[0:01] 529.
[0:22] Okay, I got it now.
[0:27] » Yes. Yeah.
[0:30] importing now.
[0:34] » Okay, so these are correct.
[0:39] » Hi, I didn't see you come in. My back
[0:42] must have been
[1:00] Thanks.
[1:08] » Yeah.
[1:22] You have any um
[1:32] mine here. Thanks.
[2:09] It's okay.
[2:18] Yeah.
[2:32] Anyone
[2:40] need a copy of the phone that
[2:47] changes?
[2:48] >> Yeah. If anyone
[2:50] >> did she?
[2:51] >> Yeah.
[2:51] >> You have a new one. Okay.
[2:52] >> No one.
[2:55] >> Yes.
[2:57] The same as this, right? Same as
[3:08] » yeah,
[3:10] right? Revenue.
[3:12] >> How did we make that?
[3:13] >> No, we didn't make that. You just wanted
[3:15] a copy of his
[3:17] >> No, with the appropriate fund balance
[3:19] and then the uh
[3:22] >> Yes, you're right. I'll ask my give me
[3:24] about
[3:25] >> before you go. So, we have to align with
[3:27] Mr.
[3:29] Williams the numbers
[3:31] >> and then in
[3:35] » how far we are
[3:37] million against each members.
[3:41] >> So what else we had changes yesterday? I
[3:44] can do a couple
[3:48] that's Michael
[4:07] said with the money.
[4:09] >> Yes. um for that 2 million.
[4:17] The other ones were question.
[4:27] » No, I have
[4:29] >> Okay, you hear the first one. Thank you.
[4:31] >> That's that's that's all
[4:37] » I'm going to think.
[4:45] I would like to good evening everyone. I
[4:47] would like to call the finance committee
[4:48] to order for this evening and we'll
[4:50] continue our budget um discussion and we
[4:54] will continue from where we left off
[4:55] last evening
[4:58] as we wait for the revised sheet
[5:02] for some realignments. Uh we can
[5:04] conclude discussion.
[5:08] There were some questions asked and an
[5:10] answer was provided.
[5:13] So the members can go through the
[5:16] questions
[5:17] asked and look at the answer. If you
[5:20] need clarification,
[5:22] please uh do so.
[5:47] It's so
[6:15] assist.
[6:24] Yeah.
[8:13] Patrick, we left off last evening. You
[8:15] were going to look for additional
[8:17] recommendation.
[8:20] >> I sent a reminder today. Um, did you had
[8:22] a chance to
[8:22] >> I did not. I sent you back an email
[8:24] saying I wasn't going to be able to do
[8:26] anything else today. I had a series of
[8:28] meetings. So, I don't have any changes
[8:30] from the initial recommendations that I
[8:33] put in.
[8:33] >> So, are you going to work in it this
[8:34] evening?
[8:35] >> Depends on what happens tonight, but um
[8:38] I'm just waiting to see what what we do
[8:40] tonight, but no, I I don't know if I'll
[8:42] have time. It depends on what time we
[8:43] get home.
[8:45] >> Last night, I went home and went right
[8:46] to bed. So, yeah.
[8:48] >> So, so you don't have any suggestion
[8:49] right now at this point?
[8:51] >> I have the suggestions that I made
[8:53] before, but I don't have anything right
[8:54] now. I'm still reading what we just got
[8:56] uh today from the police.
[9:06] » Mr. Toro, you have any additional
[9:08] recommendation?
[9:09] >> I do not. Um, I'm just going over these items from the from the PB. Um, be
[9:18] where we are. And it looks like he asked
[9:20] me that extra revenue we put in there
[9:22] that they're really not in favor of all
[9:24] of them. And I kind of made my my
[9:26] position clear on on on revenue. And I
[9:29] just want to say that I think we're in
[9:31] this situation because of the series of
[9:33] past decisions that have led us here.
[9:35] and I repeatedly oppose the budget for
[9:38] this very reason since I've been on
[9:39] council. So, um continuing to overflate
[9:43] these revenues uh projections is I think
[9:46] fiscally irresponsible and will place
[9:48] our city in a financial condition that's
[9:51] a lot worse next year. Um I know we all
[9:55] want to try to keep this under the tax
[9:57] cap and that's our goal. um
[10:00] unfortunately going through um
[10:05] you know what we're going through and I look for your guidance and and of
[10:09] course the president's port's guidance
[10:11] to try and keep us uh under that but
[10:14] inflating these revenues I I my what
[10:17] I've put forward is is what I'm good
[10:19] with at this point. So yesterday you
[10:22] suggested that um you're not in favor of going over the
[10:27] tax colle
[10:30] how how how would you achieve that?
[10:32] >> Right. So I'm asking if you come down to
[10:34] my level with what I had on what I have
[10:37] on the line how would you move forward
[10:39] with keeping that under the under the
[10:41] test?
[10:42] >> We're 1.2 million. We need 4 million
[10:44] more and based on my conversation on
[10:47] what
[10:47] >> you had told us yesterday that you would
[10:50] like to see the
[10:52] >> tax. I would love to stay under the the
[10:54] tax cap. Um
[10:58] unfortunately
[11:01] these revenues are all inflated and
[11:04] >> so then what would you suggest then to
[11:07] keep it under the tax cap?
[11:08] >> Well, that's not
[11:10] >> Mr. I'm sorry. Yeah. Like to hear what
[11:13] everyone else's position are, especially
[11:15] when we get to but I I don't agree with
[11:18] this yesterday.
[11:20] I made my point my position clear. Thank
[11:23] you. Thank you.
[11:24] >> But I I just want to clarify. We can't say something and do something
[11:27] else. If you are in favor of keeping it
[11:29] under the tax cap,
[11:30] >> then you have to work towards a number.
[11:33] You can't say that you want to keep it
[11:35] under the tax cap,
[11:36] >> which is $5.2 million. When you come in
[11:39] with $1.2 2 million. That is not keeping
[11:41] it on a tax. So you have you have to be
[11:43] straight with the taxpayers.
[11:44] >> I am I'm very strict with the taxpayers
[11:47] because I'm not going to put them in a
[11:48] position next year where the tax rate
[11:50] could go up 30%. I'm not doing it.
[11:53] >> So then you are not so
[11:56] under the tax.
[11:57] >> I think at this point in time we just
[11:59] need to try to figure out how to get to
[12:00] this because this is a circular
[12:02] conversation. It's been three days of
[12:04] back and forth and I'm disappointed that
[12:06] I've been asking over and over for
[12:08] recommendation
[12:10] >> and some members are not making
[12:12] recommendations.
[12:14] >> But given all my recommendations,
[12:15] >> okay, that's that's not going to change.
[12:17] So,
[12:20] » see if you guys can come down.
[12:23] So, if our goal Yes. is to not see the
[12:26] tax cap, then Mukamak has told us it's
[12:29] 5.2 million. We need to get there.
[12:32] And if we can't, it means that although
[12:35] we all want to be down in that step, we
[12:39] might not be able to get there.
[12:41] Mr. I want to be clear that I put that
[12:43] directive out to departments. It's just
[12:45] the numbers are not there.
[12:49] It's a difficult position. It was hard
[12:52] for me to put forth this budget with
[12:54] those numbers in it, but that's the
[12:56] reality that we're dealing.
[13:05] M go ahead. Some um I don't I don't see
[13:08] some of the answers in terms of saying
[13:10] where we need to go. Um some of the
[13:12] questions regarding CBG if there's
[13:15] additional funding that's available to
[13:17] that. um you know there's a lot of
[13:20] discussion about the contingency and
[13:21] whether that is in fact correct and my
[13:24] understanding is those numbers are
[13:25] correct and that money is available and um any any outstanding invoices were
[13:32] deducted from that. So that is the given
[13:34] number with this might be out here to
[13:37] take away from it. That's my
[13:38] understanding of that process. um
[13:40] without knowing the additionary CBG
[13:43] funding that's available. I think that's
[13:45] huge that we should be able to um I know
[13:47] that last but I thought that we hadn't
[13:50] reconciled it but we need to know that
[13:52] number because if there's funding
[13:53] available to be able to budget on we
[13:56] should have access to that information
[13:58] and be able to do that.
[14:04] » At this point in time we're facing a
[14:05] very hard deadline.
[14:08] that we have to we have to get to where
[14:10] we need to get to.
[14:29] » I'll continue that. And so we asked the
[14:32] police department about various things.
[14:34] They did respond to they responded about
[14:37] a line that we didn't ask for. So I did
[14:39] respond to a 201.
[14:41] We did not need to ask that response. So
[14:43] there's a response to it. We didn't ask
[14:45] um a 2610B to find parking. Um
[14:50] they said there uh they had 910,000 was
[14:54] their revenue was there a function but
[14:57] they were willing to vote to 1.1
[14:58] million. So there is some level of
[15:01] movement there different than what we
[15:03] had but more than what they originally
[15:05] said.
[15:07] Um and they did make a comment about um
[15:12] the adding the additional overtime of
[15:14] 50,000 which was a suggestion and um
[15:19] they didn't think that that was um a
[15:21] good way to go because it felt that
[15:24] would just create negative interactions
[15:26] with the community.
[15:28] Um and then finally in A210M
[15:32] final building for parking again year to
[15:35] date the budget 140 and um they they
[15:39] still only expected 170 and then a
[15:43] September
[15:46] safety fines
[15:50] they estimated for jobs in baseball
[15:52] current outstanding tickets but there's
[15:54] not a mechanism in place but they felt
[15:57] the law department to give input on how
[15:59] we like those additional those
[16:01] additional tickets. So I interpret it to
[16:03] mean there's an opportunity to redo the
[16:05] revenue and put them in the law.
[16:08] >> Yeah.
[16:10] Corporation council Thursday but I mean
[16:14] look for the full judgments but that's
[16:16] just getting the judgments not so much
[16:18] the collection. So that's one part and
[16:20] then if that's not successful then we'll
[16:23] be partnering with uh the thought is
[16:26] partnering with the bus patrol company
[16:29] to hire a collections agency because
[16:31] they they're entitled part of the money
[16:32] as well as far as the split between the
[16:36] city and the vendor.
[16:39] So, uh I think in the short term they're
[16:42] looking to get default judgments on
[16:44] these and that's you know it's getting a
[16:47] judgment against somebody for the
[16:48] amount. Um but once again you have to
[16:51] collect it. So uh that's the difficulty
[16:54] but uh the thought is sometime next year
[16:58] depending on how the defaults see if
[17:00] that generates any
[17:03] attention from people who have defaulted
[17:04] on
[17:08] their tickets and if that's not
[17:10] generating money then
[17:12] collections agency in partnership with
[17:16] us.
[17:18] So that's and corporation council should
[17:21] be here Thursday or next meeting
[17:24] particulars but that's the general
[17:26] overview and so
[17:32] it's going to be tough it's not ready
[17:35] made
[17:38] » so
[17:40] I'm going to say that based on that I
[17:41] think there would still be a piece that
[17:42] wants to send me since there is a plan
[17:44] in place we shouldn't say that say
[17:47] exactly what it So I'm giving you talk
[17:49] about what that number should be but I
[17:51] think that we should definitely increase
[17:52] that line
[17:54] some based on the explanation because
[17:56] there will be
[17:58] to
[18:01] I thought that
[18:03] said they'd already
[18:08] » that's on
[18:11] the same
[18:16] thing department picking It's us the
[18:18] city
[18:20] >> which must control you're talking to the
[18:21] vendor the vendor who provided so
[18:26] that's what
[18:29] they
[18:48] So you have an image to look at the
[18:51] top section. So let's see
[18:58] how far we are, how close we are.
[19:08] The only one that's closest in Safari
[21:06] So 6.1 million is what
[21:10] available currently but it's actually
[21:13] 4.1.2
[21:16] the tattoo right there.
[21:34] Well, just to 6.1 is an unbalanced
[21:38] what's going to put in this balance in
[21:39] this budget. 4.1 is what remains and we
[21:43] have to keep in mind that to the
[21:44] negotiations that happened.
[22:12] I believe
[22:31] I recommend we read about lines based on
[22:34] the new information we received today.
[22:36] uh finish our conversations with the
[22:39] appropriate funds and regarding any
[22:43] expenses.
[22:44] the final agreement on staffing
[22:47] projections and I would suggest you
[22:49] close out with projects
[22:52] and also
[23:44] So if I may ask Mr.
[23:48] Let's review the revenue section. Move
[23:51] into
[23:54] movement to capital the new benefit ways
[23:57] we um
[24:00] are you recommended that we go to page
[24:02] line and see where we stand in terms of
[24:04] moving it out and can be
[24:08] expensive for for revenue
[24:12] and expense also any item that we're
[24:14] touching this evening. Uh I say
[24:16] definitely for revenue just we
[24:17] transition from this category. I thought
[24:20] we pretty much did that with expenses. I
[24:22] think the only open item was staff
[24:26] business.
[24:39] So let's we can do a one 0 02
[24:46] and we have four members are asking for a reduction
[24:55] for 2,50,000.
[25:14] Any
[25:29] discussion after that?
[25:33] » Any changes?
[25:38] » Mr.
[25:40] Zero.
[25:41] >> Yeah. Okay. I'm gonna I'm I'm staying
[25:45] 285 again.
[25:46] >> Never sected the rate
[25:52] » never
[26:08] right.
[26:09] >> Yes.
[26:10] Should
[26:14] we just keep going? Maybe Mr. Just go
[26:17] down the line.
[26:19] >> Well, we need to make a movement in
[26:20] terms of do we have the support to move
[26:21] this out of the finance community?
[26:24] Some of them we're going to have to
[26:25] adjust. Some of them we might have to
[26:27] pull out. So, we can I don't think we
[26:29] can make a movement on the entire
[26:31] section. Uh
[26:34] >> well, you only need two. We go line by
[26:36] line.
[26:36] >> Oh, yeah.
[26:36] >> And we just said there's there's a
[26:38] consensus. I'm guessing there's
[26:40] consensus in the um there's at least you
[26:43] asked that there's there's at least two
[26:45] people on the finance committee who are
[26:48] satisfied with the 2050,
[26:51] right?
[26:52] >> Yes.
[26:52] >> Okay. So then then we get a cannabis
[26:56] excise tax.
[26:56] >> Okay. So we can do that. I don't have
[26:58] that.
[26:59] >> That's what we should do.
[27:05] » So next is cannabis.
[27:06] >> Yes.
[27:08] So we have one, two, three, four, five
[27:11] members are asking to increase it by 150
[27:15] >> as a tour. Are you format that number?
[27:18] >> Uh what do I have? 100
[27:20] >> 100.
[27:22] >> Yeah, format it.
[27:24] >> Okay. So we have five the one there
[27:29] snap.
[27:33] We're moving um
[27:36] 200 2,000. Initially, everyone is in
[27:40] agreement. Are we still there?
[27:43] >> I don't see any changes on the sheet.
[27:45] >> Okay, go ahead.
[27:46] >> Looks like we're all
[27:47] >> I'm sorry. I just didn't hear anything
[27:48] back from Miss Car. It said it's still
[27:50] needed. She still needed some time on
[27:52] that. Did we get something back after
[27:53] that?
[27:55] We're still waiting for um development
[27:58] staff
[28:02] together.
[28:06] Hopefully hopefully tomorrow
[28:09] I told this morning 4:00 today the
[28:14] calculations
[28:15] more complex and go back and forth. So
[28:20] >> got my phone
[28:25] What what are we paying for in terms of
[28:26] the costs on the departments
[28:29] >> reconciling those accounts?
[28:36] » I'm trying to recall when I when I when
[28:38] we had a discussion with Miss Miss Car,
[28:42] she I want to make sure I'm speaking
[28:45] correctly because I don't want to
[28:46] miscode anyone.
[28:48] She had told us that um she had asked
[28:50] the department head or met with them to
[28:53] kind of go over if there are any
[28:54] outstanding invoices
[28:56] and I can recall that only one invoice
[28:59] that was outstanding or she was able to
[29:01] collect from code enforcement like
[29:03] 40,000ish don't quote me on that
[29:06] somewhere around there. So kind of like
[29:09] if she hasn't met she mess with them,
[29:11] they're telling her that they didn't
[29:12] find any is actually different than
[29:15] what's been represented. There were
[29:16] things that were submitted to
[29:17] development that apparently were
[29:20] insufficient. They didn't have as much
[29:22] information as they needed. They're
[29:24] going back and documenting that, putting
[29:27] it in manner that compliant with the HUD
[29:30] regulations
[29:32] and appropriately
[29:35] charging
[29:37] for crediting the departments the
[29:38] activities the students doing.
[29:41] >> So So then this lead Sorry I just found
[29:43] a couple here and then So then if we
[29:46] were to back it out this 202,000
[29:49] and then this um
[29:52] this 206
[29:55] then that will go back to general fund.
[29:58] So there will be more more funds
[30:01] available on the general fund to help us
[30:04] with additional expense. So I mean I
[30:07] repeat this yesterday but um it's a
[30:09] internal stuff that needs to get done
[30:11] but the money will not disappear. It
[30:13] will just end up in the general fund for
[30:15] us to to use.
[30:18] So either way it's a good thing but you
[30:21] know I say again is disappointed that
[30:25] the department is taking so long to
[30:26] submit invoice and if there are errors
[30:28] they should have corrected
[30:30] uh from 2001 for 2025
[30:35] >> 21
[30:36] >> 2021
[30:38] >> for 2025
[30:42] » it's kind of disappointed that it's
[30:44] taking so long for them to recon All
[30:49] right. So, but it remains the thing,
[30:51] Miss Carter was abundantly clear.
[30:53] >> Yes.
[30:53] >> That any money that was paid was
[30:56] accounted for in this accounting. So,
[30:58] whether we put it back in the general
[31:00] fund, whether we use it here, in my
[31:02] mind, it's still available for this
[31:03] budget. And that that amount 202,000.
[31:12] » Go ahead.
[31:13] So I there's seems to be a a lack of
[31:17] clarity here and I don't and it almost
[31:21] feels like we should have this
[31:24] information. I feel like we got
[31:26] information and I can't wrap my head
[31:29] around if saying that are we saying that
[31:31] the information is incorrect. Mr.
[31:34] McLaren, you just said made the point
[31:36] that you made around the money being uh
[31:38] available and it would just go back into
[31:40] the general fund. Commissioner, do you
[31:42] agree with that? I'm sure do you agree
[31:44] with that assessment?
