, what do other people I mean he and

[55:32] I have the same.

[55:34] >> I'm I'm going to drop mine to 30,000

[55:36] from 500,000.

[55:38] >> So that's an increase of 130,000.

[55:42] >> I can find myself in agreement with

[55:43] that. I would say if we're noticing uh

[55:46] early on in the year that those

[55:47] collections are moving incrementally, I

[55:49] think it is incumbent upon us to

[55:51] evaluate the efficacy of that collection

[55:54] agency because that would mean that

[55:56] regardless of what tickets you're

[55:57] getting in, you just got to wait out the

[55:59] system. I think that is a poor message

[56:02] to send because the time that goes into

[56:04] place to filing those tickets, you need

[56:07] to ensure that collection is equally

[56:10] enforced as well. So I think at some

[56:12] point we need to evaluate

[56:14] how well the collection process is is

[56:16] being conducted. I think that is also

[56:19] that I've been doing that.

[56:33] was my original. I increased it

[56:35] based on the conversation, but I'm going

[56:36] to go back down to 300,000.

[56:43] I was as well at 100,000 to put it at

[56:45] 270, but I'm comfortable with my 270.

[56:54] » Mr. Far, you want 370?

[56:56] >> Certainly. And I think based on, you

[56:58] know, the the email we received today,

[57:01] um, are we comfortable going down

[57:04] 300,000 as well?

[57:07] also

[57:08] noting that um that we and I think we'll

[57:12] run into this as we go through multiple

[57:14] lines that there's a point of um some

[57:18] level of evaluation of

[57:21] how efficient some of these things are

[57:23] being. So I'm okay with 300 in the sake

[57:26] of drawing some consensus within reason

[57:29] and moving on.

[57:31] Mr.

[57:32] >> Tori, are you okay there?

[57:33] >> Yes. Miss Patrick,

[57:37] >> I I I think 300. I'm okay with going to

[57:40] 300.

[57:41] >> 300. Okay.

[57:42] >> Isn't that what everybody's

[57:45] >> the majority? The majority are saying

[57:47] 300.

[57:47] >> Yeah. The two of us have 500,000 basic

[57:49] compensation that would present to us.

[57:52] That's how I factor in the number

[57:55] >> I'm comfortable dropping it. So overall

[57:57] 300,000.

[57:59] >> You're good. So, are we making that

[58:02] please?

[58:04] Okay, let's keep moving.

[58:10] » Bus

[58:11] >> patrol. It looks like

[58:12] >> patrol.

[58:13] >> Oops. We made another one. Okay.

[58:15] >> Mhm.

[58:16] >> Did we all we all agreed on that one?

[58:21] » All right. 600

[58:22] >> 400 plus 200,000 600,000 based on the

[58:25] presentation based on the amount of

[58:27] planning to give

[58:28] >> and based on what we told that um there

[58:32] will be some sort of a aggressive

[58:34] approach towards um

[58:38] to collect these outstanding um tickets.

[58:43] >> Thank you. So again um without the law's

[58:46] input and Mr.

[58:49] Well, Brian just gave us his input that

[58:51] there's nothing in in place now to even

[58:53] work on collect. Well, he told us, but

[58:55] it was going to be a long drawn out

[58:57] process that may or may not happen in

[58:59] 2026. Can you collect any

[59:02] expected full judgment now? And then

[59:06] it's it's then if that doesn't generate

[59:09] revenue, then we will look to hire in

[59:12] conjunction with the bus bus company, a

[59:16] collection agency. Cool.

[59:18] >> So, but the numbers you have there are

[59:21] aggressive numbers. I think the PD is

[59:23] saying 400. I think if bas default

[59:27] judgments, seeing how that goes in the

[59:29] hopes that's going to generate some

[59:32] money. Um, and then if that doesn't then

[59:35] we're going to, you know, switch over to

[59:36] collections. I think that

[59:39] we could be mindful that that this is

[59:41] not readily that their projections are on the high side, you know, based on

[59:47] talking to the PD,

[59:48] >> my conversations with the Congress with

[59:50] the corporation council and the

[59:52] assistant who corporation council

[59:54] handles these cases. So, I just throw

[59:58] that out there for your consideration.

[1:00:00] And if I may go back to based on account

[1:00:02] of the presentation that we had with

[1:00:04] this police department, the initial

[1:00:06] $400,000 in the proposed budget

[1:00:11] did not account for the $600,000 of

[1:00:14] outstanding ticket that is associated

[1:00:17] with bus patrol safety. So we have

[1:00:21] $600,000 in unaccounted funds. We took a

[1:00:25] third of that and say and that's do an

[1:00:27] aggressive approach

[1:00:29] to collect a third of that and I think

[1:00:32] that's reasonable

[1:00:34] but what we need to do is to put things

[1:00:35] in place don't wait until next year

[1:00:37] starting now put things in place to

[1:00:39] start to go

[1:00:42] and amend or put law in place how do we

[1:00:45] code and start to attract some sort of

[1:00:49] mechanism in place to get to the

[1:00:52] standing violation.

[1:00:53] So 2,000 $200,000 out of the $600,000.

[1:00:59] I don't think it's unreasonable.

[1:01:04] Mor

[1:01:06] didn't think it was unreasonable either.

[1:01:08] She was very very very very very very

[1:01:11] cautious and she identified that she was

[1:01:14] going to send back some confirmational

[1:01:17] emails there after which I did not think

[1:01:18] we received. Um but the comment was that

[1:01:22] a third of that line would not be too

[1:01:25] overaching which was not taken into

[1:01:27] consideration by the police accord

[1:01:30] response

[1:01:33] » six.

[1:01:34] >> Yeah,

[1:01:35] >> Mr. Williams.

[1:01:36] >> Yes.

[1:01:36] >> Okay.

[1:01:40] » Anyone else want to drop theirs?

[1:01:42] >> No. increase theirs.

[1:01:43] >> I think we're all on the same

[1:01:45] >> we all said the same thing on that one.

[1:01:49] >> I mean I will say um my notes from when

[1:01:53] they present it to us says that once the

[1:01:54] ticket is issued then it is the law

[1:01:56] department that has to uh then do the

[1:01:59] rest of the work. So we just have to be

[1:02:01] cognizant of any corresponding expenses

[1:02:04] if we're increasing the rep if we're

[1:02:07] thinking we can increase the revenue

[1:02:09] because even although I'm hearing what

[1:02:11] you're saying today that I mean I wonder

[1:02:15] if there's a way that that bus comes

[1:02:17] from you're saying that they might

[1:02:19] assist in this

[1:02:22] >> they want their money as well.

[1:02:25] >> They're not collecting.

[1:02:26] >> Okay. In other words, they they're a

[1:02:28] vendor and they're not getting they're

[1:02:30] supposed

[1:02:34] up. So

[1:02:35] >> they they don't get paid until the

[1:02:37] final.

[1:02:38] >> So they have obviously interest

[1:02:40] >> in trying to get that money.

[1:02:43] This this is where it going to come into

[1:02:44] play that this agency with the land

[1:02:47] department need to work in conjunction

[1:02:50] and put whatever they need to put in

[1:02:52] place to go after

[1:02:56] that.

[1:02:57] >> Thank you. But at this point there's no

[1:02:59] they don't have a collection agency.

[1:03:01] They're trying to recruit one. Correct.

[1:03:02] >> Right now we are just getting default

[1:03:04] judgments from any defaults case. We

[1:03:08] don't have one in place now. the idea to

[1:03:11] get one seeing how it moves forward with

[1:03:14] the defaults and then have a

[1:03:16] conversation with

[1:03:19] >> okay think this is a little

[1:03:22] >> I think it's it's it's large because

[1:03:24] there's there's a it's it's

[1:03:28] not going to be an account receivable in

[1:03:29] other words you get a default judgment

[1:03:31] are they going you know then we have to

[1:03:33] enforce the judgment and get it

[1:03:34] collected

[1:03:36] >> and then the same thing with you know

[1:03:38] collections agencies you know collection

[1:03:40] agency reaches out and collects, but

[1:03:43] they also want the fee for their

[1:03:45] services as well. So, as you're going

[1:03:47] through this, I understand where you're

[1:03:49] all coming from. Got it. But, you know,

[1:03:52] just be mindful that that figure may be

[1:03:56] on the aggressive side. I understand

[1:03:57] what the corporation council said, but

[1:03:59] I've had further conversations with her

[1:04:01] this afternoon. So, I'm just

[1:04:04] >> Okay. Yeah.

[1:04:06] >> So, so based on your feedback, what do

[1:04:08] we need to put in place in order to move

[1:04:10] forward?

[1:04:11] >> I think we should kind of offer that to

[1:04:12] each one of you to do anything.

[1:04:16] >> What What do What do

[1:04:19] What does the law department need to do

[1:04:20] in order to move this forward and put

[1:04:22] things in place?

[1:04:23] >> No, we don't you don't we're already

[1:04:25] getting default judgments.

[1:04:26] >> Okay. We're doing what we we

[1:04:28] >> What do we have to do? So, you you are

[1:04:30] doing the process. We start the process.

[1:04:32] starting the process of getting these

[1:04:33] old

[1:04:35] program has now been up and running for

[1:04:37] over a year now. So it's going to be

[1:04:39] mature

[1:04:41] process.

[1:04:42] >> So that's

[1:04:44] you answer yeah that's a question answer

[1:04:46] what is what needs to get done in order

[1:04:48] to get the stick.

[1:04:52] >> So I have a question.

[1:04:54] >> Yes. Right.

[1:04:56] So you go to the court to give you the

[1:04:59] fault judgment. Yeah.

[1:05:00] >> And at any point does the law department

[1:05:03] try to then you know collect the or are

[1:05:06] you recommending that it's an outside

[1:05:08] agency tries to do it.

[1:05:13] >> Let's see what we can do internally

[1:05:15] first. I think that's the plan before we

[1:05:18] go to an outside agency because like I

[1:05:20] said, if we're going to an outside

[1:05:22] agency, we're going to have to partner

[1:05:24] with the vendor on this. And if we're

[1:05:27] doing it ourselves

[1:05:29] there, you know, it's we're doing it.

[1:05:32] We'll get the money. We still have to

[1:05:34] give the money to the vendor, but

[1:05:37] collection agency, you got to pay the

[1:05:38] collection. And just to add to that

[1:05:41] because we looking at the wall

[1:05:43] department there is a request to um add

[1:05:46] a staff member. So you know that's going to increase the staff.

[1:05:50] >> Yeah we have and now that we're getting

[1:05:53] the the other additional tickets from

[1:05:55] the speed. It's another burden on the department to

[1:06:01] prosecute. It's the are issued but then

[1:06:04] they have to be processed with the

[1:06:06] system.

[1:06:09] Uh,

[1:06:11] Mr. Chairman, so I'm comfortable staying

[1:06:15] out where where I'm at based on the fact

[1:06:17] that those $600,000 that's old. I think

[1:06:19] that a third is the have an expectation

[1:06:24] of us collecting a third I think is

[1:06:27] pretty reasonable. That's was the basis

[1:06:29] of my uh I got and that's why I'm

[1:06:32] comfortable staying there. So let me go

[1:06:34] back to the delinquent they consult the

[1:06:38] use consultant

[1:06:39] um the collection agency that we have

[1:06:41] for the delinquent parking we don't pay

[1:06:43] them any money they attach a s charge to

[1:06:46] each of these uh the g so I'm guessing

[1:06:48] it will be the same here for the bus

[1:06:50] patrol

[1:06:52] more likely it would be the same so

[1:06:53] we're not losing um

[1:06:55] >> is that or we didn't have to pay

[1:06:58] bus patrol because bus has a different

[1:07:01] set of legislation that created it

[1:07:03] That's for that. The corporation council

[1:07:04] told us that she was going to look into

[1:07:05] that they might able to use digitalize

[1:07:08] them to help collect this something like

[1:07:10] that. Like I said earlier when we're

[1:07:13] dealing with parking tickets that's us

[1:07:16] >> part dealing with a vendor we have to

[1:07:20] work with

[1:07:22] the law to enable that legislation as

[1:07:24] well as dealing with them.

[1:07:28] So we'll see what we can do.

[1:07:30] >> Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. In in further

[1:07:33] conversations with Miss Bash this

[1:07:35] afternoon, corporation council, she was

[1:07:39] not as comfortable with her initial

[1:07:41] >> that was my understanding. Yes.

[1:07:43] >> Okay.

[1:07:44] >> Thank you for say that's why it's

[1:07:46] important for those individuals to be

[1:07:48] present at these meetings.

[1:07:51] But sincerely having from the source is

[1:07:54] imperial to myself making the best

[1:07:56] informed decision. Unfortunately, I can

[1:07:58] go off the last conversation that I

[1:08:00] heard from her taking consideration your

[1:08:02] feedback.

[1:08:03] >> Okay, no problem.

[1:08:05] >> That's okay. On our numbers were based

[1:08:07] on the conversation that they had we had

[1:08:09] with the corporation council.

[1:08:12] >> So that's how we can like okay let's

[1:08:14] we're comfortable like 200,000 increase

[1:08:16] it 200,000 across based on based on the

[1:08:19] conversation we had

[1:08:21] >> right

[1:08:22] >> with several individuals. I'm saying she

[1:08:24] didn't revis those comments went to the

[1:08:25] next meeting on Thursday. She couldn't

[1:08:27] make tonight's meeting.

[1:08:31] » Those things those those things should

[1:08:33] have communicated to all of us. If if

[1:08:35] any individual or department head had a

[1:08:38] change in mind,

[1:08:40] they should have communicated that to

[1:08:41] the entire council or if not to the

[1:08:44] mayor and could have passed on to us.

[1:08:49] I'm I'm sticking with my 200,000 because

[1:08:51] I'm confident that I'm sure it's more

[1:08:54] than $600,000 hopefully.

[1:09:00] » Yes. Did you say you cover with that or

[1:09:03] >> Yes.

[1:09:08] » We don't have

[1:09:10] >> What do you want to do? You're

[1:09:12] >> I'll bring it down 100,000. I'm not

[1:09:14] comfortable with leaving 200. Okay.

[1:09:17] Can we make notes, please?

[1:09:18] >> So, you'd be at 500.

[1:09:20] >> Go ahead. Yeah.

[1:09:21] >> You'd be at 500 instead of 600.

[1:09:24] >> Okay. Thanks. Uh, Miss Patrick,

[1:09:27] >> I'm going to stay with 600 for now.

[1:09:30] >> Mr. Safari, did you say

[1:09:32] >> unless everybody else wants to go to

[1:09:33] 500? I'm willing to go down.

[1:09:35] >> No, I was I'm very comfortable with

[1:09:38] third.

[1:09:41] >> The next item, we don't have to do

[1:09:42] anything.

[1:09:45] >> We'll figure that out.

[1:09:46] >> What? Yeah. And we there's only a few of

[1:09:49] us that have.3

[1:09:50] >> million.

[1:09:51] >> Yeah.

[1:09:51] >> The next one is a sale of house. We have

[1:09:54] numbers all over the place here.

[1:09:56] >> Well, actually, let's see. Um one, two.

[1:10:02] >> So,

[1:10:04] a million M 500

[1:10:10] m

[1:10:13] 500.

[1:10:16] Again, we talked about this one um

[1:10:19] several times and I was definitely

[1:10:22] looking um based on my experience on the

[1:10:25] you know with property management

[1:10:27] committee but also um where we're at

[1:10:30] already this year with only I mean we

[1:10:32] only have two meetings left. So it's

[1:10:35] unlikely that we're going to be able to

[1:10:36] increase too too much more than what the

[1:10:40] year to date is. But I have to go back

[1:10:41] and look at the year to date again. I

[1:10:43] think the year only takes you through

[1:10:44] when September though, right?

[1:10:45] >> It it does, but I don't know if it's

[1:10:47] saying any October, November, December.

[1:10:50] So, tomorrow I think is October.

[1:10:53] >> Today, I'm still at 1.5.

[1:10:54] >> 1.5.

[1:10:56] >> Okay. Thank you. So, we're at 1.5.

[1:11:00] Um,

[1:11:02] >> well, you have to factor in also the

[1:11:03] house that is coming

[1:11:06] to be closed.

[1:11:07] >> I I I think it'd be difficult. I mean, I

[1:11:10] don't know. I'd like to hear from you

[1:11:12] guys, but I think we'll end 2025.

[1:11:16] What did you just say we were at now?

[1:11:18] >> 1.5.

[1:11:19] I mean,

[1:11:22] how much do you think we usually do per

[1:11:25] um

[1:11:27] >> I don't even think we'll get to two. We

[1:11:28] won't even probably get to 2 million.

[1:11:32] >> No, I'm talking about this year.

[1:11:34] >> This year, maybe I don't know.

[1:11:38] million I don't know the next few months

[1:11:41] dependent we actually receive

[1:11:45] our software

[1:11:48] >> that's what I was being conservative

[1:11:49] about just based on my experience

[1:11:53] the last couple years the last few years

[1:11:55] you may have lost

[1:11:58] so we had the sales of homes so for the

[1:12:02] failures at a million increase myself a

[1:12:06] million increase Mr. Farley at 500,000

[1:12:10] increase Mr. Toro and Patrick at zero

[1:12:13] increase and you at 500,000

[1:12:19] » are you comfortable at that number party

[1:12:22] and civilians

[1:12:24] bord

[1:12:36] I think a response here regarding the

[1:12:38] housing revenue of budget out 3

[1:12:41] million.4 million as previously

[1:12:43] suggested. Council for brief on this

[1:12:46] matter by the director of development

[1:12:48] who confirmed that's $3 million figure

[1:12:50] in the man proposed budget is realistic.

[1:12:57] » That's carried is $3 million now. So

[1:13:00] that doesn't take into account

[1:13:02] paying 15%

[1:13:04] commission to the railers. There's some

[1:13:07] title work, other closing cost. So the

[1:13:11] $3 million represents

[1:13:15] the

[1:13:16] million450,3

[1:13:19] million sales.

[1:13:23] >> Okay. But the title the title already

[1:13:25] budget under

[1:13:28] title cost.

[1:13:30] So

[1:13:32] it's under there.

[1:13:40] Mr. Toro, what what were you just

[1:13:42] reading out for?

[1:13:43] >> That is a letter. That is a letter.

[1:13:44] Everybody

[1:13:45] >> No, I know. I'm just I'm trying to go

[1:13:47] through my stuff.

[1:13:48] >> It's It's a package that we just

[1:13:49] received.

[1:13:50] >> Okay.

[1:13:52] >> Everyone has a copy of this and we went

[1:13:54] through it.

[1:13:57] >> Oh. Oh, I was using mine as a ruler.

[1:14:00] Sorry.

[1:14:04] That's why I couldn't find it.

[1:14:05] >> Oh, yeah. I see. 3 million. Yep.

[1:14:19] » We have to kind

[1:14:21] of on that then.

[1:14:25] » Are you looking to put a number there?

[1:14:27] >> I'm staying with my 3 million on that

[1:14:28] one. Just based on what I just said in

[1:14:30] terms of my past years experience. No.

[1:14:33] I'm sorry. I'm laughing.

[1:14:35] >> We have to come to an agreement.

[1:14:37] >> Well, I know, but I just I mean other

[1:14:39] folks are, you know, let's see what

[1:14:41] everybody else says.

[1:14:42] >> It's right across there.

[1:14:44] >> 44 35.

[1:14:48] Anybody else interested in changing

[1:14:49] their number based on the recommendation

[1:14:52] that is on the memo I was using as my

[1:14:54] ruler?

[1:14:57] >> The director of development is

[1:14:59] recommending 3 million

[1:15:01] Anybody

[1:15:09] say

[1:15:11] previous points and earlier I think he

[1:15:13] did not disagree with Mr. Woodberry

[1:15:16] comments he was just not as overly

[1:15:19] zealous

[1:15:22] Mr.

[1:15:23] account outstanding for outstanding

[1:15:26] foreclosure lists potential sales of two

[1:15:30] large properties which we anticipate

[1:15:32] closing out

[1:15:34] those we contribute to the next fiscal

[1:15:36] year. So I think with that I bought 3.5

[1:15:42] » I can support 3.5

[1:15:46] >> moving it from

[1:15:50] » taking

[1:15:53] down to 7 million 500 for you

[1:15:58] >> Mr. party time to staying at 500.

[1:16:11] » I'm I'm fine bringing mine now

[1:16:17] to 500,000.

[1:16:20] Can you get all of that, please?

[1:16:37] enter. No. Okay. Okay. Let's move next

[1:16:42] mortgage and banks.

[1:16:49] » We have one, two, three,

[1:16:53] >> four.

[1:16:55] asking for an increase of 450.

[1:16:58] The two members, sorry, one member of

[1:17:01] 100 and one 50.

[1:17:10] Any changes to this?

[1:17:21] » Your number.

[1:17:22] >> Okay.

[1:17:24] Good with your number here. I am. Yeah.

[1:17:25] >> Okay.

[1:17:26] >> Thank you,

[1:17:27] >> Miss Porter. Field.

[1:17:29] >> Mhm.

[1:17:30] >> Almost set.

[1:17:33] >> Is it good? Mr. Williams,

[1:17:35] >> you good?

[1:17:36] >> Yes.

[1:17:37] >> So, it would be 1.4, right?

[1:17:38] >> Yes. Um, the next one is on casino. I

[1:17:41] think it's a slam across the board.

[1:17:44] >> The align with the 1.160

[1:17:48] » everyone.

[1:17:49] >> Mhm.

[1:17:52] And

[1:17:54] fun balance is based on how much

[1:17:56] adjustment we've made. Then we'll adjust

[1:17:59] that line accordingly.

[1:18:14] Okay. So we can move into expense.

[1:18:19] We do have a

[1:18:21] But if you have any

[1:18:24] additional

[1:18:42] you striking out

[1:18:43] >> I'm sorry we're I'm sorry I was going to

[1:18:45] put a piece of paper while I was trying

[1:18:46] to get out of my side.

[1:18:47] >> You mention striking out. Yes, I'm I I I

[1:18:50] was I we I want to take that out that

[1:18:53] council member thing. I was

[1:18:55] >> misunders I had misunderstood the

[1:18:57] original.

[1:18:58] >> So please let's take that out.

[1:19:00] >> Mhm.

[1:19:03] » And that should be zero.

[1:19:05] >> Mhm.

[1:19:06] Um

[1:19:08] a 1413

[1:19:14] to

[1:19:14] >> field

[1:19:16] the budget

[1:19:17] >> based on our prior conversations.

[1:19:19] >> Yep. And I have to support this because

[1:19:21] we gladly need this in this city for

[1:19:25] some employees.

[1:19:33] Do we have support for this board?

[1:19:36] >> Yes,

[1:19:37] >> everyone. Thank you,

[1:19:41] » Miss Michael.

[1:19:44] Commissioner, please make

[1:19:54] the next one. Um,

[1:20:01] » see, sorry. Yeah. Wow. 1621.

[1:20:05] Mr. Toro, you add it.

[1:20:07] >> You were adding this ad.

[1:20:09] >> Mhm.

[1:20:09] >> It was an ad for one in streets and one

[1:20:12] in

[1:20:19] » Do you have notes?

[1:20:20] >> The other one is

[1:20:22] go back into your sheet.

[1:20:23] >> But I'm interested.

[1:20:24] >> You can go back to your sheet.

[1:20:26] >> I'm interested in what Mr. Williams. Um,

[1:20:34] » yeah, there were some members back and

[1:20:35] forth

[1:20:37] >> proposed

[1:20:38] into Mr. Lance.

[1:20:41] >> He's he's down below though, I think.

[1:20:43] >> No, no, no.

[1:20:45] What about moving some um temporary into

[1:20:49] uh

[1:20:49] >> Oh, yes. Moving some to snap,

[1:20:52] >> right? Streets of Snap. Yes, that's who

[1:20:55] it was. So, what what is it? So that's

[1:20:58] converting seasonal uh one line half of

[1:21:03] that converting into actual position. So

[1:21:06] clear line half and creating two uh

[1:21:09] labor positions.

[1:21:11] >> So it would probably be two that that I

[1:21:14] would put in

[1:21:16] >> two labor voters in that position.

[1:21:22] >> So

[1:21:22] >> are you in trash or you sleep and snap?

[1:21:28] Um I believe those positions were in

[1:21:32] >> our positions that were

[1:21:36] 21

[1:21:42] days.

[1:21:45] >> It was delayed because I I I do like

[1:21:47] that idea,

[1:21:50] >> right?

[1:21:51] public authority said that you have that change is only $52,000 that can't

[1:21:58] position

[1:21:59] >> but different number

[1:22:01] >> there were two there were one

[1:22:06] 1215

[1:22:14] » oh right

[1:22:15] >> it goes down like 5110 and 8161

[1:22:20] » right

[1:22:20] >> so That's right. Staff the one in

[1:22:24] street.

[1:22:25] >> Okay. So, what line talking about right

[1:22:27] now?

[1:22:27] >> We're on a 1621

[1:22:30] 121,

[1:22:31] >> right?

[1:22:31] >> It's up here someplace.

[1:22:32] >> Okay. Cuz then we started talking

[1:22:36] that

[1:22:38] one is that

[1:22:40] both those positions were are funded in

[1:22:43] the in the

[1:22:57] But I would like to hear more from Mr.

[1:22:59] Williams.

[1:23:00] >> I mean, he said it, but I don't think

[1:23:02] he's got a good

[1:23:05] >> Well, doesn't have anything on this one.

[1:23:07] >> No, I know.

[1:23:08] >> It was one of the other ones, I think.

[1:23:10] >> No, I know. I just heard that, but

[1:23:17] So, Mr. Tor, what would you like to do

[1:23:19] with this one here?

[1:23:22] >> Would you like to keep this position?

[1:23:25] >> It's a one one year.

[1:23:27] >> So, stay at your expense of 316722.

[1:23:32] Mr. Toro,

[1:23:33] >> I'm sorry.

[1:23:34] >> Do you want to stay with the 263935

[1:23:38] or do you want to add the new one? So

[1:23:40] that would be figures 316722

[1:23:43] on that line. Is that what you want to

[1:23:46] stay with?

[1:23:47] >> Wait, just one position

[1:23:50] >> at 52.

[1:23:51] >> Add one position. Yep.

[1:23:56] » So no. So basically nobody else was

[1:23:58] making changes. Mine mine is actually

[1:24:00] just the same. We we all kind of handled

[1:24:03] this differently in terms of putting our

[1:24:06] recommendations. So mine is just

[1:24:08] actually keeping a set the same which is

[1:24:11] 263935.

[1:24:13] Just wanted to clarify that.

[1:24:15] >> But everybody else must have also just

[1:24:17] wanted to keep it the same. Correct.

[1:24:19] >> Right. Unless there's something in which

[1:24:22] there isn't.

[1:24:23] >> But this is a new hive.

[1:24:26] >> Huh?

[1:24:33] » So we took Okay. So we took that out

[1:24:35] somewhere. So it it it creates a new

[1:24:37] hire and all of us are on the same page

[1:24:41] to completely decrease the hiring for

[1:24:44] next year.

[1:24:45] >> My mistake.

[1:24:46] >> So yeah, so

[1:24:47] >> we want to align the domain to give

[1:24:50] opportunity

[1:24:51] to realign the budget and kind of like

[1:24:56] >> you know and if we were to say okay

[1:24:58] we're saying supporting the freedom

[1:25:00] we're asking now.

[1:25:02] >> I'm perfectly fine with that sort of Can

[1:25:04] I have a checkbook?

[1:25:08] » I'll give it to the mayor. Thanks. Give

[1:25:10] it to us.

[1:25:12] >> So, we're sticking we're sticking with

[1:25:14] 2639

[1:25:17] to

[1:25:18] >> Okay.

[1:25:22] » Next one. Um,

[1:25:23] >> you have to raise 52,000.

[1:25:26] Then

[1:25:29] >> Miss Patrick, you're asking the

[1:25:30] >> I was trying to cut some expenses

[1:25:32] basically. Um, so I'm happy to stay at

[1:25:35] the 170 if everybody else is, but I was

[1:25:37] trying to save us some money.

[1:25:40] >> You have what? What?

[1:25:43] >> Well, hold on. I have to look up the

[1:25:45] year to date. But what I'm saying is I

[1:25:47] was just trying to cut $20,000 from that

[1:25:50] line, but I'm sure I based it on year to

[1:25:52] date, but just look it up.

[1:25:53] >> You did. I remember that.

[1:25:54] >> Well, look at it. I mean, we can realign

[1:25:57] me.

[1:25:57] >> I'm happy if everybody else is at 170.

[1:25:59] I'll I'll go to 170. I was

[1:26:02] >> No, no. you

[1:26:03] >> I was just trying to save us some

[1:26:05] things.

[1:26:06] >> Let me just see here. 1622.

[1:26:09] >> Look at the notes on this realign.

[1:26:12] >> If it's if it's something that we can

[1:26:14] consider across the board, we will

[1:26:16] >> Year to date is, let me just get to the

[1:26:20] right place. Year to date, again, I know

[1:26:22] that this is end of September. We were

[1:26:26] at having spent about $100,000.

[1:26:30] >> Okay. Um,

[1:26:32] so

[1:26:34] our budget was $200,000 last year. So I

[1:26:38] mean I'm happy to go to 170, but

[1:26:40] everybody else was at 170, right?

[1:26:43] >> No, we didn't we didn't we didn't make

[1:26:44] any changes,

[1:26:46] >> right? So it would stay at 17 saying if

[1:26:49] what a lot of members think we can

[1:26:50] realign with the

[1:26:54] >> based on what Miss Patrick I remember

[1:26:56] that conversation where she was going

[1:26:58] based on the year to date um I didn't

[1:27:00] think that $20,000

[1:27:02] of a drastic reductions I think that it

[1:27:06] I'd be comfortable going to um

[1:27:10] >> Miss Patrick's 150

[1:27:15] Yes, Mrs.

[1:27:16] >> Thank you. I'm just saying looking at

[1:27:18] past Well, you 2023 was $166,000.

[1:27:22] 2024 was 130 actual. Um I mean the

[1:27:26] proposed budget, it did already take

[1:27:28] $30,000 off of the 200,000 that was

[1:27:32] adopted. Um I mean we just don't know

[1:27:34] how much going to be.

[1:27:36] >> So I I mean I'm happy to be at the 170.

[1:27:38] So, it's all, you know, I'm happy to

[1:27:40] change my my recommendation. It's only

[1:27:43] 20 I mean, I was only saving us $20,000.

