529.
Okay, I got it now.
» Yes. Yeah.
importing now.
» Okay, so these are correct.
» Hi, I didn't see you come in. My back
must have been
Thanks.
» Yeah.
You have any um
mine here. Thanks.
It's okay.
Yeah.
Anyone
need a copy of the phone that
changes?
>> Yeah. If anyone
>> did she?
>> Yeah.
>> You have a new one. Okay.
>> No one.
>> Yes.
The same as this, right? Same as
» yeah,
right? Revenue.
>> How did we make that?
>> No, we didn't make that. You just wanted
a copy of his
>> No, with the appropriate fund balance
and then the uh
>> Yes, you're right. I'll ask my give me
about
>> before you go. So, we have to align with
Mr.
Williams the numbers
>> and then in
» how far we are
million against each members.
>> So what else we had changes yesterday? I
can do a couple
that's Michael
said with the money.
>> Yes. um for that 2 million.
The other ones were question.
» No, I have
>> Okay, you hear the first one. Thank you.
>> That's that's that's all
» I'm going to think.
I would like to good evening everyone. I
would like to call the finance committee
to order for this evening and we'll
continue our budget um discussion and we
will continue from where we left off
last evening
as we wait for the revised sheet
for some realignments. Uh we can
conclude discussion.
There were some questions asked and an
answer was provided.
So the members can go through the
questions
asked and look at the answer. If you
need clarification,
please uh do so.
It's so
assist.
Yeah.
Patrick, we left off last evening. You
were going to look for additional
recommendation.
>> I sent a reminder today. Um, did you had
a chance to
>> I did not. I sent you back an email
saying I wasn't going to be able to do
anything else today. I had a series of
meetings. So, I don't have any changes
from the initial recommendations that I
put in.
>> So, are you going to work in it this
evening?
>> Depends on what happens tonight, but um
I'm just waiting to see what what we do
tonight, but no, I I don't know if I'll
have time. It depends on what time we
get home.
>> Last night, I went home and went right
to bed. So, yeah.
>> So, so you don't have any suggestion
right now at this point?
>> I have the suggestions that I made
before, but I don't have anything right
now. I'm still reading what we just got
uh today from the police.
» Mr. Toro, you have any additional
recommendation?
>> I do not. Um, I'm just going over these items from the from the PB. Um, be
where we are. And it looks like he asked
me that extra revenue we put in there
that they're really not in favor of all
of them. And I kind of made my my
position clear on on on revenue. And I
just want to say that I think we're in
this situation because of the series of
past decisions that have led us here.
and I repeatedly oppose the budget for
this very reason since I've been on
council. So, um continuing to overflate
these revenues uh projections is I think
fiscally irresponsible and will place
our city in a financial condition that's
a lot worse next year. Um I know we all
want to try to keep this under the tax
cap and that's our goal. um
unfortunately going through um
you know what we're going through and I look for your guidance and and of
course the president's port's guidance
to try and keep us uh under that but
inflating these revenues I I my what
I've put forward is is what I'm good
with at this point. So yesterday you
suggested that um you're not in favor of going over the
tax colle
how how how would you achieve that?
>> Right. So I'm asking if you come down to
my level with what I had on what I have
on the line how would you move forward
with keeping that under the under the
test?
>> We're 1.2 million. We need 4 million
more and based on my conversation on
what
>> you had told us yesterday that you would
like to see the
>> tax. I would love to stay under the the
tax cap. Um
unfortunately
these revenues are all inflated and
>> so then what would you suggest then to
keep it under the tax cap?
>> Well, that's not
>> Mr. I'm sorry. Yeah. Like to hear what
everyone else's position are, especially
when we get to but I I don't agree with
this yesterday.
I made my point my position clear. Thank
you. Thank you.
>> But I I just want to clarify. We can't say something and do something
else. If you are in favor of keeping it
under the tax cap,
>> then you have to work towards a number.
You can't say that you want to keep it
under the tax cap,
>> which is $5.2 million. When you come in
with $1.2 2 million. That is not keeping
it on a tax. So you have you have to be
straight with the taxpayers.
>> I am I'm very strict with the taxpayers
because I'm not going to put them in a
position next year where the tax rate
could go up 30%. I'm not doing it.
>> So then you are not so
under the tax.
>> I think at this point in time we just
need to try to figure out how to get to
this because this is a circular
conversation. It's been three days of
back and forth and I'm disappointed that
I've been asking over and over for
recommendation
>> and some members are not making
recommendations.
>> But given all my recommendations,
>> okay, that's that's not going to change.
So,
» see if you guys can come down.
So, if our goal Yes. is to not see the
tax cap, then Mukamak has told us it's
5.2 million. We need to get there.
And if we can't, it means that although
we all want to be down in that step, we
might not be able to get there.
Mr. I want to be clear that I put that
directive out to departments. It's just
the numbers are not there.
It's a difficult position. It was hard
for me to put forth this budget with
those numbers in it, but that's the
reality that we're dealing.
M go ahead. Some um I don't I don't see
some of the answers in terms of saying
where we need to go. Um some of the
questions regarding CBG if there's
additional funding that's available to
that. um you know there's a lot of
discussion about the contingency and
whether that is in fact correct and my
understanding is those numbers are
correct and that money is available and um any any outstanding invoices were
deducted from that. So that is the given
number with this might be out here to
take away from it. That's my
understanding of that process. um
without knowing the additionary CBG
funding that's available. I think that's
huge that we should be able to um I know
that last but I thought that we hadn't
reconciled it but we need to know that
number because if there's funding
available to be able to budget on we
should have access to that information
and be able to do that.
» At this point in time we're facing a
very hard deadline.
that we have to we have to get to where
we need to get to.
» I'll continue that. And so we asked the
police department about various things.
They did respond to they responded about
a line that we didn't ask for. So I did
respond to a 201.
We did not need to ask that response. So
there's a response to it. We didn't ask
um a 2610B to find parking. Um
they said there uh they had 910,000 was
their revenue was there a function but
they were willing to vote to 1.1
million. So there is some level of
movement there different than what we
had but more than what they originally
said.
Um and they did make a comment about um
the adding the additional overtime of
50,000 which was a suggestion and um
they didn't think that that was um a
good way to go because it felt that
would just create negative interactions
with the community.
Um and then finally in A210M
final building for parking again year to
date the budget 140 and um they they
still only expected 170 and then a
September
safety fines
they estimated for jobs in baseball
current outstanding tickets but there's
not a mechanism in place but they felt
the law department to give input on how
we like those additional those
additional tickets. So I interpret it to
mean there's an opportunity to redo the
revenue and put them in the law.
>> Yeah.
Corporation council Thursday but I mean
look for the full judgments but that's
just getting the judgments not so much
the collection. So that's one part and
then if that's not successful then we'll
be partnering with uh the thought is
partnering with the bus patrol company
to hire a collections agency because
they they're entitled part of the money
as well as far as the split between the
city and the vendor.
So, uh I think in the short term they're
looking to get default judgments on
these and that's you know it's getting a
judgment against somebody for the
amount. Um but once again you have to
collect it. So uh that's the difficulty
but uh the thought is sometime next year
depending on how the defaults see if
that generates any
attention from people who have defaulted
on
their tickets and if that's not
generating money then
collections agency in partnership with
us.
So that's and corporation council should
be here Thursday or next meeting
particulars but that's the general
overview and so
it's going to be tough it's not ready
made
» so
I'm going to say that based on that I
think there would still be a piece that
wants to send me since there is a plan
in place we shouldn't say that say
exactly what it So I'm giving you talk
about what that number should be but I
think that we should definitely increase
that line
some based on the explanation because
there will be
to
I thought that
said they'd already
» that's on
the same
thing department picking It's us the
city
>> which must control you're talking to the
vendor the vendor who provided so
that's what
they
So you have an image to look at the
top section. So let's see
how far we are, how close we are.
The only one that's closest in Safari
So 6.1 million is what
available currently but it's actually
4.1.2
the tattoo right there.
Well, just to 6.1 is an unbalanced
what's going to put in this balance in
this budget. 4.1 is what remains and we
have to keep in mind that to the
negotiations that happened.
I believe
I recommend we read about lines based on
the new information we received today.
uh finish our conversations with the
appropriate funds and regarding any
expenses.
the final agreement on staffing
projections and I would suggest you
close out with projects
and also
So if I may ask Mr.
Let's review the revenue section. Move
into
movement to capital the new benefit ways
we um
are you recommended that we go to page
line and see where we stand in terms of
moving it out and can be
expensive for for revenue
and expense also any item that we're
touching this evening. Uh I say
definitely for revenue just we
transition from this category. I thought
we pretty much did that with expenses. I
think the only open item was staff
business.
So let's we can do a one 0 02
and we have four members are asking for a reduction
for 2,50,000.
Any
discussion after that?
» Any changes?
» Mr.
Zero.
>> Yeah. Okay. I'm gonna I'm I'm staying
285 again.
>> Never sected the rate
» never
right.
>> Yes.
Should
we just keep going? Maybe Mr. Just go
down the line.
>> Well, we need to make a movement in
terms of do we have the support to move
this out of the finance community?
Some of them we're going to have to
adjust. Some of them we might have to
pull out. So, we can I don't think we
can make a movement on the entire
section. Uh
>> well, you only need two. We go line by
line.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> And we just said there's there's a
consensus. I'm guessing there's
consensus in the um there's at least you
asked that there's there's at least two
people on the finance committee who are
satisfied with the 2050,
right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So then then we get a cannabis
excise tax.
>> Okay. So we can do that. I don't have
that.
>> That's what we should do.
» So next is cannabis.
>> Yes.
So we have one, two, three, four, five
members are asking to increase it by 150
>> as a tour. Are you format that number?
>> Uh what do I have? 100
>> 100.
>> Yeah, format it.
>> Okay. So we have five the one there
snap.
We're moving um
200 2,000. Initially, everyone is in
agreement. Are we still there?
>> I don't see any changes on the sheet.
>> Okay, go ahead.
>> Looks like we're all
>> I'm sorry. I just didn't hear anything
back from Miss Car. It said it's still
needed. She still needed some time on
that. Did we get something back after
that?
We're still waiting for um development
staff
together.
Hopefully hopefully tomorrow
I told this morning 4:00 today the
calculations
more complex and go back and forth. So
>> got my phone
What what are we paying for in terms of
the costs on the departments
>> reconciling those accounts?
» I'm trying to recall when I when I when
we had a discussion with Miss Miss Car,
she I want to make sure I'm speaking
correctly because I don't want to
miscode anyone.
She had told us that um she had asked
the department head or met with them to
kind of go over if there are any
outstanding invoices
and I can recall that only one invoice
that was outstanding or she was able to
collect from code enforcement like
40,000ish don't quote me on that
somewhere around there. So kind of like
if she hasn't met she mess with them,
they're telling her that they didn't
find any is actually different than
what's been represented. There were
things that were submitted to
development that apparently were
insufficient. They didn't have as much
information as they needed. They're
going back and documenting that, putting
it in manner that compliant with the HUD
regulations
and appropriately
charging
for crediting the departments the
activities the students doing.
>> So So then this lead Sorry I just found
a couple here and then So then if we
were to back it out this 202,000
and then this um
this 206
then that will go back to general fund.
So there will be more more funds
available on the general fund to help us
with additional expense. So I mean I
repeat this yesterday but um it's a
internal stuff that needs to get done
but the money will not disappear. It
will just end up in the general fund for
us to to use.
So either way it's a good thing but you
know I say again is disappointed that
the department is taking so long to
submit invoice and if there are errors
they should have corrected
uh from 2001 for 2025
>> 21
>> 2021
>> for 2025
» it's kind of disappointed that it's
taking so long for them to recon All
right. So, but it remains the thing,
Miss Carter was abundantly clear.
>> Yes.
>> That any money that was paid was
accounted for in this accounting. So,
whether we put it back in the general
fund, whether we use it here, in my
mind, it's still available for this
budget. And that that amount 202,000.
» Go ahead.
So I there's seems to be a a lack of
clarity here and I don't and it almost
feels like we should have this
information. I feel like we got
information and I can't wrap my head
around if saying that are we saying that
the information is incorrect. Mr.
McLaren, you just said made the point
that you made around the money being uh
available and it would just go back into
the general fund. Commissioner, do you
agree with that? I'm sure do you agree
with that assessment?
>> If what is budgeted
for this amount of proposed budget 202
and 306, it's just an account similar
uh basically they're drawing down for
CDBG funds and replenishing um these
accounts.
>> So the money's there.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. according according to the
director and speak within IDS the
statement she provided.
» Are you saying there's a scenario where
the money's not there?
It depends if the team is able to
capture
the codes and stats
out in
um which they're working on
the pages
each one and see which
they're working on.
So commissioner, are you saying that
these are outstanding invoice externally
>> from 2021?
>> That's not what I'm saying. I don't know
what they are.
>> So then why are you making the
assumption that then money is not going
to be available?
This is I I made I thought we were clear
yesterday. This is an internal
reconciliation.
» This is why I'm why why are we doing
this?
money's current right now.
>> So if we if there is an invoice out
there, it can be drawn down.
>> So if that is drawn down on say it's
100,000 out of the line snap, that means
it will be 102,000 available for 26.
>> Can I just hear what you're saying?
>> For further clarification, are you
talking about invoices from 2025?
Because I we wouldn't be going back
against what the mayor says. to be
closed together.
>> That's what the team is going through
right now. I'm not aware of what year
they're looking at documentation trying
to put it together toward council.
That's what they're working.
>> Um that's still not clear for me because
if we're in 2025 and there's other years
that we you've closed your books on and
that means that's been paid. So even if we spent the money out of the general
fund and this money is now here, it just
goes back to the general fund. And if
we're talking about 2025, and as I
understand it, the HUD year is different
than your
>> your year. So, um, so if it's if it's
2025, my understanding is what what Miss
Carter said when she was here is that
she's accounted for any outstanding
invoice that she has currently received
in 2025.
I
you know I would really need you to
explain to me about outstanding invoices
from prior years and why we why we
wouldn't just have they already paid why
would you not be punching the jail sign
and I I mean M we could spend a lot of
time talking about this I
>> well my my
issue is that this is this impacts the
budget in a significant way
>> and based on the information that um we
received and some of the information
that we've yet to receive. I'm I I I'm
curious as to what level of impact
other money is out in the same scenario
that we might be able to draw on and to
give it back to the taxpayers.
And if not, if we're not getting that
information, and I requested that
information um yesterday, and I don't
want it to be a waiting game where we're
running out the clock, and we're not
getting the information that that we
need in order to make an informed
decision. And
you know, seven right now, we're talking
about $600,000
right now in this one incident that
we're that we're discussing. If we have,
you know, two or three more incidents
that are similar to this, that puts us
in a completely different space as far
as figuring out this budget. So,
the money's there right now. It's
available, but then so are we creating
invoices right now to draw from this
money now from here from 2021?
Is that what's happening?
That's a question for mayor
commissioner.
>> They're going back through all the years
and all current.
>> But but may
that is a good thing they're doing to go
back there and to draw down and to
utilize funding that is available. But
once that internal reconciliation is
done, that money will go back. It's an
in and out internal in and out
transaction. Right? So that money will
go back in the general.
>> Not arguing.
>> So that's I'm trying to tell the
commissioner but we're not getting any
>> it may not
>> if the money's expended in 22 25 it
won't be available necessarily for 26.
>> The question
>> I don't think this is 25 numbers
>> it's a private in 2021
I don't think we have rehoo vendors from
2021. We have to close and beat
everybody.
>> Sure. I'm
>> so I don't know why we went around
circles trying to circle around and I
don't think that we're getting adequate
answers.
>> We're not
I'm disappointed with the CDBG the lines
and try to go around and say well we
have invoice
at this time discussed in last week
nobody would have be aware of this
>> and I'm I'm very concerned that there
are more pockets of money available.
That's that's what mines that point.
>> So I think we may have to call for a for
a forensic scrub on the entire CDBG
>> for what?
>> Forensic scrub on it. Accounting scrub
on it. See where we um where money is
from 2021 to 2025. And if we need to do
internal reconciliation, let's do it and
put back the money into the into the
general fund. But I think we're right
where we're at are right now is what are
we going to do with 252 and 26?
>> I'm confident with the numbers that was
presented to us. I am
>> I believe Miss Carva she had her sheet
of her and she was going through line by
line with us
>> and she is credible.
>> Yeah, that's not even a question for me.
I I don't again my only question is that
I requested the information for
that money and from all departments
because anytime that we're facing such a
deficit and
you know
close to $700,000
you know is discovered which is a really
good thing. I want to go back in that
same spot and look to see if there's
other money and we haven't gotten that
information. And so if we act on the
information that we have right now, I'm
okay with doing that.
But I'm concerned that we might end up
passing a budget with a with a burden on
taxpayers that could be lessensed if we
have all the information in front of us.
And I don't think that that is a very
difficult or
ask to have especially when the
information
is there.
And I don't
I'm almost feeling like maybe I am I
Does anyone else see like a strong issue
with us talking about possible invoices
from 2021 and 2022 and 2023?
>> Well, that to me is
I don't I'm not com I'm just going to
tell you I feel like that that I'm not
comfortable with that.
>> Well, I think we're all in the same
place, Mr. Farley. and we're saying that
we're not that we're saying that we feel
that this money is here although and
it's just internal reconciliation. So I
say that we're all comfortable with this
number and with the fact that the funds
are available.
» Go ahead.
>> So that the code 2021
these are money that's been put forth uh
by the council for program. So even
though sometimes the money is put out
say 2021
you may not expend it in 2021 it might
not be drawn down until the subsequent
year some period of time after and that
is what some of that was co came in
there things held up some of the program
some of the delivery and it's not that
there are things that are from 2021 but
expenses or activities that were subsequ
went to that and even this year I used
example of this house on Dwayne Avenue
we knocked down and it was one uh I
think I said Robinson Street was
actually division street that
were
they were unplanned events and so those
are expenses that would be charged out
of those accounts
and as I understand the appropriate
method of that is
if there's money from 2021, you wouldn't
take it out of the 2025
money. It should go out of the 2021
budget to then back up to the current
appropriation for the same thing would
apply to some of the paving programs or
whatever. Some of the money gets held
over. We use the oldest money first and
then ordered up to the most current.
Some of that
invoices were sent to development that
were
insufficient. So they may not have had
the proper address on it. They may not
have had section block
and so that they weren't properly
debited or credited depending on what
direction the money was going. supposed
to report if I give him a spot. Um the
CDBG line that we're talking about is
SNAP and code enforcement.
Majority of this funding out was
directed toward sol
the the demo that we're talking about
with the adjustment that we were trying
to make on the contingency.
the proposed $400,000
in your proposed budget. Now, we would
say that based on the composition that
we had, uh they are $200 plus,000 the
demo, but instead of taking
$400,000 from the demo fund, why don't
we take $200,000 from the CDP and say
Mark for them? But that I'm not arguing.
>> Yeah.
I totally have the numbers ready by 4:00
today. the process is more
enumbering. I want whatever comes out to
be accurate.
>> Yes. Correct.
>> So, we're talking three different
things. Um the CDBG
snap line and code for line is for
salary that was not drawn on.
>> We already paid these individuals
already from a general fund. the
contingency we're talking about the demo
>> and if they have invoice that they need
to brought down against demo line from
the CDBJ then we just need to do a
reversal on the contingency line and to
just do away with the CDBG 200,000
and then go directly back into the uh
fund for the 400,000
>> so the CD the two lines there is not
control remaining because those were
salary set for salary and it was never
drawn on it
>> correct
So if my comment was going to be part of
Miss Carp's conversation was identifying
that this is a federal program
>> reported and to not acknowledge the 2020
2025 closed out. So I would hope moving
forward we just continue with
understanding that these funds are
available and that these department
heads understand the expectations for
submitting uh um full and complete
invoices so that they can be submitted
appropriately and timely. I would hope
that we are not going back because I
think that is a mute point if the system
is already closed federally. So I am
safe to say after this extended
conversation I think understanding how
we got here is a separate conversation
and we are understanding how we are
here. Thank you Miss Carver and her team
for identifying this funds. I think we
can move on.
» Yes.
What I would like to see after the
budget and the committee cycle that we
have on the agenda to discuss this in
more detail
>> the CDBG and available funding for each
department.
>> Yeah, we should have it by now.
>> Yes.
Okay.
>> Well, then I would like a commitment
from the council that if after the
budget is passed, if we don't have any
um information before the budget is
passed and we later find out that there
is money that can be used to offset the
budget and and put money back into uh
the hands of taxpayers that we're going
to amend our budget and and let it
reflect accordingly.
And I for as far as we then what I'm
saying is very simply is that
I did my my my my homework based on the
numbers that was given to us and
we have a responsibility to identify all
available funding sources as we're
working through this budget. That is our
responsibility to people who are
depending on us to make sure that we're
doing that. And what I so what I'm
saying is that I for one I I already put
my numbers. Okay. I've already did what
you what we've been asking to do. So I'm
not holding up the process.
So
seems to me that there's money that
that's that's there and and I and I have
a strong inclination that there's
probably more and and we really need to
be talking about that
as a way to offset some of this cost.
And That's just my position. If everyone
wants to just move on.
>> Certainly.
>> At this point, I think we can have to
move on, but I would agree with you that
definitely would have been a budget if
we find out that there's other fun. It
just it makes sense.
>> And just to go on record, I agree with
that comment. Definitely that forensic
research should not be halted, but we do
have to continue on and if there are
more funding sources identified to Mr.
problem is the least consideration we
can be responsive to the conditions that
we are presenting the community with
financially.