[31:46] >> If what is budgeted
[31:48] for this amount of proposed budget 202
[31:51] and 306, it's just an account similar
[31:56] uh basically they're drawing down for
[31:58] CDBG funds and replenishing um these
[32:02] accounts.
[32:03] >> So the money's there.
[32:06] >> Yes.
[32:06] >> Okay. according according to the
[32:08] director and speak within IDS the
[32:11] statement she provided.
[32:25] » Are you saying there's a scenario where
[32:26] the money's not there?
[32:30] It depends if the team is able to
[32:34] capture
[32:35] the codes and stats
[32:38] out in
[32:40] um which they're working on
[32:44] the pages
[32:46] each one and see which
[32:49] they're working on.
[32:51] So commissioner, are you saying that
[32:53] these are outstanding invoice externally
[32:57] >> from 2021?
[32:58] >> That's not what I'm saying. I don't know
[33:00] what they are.
[33:00] >> So then why are you making the
[33:02] assumption that then money is not going
[33:04] to be available?
[33:05] This is I I made I thought we were clear
[33:08] yesterday. This is an internal
[33:09] reconciliation.
[33:13] » This is why I'm why why are we doing
[33:16] this?
[33:19] money's current right now.
[33:22] >> So if we if there is an invoice out
[33:24] there, it can be drawn down.
[33:27] >> So if that is drawn down on say it's
[33:29] 100,000 out of the line snap, that means
[33:32] it will be 102,000 available for 26.
[33:37] >> Can I just hear what you're saying?
[33:39] >> For further clarification, are you
[33:41] talking about invoices from 2025?
[33:44] Because I we wouldn't be going back
[33:47] against what the mayor says. to be
[33:48] closed together.
[33:50] >> That's what the team is going through
[33:51] right now. I'm not aware of what year
[33:53] they're looking at documentation trying
[33:56] to put it together toward council.
[33:58] That's what they're working.
[34:00] >> Um that's still not clear for me because
[34:03] if we're in 2025 and there's other years
[34:06] that we you've closed your books on and
[34:08] that means that's been paid. So even if we spent the money out of the general
[34:12] fund and this money is now here, it just
[34:14] goes back to the general fund. And if
[34:16] we're talking about 2025, and as I
[34:18] understand it, the HUD year is different
[34:20] than your
[34:21] >> your year. So, um, so if it's if it's
[34:25] 2025, my understanding is what what Miss
[34:28] Carter said when she was here is that
[34:29] she's accounted for any outstanding
[34:31] invoice that she has currently received
[34:33] in 2025.
[34:35] I
[34:37] you know I would really need you to
[34:39] explain to me about outstanding invoices
[34:41] from prior years and why we why we
[34:44] wouldn't just have they already paid why
[34:46] would you not be punching the jail sign
[34:50] and I I mean M we could spend a lot of
[34:53] time talking about this I
[34:55] >> well my my
[34:58] issue is that this is this impacts the
[35:01] budget in a significant way
[35:03] >> and based on the information that um we
[35:06] received and some of the information
[35:08] that we've yet to receive. I'm I I I'm
[35:12] curious as to what level of impact
[35:16] other money is out in the same scenario
[35:19] that we might be able to draw on and to
[35:24] give it back to the taxpayers.
[35:28] And if not, if we're not getting that
[35:30] information, and I requested that
[35:33] information um yesterday, and I don't
[35:36] want it to be a waiting game where we're
[35:38] running out the clock, and we're not
[35:40] getting the information that that we
[35:41] need in order to make an informed
[35:42] decision. And
[35:45] you know, seven right now, we're talking
[35:47] about $600,000
[35:50] right now in this one incident that
[35:53] we're that we're discussing. If we have,
[35:56] you know, two or three more incidents
[35:59] that are similar to this, that puts us
[36:01] in a completely different space as far
[36:03] as figuring out this budget. So,
[36:08] the money's there right now. It's
[36:09] available, but then so are we creating
[36:12] invoices right now to draw from this
[36:14] money now from here from 2021?
[36:18] Is that what's happening?
[36:20] That's a question for mayor
[36:22] commissioner.
[36:24] >> They're going back through all the years
[36:27] and all current.
[36:31] >> But but may
[36:33] that is a good thing they're doing to go
[36:35] back there and to draw down and to
[36:37] utilize funding that is available. But
[36:40] once that internal reconciliation is
[36:42] done, that money will go back. It's an
[36:44] in and out internal in and out
[36:46] transaction. Right? So that money will
[36:48] go back in the general.
[36:50] >> Not arguing.
[36:51] >> So that's I'm trying to tell the
[36:52] commissioner but we're not getting any
[36:54] >> it may not
[36:56] >> if the money's expended in 22 25 it
[37:00] won't be available necessarily for 26.
[37:04] >> The question
[37:05] >> I don't think this is 25 numbers
[37:09] >> it's a private in 2021
[37:13] I don't think we have rehoo vendors from
[37:15] 2021. We have to close and beat
[37:18] everybody.
[37:21] >> Sure. I'm
[37:22] >> so I don't know why we went around
[37:23] circles trying to circle around and I
[37:26] don't think that we're getting adequate
[37:27] answers.
[37:28] >> We're not
[37:30] I'm disappointed with the CDBG the lines
[37:34] and try to go around and say well we
[37:36] have invoice
[37:38] at this time discussed in last week
[37:40] nobody would have be aware of this
[37:42] >> and I'm I'm very concerned that there
[37:44] are more pockets of money available.
[37:46] That's that's what mines that point.
[37:49] >> So I think we may have to call for a for
[37:52] a forensic scrub on the entire CDBG
[37:56] >> for what?
[37:56] >> Forensic scrub on it. Accounting scrub
[37:59] on it. See where we um where money is
[38:01] from 2021 to 2025. And if we need to do
[38:04] internal reconciliation, let's do it and
[38:07] put back the money into the into the
[38:09] general fund. But I think we're right
[38:11] where we're at are right now is what are
[38:14] we going to do with 252 and 26?
[38:16] >> I'm confident with the numbers that was
[38:18] presented to us. I am
[38:20] >> I believe Miss Carva she had her sheet
[38:23] of her and she was going through line by
[38:25] line with us
[38:26] >> and she is credible.
[38:30] >> Yeah, that's not even a question for me.
[38:32] I I don't again my only question is that
[38:36] I requested the information for
[38:38] that money and from all departments
[38:41] because anytime that we're facing such a
[38:43] deficit and
[38:46] you know
[38:48] close to $700,000
[38:51] you know is discovered which is a really
[38:54] good thing. I want to go back in that
[38:56] same spot and look to see if there's
[38:58] other money and we haven't gotten that
[39:00] information. And so if we act on the
[39:02] information that we have right now, I'm
[39:04] okay with doing that.
[39:07] But I'm concerned that we might end up
[39:09] passing a budget with a with a burden on
[39:12] taxpayers that could be lessensed if we
[39:14] have all the information in front of us.
[39:16] And I don't think that that is a very
[39:18] difficult or
[39:20] ask to have especially when the
[39:22] information
[39:24] is there.
[39:27] And I don't
[39:30] I'm almost feeling like maybe I am I
[39:36] Does anyone else see like a strong issue
[39:39] with us talking about possible invoices
[39:41] from 2021 and 2022 and 2023?
[39:44] >> Well, that to me is
[39:47] I don't I'm not com I'm just going to
[39:50] tell you I feel like that that I'm not
[39:51] comfortable with that.
[39:52] >> Well, I think we're all in the same
[39:54] place, Mr. Farley. and we're saying that
[39:56] we're not that we're saying that we feel
[39:58] that this money is here although and
[40:00] it's just internal reconciliation. So I
[40:02] say that we're all comfortable with this
[40:03] number and with the fact that the funds
[40:06] are available.
[40:11] » Go ahead.
[40:12] >> So that the code 2021
[40:15] these are money that's been put forth uh
[40:21] by the council for program. So even
[40:24] though sometimes the money is put out
[40:27] say 2021
[40:29] you may not expend it in 2021 it might
[40:32] not be drawn down until the subsequent
[40:34] year some period of time after and that
[40:38] is what some of that was co came in
[40:40] there things held up some of the program
[40:43] some of the delivery and it's not that
[40:45] there are things that are from 2021 but
[40:50] expenses or activities that were subsequ
[40:53] went to that and even this year I used
[40:57] example of this house on Dwayne Avenue
[41:00] we knocked down and it was one uh I
[41:04] think I said Robinson Street was
[41:05] actually division street that
[41:09] were
[41:11] they were unplanned events and so those
[41:13] are expenses that would be charged out
[41:16] of those accounts
[41:19] and as I understand the appropriate
[41:23] method of that is
[41:27] if there's money from 2021, you wouldn't
[41:30] take it out of the 2025
[41:33] money. It should go out of the 2021
[41:35] budget to then back up to the current
[41:40] appropriation for the same thing would
[41:42] apply to some of the paving programs or
[41:44] whatever. Some of the money gets held
[41:46] over. We use the oldest money first and
[41:49] then ordered up to the most current.
[41:52] Some of that
[41:55] invoices were sent to development that
[41:57] were
[41:59] insufficient. So they may not have had
[42:03] the proper address on it. They may not
[42:05] have had section block
[42:08] and so that they weren't properly
[42:11] debited or credited depending on what
[42:14] direction the money was going. supposed
[42:16] to report if I give him a spot. Um the
[42:19] CDBG line that we're talking about is
[42:21] SNAP and code enforcement.
[42:23] Majority of this funding out was
[42:26] directed toward sol
[42:31] the the demo that we're talking about
[42:32] with the adjustment that we were trying
[42:34] to make on the contingency.
[42:37] the proposed $400,000
[42:40] in your proposed budget. Now, we would
[42:42] say that based on the composition that
[42:43] we had, uh they are $200 plus,000 the
[42:48] demo, but instead of taking
[42:52] $400,000 from the demo fund, why don't
[42:55] we take $200,000 from the CDP and say
[42:59] Mark for them? But that I'm not arguing.
[43:02] >> Yeah.
[43:04] I totally have the numbers ready by 4:00
[43:06] today. the process is more
[43:10] enumbering. I want whatever comes out to
[43:12] be accurate.
[43:13] >> Yes. Correct.
[43:13] >> So, we're talking three different
[43:14] things. Um the CDBG
[43:17] snap line and code for line is for
[43:20] salary that was not drawn on.
[43:22] >> We already paid these individuals
[43:24] already from a general fund. the
[43:26] contingency we're talking about the demo
[43:29] >> and if they have invoice that they need
[43:31] to brought down against demo line from
[43:33] the CDBJ then we just need to do a
[43:36] reversal on the contingency line and to
[43:39] just do away with the CDBG 200,000
[43:42] and then go directly back into the uh
[43:44] fund for the 400,000
[43:46] >> so the CD the two lines there is not
[43:48] control remaining because those were
[43:51] salary set for salary and it was never
[43:54] drawn on it
[43:55] >> correct
[43:56] So if my comment was going to be part of
[43:58] Miss Carp's conversation was identifying
[44:01] that this is a federal program
[44:04] >> reported and to not acknowledge the 2020
[44:07] 2025 closed out. So I would hope moving
[44:10] forward we just continue with
[44:12] understanding that these funds are
[44:13] available and that these department
[44:15] heads understand the expectations for
[44:17] submitting uh um full and complete
[44:20] invoices so that they can be submitted
[44:22] appropriately and timely. I would hope
[44:24] that we are not going back because I
[44:26] think that is a mute point if the system
[44:29] is already closed federally. So I am
[44:32] safe to say after this extended
[44:34] conversation I think understanding how
[44:37] we got here is a separate conversation
[44:39] and we are understanding how we are
[44:41] here. Thank you Miss Carver and her team
[44:42] for identifying this funds. I think we
[44:45] can move on.
[44:50] » Yes.
[44:53] What I would like to see after the
[44:54] budget and the committee cycle that we
[44:57] have on the agenda to discuss this in
[44:58] more detail
[44:59] >> the CDBG and available funding for each
[45:03] department.
[45:03] >> Yeah, we should have it by now.
[45:05] >> Yes.
[45:07] Okay.
[45:08] >> Well, then I would like a commitment
[45:09] from the council that if after the
[45:12] budget is passed, if we don't have any
[45:15] um information before the budget is
[45:18] passed and we later find out that there
[45:21] is money that can be used to offset the
[45:24] budget and and put money back into uh
[45:27] the hands of taxpayers that we're going
[45:30] to amend our budget and and let it
[45:32] reflect accordingly.
[45:34] And I for as far as we then what I'm
[45:39] saying is very simply is that
[45:42] I did my my my my homework based on the
[45:45] numbers that was given to us and
[45:49] we have a responsibility to identify all
[45:53] available funding sources as we're
[45:57] working through this budget. That is our
[45:58] responsibility to people who are
[46:00] depending on us to make sure that we're
[46:02] doing that. And what I so what I'm
[46:05] saying is that I for one I I already put
[46:08] my numbers. Okay. I've already did what
[46:09] you what we've been asking to do. So I'm
[46:11] not holding up the process.
[46:14] So
[46:16] seems to me that there's money that
[46:18] that's that's there and and I and I have
[46:20] a strong inclination that there's
[46:23] probably more and and we really need to
[46:25] be talking about that
[46:27] as a way to offset some of this cost.
[46:32] And That's just my position. If everyone
[46:35] wants to just move on.
[46:37] >> Certainly.
[46:38] >> At this point, I think we can have to
[46:40] move on, but I would agree with you that
[46:42] definitely would have been a budget if
[46:43] we find out that there's other fun. It
[46:46] just it makes sense.
[46:47] >> And just to go on record, I agree with
[46:49] that comment. Definitely that forensic
[46:52] research should not be halted, but we do
[46:55] have to continue on and if there are
[46:57] more funding sources identified to Mr.
[47:00] problem is the least consideration we
[47:03] can be responsive to the conditions that
[47:05] we are presenting the community with
[47:07] financially.
[47:17] Okay, let's move on to
[47:20] a 56
[47:22] Bing.
[47:27] All of us had 20. We received that in
[47:31] mail
[47:33] >> and they suggesting that they more like
[47:35] a million dollar 1.1 million.
[47:38] >> So we are $30,000.
[47:40] So I'm comfortable with $30,000. This is
[47:43] an estimate.
[47:45] >> So
[47:45] >> I mean $30,000 the recommendation is not
[47:48] it's not a bad. We're not far apart.
[47:51] >> Are you saying to leave the 30? I'm
[47:53] suggesting that we leave the one 1
[47:55] million130.
[47:56] >> Okay.
[47:58] >> Cuz we're not far apart.
[48:03] » I I would caution the other way. I would
[48:06] need that to be considerate of what
[48:08] Chief has responded.
[48:11] >> I think that would be
[48:14] >> still taking a lot of risk, but I think
[48:16] that is taking or putting a strong
[48:18] weight on his comments as well.
[48:22] I would agree.
[48:23] >> Me too.
[48:24] >> We're bringing in 1.1 million across the
[48:26] board.
[48:26] >> 910
[48:29] is what he said.
[48:30] >> 1.1.
[48:31] >> Yes.
[48:33] >> So I'm I'm comfortable flexible to to
[48:35] bring that down.
[48:36] >> The compromise. So can you make note of
[48:39] that please? First line. This one here
[48:42] making notes. Not the first line. This
[48:43] is a force change. Um except that I
[48:48] think in uh
[48:51] Ripple's email to us,
[48:55] >> he said he's going to they're going to
[48:56] try to read the 910
[49:00] » connect
[49:07] third line from the bottom at the very
[49:08] beginning. He says I'm comfortable on
[49:11] that.
[49:12] >> Yeah,
[49:13] >> I'm okay. because it was one of the only
[49:15] ones we all agreed on.
[49:18] >> Okay,
[49:19] >> good. Thank you.
[49:21] >> You have one. Everyone is one.
[49:23] >> Yeah.
[49:24] >> Okay. So, we'll we'll mark it as for
[49:27] change.
[49:32] » The next line is the parking times.
[49:37] Um,
[49:43] » some of those are closed, some
[49:45] >> bar.
[49:47] >> That one we definitely did notice there
[49:49] in terms of the changes.
[49:54] » 340 500 370
[49:57] >> I think 70 500
[50:00] >> 170.
[50:00] >> Mhm.
[50:02] >> Recommendation coming from the police
[50:04] department is to stay at 170. 170.
[50:11] I'm okay with 170,
[50:19] » but I still think I was really
[50:21] overestimating the approach that they're
[50:22] taking and with the system up and
[50:25] running last November,
[50:27] we've seen today the actual year to date
[50:30] as of today is 133,000
[50:34] >> and the program is just up and running
[50:36] this year and into next year. So the
[50:39] number is going to be driving up,
[50:41] but they are a couple million dollars of
[50:43] outstanding
[50:46] less than 3 years.
[50:49] >> So they started November 2024 with their
[50:52] program.
[50:53] >> Yes.
[50:54] >> And this is not even a year.
[50:55] >> Yes.
[50:57] And that's how I'm basing my basing the
[51:00] conversation I had. Yes. is an
[51:01] aggressive approach and uh you know
[51:04] production agency
[51:06] ramp up um
[51:08] mailing
[51:11] so the outstanding games the outstanding
[51:13] tickets I mean I'm flexible to move my
[51:16] number down I mean I
[51:17] >> me too
[51:18] >> yes
[51:19] >> I mean I don't have to stay where I am
[51:23] but I think we should know
[51:31] Well, I think we just need to come up on
[51:33] that particular line. We all had a
[51:34] different Well, I think uh Mr. Mudarin
[51:36] and I had the same, right?
[51:38] >> Yes.
[51:39] >> But everybody else, let's see. Well, no,
[51:41] two two folks had
[51:43] >> 170.
[51:44] >> Yeah,
[51:44] >> I don't have a problem moving down to
[51:46] 170.
[51:47] >> Well, 170 is the um
[51:50] >> proposed budget.
[51:51] >> That's what he says here that he's
[51:54] projected revenues. So if we go over the
[51:57] 170, we're definitely not going with the
[51:59] recommendation from the PD.
[52:06] » So it looks like we have to discuss this
[52:08] one.
[52:09] >> Yeah, I'm willing to to bring mine down
[52:11] to
[52:15] 300,000 from 500,000.
[52:20] That's an increase of 130,000
[52:24] from 300,000. 330,000 on board.