[1:27:46] So,

[1:27:47] >> $20,000

[1:27:48] behalf of someone's um salary.

[1:27:51] >> In the next in the next page, we're

[1:27:52] going to be talking about compensations.

[1:27:54] And I think based on um Mr. Turk, could

[1:27:57] you read those last two?

[1:27:59] >> 2023 was 166

[1:28:02] >> Uhhuh. 700,000 166,741

[1:28:07] 2024 was only 130,835

[1:28:11] adopted in in 25 was 200,000. We're only

[1:28:15] at 100,000 but is 170 again.

[1:28:19] >> Yeah, that's I think that was a good

[1:28:20] calculation you made.

[1:28:23] >> Yeah, I would have said

[1:28:26] I don't think it's reasonable to drop it

[1:28:27] by $20,000. I think

[1:28:30] >> it's small.

[1:28:36] No, it was a good justification.

[1:28:41] » I think it's good justification. If I

[1:28:43] get your name again, please

[1:28:50] » I have to go back and find it again. I'm

[1:28:52] sorry. Um 1622 460.

[1:28:56] >> She got it.

[1:28:59] » It was 99869.

[1:29:02] So I said 100,000 at the end of

[1:29:04] September. So you better imagine that

[1:29:06] there'd be more. Oh, do you guys have

[1:29:08] today's year to date?

[1:29:10] >> 46.

[1:29:12] >> Oh,

[1:29:15] yep.

[1:29:18] » So that would make it like 150,000.

[1:29:21] >> Yeah, that's actually that's probably

[1:29:24] >> solid.

[1:29:26] >> How many people bring down that? So

[1:29:28] negative $20 on 120 150.

[1:29:39] » Anybody else have any change?

[1:29:43] Sorry, you have none.

[1:29:45] >> No.

[1:29:46] >> You're staying at zero.

[1:29:48] >> No, it's fine. Yeah.

[1:29:50] >> 150. Yeah.

[1:29:52] >> Okay. So, everyone is at 150.

[1:29:57] We all make same

[1:30:01] >> please make those.

[1:30:04] >> Okay.

[1:30:07] >> The next one is contingency and this

[1:30:09] where you can back and forward with CDK.

[1:30:12] So

[1:30:17] » I would ask him for this one based on um

[1:30:21] allow to get some information from his

[1:30:23] department heads and we can revisit this

[1:30:26] one because if they are ill and allowed

[1:30:28] then we'll need to realign this line to

[1:30:30] go back to the demo to the mayor's

[1:30:32] proposed 400,000 from the demo point and

[1:30:35] free up the $200,000 to pay those demo

[1:30:39] invoice that they're doing the recon

[1:30:41] issue.

[1:30:44] >> I also asked on this contingency line

[1:30:47] that for a year to date what did

[1:30:52] what actually came out of it. Um my

[1:30:54] understanding of initiative have

[1:30:56] explanation was it wasn't just

[1:30:58] demolition there were other things that

[1:30:59] came out that so I asked for a

[1:31:03] breakdown. Yeah. Okay. breakdown of what

[1:31:06] came out of the line that we didn't.

[1:31:13] » This was this was today's memo. Miss

[1:31:15] Porterfield, did we get something today?

[1:31:18] >> Oh,

[1:31:26] thank you.

[1:31:34] So based on

[1:31:36] Dan's following two 282 no 501

[1:31:44] I see in three demolitions is that

[1:31:47] correct?

[1:31:49] So there are three

[1:31:54] downloads I believe

[1:31:57] uh you have four monitoring there's no

[1:32:00] development

[1:32:02] uh there is a software

[1:32:06] send

[1:32:11] unified communications

[1:32:13] then there is a small adjustment uh

[1:32:16] state treasury

[1:32:20] So the commissioner um

[1:32:24] why are we being UCCC out of this out of

[1:32:28] the contingency

[1:32:30] and also why are we paying settlement

[1:32:32] out of this one when we had when we had

[1:32:35] money set aside under the lottery for

[1:32:38] claims and things like that

[1:32:40] >> unique personnel matter within the

[1:32:42] police department

[1:32:45] session

[1:32:46] >> we have to go Executive session

[1:32:50] and we had a special presentation after

[1:32:54] chief was here during the summer.

[1:32:57] >> Okay.

[1:32:58] >> It was kind of unique situation

[1:33:03] we going see we would have to go in the

[1:33:07] details. I'm just trying to refresh

[1:33:16] this discuss

[1:33:19] sometime

[1:33:21] this year. It was it was probably during

[1:33:25] the sexual council resolution. Yes.

[1:33:32] » Okay. So, we don't need to we can just

[1:33:34] refresh oursel with

[1:33:37] No, I just want to ask I thought it went

[1:33:40] through.

[1:33:43] » Yeah,

[1:33:45] >> Mr. Chair. So, you're saying in order

[1:33:46] for us to get an explanation of why it

[1:33:48] came out of where it came out of, we'd

[1:33:50] have to go into executive session for

[1:33:51] that.

[1:33:52] >> I wouldn't really have to give, you

[1:33:53] know, name the names really go into the

[1:33:55] details. Okay. What that was all about.

[1:33:59] >> No, no, we don't need to get we don't

[1:34:00] need to get in the specific. So, why?

[1:34:02] Because they were discussing claims. We

[1:34:04] approved it. Why he wasn't draw from the

[1:34:08] money?

[1:34:15] » Okay.

[1:34:17] And then we talked about the UCCCL

[1:34:22] UCC. Um I believe that's for the police

[1:34:26] department.

[1:34:28] Um

[1:34:30] I don't know why there would must have

[1:34:32] been an increase uh full records for

[1:34:34] this payment. Um the council would like

[1:34:37] more clarification

[1:34:39] that I didn't see exactly what

[1:34:43] they came out of this account

[1:34:46] >> because we have we have a separate line.

[1:34:48] So set aside. So you're saying that

[1:34:52] I don't understand

[1:34:55] 2024.

[1:35:07] Anything

[1:35:26] else with regards to the contingency?

[1:35:28] >> No, just I was looking to do the uh

[1:35:36] demolition. So that total out of this

[1:35:40] is $169,300.

[1:35:43] So

[1:35:48] talking about $200,000.

[1:35:54] Okay, they keep moving. So we'll reserve

[1:35:56] that and come back to the on

[1:36:01] senior program

[1:36:04] across the board. Anybody's

[1:36:07] pulling out that party as well?

[1:36:12] » Okay.

[1:36:16] Um the next going to ask administrative

[1:36:18] expense.

[1:36:21] Mr. Williams

[1:36:24] so that we can realign with you and

[1:36:27] >> I'm sorry. Can I interrupt for one

[1:36:29] second? Mr. Williams, I missed. Are we

[1:36:32] staying at um what are we saying for

[1:36:34] contingency? I'm sorry.

[1:36:37] >> No contingency.

[1:36:39] >> We'll wait some. Okay. Thank you.

[1:36:41] >> The department.

[1:36:42] >> Okay. Sorry, I just missed the final.

[1:36:45] >> So, it will not be it would it would be

[1:36:47] uh it wouldn't be productive for us. So,

[1:36:49] >> Yep. No, you can keep moving. I just

[1:36:51] missed that. Whatever information that

[1:36:53] we receive, we will have to back that up

[1:36:55] and go over the mayor's proposed.

[1:36:57] >> Mhm.

[1:36:58] >> And free up the CDBG money to pay for

[1:37:00] the those

[1:37:03] hopefully enough.

[1:37:06] >> So 3120

[1:37:07] >> 3120

[1:37:09] on those lines as the conversations are

[1:37:11] on the table

[1:37:13] uh continue. I think there are drawing

[1:37:17] applications with the department

[1:37:18] function with the overtime line that

[1:37:21] they are proposed to have. I would like

[1:37:24] to remove that request.

[1:37:26] Okay.

[1:37:31] » So we'll strike those out.

[1:37:33] >> Mhm.

[1:37:37] um

[1:37:43] in service trading EMS cease for

[1:37:45] service.

[1:37:47] >> Yeah, I just I just was basically

[1:37:49] staying

[1:37:50] here.

[1:37:51] >> Yeah, just staying with the 144, I

[1:37:53] guess.

[1:37:53] >> Yeah, that's not

[1:37:54] >> But is everybody else just staying with

[1:37:55] the 144 also? Is that why those lines

[1:37:57] are blank?

[1:37:58] >> Yes.

[1:37:58] >> Okay, thank you. Yeah, this is next year

[1:38:00] when we do this, we have to make sure

[1:38:03] we're all doing it the same way in terms

[1:38:05] of how we're putting in our

[1:38:06] recommendations.

[1:38:07] >> Yeah. And that's what keep asking

[1:38:10] because as soon as we get this, they

[1:38:12] gone to the department, they plug the

[1:38:14] numbers and back, but not having that

[1:38:16] information. Now they're

[1:38:18] we're doing the work that we're supposed

[1:38:20] to do since last week. Dog shelter.

[1:38:24] >> No, wait. I didn't understand what you

[1:38:26] were just saying. I did do all my work

[1:38:28] to be able to put these recommendations.

[1:38:29] >> Yes, I understand. But keep asking if

[1:38:31] you want to open submit your

[1:38:33] recommendation. We're here doing

[1:38:35] recommendation now. Um, so let's go.

[1:38:39] Let's keep going. Dog shelter. There's a

[1:38:41] recommendation there for $10,000.

[1:38:47] » I can recall who um they were actively

[1:38:53] seeking grants to help this program.

[1:38:56] Yeah, I think uh kind of

[1:39:01] really aggressive and maybe the balance,

[1:39:03] but I'm not sure why. What would $10,000

[1:39:07] do in terms of helping?

[1:39:08] >> Hold on. I just want to see what is in

[1:39:10] the um budget.

[1:39:13] >> Matching the requirement for some of the

[1:39:16] grants.

[1:39:17] >> Hold on. 45 47.

[1:39:22] There's proposed 10,000.

[1:39:25] >> Again, I was just sticking with the

[1:39:27] proposed budget, which is 10,000, but

[1:39:30] nobody else.

[1:39:31] >> See what I'm saying? Like, we all just

[1:39:33] had a different way of putting in our

[1:39:34] recommendations. This was just something

[1:39:36] that I wanted

[1:39:37] >> the column that the column is correct in

[1:39:40] 2026 proposal and the column on to the

[1:39:42] left.

[1:39:43] >> It has zero.

[1:39:46] >> That's why I thought that was an ad.

[1:39:49] >> No, sorry. I'm just keeping it at the

[1:39:51] mayoral budget. $10,000.

[1:39:53] >> So, we just need to

[1:39:54] >> strike that out.

[1:39:55] >> Strike it out here.

[1:39:57] >> Again, like I said, I'm just going to

[1:39:58] reiterate that we all did it

[1:40:00] differently.

[1:40:01] >> Yes. So, we're

[1:40:03] >> I'm writing same on my own notes. Okay.

[1:40:05] >> We're all in favor of keeping that and

[1:40:07] then can we use mention matching grants

[1:40:10] to help with the

[1:40:12] >> next line because of the high ranking

[1:40:14] freeze. We'll scratch that. Please tell

[1:40:16] me you're going to get checked

[1:40:19] on sign that

[1:40:20] >> and mine was just saying same as the

[1:40:23] budget. So we're okay there.

[1:40:25] >> Yes. So we're striking out these because

[1:40:26] of

[1:40:27] >> striking out new tutorials.

[1:40:29] >> Yeah. the entire

[1:40:31] >> we're saying that we would like to see

[1:40:33] CL put on hold

[1:40:36] >> and then the other one nobody nobody

[1:40:38] >> we talk about this u we are aligning

[1:40:42] with the may in terms of the hiring

[1:40:43] freeze and that should do any hiring in

[1:40:46] 2023 it doesn't mean that we have to

[1:40:47] hire people

[1:40:49] >> we can always revisit so the may always

[1:40:51] come back to the council the proposal to

[1:40:53] re budget reappropriation and if there's

[1:40:56] a need for to hire someone

[1:40:58] >> that is That is not get done. Things can

[1:41:01] always be adjusted and uh move forward

[1:41:04] and putting people in places.

[1:41:07] >> So again, that's just sticking with the

[1:41:09] mayoral budget.

[1:41:12] >> Yeah.

[1:41:13] >> Okay.

[1:41:14] >> Oh, this was me again just trying to

[1:41:16] find some money. So I was taking away

[1:41:18] one of the uh two code officers.

[1:41:23] >> And Mr. Williams, you probably were

[1:41:24] taking two, right?

[1:41:28] But those those position are not

[1:41:32] >> they're vacant.

[1:41:34] >> Well, there are vacancies there. If I

[1:41:35] can recruit people, I'm going to hire

[1:41:37] them for those slots. So,

[1:41:40] >> all right.

[1:41:41] >> Me, too. I was basing it on how many

[1:41:43] people were um budgeted in I'd have to

[1:41:46] go back and look, but I'm pretty sure

[1:41:48] that it was it was budgeted in 2025

[1:41:52] for X number of um folks, but we only

[1:41:55] have the five. So, I was just going down

[1:42:00] based on what we currently had, but I

[1:42:02] knew that actually this is a very

[1:42:03] important position. Uh so, I'm happy to

[1:42:06] take out my reduction. Miss Williams say

[1:42:10] you

[1:42:14] budgeted for 10.

[1:42:19] » I agree with the mayor highlighting this

[1:42:21] is a very vital positioning city.

[1:42:24] >> I think the only

[1:42:26] actuality was five enforcement officers

[1:42:29] this year. So

[1:42:32] big number five vacancies on five

[1:42:34] vacancies from now into next year.

[1:42:37] That's an aggressive highway.

[1:42:39] >> And I believe I I can align with Mr.

[1:42:41] Williams on that. I believe uh when

[1:42:43] we're having these conversations um uh I

[1:42:46] believe uh Mr. Trimson said that we just

[1:42:49] got we just got to five and we asked him

[1:42:51] historically he says it's the first time

[1:42:53] that he's been to five.

[1:42:54] >> Yes.

[1:42:55] >> So I think that that's

[1:42:57] removing two of those position is

[1:43:01] feasible.

[1:43:04] >> Go back to Patrick. So, you remove your recommendation.

[1:43:09] >> I'm just Can I just look really quickly

[1:43:11] at um my notes here that I took when Mr.

[1:43:14] Triny was

[1:43:17] >> Yeah, the hire the hiring

[1:43:19] it's very slow because

[1:43:22] >> I mean I guess

[1:43:24] >> hiring hiring officer any department

[1:43:27] does an aggressive approach

[1:43:31] would be a historical approach if it

[1:43:32] happened.

[1:43:37] But everyone else is staying at except

[1:43:39] for Mr. Williams and I everyone else is

[1:43:41] staying at

[1:43:44] >> but but respond first.

[1:43:46] >> What what

[1:43:48] >> I ask you for a response of what you're

[1:43:51] going to do

[1:43:53] >> in terms of your recommendation.

[1:43:55] >> I'm willing to align with

[1:43:57] >> I'm just trying to have some dialogue

[1:43:58] with the my fellow council members

[1:44:00] around this one. Um before I give a

[1:44:02] response, how are people feeling about

[1:44:04] >> So currently Mr. Williams had a

[1:44:07] recommendation and so um like I'm I'm

[1:44:10] going to to go with Mr. Williams

[1:44:12] recommendation based on what he's just

[1:44:14] explained um that you know we have five

[1:44:19] this goal was to um hire five more but

[1:44:21] that hiring three would be probably more

[1:44:24] reasonable um goal that we would reach.

[1:44:27] So I'm I'm changing mine. I know this

[1:44:29] document doesn't reflect that currently,

[1:44:32] but I'm willing to to move to that.

[1:44:38] » Okay. And yeah, so I just Yeah, I'm I I

[1:44:40] said that I'm based on the fact that

[1:44:44] uh Mr. Chi explained to us around he's

[1:44:47] at five now. He just got to five. Um

[1:44:50] he's never been to five since he's been

[1:44:52] in the position. Um, and so 10 is would

[1:44:57] be a extremely lofty number. So I I will

[1:45:01] learn with Mr. Williams. In fact, I

[1:45:03] would I could say nominate three. But

[1:45:06] being that the uh

[1:45:09] the necessity position, I'd like to at

[1:45:10] least have enough if we are lucky enough

[1:45:12] to find the right people, we can find

[1:45:14] three, be good. So I I'm I'm going to uh

[1:45:18] stay with uh removing two positions.

[1:45:26] So mayor this whatever hire you do with

[1:45:28] this department does not affect your

[1:45:34] this department will be exempted in

[1:45:36] terms of or any high products

[1:45:41] » the simple thing that I'm using is if a

[1:45:44] hireer has the ability to generate

[1:45:47] revenue

[1:45:48] >> it would cover it

[1:45:49] >> that's the problem essential Okay.

[1:45:53] To fill the position and make sure the

[1:45:55] revenue's there.

[1:45:57] >> That's the problem with this one. I

[1:45:59] mean, it definitely generates revenue.

[1:46:00] So, we have to look at the revenue if we

[1:46:02] take away the

[1:46:04] >> well

[1:46:04] >> the hires.

[1:46:05] >> Right. So, Mr. So, in in theory, I I

[1:46:09] agree with the mayor that align with the

[1:46:11] mayor on that. I'm saying based on the

[1:46:13] fact that we've never gotten to 10. In

[1:46:17] fact, based on what we heard from the uh

[1:46:19] department head that this is the first

[1:46:21] time we've ever gotten to five, based on

[1:46:24] the uh

[1:46:26] history of how people have moved out of

[1:46:29] that department,

[1:46:32] I think that high three is a pretty

[1:46:34] lofty goal, but it's doable um with some

[1:46:38] level of

[1:46:40] use Mr. term of aggressive approach

[1:46:43] there. So, I think that removing two

[1:46:45] will putting the

[1:46:49] harmful at all. Honestly, I think that

[1:46:51] again I think we could go through but

[1:46:53] I'll go historic from five. It's not a

[1:46:57] reasonable number. It's the pay scale

[1:47:00] there has drifted a little bit what some

[1:47:03] of the municipalities have. So then uh

[1:47:10] just market forces that make other

[1:47:12] communities more attractive

[1:47:14] connectively. I know that's hard for

[1:47:16] anybody in this table to believe, but it

[1:47:18] does have occasion.

[1:47:21] >> I I thought we realigned them like a

[1:47:23] year ago or two.

[1:47:24] >> We made some adjustments, but then other

[1:47:26] people have made other adjustments in

[1:47:28] other areas.

[1:47:29] >> My gosh.

[1:47:31] >> We did that, two years ago. Yeah.

[1:47:33] >> To realign them to kind of be parallel

[1:47:35] with the capital

[1:47:36] >> contract for CC, which is the program.

[1:47:41] Uh

[1:47:43] >> do we do like exit interviews when

[1:47:45] people leave to collect that type of

[1:47:46] data?

[1:47:47] >> Is that a practice we do?

[1:47:49] >> Yes.

[1:47:50] >> Yeah. That's kind of like where

[1:47:55] » they

[1:47:58] from this department.

[1:48:01] >> So right now are you?

[1:48:03] >> So based on this conversation I would

[1:48:05] align with um Mr. Williams.

[1:48:10] I along with Miss Patrick just one just

[1:48:12] in case people are looking for positions

[1:48:14] and jobs and it's a good paying job hard

[1:48:17] work good paying

[1:48:27] are we making are we making notes there

[1:48:29] please that Mr. Toro is aligning with

[1:48:33] Miss Patrick

[1:48:35] and myself

[1:48:38] Mr. Williams.

[1:48:42] » So that number will be will be what?

[1:48:44] Just tell me the so I can fill that in.

[1:48:46] >> 5216

[1:48:48] or

[1:48:49] >> 5216ative

[1:48:51] 1348.

[1:48:54] » No.

[1:48:54] Well, it's the 521632. That's what

[1:48:56] I'm post.

[1:48:58] >> Sorry. That's good. I got it.

[1:49:01] >> Okay.

[1:49:03] I'm just trying to keep I mean we're

[1:49:04] going to see a new one later.

[1:49:08] >> We're gonna see but so make sure that

[1:49:10] the numbers Yeah. Um

[1:49:16] » again you can skip the next line. I was being the same as the mayoral

[1:49:20] budget there.

[1:49:22] >> Yeah. This one here um there were some

[1:49:25] notes about this.

[1:49:26] >> This is a department of development.

[1:49:28] >> Mhm.

[1:49:30] I am going to be enforceable to say that

[1:49:31] we should bring this to $1,000.

[1:49:34] Uh this supported by small $5

[1:49:37] increase,000.

[1:49:57] If they keep finding money, I could go

[1:49:59] 5,000. So, I can support that as well.

[1:50:02] >> I support that as well. To the mayor's

[1:50:04] point, we're is generating money.

[1:50:08] » Did you say

[1:50:12] >> you're going to?

[1:50:13] >> Yes, sir.

[1:50:15] >> Mr. Williams, did you say

[1:50:24] » 500 500?

[1:50:25] >> Okay. Um,

[1:50:29] Miss Patrick,

[1:50:30] >> I'm just going to stay with the 500.

[1:50:32] We're only talking $500 here, so it's

[1:50:34] not going to make it one way or the

[1:50:36] other. So, I'll just stay with the 500.

[1:50:38] >> Okay.

[1:50:40] >> All right. The only thing that is I'm

[1:50:42] not sure who she was paying with that

[1:50:46] >> if management employees would

[1:50:50] you have to go back and change the codes

[1:50:52] and terms and conditions of employment.

[1:50:56] therea employees that should have been

[1:50:58] taken care of anyhow shouldn't do that.

[1:51:03] >> So if you open the door for management

[1:51:05] employees getting overtime compensation

[1:51:09] or individuals in development make sure

[1:51:12] you're ready to do it across the board.

[1:51:15] So

[1:51:16] >> actually

[1:51:17] >> so I I guess uh my point there was that

[1:51:22] there's also stipens in other

[1:51:25] departments

[1:51:27] and in development department and the

[1:51:29] proposed budget there was no there's no

[1:51:31] money for stip in that department as

[1:51:33] well. So, how it was explained to us was

[1:51:36] that um right now they do a a job a

[1:51:41] pretty good job of

[1:51:44] aligning their schedules a certain way

[1:51:46] so when there is a need for them to be

[1:51:48] here they can be here and that's what I

[1:51:50] was saying that for all um department

[1:51:54] should be doing but we're getting ready

[1:51:55] to move on to a conversation where I

[1:51:57] think that that'll become a little more

[1:51:58] clear.

[1:52:01] >> Thanks.

[1:52:03] Oh, just say I'm sorry

[1:52:06] to

[1:52:07] >> I do recall Miss Carver talking about

[1:52:09] PDM. A lot of her staff take her versus

[1:52:12] overtime. So

[1:52:15] >> compine

[1:52:22] with I I don't know if other departments

[1:52:24] have that again.

[1:52:27] Resort to the mayor here. I mean count

[1:52:29] time, you know, like she said, you know,

[1:52:31] if they work until 6, the next day

[1:52:33] they'll come in at 10. Is that something

[1:52:36] that development just has does or does

[1:52:39] every department do that?

[1:52:45] » Compliance with the code.

[1:52:47] >> Every department is unique. Some

[1:52:49] departments don't quite do that.

[1:52:54] » I know that there was someone in the law

[1:52:55] that he did that. So it's not unusual

[1:52:59] times.

[1:53:00] >> But I thought she said they take it in

[1:53:01] place of the overtime. That's why maybe

[1:53:04] to increase the overtime. I don't know.

[1:53:06] >> If I may add, they attend meetings like

[1:53:08] zoning meetings, planning meetings where

[1:53:09] they have to be here in the evenings and they don't get um they do come time

[1:53:15] because of that,

[1:53:16] >> right?

[1:53:17] >> They don't get over time or

[1:53:20] >> go ahead please. So I think it's trying

[1:53:22] to find other incentives outside of

[1:53:23] compensation to try to work on all

[1:53:27] hours. Not budget line, but it's a

[1:53:30] consideration. People like getting up

[1:53:32] later.

[1:53:33] I think it's being responsive to the

[1:53:35] request of the week.

[1:53:37] Appreciate the attempts when it can be

[1:53:38] made as it does the burden on the tax.

[1:53:47] probably

[1:53:48] like

[1:53:50] this

[1:53:54] other place. Do we need to consider

[1:53:56] that?

[1:53:58] >> Yeah. Did you say that some management

[1:54:01] time?

[1:54:02] >> I'm not sure. We're not sure. We're not

[1:54:03] sure whe

[1:54:08] » So, can we find out who exactly is going

[1:54:10] to be so fine?

[1:54:12] >> I think it's pretty well here. um um see

[1:54:18] exactly what what position rather made

[1:54:23] out of that line.

[1:54:24] >> Well, this is not something

[1:54:27] >> this line.

[1:54:28] >> Yes.

[1:54:29] >> I'm not aware when it's been in previous

[1:54:32] budgets.

[1:54:33] >> Uhhuh.

[1:54:34] >> Um but it's been there.

[1:54:39] >> Okay. So she gohead

[1:54:44] » nothing has been spent by the way at

[1:54:46] that time. So I mean

[1:54:49] >> I think we should we're spending a lot

[1:54:50] of time

[1:54:52] September 202 impact of

[1:54:56] >> the mayor's point if it goes into other

[1:54:58] departments.

[1:54:58] >> Well that's why I think we should leave

[1:55:01] it budget passes.

[1:55:07] It would be more of a policy kind of

[1:55:08] thing later down

[1:55:10] >> to discuss at another point, but right

[1:55:12] now nothing has been spent.

[1:55:14] >> Okay.

[1:55:15] >> In that line.

[1:55:16] >> Absolutely.

[1:55:16] >> And we're spending a lot of time on $500

[1:55:18] item here is all I'm saying.

[1:55:24] » All right. So, what can Sorry. Um, can

[1:55:27] you find out for us what exactly that

[1:55:29] was being on? I don't get previous year

[1:55:32] simply because as of the year of

[1:55:43] » what I remember Miss Carver saying is

[1:55:44] that

[1:55:46] her team does a really good job of

[1:55:48] trying to align their time to the needs

[1:55:51] of the city. That's not always a option

[1:55:54] for them. So that's uh why the the line

[1:55:58] why why the money she put the money

[1:56:01] there. Um I saw that and and so kind of

[1:56:05] I don't want to move us too long too far

[1:56:07] ahead but I saw that as

[1:56:10] something that is closely aligned to a

[1:56:13] stipen in other departments that we're

[1:56:15] seeing that she did not have a stipen in

[1:56:17] her department. So that maybe we need to

[1:56:20] rename it then

[1:56:22] >> so that we don't get into the main event

[1:56:27] in terms of that.

[1:56:29] >> Oh 23 126

[1:56:41] » talk about reaming the excitement.

[1:56:43] Remember we had gave a definition of

[1:56:45] what the said.

[1:56:46] >> No, we're just making suggestion because

[1:56:48] we don't want to make sure that as the

[1:56:49] may we don't want to creative

[1:56:53] atmosphere where our department thinks

[1:56:55] that we're giving one another. We do not

[1:56:58] want to do that

[1:57:00] >> at no point in time.

[1:57:01] >> Yeah. But it would meet the definition

[1:57:03] of a recitement.

[1:57:05] >> That's being removed every except at

[1:57:08] this point formed because that person is

[1:57:10] on call 24 and we need the clarification

[1:57:12] on the next person.

[1:57:14] >> Oh, so everyone did get a consensus and

[1:57:16] remove all statements.

[1:57:17] >> That's been a suggestion.

[1:57:18] >> Okay, we didn't get consensus.

[1:57:19] >> I think that we

[1:57:24] made sense, right?

[1:57:24] >> Well, I think we did address it. If

[1:57:26] there anyone who's on 24

[1:57:30] hour call, we have to divorce those off.

[1:57:32] I think it's 43

[1:57:34] and we ask that all those kind of

[1:57:37] whatever recommendation we make to

[1:57:39] remove those, we need to divorce it back

[1:57:41] >> for those essential.

[1:57:43] >> I agree.

[1:57:44] >> That's my recommendation.

[1:57:46] >> So, what are we leaving the sign at? So,

[1:57:48] I'm we're gonna I'm going to ask that we

[1:57:49] leave the

[1:57:52] for now leave the time adding $500

[1:57:55] because we have four members.

[1:57:58] We're asking to increase it by 500 and

[1:58:00] two are asking that 500.

[1:58:03] >> So, it'll be a,000.

[1:58:04] >> Yes.

[1:58:07] The next line is $500 in the mayor post

[1:58:10] budget.

[1:58:10] >> It's 500 in the mayor's budget.

[1:58:12] >> Yes.

[1:58:13] >> And nothing has been spent in 2024.

[1:58:16] >> Okay. and 10 and something.

[1:58:19] >> Yeah. And I'm I'm

[1:58:22] >> okay. The next one over time, but

[1:58:25] they're primarily driven because we're

[1:58:26] increasing

[1:58:28] the workload on the collection, the

[1:58:30] data, the parking. So, as we ask them to

[1:58:36] increase their workload and this is um

[1:58:40] primarily over time.

[1:58:43] So, and based on the the amount of the

[1:58:45] dollar amount they have provided to us,

[1:58:47] $280 $290,000,

[1:58:50] it cost the department $24,000.

[1:58:55] So, it's fair that we ask them to do

[1:58:57] more. we have to provide the

[1:59:00] compensation and that's why I ask that

[1:59:03] we

[1:59:05] allocate $25,000 to this um to this line

[1:59:08] to help offset that

[1:59:12] >> added revenue

[1:59:24] » Mr. Chairman please in that around that

[1:59:27] line what when they were giving the

[1:59:29] presentation and we were uh trying to

[1:59:32] scale out you know what the expected

[1:59:35] revenue can be based on the formula your

[1:59:38] numbers are right on point with that and

[1:59:40] that's why I was I'm supporting that as

[1:59:43] a formula um but something the the issue

[1:59:46] that I raised during that conversation

[1:59:47] is that we have to balance the tensions

[1:59:49] of

[1:59:51] increasing the revenue and impact uh to

[1:59:55] police community relations and I think

[1:59:57] that that's based on what uh that the uh

[2:00:00] officer saying that the chief is saying

[2:00:03] >> that he's recommending that we don't

[2:00:05] increase that line. Correct.

[2:00:06] >> Is that correct?

[2:00:07] >> That's correct.

[2:00:09] >> And because of the impact that what he

[2:00:13] perceives as the negative impact on

[2:00:15] community based on what he said.