Okay, let's move on to
a 56
Bing.
All of us had 20. We received that in
mail
>> and they suggesting that they more like
a million dollar 1.1 million.
>> So we are $30,000.
So I'm comfortable with $30,000. This is
an estimate.
>> So
>> I mean $30,000 the recommendation is not
it's not a bad. We're not far apart.
>> Are you saying to leave the 30? I'm
suggesting that we leave the one 1
million130.
>> Okay.
>> Cuz we're not far apart.
» I I would caution the other way. I would
need that to be considerate of what
Chief has responded.
>> I think that would be
>> still taking a lot of risk, but I think
that is taking or putting a strong
weight on his comments as well.
I would agree.
>> Me too.
>> We're bringing in 1.1 million across the
board.
>> 910
is what he said.
>> 1.1.
>> Yes.
>> So I'm I'm comfortable flexible to to
bring that down.
>> The compromise. So can you make note of
that please? First line. This one here
making notes. Not the first line. This
is a force change. Um except that I
think in uh
Ripple's email to us,
>> he said he's going to they're going to
try to read the 910
» connect
third line from the bottom at the very
beginning. He says I'm comfortable on
that.
>> Yeah,
>> I'm okay. because it was one of the only
ones we all agreed on.
>> Okay,
>> good. Thank you.
>> You have one. Everyone is one.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, we'll we'll mark it as for
change.
» The next line is the parking times.
Um,
» some of those are closed, some
>> bar.
>> That one we definitely did notice there
in terms of the changes.
» 340 500 370
>> I think 70 500
>> 170.
>> Mhm.
>> Recommendation coming from the police
department is to stay at 170. 170.
I'm okay with 170,
» but I still think I was really
overestimating the approach that they're
taking and with the system up and
running last November,
we've seen today the actual year to date
as of today is 133,000
>> and the program is just up and running
this year and into next year. So the
number is going to be driving up,
but they are a couple million dollars of
outstanding
less than 3 years.
>> So they started November 2024 with their
program.
>> Yes.
>> And this is not even a year.
>> Yes.
And that's how I'm basing my basing the
conversation I had. Yes. is an
aggressive approach and uh you know
production agency
ramp up um
mailing
so the outstanding games the outstanding
tickets I mean I'm flexible to move my
number down I mean I
>> me too
>> yes
>> I mean I don't have to stay where I am
but I think we should know
Well, I think we just need to come up on
that particular line. We all had a
different Well, I think uh Mr. Mudarin
and I had the same, right?
>> Yes.
>> But everybody else, let's see. Well, no,
two two folks had
>> 170.
>> Yeah,
>> I don't have a problem moving down to
170.
>> Well, 170 is the um
>> proposed budget.
>> That's what he says here that he's
projected revenues. So if we go over the
170, we're definitely not going with the
recommendation from the PD.
» So it looks like we have to discuss this
one.
>> Yeah, I'm willing to to bring mine down
to
300,000 from 500,000.
That's an increase of 130,000
from 300,000. 330,000 on board.
I think that uh you and I, Mr. Mutiver,
were going off the uh what we heard from
the presentation. However, um now that
we've gotten the revised
memo today from the police department,
I'm questioning myself on putting in
that high a figure. So, um I mean maybe
go. We all are well over that figure uh
in terms of what is being recommended by
the police department. So, I don't know
what are folks feeling
cuz they're saying 170, right? You find
that one.
>> Yeah.
>> What will be your number?
>> Well, I mean, I'm going to have to go
down from 500 to either 170. So, I mean,
I could see maybe 200, but we're still
then going over the what what they're
comfortable
seeing as a as something that we can
collect. I just don't want to, you know,
inflate something and then not be able
to make it. So, but I mean, obviously,
I'm well over I I have to change my
number. So, I'm interested to hear what
other people say.
» 500 obviously do it.
Again,
going back to what they said when they
presented it,
>> it sounded like it was going to be
significantly more.
>> Mhm.
>> You could even present the gist analysis
of how many they had.
>> Yes. one year, two year, three years,
and you'll think the millions of dollars
that the agency is is going to fight for
over the next year or two.
>> I mean, I will say that again, I think
I'm just speaking for myself, but you
and I might have been in the same um
thought pattern here, Mr. Mutter, but
because that was the three years were
less.
>> Yes. Um so maybe um
I mean obviously anything over that is
going to be re you know like impossible
to collect but they also had a figure
for the six months right Braden was 130
605
um I think we were just trying to figure
out some additional revenue but they're
now saying that they would be
comfortable at 170 but
>> so I'm just trying to see what other
people are
>> the presentation they talk about um the
1.2
>> it was one point yeah 1.2 too.
>> And it's going to be different uh time
bracket
that um the agency is going to start
sending out notices.
>> Well, what do other people I mean he and
I have the same.
>> I'm I'm going to drop mine to 30,000
from 500,000.
>> So that's an increase of 130,000.
>> I can find myself in agreement with
that. I would say if we're noticing uh
early on in the year that those
collections are moving incrementally, I
think it is incumbent upon us to
evaluate the efficacy of that collection
agency because that would mean that
regardless of what tickets you're
getting in, you just got to wait out the
system. I think that is a poor message
to send because the time that goes into
place to filing those tickets, you need
to ensure that collection is equally
enforced as well. So I think at some
point we need to evaluate
how well the collection process is is
being conducted. I think that is also
that I've been doing that.
was my original. I increased it
based on the conversation, but I'm going
to go back down to 300,000.
I was as well at 100,000 to put it at
270, but I'm comfortable with my 270.
» Mr. Far, you want 370?
>> Certainly. And I think based on, you
know, the the email we received today,
um, are we comfortable going down
300,000 as well?
also
noting that um that we and I think we'll
run into this as we go through multiple
lines that there's a point of um some
level of evaluation of
how efficient some of these things are
being. So I'm okay with 300 in the sake
of drawing some consensus within reason
and moving on.
Mr.
>> Tori, are you okay there?
>> Yes. Miss Patrick,
>> I I I think 300. I'm okay with going to
300.
>> 300. Okay.
>> Isn't that what everybody's
>> the majority? The majority are saying
300.
>> Yeah. The two of us have 500,000 basic
compensation that would present to us.
That's how I factor in the number
>> I'm comfortable dropping it. So overall
300,000.
>> You're good. So, are we making that
please?
Okay, let's keep moving.
» Bus
>> patrol. It looks like
>> patrol.
>> Oops. We made another one. Okay.
>> Mhm.
>> Did we all we all agreed on that one?
» All right. 600
>> 400 plus 200,000 600,000 based on the
presentation based on the amount of
planning to give
>> and based on what we told that um there
will be some sort of a aggressive
approach towards um
to collect these outstanding um tickets.
>> Thank you. So again um without the law's
input and Mr.
Well, Brian just gave us his input that
there's nothing in in place now to even
work on collect. Well, he told us, but
it was going to be a long drawn out
process that may or may not happen in
2026. Can you collect any
expected full judgment now? And then
it's it's then if that doesn't generate
revenue, then we will look to hire in
conjunction with the bus bus company, a
collection agency. Cool.
>> So, but the numbers you have there are
aggressive numbers. I think the PD is
saying 400. I think if bas default
judgments, seeing how that goes in the
hopes that's going to generate some
money. Um, and then if that doesn't then
we're going to, you know, switch over to
collections. I think that
we could be mindful that that this is
not readily that their projections are on the high side, you know, based on
talking to the PD,
>> my conversations with the Congress with
the corporation council and the
assistant who corporation council
handles these cases. So, I just throw
that out there for your consideration.
And if I may go back to based on account
of the presentation that we had with
this police department, the initial
$400,000 in the proposed budget
did not account for the $600,000 of
outstanding ticket that is associated
with bus patrol safety. So we have
$600,000 in unaccounted funds. We took a
third of that and say and that's do an
aggressive approach
to collect a third of that and I think
that's reasonable
but what we need to do is to put things
in place don't wait until next year
starting now put things in place to
start to go
and amend or put law in place how do we
code and start to attract some sort of
mechanism in place to get to the
standing violation.
So 2,000 $200,000 out of the $600,000.
I don't think it's unreasonable.
Mor
didn't think it was unreasonable either.
She was very very very very very very
cautious and she identified that she was
going to send back some confirmational
emails there after which I did not think
we received. Um but the comment was that
a third of that line would not be too
overaching which was not taken into
consideration by the police accord
response
» six.
>> Yeah,
>> Mr. Williams.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
» Anyone else want to drop theirs?
>> No. increase theirs.
>> I think we're all on the same
>> we all said the same thing on that one.
>> I mean I will say um my notes from when
they present it to us says that once the
ticket is issued then it is the law
department that has to uh then do the
rest of the work. So we just have to be
cognizant of any corresponding expenses
if we're increasing the rep if we're
thinking we can increase the revenue
because even although I'm hearing what
you're saying today that I mean I wonder
if there's a way that that bus comes
from you're saying that they might
assist in this
>> they want their money as well.
>> They're not collecting.
>> Okay. In other words, they they're a
vendor and they're not getting they're
supposed
up. So
>> they they don't get paid until the
final.
>> So they have obviously interest
>> in trying to get that money.
This this is where it going to come into
play that this agency with the land
department need to work in conjunction
and put whatever they need to put in
place to go after
that.
>> Thank you. But at this point there's no
they don't have a collection agency.
They're trying to recruit one. Correct.
>> Right now we are just getting default
judgments from any defaults case. We
don't have one in place now. the idea to
get one seeing how it moves forward with
the defaults and then have a
conversation with
>> okay think this is a little
>> I think it's it's it's large because
there's there's a it's it's
not going to be an account receivable in
other words you get a default judgment
are they going you know then we have to
enforce the judgment and get it
collected
>> and then the same thing with you know
collections agencies you know collection
agency reaches out and collects, but
they also want the fee for their
services as well. So, as you're going
through this, I understand where you're
all coming from. Got it. But, you know,
just be mindful that that figure may be
on the aggressive side. I understand
what the corporation council said, but
I've had further conversations with her
this afternoon. So, I'm just
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> So, so based on your feedback, what do
we need to put in place in order to move
forward?
>> I think we should kind of offer that to
each one of you to do anything.
>> What What do What do
What does the law department need to do
in order to move this forward and put
things in place?
>> No, we don't you don't we're already
getting default judgments.
>> Okay. We're doing what we we
>> What do we have to do? So, you you are
doing the process. We start the process.
starting the process of getting these
old
program has now been up and running for
over a year now. So it's going to be
mature
process.
>> So that's
you answer yeah that's a question answer
what is what needs to get done in order
to get the stick.
>> So I have a question.
>> Yes. Right.
So you go to the court to give you the
fault judgment. Yeah.
>> And at any point does the law department
try to then you know collect the or are
you recommending that it's an outside
agency tries to do it.
>> Let's see what we can do internally
first. I think that's the plan before we
go to an outside agency because like I
said, if we're going to an outside
agency, we're going to have to partner
with the vendor on this. And if we're
doing it ourselves
there, you know, it's we're doing it.
We'll get the money. We still have to
give the money to the vendor, but
collection agency, you got to pay the
collection. And just to add to that
because we looking at the wall
department there is a request to um add
a staff member. So you know that's going to increase the staff.
>> Yeah we have and now that we're getting
the the other additional tickets from
the speed. It's another burden on the department to
prosecute. It's the are issued but then
they have to be processed with the
system.
Uh,
Mr. Chairman, so I'm comfortable staying
out where where I'm at based on the fact
that those $600,000 that's old. I think
that a third is the have an expectation
of us collecting a third I think is
pretty reasonable. That's was the basis
of my uh I got and that's why I'm
comfortable staying there. So let me go
back to the delinquent they consult the
use consultant
um the collection agency that we have
for the delinquent parking we don't pay
them any money they attach a s charge to
each of these uh the g so I'm guessing
it will be the same here for the bus
patrol
more likely it would be the same so
we're not losing um
>> is that or we didn't have to pay
bus patrol because bus has a different
set of legislation that created it
That's for that. The corporation council
told us that she was going to look into
that they might able to use digitalize
them to help collect this something like
that. Like I said earlier when we're
dealing with parking tickets that's us
>> part dealing with a vendor we have to
work with
the law to enable that legislation as
well as dealing with them.
So we'll see what we can do.
>> Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. In in further
conversations with Miss Bash this
afternoon, corporation council, she was
not as comfortable with her initial
>> that was my understanding. Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you for say that's why it's
important for those individuals to be
present at these meetings.
But sincerely having from the source is
imperial to myself making the best
informed decision. Unfortunately, I can
go off the last conversation that I
heard from her taking consideration your
feedback.
>> Okay, no problem.
>> That's okay. On our numbers were based
on the conversation that they had we had
with the corporation council.
>> So that's how we can like okay let's
we're comfortable like 200,000 increase
it 200,000 across based on based on the
conversation we had
>> right
>> with several individuals. I'm saying she
didn't revis those comments went to the
next meeting on Thursday. She couldn't
make tonight's meeting.
» Those things those those things should
have communicated to all of us. If if
any individual or department head had a
change in mind,
they should have communicated that to
the entire council or if not to the
mayor and could have passed on to us.
I'm I'm sticking with my 200,000 because
I'm confident that I'm sure it's more
than $600,000 hopefully.
» Yes. Did you say you cover with that or
>> Yes.
» We don't have
>> What do you want to do? You're
>> I'll bring it down 100,000. I'm not
comfortable with leaving 200. Okay.
Can we make notes, please?
>> So, you'd be at 500.
>> Go ahead. Yeah.
>> You'd be at 500 instead of 600.
>> Okay. Thanks. Uh, Miss Patrick,
>> I'm going to stay with 600 for now.
>> Mr. Safari, did you say
>> unless everybody else wants to go to
500? I'm willing to go down.
>> No, I was I'm very comfortable with
third.
>> The next item, we don't have to do
anything.
>> We'll figure that out.
>> What? Yeah. And we there's only a few of
us that have.3
>> million.
>> Yeah.
>> The next one is a sale of house. We have
numbers all over the place here.
>> Well, actually, let's see. Um one, two.
>> So,
a million M 500
m
500.
Again, we talked about this one um
several times and I was definitely
looking um based on my experience on the
you know with property management
committee but also um where we're at
already this year with only I mean we
only have two meetings left. So it's
unlikely that we're going to be able to
increase too too much more than what the
year to date is. But I have to go back
and look at the year to date again. I
think the year only takes you through
when September though, right?
>> It it does, but I don't know if it's
saying any October, November, December.
So, tomorrow I think is October.
>> Today, I'm still at 1.5.
>> 1.5.
>> Okay. Thank you. So, we're at 1.5.
Um,
>> well, you have to factor in also the
house that is coming
to be closed.
>> I I I think it'd be difficult. I mean, I
don't know. I'd like to hear from you
guys, but I think we'll end 2025.
What did you just say we were at now?
>> 1.5.
I mean,
how much do you think we usually do per
um
>> I don't even think we'll get to two. We
won't even probably get to 2 million.
>> No, I'm talking about this year.
>> This year, maybe I don't know.
million I don't know the next few months
dependent we actually receive
our software
>> that's what I was being conservative
about just based on my experience
the last couple years the last few years
you may have lost
so we had the sales of homes so for the
failures at a million increase myself a
million increase Mr. Farley at 500,000
increase Mr. Toro and Patrick at zero
increase and you at 500,000
» are you comfortable at that number party
and civilians
bord
I think a response here regarding the
housing revenue of budget out 3
million.4 million as previously
suggested. Council for brief on this
matter by the director of development
who confirmed that's $3 million figure
in the man proposed budget is realistic.
» That's carried is $3 million now. So
that doesn't take into account
paying 15%
commission to the railers. There's some
title work, other closing cost. So the
$3 million represents
the
million450,3
million sales.
>> Okay. But the title the title already
budget under
title cost.
So
it's under there.
Mr. Toro, what what were you just
reading out for?
>> That is a letter. That is a letter.
Everybody
>> No, I know. I'm just I'm trying to go
through my stuff.
>> It's It's a package that we just
received.
>> Okay.
>> Everyone has a copy of this and we went
through it.
>> Oh. Oh, I was using mine as a ruler.
Sorry.
That's why I couldn't find it.
>> Oh, yeah. I see. 3 million. Yep.
» We have to kind
of on that then.
» Are you looking to put a number there?
>> I'm staying with my 3 million on that
one. Just based on what I just said in
terms of my past years experience. No.
I'm sorry. I'm laughing.
>> We have to come to an agreement.
>> Well, I know, but I just I mean other
folks are, you know, let's see what
everybody else says.
>> It's right across there.
>> 44 35.
Anybody else interested in changing
their number based on the recommendation
that is on the memo I was using as my
ruler?
>> The director of development is
recommending 3 million
Anybody
say
previous points and earlier I think he
did not disagree with Mr. Woodberry
comments he was just not as overly
zealous
Mr.
account outstanding for outstanding
foreclosure lists potential sales of two
large properties which we anticipate
closing out
those we contribute to the next fiscal
year. So I think with that I bought 3.5
» I can support 3.5
>> moving it from
» taking
down to 7 million 500 for you
>> Mr. party time to staying at 500.
» I'm I'm fine bringing mine now
to 500,000.
Can you get all of that, please?
enter. No. Okay. Okay. Let's move next
mortgage and banks.
» We have one, two, three,
>> four.
asking for an increase of 450.
The two members, sorry, one member of
100 and one 50.
Any changes to this?
» Your number.
>> Okay.
Good with your number here. I am. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you,
>> Miss Porter. Field.
>> Mhm.
>> Almost set.
>> Is it good? Mr. Williams,
>> you good?
>> Yes.
>> So, it would be 1.4, right?
>> Yes. Um, the next one is on casino. I
think it's a slam across the board.
>> The align with the 1.160
» everyone.
>> Mhm.
And
fun balance is based on how much
adjustment we've made. Then we'll adjust
that line accordingly.
Okay. So we can move into expense.
We do have a
But if you have any
additional
you striking out
>> I'm sorry we're I'm sorry I was going to
put a piece of paper while I was trying
to get out of my side.
>> You mention striking out. Yes, I'm I I I
was I we I want to take that out that
council member thing. I was
>> misunders I had misunderstood the
original.
>> So please let's take that out.
>> Mhm.
» And that should be zero.
>> Mhm.
Um
a 1413
to
>> field
the budget
>> based on our prior conversations.
>> Yep. And I have to support this because
we gladly need this in this city for
some employees.
Do we have support for this board?
>> Yes,
>> everyone. Thank you,
» Miss Michael.
Commissioner, please make
the next one. Um,
» see, sorry. Yeah. Wow. 1621.
Mr. Toro, you add it.
>> You were adding this ad.
>> Mhm.
>> It was an ad for one in streets and one
in
» Do you have notes?
>> The other one is
go back into your sheet.
>> But I'm interested.
>> You can go back to your sheet.
>> I'm interested in what Mr. Williams. Um,
» yeah, there were some members back and
forth
>> proposed
into Mr. Lance.
>> He's he's down below though, I think.
>> No, no, no.
What about moving some um temporary into
uh
>> Oh, yes. Moving some to snap,
>> right? Streets of Snap. Yes, that's who
it was. So, what what is it? So that's
converting seasonal uh one line half of
that converting into actual position. So
clear line half and creating two uh
labor positions.
>> So it would probably be two that that I
would put in
>> two labor voters in that position.
>> So
>> are you in trash or you sleep and snap?
Um I believe those positions were in
>> our positions that were
21
days.
>> It was delayed because I I I do like
that idea,
>> right?
public authority said that you have that change is only $52,000 that can't
position
>> but different number
>> there were two there were one
1215
» oh right
>> it goes down like 5110 and 8161
» right
>> so That's right. Staff the one in
street.
>> Okay. So, what line talking about right
now?
>> We're on a 1621
121,
>> right?
>> It's up here someplace.
>> Okay. Cuz then we started talking
that
one is that
both those positions were are funded in
the in the
But I would like to hear more from Mr.
Williams.
>> I mean, he said it, but I don't think
he's got a good
>> Well, doesn't have anything on this one.
>> No, I know.
>> It was one of the other ones, I think.
>> No, I know. I just heard that, but
So, Mr. Tor, what would you like to do
with this one here?
>> Would you like to keep this position?
>> It's a one one year.
>> So, stay at your expense of 316722.
Mr. Toro,
>> I'm sorry.
>> Do you want to stay with the 263935
or do you want to add the new one? So
that would be figures 316722
on that line. Is that what you want to
stay with?
>> Wait, just one position
>> at 52.
>> Add one position. Yep.
» So no. So basically nobody else was
making changes. Mine mine is actually
just the same. We we all kind of handled
this differently in terms of putting our
recommendations. So mine is just
actually keeping a set the same which is
263935.
Just wanted to clarify that.
>> But everybody else must have also just
wanted to keep it the same. Correct.
>> Right. Unless there's something in which
there isn't.
>> But this is a new hive.
>> Huh?
» So we took Okay. So we took that out
somewhere. So it it it creates a new
hire and all of us are on the same page
to completely decrease the hiring for
next year.
>> My mistake.
>> So yeah, so
>> we want to align the domain to give
opportunity
to realign the budget and kind of like
>> you know and if we were to say okay
we're saying supporting the freedom
we're asking now.
>> I'm perfectly fine with that sort of Can
I have a checkbook?
» I'll give it to the mayor. Thanks. Give
it to us.
>> So, we're sticking we're sticking with
2639
to
>> Okay.