[52:35] I think that uh you and I, Mr. Mutiver,
[52:38] were going off the uh what we heard from
[52:41] the presentation. However, um now that
[52:45] we've gotten the revised
[52:48] memo today from the police department,
[52:51] I'm questioning myself on putting in
[52:55] that high a figure. So, um I mean maybe
[52:58] go. We all are well over that figure uh
[53:02] in terms of what is being recommended by
[53:04] the police department. So, I don't know
[53:06] what are folks feeling
[53:10] cuz they're saying 170, right? You find
[53:13] that one.
[53:14] >> Yeah.
[53:16] >> What will be your number?
[53:18] >> Well, I mean, I'm going to have to go
[53:20] down from 500 to either 170. So, I mean,
[53:23] I could see maybe 200, but we're still
[53:26] then going over the what what they're
[53:28] comfortable
[53:29] seeing as a as something that we can
[53:32] collect. I just don't want to, you know,
[53:34] inflate something and then not be able
[53:36] to make it. So, but I mean, obviously,
[53:38] I'm well over I I have to change my
[53:40] number. So, I'm interested to hear what
[53:41] other people say.
[53:52] » 500 obviously do it.
[53:59] Again,
[54:08] going back to what they said when they
[54:10] presented it,
[54:11] >> it sounded like it was going to be
[54:12] significantly more.
[54:14] >> Mhm.
[54:16] >> You could even present the gist analysis
[54:19] of how many they had.
[54:22] >> Yes. one year, two year, three years,
[54:24] and you'll think the millions of dollars
[54:26] that the agency is is going to fight for
[54:30] over the next year or two.
[54:32] >> I mean, I will say that again, I think
[54:36] I'm just speaking for myself, but you
[54:38] and I might have been in the same um
[54:40] thought pattern here, Mr. Mutter, but
[54:42] because that was the three years were
[54:44] less.
[54:45] >> Yes. Um so maybe um
[54:49] I mean obviously anything over that is
[54:51] going to be re you know like impossible
[54:53] to collect but they also had a figure
[54:56] for the six months right Braden was 130
[55:01] 605
[55:03] um I think we were just trying to figure
[55:06] out some additional revenue but they're
[55:08] now saying that they would be
[55:10] comfortable at 170 but
[55:13] >> so I'm just trying to see what other
[55:15] people are
[55:15] >> the presentation they talk about um the
[55:17] 1.2
[55:19] >> it was one point yeah 1.2 too.
[55:21] >> And it's going to be different uh time
[55:23] bracket
[55:25] that um the agency is going to start
[55:27] sending out notices.
[55:30] >> Well, what do other people I mean he and
[55:32] I have the same.
[55:34] >> I'm I'm going to drop mine to 30,000
[55:36] from 500,000.
[55:38] >> So that's an increase of 130,000.
[55:42] >> I can find myself in agreement with
[55:43] that. I would say if we're noticing uh
[55:46] early on in the year that those
[55:47] collections are moving incrementally, I
[55:49] think it is incumbent upon us to
[55:51] evaluate the efficacy of that collection
[55:54] agency because that would mean that
[55:56] regardless of what tickets you're
[55:57] getting in, you just got to wait out the
[55:59] system. I think that is a poor message
[56:02] to send because the time that goes into
[56:04] place to filing those tickets, you need
[56:07] to ensure that collection is equally
[56:10] enforced as well. So I think at some
[56:12] point we need to evaluate
[56:14] how well the collection process is is
[56:16] being conducted. I think that is also
[56:19] that I've been doing that.
[56:33] was my original. I increased it
[56:35] based on the conversation, but I'm going
[56:36] to go back down to 300,000.
[56:43] I was as well at 100,000 to put it at
[56:45] 270, but I'm comfortable with my 270.
[56:54] » Mr. Far, you want 370?
[56:56] >> Certainly. And I think based on, you
[56:58] know, the the email we received today,
[57:01] um, are we comfortable going down
[57:04] 300,000 as well?
[57:07] also
[57:08] noting that um that we and I think we'll
[57:12] run into this as we go through multiple
[57:14] lines that there's a point of um some
[57:18] level of evaluation of
[57:21] how efficient some of these things are
[57:23] being. So I'm okay with 300 in the sake
[57:26] of drawing some consensus within reason
[57:29] and moving on.
[57:31] Mr.
[57:32] >> Tori, are you okay there?
[57:33] >> Yes. Miss Patrick,
[57:37] >> I I I think 300. I'm okay with going to
[57:40] 300.
[57:41] >> 300. Okay.
[57:42] >> Isn't that what everybody's
[57:45] >> the majority? The majority are saying
[57:47] 300.
[57:47] >> Yeah. The two of us have 500,000 basic
[57:49] compensation that would present to us.
[57:52] That's how I factor in the number
[57:55] >> I'm comfortable dropping it. So overall
[57:57] 300,000.
[57:59] >> You're good. So, are we making that
[58:02] please?
[58:04] Okay, let's keep moving.
[58:10] » Bus
[58:11] >> patrol. It looks like
[58:12] >> patrol.
[58:13] >> Oops. We made another one. Okay.
[58:15] >> Mhm.
[58:16] >> Did we all we all agreed on that one?
[58:21] » All right. 600
[58:22] >> 400 plus 200,000 600,000 based on the
[58:25] presentation based on the amount of
[58:27] planning to give
[58:28] >> and based on what we told that um there
[58:32] will be some sort of a aggressive
[58:34] approach towards um
[58:38] to collect these outstanding um tickets.
[58:43] >> Thank you. So again um without the law's
[58:46] input and Mr.
[58:49] Well, Brian just gave us his input that
[58:51] there's nothing in in place now to even
[58:53] work on collect. Well, he told us, but
[58:55] it was going to be a long drawn out
[58:57] process that may or may not happen in
[58:59] 2026. Can you collect any
[59:02] expected full judgment now? And then
[59:06] it's it's then if that doesn't generate
[59:09] revenue, then we will look to hire in
[59:12] conjunction with the bus bus company, a
[59:16] collection agency. Cool.
[59:18] >> So, but the numbers you have there are
[59:21] aggressive numbers. I think the PD is
[59:23] saying 400. I think if bas default
[59:27] judgments, seeing how that goes in the
[59:29] hopes that's going to generate some
[59:32] money. Um, and then if that doesn't then
[59:35] we're going to, you know, switch over to
[59:36] collections. I think that
[59:39] we could be mindful that that this is
[59:41] not readily that their projections are on the high side, you know, based on
[59:47] talking to the PD,
[59:48] >> my conversations with the Congress with
[59:50] the corporation council and the
[59:52] assistant who corporation council
[59:54] handles these cases. So, I just throw
[59:58] that out there for your consideration.
[1:00:00] And if I may go back to based on account
[1:00:02] of the presentation that we had with
[1:00:04] this police department, the initial
[1:00:06] $400,000 in the proposed budget
[1:00:11] did not account for the $600,000 of
[1:00:14] outstanding ticket that is associated
[1:00:17] with bus patrol safety. So we have
[1:00:21] $600,000 in unaccounted funds. We took a
[1:00:25] third of that and say and that's do an
[1:00:27] aggressive approach
[1:00:29] to collect a third of that and I think
[1:00:32] that's reasonable
[1:00:34] but what we need to do is to put things
[1:00:35] in place don't wait until next year
[1:00:37] starting now put things in place to
[1:00:39] start to go
[1:00:42] and amend or put law in place how do we
[1:00:45] code and start to attract some sort of
[1:00:49] mechanism in place to get to the
[1:00:52] standing violation.
[1:00:53] So 2,000 $200,000 out of the $600,000.
[1:00:59] I don't think it's unreasonable.
[1:01:04] Mor
[1:01:06] didn't think it was unreasonable either.
[1:01:08] She was very very very very very very
[1:01:11] cautious and she identified that she was
[1:01:14] going to send back some confirmational
[1:01:17] emails there after which I did not think
[1:01:18] we received. Um but the comment was that
[1:01:22] a third of that line would not be too
[1:01:25] overaching which was not taken into
[1:01:27] consideration by the police accord
[1:01:30] response
[1:01:33] » six.
[1:01:34] >> Yeah,
[1:01:35] >> Mr. Williams.
[1:01:36] >> Yes.
[1:01:36] >> Okay.
[1:01:40] » Anyone else want to drop theirs?
[1:01:42] >> No. increase theirs.
[1:01:43] >> I think we're all on the same
[1:01:45] >> we all said the same thing on that one.
[1:01:49] >> I mean I will say um my notes from when
[1:01:53] they present it to us says that once the
[1:01:54] ticket is issued then it is the law
[1:01:56] department that has to uh then do the
[1:01:59] rest of the work. So we just have to be
[1:02:01] cognizant of any corresponding expenses
[1:02:04] if we're increasing the rep if we're
[1:02:07] thinking we can increase the revenue
[1:02:09] because even although I'm hearing what
[1:02:11] you're saying today that I mean I wonder
[1:02:15] if there's a way that that bus comes
[1:02:17] from you're saying that they might
[1:02:19] assist in this
[1:02:22] >> they want their money as well.
[1:02:25] >> They're not collecting.
[1:02:26] >> Okay. In other words, they they're a
[1:02:28] vendor and they're not getting they're
[1:02:30] supposed
[1:02:34] up. So
[1:02:35] >> they they don't get paid until the
[1:02:37] final.
[1:02:38] >> So they have obviously interest
[1:02:40] >> in trying to get that money.
[1:02:43] This this is where it going to come into
[1:02:44] play that this agency with the land
[1:02:47] department need to work in conjunction
[1:02:50] and put whatever they need to put in
[1:02:52] place to go after
[1:02:56] that.
[1:02:57] >> Thank you. But at this point there's no
[1:02:59] they don't have a collection agency.
[1:03:01] They're trying to recruit one. Correct.
[1:03:02] >> Right now we are just getting default
[1:03:04] judgments from any defaults case. We
[1:03:08] don't have one in place now. the idea to
[1:03:11] get one seeing how it moves forward with
[1:03:14] the defaults and then have a
[1:03:16] conversation with
[1:03:19] >> okay think this is a little
[1:03:22] >> I think it's it's it's large because
[1:03:24] there's there's a it's it's
[1:03:28] not going to be an account receivable in
[1:03:29] other words you get a default judgment
[1:03:31] are they going you know then we have to
[1:03:33] enforce the judgment and get it
[1:03:34] collected
[1:03:36] >> and then the same thing with you know
[1:03:38] collections agencies you know collection
[1:03:40] agency reaches out and collects, but
[1:03:43] they also want the fee for their
[1:03:45] services as well. So, as you're going
[1:03:47] through this, I understand where you're
[1:03:49] all coming from. Got it. But, you know,
[1:03:52] just be mindful that that figure may be
[1:03:56] on the aggressive side. I understand
[1:03:57] what the corporation council said, but
[1:03:59] I've had further conversations with her
[1:04:01] this afternoon. So, I'm just
[1:04:04] >> Okay. Yeah.
[1:04:06] >> So, so based on your feedback, what do
[1:04:08] we need to put in place in order to move
[1:04:10] forward?
[1:04:11] >> I think we should kind of offer that to
[1:04:12] each one of you to do anything.
[1:04:16] >> What What do What do
[1:04:19] What does the law department need to do
[1:04:20] in order to move this forward and put
[1:04:22] things in place?
[1:04:23] >> No, we don't you don't we're already
[1:04:25] getting default judgments.
[1:04:26] >> Okay. We're doing what we we
[1:04:28] >> What do we have to do? So, you you are
[1:04:30] doing the process. We start the process.
[1:04:32] starting the process of getting these
[1:04:33] old
[1:04:35] program has now been up and running for
[1:04:37] over a year now. So it's going to be
[1:04:39] mature
[1:04:41] process.
[1:04:42] >> So that's
[1:04:44] you answer yeah that's a question answer
[1:04:46] what is what needs to get done in order
[1:04:48] to get the stick.
[1:04:52] >> So I have a question.
[1:04:54] >> Yes. Right.
[1:04:56] So you go to the court to give you the
[1:04:59] fault judgment. Yeah.
[1:05:00] >> And at any point does the law department
[1:05:03] try to then you know collect the or are
[1:05:06] you recommending that it's an outside
[1:05:08] agency tries to do it.
[1:05:13] >> Let's see what we can do internally
[1:05:15] first. I think that's the plan before we
[1:05:18] go to an outside agency because like I
[1:05:20] said, if we're going to an outside
[1:05:22] agency, we're going to have to partner
[1:05:24] with the vendor on this. And if we're
[1:05:27] doing it ourselves
[1:05:29] there, you know, it's we're doing it.
[1:05:32] We'll get the money. We still have to
[1:05:34] give the money to the vendor, but
[1:05:37] collection agency, you got to pay the
[1:05:38] collection. And just to add to that
[1:05:41] because we looking at the wall
[1:05:43] department there is a request to um add
[1:05:46] a staff member. So you know that's going to increase the staff.
[1:05:50] >> Yeah we have and now that we're getting
[1:05:53] the the other additional tickets from
[1:05:55] the speed. It's another burden on the department to
[1:06:01] prosecute. It's the are issued but then
[1:06:04] they have to be processed with the
[1:06:06] system.
[1:06:09] Uh,
[1:06:11] Mr. Chairman, so I'm comfortable staying
[1:06:15] out where where I'm at based on the fact
[1:06:17] that those $600,000 that's old. I think
[1:06:19] that a third is the have an expectation
[1:06:24] of us collecting a third I think is
[1:06:27] pretty reasonable. That's was the basis
[1:06:29] of my uh I got and that's why I'm
[1:06:32] comfortable staying there. So let me go
[1:06:34] back to the delinquent they consult the
[1:06:38] use consultant
[1:06:39] um the collection agency that we have
[1:06:41] for the delinquent parking we don't pay
[1:06:43] them any money they attach a s charge to
[1:06:46] each of these uh the g so I'm guessing
[1:06:48] it will be the same here for the bus
[1:06:50] patrol
[1:06:52] more likely it would be the same so
[1:06:53] we're not losing um
[1:06:55] >> is that or we didn't have to pay
[1:06:58] bus patrol because bus has a different
[1:07:01] set of legislation that created it
[1:07:03] That's for that. The corporation council
[1:07:04] told us that she was going to look into
[1:07:05] that they might able to use digitalize
[1:07:08] them to help collect this something like
[1:07:10] that. Like I said earlier when we're
[1:07:13] dealing with parking tickets that's us
[1:07:16] >> part dealing with a vendor we have to
[1:07:20] work with
[1:07:22] the law to enable that legislation as
[1:07:24] well as dealing with them.
[1:07:28] So we'll see what we can do.
[1:07:30] >> Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. In in further
[1:07:33] conversations with Miss Bash this
[1:07:35] afternoon, corporation council, she was
[1:07:39] not as comfortable with her initial
[1:07:41] >> that was my understanding. Yes.
[1:07:43] >> Okay.
[1:07:44] >> Thank you for say that's why it's
[1:07:46] important for those individuals to be
[1:07:48] present at these meetings.
[1:07:51] But sincerely having from the source is
[1:07:54] imperial to myself making the best
[1:07:56] informed decision. Unfortunately, I can
[1:07:58] go off the last conversation that I
[1:08:00] heard from her taking consideration your
[1:08:02] feedback.
[1:08:03] >> Okay, no problem.
[1:08:05] >> That's okay. On our numbers were based
[1:08:07] on the conversation that they had we had
[1:08:09] with the corporation council.
[1:08:12] >> So that's how we can like okay let's
[1:08:14] we're comfortable like 200,000 increase
[1:08:16] it 200,000 across based on based on the
[1:08:19] conversation we had
[1:08:21] >> right
[1:08:22] >> with several individuals. I'm saying she
[1:08:24] didn't revis those comments went to the
[1:08:25] next meeting on Thursday. She couldn't
[1:08:27] make tonight's meeting.
[1:08:31] » Those things those those things should
[1:08:33] have communicated to all of us. If if
[1:08:35] any individual or department head had a
[1:08:38] change in mind,
[1:08:40] they should have communicated that to
[1:08:41] the entire council or if not to the
[1:08:44] mayor and could have passed on to us.
[1:08:49] I'm I'm sticking with my 200,000 because
[1:08:51] I'm confident that I'm sure it's more
[1:08:54] than $600,000 hopefully.
[1:09:00] » Yes. Did you say you cover with that or
[1:09:03] >> Yes.
[1:09:08] » We don't have
[1:09:10] >> What do you want to do? You're
[1:09:12] >> I'll bring it down 100,000. I'm not
[1:09:14] comfortable with leaving 200. Okay.
[1:09:17] Can we make notes, please?
[1:09:18] >> So, you'd be at 500.
[1:09:20] >> Go ahead. Yeah.
[1:09:21] >> You'd be at 500 instead of 600.
[1:09:24] >> Okay. Thanks. Uh, Miss Patrick,
[1:09:27] >> I'm going to stay with 600 for now.
[1:09:30] >> Mr. Safari, did you say
[1:09:32] >> unless everybody else wants to go to
[1:09:33] 500? I'm willing to go down.
[1:09:35] >> No, I was I'm very comfortable with
[1:09:38] third.
[1:09:41] >> The next item, we don't have to do
[1:09:42] anything.
[1:09:45] >> We'll figure that out.
[1:09:46] >> What? Yeah. And we there's only a few of
[1:09:49] us that have.3
[1:09:50] >> million.
[1:09:51] >> Yeah.
[1:09:51] >> The next one is a sale of house. We have
[1:09:54] numbers all over the place here.
[1:09:56] >> Well, actually, let's see. Um one, two.
[1:10:02] >> So,
[1:10:04] a million M 500
[1:10:10] m
[1:10:13] 500.
[1:10:16] Again, we talked about this one um
[1:10:19] several times and I was definitely
[1:10:22] looking um based on my experience on the
[1:10:25] you know with property management
[1:10:27] committee but also um where we're at
[1:10:30] already this year with only I mean we
[1:10:32] only have two meetings left. So it's
[1:10:35] unlikely that we're going to be able to
[1:10:36] increase too too much more than what the
[1:10:40] year to date is. But I have to go back
[1:10:41] and look at the year to date again. I
[1:10:43] think the year only takes you through
[1:10:44] when September though, right?
[1:10:45] >> It it does, but I don't know if it's
[1:10:47] saying any October, November, December.
[1:10:50] So, tomorrow I think is October.
[1:10:53] >> Today, I'm still at 1.5.
[1:10:54] >> 1.5.
[1:10:56] >> Okay. Thank you. So, we're at 1.5.