[2:00:18] >> However, he didn't say that.

[2:00:21] >> Look at what you have to back up here.

[2:00:23] the revenue and asking them to do extra

[2:00:26] work and how do we compensate them to to

[2:00:29] do that work for us to generate more

[2:00:31] revenue

[2:00:32] >> yet it has those um the stuff that comes

[2:00:35] with it.

[2:00:37] >> Uh

[2:00:39] so I guess my point of clarity would be

[2:00:43] the chief is saying that this is still a

[2:00:47] uh actionable thing for them to do.

[2:00:49] >> Yes. So if he seems he has some action

[2:00:51] for them to do and they still plan on

[2:00:52] doing it well then um

[2:00:57] is he suggesting that he has the

[2:00:58] capacity to do it without increasing

[2:01:00] that that that line is that what you

[2:01:02] communicate

[2:01:05] please so I

[2:01:08] miss I would agree that Mr. far we

[2:01:11] manage just

[2:01:13] however I agree with making that

[2:01:15] adjustment at the $25,000 at this

[2:01:18] present time what I've been doing on

[2:01:20] items that we are highlighting I would

[2:01:22] ask that this is a highlightable item

[2:01:24] that we return to once we conclude the

[2:01:27] rest of our conversations I think is one

[2:01:30] thing to have an expectation for

[2:01:32] overtime specifically in police to be uh

[2:01:35] identified as if intentional cuts I

[2:01:38] think we've heard skepticism from that

[2:01:41] department and I think if we can

[2:01:43] identify any dollars sincerely if it is

[2:01:46] one dollar I think that that just

[2:01:48] improves their outcome's

[2:01:50] point balancing out community interest

[2:01:53] and also um being firm and responding to

[2:01:57] compliance finance throughout the city.

[2:02:00] >> Yeah. would then go back there

[2:02:03] in the initial budget in initial revenue

[2:02:07] they are hoping to do you know x amount

[2:02:10] of detail

[2:02:11] >> $250,000

[2:02:14] >> and that will cost $24,000 of

[2:02:18] >> so that's how I factory so if we're

[2:02:20] going to add another

[2:02:21] then you know we we can't just take it

[2:02:23] one way it has to go both way

[2:02:26] >> no so that's what I'm saying based on

[2:02:28] >> yeah reason enough for us to say go get

[2:02:29] some revenue for us and you know kind of

[2:02:32] help us help us with this outstanding

[2:02:35] and um violation

[2:02:37] >> but if you don't put

[2:02:39] incentive for them to do it then how are

[2:02:41] they going to do it and that's how I

[2:02:43] factor in

[2:02:44] >> you know I I think I think your formal

[2:02:46] is correct I think if the chief is I'll

[2:02:48] definitely defer them if he's moving the

[2:02:50] budget in the way that we want

[2:02:52] >> my numbers are only less a thousand less

[2:02:54] than $1,000 off from them because I

[2:02:57] >> sure so I'm okay with leaving it to Mr.

[2:03:00] Williams point and kind kind of

[2:03:01] revisiting it. If the police have the

[2:03:03] capacity to carry out the the task

[2:03:05] without that, that's great. If they're

[2:03:07] saying that they don't need it and and

[2:03:09] if they're saying that they do, then I

[2:03:11] should be there will leave you at zero for

[2:03:15] >> but so I am in agreement with $2500.

[2:03:19] I'm saying if there is more conceiv

[2:03:44] I'm not going to to do that because I'm

[2:03:46] really looking at what they that the

[2:03:48] major impact they thought had on the

[2:03:50] community. Okay.

[2:03:52] >> Really taking that into consideration.

[2:03:53] So as we look at it's not just you know

[2:03:56] what we're doing here but they're on the

[2:03:59] street and if they feel like it's going

[2:04:00] to

[2:04:02] increase people how people see them in a

[2:04:04] negative light because our only increase

[2:04:07] is to do this kind of um you know get

[2:04:11] more

[2:04:13] etc. So they didn't think that was a

[2:04:14] good idea. I wouldn't want to put them

[2:04:16] in the position of

[2:04:17] um being in that where they feel like

[2:04:19] it's it's increasing

[2:04:22] decreasing their relationship with

[2:04:24] community.

[2:04:26] >> Mr. Tor, what do you think about

[2:04:28] >> agree?

[2:04:34] But

[2:04:36] so we are

[2:04:37] >> you're going with

[2:04:40] the overtime. But yeah, it's the over

[2:04:43] the last one.

[2:04:46] But again, we're giving them more work.

[2:04:49] >> What I have a conversation is

[2:04:52] >> I understand. But um would you I mean if

[2:04:54] we were asked the reasons which we

[2:04:56] intend to do based on Mr. Williams

[2:04:59] recommendation.

[2:05:00] >> Mhm.

[2:05:00] >> And to see if there we can add more

[2:05:02] money to this line.

[2:05:04] >> Mhm.

[2:05:05] >> And maybe at that point in time we can

[2:05:08] know expand our compensation around this

[2:05:11] line.

[2:05:12] >> But it's not only it's not like

[2:05:16] it's not only a negative impact but also

[2:05:18] maybe

[2:05:19] positive impact.

[2:05:23] monetarily as I'm talking about Dr.

[2:05:26] and we always talk about how um the

[2:05:29] police are seen in etc and how we need

[2:05:31] to increase

[2:05:33] community relationships. So they're

[2:05:35] saying that's going to detract from the

[2:05:38] from their relationship I think we

[2:05:41] should take into consideration

[2:05:44] what you think

[2:05:46] >> the line I missed I'm sorry

[2:05:49] >> we asking them uh to do additional work

[2:05:51] in terms of remaining common revenue

[2:05:54] offset. He dispenses over there appear

[2:05:58] and then adjusted number

[2:06:01] the overtime 25,000 offset with the

[2:06:05] additional asking.

[2:06:08] >> So basically you're all talking about

[2:06:11] raising the overtime please.

[2:06:13] >> Yes.

[2:06:14] >> What are you thinking of raising it?

[2:06:15] >> 25,000 for now.

[2:06:18] >> Um and everybody is agreeing on that.

[2:06:20] No, no, no. This is This is different.

[2:06:24] This has to do with the parking fine.

[2:06:28] >> Oh, I'm sorry. They're doing the detail.

[2:06:30] in the in the

[2:06:32] night.

[2:06:34] >> Mhm.

[2:06:36] >> 27

[2:06:38] visits this year.

[2:06:39] >> They're looking at 27 next year.

[2:06:41] >> 47 next year. That's So, they're hoping

[2:06:44] to double it next year. Uh this year

[2:06:46] they did 220,000. next year and

[2:06:48] everything.

[2:06:49] >> I'm I'm happy to add $25,000 to the

[2:06:51] police overtime. If I had my way, I'd

[2:06:53] add a million dollars to the police

[2:06:54] overtime. So, um

[2:06:57] >> I'm happy to go with the uh So, that

[2:06:59] would be one7

[2:07:02] 915.

[2:07:04] >> No.

[2:07:05] Yes.

[2:07:05] >> Are we on that line still? Yes. Okay.

[2:07:07] Thank you.

[2:07:09] >> So, you're okay with 25K?

[2:07:10] >> I am.

[2:07:15] And I just want to, you know, echo this

[2:07:17] sentiment is that we at this point

[2:07:22] this line was presented to us. The

[2:07:25] mayor's proposed budget of a million

[2:07:28] >> 92,950

[2:07:32] and I don't think none of us ever

[2:07:34] mentioned about cutting this entire

[2:07:37] >> Why are we mentioning it now? Why are

[2:07:38] you mentioning it? I just want to make

[2:07:40] because some people saying that we're

[2:07:41] cutting down over time but we're not

[2:07:43] whatever was presented to us that's what

[2:07:45] we have there and no one right

[2:07:48] >> have ever mentioned about cutting

[2:07:49] anything that was presented to us we're

[2:07:51] looking to adding now

[2:07:54] >> yes

[2:07:56] >> and no revisited based on

[2:07:59] recommendation

[2:07:59] >> I think that's larger

[2:08:00] >> see if we can add more to that

[2:08:03] >> that's not necessary

[2:08:08] » okay let's start a page

[2:08:23] So now we're on tapping

[2:08:25] >> staffing.

[2:08:27] So

[2:08:30] we talk about this generally across the

[2:08:32] board. I think everyone uh

[2:08:35] is in agreement or was in agreement with

[2:08:38] it. that um

[2:08:41] put all new hires on on hold.

[2:08:43] >> Yep.

[2:08:44] >> In line with the mayor.

[2:08:45] >> Yep.

[2:08:46] >> And allow the mayor for any essential

[2:08:48] hire. And as the mayor just mentioned,

[2:08:50] I'm revenue generating um position.

[2:08:57] So I only have myself and Patrick open

[2:09:01] here.

[2:09:07] I'm happy to go with the majority on

[2:09:08] that one. I was taking that out. Again,

[2:09:11] I was just trying to figure out a way to

[2:09:13] cut expenses, but obviously the

[2:09:14] department head

[2:09:15] >> is recommending having that position.

[2:09:19] Um, but it sounds like my colleagues,

[2:09:20] it's seems like it's just you and I.

[2:09:23] >> No, I think we I think we we the only

[2:09:25] one put it on paper. the others were

[2:09:30] » so like I want to ask that we realign

[2:09:33] ourselves here in this one.

[2:09:37] >> So everybody else just didn't get their

[2:09:39] recommendations in.

[2:09:40] >> Yes. So I will start with

[2:09:44] >> So we're talking about

[2:09:46] the higher than this.

[2:09:49] >> I'm sorry. Could you just speak? I'm

[2:09:51] saying that I if the mayor is

[2:09:53] recommending a higher freeze and this is

[2:09:54] a higher then it falls you know then no

[2:09:58] there's a higher free position

[2:10:02] generating

[2:10:03] >> yes I have to agree with the mayor on

[2:10:06] those position

[2:10:08] revenue generating position and they can

[2:10:10] pay for themselves then yes if not we

[2:10:13] just need to continue to hold allow the

[2:10:15] revenue to build up economically

[2:10:18] I

[2:10:18] >> that's what we've been saying

[2:10:20] Miss uh Vtorio.

[2:10:23] >> Y

[2:10:24] >> you're good.

[2:10:24] >> Yeah.

[2:10:25] >> Okay. So, everyone is in alignment with

[2:10:27] this line. So,

[2:10:30] put a hold here.

[2:10:33] >> I think also I just want to point out

[2:10:34] that I'm pretty sure we put a hold on it

[2:10:36] last year also. Let me just look though.

[2:10:39] I do want I think we took it out of the

[2:10:41] budget last last year. So,

[2:10:43] unfortunately,

[2:10:44] >> I think they they've had to get through

[2:10:47] without that without that position. The

[2:10:49] only thing and I'm sticking with my I'll

[2:10:52] stick with my taking it out if everybody

[2:10:54] agrees to that. But I do want to say is

[2:10:56] this the position where because we don't

[2:10:59] have this position we're spending more

[2:11:01] money at an external garage or is that a

[2:11:04] different position?

[2:11:05] >> No, this because of this

[2:11:06] >> a different uh expense. I mean

[2:11:08] >> no remember there was a um where they

[2:11:11] wanted to add someone who was on like

[2:11:13] this third shift or this off shift or

[2:11:15] work on the road. We that we put that in

[2:11:19] and be in and what Mr. um

[2:11:23] Lefon said was that because that this

[2:11:27] position was vacant and they need that

[2:11:29] particular position did not actually

[2:11:32] ever start. So that person's working

[2:11:34] during the day and this off hours

[2:11:37] mechanic that we

[2:11:39] was was not is not doing is not able to

[2:11:42] do the job because they have children.

[2:11:50] » The next move

[2:11:51] >> the next line is the same with u

[2:11:56] » Mr. Williams. Is this one? Yeah, this is

[2:12:00] >> I would see that as a conversion. If

[2:12:02] anyone can group it as a new hire, I can

[2:12:06] contest that. I mean, I can respect

[2:12:08] that, but I would say we're converting

[2:12:11] already in place salaries.

[2:12:17] » So, what what is your recommendation, S?

[2:12:21] >> Hold it.

[2:12:22] >> I mean, not I mean to to hold it in

[2:12:24] place as do I'm not ruing this. I don't

[2:12:27] consider these the new hires and the

[2:12:29] understanding the budget line has

[2:12:30] already been there in previous years it

[2:12:33] waste so it's more identifiable as its

[2:12:36] usage in the city. My feedback is I

[2:12:40] would like to see support to higher

[2:12:42] waste generating positions to support

[2:12:44] quality of life these individuals that

[2:12:46] have very difficult

[2:12:48] works.

[2:12:52] So understood because there

[2:12:56] you had something similar to this.

[2:12:59] >> Well,

[2:13:00] >> yeah, I

[2:13:02] talking about it.

[2:13:04] >> Um, so

[2:13:06] >> right, but that was um for the the

[2:13:09] seasonal that what we're like at $15.

[2:13:13] We thought they were at 17 plus two, but

[2:13:15] now 15 plus two. Yeah. 1750.

[2:13:20] >> I I would agree with Mr. Williams on

[2:13:22] that.

[2:13:25] >> Um

[2:13:27] >> to add to add a new person.

[2:13:29] >> It's not adding

[2:13:30] >> I mean adding um Well, it's it's more

[2:13:32] than what the mayor is putting into his

[2:13:34] budget is what I'm saying.

[2:13:36] >> But

[2:13:38] >> I hear what you're what you're just

[2:13:39] trying to be clear. But

[2:13:44] » anyone else

[2:13:45] >> So you guys just canceled each other out

[2:13:47] anyway. I'm I'm willing to compromise.

[2:13:51] and and

[2:13:53] realign myself in terms of the majority.

[2:13:57] So, I'm going to cancel mine out.

[2:14:02] Is everyone in favor? Let's um

[2:14:06] Williams.

[2:14:10] Okay. Because I know you had some notes

[2:14:12] uh way back about this thing. So,

[2:14:17] uh, commissioner, please make note of

[2:14:19] this.

[2:14:23] » So, that will cost us an additional

[2:14:25] 87,000

[2:14:29] » or is that removing money from just

[2:14:32] cancel?

[2:14:33] >> It's not costing us anything. We're

[2:14:34] realigning it. Okay.

[2:14:36] >> Yes.

[2:14:37] >> Yeah.

[2:14:39] >> So, can can you also make note of that this is a realignment? So, it's a

[2:14:44] reading the head.

[2:14:46] >> That's I believe that's the line below

[2:14:48] that seasonals

[2:14:51] that were reduced by

[2:14:54] >> Oh, perfect. Yes.

[2:14:56] >> Yes.

[2:15:04] » So, this is a reelective. Okay.

[2:15:09] » And everyone is in favor of this.

[2:15:12] Right.

[2:15:13] >> So on this one,

[2:15:15] instead of putting in 214,396,

[2:15:19] we're only Mr. Williams is suggesting

[2:15:22] just putting in 10719.

[2:15:26] Is that right? Is that am I reading that

[2:15:28] correctly?

[2:15:30] So left um I was assuming that it would

[2:15:33] be half of that would come up for two

[2:15:36] positions and if you're being really

[2:15:38] divisional you can return back to the

[2:15:40] difference but for matter of fact just

[2:15:43] having two positions and keeping some

[2:15:44] pre line is more than 10.

[2:15:55] Yeah, I allowed um civilians and

[2:16:02] because you wrote that you brought it up

[2:16:04] but almost on the same level in terms of

[2:16:07] what you were thinking about. So I'll

[2:16:09] take we'll listen to both whatever y'all

[2:16:11] recommend on this here. I will follow

[2:16:13] you guys from this line.

[2:16:16] The reality

[2:16:19] uh and your point was valid on my side.

[2:16:31] » So we're going down on that one to

[2:16:33] 107198.

[2:16:35] Correct?

[2:16:36] >> Would be the total instead of 214396.

[2:16:40] Is that correct?

[2:16:42] Yes.

[2:16:44] >> So, you could you could just move the

[2:16:46] numbers. Uh, yes.

[2:16:47] >> I'm just I'm just I know we're going to

[2:16:49] get it. I know we're going to get it

[2:16:50] back on Binance with the right numbers.

[2:16:53] >> Well, just make note for yourself and

[2:16:54] you can in each column.

[2:16:56] >> Yep. I'm all set.

[2:17:08] » I don't know how many positions that is.

[2:17:10] So, but

[2:17:13] it's not a simple

[2:17:16] but in terms of how many positions we're

[2:17:18] getting rid of.

[2:17:25] » You don't get it. You don't get

[2:17:26] >> Well, should they add it? Well, it's

[2:17:28] okay because the bottom line it's okay.

[2:17:31] I'm okay with that.

[2:17:33] >> Okay. Let me just for clarification,

[2:17:36] you're not removing any position. You're

[2:17:37] just realigning here. Yeah, I want to

[2:17:39] make sure we we're in the same amount on

[2:17:41] level of saying that we're moving any

[2:17:43] position.

[2:17:44] >> Well, I think that there are it's just

[2:17:46] that it says various on our on our

[2:17:48] budget. We don't have a number of how

[2:17:50] many people, but it's okay because we

[2:17:52] actually added

[2:17:53] >> Right. Right. So, I'm I'm okay with it.

[2:17:55] Let's let's move on.

[2:17:56] >> Yeah. So, everyone is in alignment with

[2:17:58] these uh these changes.

[2:18:01] Okay. Let's move into the next um

[2:18:04] section and that's a lot with the B

[2:18:06] section and that has to do with

[2:18:08] management raise and that is calling for

[2:18:11] a 3% across the board. Mr. Parley I

[2:18:14] align with yours. Is that correct?

[2:18:17] >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman. So, uh, we got, uh,

[2:18:21] the mayor's proposed budget. Um, and as

[2:18:25] we started our council deliberations,

[2:18:27] the first, uh, recommendation,

[2:18:30] uh, was for maintain uh the the mayor's

[2:18:34] hiring freeze and to, um, not give any

[2:18:38] raises across the board. Um

[2:18:41] I I responded to that email uh saying

[2:18:44] that I thought that

[2:18:47] um minimum we need to be giving people

[2:18:49] the 3% raise across the board as cuz

[2:18:52] that is my understanding that's really

[2:18:54] just going to keep up with inflation and

[2:18:56] quite honestly the inflation rates right

[2:18:58] now we're not even going to that that

[2:19:00] might not even keep up with inflation.

[2:19:01] So therefore in order to not give a

[2:19:04] raise would actually be um the same as

[2:19:07] uh giving a pay deduction. So that's

[2:19:10] where I started at uh minimum we need to

[2:19:13] give uh people their uh quality of life

[2:19:16] their inflation adjustment rates across

[2:19:19] the board and that's where I was willing

[2:19:21] to start deliberations the conversation

[2:19:23] then went from that into uh

[2:19:27] the inequities and the inconsistent

[2:19:30] manner in which uh raises are being

[2:19:35] calculated and then we're back to the

[2:19:38] work pay study that was supposed to have

[2:19:41] happened um that had not happened. So

[2:19:45] where we're at right now is I'm

[2:19:47] suggesting the minimally giving people

[2:19:50] that their 3% increase that's true

[2:19:54] minimum as a point of starting point. In

[2:19:59] other words, I'm not I'm against not

[2:20:00] giving anyone

[2:20:06] » for the same reason I realign with with

[2:20:08] yours.

[2:20:10] >> Uh there are some of them that we need

[2:20:11] to strike out here. The ones in positive

[2:20:13] numbers those were there were still

[2:20:17] there

[2:20:19] >> the one in positive. Is that correct

[2:20:21] commissioner? Those were not a raise

[2:20:24] were was not asked for that position.

[2:20:28] Uh that is correct for one individual

[2:20:31] position there.

[2:20:33] >> Can you

[2:20:33] >> um the other ones um depending on

[2:20:37] uh correct there was no raises in the

[2:20:41] proposed budget for some positions if

[2:20:43] they were being

[2:20:44] >> Yes. So that that's what I'm saying. So

[2:20:46] anyone that's in positive I think we

[2:20:48] need to strike those out.

[2:20:51] They want to the mayor didn't ask for an

[2:20:53] increase that we can ask uh we could

[2:20:56] please make note of that also to remove

[2:20:58] that uh on these columns.

[2:21:01] >> Yeah, be good if they weren't on the

[2:21:03] spreadsheet.

[2:21:04] >> That will reduce the numbers also.

[2:21:08] I think I did ask for that the last

[2:21:11] here. So then that would be one, two,

[2:21:15] three, four, five position

[2:21:18] that I raise was not ask from the

[2:21:21] proposed budget.

[2:21:26] So those that are negative are the ones

[2:21:28] that

[2:21:30] we need to realign oursel with.

[2:21:37] Again, I think this would be an

[2:21:38] executive session discussion because um

[2:21:43] just giving 3% across the board doesn't

[2:21:45] take into consideration

[2:21:47] why a department head or the mayor might

[2:21:50] be suggesting higher rates for someone.

[2:21:52] And I don't know if um just doing 3% is

[2:21:56] taking into consideration length of

[2:21:57] service um or performance evaluations

[2:22:01] that may have occurred. So

[2:22:03] >> almost feel like we need to go into I'm

[2:22:05] sorry what

[2:22:08] You might have to be speaker.

[2:22:09] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Well, now that's going to

[2:22:12] be hard. I won't be able to remember

[2:22:14] when

[2:22:16] >> you said that we thought that happening.

[2:22:20] Yeah, because

[2:22:22] what you know their years of service and

[2:22:25] that kind of thing

[2:22:26] >> and or let's say it's um you know their

[2:22:30] supervisor might have recommended

[2:22:31] something um

[2:22:34] >> that puts it out of the you know across

[2:22:36] the board situation. Um but again I

[2:22:39] think we'd have to do that and I think

[2:22:41] that we would have to talk about that

[2:22:43] >> executive I don't see anybody getting

[2:22:46] promoted here. This is just pay risks

[2:22:48] >> right? Yeah, but then we might want to

[2:22:50] use name, individual name and things

[2:22:52] that entire

[2:22:55] my time here. I asked people not to

[2:22:56] mention name just mention positions and

[2:22:59] be respective of people's um names that

[2:23:02] you call against each position. I do

[2:23:04] have an issue that we want to do

[2:23:06] exception to it is

[2:23:08] >> but um I just wanted to know where where other members stand in terms of um

[2:23:14] where we are here right now. So, we're

[2:23:16] going to look at this that we should

[2:23:17] look at this instead of this, right?

[2:23:20] >> It's the same.

[2:23:20] >> Oh, it's just bigger.

[2:23:22] >> So, we can read it more easily.

[2:23:24] >> Mr. Williams.

[2:23:27] >> Okay. So, again, I think that just for

[2:23:29] context because um it said that, you

[2:23:32] know, you were talking about giving it

[2:23:34] 3% across the board and why you think

[2:23:36] that that might not be um a a good place

[2:23:39] to land. Again, the 3% across the board

[2:23:43] was in response to

[2:23:46] uh it being on being brought on the

[2:23:47] table that they were going to uh do no

[2:23:51] raises across the board. And my point

[2:23:53] was we minimally have to do this

[2:23:58] unless we're uh giving people a pay

[2:24:02] reduction. So again, I'm you know,

[2:24:04] that's not some place that I'm saying

[2:24:05] that we need to land. What I'm saying is

[2:24:07] that we need to at least be there.

[2:24:10] And I'm and I'm open to have a

[2:24:12] conversation around why other you know

[2:24:15] what the extenduating circumstances are

[2:24:17] for certain positions. I will say that

[2:24:20] it have to be pretty extenduating

[2:24:22] circumstances to be some people at 3%

[2:24:26] some people at 18 or 25 things like that is definitely something

[2:24:30] >> I think that was last year's budget.

[2:24:33] >> Please Mr. Williams so based on Mr.

[2:24:37] probably started off the conversation at

[2:24:38] being a midline point of starting the

[2:24:41] discussion around staffing compensation.

[2:24:44] Uh there was a lengthy conversation

[2:24:46] where I was proposing the use of the

[2:24:48] great line. I understand and can't count

[2:24:52] for conversations from department heads

[2:24:54] highlighting why individual name plus or

[2:24:58] over uh 3%. received countless emails

[2:25:02] from staff just uh I think providing

[2:25:04] more context which is always appreciated

[2:25:07] and appreciated.

[2:25:09] However, the conversation without

[2:25:12] re uh

[2:25:15] everything I stated was I can't

[2:25:17] permanently increasing your lines

[2:25:19] without having global overarching

[2:25:23] reassessment. So we're talking about

[2:25:25] compromise. I can compromise and move

[2:25:28] the portions that are in uh currencies

[2:25:32] to adequate

[2:25:34] get these individuals to the right

[2:25:36] conditions.

[2:25:39] Um

[2:25:42] yeah, you had mentioned that all or some

[2:25:44] of us mention

[2:25:47] that not all management are out of grid

[2:25:51] or they can't get enough.

[2:25:56] I'm sorry if I'm using the right term.

[2:25:59] There are times when people are signing

[2:26:01] stuff out of great but they don't get

[2:26:05] overtime and don't get

[2:26:08] some of the benefits that are afforded

[2:26:10] by the uh employees within the

[2:26:13] department.

[2:26:14] >> So will these management position fall

[2:26:17] under out grid or can we realign them

[2:26:21] for other grid compensation?

[2:26:25] What is being proposed are payraises

[2:26:28] that reflect the work that they're doing

[2:26:30] and expect to do in the future. Out of

[2:26:32] grade tends to be a temporary

[2:26:34] assignment.

[2:26:38] So if you're

[2:26:39] >> adding it for

[2:26:42] temporary it makes a more complicated

[2:26:45] thought process than managing the theory

[2:26:48] behind

[2:26:49] >> that's just followal

[2:26:52] >> and some of the comments we've heard

[2:26:53] from semantic they were in response to

[2:26:55] temporary

[2:26:57] hirings as conditions that they're

[2:26:59] working with and that is part of the

[2:27:00] reason why I'm proposing that I would

[2:27:03] say that like this is in response to

[2:27:05] just job evolution over the years. Um I

[2:27:08] would say that that would also be reason

[2:27:10] why we want to have a job analysis to

[2:27:12] understand how have these roles expanded

[2:27:15] over the years and do they currently

[2:27:16] fall in line to your point earlier of

[2:27:19] how market trends are potentially

[2:27:22] putting the city where they have

[2:27:24] competition against each other um but

[2:27:26] also just how the roles evolved over the

[2:27:28] years and does the right work align with

[2:27:30] the right person.

[2:27:33] >> Mr. Toro,

[2:27:35] >> thank you. Um Mr. probably mentioned two

[2:27:38] times that it was suggested that no

[2:27:40] increases were given.

[2:27:44] No raises were given

[2:27:46] >> initially when we were discussing the

[2:27:48] budget. I had made a proposal.

[2:27:49] >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought you was

[2:27:51] >> because we're looking at we're looking

[2:27:53] at the budget and my thing is my

[2:27:55] >> it's a recommendation. I mean I have

[2:27:59] >> we're looking at how we can reduce your

[2:28:01] budget overall. Is it that is it the

[2:28:04] best uptake to give raises at this point

[2:28:06] in time

[2:28:07] >> but then we have to look at also

[2:28:08] inflation and then look at if we don't

[2:28:10] give an increase it's a big cut.

[2:28:13] >> So how do we balance across the board

[2:28:15] >> and those were the big ticket items that

[2:28:17] we kind of wanted to consolidate into the discussion.

[2:28:21] >> Thank you.

[2:28:27] » I'm sorry.

[2:28:29] Please follow me. Um so

[2:28:32] >> I'm just focus on

[2:28:34] >> okay we um we had this discussion and in in terms of discussions I know at

[2:28:40] least two we heard from two um well one

[2:28:43] person saying that their job that they

[2:28:46] do what the additional duties are not

[2:28:49] temporary this is part of their job

[2:28:51] there's these are extended duties so I

[2:28:55] think we definitely need to be take look

[2:28:56] be taking a look at that and

[2:28:58] additionally one of the reason that was

[2:29:00] talking about is because the person who

[2:29:03] was going to be supervised was 100.

[2:29:08] So I think you should definitely take a

[2:29:10] look at I I don't know I want to call

[2:29:12] them extenduating circumstances but

[2:29:14] reasons behind the recommended reasons

[2:29:17] and for all those over um

[2:29:23] over I 3% is I guess the number that's

[2:29:25] being that's being proposed. We could

[2:29:27] take a look at them individually and we

[2:29:30] don't have to say people's names. We

[2:29:31] could just say who the physician is. But

[2:29:34] um again some people have we've already

[2:29:36] had explanations for a couple of them

[2:29:39] and if we need explanations for all of

[2:29:40] them we'll certainly ask for them.

[2:29:46] » I mean we all have the emails or

[2:29:49] correspondent with regards to

[2:29:51] >> some of them correspondence

[2:29:52] >> and some they're not. So for the ones

[2:29:56] that we have emails we can discuss those

[2:30:00] but we'll stay with the position

[2:30:09] supervisor receipt I think that we did

[2:30:12] receive an email with a clear

[2:30:16] clarification

[2:30:18] on that.

[2:30:20] So

[2:30:23] we can start with that one.

[2:30:29] I'm okay going with the proposed budget

[2:30:31] of 98850.

[2:30:36] » Yeah. Based based on the based on the

[2:30:40] email that I receive, we received I am

[2:30:43] okay

[2:30:44] to align this position

[2:30:47] with proposed um budget.

[2:30:52] I'm sorry. U

[2:30:56] » you did skip one, but do you want to go

[2:30:58] back to that one?

[2:30:58] >> Which one we skipped?

[2:30:59] >> Accounting supervisor.

[2:31:01] >> Do you have Do we have an email?

[2:31:02] >> It's on this um sheet uh that we just

[2:31:05] goted. Um

[2:31:06] >> no, we're talking about emails or any

[2:31:11] correspondent that we received to

[2:31:12] explain as to why is going beyond.

[2:31:17] >> Okay. So, we're not going to look at

[2:31:18] >> I can recall that we received an email.

[2:31:20] >> Oh, yeah. No, I know. position

[2:31:22] >> I think. Yeah.

[2:31:22] >> So if we if we have on any other

[2:31:24] position let's talk about it.

[2:31:28] >> Go ahead please.

[2:31:28] >> Thank you. So I I can say that I think

[2:31:30] our last discussion around this we did

[2:31:32] reach out to a couple of department

[2:31:33] heads seated around the table and gave

[2:31:35] us explanations about that and I would

[2:31:38] have to respect the recommendation from

[2:31:41] department heads at this point

[2:31:44] >> um uh at the with the races they request

[2:31:47] um and trust their judgment and the

[2:31:51] lines as is.