» Next one. Um,
>> you have to raise 52,000.
Then
>> Miss Patrick, you're asking the
>> I was trying to cut some expenses
basically. Um, so I'm happy to stay at
the 170 if everybody else is, but I was
trying to save us some money.
>> You have what? What?
>> Well, hold on. I have to look up the
year to date. But what I'm saying is I
was just trying to cut $20,000 from that
line, but I'm sure I based it on year to
date, but just look it up.
>> You did. I remember that.
>> Well, look at it. I mean, we can realign
me.
>> I'm happy if everybody else is at 170.
I'll I'll go to 170. I was
>> No, no. you
>> I was just trying to save us some
things.
>> Let me just see here. 1622.
>> Look at the notes on this realign.
>> If it's if it's something that we can
consider across the board, we will
>> Year to date is, let me just get to the
right place. Year to date, again, I know
that this is end of September. We were
at having spent about $100,000.
>> Okay. Um,
so
our budget was $200,000 last year. So I
mean I'm happy to go to 170, but
everybody else was at 170, right?
>> No, we didn't we didn't we didn't make
any changes,
>> right? So it would stay at 17 saying if
what a lot of members think we can
realign with the
>> based on what Miss Patrick I remember
that conversation where she was going
based on the year to date um I didn't
think that $20,000
of a drastic reductions I think that it
I'd be comfortable going to um
>> Miss Patrick's 150
Yes, Mrs.
>> Thank you. I'm just saying looking at
past Well, you 2023 was $166,000.
2024 was 130 actual. Um I mean the
proposed budget, it did already take
$30,000 off of the 200,000 that was
adopted. Um I mean we just don't know
how much going to be.
>> So I I mean I'm happy to be at the 170.
So, it's all, you know, I'm happy to
change my my recommendation. It's only
20 I mean, I was only saving us $20,000.
So,
>> $20,000
behalf of someone's um salary.
>> In the next in the next page, we're
going to be talking about compensations.
And I think based on um Mr. Turk, could
you read those last two?
>> 2023 was 166
>> Uhhuh. 700,000 166,741
2024 was only 130,835
adopted in in 25 was 200,000. We're only
at 100,000 but is 170 again.
>> Yeah, that's I think that was a good
calculation you made.
>> Yeah, I would have said
I don't think it's reasonable to drop it
by $20,000. I think
>> it's small.
No, it was a good justification.
» I think it's good justification. If I
get your name again, please
» I have to go back and find it again. I'm
sorry. Um 1622 460.
>> She got it.
» It was 99869.
So I said 100,000 at the end of
September. So you better imagine that
there'd be more. Oh, do you guys have
today's year to date?
>> 46.
>> Oh,
yep.
» So that would make it like 150,000.
>> Yeah, that's actually that's probably
>> solid.
>> How many people bring down that? So
negative $20 on 120 150.
» Anybody else have any change?
Sorry, you have none.
>> No.
>> You're staying at zero.
>> No, it's fine. Yeah.
>> 150. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, everyone is at 150.
We all make same
>> please make those.
>> Okay.
>> The next one is contingency and this
where you can back and forward with CDK.
So
» I would ask him for this one based on um
allow to get some information from his
department heads and we can revisit this
one because if they are ill and allowed
then we'll need to realign this line to
go back to the demo to the mayor's
proposed 400,000 from the demo point and
free up the $200,000 to pay those demo
invoice that they're doing the recon
issue.
>> I also asked on this contingency line
that for a year to date what did
what actually came out of it. Um my
understanding of initiative have
explanation was it wasn't just
demolition there were other things that
came out that so I asked for a
breakdown. Yeah. Okay. breakdown of what
came out of the line that we didn't.
» This was this was today's memo. Miss
Porterfield, did we get something today?
>> Oh,
thank you.
So based on
Dan's following two 282 no 501
I see in three demolitions is that
correct?
So there are three
downloads I believe
uh you have four monitoring there's no
development
uh there is a software
send
unified communications
then there is a small adjustment uh
state treasury
So the commissioner um
why are we being UCCC out of this out of
the contingency
and also why are we paying settlement
out of this one when we had when we had
money set aside under the lottery for
claims and things like that
>> unique personnel matter within the
police department
session
>> we have to go Executive session
and we had a special presentation after
chief was here during the summer.
>> Okay.
>> It was kind of unique situation
we going see we would have to go in the
details. I'm just trying to refresh
this discuss
sometime
this year. It was it was probably during
the sexual council resolution. Yes.
» Okay. So, we don't need to we can just
refresh oursel with
No, I just want to ask I thought it went
through.
» Yeah,
>> Mr. Chair. So, you're saying in order
for us to get an explanation of why it
came out of where it came out of, we'd
have to go into executive session for
that.
>> I wouldn't really have to give, you
know, name the names really go into the
details. Okay. What that was all about.
>> No, no, we don't need to get we don't
need to get in the specific. So, why?
Because they were discussing claims. We
approved it. Why he wasn't draw from the
money?
» Okay.
And then we talked about the UCCCL
UCC. Um I believe that's for the police
department.
Um
I don't know why there would must have
been an increase uh full records for
this payment. Um the council would like
more clarification
that I didn't see exactly what
they came out of this account
>> because we have we have a separate line.
So set aside. So you're saying that
I don't understand
2024.
Anything
else with regards to the contingency?
>> No, just I was looking to do the uh
demolition. So that total out of this
is $169,300.
So
talking about $200,000.
Okay, they keep moving. So we'll reserve
that and come back to the on
senior program
across the board. Anybody's
pulling out that party as well?
» Okay.
Um the next going to ask administrative
expense.
Mr. Williams
so that we can realign with you and
>> I'm sorry. Can I interrupt for one
second? Mr. Williams, I missed. Are we
staying at um what are we saying for
contingency? I'm sorry.
>> No contingency.
>> We'll wait some. Okay. Thank you.
>> The department.
>> Okay. Sorry, I just missed the final.
>> So, it will not be it would it would be
uh it wouldn't be productive for us. So,
>> Yep. No, you can keep moving. I just
missed that. Whatever information that
we receive, we will have to back that up
and go over the mayor's proposed.
>> Mhm.
>> And free up the CDBG money to pay for
the those
hopefully enough.
>> So 3120
>> 3120
on those lines as the conversations are
on the table
uh continue. I think there are drawing
applications with the department
function with the overtime line that
they are proposed to have. I would like
to remove that request.
Okay.
» So we'll strike those out.
>> Mhm.
um
in service trading EMS cease for
service.
>> Yeah, I just I just was basically
staying
here.
>> Yeah, just staying with the 144, I
guess.
>> Yeah, that's not
>> But is everybody else just staying with
the 144 also? Is that why those lines
are blank?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, thank you. Yeah, this is next year
when we do this, we have to make sure
we're all doing it the same way in terms
of how we're putting in our
recommendations.
>> Yeah. And that's what keep asking
because as soon as we get this, they
gone to the department, they plug the
numbers and back, but not having that
information. Now they're
we're doing the work that we're supposed
to do since last week. Dog shelter.
>> No, wait. I didn't understand what you
were just saying. I did do all my work
to be able to put these recommendations.
>> Yes, I understand. But keep asking if
you want to open submit your
recommendation. We're here doing
recommendation now. Um, so let's go.
Let's keep going. Dog shelter. There's a
recommendation there for $10,000.
» I can recall who um they were actively
seeking grants to help this program.
Yeah, I think uh kind of
really aggressive and maybe the balance,
but I'm not sure why. What would $10,000
do in terms of helping?
>> Hold on. I just want to see what is in
the um budget.
>> Matching the requirement for some of the
grants.
>> Hold on. 45 47.
There's proposed 10,000.
>> Again, I was just sticking with the
proposed budget, which is 10,000, but
nobody else.
>> See what I'm saying? Like, we all just
had a different way of putting in our
recommendations. This was just something
that I wanted
>> the column that the column is correct in
2026 proposal and the column on to the
left.
>> It has zero.
>> That's why I thought that was an ad.
>> No, sorry. I'm just keeping it at the
mayoral budget. $10,000.
>> So, we just need to
>> strike that out.
>> Strike it out here.
>> Again, like I said, I'm just going to
reiterate that we all did it
differently.
>> Yes. So, we're
>> I'm writing same on my own notes. Okay.
>> We're all in favor of keeping that and
then can we use mention matching grants
to help with the
>> next line because of the high ranking
freeze. We'll scratch that. Please tell
me you're going to get checked
on sign that
>> and mine was just saying same as the
budget. So we're okay there.
>> Yes. So we're striking out these because
of
>> striking out new tutorials.
>> Yeah. the entire
>> we're saying that we would like to see
CL put on hold
>> and then the other one nobody nobody
>> we talk about this u we are aligning
with the may in terms of the hiring
freeze and that should do any hiring in
2023 it doesn't mean that we have to
hire people
>> we can always revisit so the may always
come back to the council the proposal to
re budget reappropriation and if there's
a need for to hire someone
>> that is That is not get done. Things can
always be adjusted and uh move forward
and putting people in places.
>> So again, that's just sticking with the
mayoral budget.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Oh, this was me again just trying to
find some money. So I was taking away
one of the uh two code officers.
>> And Mr. Williams, you probably were
taking two, right?
But those those position are not
>> they're vacant.
>> Well, there are vacancies there. If I
can recruit people, I'm going to hire
them for those slots. So,
>> all right.
>> Me, too. I was basing it on how many
people were um budgeted in I'd have to
go back and look, but I'm pretty sure
that it was it was budgeted in 2025
for X number of um folks, but we only
have the five. So, I was just going down
based on what we currently had, but I
knew that actually this is a very
important position. Uh so, I'm happy to
take out my reduction. Miss Williams say
you
budgeted for 10.
» I agree with the mayor highlighting this
is a very vital positioning city.
>> I think the only
actuality was five enforcement officers
this year. So
big number five vacancies on five
vacancies from now into next year.
That's an aggressive highway.
>> And I believe I I can align with Mr.
Williams on that. I believe uh when
we're having these conversations um uh I
believe uh Mr. Trimson said that we just
got we just got to five and we asked him
historically he says it's the first time
that he's been to five.
>> Yes.
>> So I think that that's
removing two of those position is
feasible.
>> Go back to Patrick. So, you remove your recommendation.
>> I'm just Can I just look really quickly
at um my notes here that I took when Mr.
Triny was
>> Yeah, the hire the hiring
it's very slow because
>> I mean I guess
>> hiring hiring officer any department
does an aggressive approach
would be a historical approach if it
happened.
But everyone else is staying at except
for Mr. Williams and I everyone else is
staying at
>> but but respond first.
>> What what
>> I ask you for a response of what you're
going to do
>> in terms of your recommendation.
>> I'm willing to align with
>> I'm just trying to have some dialogue
with the my fellow council members
around this one. Um before I give a
response, how are people feeling about
>> So currently Mr. Williams had a
recommendation and so um like I'm I'm
going to to go with Mr. Williams
recommendation based on what he's just
explained um that you know we have five
this goal was to um hire five more but
that hiring three would be probably more
reasonable um goal that we would reach.
So I'm I'm changing mine. I know this
document doesn't reflect that currently,
but I'm willing to to move to that.
» Okay. And yeah, so I just Yeah, I'm I I
said that I'm based on the fact that
uh Mr. Chi explained to us around he's
at five now. He just got to five. Um
he's never been to five since he's been
in the position. Um, and so 10 is would
be a extremely lofty number. So I I will
learn with Mr. Williams. In fact, I
would I could say nominate three. But
being that the uh
the necessity position, I'd like to at
least have enough if we are lucky enough
to find the right people, we can find
three, be good. So I I'm I'm going to uh
stay with uh removing two positions.
So mayor this whatever hire you do with
this department does not affect your
this department will be exempted in
terms of or any high products
» the simple thing that I'm using is if a
hireer has the ability to generate
revenue
>> it would cover it
>> that's the problem essential Okay.
To fill the position and make sure the
revenue's there.
>> That's the problem with this one. I
mean, it definitely generates revenue.
So, we have to look at the revenue if we
take away the
>> well
>> the hires.
>> Right. So, Mr. So, in in theory, I I
agree with the mayor that align with the
mayor on that. I'm saying based on the
fact that we've never gotten to 10. In
fact, based on what we heard from the uh
department head that this is the first
time we've ever gotten to five, based on
the uh
history of how people have moved out of
that department,
I think that high three is a pretty
lofty goal, but it's doable um with some
level of
use Mr. term of aggressive approach
there. So, I think that removing two
will putting the
harmful at all. Honestly, I think that
again I think we could go through but
I'll go historic from five. It's not a
reasonable number. It's the pay scale
there has drifted a little bit what some
of the municipalities have. So then uh
just market forces that make other
communities more attractive
connectively. I know that's hard for
anybody in this table to believe, but it
does have occasion.
>> I I thought we realigned them like a
year ago or two.
>> We made some adjustments, but then other
people have made other adjustments in
other areas.
>> My gosh.
>> We did that, two years ago. Yeah.
>> To realign them to kind of be parallel
with the capital
>> contract for CC, which is the program.
Uh
>> do we do like exit interviews when
people leave to collect that type of
data?
>> Is that a practice we do?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. That's kind of like where
» they
from this department.
>> So right now are you?
>> So based on this conversation I would
align with um Mr. Williams.
I along with Miss Patrick just one just
in case people are looking for positions
and jobs and it's a good paying job hard
work good paying
are we making are we making notes there
please that Mr. Toro is aligning with
Miss Patrick
and myself
Mr. Williams.
» So that number will be will be what?
Just tell me the so I can fill that in.
>> 5216
or
>> 5216ative
1348.
» No.
Well, it's the 521632. That's what
I'm post.
>> Sorry. That's good. I got it.
>> Okay.
I'm just trying to keep I mean we're
going to see a new one later.
>> We're gonna see but so make sure that
the numbers Yeah. Um
» again you can skip the next line. I was being the same as the mayoral
budget there.
>> Yeah. This one here um there were some
notes about this.
>> This is a department of development.
>> Mhm.
I am going to be enforceable to say that
we should bring this to $1,000.
Uh this supported by small $5
increase,000.
If they keep finding money, I could go
5,000. So, I can support that as well.
>> I support that as well. To the mayor's
point, we're is generating money.
» Did you say
>> you're going to?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Mr. Williams, did you say
» 500 500?
>> Okay. Um,
Miss Patrick,
>> I'm just going to stay with the 500.
We're only talking $500 here, so it's
not going to make it one way or the
other. So, I'll just stay with the 500.
>> Okay.
>> All right. The only thing that is I'm
not sure who she was paying with that
>> if management employees would
you have to go back and change the codes
and terms and conditions of employment.
therea employees that should have been
taken care of anyhow shouldn't do that.
>> So if you open the door for management
employees getting overtime compensation
or individuals in development make sure
you're ready to do it across the board.
So
>> actually
>> so I I guess uh my point there was that
there's also stipens in other
departments
and in development department and the
proposed budget there was no there's no
money for stip in that department as
well. So, how it was explained to us was
that um right now they do a a job a
pretty good job of
aligning their schedules a certain way
so when there is a need for them to be
here they can be here and that's what I
was saying that for all um department
should be doing but we're getting ready
to move on to a conversation where I
think that that'll become a little more
clear.
>> Thanks.
Oh, just say I'm sorry
to
>> I do recall Miss Carver talking about
PDM. A lot of her staff take her versus
overtime. So
>> compine
with I I don't know if other departments
have that again.
Resort to the mayor here. I mean count
time, you know, like she said, you know,
if they work until 6, the next day
they'll come in at 10. Is that something
that development just has does or does
every department do that?
» Compliance with the code.
>> Every department is unique. Some
departments don't quite do that.
» I know that there was someone in the law
that he did that. So it's not unusual
times.
>> But I thought she said they take it in
place of the overtime. That's why maybe
to increase the overtime. I don't know.
>> If I may add, they attend meetings like
zoning meetings, planning meetings where
they have to be here in the evenings and they don't get um they do come time
because of that,
>> right?
>> They don't get over time or
>> go ahead please. So I think it's trying
to find other incentives outside of
compensation to try to work on all
hours. Not budget line, but it's a
consideration. People like getting up
later.
I think it's being responsive to the
request of the week.
Appreciate the attempts when it can be
made as it does the burden on the tax.
probably
like
this
other place. Do we need to consider
that?
>> Yeah. Did you say that some management
time?
>> I'm not sure. We're not sure. We're not
sure whe
» So, can we find out who exactly is going
to be so fine?
>> I think it's pretty well here. um um see
exactly what what position rather made
out of that line.
>> Well, this is not something
>> this line.
>> Yes.
>> I'm not aware when it's been in previous
budgets.
>> Uhhuh.
>> Um but it's been there.
>> Okay. So she gohead
» nothing has been spent by the way at
that time. So I mean
>> I think we should we're spending a lot
of time
September 202 impact of
>> the mayor's point if it goes into other
departments.
>> Well that's why I think we should leave
it budget passes.
It would be more of a policy kind of
thing later down
>> to discuss at another point, but right
now nothing has been spent.
>> Okay.
>> In that line.
>> Absolutely.
>> And we're spending a lot of time on $500
item here is all I'm saying.
» All right. So, what can Sorry. Um, can
you find out for us what exactly that
was being on? I don't get previous year
simply because as of the year of
» what I remember Miss Carver saying is
that
her team does a really good job of
trying to align their time to the needs
of the city. That's not always a option
for them. So that's uh why the the line
why why the money she put the money
there. Um I saw that and and so kind of
I don't want to move us too long too far
ahead but I saw that as
something that is closely aligned to a
stipen in other departments that we're
seeing that she did not have a stipen in
her department. So that maybe we need to
rename it then
>> so that we don't get into the main event
in terms of that.
>> Oh 23 126
» talk about reaming the excitement.
Remember we had gave a definition of
what the said.
>> No, we're just making suggestion because
we don't want to make sure that as the
may we don't want to creative
atmosphere where our department thinks
that we're giving one another. We do not
want to do that
>> at no point in time.
>> Yeah. But it would meet the definition
of a recitement.
>> That's being removed every except at
this point formed because that person is
on call 24 and we need the clarification
on the next person.
>> Oh, so everyone did get a consensus and
remove all statements.
>> That's been a suggestion.
>> Okay, we didn't get consensus.
>> I think that we
made sense, right?
>> Well, I think we did address it. If
there anyone who's on 24
hour call, we have to divorce those off.
I think it's 43
and we ask that all those kind of
whatever recommendation we make to
remove those, we need to divorce it back
>> for those essential.
>> I agree.
>> That's my recommendation.
>> So, what are we leaving the sign at? So,
I'm we're gonna I'm going to ask that we
leave the
for now leave the time adding $500
because we have four members.
We're asking to increase it by 500 and
two are asking that 500.
>> So, it'll be a,000.
>> Yes.
The next line is $500 in the mayor post
budget.
>> It's 500 in the mayor's budget.
>> Yes.
>> And nothing has been spent in 2024.
>> Okay. and 10 and something.
>> Yeah. And I'm I'm
>> okay. The next one over time, but
they're primarily driven because we're
increasing
the workload on the collection, the
data, the parking. So, as we ask them to
increase their workload and this is um
primarily over time.
So, and based on the the amount of the
dollar amount they have provided to us,
$280 $290,000,
it cost the department $24,000.
So, it's fair that we ask them to do
more. we have to provide the
compensation and that's why I ask that
we
allocate $25,000 to this um to this line
to help offset that
>> added revenue
» Mr. Chairman please in that around that
line what when they were giving the
presentation and we were uh trying to
scale out you know what the expected
revenue can be based on the formula your
numbers are right on point with that and
that's why I was I'm supporting that as
a formula um but something the the issue
that I raised during that conversation
is that we have to balance the tensions
of
increasing the revenue and impact uh to
police community relations and I think
that that's based on what uh that the uh
officer saying that the chief is saying
>> that he's recommending that we don't
increase that line. Correct.
>> Is that correct?
>> That's correct.
>> And because of the impact that what he
perceives as the negative impact on
community based on what he said.
>> However, he didn't say that.
>> Look at what you have to back up here.
the revenue and asking them to do extra
work and how do we compensate them to to
do that work for us to generate more
revenue
>> yet it has those um the stuff that comes
with it.
>> Uh
so I guess my point of clarity would be
the chief is saying that this is still a
uh actionable thing for them to do.
>> Yes. So if he seems he has some action
for them to do and they still plan on
doing it well then um
is he suggesting that he has the
capacity to do it without increasing
that that that line is that what you
communicate
please so I
miss I would agree that Mr. far we
manage just
however I agree with making that
adjustment at the $25,000 at this
present time what I've been doing on
items that we are highlighting I would
ask that this is a highlightable item
that we return to once we conclude the
rest of our conversations I think is one
thing to have an expectation for
overtime specifically in police to be uh
identified as if intentional cuts I
think we've heard skepticism from that
department and I think if we can
identify any dollars sincerely if it is
one dollar I think that that just
improves their outcome's
point balancing out community interest
and also um being firm and responding to
compliance finance throughout the city.
>> Yeah. would then go back there
in the initial budget in initial revenue
they are hoping to do you know x amount
of detail
>> $250,000
>> and that will cost $24,000 of
>> so that's how I factory so if we're
going to add another
then you know we we can't just take it
one way it has to go both way
>> no so that's what I'm saying based on
>> yeah reason enough for us to say go get
some revenue for us and you know kind of
help us help us with this outstanding
and um violation
>> but if you don't put
incentive for them to do it then how are
they going to do it and that's how I
factor in
>> you know I I think I think your formal
is correct I think if the chief is I'll
definitely defer them if he's moving the
budget in the way that we want
>> my numbers are only less a thousand less
than $1,000 off from them because I
>> sure so I'm okay with leaving it to Mr.