[1:11:00] Um,
[1:11:02] >> well, you have to factor in also the
[1:11:03] house that is coming
[1:11:06] to be closed.
[1:11:07] >> I I I think it'd be difficult. I mean, I
[1:11:10] don't know. I'd like to hear from you
[1:11:12] guys, but I think we'll end 2025.
[1:11:16] What did you just say we were at now?
[1:11:18] >> 1.5.
[1:11:19] I mean,
[1:11:22] how much do you think we usually do per
[1:11:25] um
[1:11:27] >> I don't even think we'll get to two. We
[1:11:28] won't even probably get to 2 million.
[1:11:32] >> No, I'm talking about this year.
[1:11:34] >> This year, maybe I don't know.
[1:11:38] million I don't know the next few months
[1:11:41] dependent we actually receive
[1:11:45] our software
[1:11:48] >> that's what I was being conservative
[1:11:49] about just based on my experience
[1:11:53] the last couple years the last few years
[1:11:55] you may have lost
[1:11:58] so we had the sales of homes so for the
[1:12:02] failures at a million increase myself a
[1:12:06] million increase Mr. Farley at 500,000
[1:12:10] increase Mr. Toro and Patrick at zero
[1:12:13] increase and you at 500,000
[1:12:19] » are you comfortable at that number party
[1:12:22] and civilians
[1:12:24] bord
[1:12:36] I think a response here regarding the
[1:12:38] housing revenue of budget out 3
[1:12:41] million.4 million as previously
[1:12:43] suggested. Council for brief on this
[1:12:46] matter by the director of development
[1:12:48] who confirmed that's $3 million figure
[1:12:50] in the man proposed budget is realistic.
[1:12:57] » That's carried is $3 million now. So
[1:13:00] that doesn't take into account
[1:13:02] paying 15%
[1:13:04] commission to the railers. There's some
[1:13:07] title work, other closing cost. So the
[1:13:11] $3 million represents
[1:13:15] the
[1:13:16] million450,3
[1:13:19] million sales.
[1:13:23] >> Okay. But the title the title already
[1:13:25] budget under
[1:13:28] title cost.
[1:13:30] So
[1:13:32] it's under there.
[1:13:40] Mr. Toro, what what were you just
[1:13:42] reading out for?
[1:13:43] >> That is a letter. That is a letter.
[1:13:44] Everybody
[1:13:45] >> No, I know. I'm just I'm trying to go
[1:13:47] through my stuff.
[1:13:48] >> It's It's a package that we just
[1:13:49] received.
[1:13:50] >> Okay.
[1:13:52] >> Everyone has a copy of this and we went
[1:13:54] through it.
[1:13:57] >> Oh. Oh, I was using mine as a ruler.
[1:14:00] Sorry.
[1:14:04] That's why I couldn't find it.
[1:14:05] >> Oh, yeah. I see. 3 million. Yep.
[1:14:19] » We have to kind
[1:14:21] of on that then.
[1:14:25] » Are you looking to put a number there?
[1:14:27] >> I'm staying with my 3 million on that
[1:14:28] one. Just based on what I just said in
[1:14:30] terms of my past years experience. No.
[1:14:33] I'm sorry. I'm laughing.
[1:14:35] >> We have to come to an agreement.
[1:14:37] >> Well, I know, but I just I mean other
[1:14:39] folks are, you know, let's see what
[1:14:41] everybody else says.
[1:14:42] >> It's right across there.
[1:14:44] >> 44 35.
[1:14:48] Anybody else interested in changing
[1:14:49] their number based on the recommendation
[1:14:52] that is on the memo I was using as my
[1:14:54] ruler?
[1:14:57] >> The director of development is
[1:14:59] recommending 3 million
[1:15:01] Anybody
[1:15:09] say
[1:15:11] previous points and earlier I think he
[1:15:13] did not disagree with Mr. Woodberry
[1:15:16] comments he was just not as overly
[1:15:19] zealous
[1:15:22] Mr.
[1:15:23] account outstanding for outstanding
[1:15:26] foreclosure lists potential sales of two
[1:15:30] large properties which we anticipate
[1:15:32] closing out
[1:15:34] those we contribute to the next fiscal
[1:15:36] year. So I think with that I bought 3.5
[1:15:42] » I can support 3.5
[1:15:46] >> moving it from
[1:15:50] » taking
[1:15:53] down to 7 million 500 for you
[1:15:58] >> Mr. party time to staying at 500.
[1:16:11] » I'm I'm fine bringing mine now
[1:16:17] to 500,000.
[1:16:20] Can you get all of that, please?
[1:16:37] enter. No. Okay. Okay. Let's move next
[1:16:42] mortgage and banks.
[1:16:49] » We have one, two, three,
[1:16:53] >> four.
[1:16:55] asking for an increase of 450.
[1:16:58] The two members, sorry, one member of
[1:17:01] 100 and one 50.
[1:17:10] Any changes to this?
[1:17:21] » Your number.
[1:17:22] >> Okay.
[1:17:24] Good with your number here. I am. Yeah.
[1:17:25] >> Okay.
[1:17:26] >> Thank you,
[1:17:27] >> Miss Porter. Field.
[1:17:29] >> Mhm.
[1:17:30] >> Almost set.
[1:17:33] >> Is it good? Mr. Williams,
[1:17:35] >> you good?
[1:17:36] >> Yes.
[1:17:37] >> So, it would be 1.4, right?
[1:17:38] >> Yes. Um, the next one is on casino. I
[1:17:41] think it's a slam across the board.
[1:17:44] >> The align with the 1.160
[1:17:48] » everyone.
[1:17:49] >> Mhm.
[1:17:52] And
[1:17:54] fun balance is based on how much
[1:17:56] adjustment we've made. Then we'll adjust
[1:17:59] that line accordingly.
[1:18:14] Okay. So we can move into expense.
[1:18:19] We do have a
[1:18:21] But if you have any
[1:18:24] additional
[1:18:42] you striking out
[1:18:43] >> I'm sorry we're I'm sorry I was going to
[1:18:45] put a piece of paper while I was trying
[1:18:46] to get out of my side.
[1:18:47] >> You mention striking out. Yes, I'm I I I
[1:18:50] was I we I want to take that out that
[1:18:53] council member thing. I was
[1:18:55] >> misunders I had misunderstood the
[1:18:57] original.
[1:18:58] >> So please let's take that out.
[1:19:00] >> Mhm.
[1:19:03] » And that should be zero.
[1:19:05] >> Mhm.
[1:19:06] Um
[1:19:08] a 1413
[1:19:14] to
[1:19:14] >> field
[1:19:16] the budget
[1:19:17] >> based on our prior conversations.
[1:19:19] >> Yep. And I have to support this because
[1:19:21] we gladly need this in this city for
[1:19:25] some employees.
[1:19:33] Do we have support for this board?
[1:19:36] >> Yes,
[1:19:37] >> everyone. Thank you,
[1:19:41] » Miss Michael.
[1:19:44] Commissioner, please make
[1:19:54] the next one. Um,
[1:20:01] » see, sorry. Yeah. Wow. 1621.
[1:20:05] Mr. Toro, you add it.
[1:20:07] >> You were adding this ad.
[1:20:09] >> Mhm.
[1:20:09] >> It was an ad for one in streets and one
[1:20:12] in
[1:20:19] » Do you have notes?
[1:20:20] >> The other one is
[1:20:22] go back into your sheet.
[1:20:23] >> But I'm interested.
[1:20:24] >> You can go back to your sheet.
[1:20:26] >> I'm interested in what Mr. Williams. Um,
[1:20:34] » yeah, there were some members back and
[1:20:35] forth
[1:20:37] >> proposed
[1:20:38] into Mr. Lance.
[1:20:41] >> He's he's down below though, I think.
[1:20:43] >> No, no, no.
[1:20:45] What about moving some um temporary into
[1:20:49] uh
[1:20:49] >> Oh, yes. Moving some to snap,
[1:20:52] >> right? Streets of Snap. Yes, that's who
[1:20:55] it was. So, what what is it? So that's
[1:20:58] converting seasonal uh one line half of
[1:21:03] that converting into actual position. So
[1:21:06] clear line half and creating two uh
[1:21:09] labor positions.
[1:21:11] >> So it would probably be two that that I
[1:21:14] would put in
[1:21:16] >> two labor voters in that position.
[1:21:22] >> So
[1:21:22] >> are you in trash or you sleep and snap?
[1:21:28] Um I believe those positions were in
[1:21:32] >> our positions that were
[1:21:36] 21
[1:21:42] days.
[1:21:45] >> It was delayed because I I I do like
[1:21:47] that idea,
[1:21:50] >> right?
[1:21:51] public authority said that you have that change is only $52,000 that can't
[1:21:58] position
[1:21:59] >> but different number
[1:22:01] >> there were two there were one
[1:22:06] 1215
[1:22:14] » oh right
[1:22:15] >> it goes down like 5110 and 8161
[1:22:20] » right
[1:22:20] >> so That's right. Staff the one in
[1:22:24] street.
[1:22:25] >> Okay. So, what line talking about right
[1:22:27] now?
[1:22:27] >> We're on a 1621
[1:22:30] 121,
[1:22:31] >> right?
[1:22:31] >> It's up here someplace.
[1:22:32] >> Okay. Cuz then we started talking
[1:22:36] that
[1:22:38] one is that
[1:22:40] both those positions were are funded in
[1:22:43] the in the
[1:22:57] But I would like to hear more from Mr.
[1:22:59] Williams.
[1:23:00] >> I mean, he said it, but I don't think
[1:23:02] he's got a good
[1:23:05] >> Well, doesn't have anything on this one.
[1:23:07] >> No, I know.
[1:23:08] >> It was one of the other ones, I think.
[1:23:10] >> No, I know. I just heard that, but
[1:23:17] So, Mr. Tor, what would you like to do
[1:23:19] with this one here?
[1:23:22] >> Would you like to keep this position?
[1:23:25] >> It's a one one year.
[1:23:27] >> So, stay at your expense of 316722.
[1:23:32] Mr. Toro,
[1:23:33] >> I'm sorry.
[1:23:34] >> Do you want to stay with the 263935
[1:23:38] or do you want to add the new one? So
[1:23:40] that would be figures 316722
[1:23:43] on that line. Is that what you want to
[1:23:46] stay with?
[1:23:47] >> Wait, just one position
[1:23:50] >> at 52.
[1:23:51] >> Add one position. Yep.
[1:23:56] » So no. So basically nobody else was
[1:23:58] making changes. Mine mine is actually
[1:24:00] just the same. We we all kind of handled
[1:24:03] this differently in terms of putting our
[1:24:06] recommendations. So mine is just
[1:24:08] actually keeping a set the same which is
[1:24:11] 263935.
[1:24:13] Just wanted to clarify that.
[1:24:15] >> But everybody else must have also just
[1:24:17] wanted to keep it the same. Correct.
[1:24:19] >> Right. Unless there's something in which
[1:24:22] there isn't.
[1:24:23] >> But this is a new hive.
[1:24:26] >> Huh?
[1:24:33] » So we took Okay. So we took that out
[1:24:35] somewhere. So it it it creates a new
[1:24:37] hire and all of us are on the same page
[1:24:41] to completely decrease the hiring for
[1:24:44] next year.
[1:24:45] >> My mistake.
[1:24:46] >> So yeah, so
[1:24:47] >> we want to align the domain to give
[1:24:50] opportunity
[1:24:51] to realign the budget and kind of like
[1:24:56] >> you know and if we were to say okay
[1:24:58] we're saying supporting the freedom
[1:25:00] we're asking now.
[1:25:02] >> I'm perfectly fine with that sort of Can
[1:25:04] I have a checkbook?
[1:25:08] » I'll give it to the mayor. Thanks. Give
[1:25:10] it to us.
[1:25:12] >> So, we're sticking we're sticking with
[1:25:14] 2639
[1:25:17] to
[1:25:18] >> Okay.
[1:25:22] » Next one. Um,
[1:25:23] >> you have to raise 52,000.
[1:25:26] Then
[1:25:29] >> Miss Patrick, you're asking the
[1:25:30] >> I was trying to cut some expenses
[1:25:32] basically. Um, so I'm happy to stay at
[1:25:35] the 170 if everybody else is, but I was
[1:25:37] trying to save us some money.
[1:25:40] >> You have what? What?
[1:25:43] >> Well, hold on. I have to look up the
[1:25:45] year to date. But what I'm saying is I
[1:25:47] was just trying to cut $20,000 from that
[1:25:50] line, but I'm sure I based it on year to
[1:25:52] date, but just look it up.
[1:25:53] >> You did. I remember that.
[1:25:54] >> Well, look at it. I mean, we can realign
[1:25:57] me.
[1:25:57] >> I'm happy if everybody else is at 170.
[1:25:59] I'll I'll go to 170. I was
[1:26:02] >> No, no. you
[1:26:03] >> I was just trying to save us some
[1:26:05] things.
[1:26:06] >> Let me just see here. 1622.
[1:26:09] >> Look at the notes on this realign.
[1:26:12] >> If it's if it's something that we can
[1:26:14] consider across the board, we will
[1:26:16] >> Year to date is, let me just get to the
[1:26:20] right place. Year to date, again, I know
[1:26:22] that this is end of September. We were
[1:26:26] at having spent about $100,000.
[1:26:30] >> Okay. Um,
[1:26:32] so
[1:26:34] our budget was $200,000 last year. So I
[1:26:38] mean I'm happy to go to 170, but
[1:26:40] everybody else was at 170, right?
[1:26:43] >> No, we didn't we didn't we didn't make
[1:26:44] any changes,
[1:26:46] >> right? So it would stay at 17 saying if
[1:26:49] what a lot of members think we can
[1:26:50] realign with the
[1:26:54] >> based on what Miss Patrick I remember
[1:26:56] that conversation where she was going
[1:26:58] based on the year to date um I didn't
[1:27:00] think that $20,000
[1:27:02] of a drastic reductions I think that it
[1:27:06] I'd be comfortable going to um
[1:27:10] >> Miss Patrick's 150
[1:27:15] Yes, Mrs.
[1:27:16] >> Thank you. I'm just saying looking at
[1:27:18] past Well, you 2023 was $166,000.
[1:27:22] 2024 was 130 actual. Um I mean the
[1:27:26] proposed budget, it did already take
[1:27:28] $30,000 off of the 200,000 that was
[1:27:32] adopted. Um I mean we just don't know
[1:27:34] how much going to be.
[1:27:36] >> So I I mean I'm happy to be at the 170.
[1:27:38] So, it's all, you know, I'm happy to
[1:27:40] change my my recommendation. It's only
[1:27:43] 20 I mean, I was only saving us $20,000.
[1:27:46] So,
[1:27:47] >> $20,000
[1:27:48] behalf of someone's um salary.
[1:27:51] >> In the next in the next page, we're
[1:27:52] going to be talking about compensations.
[1:27:54] And I think based on um Mr. Turk, could
[1:27:57] you read those last two?
[1:27:59] >> 2023 was 166
[1:28:02] >> Uhhuh. 700,000 166,741
[1:28:07] 2024 was only 130,835
[1:28:11] adopted in in 25 was 200,000. We're only
[1:28:15] at 100,000 but is 170 again.
[1:28:19] >> Yeah, that's I think that was a good
[1:28:20] calculation you made.
[1:28:23] >> Yeah, I would have said
[1:28:26] I don't think it's reasonable to drop it
[1:28:27] by $20,000. I think
[1:28:30] >> it's small.
[1:28:36] No, it was a good justification.
[1:28:41] » I think it's good justification. If I
[1:28:43] get your name again, please
[1:28:50] » I have to go back and find it again. I'm
[1:28:52] sorry. Um 1622 460.
[1:28:56] >> She got it.
[1:28:59] » It was 99869.
[1:29:02] So I said 100,000 at the end of
[1:29:04] September. So you better imagine that
[1:29:06] there'd be more. Oh, do you guys have
[1:29:08] today's year to date?
[1:29:10] >> 46.
[1:29:12] >> Oh,
[1:29:15] yep.
[1:29:18] » So that would make it like 150,000.
[1:29:21] >> Yeah, that's actually that's probably
[1:29:24] >> solid.
[1:29:26] >> How many people bring down that? So
[1:29:28] negative $20 on 120 150.
[1:29:39] » Anybody else have any change?
[1:29:43] Sorry, you have none.
[1:29:45] >> No.
[1:29:46] >> You're staying at zero.
[1:29:48] >> No, it's fine. Yeah.
[1:29:50] >> 150. Yeah.
[1:29:52] >> Okay. So, everyone is at 150.
[1:29:57] We all make same
[1:30:01] >> please make those.
[1:30:04] >> Okay.
[1:30:07] >> The next one is contingency and this
[1:30:09] where you can back and forward with CDK.
[1:30:12] So
[1:30:17] » I would ask him for this one based on um
[1:30:21] allow to get some information from his
[1:30:23] department heads and we can revisit this
[1:30:26] one because if they are ill and allowed
[1:30:28] then we'll need to realign this line to
[1:30:30] go back to the demo to the mayor's
[1:30:32] proposed 400,000 from the demo point and
[1:30:35] free up the $200,000 to pay those demo
[1:30:39] invoice that they're doing the recon
[1:30:41] issue.
[1:30:44] >> I also asked on this contingency line
[1:30:47] that for a year to date what did
[1:30:52] what actually came out of it. Um my
[1:30:54] understanding of initiative have
[1:30:56] explanation was it wasn't just
[1:30:58] demolition there were other things that
[1:30:59] came out that so I asked for a
[1:31:03] breakdown. Yeah. Okay. breakdown of what
[1:31:06] came out of the line that we didn't.
[1:31:13] » This was this was today's memo. Miss
[1:31:15] Porterfield, did we get something today?
[1:31:18] >> Oh,
[1:31:26] thank you.
[1:31:34] So based on
[1:31:36] Dan's following two 282 no 501
[1:31:44] I see in three demolitions is that
[1:31:47] correct?
[1:31:49] So there are three
[1:31:54] downloads I believe
[1:31:57] uh you have four monitoring there's no
[1:32:00] development
[1:32:02] uh there is a software
[1:32:06] send
[1:32:11] unified communications
[1:32:13] then there is a small adjustment uh
[1:32:16] state treasury
[1:32:20] So the commissioner um
[1:32:24] why are we being UCCC out of this out of
[1:32:28] the contingency
[1:32:30] and also why are we paying settlement
[1:32:32] out of this one when we had when we had
[1:32:35] money set aside under the lottery for
[1:32:38] claims and things like that
[1:32:40] >> unique personnel matter within the
[1:32:42] police department
[1:32:45] session
[1:32:46] >> we have to go Executive session
[1:32:50] and we had a special presentation after
[1:32:54] chief was here during the summer.