[2:31:53] >> So that's what we would be doing just be

[2:31:55] doing it on sheet. Right. That's what I

[2:32:00] got, right?

[2:32:02] >> I mean, I I can't say one department

[2:32:04] head

[2:32:07] >> has a better explanation than another

[2:32:09] department head. So, I'm going to trust

[2:32:11] their

[2:32:13] recommendations.

[2:32:15] >> I'm I'm

[2:32:19] in this column 2026

[2:32:22] proposed budget.

[2:32:24] >> Yes.

[2:32:25] >> On the sheet that we just got today.

[2:32:26] >> Mhm. I'm okay with going with that

[2:32:28] column.

[2:32:31] >> Okay.

[2:32:31] >> Some people are 0% raise.

[2:32:33] >> No.

[2:32:34] >> Yep.

[2:32:35] >> For example, but I'm just saying, you

[2:32:37] know what I mean? They're not their

[2:32:38] salary is not going up.

[2:32:39] >> They are at 3%.

[2:32:44] » Anything anything that is over 3% is

[2:32:47] highlighted

[2:32:49] >> in those columns.

[2:32:50] >> Okay. I was just looking for example at

[2:32:52] the third line down

[2:32:54] >> there's a 0% change in that

[2:32:55] >> and the numbers that I asked you to

[2:32:57] strike out the positive numbers is the

[2:32:59] one that the proposed budget did not ask

[2:33:02] for an increase so we only dealing with

[2:33:05] the negative numbers

[2:33:08] and I think we are in in agreement to

[2:33:12] >> which which

[2:33:13] >> oh you guys are looking at I was looking

[2:33:15] at the sheet we got today you guys are

[2:33:17] looking at this

[2:33:17] >> the same sheet though

[2:33:18] >> okay

[2:33:18] >> yeah Okay. Um,

[2:33:21] >> this is very clear because it gives us

[2:33:22] the percent change.

[2:33:23] >> Go ahead, Miss Williams.

[2:33:26] >> I am in agreement with supporting the

[2:33:29] recommended figures for girls lines. I'm

[2:33:32] not agreeing with this structure until

[2:33:36] we have an internal job evaluation.

[2:33:41] I can get to where you are. I can take a

[2:33:43] step towards you by putting the

[2:33:45] difference about the 3% and the

[2:33:47] outbreak.

[2:33:49] uh and and and is out of great category.

[2:33:52] I would hope that if you are confident

[2:33:54] receiving this, you ensure these

[2:33:55] individuals get that compensation that

[2:33:58] you would have minimum take a step

[2:33:59] towards me. And there's neither of us

[2:34:01] saying no. It is saying we need to

[2:34:04] continue to consider all of the

[2:34:05] positions.

[2:34:07] Otherwise, we could be just continuing

[2:34:09] to chase inflated salary, which is not

[2:34:13] even a point of debate. It's a fact. So,

[2:34:16] I'm weary why we would continue down

[2:34:17] this path knowing the bulky back. And

[2:34:21] there's nothing wrong with saying we

[2:34:22] need to be more efficient with how we

[2:34:24] operate as a city. There is something

[2:34:26] wrong with our continued disregard and

[2:34:28] just continued on for I refuse to do

[2:34:32] that.

[2:34:35] » I would support in the future having a

[2:34:37] salary evaluation. I know that we did

[2:34:39] talk about that last year and it doesn't

[2:34:41] seem to have happened, but I'm I'm good

[2:34:43] with the sheet as presented tonight.

[2:34:46] >> You say support in the future. We all

[2:34:48] support a resolution that we all voted

[2:34:50] unanimously.

[2:34:51] >> No, I understand. But what I'm saying is

[2:34:53] all I'm saying is we can't really do it

[2:34:55] tonight in order to pass a budget. So,

[2:34:57] we might as well put it on hold until

[2:35:00] after we have a budget.

[2:35:01] >> The resolution still stand. the council

[2:35:03] unanimously passed a resolution asking

[2:35:06] for a wage uh study

[2:35:10] and we have

[2:35:11] >> so we do need to do that. I think you

[2:35:12] and I are saying the same thing. Yes.

[2:35:14] And so is Mr. Williams.

[2:35:15] >> You can't say support something in the

[2:35:16] future. We already have it. We already

[2:35:18] support it.

[2:35:19] >> I'm just saying we're not going to do it

[2:35:20] tonight

[2:35:21] >> or by the time November 1st comes and we

[2:35:24] need to have a budget. So I think we're

[2:35:27] on the same page here that we need to do

[2:35:29] that evaluation. I just don't think that

[2:35:32] we're going to be doing a salary ne

[2:35:34] evaluation tonight. So, I'm supporting

[2:35:38] um I don't know which sheet this is, but

[2:35:40] I'm just saying you're saying it's the

[2:35:41] same as what's in the in the budget. Um

[2:35:44] I'm I'm I'm good with that. It looks

[2:35:46] like everybody is good with that. And

[2:35:47] we're just also talking about, you know,

[2:35:50] what's not going to happen tonight.

[2:35:52] >> I I don't think anybody's good.

[2:35:54] >> No, not everybody's going to be

[2:35:58] >> You don't want to give these races? No.

[2:36:01] Let's speak for ourselves.

[2:36:03] >> Okay. Okay. Then I'll just I'll back off

[2:36:05] and say that I support the raises that

[2:36:07] are here.

[2:36:07] >> Trying to make it very clear. This

[2:36:09] council passed a resolution unanimously

[2:36:12] asking for

[2:36:13] >> Mr. You don't have to say the same thing

[2:36:15] to me.

[2:36:16] >> But um we can't say that they're going

[2:36:19] to support something. We already support

[2:36:20] it. It should have happened. It didn't

[2:36:22] happen. Here we are this week follow

[2:36:27] >> the comparison that was done a year ago

[2:36:29] with the debate was referencing pay

[2:36:31] rates in other municipalities.

[2:36:35] The council requested a study that put

[2:36:38] together annually what I believe is

[2:36:40] comprehensive study by the New York

[2:36:42] Conference of Mayors comparing rates for

[2:36:45] other municipalities.

[2:36:47] >> The internal I think Mr. Williams links

[2:36:50] were chasing inflated salary levels

[2:36:52] here. You have to point out which one

[2:36:54] which employees getting overpaid.

[2:36:57] The reality is the pay scale in the city

[2:37:00] of Skony is drifting toward the lower

[2:37:03] end of the marketplace. Our benefit

[2:37:07] package is clearly at the higher end of

[2:37:10] the benefit package.

[2:37:14] And so when you're hiring younger

[2:37:17] workers coming in, they would like to be

[2:37:20] paid more money and aren't quite as

[2:37:22] concerned about retirement and

[2:37:24] healthcare and the other issues.

[2:37:27] Uh and it's harder to get younger

[2:37:29] employees. Older employees are much more

[2:37:32] appreciative of the

[2:37:36] again retirement benefits, the health

[2:37:38] care, other packages they get. that is a

[2:37:42] much more complicated fact pattern than

[2:37:46] simple resolution and some quick study

[2:37:49] that is

[2:37:51] out there. So you know the some of the

[2:37:53] pay raise again were done where

[2:37:55] employees have made pitches directly to

[2:37:58] the council to bypass

[2:38:00] the management staff. They only give you

[2:38:03] one side of the argument. They're not

[2:38:05] looking at other factors that I may have

[2:38:08] considered when I made the budget.

[2:38:09] council has bypassed that, discounted

[2:38:11] it, and move forward. I've chosen not to

[2:38:14] make that an issue or embarrass

[2:38:16] employees or make big uh stink out of.

[2:38:19] But I've made recommendations on these

[2:38:22] employees this year and those components

[2:38:25] of management perhaps that the council

[2:38:27] go forward and support that and then we

[2:38:30] look together. How do you address some

[2:38:33] of those

[2:38:34] uh inequities that are in the system

[2:38:38] depending on whether you're a new

[2:38:40] employee coming in, you consider it the

[2:38:42] inequity, but you're not getting paid

[2:38:43] quite as much, but when you're an older

[2:38:46] employee, you're getting benefit package

[2:38:48] that really is not offered anywhere else

[2:38:51] in the marketplace. And I think uh back

[2:38:54] to M Williams on my my my position

[2:38:58] myself looking for

[2:39:01] address that behind us in terms of the

[2:39:05] uh if there's any adjustment in terms of this to

[2:39:09] happen.

[2:39:10] >> So So you're in agreement with what the

[2:39:11] mayor just said,

[2:39:13] >> right? Is that what I'm hearing?

[2:39:15] >> No, I'm not going to I'm not going to

[2:39:16] I'm not debating agreeing with anybody.

[2:39:19] I'm here making a statement. That's what

[2:39:21] we need. That's what we asking for what

[2:39:23] he said and I hope that we can get that

[2:39:25] because we need to move on. If we have

[2:39:28] that study, we can move on.

[2:39:30] >> Right now we don't have the study. So we

[2:39:31] we're just looking at numbers here.

[2:39:34] >> Okay. So because tonight we don't have

[2:39:37] the study. So

[2:39:38] >> well I have given the study. It's done

[2:39:40] by the New York Conference of Mayors.

[2:39:43] >> It's been forwarded to Mr. Mudar.

[2:39:47] You did not forward it to me, please.

[2:39:50] >> I got that from

[2:39:53] >> and I forward it to the entire council a

[2:39:55] week ago.

[2:39:56] >> Yeah.

[2:39:56] >> So,

[2:39:57] >> you asked me to reach out to. It's

[2:39:59] available at night and I sent it to you.

[2:40:02] >> No, you didn't.

[2:40:03] >> No, you did not.

[2:40:05] >> I think that's a little

[2:40:08] crazy. So again, I think what we want to

[2:40:11] do now is, you know, deal with the facts

[2:40:16] as they or more and more go through

[2:40:19] this, I feel facts, adjacent

[2:40:23] information that we had. The reality is

[2:40:26] we're talking about information that was

[2:40:28] sent out um to us. However, the

[2:40:32] justifications that we that we heard at

[2:40:34] this table from department heads did not

[2:40:36] align with that. they align with other

[2:40:38] reasons that were being brought to the

[2:40:40] table. So again, that's why this study

[2:40:43] is important because we can't keep

[2:40:48] moving the goalpost every time we want

[2:40:50] to have a conversation. So, we're saying

[2:40:53] I sent you a a study um that was a thing

[2:40:56] from uh Nikon, but then but then the the

[2:41:02] raises that we're seeing here represent

[2:41:04] another position in another department.

[2:41:08] So, if we need to be using the same

[2:41:12] ruler here if we're going to have that

[2:41:14] conversation. So that's why last year

[2:41:17] when we got into this conversation, we

[2:41:20] knew that the goalpost was really moving

[2:41:24] the same way it's moving now. So to Mr.

[2:41:26] Williams point, what still stands is

[2:41:30] that

[2:41:31] whatever was sent to us, it's not based

[2:41:35] on and and the department heads said to

[2:41:38] us multiple times that we don't that

[2:41:41] this position is is not filled. So this

[2:41:44] person has to now take on the work of

[2:41:46] this other person and that's why that's

[2:41:49] the justification for the race. Mr.

[2:41:52] Williams point which I agree with is

[2:41:53] that if that is based on a a a

[2:41:57] circumstantial situation right now, then

[2:42:00] for us to commit and lock into these pay

[2:42:02] rates is going to come back and be a

[2:42:05] problem for us moving forward. That's

[2:42:07] why we're in the problem that we have

[2:42:08] now. So, let's just not act like we're

[2:42:11] using the same ruler because we're not.

[2:42:15] one raise that we asked did anyone

[2:42:17] align it to tonight to the report from

[2:42:19] Nikon. Hasn't happened one time and

[2:42:22] that's a fact.

[2:42:24] >> How do you I'm sorry. How do you know

[2:42:25] that you you read the Nikon report?

[2:42:28] >> No, because I asked the the uh

[2:42:30] department has directly how they raised

[2:42:31] the raise and the reasons that I heard

[2:42:33] they did not reference Nikon. reasons

[2:42:35] that I heard is that there were um they

[2:42:37] were taking on more responsibility due

[2:42:39] to lack of positions that there was

[2:42:41] other positions within the city that

[2:42:42] they felt that might have been um

[2:42:45] comparable to them and they were way

[2:42:46] below that. As well as we also heard

[2:42:49] that there were positions where the

[2:42:50] supervisor was making less than the

[2:42:53] person that they were going to be

[2:42:54] employed by based on a on the

[2:42:56] contractual agreement which management

[2:42:58] is not a part of.

[2:43:00] >> So you're okay with not doing 3% against

[2:43:03] across the board. So, so what I'm saying

[2:43:06] and so what you're doing right now is

[2:43:09] >> Okay. So, what you're what I'm saying is

[2:43:11] exactly what I'm saying, Miss Patrick.

[2:43:13] And I don't want I think that

[2:43:15] >> in the spirit of just I I think I've

[2:43:18] been pretty clear. Don't if if you have

[2:43:21] a direct question based on what I'm

[2:43:22] saying, please ask it and I will clarify

[2:43:24] it for you, but I cannot understand for

[2:43:26] anyone. I'm just saying that this is

[2:43:28] what I'm saying is that the the the the

[2:43:31] way that races were justified

[2:43:34] is what I'm basing the conversation on

[2:43:36] and and in and how we get to a solution.

[2:43:38] It's very simple. I'm not looking for a

[2:43:40] gotcha moment. I'm not trying to point

[2:43:42] anybody out. That's not that's not what

[2:43:44] I'm doing. What I'm saying is that let's

[2:43:46] not act like there's a fact pattern that

[2:43:48] doesn't exist and not that we're making

[2:43:50] our decisions based on that because

[2:43:51] that's disingenuous. That's all I'm

[2:43:53] saying.

[2:43:55] Any

[2:44:00] points may

[2:44:02] since we keep referencing the um my

[2:44:04] report, I think we should look at it and perhaps these the races that the

[2:44:10] mayor has recommended are in mind. I

[2:44:12] don't know the answer to that, but we

[2:44:14] certainly haven't even looked at it

[2:44:17] in terms of this. Yeah,

[2:44:25] » so I'd say with respect to time, I

[2:44:27] definitely think that's something that

[2:44:28] we need to do. To Miss Patrick point, I

[2:44:31] would be responsive to the numbers that

[2:44:32] were sent to us

[2:44:35] in my compromising,

[2:44:38] which I originally was at the line for

[2:44:39] the 3% across the board. I can

[2:44:42] compromise and say the additional um

[2:44:44] recommended revenue for these positions

[2:44:47] has all been submitted with good reason.

[2:44:49] I've content to that. I would say that

[2:44:52] difference needs to be put in a separate

[2:44:54] category that can be evaluated once this

[2:44:56] set once this assessment has been done

[2:44:59] and the premise behind that is it will

[2:45:01] be done in this year. We'll have a

[2:45:03] different conversation this next coming

[2:45:05] budget.

[2:45:06] My reservation is to continue with the

[2:45:09] same thought process we did last year

[2:45:10] expecting a different outcome. I that's

[2:45:12] inconsiderate tax base.

[2:45:15] >> Agree.

[2:45:17] >> So you're please

[2:45:19] >> I feel no that's okay.

[2:45:22] >> So Mr. Williams you're recommending that

[2:45:24] we put it in paid to those who come with

[2:45:27] an explanation.

[2:45:29] >> I would say for I can just respond. I'd

[2:45:31] say for all of them because we didn't

[2:45:32] make the explanation a requirement. Uh,

[2:45:35] so I think it's offered a bit of an

[2:45:36] advantage to some individuals who felt

[2:45:38] comfortable reaching out to the council,

[2:45:39] which we know is

[2:45:42] not the easiest of things to do. Um, but

[2:45:45] I think just being responsive to the

[2:45:47] numbers that were submitted

[2:45:49] or if we would like to move that way,

[2:45:51] putting that recommendation out to those

[2:45:53] individuals and allowing time for them

[2:45:54] to respond to the ones that did not,

[2:45:57] which I do not agree with.

[2:46:01] I

[2:46:04] >> I so I like the mayor one of them is

[2:46:07] recommendation by the mayor in

[2:46:10] one of them we got an email from another

[2:46:13] one we got um who was here in her

[2:46:16] department so um

[2:46:20] as I can see we're talking about two

[2:46:23] three

[2:46:24] four five six seven

[2:46:28] and one by until we already have an

[2:46:31] explanation for third

[2:46:33] um then that's form one

[2:46:38] and again I think we should we should be

[2:46:40] looking and perhaps by

[2:46:44] however I I don't know how I'm hoping

[2:46:46] that people looked at that report when

[2:46:48] they did this we should take a look and

[2:46:50] see if if if they do coincide with the

[2:46:54] additional information people have

[2:46:55] provided us

[2:46:57] and if if it doesn't come outside and if

[2:47:00] out of rate pay is if the explanation

[2:47:03] that we receive is because people are

[2:47:05] doing things outside of their normal job

[2:47:08] then I will concur that that that's when

[2:47:10] the excitement so I don't think it's a

[2:47:12] one-sizefits-all in this particular

[2:47:14] situation

[2:47:17] >> that's

[2:47:18] >> no okay I I want to I just

[2:47:20] >> I'm I'm just going to stick to I'm okay

[2:47:23] with this chart here

[2:47:26] >> okay

[2:47:27] >> for for the purposes of trying to have a

[2:47:30] 2026 budget by November 1st.

[2:47:33] >> Just a quick note, if we're looking to

[2:47:36] do an imagined study, I would recommend

[2:47:38] the council allocate some funding

[2:47:41] towards that. Uh I believe in 22

[2:47:46] study and they paid 125,000.

[2:47:50] So we're looking at doing some of that.

[2:47:51] I recommend putting some money resources

[2:47:54] department today and I'm assuming it's

[2:47:56] going to be more than that since a few

[2:47:57] years ago

[2:48:02] » but I think the recommendation was to do

[2:48:04] an internal study. I mean we have an HR department that can can do that

[2:48:09] study.

[2:48:10] >> We don't have enough staffing to that

[2:48:12] study.

[2:48:21] Go ahead, please. My concern again is if

[2:48:24] we can't get in a place where we can

[2:48:27] get the information to make the

[2:48:29] decision. That's what I'm hearing. We

[2:48:31] don't have staffing to do that. We put

[2:48:33] money aside. Um last year that we said

[2:48:36] we're going to do it. It didn't happen.

[2:48:38] So it's like

[2:48:41] how are we

[2:48:43] how do we justify

[2:48:47] » what we're doing without

[2:48:50] doing the due diligence and getting the

[2:48:52] information that we requested. And I

[2:48:54] think that what ends up happening is

[2:48:56] that we find ourselves here and then

[2:48:58] there's a growing and mounting pressure

[2:49:01] and then we're playing um the you know

[2:49:05] not it game and I'm not the one that's

[2:49:07] holding it up and I don't want to hold

[2:49:08] it up based on this. Um and if we're

[2:49:12] having the conversations from a genuine

[2:49:14] place, you know, we need to recognize

[2:49:17] that there's some missing information.

[2:49:19] There's people who have submitted things

[2:49:21] to us. There's other people who haven't.

[2:49:23] there's uh people who have said that you

[2:49:26] know

[2:49:27] that this has happened in previous years

[2:49:29] as well um and the council has made

[2:49:32] adjustments based on the information

[2:49:34] that we get but again if being equitable

[2:49:38] in our practices is something we value

[2:49:40] at least

[2:49:42] minimum I think we need to acknowledge

[2:49:44] the fact that our practice thus far has

[2:49:47] been not equitable at all and just And I

[2:49:53] would give anyone any uh opportunity to

[2:49:58] challenge that. I think that we just

[2:50:01] need to part of fixing what's going

[2:50:02] wrong is admitting that something is

[2:50:04] wrong here. And that doesn't mean

[2:50:06] anyone's doing a really bad job. That

[2:50:07] means that some of our practices are

[2:50:09] just outdated and and we need to just

[2:50:12] work on. So I'm just saying this is not

[2:50:14] an equitable practice. But to the point

[2:50:16] that we might not be able to come up

[2:50:18] with an equitable practice in the point

[2:50:20] at this point, you know, I I'm I find

[2:50:23] myself aligned with what Mr. Williams

[2:50:24] suggesting the recommendations are. Um,

[2:50:28] but we need to call a space F.

[2:50:51] Are we asking to have a

[2:50:56] holder for Nikon

[2:50:59] to to look at these? Is that just

[2:51:04] or missing?

[2:51:05] >> I I think Mr. the way you're set up

[2:51:08] could be solid idea as to how to

[2:51:10] approach it and if that's something

[2:51:11] that's feasible I can align myself with

[2:51:13] that because that's we're we're making

[2:51:15] progress um towards the the proposed bud

[2:51:18] budget however we're keeping in mind

[2:51:20] that there's been some inequitable

[2:51:22] practices that have gone on that we're

[2:51:23] working to rectify so that's why I said

[2:51:25] I would align with your thoughts on

[2:51:38] any other suggestion regards to this? I

[2:51:42] mean I don't need to restate my position

[2:51:43] but again for for based on what's being

[2:51:47] proposed uh if if someone has increased

[2:51:50] responsibilities that remain permanent I

[2:51:53] don't see us using the site method for

[2:51:55] those that are only temporarily taking

[2:51:57] on things because other uh positions are

[2:52:01] invas

[2:52:02] I

[2:52:05] >> wouldn't be able to differentiate those

[2:52:07] Mhm.

[2:52:14] » Go ahead, please.

[2:52:14] >> I'm just going to also reiterate my

[2:52:16] position that we respect the department

[2:52:19] head's recommendations about the people

[2:52:20] that they supervise. So, I'm okay with

[2:52:22] I'm just saying I'm okay with what's on

[2:52:24] this um sheet and I don't want to

[2:52:28] prolong the our ability to be able to

[2:52:30] pass a budget by having to look at a

[2:52:33] report now um or within the next couple

[2:52:36] of days um on the salary survey. So, I'm comfortable with this this chart and

[2:52:42] I think that the other discussion is one

[2:52:43] that we can have after we pass the

[2:52:45] budget.

[2:52:46] >> Let me just address that. We all been

[2:52:47] prolonging this budget including myself.

[2:52:50] So, we should have got this done since

[2:52:52] last week. All of us keep putting it

[2:52:53] out. All of us keep saying I'm coming

[2:52:55] recommendation tomorrow. I'm going to

[2:52:57] put my recommendation tomorrow. So, I

[2:52:59] want to address that. We'll be pushing

[2:53:01] it down to to the end of the day, end of

[2:53:04] October. So, I want to make it clear.

[2:53:07] We're coming out here and we all want it

[2:53:09] to happen right now.

[2:53:11] >> Mhm.

[2:53:11] >> But we should have think about that

[2:53:12] since last week. Go ahead,

[2:53:14] >> M. I I did. I sent my recommendations

[2:53:17] and the time you requested. I set my

[2:53:19] recommendations in the only

[2:53:20] recommendation that

[2:53:21] >> I copied every single

[2:53:24] do that so again not it we're going to

[2:53:26] start that but can I so so I guess the

[2:53:28] point I I would like to make is that to

[2:53:30] miss uh Patrick a point around um

[2:53:33] trusting what the department heads are

[2:53:35] saying the reality is

[2:53:37] >> we need to be clear that what's proposed

[2:53:40] in to city council is not necessarily

[2:53:42] what department heads recommended

[2:53:44] >> I will agree with you on that I guess I

[2:53:46] will come back to what I What I mean is

[2:53:50] that the department has had to meet with

[2:53:52] their supervisor and negotiate the same

[2:53:55] way that any of us I don't know what

[2:53:56] other people's life experiences have

[2:53:58] been and I think I said this last week

[2:54:00] as well but basically whenever I have to

[2:54:03] present a budget in my work life to a

[2:54:06] supervisor

[2:54:08] um then you negotiate you know you try

[2:54:10] to come together like I might have put

[2:54:12] oh here's what I want um and my

[2:54:15] supervisor would have said okay not sure

[2:54:18] we're going to be able to do that. Let's

[2:54:20] talk about it. I'm confident that those

[2:54:22] discussions did happen within

[2:54:26] city hall. I'm also going to base on my

[2:54:28] work experience, my own life experience

[2:54:31] that

[2:54:33] again I come from a nonprofit priv, you

[2:54:36] know, background for the most part in in

[2:54:37] the private sector. um

[2:54:41] you know the h you you you don't always

[2:54:44] get what you want first of all and you

[2:54:46] also have to negotiate these things uh

[2:54:49] moving forward. So I I am just saying

[2:54:51] that um I'm I'm going to say that I'm

[2:54:55] confident that the discussions that

[2:54:57] might have happened with department

[2:54:59] heads and then and their staff and then

[2:55:03] department heads and the mayor have come

[2:55:05] up with this these salary

[2:55:08] recommendations and for our purposes I'm

[2:55:10] confident moving forward with these

[2:55:12] salary recommendations based on those

[2:55:14] discussions.

[2:55:16] And I did lose a point. I lost my train

[2:55:18] of thought for a moment there. So I'll

[2:55:20] have to come back to that one.

[2:55:25] » Have you had it?

[2:55:26] >> No, I just we have to make a decision.

[2:55:28] >> That's I I agree.

[2:55:33] » Mr. Chairman, just you just you know I

[2:55:36] see a lot here. I'm just throwing this

[2:55:38] out. um was filling this out that we get

[2:55:42] a request for information from the

[2:55:43] department heads regarding those of

[2:55:45] salaries and then you couple that with

[2:55:47] the with the report and then you review

[2:55:51] it between now and Thursday and if

[2:55:53] you're not satisfactory this way you

[2:55:56] have something in writing RFI why you

[2:55:59] for this particular person not person

[2:56:02] line item you know why is this person

[2:56:06] that blind item getting it the study.

[2:56:09] Does that marry up with the studies from

[2:56:12] the from the uh Nighth

[2:56:20] » you have and it's a short suspense and

[2:56:24] it it may not satisfy everybody but at

[2:56:27] least it may you've got something

[2:56:30] additional

[2:56:31] >> based on something

[2:56:32] >> and I would just say that you know the

[2:56:34] following line items we need

[2:56:37] justifications request for information

[2:56:39] from them. Why is this going up and then

[2:56:41] you have something

[2:56:43] >> are there particular

[2:56:45] >> throwing back?

[2:56:48] » You okay?

[2:56:49] >> I go Mr. Williams and then I come back

[2:56:50] to you. I would say we compromise the

[2:56:53] integrity of getting more information

[2:56:54] based on how this conversation has been

[2:56:56] conducted. I would highly have to say I

[2:57:00] imagine seeing all staff are listening

[2:57:03] right now. I would take notes.

[2:57:08] I probably take out various assignments

[2:57:11] um and adjust my my my logic and you'd

[2:57:13] be remiss if they didn't. So I think

[2:57:16] based on that logic we have to kind of

[2:57:18] eliminate that if the if the inclination

[2:57:22] is to reference your Nikon study I can

[2:57:25] accept that I would say that it's been

[2:57:28] further prolonging this and I have every

[2:57:30] intention of passing in two nights.

[2:57:32] >> Me too.

[2:57:32] >> I do too. Hence, hence moving these

[2:57:35] phones above 3% to the out of grade

[2:57:38] category to get to where my peers are in

[2:57:42] some respects while still leaving

[2:57:44] impossibility to have this study or not

[2:57:46] reference this information in the

[2:57:48] following year without punitively

[2:57:50] holding hostage these compensation

[2:57:52] salaries for individuals. That is awful.

[2:57:56] Go ahead.

[2:57:57] >> I I agree. I'd like to do this tonight.

[2:57:59] Um my only question is and um I just

[2:58:03] maybe the commissioner of finance can

[2:58:05] tell us

[2:58:07] what is meant by out of grade when it

[2:58:09] comes to management staff again in my

[2:58:12] because it's not something that I've

[2:58:13] encountered in my own work life. So um I

[2:58:16] just need an explanation of that. But it

[2:58:18] sounds like we're in alignment in terms

[2:58:20] of trying to determine this tonight. I

[2:58:23] think the best person to give you that

[2:58:24] answer would be uh mayor

[2:58:27] >> scenario would be the deputy

[2:58:30] commissioner of finance is filling in

[2:58:32] for the finance commissioner so it's a

[2:58:36] bump in pay

[2:58:37] >> gotcha that's out of grade

[2:58:39] >> okay

[2:58:42] >> I'm not giving either

[2:58:52] I'm willing to compromise for those

[2:58:54] things because we we're currently saying

[2:58:56] we need to get a budget. We need to get

[2:58:58] a budget because we only have hours

[2:59:01] left.

[2:59:02] >> Mhm.

[2:59:05] >> So,

[2:59:07] >> anybody else?

[2:59:08] >> Mfield.

[2:59:09] I'm willing to compromise but u because

[2:59:12] I compromised with Mr. Farley to remove

[2:59:15] where I was move towards uh because both

[2:59:19] of us align now and Mr. is saying let's

[2:59:22] move all the

[2:59:24] So you're saying anything above the 3%

[2:59:27] move into a

[2:59:30] is it out of bre

[2:59:33] um bucket

[2:59:36] and then draw them from that to pay the

[2:59:40] individual um positions

[2:59:44] until we realign with a study and then

[2:59:47] we can able to do a budget

[2:59:48] reappropriation

[2:59:50] and increase those final position

[2:59:52] accordingly.

[2:59:53] >> Oh,

[2:59:54] >> okay. Hold on. Now I think I'm getting

[2:59:56] it. Are you saying that if we move that

[2:59:58] into an outofgrade line then not

[3:00:01] necessarily will these people actually

[3:00:02] get these increases?

[3:00:03] >> That is correct.

[3:00:04] >> Oh yeah, I don't support that then. I

[3:00:06] want I want these I think these

[3:00:08] increases which are based on perform

[3:00:11] based on performance evaluation and

[3:00:13] discussions that department heads have

[3:00:15] had both with their staff and then with

[3:00:17] the mayor are what I would support. So I

[3:00:20] hear what you're saying. So what you're

[3:00:21] saying is if it goes into out of grade

[3:00:23] then and even take it another step down

[3:00:25] the line to next year. It could be that

[3:00:28] now we have to renegotiate these. What

[3:00:31] if it's the same person right that's in

[3:00:33] that position? Um now they may not get

[3:00:36] the salary increase next year. Am I

[3:00:39] understanding that correct? Is that over

[3:00:43] you jump

[3:00:47] right into it? I was trying to reignite

[3:00:49] what Mr. Williams was saying and I was

[3:00:50] going to say sometimes we jump into each

[3:00:53] other conversation and allow

[3:00:54] >> I'm just trying to understand it.