Williams point and kind kind of
revisiting it. If the police have the
capacity to carry out the the task
without that, that's great. If they're
saying that they don't need it and and
if they're saying that they do, then I
should be there will leave you at zero for
>> but so I am in agreement with $2500.
I'm saying if there is more conceiv
I'm not going to to do that because I'm
really looking at what they that the
major impact they thought had on the
community. Okay.
>> Really taking that into consideration.
So as we look at it's not just you know
what we're doing here but they're on the
street and if they feel like it's going
to
increase people how people see them in a
negative light because our only increase
is to do this kind of um you know get
more
etc. So they didn't think that was a
good idea. I wouldn't want to put them
in the position of
um being in that where they feel like
it's it's increasing
decreasing their relationship with
community.
>> Mr. Tor, what do you think about
>> agree?
But
so we are
>> you're going with
the overtime. But yeah, it's the over
the last one.
But again, we're giving them more work.
>> What I have a conversation is
>> I understand. But um would you I mean if
we were asked the reasons which we
intend to do based on Mr. Williams
recommendation.
>> Mhm.
>> And to see if there we can add more
money to this line.
>> Mhm.
>> And maybe at that point in time we can
know expand our compensation around this
line.
>> But it's not only it's not like
it's not only a negative impact but also
maybe
positive impact.
monetarily as I'm talking about Dr.
and we always talk about how um the
police are seen in etc and how we need
to increase
community relationships. So they're
saying that's going to detract from the
from their relationship I think we
should take into consideration
what you think
>> the line I missed I'm sorry
>> we asking them uh to do additional work
in terms of remaining common revenue
offset. He dispenses over there appear
and then adjusted number
the overtime 25,000 offset with the
additional asking.
>> So basically you're all talking about
raising the overtime please.
>> Yes.
>> What are you thinking of raising it?
>> 25,000 for now.
>> Um and everybody is agreeing on that.
No, no, no. This is This is different.
This has to do with the parking fine.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. They're doing the detail.
in the in the
night.
>> Mhm.
>> 27
visits this year.
>> They're looking at 27 next year.
>> 47 next year. That's So, they're hoping
to double it next year. Uh this year
they did 220,000. next year and
everything.
>> I'm I'm happy to add $25,000 to the
police overtime. If I had my way, I'd
add a million dollars to the police
overtime. So, um
>> I'm happy to go with the uh So, that
would be one7
915.
>> No.
Yes.
>> Are we on that line still? Yes. Okay.
Thank you.
>> So, you're okay with 25K?
>> I am.
And I just want to, you know, echo this
sentiment is that we at this point
this line was presented to us. The
mayor's proposed budget of a million
>> 92,950
and I don't think none of us ever
mentioned about cutting this entire
>> Why are we mentioning it now? Why are
you mentioning it? I just want to make
because some people saying that we're
cutting down over time but we're not
whatever was presented to us that's what
we have there and no one right
>> have ever mentioned about cutting
anything that was presented to us we're
looking to adding now
>> yes
>> and no revisited based on
recommendation
>> I think that's larger
>> see if we can add more to that
>> that's not necessary
» okay let's start a page
So now we're on tapping
>> staffing.
So
we talk about this generally across the
board. I think everyone uh
is in agreement or was in agreement with
it. that um
put all new hires on on hold.
>> Yep.
>> In line with the mayor.
>> Yep.
>> And allow the mayor for any essential
hire. And as the mayor just mentioned,
I'm revenue generating um position.
So I only have myself and Patrick open
here.
I'm happy to go with the majority on
that one. I was taking that out. Again,
I was just trying to figure out a way to
cut expenses, but obviously the
department head
>> is recommending having that position.
Um, but it sounds like my colleagues,
it's seems like it's just you and I.
>> No, I think we I think we we the only
one put it on paper. the others were
» so like I want to ask that we realign
ourselves here in this one.
>> So everybody else just didn't get their
recommendations in.
>> Yes. So I will start with
>> So we're talking about
the higher than this.
>> I'm sorry. Could you just speak? I'm
saying that I if the mayor is
recommending a higher freeze and this is
a higher then it falls you know then no
there's a higher free position
generating
>> yes I have to agree with the mayor on
those position
revenue generating position and they can
pay for themselves then yes if not we
just need to continue to hold allow the
revenue to build up economically
I
>> that's what we've been saying
Miss uh Vtorio.
>> Y
>> you're good.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, everyone is in alignment with
this line. So,
put a hold here.
>> I think also I just want to point out
that I'm pretty sure we put a hold on it
last year also. Let me just look though.
I do want I think we took it out of the
budget last last year. So,
unfortunately,
>> I think they they've had to get through
without that without that position. The
only thing and I'm sticking with my I'll
stick with my taking it out if everybody
agrees to that. But I do want to say is
this the position where because we don't
have this position we're spending more
money at an external garage or is that a
different position?
>> No, this because of this
>> a different uh expense. I mean
>> no remember there was a um where they
wanted to add someone who was on like
this third shift or this off shift or
work on the road. We that we put that in
and be in and what Mr. um
Lefon said was that because that this
position was vacant and they need that
particular position did not actually
ever start. So that person's working
during the day and this off hours
mechanic that we
was was not is not doing is not able to
do the job because they have children.
» The next move
>> the next line is the same with u
» Mr. Williams. Is this one? Yeah, this is
>> I would see that as a conversion. If
anyone can group it as a new hire, I can
contest that. I mean, I can respect
that, but I would say we're converting
already in place salaries.
» So, what what is your recommendation, S?
>> Hold it.
>> I mean, not I mean to to hold it in
place as do I'm not ruing this. I don't
consider these the new hires and the
understanding the budget line has
already been there in previous years it
waste so it's more identifiable as its
usage in the city. My feedback is I
would like to see support to higher
waste generating positions to support
quality of life these individuals that
have very difficult
works.
So understood because there
you had something similar to this.
>> Well,
>> yeah, I
talking about it.
>> Um, so
>> right, but that was um for the the
seasonal that what we're like at $15.
We thought they were at 17 plus two, but
now 15 plus two. Yeah. 1750.
>> I I would agree with Mr. Williams on
that.
>> Um
>> to add to add a new person.
>> It's not adding
>> I mean adding um Well, it's it's more
than what the mayor is putting into his
budget is what I'm saying.
>> But
>> I hear what you're what you're just
trying to be clear. But
» anyone else
>> So you guys just canceled each other out
anyway. I'm I'm willing to compromise.
and and
realign myself in terms of the majority.
So, I'm going to cancel mine out.
Is everyone in favor? Let's um
Williams.
Okay. Because I know you had some notes
uh way back about this thing. So,
uh, commissioner, please make note of
this.
» So, that will cost us an additional
87,000
» or is that removing money from just
cancel?
>> It's not costing us anything. We're
realigning it. Okay.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> So, can can you also make note of that this is a realignment? So, it's a
reading the head.
>> That's I believe that's the line below
that seasonals
that were reduced by
>> Oh, perfect. Yes.
>> Yes.
» So, this is a reelective. Okay.
» And everyone is in favor of this.
Right.
>> So on this one,
instead of putting in 214,396,
we're only Mr. Williams is suggesting
just putting in 10719.
Is that right? Is that am I reading that
correctly?
So left um I was assuming that it would
be half of that would come up for two
positions and if you're being really
divisional you can return back to the
difference but for matter of fact just
having two positions and keeping some
pre line is more than 10.
Yeah, I allowed um civilians and
because you wrote that you brought it up
but almost on the same level in terms of
what you were thinking about. So I'll
take we'll listen to both whatever y'all
recommend on this here. I will follow
you guys from this line.
The reality
uh and your point was valid on my side.
» So we're going down on that one to
107198.
Correct?
>> Would be the total instead of 214396.
Is that correct?
Yes.
>> So, you could you could just move the
numbers. Uh, yes.
>> I'm just I'm just I know we're going to
get it. I know we're going to get it
back on Binance with the right numbers.
>> Well, just make note for yourself and
you can in each column.
>> Yep. I'm all set.
» I don't know how many positions that is.
So, but
it's not a simple
but in terms of how many positions we're
getting rid of.
» You don't get it. You don't get
>> Well, should they add it? Well, it's
okay because the bottom line it's okay.
I'm okay with that.
>> Okay. Let me just for clarification,
you're not removing any position. You're
just realigning here. Yeah, I want to
make sure we we're in the same amount on
level of saying that we're moving any
position.
>> Well, I think that there are it's just
that it says various on our on our
budget. We don't have a number of how
many people, but it's okay because we
actually added
>> Right. Right. So, I'm I'm okay with it.
Let's let's move on.
>> Yeah. So, everyone is in alignment with
these uh these changes.
Okay. Let's move into the next um
section and that's a lot with the B
section and that has to do with
management raise and that is calling for
a 3% across the board. Mr. Parley I
align with yours. Is that correct?
>> Yeah, Mr. Chairman. So, uh, we got, uh,
the mayor's proposed budget. Um, and as
we started our council deliberations,
the first, uh, recommendation,
uh, was for maintain uh the the mayor's
hiring freeze and to, um, not give any
raises across the board. Um
I I responded to that email uh saying
that I thought that
um minimum we need to be giving people
the 3% raise across the board as cuz
that is my understanding that's really
just going to keep up with inflation and
quite honestly the inflation rates right
now we're not even going to that that
might not even keep up with inflation.
So therefore in order to not give a
raise would actually be um the same as
uh giving a pay deduction. So that's
where I started at uh minimum we need to
give uh people their uh quality of life
their inflation adjustment rates across
the board and that's where I was willing
to start deliberations the conversation
then went from that into uh
the inequities and the inconsistent
manner in which uh raises are being
calculated and then we're back to the
work pay study that was supposed to have
happened um that had not happened. So
where we're at right now is I'm
suggesting the minimally giving people
that their 3% increase that's true
minimum as a point of starting point. In
other words, I'm not I'm against not
giving anyone
» for the same reason I realign with with
yours.
>> Uh there are some of them that we need
to strike out here. The ones in positive
numbers those were there were still
there
>> the one in positive. Is that correct
commissioner? Those were not a raise
were was not asked for that position.
Uh that is correct for one individual
position there.
>> Can you
>> um the other ones um depending on
uh correct there was no raises in the
proposed budget for some positions if
they were being
>> Yes. So that that's what I'm saying. So
anyone that's in positive I think we
need to strike those out.
They want to the mayor didn't ask for an
increase that we can ask uh we could
please make note of that also to remove
that uh on these columns.
>> Yeah, be good if they weren't on the
spreadsheet.
>> That will reduce the numbers also.
I think I did ask for that the last
here. So then that would be one, two,
three, four, five position
that I raise was not ask from the
proposed budget.
So those that are negative are the ones
that
we need to realign oursel with.
Again, I think this would be an
executive session discussion because um
just giving 3% across the board doesn't
take into consideration
why a department head or the mayor might
be suggesting higher rates for someone.
And I don't know if um just doing 3% is
taking into consideration length of
service um or performance evaluations
that may have occurred. So
>> almost feel like we need to go into I'm
sorry what
You might have to be speaker.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Well, now that's going to
be hard. I won't be able to remember
when
>> you said that we thought that happening.
Yeah, because
what you know their years of service and
that kind of thing
>> and or let's say it's um you know their
supervisor might have recommended
something um
>> that puts it out of the you know across
the board situation. Um but again I
think we'd have to do that and I think
that we would have to talk about that
>> executive I don't see anybody getting
promoted here. This is just pay risks
>> right? Yeah, but then we might want to
use name, individual name and things
that entire
my time here. I asked people not to
mention name just mention positions and
be respective of people's um names that
you call against each position. I do
have an issue that we want to do
exception to it is
>> but um I just wanted to know where where other members stand in terms of um
where we are here right now. So, we're
going to look at this that we should
look at this instead of this, right?
>> It's the same.
>> Oh, it's just bigger.
>> So, we can read it more easily.
>> Mr. Williams.
>> Okay. So, again, I think that just for
context because um it said that, you
know, you were talking about giving it
3% across the board and why you think
that that might not be um a a good place
to land. Again, the 3% across the board
was in response to
uh it being on being brought on the
table that they were going to uh do no
raises across the board. And my point
was we minimally have to do this
unless we're uh giving people a pay
reduction. So again, I'm you know,
that's not some place that I'm saying
that we need to land. What I'm saying is
that we need to at least be there.
And I'm and I'm open to have a
conversation around why other you know
what the extenduating circumstances are
for certain positions. I will say that
it have to be pretty extenduating
circumstances to be some people at 3%
some people at 18 or 25 things like that is definitely something
>> I think that was last year's budget.
>> Please Mr. Williams so based on Mr.
probably started off the conversation at
being a midline point of starting the
discussion around staffing compensation.
Uh there was a lengthy conversation
where I was proposing the use of the
great line. I understand and can't count
for conversations from department heads
highlighting why individual name plus or
over uh 3%. received countless emails
from staff just uh I think providing
more context which is always appreciated
and appreciated.
However, the conversation without
re uh
everything I stated was I can't
permanently increasing your lines
without having global overarching
reassessment. So we're talking about
compromise. I can compromise and move
the portions that are in uh currencies
to adequate
get these individuals to the right
conditions.
Um
yeah, you had mentioned that all or some
of us mention
that not all management are out of grid
or they can't get enough.
I'm sorry if I'm using the right term.
There are times when people are signing
stuff out of great but they don't get
overtime and don't get
some of the benefits that are afforded
by the uh employees within the
department.
>> So will these management position fall
under out grid or can we realign them
for other grid compensation?
What is being proposed are payraises
that reflect the work that they're doing
and expect to do in the future. Out of
grade tends to be a temporary
assignment.
So if you're
>> adding it for
temporary it makes a more complicated
thought process than managing the theory
behind
>> that's just followal
>> and some of the comments we've heard
from semantic they were in response to
temporary
hirings as conditions that they're
working with and that is part of the
reason why I'm proposing that I would
say that like this is in response to
just job evolution over the years. Um I
would say that that would also be reason
why we want to have a job analysis to
understand how have these roles expanded
over the years and do they currently
fall in line to your point earlier of
how market trends are potentially
putting the city where they have
competition against each other um but
also just how the roles evolved over the
years and does the right work align with
the right person.
>> Mr. Toro,
>> thank you. Um Mr. probably mentioned two
times that it was suggested that no
increases were given.
No raises were given
>> initially when we were discussing the
budget. I had made a proposal.
>> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought you was
>> because we're looking at we're looking
at the budget and my thing is my
>> it's a recommendation. I mean I have
>> we're looking at how we can reduce your
budget overall. Is it that is it the
best uptake to give raises at this point
in time
>> but then we have to look at also
inflation and then look at if we don't
give an increase it's a big cut.
>> So how do we balance across the board
>> and those were the big ticket items that
we kind of wanted to consolidate into the discussion.
>> Thank you.
» I'm sorry.
Please follow me. Um so
>> I'm just focus on
>> okay we um we had this discussion and in in terms of discussions I know at
least two we heard from two um well one
person saying that their job that they
do what the additional duties are not
temporary this is part of their job
there's these are extended duties so I
think we definitely need to be take look
be taking a look at that and
additionally one of the reason that was
talking about is because the person who
was going to be supervised was 100.
So I think you should definitely take a
look at I I don't know I want to call
them extenduating circumstances but
reasons behind the recommended reasons
and for all those over um
over I 3% is I guess the number that's
being that's being proposed. We could
take a look at them individually and we
don't have to say people's names. We
could just say who the physician is. But
um again some people have we've already
had explanations for a couple of them
and if we need explanations for all of
them we'll certainly ask for them.
» I mean we all have the emails or
correspondent with regards to
>> some of them correspondence
>> and some they're not. So for the ones
that we have emails we can discuss those
but we'll stay with the position
supervisor receipt I think that we did
receive an email with a clear
clarification
on that.
So
we can start with that one.
I'm okay going with the proposed budget
of 98850.
» Yeah. Based based on the based on the
email that I receive, we received I am
okay
to align this position
with proposed um budget.
I'm sorry. U
» you did skip one, but do you want to go
back to that one?
>> Which one we skipped?
>> Accounting supervisor.
>> Do you have Do we have an email?
>> It's on this um sheet uh that we just
goted. Um
>> no, we're talking about emails or any
correspondent that we received to
explain as to why is going beyond.
>> Okay. So, we're not going to look at
>> I can recall that we received an email.
>> Oh, yeah. No, I know. position
>> I think. Yeah.
>> So if we if we have on any other
position let's talk about it.
>> Go ahead please.
>> Thank you. So I I can say that I think
our last discussion around this we did
reach out to a couple of department
heads seated around the table and gave
us explanations about that and I would
have to respect the recommendation from
department heads at this point
>> um uh at the with the races they request
um and trust their judgment and the
lines as is.
>> So that's what we would be doing just be
doing it on sheet. Right. That's what I
got, right?
>> I mean, I I can't say one department
head
>> has a better explanation than another
department head. So, I'm going to trust
their
recommendations.
>> I'm I'm
in this column 2026
proposed budget.
>> Yes.
>> On the sheet that we just got today.
>> Mhm. I'm okay with going with that
column.
>> Okay.
>> Some people are 0% raise.
>> No.
>> Yep.
>> For example, but I'm just saying, you
know what I mean? They're not their
salary is not going up.
>> They are at 3%.
» Anything anything that is over 3% is
highlighted
>> in those columns.
>> Okay. I was just looking for example at
the third line down
>> there's a 0% change in that
>> and the numbers that I asked you to
strike out the positive numbers is the
one that the proposed budget did not ask
for an increase so we only dealing with
the negative numbers
and I think we are in in agreement to
>> which which
>> oh you guys are looking at I was looking
at the sheet we got today you guys are
looking at this
>> the same sheet though
>> okay
>> yeah Okay. Um,
>> this is very clear because it gives us
the percent change.
>> Go ahead, Miss Williams.
>> I am in agreement with supporting the
recommended figures for girls lines. I'm
not agreeing with this structure until
we have an internal job evaluation.
I can get to where you are. I can take a
step towards you by putting the
difference about the 3% and the
outbreak.
uh and and and is out of great category.
I would hope that if you are confident
receiving this, you ensure these
individuals get that compensation that
you would have minimum take a step
towards me. And there's neither of us
saying no. It is saying we need to
continue to consider all of the
positions.
Otherwise, we could be just continuing
to chase inflated salary, which is not
even a point of debate. It's a fact. So,
I'm weary why we would continue down
this path knowing the bulky back. And
there's nothing wrong with saying we
need to be more efficient with how we
operate as a city. There is something
wrong with our continued disregard and
just continued on for I refuse to do
that.
» I would support in the future having a
salary evaluation. I know that we did
talk about that last year and it doesn't
seem to have happened, but I'm I'm good
with the sheet as presented tonight.
>> You say support in the future. We all
support a resolution that we all voted
unanimously.
>> No, I understand. But what I'm saying is
all I'm saying is we can't really do it
tonight in order to pass a budget. So,
we might as well put it on hold until
after we have a budget.
>> The resolution still stand. the council
unanimously passed a resolution asking
for a wage uh study
and we have
>> so we do need to do that. I think you
and I are saying the same thing. Yes.
And so is Mr. Williams.
>> You can't say support something in the
future. We already have it. We already
support it.
>> I'm just saying we're not going to do it
tonight
>> or by the time November 1st comes and we
need to have a budget. So I think we're
on the same page here that we need to do
that evaluation. I just don't think that
we're going to be doing a salary ne
evaluation tonight. So, I'm supporting
um I don't know which sheet this is, but
I'm just saying you're saying it's the
same as what's in the in the budget. Um
I'm I'm I'm good with that. It looks
like everybody is good with that. And
we're just also talking about, you know,
what's not going to happen tonight.
>> I I don't think anybody's good.
>> No, not everybody's going to be
>> You don't want to give these races? No.
Let's speak for ourselves.
>> Okay. Okay. Then I'll just I'll back off
and say that I support the raises that
are here.
>> Trying to make it very clear. This
council passed a resolution unanimously
asking for
>> Mr. You don't have to say the same thing
to me.
>> But um we can't say that they're going
to support something. We already support
it. It should have happened. It didn't
happen. Here we are this week follow
>> the comparison that was done a year ago
with the debate was referencing pay
rates in other municipalities.
The council requested a study that put
together annually what I believe is
comprehensive study by the New York
Conference of Mayors comparing rates for
other municipalities.
>> The internal I think Mr. Williams links
were chasing inflated salary levels
here. You have to point out which one
which employees getting overpaid.
The reality is the pay scale in the city
of Skony is drifting toward the lower
end of the marketplace. Our benefit
package is clearly at the higher end of
the benefit package.
And so when you're hiring younger
workers coming in, they would like to be
paid more money and aren't quite as
concerned about retirement and
healthcare and the other issues.
Uh and it's harder to get younger
employees. Older employees are much more
appreciative of the
again retirement benefits, the health
care, other packages they get. that is a
much more complicated fact pattern than
simple resolution and some quick study
that is
out there. So you know the some of the
pay raise again were done where
employees have made pitches directly to
the council to bypass
the management staff. They only give you
one side of the argument. They're not
looking at other factors that I may have
considered when I made the budget.
council has bypassed that, discounted
it, and move forward. I've chosen not to
make that an issue or embarrass
employees or make big uh stink out of.