[1:32:57] >> Okay.
[1:32:58] >> It was kind of unique situation
[1:33:03] we going see we would have to go in the
[1:33:07] details. I'm just trying to refresh
[1:33:16] this discuss
[1:33:19] sometime
[1:33:21] this year. It was it was probably during
[1:33:25] the sexual council resolution. Yes.
[1:33:32] » Okay. So, we don't need to we can just
[1:33:34] refresh oursel with
[1:33:37] No, I just want to ask I thought it went
[1:33:40] through.
[1:33:43] » Yeah,
[1:33:45] >> Mr. Chair. So, you're saying in order
[1:33:46] for us to get an explanation of why it
[1:33:48] came out of where it came out of, we'd
[1:33:50] have to go into executive session for
[1:33:51] that.
[1:33:52] >> I wouldn't really have to give, you
[1:33:53] know, name the names really go into the
[1:33:55] details. Okay. What that was all about.
[1:33:59] >> No, no, we don't need to get we don't
[1:34:00] need to get in the specific. So, why?
[1:34:02] Because they were discussing claims. We
[1:34:04] approved it. Why he wasn't draw from the
[1:34:08] money?
[1:34:15] » Okay.
[1:34:17] And then we talked about the UCCCL
[1:34:22] UCC. Um I believe that's for the police
[1:34:26] department.
[1:34:28] Um
[1:34:30] I don't know why there would must have
[1:34:32] been an increase uh full records for
[1:34:34] this payment. Um the council would like
[1:34:37] more clarification
[1:34:39] that I didn't see exactly what
[1:34:43] they came out of this account
[1:34:46] >> because we have we have a separate line.
[1:34:48] So set aside. So you're saying that
[1:34:52] I don't understand
[1:34:55] 2024.
[1:35:07] Anything
[1:35:26] else with regards to the contingency?
[1:35:28] >> No, just I was looking to do the uh
[1:35:36] demolition. So that total out of this
[1:35:40] is $169,300.
[1:35:43] So
[1:35:48] talking about $200,000.
[1:35:54] Okay, they keep moving. So we'll reserve
[1:35:56] that and come back to the on
[1:36:01] senior program
[1:36:04] across the board. Anybody's
[1:36:07] pulling out that party as well?
[1:36:12] » Okay.
[1:36:16] Um the next going to ask administrative
[1:36:18] expense.
[1:36:21] Mr. Williams
[1:36:24] so that we can realign with you and
[1:36:27] >> I'm sorry. Can I interrupt for one
[1:36:29] second? Mr. Williams, I missed. Are we
[1:36:32] staying at um what are we saying for
[1:36:34] contingency? I'm sorry.
[1:36:37] >> No contingency.
[1:36:39] >> We'll wait some. Okay. Thank you.
[1:36:41] >> The department.
[1:36:42] >> Okay. Sorry, I just missed the final.
[1:36:45] >> So, it will not be it would it would be
[1:36:47] uh it wouldn't be productive for us. So,
[1:36:49] >> Yep. No, you can keep moving. I just
[1:36:51] missed that. Whatever information that
[1:36:53] we receive, we will have to back that up
[1:36:55] and go over the mayor's proposed.
[1:36:57] >> Mhm.
[1:36:58] >> And free up the CDBG money to pay for
[1:37:00] the those
[1:37:03] hopefully enough.
[1:37:06] >> So 3120
[1:37:07] >> 3120
[1:37:09] on those lines as the conversations are
[1:37:11] on the table
[1:37:13] uh continue. I think there are drawing
[1:37:17] applications with the department
[1:37:18] function with the overtime line that
[1:37:21] they are proposed to have. I would like
[1:37:24] to remove that request.
[1:37:26] Okay.
[1:37:31] » So we'll strike those out.
[1:37:33] >> Mhm.
[1:37:37] um
[1:37:43] in service trading EMS cease for
[1:37:45] service.
[1:37:47] >> Yeah, I just I just was basically
[1:37:49] staying
[1:37:50] here.
[1:37:51] >> Yeah, just staying with the 144, I
[1:37:53] guess.
[1:37:53] >> Yeah, that's not
[1:37:54] >> But is everybody else just staying with
[1:37:55] the 144 also? Is that why those lines
[1:37:57] are blank?
[1:37:58] >> Yes.
[1:37:58] >> Okay, thank you. Yeah, this is next year
[1:38:00] when we do this, we have to make sure
[1:38:03] we're all doing it the same way in terms
[1:38:05] of how we're putting in our
[1:38:06] recommendations.
[1:38:07] >> Yeah. And that's what keep asking
[1:38:10] because as soon as we get this, they
[1:38:12] gone to the department, they plug the
[1:38:14] numbers and back, but not having that
[1:38:16] information. Now they're
[1:38:18] we're doing the work that we're supposed
[1:38:20] to do since last week. Dog shelter.
[1:38:24] >> No, wait. I didn't understand what you
[1:38:26] were just saying. I did do all my work
[1:38:28] to be able to put these recommendations.
[1:38:29] >> Yes, I understand. But keep asking if
[1:38:31] you want to open submit your
[1:38:33] recommendation. We're here doing
[1:38:35] recommendation now. Um, so let's go.
[1:38:39] Let's keep going. Dog shelter. There's a
[1:38:41] recommendation there for $10,000.
[1:38:47] » I can recall who um they were actively
[1:38:53] seeking grants to help this program.
[1:38:56] Yeah, I think uh kind of
[1:39:01] really aggressive and maybe the balance,
[1:39:03] but I'm not sure why. What would $10,000
[1:39:07] do in terms of helping?
[1:39:08] >> Hold on. I just want to see what is in
[1:39:10] the um budget.
[1:39:13] >> Matching the requirement for some of the
[1:39:16] grants.
[1:39:17] >> Hold on. 45 47.
[1:39:22] There's proposed 10,000.
[1:39:25] >> Again, I was just sticking with the
[1:39:27] proposed budget, which is 10,000, but
[1:39:30] nobody else.
[1:39:31] >> See what I'm saying? Like, we all just
[1:39:33] had a different way of putting in our
[1:39:34] recommendations. This was just something
[1:39:36] that I wanted
[1:39:37] >> the column that the column is correct in
[1:39:40] 2026 proposal and the column on to the
[1:39:42] left.
[1:39:43] >> It has zero.
[1:39:46] >> That's why I thought that was an ad.
[1:39:49] >> No, sorry. I'm just keeping it at the
[1:39:51] mayoral budget. $10,000.
[1:39:53] >> So, we just need to
[1:39:54] >> strike that out.
[1:39:55] >> Strike it out here.
[1:39:57] >> Again, like I said, I'm just going to
[1:39:58] reiterate that we all did it
[1:40:00] differently.
[1:40:01] >> Yes. So, we're
[1:40:03] >> I'm writing same on my own notes. Okay.
[1:40:05] >> We're all in favor of keeping that and
[1:40:07] then can we use mention matching grants
[1:40:10] to help with the
[1:40:12] >> next line because of the high ranking
[1:40:14] freeze. We'll scratch that. Please tell
[1:40:16] me you're going to get checked
[1:40:19] on sign that
[1:40:20] >> and mine was just saying same as the
[1:40:23] budget. So we're okay there.
[1:40:25] >> Yes. So we're striking out these because
[1:40:26] of
[1:40:27] >> striking out new tutorials.
[1:40:29] >> Yeah. the entire
[1:40:31] >> we're saying that we would like to see
[1:40:33] CL put on hold
[1:40:36] >> and then the other one nobody nobody
[1:40:38] >> we talk about this u we are aligning
[1:40:42] with the may in terms of the hiring
[1:40:43] freeze and that should do any hiring in
[1:40:46] 2023 it doesn't mean that we have to
[1:40:47] hire people
[1:40:49] >> we can always revisit so the may always
[1:40:51] come back to the council the proposal to
[1:40:53] re budget reappropriation and if there's
[1:40:56] a need for to hire someone
[1:40:58] >> that is That is not get done. Things can
[1:41:01] always be adjusted and uh move forward
[1:41:04] and putting people in places.
[1:41:07] >> So again, that's just sticking with the
[1:41:09] mayoral budget.
[1:41:12] >> Yeah.
[1:41:13] >> Okay.
[1:41:14] >> Oh, this was me again just trying to
[1:41:16] find some money. So I was taking away
[1:41:18] one of the uh two code officers.
[1:41:23] >> And Mr. Williams, you probably were
[1:41:24] taking two, right?
[1:41:28] But those those position are not
[1:41:32] >> they're vacant.
[1:41:34] >> Well, there are vacancies there. If I
[1:41:35] can recruit people, I'm going to hire
[1:41:37] them for those slots. So,
[1:41:40] >> all right.
[1:41:41] >> Me, too. I was basing it on how many
[1:41:43] people were um budgeted in I'd have to
[1:41:46] go back and look, but I'm pretty sure
[1:41:48] that it was it was budgeted in 2025
[1:41:52] for X number of um folks, but we only
[1:41:55] have the five. So, I was just going down
[1:42:00] based on what we currently had, but I
[1:42:02] knew that actually this is a very
[1:42:03] important position. Uh so, I'm happy to
[1:42:06] take out my reduction. Miss Williams say
[1:42:10] you
[1:42:14] budgeted for 10.
[1:42:19] » I agree with the mayor highlighting this
[1:42:21] is a very vital positioning city.
[1:42:24] >> I think the only
[1:42:26] actuality was five enforcement officers
[1:42:29] this year. So
[1:42:32] big number five vacancies on five
[1:42:34] vacancies from now into next year.
[1:42:37] That's an aggressive highway.
[1:42:39] >> And I believe I I can align with Mr.
[1:42:41] Williams on that. I believe uh when
[1:42:43] we're having these conversations um uh I
[1:42:46] believe uh Mr. Trimson said that we just
[1:42:49] got we just got to five and we asked him
[1:42:51] historically he says it's the first time
[1:42:53] that he's been to five.
[1:42:54] >> Yes.
[1:42:55] >> So I think that that's
[1:42:57] removing two of those position is
[1:43:01] feasible.
[1:43:04] >> Go back to Patrick. So, you remove your recommendation.
[1:43:09] >> I'm just Can I just look really quickly
[1:43:11] at um my notes here that I took when Mr.
[1:43:14] Triny was
[1:43:17] >> Yeah, the hire the hiring
[1:43:19] it's very slow because
[1:43:22] >> I mean I guess
[1:43:24] >> hiring hiring officer any department
[1:43:27] does an aggressive approach
[1:43:31] would be a historical approach if it
[1:43:32] happened.
[1:43:37] But everyone else is staying at except
[1:43:39] for Mr. Williams and I everyone else is
[1:43:41] staying at
[1:43:44] >> but but respond first.
[1:43:46] >> What what
[1:43:48] >> I ask you for a response of what you're
[1:43:51] going to do
[1:43:53] >> in terms of your recommendation.
[1:43:55] >> I'm willing to align with
[1:43:57] >> I'm just trying to have some dialogue
[1:43:58] with the my fellow council members
[1:44:00] around this one. Um before I give a
[1:44:02] response, how are people feeling about
[1:44:04] >> So currently Mr. Williams had a
[1:44:07] recommendation and so um like I'm I'm
[1:44:10] going to to go with Mr. Williams
[1:44:12] recommendation based on what he's just
[1:44:14] explained um that you know we have five
[1:44:19] this goal was to um hire five more but
[1:44:21] that hiring three would be probably more
[1:44:24] reasonable um goal that we would reach.
[1:44:27] So I'm I'm changing mine. I know this
[1:44:29] document doesn't reflect that currently,
[1:44:32] but I'm willing to to move to that.
[1:44:38] » Okay. And yeah, so I just Yeah, I'm I I
[1:44:40] said that I'm based on the fact that
[1:44:44] uh Mr. Chi explained to us around he's
[1:44:47] at five now. He just got to five. Um
[1:44:50] he's never been to five since he's been
[1:44:52] in the position. Um, and so 10 is would
[1:44:57] be a extremely lofty number. So I I will
[1:45:01] learn with Mr. Williams. In fact, I
[1:45:03] would I could say nominate three. But
[1:45:06] being that the uh
[1:45:09] the necessity position, I'd like to at
[1:45:10] least have enough if we are lucky enough
[1:45:12] to find the right people, we can find
[1:45:14] three, be good. So I I'm I'm going to uh
[1:45:18] stay with uh removing two positions.
[1:45:26] So mayor this whatever hire you do with
[1:45:28] this department does not affect your
[1:45:34] this department will be exempted in
[1:45:36] terms of or any high products
[1:45:41] » the simple thing that I'm using is if a
[1:45:44] hireer has the ability to generate
[1:45:47] revenue
[1:45:48] >> it would cover it
[1:45:49] >> that's the problem essential Okay.
[1:45:53] To fill the position and make sure the
[1:45:55] revenue's there.
[1:45:57] >> That's the problem with this one. I
[1:45:59] mean, it definitely generates revenue.
[1:46:00] So, we have to look at the revenue if we
[1:46:02] take away the
[1:46:04] >> well
[1:46:04] >> the hires.
[1:46:05] >> Right. So, Mr. So, in in theory, I I
[1:46:09] agree with the mayor that align with the
[1:46:11] mayor on that. I'm saying based on the
[1:46:13] fact that we've never gotten to 10. In
[1:46:17] fact, based on what we heard from the uh
[1:46:19] department head that this is the first
[1:46:21] time we've ever gotten to five, based on
[1:46:24] the uh
[1:46:26] history of how people have moved out of
[1:46:29] that department,
[1:46:32] I think that high three is a pretty
[1:46:34] lofty goal, but it's doable um with some
[1:46:38] level of
[1:46:40] use Mr. term of aggressive approach
[1:46:43] there. So, I think that removing two
[1:46:45] will putting the
[1:46:49] harmful at all. Honestly, I think that
[1:46:51] again I think we could go through but
[1:46:53] I'll go historic from five. It's not a
[1:46:57] reasonable number. It's the pay scale
[1:47:00] there has drifted a little bit what some
[1:47:03] of the municipalities have. So then uh
[1:47:10] just market forces that make other
[1:47:12] communities more attractive
[1:47:14] connectively. I know that's hard for
[1:47:16] anybody in this table to believe, but it
[1:47:18] does have occasion.
[1:47:21] >> I I thought we realigned them like a
[1:47:23] year ago or two.
[1:47:24] >> We made some adjustments, but then other
[1:47:26] people have made other adjustments in
[1:47:28] other areas.
[1:47:29] >> My gosh.
[1:47:31] >> We did that, two years ago. Yeah.
[1:47:33] >> To realign them to kind of be parallel
[1:47:35] with the capital
[1:47:36] >> contract for CC, which is the program.
[1:47:41] Uh
[1:47:43] >> do we do like exit interviews when
[1:47:45] people leave to collect that type of
[1:47:46] data?
[1:47:47] >> Is that a practice we do?
[1:47:49] >> Yes.
[1:47:50] >> Yeah. That's kind of like where
[1:47:55] » they
[1:47:58] from this department.
[1:48:01] >> So right now are you?
[1:48:03] >> So based on this conversation I would
[1:48:05] align with um Mr. Williams.
[1:48:10] I along with Miss Patrick just one just
[1:48:12] in case people are looking for positions
[1:48:14] and jobs and it's a good paying job hard
[1:48:17] work good paying
[1:48:27] are we making are we making notes there
[1:48:29] please that Mr. Toro is aligning with
[1:48:33] Miss Patrick
[1:48:35] and myself
[1:48:38] Mr. Williams.
[1:48:42] » So that number will be will be what?
[1:48:44] Just tell me the so I can fill that in.
[1:48:46] >> 5216
[1:48:48] or
[1:48:49] >> 5216ative
[1:48:51] 1348.
[1:48:54] » No.
[1:48:54] Well, it's the 521632. That's what
[1:48:56] I'm post.
[1:48:58] >> Sorry. That's good. I got it.
[1:49:01] >> Okay.
[1:49:03] I'm just trying to keep I mean we're
[1:49:04] going to see a new one later.
[1:49:08] >> We're gonna see but so make sure that
[1:49:10] the numbers Yeah. Um
[1:49:16] » again you can skip the next line. I was being the same as the mayoral
[1:49:20] budget there.
[1:49:22] >> Yeah. This one here um there were some
[1:49:25] notes about this.
[1:49:26] >> This is a department of development.
[1:49:28] >> Mhm.
[1:49:30] I am going to be enforceable to say that
[1:49:31] we should bring this to $1,000.
[1:49:34] Uh this supported by small $5
[1:49:37] increase,000.
[1:49:57] If they keep finding money, I could go
[1:49:59] 5,000. So, I can support that as well.
[1:50:02] >> I support that as well. To the mayor's
[1:50:04] point, we're is generating money.
[1:50:08] » Did you say
[1:50:12] >> you're going to?
[1:50:13] >> Yes, sir.
[1:50:15] >> Mr. Williams, did you say
[1:50:24] » 500 500?
[1:50:25] >> Okay. Um,
[1:50:29] Miss Patrick,
[1:50:30] >> I'm just going to stay with the 500.
[1:50:32] We're only talking $500 here, so it's
[1:50:34] not going to make it one way or the
[1:50:36] other. So, I'll just stay with the 500.
[1:50:38] >> Okay.
[1:50:40] >> All right. The only thing that is I'm
[1:50:42] not sure who she was paying with that
[1:50:46] >> if management employees would
[1:50:50] you have to go back and change the codes
[1:50:52] and terms and conditions of employment.
[1:50:56] therea employees that should have been
[1:50:58] taken care of anyhow shouldn't do that.
[1:51:03] >> So if you open the door for management
[1:51:05] employees getting overtime compensation
[1:51:09] or individuals in development make sure
[1:51:12] you're ready to do it across the board.