[3:00:56] >> No. So Mr. Williams, did I capture what

[3:00:59] you're trying to suggest? What is lost

[3:01:02] in translation? I think Mr. Farley

[3:01:04] eloquently identified it. the manner in

[3:01:06] which we've been providing compensation

[3:01:08] in the city is out of date. There's

[3:01:10] nothing wrong with that. We need a

[3:01:12] source material to reference and apply

[3:01:14] whenever we are considering compensation

[3:01:16] reinvestments or just an entire

[3:01:19] collective reassessment of who we are as

[3:01:21] a city. May point previously to my

[3:01:24] comment of inflated salary lines. I

[3:01:27] accept that in comparison to industry

[3:01:31] standards within the city of Skenctity

[3:01:33] because I do not hope that having a

[3:01:34] comparative analysis of us to Newberg or

[3:01:38] Rochester has any relevancy for the city

[3:01:40] of connect whatsoever. I think it's how

[3:01:43] does this align with comparable

[3:01:45] positions in the job market and that is

[3:01:48] different than where we are now. you're

[3:01:49] required to do a review for all the

[3:01:52] rules, not just the ones that were

[3:01:53] approved for this budget proposed

[3:01:56] discussion right now.

[3:01:58] So, it's that until we had that

[3:02:00] discussion because the intent was last

[3:02:02] budget year to have that discussion this

[3:02:04] year didn't happen.

[3:02:05] >> Yeah.

[3:02:06] >> Didn't happen for whatever reason.

[3:02:07] Didn't happen. I'm not going to continue

[3:02:10] with the same logic of hoping that

[3:02:11] that's going to happen. how I can

[3:02:13] protect the interest that I have from my

[3:02:16] seat at the table is that we make these

[3:02:18] temporary until we have a permanent

[3:02:20] solution moving forward.

[3:02:23] >> Uh and based on this conversation and

[3:02:26] based on what we had asked for, I'm

[3:02:28] going to align myself for Mr. Williams

[3:02:31] recommendation. Mr. Chair, if you will,

[3:02:34] uh the the issue here or one of the

[3:02:36] issues that that I think that needs to

[3:02:38] be flagged um is that you know we can

[3:02:42] look at the impact of the what we're

[3:02:45] having the conversation we're having at

[3:02:47] the table right now and assign a number

[3:02:49] to it that might seem um not as

[3:02:53] significant in regards to the overall

[3:02:56] budget. The issue with what we're facing

[3:02:59] is that these have compounding effects.

[3:03:03] Okay. So this year

[3:03:06] what we do this year as far as a raise

[3:03:10] impacts what happens next year and then

[3:03:12] as well as the next hire. So it's like

[3:03:14] when we think of how we're getting the

[3:03:17] formula that we're using I don't it

[3:03:19] doesn't necessarily always need to be

[3:03:21] apples to apples but it can't be apples

[3:03:24] to pigs. It can't be

[3:03:27] so far off that that we're not even

[3:03:30] having the same conversation. Um, and I

[3:03:33] just I

[3:03:36] don't accept or receive the notion of

[3:03:40] like, hey, we, you know, we have to pass

[3:03:42] a budget, so we have to do it.

[3:03:45] I think that of course we all know that

[3:03:47] we have to pass a budget, but what's the

[3:03:50] purpose of passing a budget that we

[3:03:53] don't believe in just for the sake of

[3:03:55] doing? I think that we all have relative

[3:03:57] amount of compromise that we have to

[3:03:59] give. and I I've done it um in good

[3:04:04] faith, but it doesn't take away from the

[3:04:06] fact that there's some glaring practices

[3:04:08] that have compounding results that we

[3:04:10] really need to factor in or we'll be in

[3:04:12] here same position next year cuz guess

[3:04:14] what? We was in that same position last

[3:04:16] year and guess what? It'll be year

[3:04:18] before that. So, I think at some point

[3:04:22] we might have to stay stay later to have

[3:04:25] that conversation.

[3:04:28] Are you still going to be staying till

[3:04:29] 2:00 tomorrow morning?

[3:04:31] >> Man, I'm saying I'm saying that. Just

[3:04:35] >> I'm saying what I'm saying. It's clear,

[3:04:37] man.

[3:04:39] >> I'm with you.

[3:04:42] >> Yeah. Let's take I'm going to take a

[3:04:44] private plate.

[3:04:45] >> Let me So,

[3:04:47] >> yeah.

[3:04:47] >> May I ask you, are you aligning with u

[3:04:53] >> Oh, yeah. Very clear what William said.

[3:04:56] My my concern is what is is the how practical is it based on how

[3:05:05] these lines are being identified. Um

[3:05:08] that that's that would be my

[3:05:11] only concern. But I think that it

[3:05:14] absolutely makes sense and it show it

[3:05:16] demonstrates that we're being responsive

[3:05:18] to what we've learned over the couple

[3:05:20] years.

[3:05:22] This is totally

[3:05:23] for what proposed.

[3:05:25] >> Yes, absolutely. I just I just want to

[3:05:28] what did I I didn't hear the question or

[3:05:29] answer.

[3:05:30] >> Are you form on what was proposed the

[3:05:32] mayor's proposed budget in terms of the

[3:05:34] >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:05:35] >> Are you okay?

[3:05:36] >> Oh, yes, you are.

[3:05:37] >> I I'm sticking with this with this

[3:05:38] sheet. I I really feel that our human

[3:05:41] resources are probably one of our most

[3:05:43] valuable things that we have. Um and at

[3:05:46] this point I I want to respect what um

[3:05:49] is being presented to us and I was I do

[3:05:51] remember what I was trying to say from

[3:05:53] my own life with and job experience

[3:05:55] which is that um again I was in private

[3:05:59] nonprofit but rule of thumb and all the

[3:06:02] training all the education I had over

[3:06:04] four decades of that is you know you

[3:06:07] want to make sure that you're also

[3:06:08] understanding roles and responsibilities

[3:06:10] as well and I don't want to cross into

[3:06:14] uh necessarily

[3:06:16] um going against what our expert the

[3:06:20] expertise of our staff, our department

[3:06:22] heads and the people that are here on a

[3:06:24] day-to-day basis. So, um I'm sticking

[3:06:27] with the sheet um with the idea that

[3:06:30] >> down the line if we want to do some sort

[3:06:33] of an evaluative study whether it's

[3:06:35] in-house or whether we put I don't know

[3:06:38] 125 $200,000 back into this budget um to

[3:06:42] do that study um you know I'd be open to

[3:06:46] talking about that at a later date after

[3:06:48] we have a budget in place for 2026. Miss

[3:06:51] Patrick, with all respect, it was a

[3:06:53] reason why last year we passed that um

[3:06:58] that resolution to ask for the study

[3:07:01] because we felt at that time that

[3:07:05] management is not fully compensated

[3:07:08] across the board and we wanted that

[3:07:10] study to see where there's any shortfall

[3:07:13] and we could have addressed that and

[3:07:14] pick up. Yeah,

[3:07:16] >> I without that study we don't know where

[3:07:19] we are. It could be yes these are

[3:07:21] correct but how do we know that these

[3:07:23] are correct? Maybe there could be shortf

[3:07:24] falls in in this right now here that we should have been addressed and

[3:07:29] that's why we're asking for the study.

[3:07:30] So

[3:07:31] >> but are you study within the next week?

[3:07:35] We're all concerned about the study. Did

[3:07:38] it happen? If it happened, how do we

[3:07:40] know that everybody's being compensated

[3:07:42] accordingly?

[3:07:44] And you know, it's it's hopefully that

[3:07:46] we can get it. You know, next question.

[3:07:50] It should happen, but it didn't happen,

[3:07:51] but what are we going to do? Move

[3:07:53] forward.

[3:07:54] I just want to say I believe our last um

[3:07:57] BR

[3:08:01] as we sat around this table talking

[3:08:03] about it um was under the same

[3:08:06] impression that uh you know looking into

[3:08:09] and doing an in-house that I remember

[3:08:12] >> I don't think we talk about it

[3:08:14] >> you mean last year

[3:08:15] >> yeah last year when we asked last year

[3:08:19] for it

[3:08:20] >> then yes it can it was proposed to be

[3:08:22] done in house

[3:08:24] >> in So there were no recommendation for

[3:08:26] outside consultant at that point in

[3:08:27] time. It was more of driven inhouse

[3:08:30] study.

[3:08:30] >> I'm fine with that. I'm fine with having

[3:08:32] an in-house study for next year.

[3:08:34] >> Morfield, what what is your position on this?

[3:08:37] >> I I'll restate it. My position is for

[3:08:42] the POS for those who explanation was

[3:08:45] given to us that they working outside of

[3:08:48] their regular job duties then to move

[3:08:51] them to a segment. for those who gave us

[3:08:54] clear explanation that the job had

[3:08:57] expanded that I am fine with the race

[3:08:59] that there but that explanation came

[3:09:02] from their supervisor or whoever it was.

[3:09:04] So I'm not again that's not going to be

[3:09:07] for me it's not a cookie cutter

[3:09:08] approach. I think I'm looking at each of

[3:09:10] these individually or or sim couple are

[3:09:14] in the same situation but I'm not going

[3:09:16] to say that every single person moving

[3:09:19] all of the extra into out of great pay

[3:09:21] because it doesn't qualify as out of

[3:09:23] great pay because it's a regular duties

[3:09:25] that they do as regular basis and I know

[3:09:29] it's not ideal and I know we should have

[3:09:31] a study must please not revisit that but

[3:09:34] this is where we are today.

[3:09:36] >> Can you identify the position that uh

[3:09:38] Should we

[3:09:41] please so I can make notes?

[3:09:42] >> Well, we all got the email.

[3:09:44] >> Yes. So I one one I have there in terms

[3:09:47] of the supervisor receive.

[3:09:49] >> That's correct. And that individual

[3:09:53] explanation supervisor might

[3:09:59] » executive secretary.

[3:10:00] >> Can I just clarify? So, you're okay with

[3:10:03] >> I I think I'm hearing you say that

[3:10:04] you're okay with these these recommended

[3:10:07] salary increases tonight.

[3:10:09] >> Well, not not 100%. Maybe I'm saying

[3:10:14] if those recommendations were because

[3:10:16] they were getting doing dupies

[3:10:20] and not because their duties had

[3:10:21] expanded.

[3:10:25] » I do, but what about um if their

[3:10:27] performance was, you know, excellent or

[3:10:29] not excellent? What about if they were

[3:10:31] here for a long time or not here for a

[3:10:33] long time? I mean, I think the raises

[3:10:35] also pro I I think that the raises and

[3:10:38] I'm not same as same as you. I'm not

[3:10:41] going to I'm not saying we don't need a

[3:10:43] study.

[3:10:45] >> Good idea. Um but in terms of 2026 and

[3:10:49] what we're trying to do, um

[3:10:53] you know, I I think there is going to be

[3:10:55] variation in in the salary increases. I

[3:10:59] think we're saying that you and I are

[3:11:00] saying the same thing. Okay.

[3:11:04] >> So, so the executive secretary, we

[3:11:06] received the explanation.

[3:11:08] >> Well, that that that would be the mayor

[3:11:10] >> accounting supervisor uh advisor

[3:11:13] received.

[3:11:17] » I see. So, you're looking at the

[3:11:19] >> registr.

[3:11:25] Oh, you did. Yeah, you did that. Okay.

[3:11:28] payroll manager,

[3:11:33] » deputy.

[3:11:34] >> Okay.

[3:11:35] >> Payroll manager.

[3:11:39] » Uh down to supervisor of buildings,

[3:11:41] right?

[3:11:46] » Chief technology officer,

[3:11:52] commissioner of public safety.

[3:11:55] Is that what we're doing, guys? We're

[3:11:57] looking at the

[3:11:58] >> commission of public safety is that's a

[3:12:00] typo.

[3:12:02] They file their other fire.

[3:12:07] >> I think that that's going to be fixed.

[3:12:12] >> Oh, okay.

[3:12:15] >> Deputy commissioner went to

[3:12:20] » Oh, yes. I remember that. Okay. We have one two three four five six

[3:12:28] that we receive um explanation.

[3:12:42] » So the ones that we need to talk about

[3:12:44] are

[3:12:46] executive secretary. No, we

[3:12:49] >> already done that. We already received

[3:12:52] explanation.

[3:12:57] » Okay. You tell me then.

[3:13:00] >> Do you need it again?

[3:13:02] >> I I was highlighting any that were above

[3:13:04] 3%.

[3:13:06] >> So, did you explanation like from from

[3:13:08] the mayor from the executive secretary?

[3:13:10] Do you need that again?

[3:13:11] >> I I don't. No.

[3:13:12] >> Okay.

[3:13:12] I'm sorry. I thought you were all

[3:13:14] looking for that but tonight but I I'm okay with these.

[3:13:18] >> Okay.

[3:13:22] » I don't think everybody is.

[3:13:24] >> Yeah, I think it's done.

[3:13:25] >> Can we

[3:13:30] just

[3:13:38] Okay.

[3:13:40] >> Okay, that's fine. I'll take a like 10

[3:13:43] minutes

[3:13:44] recovery time.

[3:40:17] Miss Porterfield needs her too.

[3:40:20] >> I just got to that.

[3:40:21] >> Okay. Well, we convene a finance

[3:40:22] committee,000.

[3:40:25] >> Let's count

[3:40:27] and

[3:40:39] So we have before us the icon

[3:40:46] is

[3:41:00] hold back up This the one we're going to

[3:41:02] use.

[3:41:04] >> Yeah, there was a conversation.

[3:41:06] >> Oh, a newer one. So, I don't know if

[3:41:07] that's the one we want to use.

[3:41:08] >> I think we should

[3:41:11] going to be

[3:41:14] updated number

[3:41:18] one here. I should I

[3:41:28] Yes.

[3:41:37] to us would be what?

[3:41:38] >> One, two, three.

[3:41:42] I don't

[3:42:13] But this looks like it's based on I

[3:42:16] don't think they're going to put

[3:42:19] anything off service. So this I think

[3:42:22] this is really

[3:42:25] >> that

[3:42:27] uh population. So

[3:42:31] similar population the city is spending

[3:42:33] you have terms of you part time but we

[3:42:36] don't know what each individual position

[3:42:39] has to the city.

[3:42:41] >> Yeah.

[3:42:41] >> So it's how you can't really compare it.

[3:42:44] Well, this to me exactly on

[3:42:48] looking under the president gives what

[3:42:50] salary to determine what and when this

[3:42:53] was done exactly what how many years

[3:42:56] I've been on the house. Well, this is by

[3:42:57] me, not like somebody else.

[3:43:03] I don't know about the accuracy of that.

[3:43:10] So, but

[3:43:12] the where we at uh mission isn't based

[3:43:16] on this one that's in front of us,

[3:43:18] right? It hasn't

[3:43:20] >> strong

[3:43:24] our salaries are corresponding with

[3:43:26] this, right?

[3:43:29] >> They should um HR administrator

[3:43:34] um

[3:43:36] survey was sent to her. Um she uploaded

[3:43:39] all the salary associated with these

[3:43:41] comments.

[3:43:42] >> Excuse me.

[3:43:43] >> I'm saying I'm so

[3:43:46] wrong question. I'm not talking about

[3:43:48] council members. I'm saying that the

[3:43:50] proposed budget and salary lines for the

[3:43:52] proposed budget that was presented to us

[3:43:54] is not based on this information.

[3:43:56] Correct.

[3:44:06] » It's just not easy.

[3:44:08] >> Yeah.

[3:44:09] threat lands

[3:44:14] I think that's why

[3:44:17] you imagine now

[3:44:22] which was quite

[3:44:26] >> I'm Sorry. Can I get you 2020 by 111?

[3:44:32] » Sure.

[3:44:49] So we disregarding this further because

[3:44:54] uh it'll be printed for us.

[3:44:58] >> I believe

[3:45:10] able to print a copy for us.

[3:45:14] asked him.

[3:45:15] >> No, this is this is simply a survey and

[3:45:18] it is exactly and you look at the

[3:45:20] mayor's salary when he was in office for

[3:45:22] a number of years. It's exactly within

[3:45:24] our budget. This is a survey of what's

[3:45:26] being made. It's not an analysis. Yeah.

[3:45:30] >> Then I look at it and say it's more

[3:45:32] taken from the city

[3:45:33] >> and just upload it into my

[3:45:37] >> show across the board what the city

[3:45:40] feeling these position.

[3:45:50] » Yeah. But I don't know why Saratoga

[3:45:53] because of the difference in population

[3:45:55] and all of that.

[3:45:58] That's why we wanted to go a certain

[3:46:02] direction that happened and that's

[3:46:04] understood.

[3:46:08] So the parents are the I mean we have to

[3:46:10] know like how close to the population

[3:46:12] we're at 678

[3:46:15] and

[3:46:17] it's the closest to Westchester County

[3:46:25] » I don't mean ter I don't mean in terms

[3:46:26] of miles I mean in terms of miles

[3:46:29] >> right I just mean city

[3:46:33] Rome

[3:46:39] tends to pay more for the city.

[3:46:42] >> Mhm.

[3:46:46] » All right. So, so I think

[3:46:50] >> yes,

[3:46:50] >> we need to talk about where we can and

[3:46:53] again I mean I'm not on get it

[3:46:58] and and go to Dallas so we can get there

[3:47:00] tonight. So can we continue on the

[3:47:03] salary set?

[3:47:04] >> Yes, we can. Not because of this

[3:47:07] committee, but I I wanted to hear

[3:47:09] recommendation. uh one is a goal where

[3:47:11] we expand individually

[3:47:16] if uh we don't want to say we want to

[3:47:20] finance maybe and experiment

[3:47:25] and then we come up with a compromise

[3:47:27] and if we can't we just look at the

[3:47:29] finance community for the last resort to

[3:47:31] move forward

[3:47:32] >> I think

[3:47:33] >> and that's what that's that's how I

[3:47:35] wanted to you know those

[3:47:39] » so Um, yes, we can continue with the discussion and then we'll move

[3:47:44] our way down.

[3:47:48] » So, I'm not sure if that sheet was very

[3:47:51] any help.

[3:47:52] >> No.

[3:47:54] >> Yeah.

[3:48:02] for the field. You had some um you know

[3:48:06] split

[3:48:08] you support what was explained to us

[3:48:14] the one that the ones that wasn't

[3:48:17] explained to us we are in favor of

[3:48:19] moving that into a bucket. Am I quoting

[3:48:22] you correctly? Can you can correct me

[3:48:24] please? Is that

[3:48:26] >> what I'm saying is I don't we don't have

[3:48:28] all of the information is that if the

[3:48:31] person has expanded duties I recommended

[3:48:34] that they

[3:48:36] as is

[3:48:38] if people are working out of grade

[3:48:42] because they have to have additional

[3:48:43] duties because there's a vacancy within

[3:48:45] their department then I would say that

[3:48:48] makes up

[3:49:00] So based on the have we went through the

[3:49:03] emails or we were just trying to

[3:49:05] configure the notes. So we had one 2 3 4

[3:49:09] 5 six six positions that we received

[3:49:13] clarification.

[3:49:15] Is that correct?

[3:49:23] Go ahead. For the for the for the

[3:49:26] purpose of of only making the process

[3:49:28] less uh complicated, I'll I will uh um

[3:49:34] defer to the finance committee as as far

[3:49:36] as this section of our budget goes. I

[3:49:38] think I was really clear about how I

[3:49:40] felt about it. I think Mr. Williams was

[3:49:42] very clear how he so I feel like you

[3:49:44] know the conversation has become um

[3:49:48] somewhat uh circular. Uh but for this I

[3:49:50] think I you know looking at the overall

[3:49:52] budget impact I will defer uh to the

[3:49:55] finance committee the finance committee

[3:49:57] recommendation on that um

[3:50:01] being very clear about where you know

[3:50:03] that this is something that needs to be

[3:50:05] addressed or will just keep compounding.

[3:50:08] So I think that for the purposes of

[3:50:12] making the process move on I would defer

[3:50:16] >> I would those are my positions but I

[3:50:18] mean again I'll say it again even though

[3:50:20] you say our input is important it's

[3:50:23] >> yeah

[3:50:26] we're so far apart let me just

[3:50:33] » All right

[3:50:35] let's let's move on we'll revisit before

[3:50:38] we conclude this.

[3:50:41] So the next uh big ticket item here for

[3:50:45] this is a fee for service. I propose

[3:50:48] that we look at all of these and able to

[3:50:52] work you know such as a recommendation

[3:50:55] for us to kind of like discuss I

[3:50:58] initially

[3:50:59] asked for 20% sorry 10%.

[3:51:03] when I looked at the numbers on the

[3:51:05] paper they quite significant as you know

[3:51:08] it's about that 5%

[3:51:12] >> uh this was a discussion I had with uh

[3:51:15] you know we had this discussion and then

[3:51:17] I had a discussion with three council

[3:51:21] member

[3:51:21] >> okay

[3:51:22] >> in terms of uh what do we think about

[3:51:24] fees for service

[3:51:26] and I I'm just throwing that out there

[3:51:28] for this question it's not

[3:51:30] recommendation it doesn't mean that I'm

[3:51:31] going to you know

[3:51:34] taking my heat on this and what would be

[3:51:37] think about it.

[3:51:46] » Um, so if we're looking at your

[3:51:49] absolutely sure and I'm talking about

[3:51:52] A17

[3:51:56] for the wrong form. Okay. So that's the

[3:51:59] particular cost

[3:52:02] is that

[3:52:06] I know is that the actual pay

[3:52:17] » my comies

[3:52:22] I'd be hesitant to freeze fees for

[3:52:24] service

[3:52:26] fees for

[3:52:28] justify without the assisted money line

[3:52:33] to um

[3:52:36] certain event not having a staff present

[3:52:42] to help with staffing

[3:52:45] operations in certain departments.

[3:52:52] » Yeah, I think that piece of service is

[3:52:54] kind of different. Let's

[3:53:05] see it. I mean,

[3:53:07] >> most of these lines have been cut from

[3:53:09] what the department

[3:53:24] of this

[3:53:30] I mean, I guess we should just look. We

[3:53:32] have to write what they are for if we're

[3:53:34] going to have to if we have to have a

[3:53:36] conversation about them. So 10 10 404,

[3:53:40] right? I mean, you can't just have to

[3:53:42] know what they are.

[3:53:46] It's 2,000 for city council.

[3:53:48] >> Yeah, we got that.

[3:53:50] >> What is that? Why would we have fees for

[3:53:52] service for city council? That's true

[3:53:55] programs.

[3:53:56] >> I'm sorry, what?

[3:53:57] >> Computer programs, the code online,

[3:54:00] things like that

[3:54:02] >> for us.

[3:54:04] >> It says city city council fees for

[3:54:06] service, but

[3:54:07] >> I'd have to look specifically, but

[3:54:09] that's usually what what they are.

[3:54:15] and like so 56 board

[3:54:21] services what is paid to the individual

[3:54:24] so you know that without

[3:54:28] >> oh my gosh

[3:54:29] they spend so much time at their work I

[3:54:32] mean

[3:54:34] >> I know but still it's huge service and

[3:54:37] also

[3:54:39] affects other parts of our budget

[3:54:43] It does, but just keep in mind the

[3:54:45] notification

[3:54:47] sensor has told us that the duties that

[3:54:49] have been performing for the length of

[3:54:50] time, the number of cases that have been

[3:54:52] has gone down. Don't know if it'll go up

[3:54:54] again, but it has gone down.

[3:54:59] >> We'd have to look at I I keep drawing. I

[3:55:02] don't know what uniformly.

[3:55:05] >> So, this is audit.

[3:55:07] >> No, I'm just I'm trying to fill in what

[3:55:09] they are so that we can actually

[3:55:10] converse about it. So yes, that was the

[3:55:12] audit is the second one which I would

[3:55:14] imagine is kind of a lot in we probably

[3:55:17] know how much we have to spend on the

[3:55:19] audit.

[3:55:21] >> I know

[3:55:22] >> it's probably in the budget accurately

[3:55:24] in terms of what the audit costs.

[3:55:28] >> So Mr. motiv

[3:55:32] although I you know was you know giving

[3:55:34] a level of difference in the last

[3:55:35] section we're reviewing

[3:55:37] the larger issue for N is when are we

[3:55:40] going to get the information about the

[3:55:42] existing funds because every

[3:55:45] conversation that we're having moving

[3:55:48] forward

[3:55:49] there might be funds to support some of

[3:55:52] these things that would return this

[3:55:53] money back to back to the general fund

[3:55:56] and thus far we've part of I've talked

[3:55:59] about $700,000.

[3:56:02] Um, and if we're trying to collectively

[3:56:05] stay under that tax cap, I don't know

[3:56:07] how we pass a budget without that

[3:56:09] information. So, I'm asking when are we

[3:56:11] going to get that information?

[3:56:13] >> May we please ask you to work with the

[3:56:16] department head to us tomorrow?

[3:56:18] >> At 4:00 today, they didn't have it. So,

[3:56:21] I assume it's going to get put together

[3:56:23] sometime tomorrow.

[3:56:27] I hope in the morning but maybe in the

[3:56:29] afternoon.

[3:56:29] >> Okay. All right. So, we'll do a followup

[3:56:33] with regards to uh that report.

[3:56:36] I'm going to personally make a maybe a

[3:56:38] follow up. Go ahead, please.

[3:56:40] >> So, I think does that mean that we are

[3:56:43] going to be back tomorrow because we're

[3:56:45] not getting information tonight?

[3:56:46] >> I can't come back tomorrow, but you guys

[3:56:48] can go ahead. I'm not going to be coming

[3:56:50] back tomorrow.

[3:56:51] >> Oh, no press release for tomorrow.

[3:56:53] Definitely won't come back tomorrow.

[3:56:55] Never mind. you what you're not able to

[3:56:58] >> Thursday. So that means

[3:57:00] >> yeah because we had initially

[3:57:02] availability was not um

[3:57:04] >> right okay

[3:57:08] >> we had the full council

[3:57:10] >> I did not want to set the meeting

[3:57:14] >> with one or two

[3:57:16] >> is there any chance that we could meet

[3:57:18] if we have to meet on Thursday which I

[3:57:20] have on my calendar but is there any

[3:57:22] chance we could I know people work but

[3:57:24] is there any chance that people could

[3:57:26] break away at like four o'clock um I I

[3:57:29] mean, some of us have

[3:57:31] an event that evening. Um, but

[3:57:36] >> you know, Mr. Mudarin's getting an award

[3:57:38] at that dinner. Um, it's connected to

[3:57:40] shares is getting an award at that

[3:57:41] dinner.

[3:57:43] >> Huh. Yeah.

[3:57:44] >> Exactly.

[3:57:46] >> I like that.

[3:57:49] >> But I mean, because I can meet, you

[3:57:51] know, earlier, but even if it was a

[3:57:53] lunchtime, I think, you know, when

[3:57:55] people become more that I'm not doing.

[3:58:00] >> I also could meet Friday, Friday night.

[3:58:02] By the way,

[3:58:02] >> we we cannot meet. We cannot meet before

[3:58:05] 5:30 tomorrow.

[3:58:06] >> We have to stick with the house.

[3:58:09] >> Oh, that's right. We already publicized

[3:58:10] it.

[3:58:11] >> And we have time to publicize if we're

[3:58:13] going to come on Friday, right?

[3:58:15] >> There is no meeting on Friday right now.

[3:58:17] >> There is no meeting on Saturday right

[3:58:18] now.

[3:58:19] >> Thursday.

[3:58:20] >> Yeah.

[3:58:21] >> Saturday

[3:58:24] >> right now. Well, the next meeting

[3:58:25] doesn't kick in until you recess this

[3:58:27] meeting.

[3:58:28] >> You can keep this meeting going

[3:58:32] >> to the alternative.

[3:58:38] » I'd rather try tomorrows.

[3:58:44] I think staff needs to preventation.

[3:58:48] I think that by

[3:58:50] >> Sam can make a note that relate to just

[3:58:54] a follow with the mayor with the we have

[3:58:58] those uh the report from

[3:59:01] department of development

[3:59:03] funding

[3:59:06] >> and we would have it prior to the

[3:59:08] meeting so we would be able to look at

[3:59:09] it.

[3:59:10] >> Yes. and be prepared.

[3:59:11] >> All these things need to get to us now

[3:59:13] so that we can

[3:59:15] >> All right.

[3:59:15] >> Make a decision and then

[3:59:18] >> that's that's to make the salary

[3:59:19] decisions. Is that what you're saying?

[3:59:22] >> The funding the CDBG

[3:59:24] >> Oh, the CDBG funding.

[3:59:26] >> Yes.

[3:59:28] >> Have a whole meeting just because of

[3:59:29] that one thing. Okay.

[3:59:30] >> But so just for clarity, that one thing

[3:59:34] has produced 700 $700,000.

[3:59:38] >> Yeah. to keep us under the tax cap. I

[3:59:41] think that that is a if there's a

[3:59:43] possibility of more money being out

[3:59:46] there, we need to make sure that we have

[3:59:49] that information. I mean, to me, quite

[3:59:51] honestly, I don't see how we pass the

[3:59:54] budget in good faith without that

[3:59:55] information.

[3:59:57] >> Follow that is like 2%.

[3:59:59] >> That's

[4:00:02] significant.

[4:00:03] >> 700,000 and not 400

[4:00:06] >> 202 and 206, right? Nope. It's

[4:00:09] >> 408

[4:00:12] plus 150 plus 222

[4:00:16] from

[4:00:16] >> 200 for contingency.

[4:00:19] >> Okay. Okay.

[4:00:23] » 200.

[4:00:24] >> Yeah,

[4:00:25] >> that's right. I hear you I

[4:00:27] >> 150 of that was as the proposed budget

[4:00:30] is neutral in the proposed budget

[4:00:31] because that line was zero. But all the

[4:00:34] uh the remainder of that um and that's

[4:00:36] even only in theory because we all

[4:00:38] committed to find money to f to fund

[4:00:39] that line for our youth line. So we are

[4:00:41] going to have to find that money. So

[4:00:42] when you have $700,000,

[4:00:46] you know, appearing by a process, I

[4:00:48] would like to see that process play out

[4:00:50] because that can really change the

[4:00:52] scenario that we're in right now as far

[4:00:54] as saying

[4:00:55] >> step

[4:00:58] to further um as we're looking at these

[4:01:01] fees for service and I you know we just

[4:01:04] can't uniformly cut them. I don't think

[4:01:06] about what they're

[4:01:08] >> Yeah. I was going to make a suggestion

[4:01:10] to commission of uh finance in the

[4:01:13] position of can you put the bure

[4:01:17] department

[4:01:21] and what they're for.