But I've made recommendations on these
employees this year and those components
of management perhaps that the council
go forward and support that and then we
look together. How do you address some
of those
uh inequities that are in the system
depending on whether you're a new
employee coming in, you consider it the
inequity, but you're not getting paid
quite as much, but when you're an older
employee, you're getting benefit package
that really is not offered anywhere else
in the marketplace. And I think uh back
to M Williams on my my my position
myself looking for
address that behind us in terms of the
uh if there's any adjustment in terms of this to
happen.
>> So So you're in agreement with what the
mayor just said,
>> right? Is that what I'm hearing?
>> No, I'm not going to I'm not going to
I'm not debating agreeing with anybody.
I'm here making a statement. That's what
we need. That's what we asking for what
he said and I hope that we can get that
because we need to move on. If we have
that study, we can move on.
>> Right now we don't have the study. So we
we're just looking at numbers here.
>> Okay. So because tonight we don't have
the study. So
>> well I have given the study. It's done
by the New York Conference of Mayors.
>> It's been forwarded to Mr. Mudar.
You did not forward it to me, please.
>> I got that from
>> and I forward it to the entire council a
week ago.
>> Yeah.
>> So,
>> you asked me to reach out to. It's
available at night and I sent it to you.
>> No, you didn't.
>> No, you did not.
>> I think that's a little
crazy. So again, I think what we want to
do now is, you know, deal with the facts
as they or more and more go through
this, I feel facts, adjacent
information that we had. The reality is
we're talking about information that was
sent out um to us. However, the
justifications that we that we heard at
this table from department heads did not
align with that. they align with other
reasons that were being brought to the
table. So again, that's why this study
is important because we can't keep
moving the goalpost every time we want
to have a conversation. So, we're saying
I sent you a a study um that was a thing
from uh Nikon, but then but then the the
raises that we're seeing here represent
another position in another department.
So, if we need to be using the same
ruler here if we're going to have that
conversation. So that's why last year
when we got into this conversation, we
knew that the goalpost was really moving
the same way it's moving now. So to Mr.
Williams point, what still stands is
that
whatever was sent to us, it's not based
on and and the department heads said to
us multiple times that we don't that
this position is is not filled. So this
person has to now take on the work of
this other person and that's why that's
the justification for the race. Mr.
Williams point which I agree with is
that if that is based on a a a
circumstantial situation right now, then
for us to commit and lock into these pay
rates is going to come back and be a
problem for us moving forward. That's
why we're in the problem that we have
now. So, let's just not act like we're
using the same ruler because we're not.
one raise that we asked did anyone
align it to tonight to the report from
Nikon. Hasn't happened one time and
that's a fact.
>> How do you I'm sorry. How do you know
that you you read the Nikon report?
>> No, because I asked the the uh
department has directly how they raised
the raise and the reasons that I heard
they did not reference Nikon. reasons
that I heard is that there were um they
were taking on more responsibility due
to lack of positions that there was
other positions within the city that
they felt that might have been um
comparable to them and they were way
below that. As well as we also heard
that there were positions where the
supervisor was making less than the
person that they were going to be
employed by based on a on the
contractual agreement which management
is not a part of.
>> So you're okay with not doing 3% against
across the board. So, so what I'm saying
and so what you're doing right now is
>> Okay. So, what you're what I'm saying is
exactly what I'm saying, Miss Patrick.
And I don't want I think that
>> in the spirit of just I I think I've
been pretty clear. Don't if if you have
a direct question based on what I'm
saying, please ask it and I will clarify
it for you, but I cannot understand for
anyone. I'm just saying that this is
what I'm saying is that the the the the
way that races were justified
is what I'm basing the conversation on
and and in and how we get to a solution.
It's very simple. I'm not looking for a
gotcha moment. I'm not trying to point
anybody out. That's not that's not what
I'm doing. What I'm saying is that let's
not act like there's a fact pattern that
doesn't exist and not that we're making
our decisions based on that because
that's disingenuous. That's all I'm
saying.
Any
points may
since we keep referencing the um my
report, I think we should look at it and perhaps these the races that the
mayor has recommended are in mind. I
don't know the answer to that, but we
certainly haven't even looked at it
in terms of this. Yeah,
» so I'd say with respect to time, I
definitely think that's something that
we need to do. To Miss Patrick point, I
would be responsive to the numbers that
were sent to us
in my compromising,
which I originally was at the line for
the 3% across the board. I can
compromise and say the additional um
recommended revenue for these positions
has all been submitted with good reason.
I've content to that. I would say that
difference needs to be put in a separate
category that can be evaluated once this
set once this assessment has been done
and the premise behind that is it will
be done in this year. We'll have a
different conversation this next coming
budget.
My reservation is to continue with the
same thought process we did last year
expecting a different outcome. I that's
inconsiderate tax base.
>> Agree.
>> So you're please
>> I feel no that's okay.
>> So Mr. Williams you're recommending that
we put it in paid to those who come with
an explanation.
>> I would say for I can just respond. I'd
say for all of them because we didn't
make the explanation a requirement. Uh,
so I think it's offered a bit of an
advantage to some individuals who felt
comfortable reaching out to the council,
which we know is
not the easiest of things to do. Um, but
I think just being responsive to the
numbers that were submitted
or if we would like to move that way,
putting that recommendation out to those
individuals and allowing time for them
to respond to the ones that did not,
which I do not agree with.
I
>> I so I like the mayor one of them is
recommendation by the mayor in
one of them we got an email from another
one we got um who was here in her
department so um
as I can see we're talking about two
three
four five six seven
and one by until we already have an
explanation for third
um then that's form one
and again I think we should we should be
looking and perhaps by
however I I don't know how I'm hoping
that people looked at that report when
they did this we should take a look and
see if if if they do coincide with the
additional information people have
provided us
and if if it doesn't come outside and if
out of rate pay is if the explanation
that we receive is because people are
doing things outside of their normal job
then I will concur that that that's when
the excitement so I don't think it's a
one-sizefits-all in this particular
situation
>> that's
>> no okay I I want to I just
>> I'm I'm just going to stick to I'm okay
with this chart here
>> okay
>> for for the purposes of trying to have a
2026 budget by November 1st.
>> Just a quick note, if we're looking to
do an imagined study, I would recommend
the council allocate some funding
towards that. Uh I believe in 22
study and they paid 125,000.
So we're looking at doing some of that.
I recommend putting some money resources
department today and I'm assuming it's
going to be more than that since a few
years ago
» but I think the recommendation was to do
an internal study. I mean we have an HR department that can can do that
study.
>> We don't have enough staffing to that
study.
Go ahead, please. My concern again is if
we can't get in a place where we can
get the information to make the
decision. That's what I'm hearing. We
don't have staffing to do that. We put
money aside. Um last year that we said
we're going to do it. It didn't happen.
So it's like
how are we
how do we justify
» what we're doing without
doing the due diligence and getting the
information that we requested. And I
think that what ends up happening is
that we find ourselves here and then
there's a growing and mounting pressure
and then we're playing um the you know
not it game and I'm not the one that's
holding it up and I don't want to hold
it up based on this. Um and if we're
having the conversations from a genuine
place, you know, we need to recognize
that there's some missing information.
There's people who have submitted things
to us. There's other people who haven't.
there's uh people who have said that you
know
that this has happened in previous years
as well um and the council has made
adjustments based on the information
that we get but again if being equitable
in our practices is something we value
at least
minimum I think we need to acknowledge
the fact that our practice thus far has
been not equitable at all and just And I
would give anyone any uh opportunity to
challenge that. I think that we just
need to part of fixing what's going
wrong is admitting that something is
wrong here. And that doesn't mean
anyone's doing a really bad job. That
means that some of our practices are
just outdated and and we need to just
work on. So I'm just saying this is not
an equitable practice. But to the point
that we might not be able to come up
with an equitable practice in the point
at this point, you know, I I'm I find
myself aligned with what Mr. Williams
suggesting the recommendations are. Um,
but we need to call a space F.
Are we asking to have a
holder for Nikon
to to look at these? Is that just
or missing?
>> I I think Mr. the way you're set up
could be solid idea as to how to
approach it and if that's something
that's feasible I can align myself with
that because that's we're we're making
progress um towards the the proposed bud
budget however we're keeping in mind
that there's been some inequitable
practices that have gone on that we're
working to rectify so that's why I said
I would align with your thoughts on
any other suggestion regards to this? I
mean I don't need to restate my position
but again for for based on what's being
proposed uh if if someone has increased
responsibilities that remain permanent I
don't see us using the site method for
those that are only temporarily taking
on things because other uh positions are
invas
I
>> wouldn't be able to differentiate those
Mhm.
» Go ahead, please.
>> I'm just going to also reiterate my
position that we respect the department
head's recommendations about the people
that they supervise. So, I'm okay with
I'm just saying I'm okay with what's on
this um sheet and I don't want to
prolong the our ability to be able to
pass a budget by having to look at a
report now um or within the next couple
of days um on the salary survey. So, I'm comfortable with this this chart and
I think that the other discussion is one
that we can have after we pass the
budget.
>> Let me just address that. We all been
prolonging this budget including myself.
So, we should have got this done since
last week. All of us keep putting it
out. All of us keep saying I'm coming
recommendation tomorrow. I'm going to
put my recommendation tomorrow. So, I
want to address that. We'll be pushing
it down to to the end of the day, end of
October. So, I want to make it clear.
We're coming out here and we all want it
to happen right now.
>> Mhm.
>> But we should have think about that
since last week. Go ahead,
>> M. I I did. I sent my recommendations
and the time you requested. I set my
recommendations in the only
recommendation that
>> I copied every single
do that so again not it we're going to
start that but can I so so I guess the
point I I would like to make is that to
miss uh Patrick a point around um
trusting what the department heads are
saying the reality is
>> we need to be clear that what's proposed
in to city council is not necessarily
what department heads recommended
>> I will agree with you on that I guess I
will come back to what I What I mean is
that the department has had to meet with
their supervisor and negotiate the same
way that any of us I don't know what
other people's life experiences have
been and I think I said this last week
as well but basically whenever I have to
present a budget in my work life to a
supervisor
um then you negotiate you know you try
to come together like I might have put
oh here's what I want um and my
supervisor would have said okay not sure
we're going to be able to do that. Let's
talk about it. I'm confident that those
discussions did happen within
city hall. I'm also going to base on my
work experience, my own life experience
that
again I come from a nonprofit priv, you
know, background for the most part in in
the private sector. um
you know the h you you you don't always
get what you want first of all and you
also have to negotiate these things uh
moving forward. So I I am just saying
that um I'm I'm going to say that I'm
confident that the discussions that
might have happened with department
heads and then and their staff and then
department heads and the mayor have come
up with this these salary
recommendations and for our purposes I'm
confident moving forward with these
salary recommendations based on those
discussions.
And I did lose a point. I lost my train
of thought for a moment there. So I'll
have to come back to that one.
» Have you had it?
>> No, I just we have to make a decision.
>> That's I I agree.
» Mr. Chairman, just you just you know I
see a lot here. I'm just throwing this
out. um was filling this out that we get
a request for information from the
department heads regarding those of
salaries and then you couple that with
the with the report and then you review
it between now and Thursday and if
you're not satisfactory this way you
have something in writing RFI why you
for this particular person not person
line item you know why is this person
that blind item getting it the study.
Does that marry up with the studies from
the from the uh Nighth
» you have and it's a short suspense and
it it may not satisfy everybody but at
least it may you've got something
additional
>> based on something
>> and I would just say that you know the
following line items we need
justifications request for information
from them. Why is this going up and then
you have something
>> are there particular
>> throwing back?
» You okay?
>> I go Mr. Williams and then I come back
to you. I would say we compromise the
integrity of getting more information
based on how this conversation has been
conducted. I would highly have to say I
imagine seeing all staff are listening
right now. I would take notes.
I probably take out various assignments
um and adjust my my my logic and you'd
be remiss if they didn't. So I think
based on that logic we have to kind of
eliminate that if the if the inclination
is to reference your Nikon study I can
accept that I would say that it's been
further prolonging this and I have every
intention of passing in two nights.
>> Me too.
>> I do too. Hence, hence moving these
phones above 3% to the out of grade
category to get to where my peers are in
some respects while still leaving
impossibility to have this study or not
reference this information in the
following year without punitively
holding hostage these compensation
salaries for individuals. That is awful.
Go ahead.
>> I I agree. I'd like to do this tonight.
Um my only question is and um I just
maybe the commissioner of finance can
tell us
what is meant by out of grade when it
comes to management staff again in my
because it's not something that I've
encountered in my own work life. So um I
just need an explanation of that. But it
sounds like we're in alignment in terms
of trying to determine this tonight. I
think the best person to give you that
answer would be uh mayor
>> scenario would be the deputy
commissioner of finance is filling in
for the finance commissioner so it's a
bump in pay
>> gotcha that's out of grade
>> okay
>> I'm not giving either
I'm willing to compromise for those
things because we we're currently saying
we need to get a budget. We need to get
a budget because we only have hours
left.
>> Mhm.
>> So,
>> anybody else?
>> Mfield.
I'm willing to compromise but u because
I compromised with Mr. Farley to remove
where I was move towards uh because both
of us align now and Mr. is saying let's
move all the
So you're saying anything above the 3%
move into a
is it out of bre
um bucket
and then draw them from that to pay the
individual um positions
until we realign with a study and then
we can able to do a budget
reappropriation
and increase those final position
accordingly.
>> Oh,
>> okay. Hold on. Now I think I'm getting
it. Are you saying that if we move that
into an outofgrade line then not
necessarily will these people actually
get these increases?
>> That is correct.
>> Oh yeah, I don't support that then. I
want I want these I think these
increases which are based on perform
based on performance evaluation and
discussions that department heads have
had both with their staff and then with
the mayor are what I would support. So I
hear what you're saying. So what you're
saying is if it goes into out of grade
then and even take it another step down
the line to next year. It could be that
now we have to renegotiate these. What
if it's the same person right that's in
that position? Um now they may not get
the salary increase next year. Am I
understanding that correct? Is that over
you jump
right into it? I was trying to reignite
what Mr. Williams was saying and I was
going to say sometimes we jump into each
other conversation and allow
>> I'm just trying to understand it.
>> No. So Mr. Williams, did I capture what
you're trying to suggest? What is lost
in translation? I think Mr. Farley
eloquently identified it. the manner in
which we've been providing compensation
in the city is out of date. There's
nothing wrong with that. We need a
source material to reference and apply
whenever we are considering compensation
reinvestments or just an entire
collective reassessment of who we are as
a city. May point previously to my
comment of inflated salary lines. I
accept that in comparison to industry
standards within the city of Skenctity
because I do not hope that having a
comparative analysis of us to Newberg or
Rochester has any relevancy for the city
of connect whatsoever. I think it's how
does this align with comparable
positions in the job market and that is
different than where we are now. you're
required to do a review for all the
rules, not just the ones that were
approved for this budget proposed
discussion right now.
So, it's that until we had that
discussion because the intent was last
budget year to have that discussion this
year didn't happen.
>> Yeah.
>> Didn't happen for whatever reason.
Didn't happen. I'm not going to continue
with the same logic of hoping that
that's going to happen. how I can
protect the interest that I have from my
seat at the table is that we make these
temporary until we have a permanent
solution moving forward.
>> Uh and based on this conversation and
based on what we had asked for, I'm
going to align myself for Mr. Williams
recommendation. Mr. Chair, if you will,
uh the the issue here or one of the
issues that that I think that needs to
be flagged um is that you know we can
look at the impact of the what we're
having the conversation we're having at
the table right now and assign a number
to it that might seem um not as
significant in regards to the overall
budget. The issue with what we're facing
is that these have compounding effects.
Okay. So this year
what we do this year as far as a raise
impacts what happens next year and then
as well as the next hire. So it's like
when we think of how we're getting the
formula that we're using I don't it
doesn't necessarily always need to be
apples to apples but it can't be apples
to pigs. It can't be
so far off that that we're not even
having the same conversation. Um, and I
just I
don't accept or receive the notion of
like, hey, we, you know, we have to pass
a budget, so we have to do it.
I think that of course we all know that
we have to pass a budget, but what's the
purpose of passing a budget that we
don't believe in just for the sake of
doing? I think that we all have relative
amount of compromise that we have to
give. and I I've done it um in good
faith, but it doesn't take away from the
fact that there's some glaring practices
that have compounding results that we
really need to factor in or we'll be in
here same position next year cuz guess
what? We was in that same position last
year and guess what? It'll be year
before that. So, I think at some point
we might have to stay stay later to have
that conversation.
Are you still going to be staying till
2:00 tomorrow morning?
>> Man, I'm saying I'm saying that. Just
>> I'm saying what I'm saying. It's clear,
man.
>> I'm with you.
>> Yeah. Let's take I'm going to take a
private plate.
>> Let me So,
>> yeah.
>> May I ask you, are you aligning with u
>> Oh, yeah. Very clear what William said.
My my concern is what is is the how practical is it based on how
these lines are being identified. Um
that that's that would be my
only concern. But I think that it
absolutely makes sense and it show it
demonstrates that we're being responsive
to what we've learned over the couple
years.
This is totally
for what proposed.
>> Yes, absolutely. I just I just want to
what did I I didn't hear the question or
answer.
>> Are you form on what was proposed the
mayor's proposed budget in terms of the
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Are you okay?
>> Oh, yes, you are.
>> I I'm sticking with this with this
sheet. I I really feel that our human
resources are probably one of our most
valuable things that we have. Um and at
this point I I want to respect what um
is being presented to us and I was I do
remember what I was trying to say from
my own life with and job experience
which is that um again I was in private
nonprofit but rule of thumb and all the
training all the education I had over
four decades of that is you know you
want to make sure that you're also
understanding roles and responsibilities
as well and I don't want to cross into
uh necessarily
um going against what our expert the
expertise of our staff, our department
heads and the people that are here on a
day-to-day basis. So, um I'm sticking
with the sheet um with the idea that
>> down the line if we want to do some sort
of an evaluative study whether it's
in-house or whether we put I don't know
125 $200,000 back into this budget um to
do that study um you know I'd be open to
talking about that at a later date after
we have a budget in place for 2026. Miss
Patrick, with all respect, it was a
reason why last year we passed that um
that resolution to ask for the study
because we felt at that time that
management is not fully compensated
across the board and we wanted that
study to see where there's any shortfall
and we could have addressed that and
pick up. Yeah,
>> I without that study we don't know where
we are. It could be yes these are
correct but how do we know that these
are correct? Maybe there could be shortf
falls in in this right now here that we should have been addressed and
that's why we're asking for the study.
So
>> but are you study within the next week?
We're all concerned about the study. Did
it happen? If it happened, how do we
know that everybody's being compensated
accordingly?
And you know, it's it's hopefully that
we can get it. You know, next question.
It should happen, but it didn't happen,
but what are we going to do? Move
forward.
I just want to say I believe our last um
BR
as we sat around this table talking
about it um was under the same
impression that uh you know looking into
and doing an in-house that I remember
>> I don't think we talk about it
>> you mean last year
>> yeah last year when we asked last year
for it
>> then yes it can it was proposed to be
done in house
>> in So there were no recommendation for
outside consultant at that point in
time. It was more of driven inhouse
study.
>> I'm fine with that. I'm fine with having
an in-house study for next year.
>> Morfield, what what is your position on this?
>> I I'll restate it. My position is for
the POS for those who explanation was
given to us that they working outside of
their regular job duties then to move
them to a segment. for those who gave us
clear explanation that the job had
expanded that I am fine with the race
that there but that explanation came
from their supervisor or whoever it was.
So I'm not again that's not going to be
for me it's not a cookie cutter
approach. I think I'm looking at each of
these individually or or sim couple are
in the same situation but I'm not going
to say that every single person moving
all of the extra into out of great pay
because it doesn't qualify as out of
great pay because it's a regular duties
that they do as regular basis and I know
it's not ideal and I know we should have
a study must please not revisit that but
this is where we are today.
>> Can you identify the position that uh
Should we
please so I can make notes?
>> Well, we all got the email.
>> Yes. So I one one I have there in terms
of the supervisor receive.
>> That's correct. And that individual
explanation supervisor might
» executive secretary.
>> Can I just clarify? So, you're okay with
>> I I think I'm hearing you say that
you're okay with these these recommended
salary increases tonight.
>> Well, not not 100%. Maybe I'm saying
if those recommendations were because
they were getting doing dupies
and not because their duties had
expanded.
» I do, but what about um if their
performance was, you know, excellent or
not excellent? What about if they were
here for a long time or not here for a
long time? I mean, I think the raises
also pro I I think that the raises and
I'm not same as same as you. I'm not
going to I'm not saying we don't need a
study.
>> Good idea. Um but in terms of 2026 and
what we're trying to do, um
you know, I I think there is going to be
variation in in the salary increases. I
think we're saying that you and I are
saying the same thing. Okay.
>> So, so the executive secretary, we
received the explanation.
>> Well, that that that would be the mayor
>> accounting supervisor uh advisor
received.
» I see. So, you're looking at the
>> registr.
Oh, you did. Yeah, you did that. Okay.
payroll manager,
» deputy.
>> Okay.
>> Payroll manager.
» Uh down to supervisor of buildings,
right?
» Chief technology officer,
commissioner of public safety.
Is that what we're doing, guys? We're
looking at the
>> commission of public safety is that's a
typo.
They file their other fire.
>> I think that that's going to be fixed.
>> Oh, okay.