[1:51:15] So
[1:51:16] >> actually
[1:51:17] >> so I I guess uh my point there was that
[1:51:22] there's also stipens in other
[1:51:25] departments
[1:51:27] and in development department and the
[1:51:29] proposed budget there was no there's no
[1:51:31] money for stip in that department as
[1:51:33] well. So, how it was explained to us was
[1:51:36] that um right now they do a a job a
[1:51:41] pretty good job of
[1:51:44] aligning their schedules a certain way
[1:51:46] so when there is a need for them to be
[1:51:48] here they can be here and that's what I
[1:51:50] was saying that for all um department
[1:51:54] should be doing but we're getting ready
[1:51:55] to move on to a conversation where I
[1:51:57] think that that'll become a little more
[1:51:58] clear.
[1:52:01] >> Thanks.
[1:52:03] Oh, just say I'm sorry
[1:52:06] to
[1:52:07] >> I do recall Miss Carver talking about
[1:52:09] PDM. A lot of her staff take her versus
[1:52:12] overtime. So
[1:52:15] >> compine
[1:52:22] with I I don't know if other departments
[1:52:24] have that again.
[1:52:27] Resort to the mayor here. I mean count
[1:52:29] time, you know, like she said, you know,
[1:52:31] if they work until 6, the next day
[1:52:33] they'll come in at 10. Is that something
[1:52:36] that development just has does or does
[1:52:39] every department do that?
[1:52:45] » Compliance with the code.
[1:52:47] >> Every department is unique. Some
[1:52:49] departments don't quite do that.
[1:52:54] » I know that there was someone in the law
[1:52:55] that he did that. So it's not unusual
[1:52:59] times.
[1:53:00] >> But I thought she said they take it in
[1:53:01] place of the overtime. That's why maybe
[1:53:04] to increase the overtime. I don't know.
[1:53:06] >> If I may add, they attend meetings like
[1:53:08] zoning meetings, planning meetings where
[1:53:09] they have to be here in the evenings and they don't get um they do come time
[1:53:15] because of that,
[1:53:16] >> right?
[1:53:17] >> They don't get over time or
[1:53:20] >> go ahead please. So I think it's trying
[1:53:22] to find other incentives outside of
[1:53:23] compensation to try to work on all
[1:53:27] hours. Not budget line, but it's a
[1:53:30] consideration. People like getting up
[1:53:32] later.
[1:53:33] I think it's being responsive to the
[1:53:35] request of the week.
[1:53:37] Appreciate the attempts when it can be
[1:53:38] made as it does the burden on the tax.
[1:53:47] probably
[1:53:48] like
[1:53:50] this
[1:53:54] other place. Do we need to consider
[1:53:56] that?
[1:53:58] >> Yeah. Did you say that some management
[1:54:01] time?
[1:54:02] >> I'm not sure. We're not sure. We're not
[1:54:03] sure whe
[1:54:08] » So, can we find out who exactly is going
[1:54:10] to be so fine?
[1:54:12] >> I think it's pretty well here. um um see
[1:54:18] exactly what what position rather made
[1:54:23] out of that line.
[1:54:24] >> Well, this is not something
[1:54:27] >> this line.
[1:54:28] >> Yes.
[1:54:29] >> I'm not aware when it's been in previous
[1:54:32] budgets.
[1:54:33] >> Uhhuh.
[1:54:34] >> Um but it's been there.
[1:54:39] >> Okay. So she gohead
[1:54:44] » nothing has been spent by the way at
[1:54:46] that time. So I mean
[1:54:49] >> I think we should we're spending a lot
[1:54:50] of time
[1:54:52] September 202 impact of
[1:54:56] >> the mayor's point if it goes into other
[1:54:58] departments.
[1:54:58] >> Well that's why I think we should leave
[1:55:01] it budget passes.
[1:55:07] It would be more of a policy kind of
[1:55:08] thing later down
[1:55:10] >> to discuss at another point, but right
[1:55:12] now nothing has been spent.
[1:55:14] >> Okay.
[1:55:15] >> In that line.
[1:55:16] >> Absolutely.
[1:55:16] >> And we're spending a lot of time on $500
[1:55:18] item here is all I'm saying.
[1:55:24] » All right. So, what can Sorry. Um, can
[1:55:27] you find out for us what exactly that
[1:55:29] was being on? I don't get previous year
[1:55:32] simply because as of the year of
[1:55:43] » what I remember Miss Carver saying is
[1:55:44] that
[1:55:46] her team does a really good job of
[1:55:48] trying to align their time to the needs
[1:55:51] of the city. That's not always a option
[1:55:54] for them. So that's uh why the the line
[1:55:58] why why the money she put the money
[1:56:01] there. Um I saw that and and so kind of
[1:56:05] I don't want to move us too long too far
[1:56:07] ahead but I saw that as
[1:56:10] something that is closely aligned to a
[1:56:13] stipen in other departments that we're
[1:56:15] seeing that she did not have a stipen in
[1:56:17] her department. So that maybe we need to
[1:56:20] rename it then
[1:56:22] >> so that we don't get into the main event
[1:56:27] in terms of that.
[1:56:29] >> Oh 23 126
[1:56:41] » talk about reaming the excitement.
[1:56:43] Remember we had gave a definition of
[1:56:45] what the said.
[1:56:46] >> No, we're just making suggestion because
[1:56:48] we don't want to make sure that as the
[1:56:49] may we don't want to creative
[1:56:53] atmosphere where our department thinks
[1:56:55] that we're giving one another. We do not
[1:56:58] want to do that
[1:57:00] >> at no point in time.
[1:57:01] >> Yeah. But it would meet the definition
[1:57:03] of a recitement.
[1:57:05] >> That's being removed every except at
[1:57:08] this point formed because that person is
[1:57:10] on call 24 and we need the clarification
[1:57:12] on the next person.
[1:57:14] >> Oh, so everyone did get a consensus and
[1:57:16] remove all statements.
[1:57:17] >> That's been a suggestion.
[1:57:18] >> Okay, we didn't get consensus.
[1:57:19] >> I think that we
[1:57:24] made sense, right?
[1:57:24] >> Well, I think we did address it. If
[1:57:26] there anyone who's on 24
[1:57:30] hour call, we have to divorce those off.
[1:57:32] I think it's 43
[1:57:34] and we ask that all those kind of
[1:57:37] whatever recommendation we make to
[1:57:39] remove those, we need to divorce it back
[1:57:41] >> for those essential.
[1:57:43] >> I agree.
[1:57:44] >> That's my recommendation.
[1:57:46] >> So, what are we leaving the sign at? So,
[1:57:48] I'm we're gonna I'm going to ask that we
[1:57:49] leave the
[1:57:52] for now leave the time adding $500
[1:57:55] because we have four members.
[1:57:58] We're asking to increase it by 500 and
[1:58:00] two are asking that 500.
[1:58:03] >> So, it'll be a,000.
[1:58:04] >> Yes.
[1:58:07] The next line is $500 in the mayor post
[1:58:10] budget.
[1:58:10] >> It's 500 in the mayor's budget.
[1:58:12] >> Yes.
[1:58:13] >> And nothing has been spent in 2024.
[1:58:16] >> Okay. and 10 and something.
[1:58:19] >> Yeah. And I'm I'm
[1:58:22] >> okay. The next one over time, but
[1:58:25] they're primarily driven because we're
[1:58:26] increasing
[1:58:28] the workload on the collection, the
[1:58:30] data, the parking. So, as we ask them to
[1:58:36] increase their workload and this is um
[1:58:40] primarily over time.
[1:58:43] So, and based on the the amount of the
[1:58:45] dollar amount they have provided to us,
[1:58:47] $280 $290,000,
[1:58:50] it cost the department $24,000.
[1:58:55] So, it's fair that we ask them to do
[1:58:57] more. we have to provide the
[1:59:00] compensation and that's why I ask that
[1:59:03] we
[1:59:05] allocate $25,000 to this um to this line
[1:59:08] to help offset that
[1:59:12] >> added revenue
[1:59:24] » Mr. Chairman please in that around that
[1:59:27] line what when they were giving the
[1:59:29] presentation and we were uh trying to
[1:59:32] scale out you know what the expected
[1:59:35] revenue can be based on the formula your
[1:59:38] numbers are right on point with that and
[1:59:40] that's why I was I'm supporting that as
[1:59:43] a formula um but something the the issue
[1:59:46] that I raised during that conversation
[1:59:47] is that we have to balance the tensions
[1:59:49] of
[1:59:51] increasing the revenue and impact uh to
[1:59:55] police community relations and I think
[1:59:57] that that's based on what uh that the uh
[2:00:00] officer saying that the chief is saying
[2:00:03] >> that he's recommending that we don't
[2:00:05] increase that line. Correct.
[2:00:06] >> Is that correct?
[2:00:07] >> That's correct.
[2:00:09] >> And because of the impact that what he
[2:00:13] perceives as the negative impact on
[2:00:15] community based on what he said.
[2:00:18] >> However, he didn't say that.
[2:00:21] >> Look at what you have to back up here.
[2:00:23] the revenue and asking them to do extra
[2:00:26] work and how do we compensate them to to
[2:00:29] do that work for us to generate more
[2:00:31] revenue
[2:00:32] >> yet it has those um the stuff that comes
[2:00:35] with it.
[2:00:37] >> Uh
[2:00:39] so I guess my point of clarity would be
[2:00:43] the chief is saying that this is still a
[2:00:47] uh actionable thing for them to do.
[2:00:49] >> Yes. So if he seems he has some action
[2:00:51] for them to do and they still plan on
[2:00:52] doing it well then um
[2:00:57] is he suggesting that he has the
[2:00:58] capacity to do it without increasing
[2:01:00] that that that line is that what you
[2:01:02] communicate
[2:01:05] please so I
[2:01:08] miss I would agree that Mr. far we
[2:01:11] manage just
[2:01:13] however I agree with making that
[2:01:15] adjustment at the $25,000 at this
[2:01:18] present time what I've been doing on
[2:01:20] items that we are highlighting I would
[2:01:22] ask that this is a highlightable item
[2:01:24] that we return to once we conclude the
[2:01:27] rest of our conversations I think is one
[2:01:30] thing to have an expectation for
[2:01:32] overtime specifically in police to be uh
[2:01:35] identified as if intentional cuts I
[2:01:38] think we've heard skepticism from that
[2:01:41] department and I think if we can
[2:01:43] identify any dollars sincerely if it is
[2:01:46] one dollar I think that that just
[2:01:48] improves their outcome's
[2:01:50] point balancing out community interest
[2:01:53] and also um being firm and responding to
[2:01:57] compliance finance throughout the city.
[2:02:00] >> Yeah. would then go back there
[2:02:03] in the initial budget in initial revenue
[2:02:07] they are hoping to do you know x amount
[2:02:10] of detail
[2:02:11] >> $250,000
[2:02:14] >> and that will cost $24,000 of
[2:02:18] >> so that's how I factory so if we're
[2:02:20] going to add another
[2:02:21] then you know we we can't just take it
[2:02:23] one way it has to go both way
[2:02:26] >> no so that's what I'm saying based on
[2:02:28] >> yeah reason enough for us to say go get
[2:02:29] some revenue for us and you know kind of
[2:02:32] help us help us with this outstanding
[2:02:35] and um violation
[2:02:37] >> but if you don't put
[2:02:39] incentive for them to do it then how are
[2:02:41] they going to do it and that's how I
[2:02:43] factor in
[2:02:44] >> you know I I think I think your formal
[2:02:46] is correct I think if the chief is I'll
[2:02:48] definitely defer them if he's moving the
[2:02:50] budget in the way that we want
[2:02:52] >> my numbers are only less a thousand less
[2:02:54] than $1,000 off from them because I
[2:02:57] >> sure so I'm okay with leaving it to Mr.
[2:03:00] Williams point and kind kind of
[2:03:01] revisiting it. If the police have the
[2:03:03] capacity to carry out the the task
[2:03:05] without that, that's great. If they're
[2:03:07] saying that they don't need it and and
[2:03:09] if they're saying that they do, then I
[2:03:11] should be there will leave you at zero for
[2:03:15] >> but so I am in agreement with $2500.
[2:03:19] I'm saying if there is more conceiv
[2:03:44] I'm not going to to do that because I'm
[2:03:46] really looking at what they that the
[2:03:48] major impact they thought had on the
[2:03:50] community. Okay.
[2:03:52] >> Really taking that into consideration.
[2:03:53] So as we look at it's not just you know
[2:03:56] what we're doing here but they're on the
[2:03:59] street and if they feel like it's going
[2:04:00] to
[2:04:02] increase people how people see them in a
[2:04:04] negative light because our only increase
[2:04:07] is to do this kind of um you know get
[2:04:11] more
[2:04:13] etc. So they didn't think that was a
[2:04:14] good idea. I wouldn't want to put them
[2:04:16] in the position of
[2:04:17] um being in that where they feel like
[2:04:19] it's it's increasing
[2:04:22] decreasing their relationship with
[2:04:24] community.
[2:04:26] >> Mr. Tor, what do you think about
[2:04:28] >> agree?
[2:04:34] But
[2:04:36] so we are
[2:04:37] >> you're going with
[2:04:40] the overtime. But yeah, it's the over
[2:04:43] the last one.
[2:04:46] But again, we're giving them more work.
[2:04:49] >> What I have a conversation is
[2:04:52] >> I understand. But um would you I mean if
[2:04:54] we were asked the reasons which we
[2:04:56] intend to do based on Mr. Williams
[2:04:59] recommendation.
[2:05:00] >> Mhm.
[2:05:00] >> And to see if there we can add more
[2:05:02] money to this line.
[2:05:04] >> Mhm.
[2:05:05] >> And maybe at that point in time we can
[2:05:08] know expand our compensation around this
[2:05:11] line.
[2:05:12] >> But it's not only it's not like
[2:05:16] it's not only a negative impact but also
[2:05:18] maybe
[2:05:19] positive impact.
[2:05:23] monetarily as I'm talking about Dr.
[2:05:26] and we always talk about how um the
[2:05:29] police are seen in etc and how we need
[2:05:31] to increase
[2:05:33] community relationships. So they're
[2:05:35] saying that's going to detract from the
[2:05:38] from their relationship I think we
[2:05:41] should take into consideration
[2:05:44] what you think
[2:05:46] >> the line I missed I'm sorry
[2:05:49] >> we asking them uh to do additional work
[2:05:51] in terms of remaining common revenue
[2:05:54] offset. He dispenses over there appear
[2:05:58] and then adjusted number
[2:06:01] the overtime 25,000 offset with the
[2:06:05] additional asking.
[2:06:08] >> So basically you're all talking about
[2:06:11] raising the overtime please.
[2:06:13] >> Yes.
[2:06:14] >> What are you thinking of raising it?
[2:06:15] >> 25,000 for now.
[2:06:18] >> Um and everybody is agreeing on that.
[2:06:20] No, no, no. This is This is different.
[2:06:24] This has to do with the parking fine.
[2:06:28] >> Oh, I'm sorry. They're doing the detail.
[2:06:30] in the in the
[2:06:32] night.
[2:06:34] >> Mhm.
[2:06:36] >> 27
[2:06:38] visits this year.
[2:06:39] >> They're looking at 27 next year.
[2:06:41] >> 47 next year. That's So, they're hoping
[2:06:44] to double it next year. Uh this year
[2:06:46] they did 220,000. next year and
[2:06:48] everything.
[2:06:49] >> I'm I'm happy to add $25,000 to the
[2:06:51] police overtime. If I had my way, I'd
[2:06:53] add a million dollars to the police
[2:06:54] overtime. So, um
[2:06:57] >> I'm happy to go with the uh So, that
[2:06:59] would be one7
[2:07:02] 915.
[2:07:04] >> No.
[2:07:05] Yes.
[2:07:05] >> Are we on that line still? Yes. Okay.
[2:07:07] Thank you.
[2:07:09] >> So, you're okay with 25K?
[2:07:10] >> I am.
[2:07:15] And I just want to, you know, echo this
[2:07:17] sentiment is that we at this point
[2:07:22] this line was presented to us. The
[2:07:25] mayor's proposed budget of a million
[2:07:28] >> 92,950
[2:07:32] and I don't think none of us ever
[2:07:34] mentioned about cutting this entire
[2:07:37] >> Why are we mentioning it now? Why are
[2:07:38] you mentioning it? I just want to make
[2:07:40] because some people saying that we're
[2:07:41] cutting down over time but we're not
[2:07:43] whatever was presented to us that's what
[2:07:45] we have there and no one right
[2:07:48] >> have ever mentioned about cutting
[2:07:49] anything that was presented to us we're
[2:07:51] looking to adding now
[2:07:54] >> yes
[2:07:56] >> and no revisited based on
[2:07:59] recommendation
[2:07:59] >> I think that's larger
[2:08:00] >> see if we can add more to that
[2:08:03] >> that's not necessary
[2:08:08] » okay let's start a page
[2:08:23] So now we're on tapping
[2:08:25] >> staffing.
[2:08:27] So
[2:08:30] we talk about this generally across the
[2:08:32] board. I think everyone uh
[2:08:35] is in agreement or was in agreement with
[2:08:38] it. that um
[2:08:41] put all new hires on on hold.
[2:08:43] >> Yep.
[2:08:44] >> In line with the mayor.
[2:08:45] >> Yep.
[2:08:46] >> And allow the mayor for any essential
[2:08:48] hire. And as the mayor just mentioned,
[2:08:50] I'm revenue generating um position.
[2:08:57] So I only have myself and Patrick open
[2:09:01] here.
[2:09:07] I'm happy to go with the majority on
[2:09:08] that one. I was taking that out. Again,
[2:09:11] I was just trying to figure out a way to
[2:09:13] cut expenses, but obviously the
[2:09:14] department head
[2:09:15] >> is recommending having that position.
[2:09:19] Um, but it sounds like my colleagues,
[2:09:20] it's seems like it's just you and I.
[2:09:23] >> No, I think we I think we we the only
[2:09:25] one put it on paper. the others were
[2:09:30] » so like I want to ask that we realign
[2:09:33] ourselves here in this one.
[2:09:37] >> So everybody else just didn't get their
[2:09:39] recommendations in.
[2:09:40] >> Yes. So I will start with
[2:09:44] >> So we're talking about
[2:09:46] the higher than this.
[2:09:49] >> I'm sorry. Could you just speak? I'm
[2:09:51] saying that I if the mayor is
[2:09:53] recommending a higher freeze and this is
[2:09:54] a higher then it falls you know then no
[2:09:58] there's a higher free position
[2:10:02] generating
[2:10:03] >> yes I have to agree with the mayor on
[2:10:06] those position
[2:10:08] revenue generating position and they can
[2:10:10] pay for themselves then yes if not we
[2:10:13] just need to continue to hold allow the
[2:10:15] revenue to build up economically
[2:10:18] I
[2:10:18] >> that's what we've been saying
[2:10:20] Miss uh Vtorio.