[4:01:22] >> Yes.

[4:01:23] Yes. So yes, you can add um yeah.

[4:01:31] » Yes. So I'm going to ask that we just um

[4:01:33] add some more detail onto that. Please

[4:01:37] can revisit this

[4:01:41] so it will guide us along because right

[4:01:43] now it's going to be a lot for us to

[4:01:45] just look at this go into the book back

[4:01:47] and forth soon and it's a lot I'm going

[4:01:51] to ask we wait for more detail for each

[4:01:54] line and then revisit.

[4:01:58] >> All right.

[4:02:01] I'm going to stop filling it

[4:02:02] in. Yeah, I was almost

[4:02:06] um let's move to um the next one of

[4:02:08] stipens

[4:02:14] this board and then Mr. F

[4:02:20] again I I will refer to the finance

[4:02:22] committee for that. Um

[4:02:25] my position around that is pretty clear.

[4:02:27] I do um but it's a matter of process.

[4:02:31] I'll definitely give deference to the

[4:02:33] finance committee for that, but even

[4:02:35] that I think is going to be a another

[4:02:37] situation that there's information out

[4:02:39] there we need.

[4:02:41] >> So, just to be clear though, what you're

[4:02:44] trying to recommend here is just not

[4:02:46] having the stipens though.

[4:02:47] >> No, that's not

[4:02:49] >> Well, it's $30,000 in the proposed

[4:02:51] budget and your cuts would take out

[4:02:53] $30,000.

[4:02:54] >> No, that's not that's incorrect.

[4:02:55] >> So, this is wrong.

[4:02:56] >> Yes.

[4:02:57] >> Okay.

[4:02:57] >> Yep. So we were supposed to back out all

[4:03:00] day 24 hours.

[4:03:03] >> Correct.

[4:03:05] >> Oh, so some of these are those people.

[4:03:07] Correct.

[4:03:08] >> Can we make notes again

[4:03:11] all the ones that

[4:03:13] >> are on 24

[4:03:15] and reverse it out from this section?

[4:03:19] >> And I and I also said to start with a

[4:03:21] number, a starting number for a context

[4:03:24] of $10,000.

[4:03:26] um

[4:03:28] said so that information is missing.

[4:03:30] >> It's right here.

[4:03:34] >> From what? From what Miss uh Patrick's

[4:03:37] guessing, I'm saying. Yes. That's why

[4:03:38] I'm saying no.

[4:03:41] >> Okay. So, we need to clean this section

[4:03:42] up. We work all day. But go ahead,

[4:03:46] please.

[4:03:47] >> Um as we talked about this yesterday, I

[4:03:49] think it was yesterday.

[4:03:51] >> Yes. As far I went through each

[4:03:53] statement, as far as I could see, there

[4:03:55] was one and we asked a question about

[4:03:57] the other one. A680

[4:03:59] um was clear was clear to me that that

[4:04:02] was the news of so that might not

[4:04:04] change.

[4:04:05] >> 1680.

[4:04:06] >> Okay. Yes.

[4:04:07] >> And A510.

[4:04:08] >> Could you tell me what that

[4:04:10] >> A680?

[4:04:11] >> Yeah. Okay. I'll look it up.

[4:04:14] >> Technology.

[4:04:14] >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. And then

[4:04:17] I asked if A5010 was a 24-hour gay

[4:04:21] person. Didn't get a response. So I

[4:04:24] don't know the answer to that question.

[4:04:26] >> I'll tell you.

[4:04:26] >> That's the only one who may have

[4:04:28] >> Well, I looked it up as well, but it's

[4:04:30] not clear that person.

[4:04:31] >> Can you just ask it now though is what

[4:04:33] I'm saying.

[4:04:33] >> I asked yesterday. I asked today

[4:04:39] position.

[4:04:40] >> I'm looking it up.

[4:04:43] facing street food under

[4:04:46] >> Oh, the street department manager.

[4:04:48] >> Mhm. That's the same person.

[4:04:53] » I did not follow up on that.

[4:04:56] >> I think

[4:04:57] >> I did not follow up on

[4:04:58] >> Oh, I thought

[4:05:01] >> I thought

[4:05:05] Nice. It didn't take them long to do

[4:05:08] that. So, you may

[4:05:09] >> service administration.

[4:05:10] >> All right. Can we make notes follow up

[4:05:12] on that please? S can you also make note

[4:05:15] please

[4:05:16] >> so that um we can realign and make sure

[4:05:18] that these things are here

[4:05:24] » and can

[4:05:25] >> that's the only two

[4:05:26] >> commissioner can we can we look at all

[4:05:28] this typing and see who else is on 24

[4:05:31] hours

[4:05:32] >> all

[4:05:34] I think under the mayor's position on

[4:05:36] all these positions

[4:05:39] they're 247 call polic.

[4:05:44] >> Okay,

[4:05:44] >> the mayor stated that one.

[4:05:47] >> Let's just go back based on what I

[4:05:51] looked at. Um, let's start with a 10.

[4:06:00] Yes, which is in the mayor's office.

[4:06:03] Um other than the mayor who tomorrow

[4:06:13] you refer to

[4:06:14] >> the studongs

[4:06:16] to just

[4:06:23] call 24 hours

[4:06:31] 1910

[4:06:36] 136

[4:06:40] finance. You probably could tell us

[4:06:42] about that one.

[4:06:46] » Um, so the mayor and the judge me.

[4:06:50] >> Oh, it's for you. Oh, okay. Yeah. No,

[4:06:52] you don't have to go further.

[4:06:53] >> Access to a laptop. So, if I need to

[4:06:55] access something, I can. Um,

[4:06:59] >> Gotcha. You don't have to go further.

[4:07:12] » Uh there's time for the office at the

[4:07:15] wires

[4:07:17] >> for the wires.

[4:07:20] >> Mhm. So the office man that could be

[4:07:23] >> has it happened with Derek one time

[4:07:27] playing Ferrari

[4:07:29] team there was a police pursuit

[4:07:31] sheriff's department of fatality.

[4:07:34] >> Oh jeez.

[4:07:34] >> He was at the scene

[4:07:39] less than

[4:07:42] >> scenario to have to deal with

[4:07:45] >> seems to happen.

[4:07:46] >> But you exactly have time.

[4:07:48] >> Yes. So we will find

[4:07:56] » all

[4:07:59] the part make sure we weren't getting

[4:08:01] sued. That's a good thing. So,

[4:08:04] you know, I think I think we really So,

[4:08:07] my understanding it was like this with

[4:08:09] the start people who were also a scene

[4:08:12] because there was a water being break or

[4:08:15] you know um all various things

[4:08:22] » entirely with facilities, building

[4:08:26] maintenance. Yikes.

[4:08:37] said one.

[4:08:39] Yeah, I was more aligning this kind of

[4:08:41] align myself with this in terms of like

[4:08:43] more drivenness towards like people with

[4:08:46] OGS who has to be on call stream OS

[4:08:51] uh you know personnel

[4:08:56] and anybody who has to be like

[4:08:57] infrastructure stuff deal with

[4:08:59] >> this one's code

[4:09:00] >> there's a break in the main or there's

[4:09:03] something happened you know that needs

[4:09:05] to be at the se fire or something like

[4:09:07] that some technology.

[4:09:09] >> Yeah, technology is different because

[4:09:11] there's certain things happen. They have

[4:09:12] to you know come in and shut down and

[4:09:15] you know run

[4:09:18] and things like that.

[4:09:22] I was kind of like

[4:09:24] my thought about this in terms of

[4:09:28] like more like administrative stuff

[4:09:31] that's a I don't know.

[4:09:35] >> Oh, go ahead. Well, I have all the I can

[4:09:38] tell you who each of the I just slipped

[4:09:39] them out if you want to know who each I

[4:09:42] know by the positions.

[4:09:44] >> Yeah. Yeah. And then we can find out.

[4:09:46] Well, I I wouldn't say the person's name

[4:09:48] unless executive session, but um

[4:09:52] >> I just if you know, so the first one is

[4:09:54] in the mayor's office and we've been

[4:09:56] told it's the director of operations.

[4:09:58] The next one is our finance

[4:10:00] commissioner.

[4:10:01] >> What was the last year? I'm sorry.

[4:10:03] >> I'm sorry.

[4:10:04] What did we spend last year on that

[4:10:06] statement?

[4:10:08] >> It didn't exist last year.

[4:10:09] >> So that's a new statement.

[4:10:10] >> That's a new

[4:10:13] >> $3,000.

[4:10:14] >> 3,000 was spent last year.

[4:10:16] >> No, I'm saying that's what it is right

[4:10:18] now in this in this year's budget. Um in

[4:10:22] 1410, that's in the city clerk's office.

[4:10:25] It is the city clerk, I believe. I

[4:10:27] remember that from previous years. Uh

[4:10:30] 1620 is facilities and building. Um, I

[4:10:34] actually don't know specifically who

[4:10:36] that is, but um, 1622 is in utilities

[4:10:41] administration. I can see how both of

[4:10:44] those would be people that would get

[4:10:45] called upon, could could get called upon

[4:10:48] in the middle of the night.

[4:10:50] >> Um, 1680, very important. Chief

[4:10:52] technology officer obviously gets called

[4:10:55] upon. Now 5010, it says service

[4:10:59] administration.

[4:11:01] Um, so I'm not actually can't think of

[4:11:03] who that would be. Um,

[4:11:08] » 5010. Yeah, that's what we're talking

[4:11:10] about.

[4:11:12] >> Street department.

[4:11:12] >> Okay. Street. Okay. Streets. So that's

[4:11:15] obviously important. And then the next

[4:11:17] one's code enforcement.

[4:11:21] » The last one.

[4:11:26] And this doesn't say who, but I'm sure

[4:11:29] these are tied to a specific individual.

[4:11:33] Is that correct?

[4:11:35] >> Yeah.

[4:11:39] » Just

[4:11:42] paid on

[4:11:46] the Yes.

[4:11:47] >> For the building.

[4:11:49] >> Okay. manner outside of

[4:11:53] >> Yes.

[4:11:56] » Other ones they get over.

[4:12:16] » Any other question regarding this? We

[4:12:18] need more clarification. We need to

[4:12:21] reverse some things out. This report

[4:12:24] needs to be updated.

[4:12:25] >> So, could we just look at the act the

[4:12:26] expenses last year for all of those?

[4:12:28] all got spent, I'm sure. Right.

[4:12:31] >> I can look it up.

[4:12:34] » Want me to look it up?

[4:12:36] >> I'm happy to.

[4:12:37] >> No, I I'm sure I'll

[4:12:42] » Okay. I just

[4:12:46] >> like of I think it's the fire department

[4:12:48] A34 CS

[4:12:51] stipens

[4:12:52] >> right in the A3411 just I'm just curious

[4:12:56] as to

[4:12:57] >> 411 that's all contractual

[4:13:00] >> oh okay

[4:13:01] >> that is not here

[4:13:02] >> no I I know it's not there but

[4:13:05] >> I mean we're talking stipens so I'm

[4:13:08] wondering why it wasn't there but it's

[4:13:11] just

[4:13:11] >> anything that has to do

[4:13:13] CSC

[4:13:14] fire department

[4:13:15] >> contractual

[4:13:17] >> is not here.

[4:13:18] >> Can I be this is not part of a

[4:13:20] negotiation

[4:13:22] is just asking

[4:13:24] >> anything

[4:13:26] that we all

[4:13:33] » right go. No, no, no, no.

[4:13:43] So just just a sick moving um we'll just

[4:13:46] move on with this revisit

[4:13:49] and um

[4:13:57] » we have

[4:14:00] any any members have any other expense

[4:14:04] that we need to discuss

[4:14:06] the lease.

[4:14:09] >> What do you have anything else?

[4:14:11] >> I mean,

[4:14:13] >> no more no more expense.

[4:14:15] >> I mentioned that you had some expense

[4:14:16] that we didn't

[4:14:19] >> that would be good.

[4:14:21] >> Okay.

[4:14:25] » That's

[4:14:40] Oh, I did have a couple questions that

[4:14:43] >> Yeah, we can go ahead and add please.

[4:14:45] Yeah.

[4:14:51] » Okay. So I asked that would be uh any

[4:14:53] other that was in 2025

[4:14:57] what percent

[4:15:03] and how many employees currently outside

[4:15:16] Yeah, that's not good.

[4:15:18] >> So, as for

[4:15:21] you have a new report

[4:15:25] that was fun

[4:15:40] later.

[4:15:49] pass around.

[4:15:52] >> I got two of the mayor need one of

[4:15:53] these.

[4:15:55] >> Uh, I got

[4:15:56] >> Okay.

[4:16:14] So

[4:16:16] in fact this is a this this report

[4:16:20] combined will be for

[4:16:24] as 3 million8181

[4:16:28] and 48

[4:16:31] 3.8

[4:16:33] automating forms that we got.

[4:16:35] >> Yes.

[4:16:38] Um, so I before I asked for it and then

[4:16:43] told us it was like 3 million and then

[4:16:44] this is the additional because I'm

[4:16:46] really just trying to get to how we got

[4:16:48] to the $6 million gap.

[4:16:51] That's why I asked for this.

[4:16:54] And so if this plus what?

[4:16:59] Well, we have fun balance. Uh

[4:17:03] you look at previous year we was it last

[4:17:06] year 6.6 million our funding

[4:17:10] >> correct?

[4:17:11] >> Um 6.1

[4:17:13] >> 24 6.6 approximately. So

[4:17:16] >> and

[4:17:20] 3 million change

[4:17:23] of about 5.4 4 million above balance.

[4:17:30] » So look at this report. So we have three

[4:17:32] employee currently out of work and 19

[4:17:35] from

[4:17:36] that.

[4:17:40] » Is that correct? Soal,

[4:17:43] but there's only three of

[4:17:46] >> this is that provided by

[4:17:51] » and so your three currently out 19 uh

[4:17:54] from January to 1020 in total

[4:18:00] >> um of the 191

[4:18:04] that's is that everybody actually went

[4:18:06] on one

[4:18:08] laugh

[4:18:11] sometime this year they've been out

[4:18:15] for

[4:18:18] somebody can be out for a week usually a

[4:18:20] day mostly it's tends to be a week or

[4:18:23] longer

[4:18:30] » so none of these people every one of

[4:18:32] these occurrences started in Janu excuse

[4:18:35] me in 2025 so nobody was out from 2024

[4:18:38] They carried 2025.

[4:18:40] >> No. Get another report to see what's

[4:18:45] right. I just want to make sure that we

[4:19:06] » um

[4:19:06] >> so we do not so we do not have any any

[4:19:09] anyone on long-term workers

[4:19:12] >> on this list I'm not 100% Sure. I'm sure

[4:19:15] I can get the information for council.

[4:19:17] >> Yeah, if you don't mind can doing that.

[4:19:19] Um, if you can get if there's anyone we

[4:19:23] have anybody in 207 which is different

[4:19:26] than

[4:19:27] >> workers.

[4:19:31] That's

[4:19:34] >> Yeah. Um

[4:19:37] I'm just looking to see if there are

[4:19:41] long-term

[4:19:43] except for 207 which is by now we have

[4:19:47] full salary. Yeah, I'm just trying to

[4:19:50] see if we have anybody

[4:19:53] on long term and do we still carry the

[4:19:56] salary line perhaps

[4:20:00] » position

[4:20:02] up now? So yes, their salary line is

[4:20:05] budgeted.

[4:20:10] » Is there anything else

[4:20:12] there? Do we do we should we budget for

[4:20:16] them on that line or are we keeping budget in anticipation

[4:20:20] that they're going to come back next

[4:20:21] week? Those are all I believe are

[4:20:25] shortterm

[4:20:27] thing. So it's two weeks a month.

[4:20:33] » Okay.

[4:20:34] >> Standard account

[4:20:39] of position for that.

[4:20:42] Our

[4:20:44] claim ratio right now is fairly good.

[4:20:47] It's natur sometimes you can't tell how

[4:20:50] it's going to go.

[4:20:53] » So there's 30 people that I just see who

[4:20:57] >> what was the specific question?

[4:21:00] It it was more driven towards how do we

[4:21:03] have how many employee do we have long

[4:21:04] term workers

[4:21:07] >> but you know not overall the timeline

[4:21:12] >> I think and excluding um 207 because

[4:21:16] regardless we have to pay them the full

[4:21:19] sum rate so you exclude 27

[4:21:24] >> I think another way of capturing it

[4:21:26] since it's not just without people just

[4:21:30] how long employ.

[4:21:39] » Can can you please add that into the report

[4:21:47] by by department also?

[4:21:54] » So my question was um

[4:21:58] It was responded to when it came to 207

[4:22:01] whether it was contractual but for the

[4:22:04] rest of the employees who are not part

[4:22:06] of 207 is this contractual or it's just

[4:22:09] a practice by the city.

[4:22:12] >> No, sorry. Let me let me let me just

[4:22:15] >> 207 and 20.

[4:22:18] >> So let me just take So we have to

[4:22:20] exclude 207

[4:22:23] including 207.

[4:22:25] >> That's coming.

[4:22:26] >> Oh okay.

[4:22:28] swimming 207.

[4:22:29] >> Yes.

[4:22:29] >> The other

[4:22:30] >> CNC. Yes.

[4:22:32] >> Anybody has 207 in front of it?

[4:22:36] >> The rest of the workers common.

[4:22:40] >> Yeah.

[4:22:40] >> Is this based is it contractual or is

[4:22:43] this

[4:22:45] >> based on practice of for the city

[4:22:47] >> state law? State law. Workers

[4:22:49] compensation. I think that's one that's

[4:22:52] generically

[4:22:54] referred to. You don't know. It's a

[4:22:55] felony. Yeah.

[4:22:58] >> So,

[4:22:59] and state law says we have to pay you a

[4:23:01] full salary.

[4:23:04] >> That's only for 207.

[4:23:08] » Could you pay a full salary? They might

[4:23:11] be paid partial salary. They might

[4:23:13] depends on

[4:23:15] the actual claim.

[4:23:21] So it sounds like this is not something

[4:23:23] that we really can be fooling around

[4:23:25] with anyway, right? This is something

[4:23:27] >> No. Well, not the not the 207.

[4:23:31] >> Well, we can look at the report for the

[4:23:33] ones that long term and they're

[4:23:36] receiving workers.

[4:23:39] >> And what state actually says about this?

[4:23:41] >> Yes. So, um let's look at the report.

[4:23:44] Let's look at u the position and

[4:23:47] department.

[4:23:50] And can you attach a dollar a dollar

[4:23:52] amount to that also

[4:23:56] plus uh plus benefit?

[4:23:59] >> Let's see where how much it's costing us

[4:24:02] to um fun

[4:24:04] each position into the budget.

[4:24:07] >> Can we change that? Why how could we

[4:24:09] change that if that's what it is? I

[4:24:11] guess is what I'm asking.

[4:24:13] >> Oh,

[4:24:15] >> isn't it workers compensation? I mean,

[4:24:17] it is what it is.

[4:24:18] >> No, it just seemed like that there's

[4:24:20] some variables in there around like

[4:24:24] outside of certain

[4:24:27] 207 maybe ZDFG. Outside of that,

[4:24:30] depending on the on the on the case,

[4:24:31] there's some variables that the mayor u

[4:24:34] unless I heard them wrong. There's some

[4:24:36] variables depending. It could be full

[4:24:37] pay, could be a percentage based on

[4:24:41] >> No, I I heard that, but I guess I'm

[4:24:42] saying

[4:24:43] >> there are employees who sometimes will

[4:24:45] take advantage of those plans and we do

[4:24:48] manage that and do bring in

[4:24:52] outside investigators and independent

[4:24:55] medical eval.

[4:24:58] >> I'm just answering why the information.

[4:24:59] >> No, I'm just saying I mean I don't I

[4:25:00] just feel like this is probably an area

[4:25:02] that

[4:25:04] we would not be necessarily arguing with

[4:25:07] the budget as well. probably spend

[4:25:09] another 3 or four hours in.

[4:25:14] » I think right now we still need

[4:25:16] clarification. We will be spending three

[4:25:18] or four hours.

[4:25:19] >> It's just a matter of getting the

[4:25:20] information over so we can look at the

[4:25:22] report and and that's what I'm trying to

[4:25:24] get to we're not going to analyze

[4:25:27] anything. We're just

[4:25:29] >> we're just trying to get the best

[4:25:31] information over to the commissioner so

[4:25:32] you can provide a report to us so we can

[4:25:34] look at it. And when you get the report

[4:25:36] tomorrow, please email it to us so that

[4:25:39] uh we have it ahead of time and we can

[4:25:41] review it and then come back uh with

[4:25:44] looking for the city page

[4:25:47] >> without the city.

[4:25:49] >> Yes. What we what we have in the budget.

[4:25:51] So if we have a long-term amount of work

[4:25:53] everybody that we have on work has come

[4:25:56] except for the 207s

[4:25:58] how much we have in the budget

[4:26:01] we have in the proposed budget for that

[4:26:04] position and that's

[4:26:07] the position plus dollar amount plus

[4:26:10] benefit

[4:26:14] and that's including everybody

[4:26:28] Okay. All right. Any other question

[4:26:30] regarding that?

[4:26:34] We'll wait on that.

[4:26:37] >> Anything uh do you have any other

[4:26:38] question any back any questions what you

[4:26:40] have there?

[4:26:45] Go ahead, please.

[4:26:46] >> I believe that was all I had

[4:26:48] >> for my

[4:26:51] >> You had some Mr. Far, you had some

[4:26:52] questions. You got you're good with

[4:26:54] those.

[4:26:56] >> All right. You I submitted my question.

[4:26:59] I had to

[4:27:00] >> Oh, that's the one. Okay. Yeah, that's

[4:27:01] fine.

[4:27:04] >> All right. We should have this document

[4:27:06] here

[4:27:10] to be the package.

[4:27:15] » Yeah.

[4:27:29] Yes.

[4:27:34] >> Which one are we looking at?

[4:27:35] >> The waste partisan

[4:27:59] » just for clarification purpose. So

[4:28:01] whatever we're

[4:28:04] uh commissioner whatever number we were

[4:28:06] crunching all the time here has no

[4:28:10] effect on this

[4:28:13] separate

[4:28:30] whatever we were on this.

[4:28:32] >> Uhhuh. They were working our way.

[4:28:36] >> Okay.

[4:28:51] » Which one? What do you mean?

[4:28:53] >> You don't have it.

[4:28:54] >> It's attached to this.

[4:28:56] >> It's attached to a memo.

[4:28:59] How can you

[4:29:01] >> was one of the first things like this?

[4:29:04] So you might lost something.

[4:29:07] >> I'm very sorry.

[4:29:12] » This came to us on October 1st. This was

[4:29:15] with the budget

[4:29:19] » here. I'll shut

[4:29:26] » you is

[4:29:38] give you time to review and then open

[4:29:41] for discussion and then

[4:29:46] the sector

[4:29:49] a real quick glance through um and we

[4:29:51] asked like where a lot of our workers

[4:29:53] compensation is on page two at the

[4:29:56] bottom

[4:30:03] to 730,000

[4:30:10] page two.

[4:30:16] » Oh yeah.

[4:30:41] It's

[4:31:41] Let's

[4:31:52] see.

[4:34:07] So, we're talking about waste now or

[4:34:09] >> Yes.

[4:34:10] >> When are we going to do we

[4:34:12] >> I'm really lo here now. It's getting

[4:34:14] pretty late.

[4:34:18] So

[4:34:22] » I mean

[4:34:24] >> I don't know

[4:34:27] continue for discussion. I mean

[4:34:31] if any would you know I would like to

[4:34:34] have every member that if some reason

[4:34:37] >> if some reason for some reason a member

[4:34:42] has to leave

[4:34:44] And I respect that.

[4:34:46] >> Thank you.

[4:34:52] » We will have to still maintain a a a two

[4:34:55] member.

[4:34:57] >> Y.

[4:34:57] >> So if for some reason two member of the

[4:34:59] finance decide

[4:35:01] of then

[4:35:02] >> Well, do you have a a projected time of

[4:35:04] the planning might end this evening or

[4:35:06] are we going all the way through?

[4:35:08] >> No, seriously. Hi.

[4:35:11] >> I'm here till the pass.

[4:35:13] >> Okay.

[4:35:15] >> He said he's here.

[4:35:17] >> Extremely close pending questions into

[4:35:20] tomorrow. Well, are you going to wait

[4:35:22] for the information

[4:35:24] tomorrow right now? So, being close

[4:35:28] get closer. We can't we I don't think we

[4:35:31] can push it for weeks. We need some

[4:35:32] information.

[4:35:33] >> Mhm.

[4:35:34] >> With regard

[4:35:35] >> some you know that I'll send staff home

[4:35:38] and you can bring them back the next

[4:35:40] meeting. There's a limitation in terms

[4:35:42] of people's performance.

[4:35:49] » I hear you.

[4:35:51] >> I don't understand

[4:35:53] >> that these guys could go home. All these

[4:35:55] guys could go home. not staying until 1

[4:35:58] 2 in the morning until it's done. Mhm.

[4:36:02] So we can start discussion on on this

[4:36:04] place here with um cost analysis study.

[4:36:09] >> Uh

[4:36:14] » so starting from the back

[4:36:19] >> the talk of commission general services

[4:36:21] is all one

[4:36:23] >> now

[4:36:26] that only for one. So what? Um just

[4:36:29] showing that because they do run the

[4:36:32] waste department. Yes. Uh but they learn

[4:36:36] their salary

[4:36:37] to water and sewer. So just reflecting

[4:36:40] that as part of the whole picture for

[4:36:42] the waste cost.

[4:36:44] >> So they lose their salary benefits.

[4:36:51] » And then the other thing too is to not

[4:36:54] for

[4:36:58] from sector 2025 delta budget. Uh it

[4:37:02] didn't include all the seasonals. So

[4:37:05] that 9.85

[4:37:08] more like 1.4 that's not included

[4:37:12] within this analysis.

[4:37:18] 256

[4:37:20] whole pages will be there.

[4:37:23] So the the commissioner and the deputy

[4:37:26] both

[4:37:28] are full

[4:37:29] >> right

[4:37:32] now.

[4:37:35] >> Okay.

[4:37:44] advance. So for 816118,000

[4:37:50] and then for 8162,000

[4:37:55] that wasn't there last year that is

[4:37:56] there this year.

[4:38:15] in the near days to see what was

[4:38:16] expected.

[4:38:33] Let's

[4:38:49] go.

[4:39:03] with the air.

[4:39:05] Sorry.

[4:39:30] for being

[4:39:33] over time

[4:39:36] 8,000 here today

[4:40:00] I put that

[4:40:05] file that's been here to date

[4:40:19] » and 122 is a new added time.

[4:40:26] That one

[4:40:28] has $8,000 in the current.

[4:40:37] » It wasn't in the 25 budget.

[4:40:47] So we spent money that wasn't

[4:40:52] » I'm sure

[4:40:55] address that. So, so we wasn't much

[4:40:58] interest.

[4:41:04] » I wonder if that's brought over with the

[4:41:06] other employees that

[4:41:08] >> I believe so

[4:41:10] uh seasons

[4:41:16] $20,000.

[4:41:19] » Uh if you need more details,

[4:41:23] Commissioner will probably walk you

[4:41:25] through it. So yesterday we paid on that

[4:41:27] line that was 8,000.

[4:41:30] How much did we pay?

[4:41:33] >> I got it.

[4:41:34] >> That line currently 8,000

[4:41:36] >> for this year.

[4:41:42] And what's

[4:41:55] » okay?

[4:42:08] Um, and then we added a line 8163

[4:42:14] 122. No one for that. We added 3,00

[4:42:25] 163.

[4:42:33] Mhm. Yeah. 3,000

[4:42:35] 13.

[4:42:45] It's page 24 on the year to date.

[4:43:00] Enter.

[4:43:18] I already pointed out a little bit and

[4:43:32] In terms of the um the revenue

[4:43:38] a 2130

[4:43:41] commercial waste

[4:43:44] 530

[4:43:54] that Any advice about commercial

[4:43:56] contracts?

[4:44:01] um

[4:44:04] Tell me

[4:44:28] new waste violation for 15 gallons. I'm

[4:44:31] not sure what that is for.

[4:44:37] What number is that, Mary?

[4:44:39] >> Oh, I see it. I got it.

[4:45:06] again. It wasn't expected.

[4:45:10] I recall

[4:45:17] that

[4:45:18] was

[4:45:22] well spray

[4:45:29] trash

[4:45:31] >> infestations

[4:45:31] >> and Mr. chairman that I thought I for

[4:45:34] the council that fee

[4:45:36] it's a lean on the propert so it goes a

[4:45:39] little under tax

[4:45:44] for that type of control it's it's a

[4:45:48] bill is sent to the property owner and

[4:45:50] if they don't pay a benefit on the

[4:45:51] property

[4:45:53] >> so this is new because we didn't do it

[4:45:55] before it wasn't in the budget funny

[4:45:59] >> it's a waste collection fee I think we

[4:46:01] didn't know that last I think they

[4:46:04] I think that was something that we had

[4:46:06] discussions on and that's how come we

[4:46:08] realized they could do that.

[4:46:10] >> That's what they be doing. Or I I would

[4:46:13] let Mr. Hon speak to that. That's what

[4:46:17] the commissioner just talked about and

[4:46:19] that's that fee. The only other thing I

[4:46:22] can think of is the administrative fee.

[4:46:24] It's at $25. raised the administrative

[4:46:26] fees for other entities to $50 last year

[4:46:31] and the administrative fee if they go to

[4:46:34] house they site somebody and their

[4:46:36] garbage is out early and they go back

[4:46:38] and it's still out it's it's the

[4:46:40] administrative fee for 50 bucks

[4:46:43] >> right now the code is for waste

[4:46:45] collection is at that 25 so he may be

[4:46:48] thinking

[4:46:49] >> he may want that change I'm speculation

[4:46:52] you might

[4:46:54] >> um I do have another question when you mention that. So probably this

[4:46:59] is probably since you brought it on the

[4:47:01] mask if you know they mask out and they

[4:47:08] um don't the trash people don't collect

[4:47:10] it but they drag it back to their homes.