>> Deputy commissioner went to
» Oh, yes. I remember that. Okay. We have one two three four five six
that we receive um explanation.
» So the ones that we need to talk about
are
executive secretary. No, we
>> already done that. We already received
explanation.
» Okay. You tell me then.
>> Do you need it again?
>> I I was highlighting any that were above
3%.
>> So, did you explanation like from from
the mayor from the executive secretary?
Do you need that again?
>> I I don't. No.
>> Okay.
I'm sorry. I thought you were all
looking for that but tonight but I I'm okay with these.
>> Okay.
» I don't think everybody is.
>> Yeah, I think it's done.
>> Can we
just
Okay.
>> Okay, that's fine. I'll take a like 10
minutes
recovery time.
Miss Porterfield needs her too.
>> I just got to that.
>> Okay. Well, we convene a finance
committee,000.
>> Let's count
and
So we have before us the icon
is
hold back up This the one we're going to
use.
>> Yeah, there was a conversation.
>> Oh, a newer one. So, I don't know if
that's the one we want to use.
>> I think we should
going to be
updated number
one here. I should I
Yes.
to us would be what?
>> One, two, three.
I don't
But this looks like it's based on I
don't think they're going to put
anything off service. So this I think
this is really
>> that
uh population. So
similar population the city is spending
you have terms of you part time but we
don't know what each individual position
has to the city.
>> Yeah.
>> So it's how you can't really compare it.
Well, this to me exactly on
looking under the president gives what
salary to determine what and when this
was done exactly what how many years
I've been on the house. Well, this is by
me, not like somebody else.
I don't know about the accuracy of that.
So, but
the where we at uh mission isn't based
on this one that's in front of us,
right? It hasn't
>> strong
our salaries are corresponding with
this, right?
>> They should um HR administrator
um
survey was sent to her. Um she uploaded
all the salary associated with these
comments.
>> Excuse me.
>> I'm saying I'm so
wrong question. I'm not talking about
council members. I'm saying that the
proposed budget and salary lines for the
proposed budget that was presented to us
is not based on this information.
Correct.
» It's just not easy.
>> Yeah.
threat lands
I think that's why
you imagine now
which was quite
>> I'm Sorry. Can I get you 2020 by 111?
» Sure.
So we disregarding this further because
uh it'll be printed for us.
>> I believe
able to print a copy for us.
asked him.
>> No, this is this is simply a survey and
it is exactly and you look at the
mayor's salary when he was in office for
a number of years. It's exactly within
our budget. This is a survey of what's
being made. It's not an analysis. Yeah.
>> Then I look at it and say it's more
taken from the city
>> and just upload it into my
>> show across the board what the city
feeling these position.
» Yeah. But I don't know why Saratoga
because of the difference in population
and all of that.
That's why we wanted to go a certain
direction that happened and that's
understood.
So the parents are the I mean we have to
know like how close to the population
we're at 678
and
it's the closest to Westchester County
» I don't mean ter I don't mean in terms
of miles I mean in terms of miles
>> right I just mean city
Rome
tends to pay more for the city.
>> Mhm.
» All right. So, so I think
>> yes,
>> we need to talk about where we can and
again I mean I'm not on get it
and and go to Dallas so we can get there
tonight. So can we continue on the
salary set?
>> Yes, we can. Not because of this
committee, but I I wanted to hear
recommendation. uh one is a goal where
we expand individually
if uh we don't want to say we want to
finance maybe and experiment
and then we come up with a compromise
and if we can't we just look at the
finance community for the last resort to
move forward
>> I think
>> and that's what that's that's how I
wanted to you know those
» so Um, yes, we can continue with the discussion and then we'll move
our way down.
» So, I'm not sure if that sheet was very
any help.
>> No.
>> Yeah.
for the field. You had some um you know
split
you support what was explained to us
the one that the ones that wasn't
explained to us we are in favor of
moving that into a bucket. Am I quoting
you correctly? Can you can correct me
please? Is that
>> what I'm saying is I don't we don't have
all of the information is that if the
person has expanded duties I recommended
that they
as is
if people are working out of grade
because they have to have additional
duties because there's a vacancy within
their department then I would say that
makes up
So based on the have we went through the
emails or we were just trying to
configure the notes. So we had one 2 3 4
5 six six positions that we received
clarification.
Is that correct?
Go ahead. For the for the for the
purpose of of only making the process
less uh complicated, I'll I will uh um
defer to the finance committee as as far
as this section of our budget goes. I
think I was really clear about how I
felt about it. I think Mr. Williams was
very clear how he so I feel like you
know the conversation has become um
somewhat uh circular. Uh but for this I
think I you know looking at the overall
budget impact I will defer uh to the
finance committee the finance committee
recommendation on that um
being very clear about where you know
that this is something that needs to be
addressed or will just keep compounding.
So I think that for the purposes of
making the process move on I would defer
>> I would those are my positions but I
mean again I'll say it again even though
you say our input is important it's
>> yeah
we're so far apart let me just
» All right
let's let's move on we'll revisit before
we conclude this.
So the next uh big ticket item here for
this is a fee for service. I propose
that we look at all of these and able to
work you know such as a recommendation
for us to kind of like discuss I
initially
asked for 20% sorry 10%.
when I looked at the numbers on the
paper they quite significant as you know
it's about that 5%
>> uh this was a discussion I had with uh
you know we had this discussion and then
I had a discussion with three council
member
>> okay
>> in terms of uh what do we think about
fees for service
and I I'm just throwing that out there
for this question it's not
recommendation it doesn't mean that I'm
going to you know
taking my heat on this and what would be
think about it.
» Um, so if we're looking at your
absolutely sure and I'm talking about
A17
for the wrong form. Okay. So that's the
particular cost
is that
I know is that the actual pay
» my comies
I'd be hesitant to freeze fees for
service
fees for
justify without the assisted money line
to um
certain event not having a staff present
to help with staffing
operations in certain departments.
» Yeah, I think that piece of service is
kind of different. Let's
see it. I mean,
>> most of these lines have been cut from
what the department
of this
I mean, I guess we should just look. We
have to write what they are for if we're
going to have to if we have to have a
conversation about them. So 10 10 404,
right? I mean, you can't just have to
know what they are.
It's 2,000 for city council.
>> Yeah, we got that.
>> What is that? Why would we have fees for
service for city council? That's true
programs.
>> I'm sorry, what?
>> Computer programs, the code online,
things like that
>> for us.
>> It says city city council fees for
service, but
>> I'd have to look specifically, but
that's usually what what they are.
and like so 56 board
services what is paid to the individual
so you know that without
>> oh my gosh
they spend so much time at their work I
mean
>> I know but still it's huge service and
also
affects other parts of our budget
It does, but just keep in mind the
notification
sensor has told us that the duties that
have been performing for the length of
time, the number of cases that have been
has gone down. Don't know if it'll go up
again, but it has gone down.
>> We'd have to look at I I keep drawing. I
don't know what uniformly.
>> So, this is audit.
>> No, I'm just I'm trying to fill in what
they are so that we can actually
converse about it. So yes, that was the
audit is the second one which I would
imagine is kind of a lot in we probably
know how much we have to spend on the
audit.
>> I know
>> it's probably in the budget accurately
in terms of what the audit costs.
>> So Mr. motiv
although I you know was you know giving
a level of difference in the last
section we're reviewing
the larger issue for N is when are we
going to get the information about the
existing funds because every
conversation that we're having moving
forward
there might be funds to support some of
these things that would return this
money back to back to the general fund
and thus far we've part of I've talked
about $700,000.
Um, and if we're trying to collectively
stay under that tax cap, I don't know
how we pass a budget without that
information. So, I'm asking when are we
going to get that information?
>> May we please ask you to work with the
department head to us tomorrow?
>> At 4:00 today, they didn't have it. So,
I assume it's going to get put together
sometime tomorrow.
I hope in the morning but maybe in the
afternoon.
>> Okay. All right. So, we'll do a followup
with regards to uh that report.
I'm going to personally make a maybe a
follow up. Go ahead, please.
>> So, I think does that mean that we are
going to be back tomorrow because we're
not getting information tonight?
>> I can't come back tomorrow, but you guys
can go ahead. I'm not going to be coming
back tomorrow.
>> Oh, no press release for tomorrow.
Definitely won't come back tomorrow.
Never mind. you what you're not able to
>> Thursday. So that means
>> yeah because we had initially
availability was not um
>> right okay
>> we had the full council
>> I did not want to set the meeting
>> with one or two
>> is there any chance that we could meet
if we have to meet on Thursday which I
have on my calendar but is there any
chance we could I know people work but
is there any chance that people could
break away at like four o'clock um I I
mean, some of us have
an event that evening. Um, but
>> you know, Mr. Mudarin's getting an award
at that dinner. Um, it's connected to
shares is getting an award at that
dinner.
>> Huh. Yeah.
>> Exactly.
>> I like that.
>> But I mean, because I can meet, you
know, earlier, but even if it was a
lunchtime, I think, you know, when
people become more that I'm not doing.
>> I also could meet Friday, Friday night.
By the way,
>> we we cannot meet. We cannot meet before
5:30 tomorrow.
>> We have to stick with the house.
>> Oh, that's right. We already publicized
it.
>> And we have time to publicize if we're
going to come on Friday, right?
>> There is no meeting on Friday right now.
>> There is no meeting on Saturday right
now.
>> Thursday.
>> Yeah.
>> Saturday
>> right now. Well, the next meeting
doesn't kick in until you recess this
meeting.
>> You can keep this meeting going
>> to the alternative.
» I'd rather try tomorrows.
I think staff needs to preventation.
I think that by
>> Sam can make a note that relate to just
a follow with the mayor with the we have
those uh the report from
department of development
funding
>> and we would have it prior to the
meeting so we would be able to look at
it.
>> Yes. and be prepared.
>> All these things need to get to us now
so that we can
>> All right.
>> Make a decision and then
>> that's that's to make the salary
decisions. Is that what you're saying?
>> The funding the CDBG
>> Oh, the CDBG funding.
>> Yes.
>> Have a whole meeting just because of
that one thing. Okay.
>> But so just for clarity, that one thing
has produced 700 $700,000.
>> Yeah. to keep us under the tax cap. I
think that that is a if there's a
possibility of more money being out
there, we need to make sure that we have
that information. I mean, to me, quite
honestly, I don't see how we pass the
budget in good faith without that
information.
>> Follow that is like 2%.
>> That's
significant.
>> 700,000 and not 400
>> 202 and 206, right? Nope. It's
>> 408
plus 150 plus 222
from
>> 200 for contingency.
>> Okay. Okay.
» 200.
>> Yeah,
>> that's right. I hear you I
>> 150 of that was as the proposed budget
is neutral in the proposed budget
because that line was zero. But all the
uh the remainder of that um and that's
even only in theory because we all
committed to find money to f to fund
that line for our youth line. So we are
going to have to find that money. So
when you have $700,000,
you know, appearing by a process, I
would like to see that process play out
because that can really change the
scenario that we're in right now as far
as saying
>> step
to further um as we're looking at these
fees for service and I you know we just
can't uniformly cut them. I don't think
about what they're
>> Yeah. I was going to make a suggestion
to commission of uh finance in the
position of can you put the bure
department
and what they're for.
>> Yes.
Yes. So yes, you can add um yeah.
» Yes. So I'm going to ask that we just um
add some more detail onto that. Please
can revisit this
so it will guide us along because right
now it's going to be a lot for us to
just look at this go into the book back
and forth soon and it's a lot I'm going
to ask we wait for more detail for each
line and then revisit.
>> All right.
I'm going to stop filling it
in. Yeah, I was almost
um let's move to um the next one of
stipens
this board and then Mr. F
again I I will refer to the finance
committee for that. Um
my position around that is pretty clear.
I do um but it's a matter of process.
I'll definitely give deference to the
finance committee for that, but even
that I think is going to be a another
situation that there's information out
there we need.
>> So, just to be clear though, what you're
trying to recommend here is just not
having the stipens though.
>> No, that's not
>> Well, it's $30,000 in the proposed
budget and your cuts would take out
$30,000.
>> No, that's not that's incorrect.
>> So, this is wrong.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Yep. So we were supposed to back out all
day 24 hours.
>> Correct.
>> Oh, so some of these are those people.
Correct.
>> Can we make notes again
all the ones that
>> are on 24
and reverse it out from this section?
>> And I and I also said to start with a
number, a starting number for a context
of $10,000.
um
said so that information is missing.
>> It's right here.
>> From what? From what Miss uh Patrick's
guessing, I'm saying. Yes. That's why
I'm saying no.
>> Okay. So, we need to clean this section
up. We work all day. But go ahead,
please.
>> Um as we talked about this yesterday, I
think it was yesterday.
>> Yes. As far I went through each
statement, as far as I could see, there
was one and we asked a question about
the other one. A680
um was clear was clear to me that that
was the news of so that might not
change.
>> 1680.
>> Okay. Yes.
>> And A510.
>> Could you tell me what that
>> A680?
>> Yeah. Okay. I'll look it up.
>> Technology.
>> Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. And then
I asked if A5010 was a 24-hour gay
person. Didn't get a response. So I
don't know the answer to that question.
>> I'll tell you.
>> That's the only one who may have
>> Well, I looked it up as well, but it's
not clear that person.
>> Can you just ask it now though is what
I'm saying.
>> I asked yesterday. I asked today
position.
>> I'm looking it up.
facing street food under
>> Oh, the street department manager.
>> Mhm. That's the same person.
» I did not follow up on that.
>> I think
>> I did not follow up on
>> Oh, I thought
>> I thought
Nice. It didn't take them long to do
that. So, you may
>> service administration.
>> All right. Can we make notes follow up
on that please? S can you also make note
please
>> so that um we can realign and make sure
that these things are here
» and can
>> that's the only two
>> commissioner can we can we look at all
this typing and see who else is on 24
hours
>> all
I think under the mayor's position on
all these positions
they're 247 call polic.
>> Okay,
>> the mayor stated that one.
>> Let's just go back based on what I
looked at. Um, let's start with a 10.
Yes, which is in the mayor's office.
Um other than the mayor who tomorrow
you refer to
>> the studongs
to just
call 24 hours
1910
136
finance. You probably could tell us
about that one.
» Um, so the mayor and the judge me.
>> Oh, it's for you. Oh, okay. Yeah. No,
you don't have to go further.
>> Access to a laptop. So, if I need to
access something, I can. Um,
>> Gotcha. You don't have to go further.
» Uh there's time for the office at the
wires
>> for the wires.
>> Mhm. So the office man that could be
>> has it happened with Derek one time
playing Ferrari
team there was a police pursuit
sheriff's department of fatality.
>> Oh jeez.
>> He was at the scene
less than
>> scenario to have to deal with
>> seems to happen.
>> But you exactly have time.
>> Yes. So we will find
» all
the part make sure we weren't getting
sued. That's a good thing. So,
you know, I think I think we really So,
my understanding it was like this with
the start people who were also a scene
because there was a water being break or
you know um all various things
» entirely with facilities, building
maintenance. Yikes.
said one.
Yeah, I was more aligning this kind of
align myself with this in terms of like
more drivenness towards like people with
OGS who has to be on call stream OS
uh you know personnel
and anybody who has to be like
infrastructure stuff deal with
>> this one's code
>> there's a break in the main or there's
something happened you know that needs
to be at the se fire or something like
that some technology.
>> Yeah, technology is different because
there's certain things happen. They have
to you know come in and shut down and
you know run
and things like that.
I was kind of like
my thought about this in terms of
like more like administrative stuff
that's a I don't know.
>> Oh, go ahead. Well, I have all the I can
tell you who each of the I just slipped
them out if you want to know who each I
know by the positions.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And then we can find out.
Well, I I wouldn't say the person's name
unless executive session, but um
>> I just if you know, so the first one is
in the mayor's office and we've been
told it's the director of operations.
The next one is our finance
commissioner.
>> What was the last year? I'm sorry.
>> I'm sorry.
What did we spend last year on that
statement?
>> It didn't exist last year.
>> So that's a new statement.
>> That's a new
>> $3,000.
>> 3,000 was spent last year.
>> No, I'm saying that's what it is right
now in this in this year's budget. Um in
1410, that's in the city clerk's office.
It is the city clerk, I believe. I
remember that from previous years. Uh
1620 is facilities and building. Um, I
actually don't know specifically who
that is, but um, 1622 is in utilities
administration. I can see how both of
those would be people that would get
called upon, could could get called upon
in the middle of the night.
>> Um, 1680, very important. Chief
technology officer obviously gets called
upon. Now 5010, it says service
administration.
Um, so I'm not actually can't think of
who that would be. Um,
» 5010. Yeah, that's what we're talking
about.
>> Street department.
>> Okay. Street. Okay. Streets. So that's
obviously important. And then the next
one's code enforcement.
» The last one.
And this doesn't say who, but I'm sure
these are tied to a specific individual.
Is that correct?
>> Yeah.
» Just
paid on
the Yes.
>> For the building.
>> Okay. manner outside of
>> Yes.
» Other ones they get over.
» Any other question regarding this? We
need more clarification. We need to
reverse some things out. This report
needs to be updated.
>> So, could we just look at the act the
expenses last year for all of those?
all got spent, I'm sure. Right.
>> I can look it up.
» Want me to look it up?
>> I'm happy to.
>> No, I I'm sure I'll
» Okay. I just
>> like of I think it's the fire department
A34 CS
stipens
>> right in the A3411 just I'm just curious
as to
>> 411 that's all contractual
>> oh okay
>> that is not here
>> no I I know it's not there but
>> I mean we're talking stipens so I'm
wondering why it wasn't there but it's
just
>> anything that has to do
CSC
fire department
>> contractual
>> is not here.
>> Can I be this is not part of a
negotiation
is just asking
>> anything
that we all
» right go. No, no, no, no.
So just just a sick moving um we'll just
move on with this revisit
and um
» we have
any any members have any other expense
that we need to discuss
the lease.
>> What do you have anything else?
>> I mean,
>> no more no more expense.
>> I mentioned that you had some expense
that we didn't
>> that would be good.
>> Okay.
» That's
Oh, I did have a couple questions that
>> Yeah, we can go ahead and add please.
Yeah.
» Okay. So I asked that would be uh any
other that was in 2025
what percent
and how many employees currently outside
Yeah, that's not good.
>> So, as for
you have a new report
that was fun
later.
pass around.
>> I got two of the mayor need one of
these.
>> Uh, I got
>> Okay.
So
in fact this is a this this report
combined will be for
as 3 million8181
and 48
3.8
automating forms that we got.
>> Yes.
Um, so I before I asked for it and then
told us it was like 3 million and then
this is the additional because I'm
really just trying to get to how we got
to the $6 million gap.
That's why I asked for this.
And so if this plus what?
Well, we have fun balance. Uh
you look at previous year we was it last
year 6.6 million our funding
>> correct?
>> Um 6.1
>> 24 6.6 approximately. So
>> and
3 million change
of about 5.4 4 million above balance.
» So look at this report. So we have three
employee currently out of work and 19
from
that.
» Is that correct? Soal,
but there's only three of
>> this is that provided by
» and so your three currently out 19 uh
from January to 1020 in total
>> um of the 191
that's is that everybody actually went
on one
laugh
sometime this year they've been out
for
somebody can be out for a week usually a
day mostly it's tends to be a week or
longer
» so none of these people every one of
these occurrences started in Janu excuse
me in 2025 so nobody was out from 2024
They carried 2025.
>> No. Get another report to see what's
right. I just want to make sure that we
» um
>> so we do not so we do not have any any
anyone on long-term workers
>> on this list I'm not 100% Sure. I'm sure
I can get the information for council.
>> Yeah, if you don't mind can doing that.
Um, if you can get if there's anyone we
have anybody in 207 which is different
than
>> workers.
That's
>> Yeah. Um
I'm just looking to see if there are
long-term
except for 207 which is by now we have
full salary. Yeah, I'm just trying to
see if we have anybody
on long term and do we still carry the
salary line perhaps
» position
up now? So yes, their salary line is
budgeted.
» Is there anything else
there? Do we do we should we budget for
them on that line or are we keeping budget in anticipation
that they're going to come back next
week? Those are all I believe are
shortterm
thing. So it's two weeks a month.
» Okay.
>> Standard account
of position for that.
Our
claim ratio right now is fairly good.
It's natur sometimes you can't tell how
it's going to go.
» So there's 30 people that I just see who
>> what was the specific question?
It it was more driven towards how do we
have how many employee do we have long
term workers
>> but you know not overall the timeline
>> I think and excluding um 207 because
regardless we have to pay them the full
sum rate so you exclude 27
>> I think another way of capturing it
since it's not just without people just
how long employ.
» Can can you please add that into the report
by by department also?
» So my question was um
It was responded to when it came to 207
whether it was contractual but for the
rest of the employees who are not part
of 207 is this contractual or it's just
a practice by the city.
>> No, sorry. Let me let me let me just
>> 207 and 20.
>> So let me just take So we have to
exclude 207
including 207.
>> That's coming.
>> Oh okay.
swimming 207.
>> Yes.
>> The other
>> CNC. Yes.
>> Anybody has 207 in front of it?
>> The rest of the workers common.
>> Yeah.
>> Is this based is it contractual or is
this
>> based on practice of for the city
>> state law? State law. Workers
compensation. I think that's one that's
generically
referred to. You don't know. It's a
felony. Yeah.
>> So,
and state law says we have to pay you a
full salary.
>> That's only for 207.
» Could you pay a full salary? They might
be paid partial salary. They might
depends on
the actual claim.