[2:10:23] >> Y
[2:10:24] >> you're good.
[2:10:24] >> Yeah.
[2:10:25] >> Okay. So, everyone is in alignment with
[2:10:27] this line. So,
[2:10:30] put a hold here.
[2:10:33] >> I think also I just want to point out
[2:10:34] that I'm pretty sure we put a hold on it
[2:10:36] last year also. Let me just look though.
[2:10:39] I do want I think we took it out of the
[2:10:41] budget last last year. So,
[2:10:43] unfortunately,
[2:10:44] >> I think they they've had to get through
[2:10:47] without that without that position. The
[2:10:49] only thing and I'm sticking with my I'll
[2:10:52] stick with my taking it out if everybody
[2:10:54] agrees to that. But I do want to say is
[2:10:56] this the position where because we don't
[2:10:59] have this position we're spending more
[2:11:01] money at an external garage or is that a
[2:11:04] different position?
[2:11:05] >> No, this because of this
[2:11:06] >> a different uh expense. I mean
[2:11:08] >> no remember there was a um where they
[2:11:11] wanted to add someone who was on like
[2:11:13] this third shift or this off shift or
[2:11:15] work on the road. We that we put that in
[2:11:19] and be in and what Mr. um
[2:11:23] Lefon said was that because that this
[2:11:27] position was vacant and they need that
[2:11:29] particular position did not actually
[2:11:32] ever start. So that person's working
[2:11:34] during the day and this off hours
[2:11:37] mechanic that we
[2:11:39] was was not is not doing is not able to
[2:11:42] do the job because they have children.
[2:11:50] » The next move
[2:11:51] >> the next line is the same with u
[2:11:56] » Mr. Williams. Is this one? Yeah, this is
[2:12:00] >> I would see that as a conversion. If
[2:12:02] anyone can group it as a new hire, I can
[2:12:06] contest that. I mean, I can respect
[2:12:08] that, but I would say we're converting
[2:12:11] already in place salaries.
[2:12:17] » So, what what is your recommendation, S?
[2:12:21] >> Hold it.
[2:12:22] >> I mean, not I mean to to hold it in
[2:12:24] place as do I'm not ruing this. I don't
[2:12:27] consider these the new hires and the
[2:12:29] understanding the budget line has
[2:12:30] already been there in previous years it
[2:12:33] waste so it's more identifiable as its
[2:12:36] usage in the city. My feedback is I
[2:12:40] would like to see support to higher
[2:12:42] waste generating positions to support
[2:12:44] quality of life these individuals that
[2:12:46] have very difficult
[2:12:48] works.
[2:12:52] So understood because there
[2:12:56] you had something similar to this.
[2:12:59] >> Well,
[2:13:00] >> yeah, I
[2:13:02] talking about it.
[2:13:04] >> Um, so
[2:13:06] >> right, but that was um for the the
[2:13:09] seasonal that what we're like at $15.
[2:13:13] We thought they were at 17 plus two, but
[2:13:15] now 15 plus two. Yeah. 1750.
[2:13:20] >> I I would agree with Mr. Williams on
[2:13:22] that.
[2:13:25] >> Um
[2:13:27] >> to add to add a new person.
[2:13:29] >> It's not adding
[2:13:30] >> I mean adding um Well, it's it's more
[2:13:32] than what the mayor is putting into his
[2:13:34] budget is what I'm saying.
[2:13:36] >> But
[2:13:38] >> I hear what you're what you're just
[2:13:39] trying to be clear. But
[2:13:44] » anyone else
[2:13:45] >> So you guys just canceled each other out
[2:13:47] anyway. I'm I'm willing to compromise.
[2:13:51] and and
[2:13:53] realign myself in terms of the majority.
[2:13:57] So, I'm going to cancel mine out.
[2:14:02] Is everyone in favor? Let's um
[2:14:06] Williams.
[2:14:10] Okay. Because I know you had some notes
[2:14:12] uh way back about this thing. So,
[2:14:17] uh, commissioner, please make note of
[2:14:19] this.
[2:14:23] » So, that will cost us an additional
[2:14:25] 87,000
[2:14:29] » or is that removing money from just
[2:14:32] cancel?
[2:14:33] >> It's not costing us anything. We're
[2:14:34] realigning it. Okay.
[2:14:36] >> Yes.
[2:14:37] >> Yeah.
[2:14:39] >> So, can can you also make note of that this is a realignment? So, it's a
[2:14:44] reading the head.
[2:14:46] >> That's I believe that's the line below
[2:14:48] that seasonals
[2:14:51] that were reduced by
[2:14:54] >> Oh, perfect. Yes.
[2:14:56] >> Yes.
[2:15:04] » So, this is a reelective. Okay.
[2:15:09] » And everyone is in favor of this.
[2:15:12] Right.
[2:15:13] >> So on this one,
[2:15:15] instead of putting in 214,396,
[2:15:19] we're only Mr. Williams is suggesting
[2:15:22] just putting in 10719.
[2:15:26] Is that right? Is that am I reading that
[2:15:28] correctly?
[2:15:30] So left um I was assuming that it would
[2:15:33] be half of that would come up for two
[2:15:36] positions and if you're being really
[2:15:38] divisional you can return back to the
[2:15:40] difference but for matter of fact just
[2:15:43] having two positions and keeping some
[2:15:44] pre line is more than 10.
[2:15:55] Yeah, I allowed um civilians and
[2:16:02] because you wrote that you brought it up
[2:16:04] but almost on the same level in terms of
[2:16:07] what you were thinking about. So I'll
[2:16:09] take we'll listen to both whatever y'all
[2:16:11] recommend on this here. I will follow
[2:16:13] you guys from this line.
[2:16:16] The reality
[2:16:19] uh and your point was valid on my side.
[2:16:31] » So we're going down on that one to
[2:16:33] 107198.
[2:16:35] Correct?
[2:16:36] >> Would be the total instead of 214396.
[2:16:40] Is that correct?
[2:16:42] Yes.
[2:16:44] >> So, you could you could just move the
[2:16:46] numbers. Uh, yes.
[2:16:47] >> I'm just I'm just I know we're going to
[2:16:49] get it. I know we're going to get it
[2:16:50] back on Binance with the right numbers.
[2:16:53] >> Well, just make note for yourself and
[2:16:54] you can in each column.
[2:16:56] >> Yep. I'm all set.
[2:17:08] » I don't know how many positions that is.
[2:17:10] So, but
[2:17:13] it's not a simple
[2:17:16] but in terms of how many positions we're
[2:17:18] getting rid of.
[2:17:25] » You don't get it. You don't get
[2:17:26] >> Well, should they add it? Well, it's
[2:17:28] okay because the bottom line it's okay.
[2:17:31] I'm okay with that.
[2:17:33] >> Okay. Let me just for clarification,
[2:17:36] you're not removing any position. You're
[2:17:37] just realigning here. Yeah, I want to
[2:17:39] make sure we we're in the same amount on
[2:17:41] level of saying that we're moving any
[2:17:43] position.
[2:17:44] >> Well, I think that there are it's just
[2:17:46] that it says various on our on our
[2:17:48] budget. We don't have a number of how
[2:17:50] many people, but it's okay because we
[2:17:52] actually added
[2:17:53] >> Right. Right. So, I'm I'm okay with it.
[2:17:55] Let's let's move on.
[2:17:56] >> Yeah. So, everyone is in alignment with
[2:17:58] these uh these changes.
[2:18:01] Okay. Let's move into the next um
[2:18:04] section and that's a lot with the B
[2:18:06] section and that has to do with
[2:18:08] management raise and that is calling for
[2:18:11] a 3% across the board. Mr. Parley I
[2:18:14] align with yours. Is that correct?
[2:18:17] >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman. So, uh, we got, uh,
[2:18:21] the mayor's proposed budget. Um, and as
[2:18:25] we started our council deliberations,
[2:18:27] the first, uh, recommendation,
[2:18:30] uh, was for maintain uh the the mayor's
[2:18:34] hiring freeze and to, um, not give any
[2:18:38] raises across the board. Um
[2:18:41] I I responded to that email uh saying
[2:18:44] that I thought that
[2:18:47] um minimum we need to be giving people
[2:18:49] the 3% raise across the board as cuz
[2:18:52] that is my understanding that's really
[2:18:54] just going to keep up with inflation and
[2:18:56] quite honestly the inflation rates right
[2:18:58] now we're not even going to that that
[2:19:00] might not even keep up with inflation.
[2:19:01] So therefore in order to not give a
[2:19:04] raise would actually be um the same as
[2:19:07] uh giving a pay deduction. So that's
[2:19:10] where I started at uh minimum we need to
[2:19:13] give uh people their uh quality of life
[2:19:16] their inflation adjustment rates across
[2:19:19] the board and that's where I was willing
[2:19:21] to start deliberations the conversation
[2:19:23] then went from that into uh
[2:19:27] the inequities and the inconsistent
[2:19:30] manner in which uh raises are being
[2:19:35] calculated and then we're back to the
[2:19:38] work pay study that was supposed to have
[2:19:41] happened um that had not happened. So
[2:19:45] where we're at right now is I'm
[2:19:47] suggesting the minimally giving people
[2:19:50] that their 3% increase that's true
[2:19:54] minimum as a point of starting point. In
[2:19:59] other words, I'm not I'm against not
[2:20:00] giving anyone
[2:20:06] » for the same reason I realign with with
[2:20:08] yours.
[2:20:10] >> Uh there are some of them that we need
[2:20:11] to strike out here. The ones in positive
[2:20:13] numbers those were there were still
[2:20:17] there
[2:20:19] >> the one in positive. Is that correct
[2:20:21] commissioner? Those were not a raise
[2:20:24] were was not asked for that position.
[2:20:28] Uh that is correct for one individual
[2:20:31] position there.
[2:20:33] >> Can you
[2:20:33] >> um the other ones um depending on
[2:20:37] uh correct there was no raises in the
[2:20:41] proposed budget for some positions if
[2:20:43] they were being
[2:20:44] >> Yes. So that that's what I'm saying. So
[2:20:46] anyone that's in positive I think we
[2:20:48] need to strike those out.
[2:20:51] They want to the mayor didn't ask for an
[2:20:53] increase that we can ask uh we could
[2:20:56] please make note of that also to remove
[2:20:58] that uh on these columns.
[2:21:01] >> Yeah, be good if they weren't on the
[2:21:03] spreadsheet.
[2:21:04] >> That will reduce the numbers also.
[2:21:08] I think I did ask for that the last
[2:21:11] here. So then that would be one, two,
[2:21:15] three, four, five position
[2:21:18] that I raise was not ask from the
[2:21:21] proposed budget.
[2:21:26] So those that are negative are the ones
[2:21:28] that
[2:21:30] we need to realign oursel with.
[2:21:37] Again, I think this would be an
[2:21:38] executive session discussion because um
[2:21:43] just giving 3% across the board doesn't
[2:21:45] take into consideration
[2:21:47] why a department head or the mayor might
[2:21:50] be suggesting higher rates for someone.
[2:21:52] And I don't know if um just doing 3% is
[2:21:56] taking into consideration length of
[2:21:57] service um or performance evaluations
[2:22:01] that may have occurred. So
[2:22:03] >> almost feel like we need to go into I'm
[2:22:05] sorry what
[2:22:08] You might have to be speaker.
[2:22:09] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Well, now that's going to
[2:22:12] be hard. I won't be able to remember
[2:22:14] when
[2:22:16] >> you said that we thought that happening.
[2:22:20] Yeah, because
[2:22:22] what you know their years of service and
[2:22:25] that kind of thing
[2:22:26] >> and or let's say it's um you know their
[2:22:30] supervisor might have recommended
[2:22:31] something um
[2:22:34] >> that puts it out of the you know across
[2:22:36] the board situation. Um but again I
[2:22:39] think we'd have to do that and I think
[2:22:41] that we would have to talk about that
[2:22:43] >> executive I don't see anybody getting
[2:22:46] promoted here. This is just pay risks
[2:22:48] >> right? Yeah, but then we might want to
[2:22:50] use name, individual name and things
[2:22:52] that entire
[2:22:55] my time here. I asked people not to
[2:22:56] mention name just mention positions and
[2:22:59] be respective of people's um names that
[2:23:02] you call against each position. I do
[2:23:04] have an issue that we want to do
[2:23:06] exception to it is
[2:23:08] >> but um I just wanted to know where where other members stand in terms of um
[2:23:14] where we are here right now. So, we're
[2:23:16] going to look at this that we should
[2:23:17] look at this instead of this, right?
[2:23:20] >> It's the same.
[2:23:20] >> Oh, it's just bigger.
[2:23:22] >> So, we can read it more easily.
[2:23:24] >> Mr. Williams.
[2:23:27] >> Okay. So, again, I think that just for
[2:23:29] context because um it said that, you
[2:23:32] know, you were talking about giving it
[2:23:34] 3% across the board and why you think
[2:23:36] that that might not be um a a good place
[2:23:39] to land. Again, the 3% across the board
[2:23:43] was in response to
[2:23:46] uh it being on being brought on the
[2:23:47] table that they were going to uh do no
[2:23:51] raises across the board. And my point
[2:23:53] was we minimally have to do this
[2:23:58] unless we're uh giving people a pay
[2:24:02] reduction. So again, I'm you know,
[2:24:04] that's not some place that I'm saying
[2:24:05] that we need to land. What I'm saying is
[2:24:07] that we need to at least be there.
[2:24:10] And I'm and I'm open to have a
[2:24:12] conversation around why other you know
[2:24:15] what the extenduating circumstances are
[2:24:17] for certain positions. I will say that
[2:24:20] it have to be pretty extenduating
[2:24:22] circumstances to be some people at 3%
[2:24:26] some people at 18 or 25 things like that is definitely something
[2:24:30] >> I think that was last year's budget.
[2:24:33] >> Please Mr. Williams so based on Mr.
[2:24:37] probably started off the conversation at
[2:24:38] being a midline point of starting the
[2:24:41] discussion around staffing compensation.
[2:24:44] Uh there was a lengthy conversation
[2:24:46] where I was proposing the use of the
[2:24:48] great line. I understand and can't count
[2:24:52] for conversations from department heads
[2:24:54] highlighting why individual name plus or
[2:24:58] over uh 3%. received countless emails
[2:25:02] from staff just uh I think providing
[2:25:04] more context which is always appreciated
[2:25:07] and appreciated.
[2:25:09] However, the conversation without
[2:25:12] re uh
[2:25:15] everything I stated was I can't
[2:25:17] permanently increasing your lines
[2:25:19] without having global overarching
[2:25:23] reassessment. So we're talking about
[2:25:25] compromise. I can compromise and move
[2:25:28] the portions that are in uh currencies
[2:25:32] to adequate
[2:25:34] get these individuals to the right
[2:25:36] conditions.
[2:25:39] Um
[2:25:42] yeah, you had mentioned that all or some
[2:25:44] of us mention
[2:25:47] that not all management are out of grid
[2:25:51] or they can't get enough.
[2:25:56] I'm sorry if I'm using the right term.
[2:25:59] There are times when people are signing
[2:26:01] stuff out of great but they don't get
[2:26:05] overtime and don't get
[2:26:08] some of the benefits that are afforded
[2:26:10] by the uh employees within the
[2:26:13] department.
[2:26:14] >> So will these management position fall
[2:26:17] under out grid or can we realign them
[2:26:21] for other grid compensation?
[2:26:25] What is being proposed are payraises
[2:26:28] that reflect the work that they're doing
[2:26:30] and expect to do in the future. Out of
[2:26:32] grade tends to be a temporary
[2:26:34] assignment.
[2:26:38] So if you're
[2:26:39] >> adding it for
[2:26:42] temporary it makes a more complicated
[2:26:45] thought process than managing the theory
[2:26:48] behind
[2:26:49] >> that's just followal
[2:26:52] >> and some of the comments we've heard
[2:26:53] from semantic they were in response to
[2:26:55] temporary
[2:26:57] hirings as conditions that they're
[2:26:59] working with and that is part of the
[2:27:00] reason why I'm proposing that I would
[2:27:03] say that like this is in response to
[2:27:05] just job evolution over the years. Um I
[2:27:08] would say that that would also be reason
[2:27:10] why we want to have a job analysis to
[2:27:12] understand how have these roles expanded
[2:27:15] over the years and do they currently
[2:27:16] fall in line to your point earlier of
[2:27:19] how market trends are potentially
[2:27:22] putting the city where they have
[2:27:24] competition against each other um but
[2:27:26] also just how the roles evolved over the
[2:27:28] years and does the right work align with
[2:27:30] the right person.
[2:27:33] >> Mr. Toro,
[2:27:35] >> thank you. Um Mr. probably mentioned two
[2:27:38] times that it was suggested that no
[2:27:40] increases were given.
[2:27:44] No raises were given
[2:27:46] >> initially when we were discussing the
[2:27:48] budget. I had made a proposal.
[2:27:49] >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought you was
[2:27:51] >> because we're looking at we're looking
[2:27:53] at the budget and my thing is my
[2:27:55] >> it's a recommendation. I mean I have
[2:27:59] >> we're looking at how we can reduce your
[2:28:01] budget overall. Is it that is it the
[2:28:04] best uptake to give raises at this point
[2:28:06] in time
[2:28:07] >> but then we have to look at also
[2:28:08] inflation and then look at if we don't
[2:28:10] give an increase it's a big cut.
[2:28:13] >> So how do we balance across the board
[2:28:15] >> and those were the big ticket items that
[2:28:17] we kind of wanted to consolidate into the discussion.
[2:28:21] >> Thank you.
[2:28:27] » I'm sorry.
[2:28:29] Please follow me. Um so
[2:28:32] >> I'm just focus on
[2:28:34] >> okay we um we had this discussion and in in terms of discussions I know at
[2:28:40] least two we heard from two um well one
[2:28:43] person saying that their job that they
[2:28:46] do what the additional duties are not
[2:28:49] temporary this is part of their job
[2:28:51] there's these are extended duties so I
[2:28:55] think we definitely need to be take look
[2:28:56] be taking a look at that and
[2:28:58] additionally one of the reason that was
[2:29:00] talking about is because the person who
[2:29:03] was going to be supervised was 100.