[4:47:13] They still get the administrative fee.

[4:47:15] >> You have to talk to Mr. Lefondor.

[4:47:18] >> Okay. But I think that may be what

[4:47:21] they're looking at there because it's

[4:47:24] $25 and all the other administrative

[4:47:26] fees last year were raised to 50. So you

[4:47:29] can speak to that. Now I remember Mr.

[4:47:31] Leaf was saying that

[4:47:33] at the initial start of this he was you

[4:47:36] know making sure that people like

[4:47:39] understood he was trying to help educate

[4:47:41] people and then at some point then you

[4:47:43] know would be more enforcement right and

[4:47:47] I'm wondering those things that aren't

[4:47:48] budgeted are those something that's not

[4:47:53] budgeted or they are the something about

[4:47:55] moving over from another so I'm just

[4:47:57] trying to figure out I'm sure Mr. can

[4:47:59] answer that question cuz it might be a a

[4:48:02] line that's moved

[4:48:05] then it is a new line

[4:48:07] right

[4:48:11] I don't know but it may be that there

[4:48:12] was a enforcement last year

[4:48:15] >> as the the new structure was rolled out

[4:48:18] and now he's now accounting for it but

[4:48:21] he needs to speak

[4:49:10] discussion is open please

[4:49:17] comment

[4:50:54] We all set in this section. Are we all

[4:50:56] set in this section?

[4:50:58] >> Commissioner benefits from here

[4:51:01] in the yard from this overall benefit.

[4:51:06] It is it's included and separated uh at

[4:51:09] least related to the waste.

[4:51:13] Also just note

[4:51:17] that 1037

[4:51:19] is coming up. So these numbers will

[4:51:21] increase

[4:51:24] what occurs.

[4:51:26] No, I'm talking about

[4:51:29] >> I understand that.

[4:51:30] >> Well, you get it,

[4:51:31] >> right?

[4:51:32] >> It's in here.

[4:51:34] >> Is it also in here?

[4:51:38] » This is separated for the council to say

[4:51:40] yes or specifically waste. But if you

[4:51:42] look at the end of the general fund

[4:51:45] with the employee benefit section

[4:51:49] underway

[4:51:50] group

[4:51:53] >> doesn't delineate waste just total

[4:51:56] benefits.

[4:52:00] » Oh I see I'm very near the end of our

[4:52:03] budget. Right.

[4:52:12] So our standard for benefits is anywhere

[4:52:17] between 72 and 75. Uh I believe CSA

[4:52:22] 5%

[4:52:23] off the buff. So that's that number

[4:52:26] there. Um

[4:52:27] >> wow.

[4:52:27] >> And then our debt service is a million

[4:52:29] borrow past years.

[4:52:42] So sanctified that sort of sphere uh you

[4:52:46] have one point

[4:52:49] 1 1.1 million here

[4:52:53] you put 1.1 million

[4:52:57] 1.12 million

[4:53:11] I'm sorry. Could you say that a little

[4:53:13] louder for me, please?

[4:53:14] >> Death service.

[4:53:24] » Page 65.

[4:53:28] >> 65.

[4:53:30] >> 75.

[4:53:38] You have you have that page 75.

[4:53:51] » And this was just broken out

[4:53:55] the cost for this the whole picture.

[4:54:00] It's coming in.

[4:54:58] I guess since we're speaking about debt

[4:55:00] um is a topic to bring up but counc uh

[4:55:05] ask a button on time.

[4:55:08] So be aware in 23 um 24 and 24 um there

[4:55:14] was um physical uncertainty um and our

[4:55:18] S&P uh rating potentially could have

[4:55:21] been affected didn't at the time but

[4:55:24] negatively affected our interest rates

[4:55:26] increase which uh just for a quick

[4:55:29] example

[4:55:31] we have 21 million at 3.56%

[4:55:34] 15 million approximately 3.56%

[4:55:37] uh if you increase that by.5% if our

[4:55:40] rate goes down. This is just a

[4:55:42] hypothetical scenario

[4:55:45] it would increase our interest by 170

[4:55:48] 187k um in 2027 and that'll be

[4:55:52] additional years forward.

[4:55:54] >> So it's important that the council pass

[4:55:57] on time

[4:55:58] >> and that's and that also if you don't

[4:56:01] consider

[4:56:02] >> uh borrowing for 2026.

[4:56:05] that number and B.

[4:56:09] » This thing is

[4:56:12] it's important that we capture what this

[4:56:15] process is. Um the council

[4:56:21] wants to pass a budget on time. Council

[4:56:23] needs information, the relevant

[4:56:25] information to pass the budget. So if

[4:56:28] the budget doesn't pass on time

[4:56:32] based on the information that's given or

[4:56:34] not given and we need to, you know, hold

[4:56:37] that in appropriate context. I'm not one

[4:56:39] to, you know, quite honestly, we've had

[4:56:42] the scenarios where it has gotten to,

[4:56:45] you know, quite contentious in the

[4:56:48] process of trying to pass a budget. And

[4:56:51] I've worked really hard to try to get us

[4:56:53] to a point where we could. Anyone that

[4:56:55] is here at that time knows that.

[4:56:58] But that still is under,

[4:57:01] you know, right now I don't want to, you

[4:57:03] know, have this level of pressure to

[4:57:06] pass a budget and essentially the clock

[4:57:09] gets run out without the information

[4:57:10] that we need.

[4:57:12] And that's kind of where I'm feeling

[4:57:14] right now. So, as much as I can

[4:57:16] appreciate your clearance for us why we

[4:57:18] need to pass a budget, we need

[4:57:20] information.

[4:57:22] And there's important information that I

[4:57:23] have yet to receive that can change the

[4:57:25] landscape of this budget.

[4:57:39] » I mean this is a lot for us to digest.

[4:57:43] I'll be honest.

[4:57:45] So I ask that um we look at this and if

[4:57:49] you have questions u please email them

[4:57:52] out or be ready to

[4:57:56] ask questions when we come back

[4:57:59] >> to make suggestion or recommendation in

[4:58:01] terms of the ways

[4:58:05] increase you looked at the the last page

[4:58:08] in terms of the refuge and trash her

[4:58:13] >> it's going up to $9.5 million

[4:58:15] from $7.2 million.

[4:58:18] So that's an increase of $2.2 million

[4:58:21] right there.

[4:58:22] >> I think we got this on October 1st.

[4:58:25] >> We got it with the budget.

[4:58:27] >> It was the first thing that came to us.

[4:58:28] So it was October 1st. Yeah.

[4:58:31] >> Just saying that we all had it for

[4:58:33] >> So I as 28 days,

[4:58:35] >> but this is the first time we're

[4:58:36] discussing it. I ask you to

[4:58:43] dive into it and if you have question

[4:58:47] submit it

[4:58:49] ahead of time.

[4:58:52] Um

[4:58:54] let me jump into capital. Oh sorry.

[4:58:57] >> Um so Mr.

[4:58:59] the of Mr. from Are we going to email

[4:59:04] him the question that I raised or are

[4:59:05] you going to ask him to come here on

[4:59:07] Thursday?

[4:59:08] >> Well, we can email the question

[4:59:10] >> and if you would like to

[4:59:13] have

[4:59:14] >> Okay. Yeah. But um we can we try to get

[4:59:19] the questions

[4:59:26] with

[4:59:30] capital.

[4:59:33] » Yes.

[4:59:45] » Sure. have it.

[4:59:52] » Yeah, we do have a copy here. It should

[4:59:54] be in your package.

[4:59:59] » Take the package.

[5:00:00] >> We just got it today. I mean, this one

[5:00:02] was was here today.

[5:00:03] >> This is where couple couple days ago.

[5:00:05] >> Okay, I've got it. It was It was part of

[5:00:08] Yeah, I think it was today's package.

[5:00:10] This

[5:00:24] You can also turn up to page 91

[5:00:34] and then that will help guide us along.

[5:00:50] Now there we haven't talked about

[5:00:53] capital

[5:01:00] work recommendation.

[5:01:13] Yeah,

[5:01:14] >> thank you. I would like to say that I

[5:01:16] believe each department was as cut back

[5:01:19] on but through very necessities that

[5:01:22] they need to make the department

[5:01:23] official of the department. This whole

[5:01:27] list, the most department has been

[5:01:32] scrutinized and cut back already. I'm

[5:01:34] just putting that out there

[5:01:44] and we've had presentations on each one.

[5:01:46] >> We've had presentations on all of this.

[5:01:50] >> I wrote lots of notes as we were hearing

[5:01:52] from the department heads.

[5:02:13] What was the date of our first budget

[5:02:14] meeting? Anybody remember?

[5:02:18] >> 14th.

[5:02:22] » October 14th.

[5:02:24] What?

[5:02:25] >> Four.

[5:02:29] » Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I was just listening.

[5:02:34] » I think it might have been the seven.

[5:02:37] >> I'm just trying to find notes.

[5:02:38] >> I remember being here.

[5:02:42] >> I don't know.

[5:02:44] >> Yes. Happy birthday.

[5:02:52] I'm gonna have to go by memory. Oh, no.

[5:02:55] I know. Was I probably took notes on the

[5:03:05] » Oh, it's

[5:03:54] Are we

[5:03:55] updated?

[5:03:59] But we got this one.

[5:04:07] » Yeah.

[5:04:09] >> Oh, sorry.

[5:04:23] » I have a hard copy.

[5:04:25] >> I don't need a hard copy.

[5:04:26] >> No,

[5:04:27] >> I have it. No, we know you don't need

[5:04:29] it.

[5:04:29] >> Okay. I didn't know. I heard my name.

[5:04:32] >> They need They want to run a copy off of

[5:04:34] your copy.

[5:04:35] >> Oh, sure.

[5:04:36] >> Okay.

[5:04:57] probably

[5:05:03] does anyone state

[5:05:06] that

[5:05:20] these were all

[5:05:21] Yeah.

[5:05:52] There are some recommended changes. So I

[5:05:54] ask

[5:05:56] you one of the school changed and

[5:06:01] be with the to the board has you making

[5:06:05] some changes there.

[5:06:06] >> Yeah, I think it's supposed to take all

[5:06:07] the

[5:06:13] sheet record

[5:06:15] there. Whatever.

[5:06:16] >> I might stay. Yeah, just take them off

[5:06:18] and then I might stay with them.

[5:06:29] » He's getting a new seat.

[5:06:33] I'm sorry.

[5:06:36] And I still might say true.

[5:06:55] That's empty.

[5:06:57] >> It's empty. I think unless they filled

[5:06:59] it recently

[5:07:11] here.

[5:07:14] >> How's your wife doing?

[5:07:16] >> Um, good. Good for now.

[5:07:18] >> Good for now.

[5:07:19] >> Yeah.

[5:07:21] >> Coming right up.

[5:07:24] >> I will tell.

[5:07:25] >> Absolutely.

[5:07:27] It's exciting. My phone just

[5:07:30] >> Oh jeez. Oh my gosh. Don't tell us that.

[5:07:36] » Your first one, right? So your phone

[5:07:38] will ring, but then you go to the

[5:07:40] hospital 17 hours later. No.

[5:07:52] » Hopefully hopefully it's on the weekend.

[5:07:54] >> That's so special. So so special.

[5:07:56] >> Oh, that'd be great.

[5:08:01] » Do you have any like family beds going

[5:08:04] on about the day?

[5:08:07] >> Everyone's saying Halloween.

[5:08:09] >> Halloween.

[5:08:11] That's always fun.

[5:08:12] >> Uh my wife

[5:08:17] soon.

[5:08:17] >> Oh, I have a friend.

[5:08:21] Actually, since we're on a breakish and

[5:08:23] I also love

[5:08:44] you going to be back in the morning. I

[5:08:47] said I hear the big the mayor's

[5:08:49] statement about staffing

[5:09:06] kids from this is actually

[5:09:12] That's what

[5:09:16] these are

[5:09:25] set up by

[5:09:30] your

[5:09:31] >> Thank you.

[5:09:42] I think I was on

[5:09:45] >> I said it was maybe my fifth birthday.

[5:09:52] Halloween's a good time to have

[5:10:11] » seriously

[5:10:12] >> I'm going to get I'm going to get Billy.

[5:10:15] >> What the heck, man?

[5:10:22] You're trying to get rid of all those

[5:10:23] equipment pieces.

[5:10:24] >> No, this tutorial I did it the wrong

[5:10:26] way.

[5:10:27] >> Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.

[5:10:28] >> What I said not to do was so the

[5:10:32] opposite of

[5:10:34] putting in there. So, we'll we'll we'll

[5:10:36] discuss the capital.

[5:10:41] » Okay.

[5:10:45] Most of the five if I may ask because u

[5:10:50] if you can walk us through the change

[5:10:51] and then we um I can ask member to align

[5:10:55] themselves

[5:10:57] if they have any changes to go one by

[5:10:59] one.

[5:11:00] >> Yes, if you don't mind please. Let's say

[5:11:01] starting in parks and property

[5:11:03] management their recommendation was to

[5:11:05] reduce the regular

[5:11:09] from two.

[5:11:10] the expectation took into consideration

[5:11:12] comments we heard from the rail um about

[5:11:16] considerations for future expenses. I

[5:11:18] know this will not impact our current

[5:11:20] budget but sincerely need to be more

[5:11:22] intentional with capital projects ever

[5:11:26] since I've been on the council. It's

[5:11:28] always been interpreted as

[5:11:30] the flag that works at blunt check. I

[5:11:32] don't think we've ever considered it.

[5:11:34] social capital projects moving forward.

[5:11:37] We need to be more dependent tomorrow

[5:11:38] with evaluating these in our current

[5:11:43] financial states. It's we need to ensure

[5:11:46] that the vehicles we are bringing down

[5:11:48] reflect um future financial implications

[5:11:52] on having this debt this

[5:11:57] » so do you want to can we talk about them

[5:11:59] as we go down Mr. Mudarin or do you want

[5:12:01] to question yes

[5:12:03] >> Mr. Williams.

[5:12:04] >> Yes.

[5:12:05] >> Um, so I just will comment um because I

[5:12:08] did talk to our parks director about

[5:12:10] capital and the equipment is very very

[5:12:12] old uh that we have. Um and also he has

[5:12:16] to do the plowing like for example over

[5:12:18] at Stein. It's not just central. I mean

[5:12:20] he's at the parks having to do the

[5:12:22] plowing. So that one in particular I

[5:12:24] think is um is actually one that he

[5:12:28] mentioned to me is very very important

[5:12:30] to um because it's just very old. So

[5:12:32] we'd have to buy it next year maybe if

[5:12:34] we don't do it this year.

[5:12:36] >> Please go ahead.

[5:12:37] >> So um I also had to move one of them and

[5:12:41] in the 2020 um but for 2025 we um put in

[5:12:46] for two

[5:12:47] in additional in addition to that we

[5:12:49] also had another pad crew crew had to

[5:12:52] pick up file. So a total of three. I'm

[5:12:55] not sure why they differentiate between

[5:12:59] different type of truck, but last year's

[5:13:01] budget, capital budget, um was for three

[5:13:04] the purchase of three uh cab pickups

[5:13:07] with plows. So I removed one in this

[5:13:09] budget as well.

[5:13:12] >> May I say is that is that going to be

[5:13:15] delivered

[5:13:17] next year? almost capital last year.

[5:13:22] >> We're taking delivery bills.

[5:13:24] >> We took delivery bills. So those

[5:13:26] >> usually by time we get the money

[5:13:31] for May, June.

[5:13:35] um happen on an annual basis. Um and

[5:13:39] once the orders go in

[5:13:42] third, second, third, fourth quarter,

[5:13:44] usually takes about a year or so before

[5:13:46] you get the vehicle

[5:13:49] pick up.

[5:13:50] >> Yes. Garbage

[5:13:52] >> pick up with the

[5:13:54] >> F350 regular cab pick up with

[5:13:58] depends on the vehicle.

[5:13:59] >> Yeah.

[5:14:00] >> Okay. garbage trucks like in Europe.

[5:14:04] >> Pickup truck is different,

[5:14:06] >> right? So

[5:14:08] we we put these in last year. We must

[5:14:11] have them now. Thanks a you get a pickup

[5:14:13] truck on

[5:14:14] a different dealership.

[5:14:16] >> Well, some of it is not just going to a

[5:14:19] dealership, but you want it on a state

[5:14:21] contract for consolidated supply at the

[5:14:24] best price. Some of the vehicles are

[5:14:28] sold missile fleets which put down

[5:14:30] cheaper.

[5:14:32] It's not just going to the local dealer

[5:14:35] and taking something off the lot.

[5:14:37] >> So I guess

[5:14:38] >> I have to ask Paul specifically and

[5:14:41] >> yeah have we gotten these the ones from

[5:14:43] last year?

[5:14:46] >> I don't know because we've taken

[5:14:48] delivery.

[5:14:52] Can we uh make that put that on as a

[5:14:54] question please to ask um OS

[5:14:57] commissioner

[5:14:59] because and I I just want to echo

[5:15:01] because you know over the years we have

[5:15:02] been buying equipments like pickup

[5:15:05] trucks and you know all these

[5:15:06] equipments. So I don't feel it's it's a

[5:15:09] hard ask to delay a year. So that you

[5:15:13] know we need to you know some not asking

[5:15:17] for a a reduction and I'm just asking

[5:15:20] for a removal of everything and to kind

[5:15:23] of you know balance our finance and then

[5:15:26] move forward and then continue buying

[5:15:27] more equipment as we move into 2027

[5:15:30] 2028.

[5:15:34] » Specifically for the the cat.

[5:15:37] delivery for the uh capital order 2025.

[5:15:44] >> It would be good to have our last year's

[5:15:48] capital projects in front of you too cuz

[5:15:50] I think if you reference that then you

[5:15:52] know that puts us in a better position

[5:15:55] to look at some of that stuff. You mean

[5:15:56] our expense or

[5:15:58] >> so if we bought pickup trucks last year

[5:16:01] then that might change our position on

[5:16:04] do we need to get the pickup truck this

[5:16:06] year and having that information right

[5:16:08] there readily available to to access

[5:16:10] probably will be helpful as a part of

[5:16:13] this conversation.

[5:16:23] No, these uh these pickup truck from

[5:16:25] last year. This is on the parks or

[5:16:29] >> parks. This one says under parks.

[5:16:31] >> Yes. So last year last year on the park

[5:16:34] probably man we order two

[5:16:38] >> two and then another

[5:16:40] >> and then we order a two tab with flour.

[5:16:45] So they combine it for a year.

[5:16:51] how I can

[5:16:54] purchase any

[5:16:57] problem.

[5:17:00] » So yes, we last year. Yes. So if you com

[5:17:06] could you print out last year's capital

[5:17:08] for us, man.

[5:17:09] >> Yes.

[5:17:09] >> Yeah. Therefore, just for reference.

[5:17:14] » Okay. So that's why you know

[5:17:18] we always keep ordering machine and

[5:17:21] vehicle

[5:17:24] >> and mine was to the wrong on that line

[5:17:28] the changes under me were the only

[5:17:30] change was the total

[5:17:33] that in that line so I did I did cut

[5:17:36] down on

[5:17:37] >> so pickup truck see the 70,000

[5:17:46] Do you want to save it as?

[5:17:49] >> Yeah.

[5:17:50] >> Oh, you're on this now, right? No. Here.

[5:17:56] » It's pretty good. I believe that's

[5:17:59] >> Yes.

[5:18:05] I mean, look at what we ordered.

[5:18:08] We had budgeted sorry for 2025

[5:18:12] >> 241,000.

[5:18:14] >> Yes.

[5:18:14] >> For parts as opposed to

[5:18:17] >> I will be I would be comfortable to

[5:18:19] align with um dropping one this year and

[5:18:23] hopefully we can um

[5:18:26] add that back in 2026

[5:18:29] for 2027.

[5:18:34] » I'll be comfortable with that.

[5:18:38] Oh, our next one is a ground master

[5:18:40] mower

[5:18:43] to flip it out. He's the only person.

[5:18:46] >> Yeah, the only thing I had was minus one

[5:18:48] pickup truck. The rest

[5:18:50] >> I'm on. We're on the ground master now

[5:18:53] for 105. And it looks like you removed

[5:18:55] it.

[5:18:57] >> All those changes crossed them out. The

[5:18:58] only changing parts is I asked them to

[5:19:01] do that.

[5:19:02] >> You want to go back?

[5:19:04] >> Four times ago and it never came out. So

[5:19:06] only one cap.

[5:19:08] only one capture.

[5:19:12] » I mean, I think it's listening to Mr.

[5:19:14] Mistake is extremely important the way

[5:19:16] we maintain our

[5:19:18] >> A diamond, C diamond, B diamond, you

[5:19:21] know, in our home park. So, I think

[5:19:23] those things are

[5:19:24] >> with the more

[5:19:25] >> Yeah, maintenance is extremely

[5:19:26] important.

[5:19:29] >> Much bigger fields that we're that we're

[5:19:32] maintaining.

[5:19:34] >> Mr. Somebody just moved to the next one.

[5:19:39] >> Collection is reducing the number

[5:19:43] practice from two to one. Now is a good

[5:19:46] point to kind of um remind the council

[5:19:51] of the mayor's previous comments about I

[5:19:54] understand the cycle of

[5:19:57] bringing the vehicles vehicles in and

[5:19:59] old vehicles out if we are going to make

[5:20:02] these determinations as we're continuing

[5:20:04] on our conversations understanding that

[5:20:06] there will be a cost specifically to

[5:20:09] maintain those vehicles. I think also

[5:20:11] part of it is just approach.

[5:20:14] I think we can be intentional with just

[5:20:16] access and then servicing not

[5:20:21] continue on this path at least for this

[5:20:23] year. But I did want to just highlight

[5:20:25] that as a consideration. We need to make

[5:20:27] sure we're into account

[5:20:37] » discussion on this. I also

[5:20:39] >> this is the annual

[5:20:41] >> and I did last year what you purchased

[5:20:43] too

[5:20:47] and this is

[5:20:49] the share one.

[5:20:52] >> Yeah, he he definitely mentioned buying

[5:20:53] two per year when he presented to us

[5:20:56] >> and we don't get them for a couple of

[5:20:58] years, right?

[5:21:00] >> I didn't write a note on that.

[5:21:01] >> No, I'm sorry.

[5:21:04] These are at least the only

[5:21:07] we get them um usually they're model.

[5:21:27] » Okay.

[5:21:31] Safari myself um

[5:21:40] with Patrick you what's your position on

[5:21:43] this

[5:21:44] >> on the real load packet?

[5:21:45] >> Yes.

[5:21:46] >> I mean if you want to just get one

[5:21:50] that's okay. Again we're this is going

[5:21:52] to be influencing next year's

[5:21:54] >> Yes. So

[5:21:55] >> I I I'm okay with um with keeping one

[5:22:03] » unless we want to go back to Mr. Leond

[5:22:05] and

[5:22:06] >> you know

[5:22:08] I'm on track for two please.

[5:22:10] >> Yeah

[5:22:11] >> only because when they break down

[5:22:13] >> Yeah. I mean it's going to affect

[5:22:15] a lot of stuff from the city if we don't

[5:22:17] have enough place garbage trucks.

[5:22:21] Okay. So I'll stay with two.

[5:22:24] Oh, currently the guy picked up the the

[5:22:28] trucks.

[5:22:36] » Yeah, my thought, you know,

[5:22:39] as we in as increasing

[5:22:42] fees for people, I want to make sure

[5:22:44] that we're

[5:22:48] that it shows up in the service that

[5:22:50] they're getting. Um,

[5:22:52] >> thank you. That's

[5:22:56] Thank you.

[5:23:00] » Mr. McLast,

[5:23:14] » did we actually buy

[5:23:19] a general fun?

[5:23:20] >> So, we did have two last year.

[5:23:22] How many did we take out of service? Did

[5:23:24] we I think we take two out.

[5:23:27] >> They sell them sometimes.

[5:23:31] » Speaking of Mr. MC, I think basically

[5:23:33] because I did ask specifically about

[5:23:35] parks when before we started the whole

[5:23:37] budget process when we first got

[5:23:40] >> Oh, you're on trash.

[5:23:42] >> I'm sorry. I thought you do with parks.

[5:23:45] >> Yeah. No, sorry. I thought you were not.

[5:23:48] >> No, it's okay.

[5:23:49] >> I guess I guess the question is how many

[5:23:51] do we have? How many does he like to

[5:23:52] keep in stock or keep running? Um I

[5:23:56] thought he mentioned that sometimes he

[5:23:58] sells to other municipalities.

[5:24:02] >> I guess how many I'm comfortable keeping

[5:24:05] two.

[5:24:06] >> Okay.

[5:24:07] >> But that's the end of my statement.

[5:24:13] » I'd like to go with the two.

[5:24:14] >> Okay.

[5:24:17] » Yeah. See

[5:24:19] you.

[5:24:22] So far,

[5:24:26] » I can support the tool

[5:24:28] for increasing fees.

[5:24:36] » Okay, let's keep going. Um, smart build

[5:24:41] upgrade.

[5:24:43] My consideration for that is talking

[5:24:45] about the pay of investments

[5:24:48] and the financial nature that we're

[5:24:49] going to be addressing

[5:24:51] and trying to consider words. Uh and

[5:24:56] these funds that we put out there are

[5:24:57] community challenges of anyone.

[5:25:00] I think we're highlighting the issues

[5:25:02] that we've been experiencing at Kings

[5:25:03] Road. I understand that this will as

[5:25:06] specifically help promote safety. I

[5:25:09] think we're trying to help ensure the

[5:25:10] tax burden doesn't push people out of

[5:25:12] the city or have people making very

[5:25:16] difficult financial considerations. I

[5:25:18] don't disagree with the importance of

[5:25:21] it. I'm saying we can absolutely

[5:25:23] consider a job.

[5:25:26] I I was of the same thought. I I'm

[5:25:29] thinking you guys correct me if I'm

[5:25:31] wrong that this is our like there's a

[5:25:33] grant that's tied to this.

[5:25:35] >> Correct.

[5:25:37] >> No.

[5:25:37] So, so we don't have so we don't

[5:25:40] need to. Okay.

[5:25:42] >> All right. Then yeah, then I would rely

[5:25:44] on Mr. Williams on that.

[5:25:46] >> May would

[5:25:48] this fall on the credit from the state

[5:25:52] available?

[5:25:55] >> The grant is going to expand the network

[5:25:57] into Belleview. This will replace the

[5:26:01] nodes in downtown go Central State

[5:26:05] Street, Hamilton.

[5:26:07] If

[5:26:07] >> we don't update those, the police

[5:26:10] overtime is going to go up. This network

[5:26:14] and the camera data provides that

[5:26:18] support level of deterrence and

[5:26:20] documentation

[5:26:21] of criminal activity plus the traffic

[5:26:24] counts

[5:26:27] and other things and it's very

[5:26:29] shortsighted to look

[5:26:34] if I can respond to that. So those in

[5:26:37] place are they functioning or are we

[5:26:39] trying to upgrade their functionality?

[5:26:42] >> They're the end of their useful life and

[5:26:45] some components within it are not

[5:26:47] supported on the platform.

[5:26:50] >> So I just asked what's their end of

[5:26:52] shelf life then if that's not an issue

[5:26:55] then we should put it on here.

[5:26:58] So yeah, and uh what is it? M live

[5:27:03] >> shelf life.

[5:27:06] What do you want to say or can we follow

[5:27:08] up with that?

[5:27:09] >> I think I made my position clear as some

[5:27:16] can follow up on an

[5:27:18] uh fiction.

[5:27:24] This is the PD or it what they will

[5:27:26] consist it

[5:27:28] >> PD

[5:27:30] it supports.

[5:27:31] >> So how do you tell these um

[5:27:35] Mr.

[5:27:38] If you don't mind, you just want to

[5:27:39] repeat that you just so we can get that

[5:27:42] question

[5:27:43] live or to point these are

[5:27:48] differential increases to the

[5:27:50] functionality of smart node features. Um

[5:27:54] want to get clarification of the

[5:27:57] individual

[5:27:59] life.

[5:27:59] >> Yes. Yes. U Thank you. because the data

[5:28:03] is definitely going to be important as

[5:28:04] we continue to try to figure out traffic

[5:28:07] caling um situations

[5:28:11] measures I guess situations. So again it

[5:28:15] ended up there to take it out but under

[5:28:18] like Mr. making my notes, it was

[5:28:21] mustave, promote safety,

[5:28:23] >> important for city. So, um I I would be

[5:28:28] in favor of leaving it in there.

[5:28:32] >> And you would also add one install if

[5:28:34] that helps the decision process.

[5:28:38] >> Thank you.

[5:28:40] >> We can look at 2025.

[5:28:44] There wasn't anything.

[5:28:46] >> No, not for smartphone.

[5:28:48] Oh,

[5:28:49] >> what?

[5:28:49] >> We're talking about um

[5:28:52] >> what are you?

[5:28:54] >> Police.

[5:28:54] >> Oh, you're on police.

[5:28:55] >> SUVs.

[5:28:57] >> For some reason, I had cut one SUV and

[5:28:59] one unlocked.

[5:29:02] >> Let me look at my notes.

[5:29:04] >> And somehow it came for that amount of

[5:29:05] money. that that might have been based

[5:29:06] on the conversation that the chief said

[5:29:08] if I remember correctly he said that

[5:29:10] they'd like to have them but we they

[5:29:13] would work with you know yes

[5:29:14] >> our recommendation so that's what we

[5:29:16] said that

[5:29:16] >> they were not pulling to us the

[5:29:19] reduction

[5:29:20] >> on the vehicles except for the evidence

[5:29:23] >> yeah the evidence storage is essential

[5:29:26] >> I'm go back to the evidence car

[5:29:29] >> yeah let's stay with the car

[5:29:42] So last year in terms of the police

[5:29:45] department and the vehicle that we got

[5:29:47] purchased, there were two SUVs, three

[5:29:51] hybrid sedans, and three hybrid vans.

[5:29:55] >> So

[5:30:00] Um,

[5:30:03] but um,

[5:30:05] why would we do the SUV

[5:30:08] in an unmarked car?

[5:30:20] » Would that align us to 4:15?

[5:30:23] Yeah.

[5:30:25] One at one.

[5:30:29] Mr.

[5:30:40] » Yeah, I don't have a problem.

[5:30:45] U

[5:30:48] look, I'm looking at the wrong color.

[5:30:49] Sorry.