So it sounds like this is not something
that we really can be fooling around
with anyway, right? This is something
>> No. Well, not the not the 207.
>> Well, we can look at the report for the
ones that long term and they're
receiving workers.
>> And what state actually says about this?
>> Yes. So, um let's look at the report.
Let's look at u the position and
department.
And can you attach a dollar a dollar
amount to that also
plus uh plus benefit?
>> Let's see where how much it's costing us
to um fun
each position into the budget.
>> Can we change that? Why how could we
change that if that's what it is? I
guess is what I'm asking.
>> Oh,
>> isn't it workers compensation? I mean,
it is what it is.
>> No, it just seemed like that there's
some variables in there around like
outside of certain
207 maybe ZDFG. Outside of that,
depending on the on the on the case,
there's some variables that the mayor u
unless I heard them wrong. There's some
variables depending. It could be full
pay, could be a percentage based on
>> No, I I heard that, but I guess I'm
saying
>> there are employees who sometimes will
take advantage of those plans and we do
manage that and do bring in
outside investigators and independent
medical eval.
>> I'm just answering why the information.
>> No, I'm just saying I mean I don't I
just feel like this is probably an area
that
we would not be necessarily arguing with
the budget as well. probably spend
another 3 or four hours in.
» I think right now we still need
clarification. We will be spending three
or four hours.
>> It's just a matter of getting the
information over so we can look at the
report and and that's what I'm trying to
get to we're not going to analyze
anything. We're just
>> we're just trying to get the best
information over to the commissioner so
you can provide a report to us so we can
look at it. And when you get the report
tomorrow, please email it to us so that
uh we have it ahead of time and we can
review it and then come back uh with
looking for the city page
>> without the city.
>> Yes. What we what we have in the budget.
So if we have a long-term amount of work
everybody that we have on work has come
except for the 207s
how much we have in the budget
we have in the proposed budget for that
position and that's
the position plus dollar amount plus
benefit
and that's including everybody
Okay. All right. Any other question
regarding that?
We'll wait on that.
>> Anything uh do you have any other
question any back any questions what you
have there?
Go ahead, please.
>> I believe that was all I had
>> for my
>> You had some Mr. Far, you had some
questions. You got you're good with
those.
>> All right. You I submitted my question.
I had to
>> Oh, that's the one. Okay. Yeah, that's
fine.
>> All right. We should have this document
here
to be the package.
» Yeah.
Yes.
>> Which one are we looking at?
>> The waste partisan
» just for clarification purpose. So
whatever we're
uh commissioner whatever number we were
crunching all the time here has no
effect on this
separate
whatever we were on this.
>> Uhhuh. They were working our way.
>> Okay.
» Which one? What do you mean?
>> You don't have it.
>> It's attached to this.
>> It's attached to a memo.
How can you
>> was one of the first things like this?
So you might lost something.
>> I'm very sorry.
» This came to us on October 1st. This was
with the budget
» here. I'll shut
» you is
give you time to review and then open
for discussion and then
the sector
a real quick glance through um and we
asked like where a lot of our workers
compensation is on page two at the
bottom
to 730,000
page two.
» Oh yeah.
It's
Let's
see.
So, we're talking about waste now or
>> Yes.
>> When are we going to do we
>> I'm really lo here now. It's getting
pretty late.
So
» I mean
>> I don't know
continue for discussion. I mean
if any would you know I would like to
have every member that if some reason
>> if some reason for some reason a member
has to leave
And I respect that.
>> Thank you.
» We will have to still maintain a a a two
member.
>> Y.
>> So if for some reason two member of the
finance decide
of then
>> Well, do you have a a projected time of
the planning might end this evening or
are we going all the way through?
>> No, seriously. Hi.
>> I'm here till the pass.
>> Okay.
>> He said he's here.
>> Extremely close pending questions into
tomorrow. Well, are you going to wait
for the information
tomorrow right now? So, being close
get closer. We can't we I don't think we
can push it for weeks. We need some
information.
>> Mhm.
>> With regard
>> some you know that I'll send staff home
and you can bring them back the next
meeting. There's a limitation in terms
of people's performance.
» I hear you.
>> I don't understand
>> that these guys could go home. All these
guys could go home. not staying until 1
2 in the morning until it's done. Mhm.
So we can start discussion on on this
place here with um cost analysis study.
>> Uh
» so starting from the back
>> the talk of commission general services
is all one
>> now
that only for one. So what? Um just
showing that because they do run the
waste department. Yes. Uh but they learn
their salary
to water and sewer. So just reflecting
that as part of the whole picture for
the waste cost.
>> So they lose their salary benefits.
» And then the other thing too is to not
for
from sector 2025 delta budget. Uh it
didn't include all the seasonals. So
that 9.85
more like 1.4 that's not included
within this analysis.
256
whole pages will be there.
So the the commissioner and the deputy
both
are full
>> right
now.
>> Okay.
advance. So for 816118,000
and then for 8162,000
that wasn't there last year that is
there this year.
in the near days to see what was
expected.
Let's
go.
with the air.
Sorry.
for being
over time
8,000 here today
I put that
file that's been here to date
» and 122 is a new added time.
That one
has $8,000 in the current.
» It wasn't in the 25 budget.
So we spent money that wasn't
» I'm sure
address that. So, so we wasn't much
interest.
» I wonder if that's brought over with the
other employees that
>> I believe so
uh seasons
$20,000.
» Uh if you need more details,
Commissioner will probably walk you
through it. So yesterday we paid on that
line that was 8,000.
How much did we pay?
>> I got it.
>> That line currently 8,000
>> for this year.
And what's
» okay?
Um, and then we added a line 8163
122. No one for that. We added 3,00
163.
Mhm. Yeah. 3,000
13.
It's page 24 on the year to date.
Enter.
I already pointed out a little bit and
In terms of the um the revenue
a 2130
commercial waste
530
that Any advice about commercial
contracts?
um
Tell me
new waste violation for 15 gallons. I'm
not sure what that is for.
What number is that, Mary?
>> Oh, I see it. I got it.
again. It wasn't expected.
I recall
that
was
well spray
trash
>> infestations
>> and Mr. chairman that I thought I for
the council that fee
it's a lean on the propert so it goes a
little under tax
for that type of control it's it's a
bill is sent to the property owner and
if they don't pay a benefit on the
property
>> so this is new because we didn't do it
before it wasn't in the budget funny
>> it's a waste collection fee I think we
didn't know that last I think they
I think that was something that we had
discussions on and that's how come we
realized they could do that.
>> That's what they be doing. Or I I would
let Mr. Hon speak to that. That's what
the commissioner just talked about and
that's that fee. The only other thing I
can think of is the administrative fee.
It's at $25. raised the administrative
fees for other entities to $50 last year
and the administrative fee if they go to
house they site somebody and their
garbage is out early and they go back
and it's still out it's it's the
administrative fee for 50 bucks
>> right now the code is for waste
collection is at that 25 so he may be
thinking
>> he may want that change I'm speculation
you might
>> um I do have another question when you mention that. So probably this
is probably since you brought it on the
mask if you know they mask out and they
um don't the trash people don't collect
it but they drag it back to their homes.
They still get the administrative fee.
>> You have to talk to Mr. Lefondor.
>> Okay. But I think that may be what
they're looking at there because it's
$25 and all the other administrative
fees last year were raised to 50. So you
can speak to that. Now I remember Mr.
Leaf was saying that
at the initial start of this he was you
know making sure that people like
understood he was trying to help educate
people and then at some point then you
know would be more enforcement right and
I'm wondering those things that aren't
budgeted are those something that's not
budgeted or they are the something about
moving over from another so I'm just
trying to figure out I'm sure Mr. can
answer that question cuz it might be a a
line that's moved
then it is a new line
right
I don't know but it may be that there
was a enforcement last year
>> as the the new structure was rolled out
and now he's now accounting for it but
he needs to speak
discussion is open please
comment
We all set in this section. Are we all
set in this section?
>> Commissioner benefits from here
in the yard from this overall benefit.
It is it's included and separated uh at
least related to the waste.
Also just note
that 1037
is coming up. So these numbers will
increase
what occurs.
No, I'm talking about
>> I understand that.
>> Well, you get it,
>> right?
>> It's in here.
>> Is it also in here?
» This is separated for the council to say
yes or specifically waste. But if you
look at the end of the general fund
with the employee benefit section
underway
group
>> doesn't delineate waste just total
benefits.
» Oh I see I'm very near the end of our
budget. Right.
So our standard for benefits is anywhere
between 72 and 75. Uh I believe CSA
5%
off the buff. So that's that number
there. Um
>> wow.
>> And then our debt service is a million
borrow past years.
So sanctified that sort of sphere uh you
have one point
1 1.1 million here
you put 1.1 million
1.12 million
I'm sorry. Could you say that a little
louder for me, please?
>> Death service.
» Page 65.
>> 65.
>> 75.
You have you have that page 75.
» And this was just broken out
the cost for this the whole picture.
It's coming in.
I guess since we're speaking about debt
um is a topic to bring up but counc uh
ask a button on time.
So be aware in 23 um 24 and 24 um there
was um physical uncertainty um and our
S&P uh rating potentially could have
been affected didn't at the time but
negatively affected our interest rates
increase which uh just for a quick
example
we have 21 million at 3.56%
15 million approximately 3.56%
uh if you increase that by.5% if our
rate goes down. This is just a
hypothetical scenario
it would increase our interest by 170
187k um in 2027 and that'll be
additional years forward.
>> So it's important that the council pass
on time
>> and that's and that also if you don't
consider
>> uh borrowing for 2026.
that number and B.
» This thing is
it's important that we capture what this
process is. Um the council
wants to pass a budget on time. Council
needs information, the relevant
information to pass the budget. So if
the budget doesn't pass on time
based on the information that's given or
not given and we need to, you know, hold
that in appropriate context. I'm not one
to, you know, quite honestly, we've had
the scenarios where it has gotten to,
you know, quite contentious in the
process of trying to pass a budget. And
I've worked really hard to try to get us
to a point where we could. Anyone that
is here at that time knows that.
But that still is under,
you know, right now I don't want to, you
know, have this level of pressure to
pass a budget and essentially the clock
gets run out without the information
that we need.
And that's kind of where I'm feeling
right now. So, as much as I can
appreciate your clearance for us why we
need to pass a budget, we need
information.
And there's important information that I
have yet to receive that can change the
landscape of this budget.
» I mean this is a lot for us to digest.
I'll be honest.
So I ask that um we look at this and if
you have questions u please email them
out or be ready to
ask questions when we come back
>> to make suggestion or recommendation in
terms of the ways
increase you looked at the the last page
in terms of the refuge and trash her
>> it's going up to $9.5 million
from $7.2 million.
So that's an increase of $2.2 million
right there.
>> I think we got this on October 1st.
>> We got it with the budget.
>> It was the first thing that came to us.
So it was October 1st. Yeah.
>> Just saying that we all had it for
>> So I as 28 days,
>> but this is the first time we're
discussing it. I ask you to
dive into it and if you have question
submit it
ahead of time.
Um
let me jump into capital. Oh sorry.
>> Um so Mr.
the of Mr. from Are we going to email
him the question that I raised or are
you going to ask him to come here on
Thursday?
>> Well, we can email the question
>> and if you would like to
have
>> Okay. Yeah. But um we can we try to get
the questions
with
capital.
» Yes.
» Sure. have it.
» Yeah, we do have a copy here. It should
be in your package.
» Take the package.
>> We just got it today. I mean, this one
was was here today.
>> This is where couple couple days ago.
>> Okay, I've got it. It was It was part of
Yeah, I think it was today's package.
This
You can also turn up to page 91
and then that will help guide us along.
Now there we haven't talked about
capital
work recommendation.
Yeah,
>> thank you. I would like to say that I
believe each department was as cut back
on but through very necessities that
they need to make the department
official of the department. This whole
list, the most department has been
scrutinized and cut back already. I'm
just putting that out there
and we've had presentations on each one.
>> We've had presentations on all of this.
>> I wrote lots of notes as we were hearing
from the department heads.
What was the date of our first budget
meeting? Anybody remember?
>> 14th.
» October 14th.
What?
>> Four.
» Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I was just listening.
» I think it might have been the seven.
>> I'm just trying to find notes.
>> I remember being here.
>> I don't know.
>> Yes. Happy birthday.
I'm gonna have to go by memory. Oh, no.
I know. Was I probably took notes on the
» Oh, it's
Are we
updated?
But we got this one.
» Yeah.
>> Oh, sorry.
» I have a hard copy.
>> I don't need a hard copy.
>> No,
>> I have it. No, we know you don't need
it.
>> Okay. I didn't know. I heard my name.
>> They need They want to run a copy off of
your copy.
>> Oh, sure.
>> Okay.
probably
does anyone state
that
these were all
Yeah.
There are some recommended changes. So I
ask
you one of the school changed and
be with the to the board has you making
some changes there.
>> Yeah, I think it's supposed to take all
the
sheet record
there. Whatever.
>> I might stay. Yeah, just take them off
and then I might stay with them.
» He's getting a new seat.
I'm sorry.
And I still might say true.
That's empty.
>> It's empty. I think unless they filled
it recently
here.
>> How's your wife doing?
>> Um, good. Good for now.
>> Good for now.
>> Yeah.
>> Coming right up.
>> I will tell.
>> Absolutely.
It's exciting. My phone just
>> Oh jeez. Oh my gosh. Don't tell us that.
» Your first one, right? So your phone
will ring, but then you go to the
hospital 17 hours later. No.
» Hopefully hopefully it's on the weekend.
>> That's so special. So so special.
>> Oh, that'd be great.
» Do you have any like family beds going
on about the day?
>> Everyone's saying Halloween.
>> Halloween.
That's always fun.
>> Uh my wife
soon.
>> Oh, I have a friend.
Actually, since we're on a breakish and
I also love
you going to be back in the morning. I
said I hear the big the mayor's
statement about staffing
kids from this is actually
That's what
these are
set up by
your
>> Thank you.
I think I was on
>> I said it was maybe my fifth birthday.
Halloween's a good time to have
» seriously
>> I'm going to get I'm going to get Billy.
>> What the heck, man?
You're trying to get rid of all those
equipment pieces.
>> No, this tutorial I did it the wrong
way.
>> Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.
>> What I said not to do was so the
opposite of
putting in there. So, we'll we'll we'll
discuss the capital.
» Okay.
Most of the five if I may ask because u
if you can walk us through the change
and then we um I can ask member to align
themselves
if they have any changes to go one by
one.
>> Yes, if you don't mind please. Let's say
starting in parks and property
management their recommendation was to
reduce the regular
from two.
the expectation took into consideration
comments we heard from the rail um about
considerations for future expenses. I
know this will not impact our current
budget but sincerely need to be more
intentional with capital projects ever
since I've been on the council. It's
always been interpreted as
the flag that works at blunt check. I
don't think we've ever considered it.
social capital projects moving forward.
We need to be more dependent tomorrow
with evaluating these in our current
financial states. It's we need to ensure
that the vehicles we are bringing down
reflect um future financial implications
on having this debt this
» so do you want to can we talk about them
as we go down Mr. Mudarin or do you want
to question yes
>> Mr. Williams.
>> Yes.
>> Um, so I just will comment um because I
did talk to our parks director about
capital and the equipment is very very
old uh that we have. Um and also he has
to do the plowing like for example over
at Stein. It's not just central. I mean
he's at the parks having to do the
plowing. So that one in particular I
think is um is actually one that he
mentioned to me is very very important
to um because it's just very old. So
we'd have to buy it next year maybe if
we don't do it this year.
>> Please go ahead.
>> So um I also had to move one of them and
in the 2020 um but for 2025 we um put in
for two
in additional in addition to that we
also had another pad crew crew had to
pick up file. So a total of three. I'm
not sure why they differentiate between
different type of truck, but last year's
budget, capital budget, um was for three
the purchase of three uh cab pickups
with plows. So I removed one in this
budget as well.
>> May I say is that is that going to be
delivered
next year? almost capital last year.
>> We're taking delivery bills.
>> We took delivery bills. So those
>> usually by time we get the money
for May, June.
um happen on an annual basis. Um and
once the orders go in
third, second, third, fourth quarter,
usually takes about a year or so before
you get the vehicle
pick up.
>> Yes. Garbage
>> pick up with the
>> F350 regular cab pick up with
depends on the vehicle.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. garbage trucks like in Europe.
>> Pickup truck is different,
>> right? So
we we put these in last year. We must
have them now. Thanks a you get a pickup
truck on
a different dealership.
>> Well, some of it is not just going to a
dealership, but you want it on a state
contract for consolidated supply at the
best price. Some of the vehicles are
sold missile fleets which put down
cheaper.
It's not just going to the local dealer
and taking something off the lot.
>> So I guess
>> I have to ask Paul specifically and
>> yeah have we gotten these the ones from
last year?
>> I don't know because we've taken
delivery.
Can we uh make that put that on as a
question please to ask um OS
commissioner
because and I I just want to echo
because you know over the years we have
been buying equipments like pickup
trucks and you know all these
equipments. So I don't feel it's it's a
hard ask to delay a year. So that you
know we need to you know some not asking
for a a reduction and I'm just asking
for a removal of everything and to kind
of you know balance our finance and then
move forward and then continue buying
more equipment as we move into 2027
2028.
» Specifically for the the cat.
delivery for the uh capital order 2025.
>> It would be good to have our last year's
capital projects in front of you too cuz
I think if you reference that then you
know that puts us in a better position
to look at some of that stuff. You mean
our expense or
>> so if we bought pickup trucks last year
then that might change our position on
do we need to get the pickup truck this
year and having that information right
there readily available to to access
probably will be helpful as a part of
this conversation.
No, these uh these pickup truck from
last year. This is on the parks or
>> parks. This one says under parks.
>> Yes. So last year last year on the park
probably man we order two
>> two and then another
>> and then we order a two tab with flour.
So they combine it for a year.
how I can
purchase any
problem.
» So yes, we last year. Yes. So if you com
could you print out last year's capital
for us, man.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Therefore, just for reference.
» Okay. So that's why you know
we always keep ordering machine and
vehicle
>> and mine was to the wrong on that line
the changes under me were the only
change was the total
that in that line so I did I did cut
down on
>> so pickup truck see the 70,000
Do you want to save it as?
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, you're on this now, right? No. Here.
» It's pretty good. I believe that's
>> Yes.
I mean, look at what we ordered.
We had budgeted sorry for 2025
>> 241,000.
>> Yes.
>> For parts as opposed to
>> I will be I would be comfortable to
align with um dropping one this year and
hopefully we can um
add that back in 2026
for 2027.
» I'll be comfortable with that.
Oh, our next one is a ground master
mower
to flip it out. He's the only person.
>> Yeah, the only thing I had was minus one
pickup truck. The rest
>> I'm on. We're on the ground master now
for 105. And it looks like you removed
it.
>> All those changes crossed them out. The
only changing parts is I asked them to
do that.
>> You want to go back?
>> Four times ago and it never came out. So
only one cap.
only one capture.
» I mean, I think it's listening to Mr.
Mistake is extremely important the way
we maintain our
>> A diamond, C diamond, B diamond, you
know, in our home park. So, I think
those things are
>> with the more
>> Yeah, maintenance is extremely
important.
>> Much bigger fields that we're that we're
maintaining.
>> Mr. Somebody just moved to the next one.
>> Collection is reducing the number
practice from two to one. Now is a good
point to kind of um remind the council
of the mayor's previous comments about I
understand the cycle of
bringing the vehicles vehicles in and
old vehicles out if we are going to make
these determinations as we're continuing
on our conversations understanding that
there will be a cost specifically to
maintain those vehicles. I think also
part of it is just approach.
I think we can be intentional with just
access and then servicing not
continue on this path at least for this
year. But I did want to just highlight
that as a consideration. We need to make
sure we're into account
» discussion on this. I also
>> this is the annual
>> and I did last year what you purchased
too
and this is
the share one.
>> Yeah, he he definitely mentioned buying
two per year when he presented to us
>> and we don't get them for a couple of
years, right?
>> I didn't write a note on that.
>> No, I'm sorry.
These are at least the only
we get them um usually they're model.
» Okay.
Safari myself um
with Patrick you what's your position on
this
>> on the real load packet?
>> Yes.
>> I mean if you want to just get one
that's okay. Again we're this is going
to be influencing next year's
>> Yes. So
>> I I I'm okay with um with keeping one
» unless we want to go back to Mr. Leond
and
>> you know
I'm on track for two please.
>> Yeah
>> only because when they break down
>> Yeah. I mean it's going to affect
a lot of stuff from the city if we don't
have enough place garbage trucks.
Okay. So I'll stay with two.
Oh, currently the guy picked up the the
trucks.
» Yeah, my thought, you know,
as we in as increasing
fees for people, I want to make sure
that we're
that it shows up in the service that
they're getting. Um,
>> thank you. That's
Thank you.
» Mr. McLast,
» did we actually buy
a general fun?
>> So, we did have two last year.
How many did we take out of service? Did
we I think we take two out.
>> They sell them sometimes.
» Speaking of Mr. MC, I think basically
because I did ask specifically about
parks when before we started the whole
budget process when we first got
>> Oh, you're on trash.
>> I'm sorry. I thought you do with parks.
>> Yeah. No, sorry. I thought you were not.
>> No, it's okay.
>> I guess I guess the question is how many
do we have? How many does he like to
keep in stock or keep running? Um I
thought he mentioned that sometimes he
sells to other municipalities.
>> I guess how many I'm comfortable keeping
two.
>> Okay.
>> But that's the end of my statement.
» I'd like to go with the two.
>> Okay.
» Yeah. See
you.
So far,
» I can support the tool
for increasing fees.
» Okay, let's keep going. Um, smart build
upgrade.
My consideration for that is talking
about the pay of investments
and the financial nature that we're
going to be addressing
and trying to consider words. Uh and
these funds that we put out there are
community challenges of anyone.
I think we're highlighting the issues
that we've been experiencing at Kings
Road. I understand that this will as
specifically help promote safety. I
think we're trying to help ensure the
tax burden doesn't push people out of
the city or have people making very
difficult financial considerations. I
don't disagree with the importance of
it. I'm saying we can absolutely
consider a job.
I I was of the same thought. I I'm
thinking you guys correct me if I'm
wrong that this is our like there's a
grant that's tied to this.
>> Correct.
>> No.
So, so we don't have so we don't
need to. Okay.
>> All right. Then yeah, then I would rely
on Mr. Williams on that.
>> May would
this fall on the credit from the state
available?
>> The grant is going to expand the network
into Belleview. This will replace the
nodes in downtown go Central State
Street, Hamilton.
If
>> we don't update those, the police
overtime is going to go up. This network
and the camera data provides that
support level of deterrence and
documentation
of criminal activity plus the traffic
counts
and other things and it's very
shortsighted to look
if I can respond to that. So those in
place are they functioning or are we
trying to upgrade their functionality?
>> They're the end of their useful life and
some components within it are not
supported on the platform.
>> So I just asked what's their end of
shelf life then if that's not an issue
then we should put it on here.
So yeah, and uh what is it? M live
>> shelf life.
What do you want to say or can we follow
up with that?
>> I think I made my position clear as some
can follow up on an
uh fiction.
This is the PD or it what they will
consist it
>> PD
it supports.
>> So how do you tell these um
Mr.
If you don't mind, you just want to
repeat that you just so we can get that
question
live or to point these are
differential increases to the
functionality of smart node features. Um
want to get clarification of the
individual
life.
>> Yes. Yes. U Thank you. because the data
is definitely going to be important as
we continue to try to figure out traffic
caling um situations
measures I guess situations. So again it
ended up there to take it out but under
like Mr. making my notes, it was
mustave, promote safety,
>> important for city. So, um I I would be
in favor of leaving it in there.
>> And you would also add one install if
that helps the decision process.
>> Thank you.
>> We can look at 2025.
There wasn't anything.
>> No, not for smartphone.
Oh,
>> what?
>> We're talking about um
>> what are you?
>> Police.
>> Oh, you're on police.
>> SUVs.
>> For some reason, I had cut one SUV and
one unlocked.
>> Let me look at my notes.
>> And somehow it came for that amount of
money. that that might have been based
on the conversation that the chief said
if I remember correctly he said that
they'd like to have them but we they
would work with you know yes
>> our recommendation so that's what we
said that
>> they were not pulling to us the
reduction
>> on the vehicles except for the evidence
>> yeah the evidence storage is essential
>> I'm go back to the evidence car
>> yeah let's stay with the car
So last year in terms of the police
department and the vehicle that we got
purchased, there were two SUVs, three
hybrid sedans, and three hybrid vans.
>> So
Um,
but um,
why would we do the SUV
in an unmarked car?
» Would that align us to 4:15?
Yeah.
One at one.
Mr.
» Yeah, I don't have a problem.
U
look, I'm looking at the wrong color.
Sorry.
» Those you Were
you doing one reduction in SUV, one
reduction in
the vehicles by half?
» There's one thing that we don't have
clear information on. This is grouped.
It's all the vehicles. So I we all know
the cost of the SUV versus the evidence
car versus the unmarked cars.
It's cut off.
» It's all cut off, but it's
actually
>> okay.
>> 50 mark,
but that those are the figures. I don't
know which one for
it is in our capital. Right.
>> So, we need to know exactly if we're
changing and removing vehicles, how much
we need to actually
>> remove based on the cost of the vehicle.
My follow is if we're not going to even
have the discussion of evaluating
these higher department funding, which
is one of the larger contri
contributions we currently are. I think
it's very reasonable to say driving
vehicles for a little longer.
» I think their original need was 13
vehicles, but in hearing their budget um
at the request that the departments had,
they went down to nine vehicles that
they asked for or they ended up with in
this budget. But they basically
essentially said everything they needed
for team vehicles,
» but at the same time they did mention in
order to make any adjustment.
>> Yes,
>> they can continue to use the vehicle
that they have.
>> They did say that
>> until it's not like they they have to get it. They can do as much as
they can with until the next year.
>> Yeah. The distinction that needs to be
made is like so if we're talking about
you have a S you have a S uh you right
now that's running and you would like a
newer one. There's a difference between
replacing that and I'm I'm
leaning into definitely holding off on
replacing existing vehicles that are
functioning. Um, but and then the
distinction would be like the evidence
vehicle I think is something that we're
all saying like they need that, right?
We're all saying we that because that's
not something I think that they're
necessarily replacing just based on what
I remember the conversation was. So if
we're saying we want to buy that, we
don't need to purchase this.
The conversation is different when there
is something a vehicle that's existing
and functioning right now.
It's not the same level of urgency, I
would say. And that's where all of the
departments that we're looking at.
>> Mr. 273,000
is 133
» 131. Yeah.
But we don't know if those numbers are
right until we find out if that's
pretty clear. Um
being a cheap and what the cost of that
is
>> right.
So can can we get that uh as a as a as a
question
the cost breakdown
just
but you don't know which
>> correct
>> so uh we can we can put that as a
question break down for the
vehicle.
All right, let's uh move. Okay, we can
move uh here. Evidence storage.
Um
in this case, they mentioned that every
single as piece of their storage is
already filled.
>> Um including uh they needed the freezer,
the HVAC were completely out of space.
um the retention
they can't get rid of evidence because
they have to align with retention rates
that must be like a state federal
>> new law they have no
>> longer so they they absolutely said the
evidence storage
was essential
>> we all agree
>> I'm going to respectfully ask us
this and cut this
>> yeah I think we all
have this additional
that
» even chief was talking about I don't
know if it was the mayor would have
these units that they can put out the of
the police station with storage so it
won't take up room in a parking lot or
whatever and maybe eventually when that
fills up finding an actual building
where things might be able to go but
this I think it's a good idea.
>> Yeah. The next the next item is on
regular streets regular pick up um with
cloud tool
recommendation here if
one I'm going to do and I'm going to
answer it to one
Not small but I I I couldn't decrease
that. Knowing all the small streets that
they get on
>> these are regular cab
two
>> last year.
» They spent 1.33
million last year and they're asking for
52 525 this year. They're different
trucks.
>> No, I'm just saying I'm looking at the
total
capital.
>> I think the importance of smaller trucks
in the city and that might even cut down
on who we
>> Oh,
>> yeah. Well, then if you look at the year
before, I can recall that we did order
these small um small size um truck
beating
>> because we had we had issues with um a
larger truck can't pass through the
small street
>> and then they were they were funding to
buy a small um
>> size.
So a year or two ago, yes, we did.
Just going back to the uh these
vehicles, I have the numbers council.
» So 78k for SUVs,
>> 70
>> 78K for SUVs.
>> Mhm.
>> 63
for these vehicle,
>> 53 for the unmarked,
and then the parking was 37. Yeah,
>> that's still 31.
So engineering
So there's two in streets.
» Any other any other suggestion in
regards to the regular care pickup with
on the streets?
» Well, I do have a question. And so we're talking about purchasing them on
something under parts or one parts
main.
Do they share them ever?
» I believe so.
In that case, I could reduce it to
» I can follow that logic.
>> The snowpl
supposed to be a really bad winter this
winter, but
>> Oh, that's this winter actually. Maybe
next winter it won't be a bad winter.
>> So, all we need is not promal streets of
snow.
That would get us nice phone calls.
>> These are small.
>> Oh, I thought they were I thought they
were with a bomb.
>> No,
» we don't.
>> It's totally different in terms of the
bigger truck.
>> It's not a snow plow. Got it.
>> It is not. It flows small section or
small street that is hard for the big
trucks
>> like the stockade probably would have
need a smaller a smaller snow plow
stockade.
>> Well, we have been buying these over the
years.
I'm sticking with two. Yes. Thank you.
>> I just want to
» I'll stick I'll stick with two. Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. Let's move on. Next.
Electric and
engineering.
We have
>> Mhm.
» electric vehicle charing station.
$100,000.
This had to do with the transition in
the parking thing right from link well
uh to link well from charge point
>> I believe for those transition
engineering
>> I'm not sure
>> isn't it's going to
fall
>> we're set up there these were this was
Mr. Wallen's request. Um, and the note
that I wrote was that this whole
transition that we're doing in the
parking
um,
no it wasn't I'm sorry it's not parking.
It's it's any any electrical vehicle
charging station right now that are
charge point, you know, that's what you
have to have your credit, you know, and
now we're moving into something called
link well um from charge point. And so
these charging stations were going to I
just wrote notes while Mr. Wallen was
talking, but that's I can't tell you all
the technology.
>> Put those new ones.
>> Oh, they're okay. Well, they're probably
in one year's budget, but
>> those are the DC fast charges.
>> Oh, nice.
>> I think so. Mr. Bman neighborhoods
>> as I recall these stations are going to
be at the golf course as I recall
because currently department
um stage the golf course with a total of
I think
>> four.
>> We've had those. Yeah.
>> Yeah. He was saying
>> these are admission in addition to that.
>> That's what he told us.
>> But not at the golf course.
>> At the golf course.
>> Why would they need additional
>> That's incorrect.
>> That's not That's not He told us he
wanted them in neighborhoods because a
lot of individuals don't have garages or
even
>> He said that's considered later. He
didn't say the need because you have to
be able to figure out where to put them.
That's something he said we consider
later. He distinctly said these
clarification on
>> He was saying he was saying They don't.
>> Okay. I was going to say because we have
the whole facility that has all of our
um we bought 62
>> entirely separate mistake.
>> Yeah.
>> Our program has charging for golf carts.
There are electric vehicle charging
stations in the parking lot of golf.
>> Probably just four, right?
>> Two stations, four,
>> right? And he said these were in
addition to that definitely. Let's try
to find. Sorry.
>> No, no, no. So, I was going to say, so
>> we'll get we'll get clarification, but
that's a simple thing because if we're
saying that they're going to go to the
golf course, then are are you supporting
it? Yes or no? And if not, then we get
that information. Mr. Wild was talking
about moving into the neighborhoods,
trying to find place to say it, put them
at. I suggested that that would be a
good place to partner with the school
district because schools are in the
neighborhood and that's the conversation
that we had.
>> That's right. I remember that.
>> Yes.
>> Neighborhood Lisa for direct member
for
>> a golf course
>> and I gave you um there was a number of
them going to be there. So I did make a
reduction in that and I actually spoke
with Mr. Wall and he felt that there was
some place that was um you know
business by hand.
>> Excuse me. Going back to that sentence
the council on
the point some of the questions that
releasing the vehicle private station
50%
and I'll be able to change all existing
charge point stations
charging city commercial street.
So either one or the other.
>> Either one of the other main
>> um city lot or
think about a commercial which is in
street
locations but
>> I was he said
we need to clarify that part.
>> So can we have can have can have can have can have we have that
question please
can we can we go to that to verify?
>> Yes. Yes. just follow up with verify.
Miss Michael, can you also u
>> follow up too to make sure that uh we
capture that
» the location
and then uh the next one is a firehouse.
Um
>> yes, and I don't know why that's there, but
that's for group repair. So that stays
in
The next one is signage.
>> I I don't have a problem removing that.
>> Central Park way finding signage.
>> Yeah, we can figure out.
» Oh, some stuff already got taken out.
Yeah, I I I would I would join the M
tour on this and I said we put this off
for a year.
>> The signage.
>> Yeah, we do have a couple signing. We
can live with those until you know
maybe there are grants over there that
can help.
» Um
my colleagues on this one.
Mr. Williams, you take
>> part of my original.
» Oh, you did. Okay. It was It's not on
here, so she Okay,
Patrick.
And
>> if you want to take the signage out,
that's fine.
Um
>> I think one of the things that we talked
about seeing if we could get some money
from the county maybe.
>> No, we can ask.
>> Oh, actually I crossed it out. I must
have asked the question though and I
crossed it out. So I must have gotten
the answer from Mr. or from the chief I guess.
>> No. Why would that be under?
>> That's engineering. Yeah. Yeah, Chris definitely Mr. Wallen um must have
vetoed that when I asked it during his
presentation.
>> Miss
>> Okay. All right. Let's move to the um
paving.
>> I think that's essential.
I don't know what other people hear
about from residence, but
» I would not want to take us off the
paving schedule of the city.
» Well, that's not what Mr. said. He said
this is in addition to nine bunch of
grant projects. So, it's not that paving
won't continue. I think this is just
any projects exceeding.
>> Well, I see. I don't have a note on
that.
>> Yeah, you mentioned it. This is on top
of what the regular
>> Oh, so in other words, paving must be in
a different part of the budget, not just
under capital.
>> No, not chip.
>> It's chip.
>> It's what? I'm sorry. Can you tell me
again? I can't hear you.
>> Chip funding.
» Oh, this is chips.
>> No, this is
so be okay if we don't have this paving
money.
>> I didn't see that.
>> Street. Yeah, that's what I'm that's why
I'm like I'm going to change my phone
number with stuff. Yeah.
>> No, no, let's let's speak. Let's
>> I don't know about the resty, but that
is definitely something we hear about
all
>> Let's disc let's um accurate
information. So, the proposal is to
borrow on 1.250
2550 to complement the chip funding
>> that is all set aside for bathing
>> but they must
needing that money
>> for bathing.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. Okay. I mean,
» what other
street painting?
Mr.
>> Um I I find I'm leaving it there for now
and
revisiting based on new information that
can get some.
>> Okay. Uh
>> there
we have like that you know all the sub
projects that we're looking at moving
that you know we're going to have to
borrow and we are
artist talked about, you know,
and all that. So, it may be more
impactless is this year it's going to
um in terms of what I took out, I you
know, put that in mind and maybe and
also kept in mind what we need to make
sure that we kept our shoes clean and
safe and all that.
And that's it. Oh yes. Okay. Stuff is
>> do we have anything else that we need to
touch on?
>> So are we going to get the revised mill?
Let's will the finance go back and take
our numbers and give us back a
>> Are we going to do it tonight or
>> that's I would not I would not recommend
that.
>> Okay.
>> We have to be considerate
for daytime. What time is it now?
>> 11:00.
>> Yes. So
» no
>> just in general we haven't talked about
yet.
No,
for management
services.
>> Well, that
we asked that to revisit that. So, we'll
do that.
>> And just for the record, you know, you
know what information I'm asking for is
the community block grant money in
each department by each by each year
going back to 20
21
I believe that was the earlier sharer
said um
and any
one report and then the second report
would be any you know outstanding or I
couldn't say outstanding but any
invoices
um that correspond to that money as well
as when those invoices were
clear. Mhm. So we have all the notes, we
have everything. What I would ask um
commission uh if we can can we mail us
this these reports.
Okay, we are not meeting tomorrow. So
it' be nice for us to have it ahead of
time tomorrow.
Uh hope you can get all the u the report
that was asked and all the answers for
the question exam tomorrow.
when we meet um correctly
understanding available um regarding the
invoices they might have fallen through
and like I said
for C2 but uh funding wise see
report
the operating budget
>> okay well if there's not if the invoices
are we're not able for example,
invoices, then I would I'll be moving
forward with the understanding that they
won't be coming
cuz how I mean
sorry
>> I mean I didn't take off um if I still
would call to a recommendation that
perhaps we able to start at like 4 or
3:30 on Thursday.
>> We cannot start
because we already have
>> we note this out there.
Um so we just forget so if we can get
those reports those answers to the
questions then tomorrow so uh we can
better equip oursel when we come here to
our city because the thing is if we get
if we know that if we get the report
funding that's there but then there's
still questions and we hear out about
invoices then the information that we
get for the funding that there is can be
somewhat use because the invoices is
technically could impact that funding.
You see what I'm saying? That's what I'm
saying.
>> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So, we got
to have it all.
» Go ahead. Please have some.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the
group, as you know, you
four votes four votes to uh pass the
budget. That's without the P.
Five votes with the local law adopted
prior to it adopt
four votes below the tax the mayor veto
five votes
just giving you that you know
for meetings right now you've got a
meeting scheduled for 5:30 was going to
be the council meeting but they're
recessing excuse me recessing the uh
>> uh finance committee to that time. If
you want to then convene the council
meeting, the special council meeting to
adopt the budget, you can do that and
then recess that to the next day or to
Saturday. Saturday meeting, the last
day, you know, it's November 1st.
So at this point I guess we'll leave it
at 5:30 for the recess meeting finance
and then if necessary go into the
council special council meeting and if
just recess it if you know to get the
additional paperwork together to pass a
budget because obviously um as you all
know you know figures have to be added
up have to be placed in the ordinance
they have to be attached to the the
ordinance itself and then of course then
we have to deal with the issue of
whether or not there's going to be
tax.
That's how is your availability Friday?
» What if we can come in?
>> I guess if we could be done if we don't
get it Thursday
because I will not be available to the
entire meeting Thursday.
» What does that mean?
>> Yeah, but I would have to hand over
step away.
>> For how long? I mean, I don't know how
long you going to step away. I mean, how
long do you have time do you have?
» So, how long do we have to be here?
I I think that you know for me that
leading I think we need everybody here
to share an audience. I'm going to start
touristly but I have to step away for an
event and I have to come back.
>> Oh, you're going to go to the public.
>> Yes.
>> So, um
>> yeah, but in my in my abset in my absent
continue.
So, I just want to maybe set M.
>> Can I say something though? Um we won't
have we won't have a form of finance if
this Patrick is going as well. So, that
won't happen. Once we once you leave and
she leaves, it's over. But then we can uh reset them and come back
>> after event.
>> Yeah.
>> You want to see phone to come back?
» I was hoping I was hoping that this
didn't travel like this. We going to get
you know more more corporation in terms
of providing numbers but it didn't
happen.
>> And that's what I'm asking. I mean can
we make oursel Friday and Saturday
available? I can do Saturday. No,
Friday. I can do Saturday. Saturday.
>> Either way.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> Either way. Yeah.
>> I do Saturday, but we I mean like
Saturday is like the drop dead day. We
got to get it done.
>> Just I mean I could do Saturday evening
as well. But again, no Friday. No Friday
>> before midnight. So no Friday. No Friday.
>> Well, I can do Friday. It doesn't
>> I mean it's trick or treat.
I mean
>> I said so for meeting times your event
start
» I suggest we we we place the special
city council meeting um for you know
Saturday whatever time work circ
that
day
>> a meeting on Thursday and then if
necessary not getting it done on on
Thursday then Saturday definitely. Well,
yeah. My my only concern about that is I
don't again I don't want us to be in a
position where it's like well we're not
getting information and the clock is
running and then it's like Saturday.
Well, we have to do it now and we can't
provide the information right now
because Saturday I don't want to be in
that position
>> just to be safe.
>> We've been here going to be here on
Saturday.
>> Well, you're camping on Saturday.
>> Yeah.
Friday
here on the weekend. So
» now we need the numbers before Saturday
and that's why I ask them to have the
numbers available to us tomorrow
>> and then we can come
>> then we can individually look at the
numbers and
come back with recommendation and we can
ask them to update the report
and we we send it to us before Thursday.
You'll have to text me.
>> Okay.
>> I'm thinking about I'm thinking we
should send a notice out.
>> A revised notice
>> just a placeful
>> for
>> Friday too.
>> Yeah, I think we should just do a
placeful for Friday. I if we just
reconvene and just in and out and you
know for be to be on the safe side.
Well, we need to check with Miss Patrick
if she's going to be able to be
available on Friday because if she's not
but only you, M. Williams has already
said he's not going to be here.
>> But we can dest.
But I think we're going to have Mr.
Pretty much once we have the report
tomorrow. Oh, I'm hoping that we have
the reports and the updated reports we
can able to look at it and able to come
up with more suggestion. So come to a
conclusion.
>> I mean that's the only variable out
there for me. I produced all the numbers
based on information we have. I did it
that before. So that's already done. I'm
just saying that it's the main variable
for me.
>> So
Thursday are
what?
>> Mr. and CB.
>> No, I'm talking about how does the
meeting function? Miss yourself. Miss
Patrick highlighted
» I think she'd like to go. She hasn't
said she's committed to go and
» doesn't talk to
you for the elbow rubbing.
All right.
>> Are we all set then?
>> Oh, what time are you looking at?
>> Nothing.
>> What time is What time Saturday is good
for you?
>> I can anytime Saturday.
» Yeah, that's going to be tough. I can
only do Saturday evening.
» I mean, I mean,
>> evening starts at what time for you?
>> I'll figure it out. If everyone if you
have a consensus for Saturday, make it
happen.
» Mr. Tor said 9:00 works for you.
>> I just really
>> I'd say
it was the rest of the day.
>> Saturday night
>> family whenever. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Have start.
I'm sorry.
>> I've been hanging in.
>> Let's do a place for Friday.
Let's do a place open. Uh Saturday, 9, Friday 5:30
and we already have tourist.
» So we just need to do
another notice.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Any other businesses for
finance?
We have a motion to
>> recess. Motion to recess
>> to second.
Bet you wish sometimes
I think this That's it.