[5:30:55] » Those you Were

[5:30:58] you doing one reduction in SUV, one

[5:31:00] reduction in

[5:31:08] the vehicles by half?

[5:31:18] » There's one thing that we don't have

[5:31:19] clear information on. This is grouped.

[5:31:21] It's all the vehicles. So I we all know

[5:31:24] the cost of the SUV versus the evidence

[5:31:26] car versus the unmarked cars.

[5:31:35] It's cut off.

[5:31:40] » It's all cut off, but it's

[5:31:44] actually

[5:31:45] >> okay.

[5:31:46] >> 50 mark,

[5:31:52] but that those are the figures. I don't

[5:31:53] know which one for

[5:31:56] it is in our capital. Right.

[5:31:59] >> So, we need to know exactly if we're

[5:32:01] changing and removing vehicles, how much

[5:32:03] we need to actually

[5:32:05] >> remove based on the cost of the vehicle.

[5:32:12] My follow is if we're not going to even

[5:32:14] have the discussion of evaluating

[5:32:19] these higher department funding, which

[5:32:20] is one of the larger contri

[5:32:23] contributions we currently are. I think

[5:32:25] it's very reasonable to say driving

[5:32:29] vehicles for a little longer.

[5:32:34] » I think their original need was 13

[5:32:36] vehicles, but in hearing their budget um

[5:32:39] at the request that the departments had,

[5:32:41] they went down to nine vehicles that

[5:32:43] they asked for or they ended up with in

[5:32:46] this budget. But they basically

[5:32:48] essentially said everything they needed

[5:32:50] for team vehicles,

[5:32:57] » but at the same time they did mention in

[5:33:00] order to make any adjustment.

[5:33:02] >> Yes,

[5:33:02] >> they can continue to use the vehicle

[5:33:04] that they have.

[5:33:06] >> They did say that

[5:33:07] >> until it's not like they they have to get it. They can do as much as

[5:33:13] they can with until the next year.

[5:33:15] >> Yeah. The distinction that needs to be

[5:33:17] made is like so if we're talking about

[5:33:20] you have a S you have a S uh you right

[5:33:24] now that's running and you would like a

[5:33:29] newer one. There's a difference between

[5:33:31] replacing that and I'm I'm

[5:33:34] leaning into definitely holding off on

[5:33:36] replacing existing vehicles that are

[5:33:38] functioning. Um, but and then the

[5:33:40] distinction would be like the evidence

[5:33:42] vehicle I think is something that we're

[5:33:44] all saying like they need that, right?

[5:33:46] We're all saying we that because that's

[5:33:47] not something I think that they're

[5:33:48] necessarily replacing just based on what

[5:33:50] I remember the conversation was. So if

[5:33:54] we're saying we want to buy that, we

[5:33:56] don't need to purchase this.

[5:33:59] The conversation is different when there

[5:34:01] is something a vehicle that's existing

[5:34:03] and functioning right now.

[5:34:06] It's not the same level of urgency, I

[5:34:07] would say. And that's where all of the

[5:34:10] departments that we're looking at.

[5:34:14] >> Mr. 273,000

[5:34:22] is 133

[5:34:26] » 131. Yeah.

[5:34:33] But we don't know if those numbers are

[5:34:34] right until we find out if that's

[5:34:38] pretty clear. Um

[5:34:42] being a cheap and what the cost of that

[5:34:45] is

[5:34:45] >> right.

[5:34:54] So can can we get that uh as a as a as a

[5:34:59] question

[5:35:01] the cost breakdown

[5:35:03] just

[5:35:05] but you don't know which

[5:35:06] >> correct

[5:35:08] >> so uh we can we can put that as a

[5:35:10] question break down for the

[5:35:15] vehicle.

[5:35:18] All right, let's uh move. Okay, we can

[5:35:21] move uh here. Evidence storage.

[5:35:29] Um

[5:35:30] in this case, they mentioned that every

[5:35:33] single as piece of their storage is

[5:35:35] already filled.

[5:35:36] >> Um including uh they needed the freezer,

[5:35:40] the HVAC were completely out of space.

[5:35:43] um the retention

[5:35:46] they can't get rid of evidence because

[5:35:48] they have to align with retention rates

[5:35:51] that must be like a state federal

[5:35:54] >> new law they have no

[5:35:56] >> longer so they they absolutely said the

[5:35:59] evidence storage

[5:36:01] was essential

[5:36:02] >> we all agree

[5:36:03] >> I'm going to respectfully ask us

[5:36:06] this and cut this

[5:36:08] >> yeah I think we all

[5:36:10] have this additional

[5:36:15] that

[5:36:19] » even chief was talking about I don't

[5:36:21] know if it was the mayor would have

[5:36:22] these units that they can put out the of

[5:36:25] the police station with storage so it

[5:36:29] won't take up room in a parking lot or

[5:36:30] whatever and maybe eventually when that

[5:36:33] fills up finding an actual building

[5:36:34] where things might be able to go but

[5:36:36] this I think it's a good idea.

[5:36:38] >> Yeah. The next the next item is on

[5:36:40] regular streets regular pick up um with

[5:36:44] cloud tool

[5:36:48] recommendation here if

[5:36:52] one I'm going to do and I'm going to

[5:36:56] answer it to one

[5:37:13] Not small but I I I couldn't decrease

[5:37:16] that. Knowing all the small streets that

[5:37:19] they get on

[5:37:19] >> these are regular cab

[5:37:22] two

[5:37:23] >> last year.

[5:37:28] » They spent 1.33

[5:37:32] million last year and they're asking for

[5:37:34] 52 525 this year. They're different

[5:37:36] trucks.

[5:37:37] >> No, I'm just saying I'm looking at the

[5:37:39] total

[5:37:40] capital.

[5:37:41] >> I think the importance of smaller trucks

[5:37:42] in the city and that might even cut down

[5:37:45] on who we

[5:37:47] >> Oh,

[5:37:48] >> yeah. Well, then if you look at the year

[5:37:49] before, I can recall that we did order

[5:37:52] these small um small size um truck

[5:37:55] beating

[5:37:56] >> because we had we had issues with um a

[5:37:59] larger truck can't pass through the

[5:38:01] small street

[5:38:02] >> and then they were they were funding to

[5:38:05] buy a small um

[5:38:07] >> size.

[5:38:10] So a year or two ago, yes, we did.

[5:38:16] Just going back to the uh these

[5:38:18] vehicles, I have the numbers council.

[5:38:26] » So 78k for SUVs,

[5:38:30] >> 70

[5:38:31] >> 78K for SUVs.

[5:38:32] >> Mhm.

[5:38:34] >> 63

[5:38:35] for these vehicle,

[5:38:38] >> 53 for the unmarked,

[5:38:41] and then the parking was 37. Yeah,

[5:38:43] >> that's still 31.

[5:39:20] So engineering

[5:39:24] So there's two in streets.

[5:39:32] » Any other any other suggestion in

[5:39:34] regards to the regular care pickup with

[5:39:36] on the streets?

[5:39:42] » Well, I do have a question. And so we're talking about purchasing them on

[5:39:48] something under parts or one parts

[5:39:53] main.

[5:39:54] Do they share them ever?

[5:40:02] » I believe so.

[5:40:15] In that case, I could reduce it to

[5:40:20] » I can follow that logic.

[5:40:22] >> The snowpl

[5:40:28] supposed to be a really bad winter this

[5:40:29] winter, but

[5:40:30] >> Oh, that's this winter actually. Maybe

[5:40:32] next winter it won't be a bad winter.

[5:40:36] >> So, all we need is not promal streets of

[5:40:38] snow.

[5:40:40] That would get us nice phone calls.

[5:40:43] >> These are small.

[5:40:45] >> Oh, I thought they were I thought they

[5:40:46] were with a bomb.

[5:40:48] >> No,

[5:40:52] » we don't.

[5:40:54] >> It's totally different in terms of the

[5:40:56] bigger truck.

[5:40:56] >> It's not a snow plow. Got it.

[5:40:57] >> It is not. It flows small section or

[5:41:01] small street that is hard for the big

[5:41:03] trucks

[5:41:04] >> like the stockade probably would have

[5:41:07] need a smaller a smaller snow plow

[5:41:10] stockade.

[5:41:11] >> Well, we have been buying these over the

[5:41:13] years.

[5:41:22] I'm sticking with two. Yes. Thank you.

[5:41:24] >> I just want to

[5:41:30] » I'll stick I'll stick with two. Yeah.

[5:41:32] >> Okay. All right. Let's move on. Next.

[5:41:36] Electric and

[5:41:40] engineering.

[5:41:42] We have

[5:41:43] >> Mhm.

[5:41:48] » electric vehicle charing station.

[5:41:53] $100,000.

[5:42:10] This had to do with the transition in

[5:42:12] the parking thing right from link well

[5:42:14] uh to link well from charge point

[5:42:17] >> I believe for those transition

[5:42:21] engineering

[5:42:24] >> I'm not sure

[5:42:26] >> isn't it's going to

[5:42:31] fall

[5:42:32] >> we're set up there these were this was

[5:42:34] Mr. Wallen's request. Um, and the note

[5:42:36] that I wrote was that this whole

[5:42:38] transition that we're doing in the

[5:42:40] parking

[5:42:42] um,

[5:42:43] no it wasn't I'm sorry it's not parking.

[5:42:45] It's it's any any electrical vehicle

[5:42:48] charging station right now that are

[5:42:49] charge point, you know, that's what you

[5:42:52] have to have your credit, you know, and

[5:42:55] now we're moving into something called

[5:42:57] link well um from charge point. And so

[5:43:01] these charging stations were going to I

[5:43:04] just wrote notes while Mr. Wallen was

[5:43:06] talking, but that's I can't tell you all

[5:43:08] the technology.

[5:43:09] >> Put those new ones.

[5:43:11] >> Oh, they're okay. Well, they're probably

[5:43:13] in one year's budget, but

[5:43:15] >> those are the DC fast charges.

[5:43:17] >> Oh, nice.

[5:43:19] >> I think so. Mr. Bman neighborhoods

[5:43:24] >> as I recall these stations are going to

[5:43:26] be at the golf course as I recall

[5:43:28] because currently department

[5:43:32] um stage the golf course with a total of

[5:43:36] I think

[5:43:36] >> four.

[5:43:39] >> We've had those. Yeah.

[5:43:40] >> Yeah. He was saying

[5:43:41] >> these are admission in addition to that.

[5:43:43] >> That's what he told us.

[5:43:45] >> But not at the golf course.

[5:43:46] >> At the golf course.

[5:43:48] >> Why would they need additional

[5:43:50] >> That's incorrect.

[5:43:51] >> That's not That's not He told us he

[5:43:52] wanted them in neighborhoods because a

[5:43:54] lot of individuals don't have garages or

[5:43:56] even

[5:43:57] >> He said that's considered later. He

[5:43:58] didn't say the need because you have to

[5:44:00] be able to figure out where to put them.

[5:44:02] That's something he said we consider

[5:44:03] later. He distinctly said these

[5:44:06] clarification on

[5:44:08] >> He was saying he was saying They don't.

[5:44:11] >> Okay. I was going to say because we have

[5:44:12] the whole facility that has all of our

[5:44:15] um we bought 62

[5:44:17] >> entirely separate mistake.

[5:44:18] >> Yeah.

[5:44:21] >> Our program has charging for golf carts.

[5:44:24] There are electric vehicle charging

[5:44:26] stations in the parking lot of golf.

[5:44:29] >> Probably just four, right?

[5:44:32] >> Two stations, four,

[5:44:34] >> right? And he said these were in

[5:44:35] addition to that definitely. Let's try

[5:44:38] to find. Sorry.

[5:44:40] >> No, no, no. So, I was going to say, so

[5:44:42] >> we'll get we'll get clarification, but

[5:44:44] that's a simple thing because if we're

[5:44:46] saying that they're going to go to the

[5:44:48] golf course, then are are you supporting

[5:44:52] it? Yes or no? And if not, then we get

[5:44:55] that information. Mr. Wild was talking

[5:44:57] about moving into the neighborhoods,

[5:44:59] trying to find place to say it, put them

[5:45:01] at. I suggested that that would be a

[5:45:03] good place to partner with the school

[5:45:04] district because schools are in the

[5:45:05] neighborhood and that's the conversation

[5:45:07] that we had.

[5:45:08] >> That's right. I remember that.

[5:45:09] >> Yes.

[5:45:11] >> Neighborhood Lisa for direct member

[5:45:15] for

[5:45:17] >> a golf course

[5:45:19] >> and I gave you um there was a number of

[5:45:22] them going to be there. So I did make a

[5:45:24] reduction in that and I actually spoke

[5:45:26] with Mr. Wall and he felt that there was

[5:45:28] some place that was um you know

[5:45:32] business by hand.

[5:45:35] >> Excuse me. Going back to that sentence

[5:45:39] the council on

[5:45:41] the point some of the questions that

[5:45:46] releasing the vehicle private station

[5:45:49] 50%

[5:45:53] and I'll be able to change all existing

[5:45:55] charge point stations

[5:45:57] charging city commercial street.

[5:46:01] So either one or the other.

[5:46:03] >> Either one of the other main

[5:46:06] >> um city lot or

[5:46:09] think about a commercial which is in

[5:46:11] street

[5:46:13] locations but

[5:46:15] >> I was he said

[5:46:18] we need to clarify that part.

[5:46:19] >> So can we have can have can have can have can have we have that

[5:46:21] question please

[5:46:23] can we can we go to that to verify?

[5:46:27] >> Yes. Yes. just follow up with verify.

[5:46:31] Miss Michael, can you also u

[5:46:33] >> follow up too to make sure that uh we

[5:46:36] capture that

[5:46:40] » the location

[5:46:42] and then uh the next one is a firehouse.

[5:46:44] Um

[5:46:45] >> yes, and I don't know why that's there, but

[5:46:49] that's for group repair. So that stays

[5:46:51] in

[5:46:58] The next one is signage.

[5:47:01] >> I I don't have a problem removing that.

[5:47:06] >> Central Park way finding signage.

[5:47:08] >> Yeah, we can figure out.

[5:47:20] » Oh, some stuff already got taken out.

[5:47:25] Yeah, I I I would I would join the M

[5:47:28] tour on this and I said we put this off

[5:47:31] for a year.

[5:47:32] >> The signage.

[5:47:33] >> Yeah, we do have a couple signing. We

[5:47:36] can live with those until you know

[5:47:41] maybe there are grants over there that

[5:47:43] can help.

[5:47:46] » Um

[5:47:48] my colleagues on this one.

[5:48:00] Mr. Williams, you take

[5:48:03] >> part of my original.

[5:48:09] » Oh, you did. Okay. It was It's not on

[5:48:12] here, so she Okay,

[5:48:16] Patrick.

[5:48:18] And

[5:48:19] >> if you want to take the signage out,

[5:48:21] that's fine.

[5:48:23] Um

[5:48:24] >> I think one of the things that we talked

[5:48:25] about seeing if we could get some money

[5:48:28] from the county maybe.

[5:48:31] >> No, we can ask.

[5:48:33] >> Oh, actually I crossed it out. I must

[5:48:35] have asked the question though and I

[5:48:39] crossed it out. So I must have gotten

[5:48:42] the answer from Mr. or from the chief I guess.

[5:48:48] >> No. Why would that be under?

[5:48:50] >> That's engineering. Yeah. Yeah, Chris definitely Mr. Wallen um must have

[5:48:55] vetoed that when I asked it during his

[5:48:57] presentation.

[5:48:58] >> Miss

[5:49:01] >> Okay. All right. Let's move to the um

[5:49:07] paving.

[5:49:10] >> I think that's essential.

[5:49:13] I don't know what other people hear

[5:49:15] about from residence, but

[5:49:19] » I would not want to take us off the

[5:49:20] paving schedule of the city.

[5:49:25] » Well, that's not what Mr. said. He said

[5:49:27] this is in addition to nine bunch of

[5:49:29] grant projects. So, it's not that paving

[5:49:31] won't continue. I think this is just

[5:49:34] any projects exceeding.

[5:49:36] >> Well, I see. I don't have a note on

[5:49:38] that.

[5:49:39] >> Yeah, you mentioned it. This is on top

[5:49:42] of what the regular

[5:49:43] >> Oh, so in other words, paving must be in

[5:49:45] a different part of the budget, not just

[5:49:47] under capital.

[5:49:48] >> No, not chip.

[5:49:50] >> It's chip.

[5:49:52] >> It's what? I'm sorry. Can you tell me

[5:49:53] again? I can't hear you.

[5:49:54] >> Chip funding.

[5:49:57] » Oh, this is chips.

[5:49:59] >> No, this is

[5:50:03] so be okay if we don't have this paving

[5:50:06] money.

[5:50:06] >> I didn't see that.

[5:50:08] >> Street. Yeah, that's what I'm that's why

[5:50:11] I'm like I'm going to change my phone

[5:50:13] number with stuff. Yeah.

[5:50:16] >> No, no, let's let's speak. Let's

[5:50:18] >> I don't know about the resty, but that

[5:50:20] is definitely something we hear about

[5:50:22] all

[5:50:22] >> Let's disc let's um accurate

[5:50:25] information. So, the proposal is to

[5:50:27] borrow on 1.250

[5:50:30] 2550 to complement the chip funding

[5:50:34] >> that is all set aside for bathing

[5:50:36] >> but they must

[5:50:39] needing that money

[5:50:42] >> for bathing.

[5:50:43] >> Okay.

[5:50:45] >> Yeah. Okay. I mean,

[5:50:59] » what other

[5:51:11] street painting?

[5:51:16] Mr.

[5:51:17] >> Um I I find I'm leaving it there for now

[5:51:21] and

[5:51:23] revisiting based on new information that

[5:51:26] can get some.

[5:51:27] >> Okay. Uh

[5:51:30] >> there

[5:51:36] we have like that you know all the sub

[5:51:38] projects that we're looking at moving

[5:51:41] that you know we're going to have to

[5:51:43] borrow and we are

[5:51:46] artist talked about, you know,

[5:51:49] and all that. So, it may be more

[5:51:52] impactless is this year it's going to

[5:51:56] um in terms of what I took out, I you

[5:52:00] know, put that in mind and maybe and

[5:52:02] also kept in mind what we need to make

[5:52:04] sure that we kept our shoes clean and

[5:52:06] safe and all that.

[5:52:10] And that's it. Oh yes. Okay. Stuff is

[5:52:16] >> do we have anything else that we need to

[5:52:18] touch on?

[5:52:20] >> So are we going to get the revised mill?

[5:52:23] Let's will the finance go back and take

[5:52:25] our numbers and give us back a

[5:52:28] >> Are we going to do it tonight or

[5:52:30] >> that's I would not I would not recommend

[5:52:32] that.

[5:52:32] >> Okay.

[5:52:33] >> We have to be considerate

[5:52:36] for daytime. What time is it now?

[5:52:39] >> 11:00.

[5:52:40] >> Yes. So

[5:52:50] » no

[5:52:51] >> just in general we haven't talked about

[5:52:52] yet.

[5:53:05] No,

[5:53:07] for management

[5:53:10] services.

[5:53:13] >> Well, that

[5:53:16] we asked that to revisit that. So, we'll

[5:53:18] do that.

[5:53:20] >> And just for the record, you know, you

[5:53:22] know what information I'm asking for is

[5:53:25] the community block grant money in

[5:53:30] each department by each by each year

[5:53:33] going back to 20

[5:53:35] 21

[5:53:37] I believe that was the earlier sharer

[5:53:39] said um

[5:53:44] and any

[5:53:46] one report and then the second report

[5:53:47] would be any you know outstanding or I

[5:53:50] couldn't say outstanding but any

[5:53:52] invoices

[5:53:53] um that correspond to that money as well

[5:53:56] as when those invoices were

[5:54:01] clear. Mhm. So we have all the notes, we

[5:54:04] have everything. What I would ask um

[5:54:08] commission uh if we can can we mail us

[5:54:11] this these reports.

[5:54:13] Okay, we are not meeting tomorrow. So

[5:54:16] it' be nice for us to have it ahead of

[5:54:18] time tomorrow.

[5:54:20] Uh hope you can get all the u the report

[5:54:24] that was asked and all the answers for

[5:54:28] the question exam tomorrow.

[5:54:31] when we meet um correctly

[5:54:38] understanding available um regarding the

[5:54:41] invoices they might have fallen through

[5:54:43] and like I said

[5:54:47] for C2 but uh funding wise see

[5:54:52] report

[5:54:55] the operating budget

[5:54:56] >> okay well if there's not if the invoices

[5:55:00] are we're not able for example,

[5:55:02] invoices, then I would I'll be moving

[5:55:04] forward with the understanding that they

[5:55:07] won't be coming

[5:55:10] cuz how I mean

[5:55:13] sorry

[5:55:16] >> I mean I didn't take off um if I still

[5:55:18] would call to a recommendation that

[5:55:20] perhaps we able to start at like 4 or

[5:55:22] 3:30 on Thursday.

[5:55:24] >> We cannot start

[5:55:26] because we already have

[5:55:27] >> we note this out there.

[5:55:30] Um so we just forget so if we can get

[5:55:33] those reports those answers to the

[5:55:35] questions then tomorrow so uh we can

[5:55:38] better equip oursel when we come here to

[5:55:42] our city because the thing is if we get

[5:55:45] if we know that if we get the report

[5:55:47] funding that's there but then there's

[5:55:49] still questions and we hear out about

[5:55:51] invoices then the information that we

[5:55:54] get for the funding that there is can be

[5:55:57] somewhat use because the invoices is

[5:56:01] technically could impact that funding.

[5:56:04] You see what I'm saying? That's what I'm

[5:56:06] saying.

[5:56:07] >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So, we got

[5:56:08] to have it all.

[5:56:13] » Go ahead. Please have some.

[5:56:15] >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the

[5:56:17] group, as you know, you

[5:56:21] four votes four votes to uh pass the

[5:56:25] budget. That's without the P.

[5:56:28] Five votes with the local law adopted

[5:56:31] prior to it adopt

[5:56:34] four votes below the tax the mayor veto

[5:56:38] five votes

[5:56:41] just giving you that you know

[5:56:44] for meetings right now you've got a

[5:56:46] meeting scheduled for 5:30 was going to

[5:56:49] be the council meeting but they're

[5:56:53] recessing excuse me recessing the uh

[5:56:56] >> uh finance committee to that time. If

[5:56:59] you want to then convene the council

[5:57:03] meeting, the special council meeting to

[5:57:04] adopt the budget, you can do that and

[5:57:07] then recess that to the next day or to

[5:57:11] Saturday. Saturday meeting, the last

[5:57:13] day, you know, it's November 1st.

[5:57:17] So at this point I guess we'll leave it

[5:57:20] at 5:30 for the recess meeting finance

[5:57:24] and then if necessary go into the

[5:57:26] council special council meeting and if

[5:57:30] just recess it if you know to get the

[5:57:32] additional paperwork together to pass a

[5:57:35] budget because obviously um as you all

[5:57:39] know you know figures have to be added

[5:57:42] up have to be placed in the ordinance

[5:57:45] they have to be attached to the the

[5:57:47] ordinance itself and then of course then

[5:57:50] we have to deal with the issue of

[5:57:51] whether or not there's going to be

[5:57:54] tax.

[5:57:56] That's how is your availability Friday?

[5:58:03] » What if we can come in?

[5:58:06] >> I guess if we could be done if we don't

[5:58:08] get it Thursday

[5:58:12] because I will not be available to the

[5:58:13] entire meeting Thursday.

[5:58:17] » What does that mean?

[5:58:19] >> Yeah, but I would have to hand over

[5:58:22] step away.

[5:58:23] >> For how long? I mean, I don't know how

[5:58:25] long you going to step away. I mean, how

[5:58:26] long do you have time do you have?

[5:58:38] » So, how long do we have to be here?

[5:58:42] I I think that you know for me that

[5:58:45] leading I think we need everybody here

[5:58:48] to share an audience. I'm going to start

[5:58:50] touristly but I have to step away for an

[5:58:52] event and I have to come back.

[5:58:55] >> Oh, you're going to go to the public.

[5:58:56] >> Yes.

[5:58:58] >> So, um

[5:58:59] >> yeah, but in my in my abset in my absent

[5:59:02] continue.

[5:59:03] So, I just want to maybe set M.

[5:59:06] >> Can I say something though? Um we won't

[5:59:08] have we won't have a form of finance if

[5:59:10] this Patrick is going as well. So, that

[5:59:12] won't happen. Once we once you leave and

[5:59:14] she leaves, it's over. But then we can uh reset them and come back

[5:59:20] >> after event.

[5:59:21] >> Yeah.

[5:59:22] >> You want to see phone to come back?

[5:59:29] » I was hoping I was hoping that this

[5:59:31] didn't travel like this. We going to get

[5:59:33] you know more more corporation in terms

[5:59:36] of providing numbers but it didn't

[5:59:38] happen.

[5:59:39] >> And that's what I'm asking. I mean can

[5:59:41] we make oursel Friday and Saturday

[5:59:43] available? I can do Saturday. No,

[5:59:46] Friday. I can do Saturday. Saturday.

[5:59:50] >> Either way.

[5:59:52] >> Yes. Yes.

[5:59:52] >> Either way. Yeah.

[5:59:54] >> I do Saturday, but we I mean like

[5:59:56] Saturday is like the drop dead day. We

[5:59:58] got to get it done.

[6:00:00] >> Just I mean I could do Saturday evening

[6:00:02] as well. But again, no Friday. No Friday

[6:00:05] >> before midnight. So no Friday. No Friday.

[6:00:09] >> Well, I can do Friday. It doesn't

[6:00:12] >> I mean it's trick or treat.

[6:00:15] I mean

[6:00:18] >> I said so for meeting times your event

[6:00:21] start

[6:00:35] » I suggest we we we place the special

[6:00:38] city council meeting um for you know

[6:00:41] Saturday whatever time work circ

[6:00:45] that

[6:00:49] day

[6:00:49] >> a meeting on Thursday and then if

[6:00:51] necessary not getting it done on on

[6:00:54] Thursday then Saturday definitely. Well,

[6:00:57] yeah. My my only concern about that is I

[6:01:00] don't again I don't want us to be in a

[6:01:02] position where it's like well we're not

[6:01:04] getting information and the clock is

[6:01:06] running and then it's like Saturday.

[6:01:07] Well, we have to do it now and we can't

[6:01:10] provide the information right now

[6:01:11] because Saturday I don't want to be in

[6:01:13] that position

[6:01:14] >> just to be safe.

[6:01:17] >> We've been here going to be here on

[6:01:19] Saturday.

[6:01:21] >> Well, you're camping on Saturday.

[6:01:23] >> Yeah.

[6:01:25] Friday

[6:01:31] here on the weekend. So

[6:01:37] » now we need the numbers before Saturday

[6:01:40] and that's why I ask them to have the

[6:01:42] numbers available to us tomorrow

[6:01:44] >> and then we can come

[6:01:46] >> then we can individually look at the

[6:01:48] numbers and

[6:01:50] come back with recommendation and we can

[6:01:52] ask them to update the report

[6:01:55] and we we send it to us before Thursday.

[6:02:01] You'll have to text me.

[6:02:03] >> Okay.

[6:02:04] >> I'm thinking about I'm thinking we

[6:02:07] should send a notice out.

[6:02:09] >> A revised notice

[6:02:11] >> just a placeful

[6:02:12] >> for

[6:02:14] >> Friday too.

[6:02:15] >> Yeah, I think we should just do a

[6:02:16] placeful for Friday. I if we just

[6:02:20] reconvene and just in and out and you

[6:02:22] know for be to be on the safe side.

[6:02:25] Well, we need to check with Miss Patrick

[6:02:27] if she's going to be able to be

[6:02:28] available on Friday because if she's not

[6:02:31] but only you, M. Williams has already

[6:02:33] said he's not going to be here.

[6:02:35] >> But we can dest.

[6:02:41] But I think we're going to have Mr.

[6:02:43] Pretty much once we have the report

[6:02:44] tomorrow. Oh, I'm hoping that we have

[6:02:47] the reports and the updated reports we

[6:02:49] can able to look at it and able to come

[6:02:52] up with more suggestion. So come to a

[6:02:54] conclusion.

[6:02:56] >> I mean that's the only variable out

[6:02:58] there for me. I produced all the numbers

[6:02:59] based on information we have. I did it

[6:03:01] that before. So that's already done. I'm

[6:03:03] just saying that it's the main variable

[6:03:05] for me.

[6:03:07] >> So

[6:03:09] Thursday are

[6:03:14] what?

[6:03:15] >> Mr. and CB.

[6:03:17] >> No, I'm talking about how does the

[6:03:19] meeting function? Miss yourself. Miss

[6:03:22] Patrick highlighted

[6:03:28] » I think she'd like to go. She hasn't

[6:03:30] said she's committed to go and

[6:03:37] » doesn't talk to

[6:03:41] you for the elbow rubbing.

[6:03:51] All right.

[6:03:52] >> Are we all set then?

[6:03:54] >> Oh, what time are you looking at?

[6:03:57] >> Nothing.

[6:03:58] >> What time is What time Saturday is good

[6:04:00] for you?

[6:04:00] >> I can anytime Saturday.

[6:04:04] » Yeah, that's going to be tough. I can

[6:04:06] only do Saturday evening.

[6:04:10] » I mean, I mean,

[6:04:12] >> evening starts at what time for you?

[6:04:14] >> I'll figure it out. If everyone if you

[6:04:15] have a consensus for Saturday, make it

[6:04:17] happen.

[6:04:23] » Mr. Tor said 9:00 works for you.

[6:04:25] >> I just really

[6:04:26] >> I'd say

[6:04:28] it was the rest of the day.

[6:04:29] >> Saturday night

[6:04:30] >> family whenever. Yeah.

[6:04:31] >> Okay.

[6:04:32] >> Have start.

[6:04:34] I'm sorry.

[6:04:36] >> I've been hanging in.

[6:04:39] >> Let's do a place for Friday.

[6:04:42] Let's do a place open. Uh Saturday, 9, Friday 5:30

[6:04:50] and we already have tourist.

[6:04:54] » So we just need to do

[6:04:56] another notice.

[6:04:58] >> Okay.

[6:04:58] >> All right. Any other businesses for

[6:05:00] finance?

[6:05:02] We have a motion to

[6:05:03] >> recess. Motion to recess

[6:05:08] >> to second.

[6:05:14] Bet you wish sometimes

[6:05:21] I think this That's it.

Schenectady 2026 Budget Meeting FULL, October 28, 2025

Transcript