[2:29:08] So I think you should definitely take a
[2:29:10] look at I I don't know I want to call
[2:29:12] them extenduating circumstances but
[2:29:14] reasons behind the recommended reasons
[2:29:17] and for all those over um
[2:29:23] over I 3% is I guess the number that's
[2:29:25] being that's being proposed. We could
[2:29:27] take a look at them individually and we
[2:29:30] don't have to say people's names. We
[2:29:31] could just say who the physician is. But
[2:29:34] um again some people have we've already
[2:29:36] had explanations for a couple of them
[2:29:39] and if we need explanations for all of
[2:29:40] them we'll certainly ask for them.
[2:29:46] » I mean we all have the emails or
[2:29:49] correspondent with regards to
[2:29:51] >> some of them correspondence
[2:29:52] >> and some they're not. So for the ones
[2:29:56] that we have emails we can discuss those
[2:30:00] but we'll stay with the position
[2:30:09] supervisor receipt I think that we did
[2:30:12] receive an email with a clear
[2:30:16] clarification
[2:30:18] on that.
[2:30:20] So
[2:30:23] we can start with that one.
[2:30:29] I'm okay going with the proposed budget
[2:30:31] of 98850.
[2:30:36] » Yeah. Based based on the based on the
[2:30:40] email that I receive, we received I am
[2:30:43] okay
[2:30:44] to align this position
[2:30:47] with proposed um budget.
[2:30:52] I'm sorry. U
[2:30:56] » you did skip one, but do you want to go
[2:30:58] back to that one?
[2:30:58] >> Which one we skipped?
[2:30:59] >> Accounting supervisor.
[2:31:01] >> Do you have Do we have an email?
[2:31:02] >> It's on this um sheet uh that we just
[2:31:05] goted. Um
[2:31:06] >> no, we're talking about emails or any
[2:31:11] correspondent that we received to
[2:31:12] explain as to why is going beyond.
[2:31:17] >> Okay. So, we're not going to look at
[2:31:18] >> I can recall that we received an email.
[2:31:20] >> Oh, yeah. No, I know. position
[2:31:22] >> I think. Yeah.
[2:31:22] >> So if we if we have on any other
[2:31:24] position let's talk about it.
[2:31:28] >> Go ahead please.
[2:31:28] >> Thank you. So I I can say that I think
[2:31:30] our last discussion around this we did
[2:31:32] reach out to a couple of department
[2:31:33] heads seated around the table and gave
[2:31:35] us explanations about that and I would
[2:31:38] have to respect the recommendation from
[2:31:41] department heads at this point
[2:31:44] >> um uh at the with the races they request
[2:31:47] um and trust their judgment and the
[2:31:51] lines as is.
[2:31:53] >> So that's what we would be doing just be
[2:31:55] doing it on sheet. Right. That's what I
[2:32:00] got, right?
[2:32:02] >> I mean, I I can't say one department
[2:32:04] head
[2:32:07] >> has a better explanation than another
[2:32:09] department head. So, I'm going to trust
[2:32:11] their
[2:32:13] recommendations.
[2:32:15] >> I'm I'm
[2:32:19] in this column 2026
[2:32:22] proposed budget.
[2:32:24] >> Yes.
[2:32:25] >> On the sheet that we just got today.
[2:32:26] >> Mhm. I'm okay with going with that
[2:32:28] column.
[2:32:31] >> Okay.
[2:32:31] >> Some people are 0% raise.
[2:32:33] >> No.
[2:32:34] >> Yep.
[2:32:35] >> For example, but I'm just saying, you
[2:32:37] know what I mean? They're not their
[2:32:38] salary is not going up.
[2:32:39] >> They are at 3%.
[2:32:44] » Anything anything that is over 3% is
[2:32:47] highlighted
[2:32:49] >> in those columns.
[2:32:50] >> Okay. I was just looking for example at
[2:32:52] the third line down
[2:32:54] >> there's a 0% change in that
[2:32:55] >> and the numbers that I asked you to
[2:32:57] strike out the positive numbers is the
[2:32:59] one that the proposed budget did not ask
[2:33:02] for an increase so we only dealing with
[2:33:05] the negative numbers
[2:33:08] and I think we are in in agreement to
[2:33:12] >> which which
[2:33:13] >> oh you guys are looking at I was looking
[2:33:15] at the sheet we got today you guys are
[2:33:17] looking at this
[2:33:17] >> the same sheet though
[2:33:18] >> okay
[2:33:18] >> yeah Okay. Um,
[2:33:21] >> this is very clear because it gives us
[2:33:22] the percent change.
[2:33:23] >> Go ahead, Miss Williams.
[2:33:26] >> I am in agreement with supporting the
[2:33:29] recommended figures for girls lines. I'm
[2:33:32] not agreeing with this structure until
[2:33:36] we have an internal job evaluation.
[2:33:41] I can get to where you are. I can take a
[2:33:43] step towards you by putting the
[2:33:45] difference about the 3% and the
[2:33:47] outbreak.
[2:33:49] uh and and and is out of great category.
[2:33:52] I would hope that if you are confident
[2:33:54] receiving this, you ensure these
[2:33:55] individuals get that compensation that
[2:33:58] you would have minimum take a step
[2:33:59] towards me. And there's neither of us
[2:34:01] saying no. It is saying we need to
[2:34:04] continue to consider all of the
[2:34:05] positions.
[2:34:07] Otherwise, we could be just continuing
[2:34:09] to chase inflated salary, which is not
[2:34:13] even a point of debate. It's a fact. So,
[2:34:16] I'm weary why we would continue down
[2:34:17] this path knowing the bulky back. And
[2:34:21] there's nothing wrong with saying we
[2:34:22] need to be more efficient with how we
[2:34:24] operate as a city. There is something
[2:34:26] wrong with our continued disregard and
[2:34:28] just continued on for I refuse to do
[2:34:32] that.
[2:34:35] » I would support in the future having a
[2:34:37] salary evaluation. I know that we did
[2:34:39] talk about that last year and it doesn't
[2:34:41] seem to have happened, but I'm I'm good
[2:34:43] with the sheet as presented tonight.
[2:34:46] >> You say support in the future. We all
[2:34:48] support a resolution that we all voted
[2:34:50] unanimously.
[2:34:51] >> No, I understand. But what I'm saying is
[2:34:53] all I'm saying is we can't really do it
[2:34:55] tonight in order to pass a budget. So,
[2:34:57] we might as well put it on hold until
[2:35:00] after we have a budget.
[2:35:01] >> The resolution still stand. the council
[2:35:03] unanimously passed a resolution asking
[2:35:06] for a wage uh study
[2:35:10] and we have
[2:35:11] >> so we do need to do that. I think you
[2:35:12] and I are saying the same thing. Yes.
[2:35:14] And so is Mr. Williams.
[2:35:15] >> You can't say support something in the
[2:35:16] future. We already have it. We already
[2:35:18] support it.
[2:35:19] >> I'm just saying we're not going to do it
[2:35:20] tonight
[2:35:21] >> or by the time November 1st comes and we
[2:35:24] need to have a budget. So I think we're
[2:35:27] on the same page here that we need to do
[2:35:29] that evaluation. I just don't think that
[2:35:32] we're going to be doing a salary ne
[2:35:34] evaluation tonight. So, I'm supporting
[2:35:38] um I don't know which sheet this is, but
[2:35:40] I'm just saying you're saying it's the
[2:35:41] same as what's in the in the budget. Um
[2:35:44] I'm I'm I'm good with that. It looks
[2:35:46] like everybody is good with that. And
[2:35:47] we're just also talking about, you know,
[2:35:50] what's not going to happen tonight.
[2:35:52] >> I I don't think anybody's good.
[2:35:54] >> No, not everybody's going to be
[2:35:58] >> You don't want to give these races? No.
[2:36:01] Let's speak for ourselves.
[2:36:03] >> Okay. Okay. Then I'll just I'll back off
[2:36:05] and say that I support the raises that
[2:36:07] are here.
[2:36:07] >> Trying to make it very clear. This
[2:36:09] council passed a resolution unanimously
[2:36:12] asking for
[2:36:13] >> Mr. You don't have to say the same thing
[2:36:15] to me.
[2:36:16] >> But um we can't say that they're going
[2:36:19] to support something. We already support
[2:36:20] it. It should have happened. It didn't
[2:36:22] happen. Here we are this week follow
[2:36:27] >> the comparison that was done a year ago
[2:36:29] with the debate was referencing pay
[2:36:31] rates in other municipalities.
[2:36:35] The council requested a study that put
[2:36:38] together annually what I believe is
[2:36:40] comprehensive study by the New York
[2:36:42] Conference of Mayors comparing rates for
[2:36:45] other municipalities.
[2:36:47] >> The internal I think Mr. Williams links
[2:36:50] were chasing inflated salary levels
[2:36:52] here. You have to point out which one
[2:36:54] which employees getting overpaid.
[2:36:57] The reality is the pay scale in the city
[2:37:00] of Skony is drifting toward the lower
[2:37:03] end of the marketplace. Our benefit
[2:37:07] package is clearly at the higher end of
[2:37:10] the benefit package.
[2:37:14] And so when you're hiring younger
[2:37:17] workers coming in, they would like to be
[2:37:20] paid more money and aren't quite as
[2:37:22] concerned about retirement and
[2:37:24] healthcare and the other issues.
[2:37:27] Uh and it's harder to get younger
[2:37:29] employees. Older employees are much more
[2:37:32] appreciative of the
[2:37:36] again retirement benefits, the health
[2:37:38] care, other packages they get. that is a
[2:37:42] much more complicated fact pattern than
[2:37:46] simple resolution and some quick study
[2:37:49] that is
[2:37:51] out there. So you know the some of the
[2:37:53] pay raise again were done where
[2:37:55] employees have made pitches directly to
[2:37:58] the council to bypass
[2:38:00] the management staff. They only give you
[2:38:03] one side of the argument. They're not
[2:38:05] looking at other factors that I may have
[2:38:08] considered when I made the budget.
[2:38:09] council has bypassed that, discounted
[2:38:11] it, and move forward. I've chosen not to
[2:38:14] make that an issue or embarrass
[2:38:16] employees or make big uh stink out of.
[2:38:19] But I've made recommendations on these
[2:38:22] employees this year and those components
[2:38:25] of management perhaps that the council
[2:38:27] go forward and support that and then we
[2:38:30] look together. How do you address some
[2:38:33] of those
[2:38:34] uh inequities that are in the system
[2:38:38] depending on whether you're a new
[2:38:40] employee coming in, you consider it the
[2:38:42] inequity, but you're not getting paid
[2:38:43] quite as much, but when you're an older
[2:38:46] employee, you're getting benefit package
[2:38:48] that really is not offered anywhere else
[2:38:51] in the marketplace. And I think uh back
[2:38:54] to M Williams on my my my position
[2:38:58] myself looking for
[2:39:01] address that behind us in terms of the
[2:39:05] uh if there's any adjustment in terms of this to
[2:39:09] happen.
[2:39:10] >> So So you're in agreement with what the
[2:39:11] mayor just said,
[2:39:13] >> right? Is that what I'm hearing?
[2:39:15] >> No, I'm not going to I'm not going to
[2:39:16] I'm not debating agreeing with anybody.
[2:39:19] I'm here making a statement. That's what
[2:39:21] we need. That's what we asking for what
[2:39:23] he said and I hope that we can get that
[2:39:25] because we need to move on. If we have
[2:39:28] that study, we can move on.
[2:39:30] >> Right now we don't have the study. So we
[2:39:31] we're just looking at numbers here.
[2:39:34] >> Okay. So because tonight we don't have
[2:39:37] the study. So
[2:39:38] >> well I have given the study. It's done
[2:39:40] by the New York Conference of Mayors.
[2:39:43] >> It's been forwarded to Mr. Mudar.
[2:39:47] You did not forward it to me, please.
[2:39:50] >> I got that from
[2:39:53] >> and I forward it to the entire council a
[2:39:55] week ago.
[2:39:56] >> Yeah.
[2:39:56] >> So,
[2:39:57] >> you asked me to reach out to. It's
[2:39:59] available at night and I sent it to you.
[2:40:02] >> No, you didn't.
[2:40:03] >> No, you did not.
[2:40:05] >> I think that's a little
[2:40:08] crazy. So again, I think what we want to
[2:40:11] do now is, you know, deal with the facts
[2:40:16] as they or more and more go through
[2:40:19] this, I feel facts, adjacent
[2:40:23] information that we had. The reality is
[2:40:26] we're talking about information that was
[2:40:28] sent out um to us. However, the
[2:40:32] justifications that we that we heard at
[2:40:34] this table from department heads did not
[2:40:36] align with that. they align with other
[2:40:38] reasons that were being brought to the
[2:40:40] table. So again, that's why this study
[2:40:43] is important because we can't keep
[2:40:48] moving the goalpost every time we want
[2:40:50] to have a conversation. So, we're saying
[2:40:53] I sent you a a study um that was a thing
[2:40:56] from uh Nikon, but then but then the the
[2:41:02] raises that we're seeing here represent
[2:41:04] another position in another department.
[2:41:08] So, if we need to be using the same
[2:41:12] ruler here if we're going to have that
[2:41:14] conversation. So that's why last year
[2:41:17] when we got into this conversation, we
[2:41:20] knew that the goalpost was really moving
[2:41:24] the same way it's moving now. So to Mr.
[2:41:26] Williams point, what still stands is
[2:41:30] that
[2:41:31] whatever was sent to us, it's not based
[2:41:35] on and and the department heads said to
[2:41:38] us multiple times that we don't that
[2:41:41] this position is is not filled. So this
[2:41:44] person has to now take on the work of
[2:41:46] this other person and that's why that's
[2:41:49] the justification for the race. Mr.
[2:41:52] Williams point which I agree with is
[2:41:53] that if that is based on a a a
[2:41:57] circumstantial situation right now, then
[2:42:00] for us to commit and lock into these pay
[2:42:02] rates is going to come back and be a
[2:42:05] problem for us moving forward. That's
[2:42:07] why we're in the problem that we have
[2:42:08] now. So, let's just not act like we're
[2:42:11] using the same ruler because we're not.
[2:42:15] one raise that we asked did anyone
[2:42:17] align it to tonight to the report from
[2:42:19] Nikon. Hasn't happened one time and
[2:42:22] that's a fact.
[2:42:24] >> How do you I'm sorry. How do you know
[2:42:25] that you you read the Nikon report?
[2:42:28] >> No, because I asked the the uh
[2:42:30] department has directly how they raised
[2:42:31] the raise and the reasons that I heard
[2:42:33] they did not reference Nikon. reasons
[2:42:35] that I heard is that there were um they
[2:42:37] were taking on more responsibility due
[2:42:39] to lack of positions that there was
[2:42:41] other positions within the city that
[2:42:42] they felt that might have been um
[2:42:45] comparable to them and they were way
[2:42:46] below that. As well as we also heard
[2:42:49] that there were positions where the
[2:42:50] supervisor was making less than the
[2:42:53] person that they were going to be
[2:42:54] employed by based on a on the
[2:42:56] contractual agreement which management
[2:42:58] is not a part of.
[2:43:00] >> So you're okay with not doing 3% against
[2:43:03] across the board. So, so what I'm saying
[2:43:06] and so what you're doing right now is
[2:43:09] >> Okay. So, what you're what I'm saying is
[2:43:11] exactly what I'm saying, Miss Patrick.
[2:43:13] And I don't want I think that
[2:43:15] >> in the spirit of just I I think I've
[2:43:18] been pretty clear. Don't if if you have
[2:43:21] a direct question based on what I'm
[2:43:22] saying, please ask it and I will clarify
[2:43:24] it for you, but I cannot understand for
[2:43:26] anyone. I'm just saying that this is
[2:43:28] what I'm saying is that the the the the
[2:43:31] way that races were justified
[2:43:34] is what I'm basing the conversation on
[2:43:36] and and in and how we get to a solution.
[2:43:38] It's very simple. I'm not looking for a
[2:43:40] gotcha moment. I'm not trying to point
[2:43:42] anybody out. That's not that's not what
[2:43:44] I'm doing. What I'm saying is that let's
[2:43:46] not act like there's a fact pattern that
[2:43:48] doesn't exist and not that we're making
[2:43:50] our decisions based on that because
[2:43:51] that's disingenuous. That's all I'm
[2:43:53] saying.
[2:43:55] Any
[2:44:00] points may
[2:44:02] since we keep referencing the um my
[2:44:04] report, I think we should look at it and perhaps these the races that the
[2:44:10] mayor has recommended are in mind. I
[2:44:12] don't know the answer to that, but we
[2:44:14] certainly haven't even looked at it
[2:44:17] in terms of this. Yeah,
[2:44:25] » so I'd say with respect to time, I
[2:44:27] definitely think that's something that
[2:44:28] we need to do. To Miss Patrick point, I
[2:44:31] would be responsive to the numbers that
[2:44:32] were sent to us
[2:44:35] in my compromising,
[2:44:38] which I originally was at the line for
[2:44:39] the 3% across the board. I can
[2:44:42] compromise and say the additional um
[2:44:44] recommended revenue for these positions
[2:44:47] has all been submitted with good reason.
[2:44:49] I've content to that. I would say that
[2:44:52] difference needs to be put in a separate
[2:44:54] category that can be evaluated once this
[2:44:56] set once this assessment has been done
[2:44:59] and the premise behind that is it will
[2:45:01] be done in this year. We'll have a
[2:45:03] different conversation this next coming
[2:45:05] budget.
[2:45:06] My reservation is to continue with the
[2:45:09] same thought process we did last year
[2:45:10] expecting a different outcome. I that's
[2:45:12] inconsiderate tax base.
[2:45:15] >> Agree.
[2:45:17] >> So you're please
[2:45:19] >> I feel no that's okay.
[2:45:22] >> So Mr. Williams you're recommending that
[2:45:24] we put it in paid to those who come with
[2:45:27] an explanation.
[2:45:29] >> I would say for I can just respond. I'd
[2:45:31] say for all of them because we didn't
[2:45:32] make the explanation a requirement. Uh,
[2:45:35] so I think it's offered a bit of an
[2:45:36] advantage to some individuals who felt
[2:45:38] comfortable reaching out to the council,
[2:45:39] which we know is
[2:45:42] not the easiest of things to do. Um, but
[2:45:45] I think just being responsive to the
[2:45:47] numbers that were submitted
[2:45:49] or if we would like to move that way,
[2:45:51] putting that recommendation out to those
[2:45:53] individuals and allowing time for them
[2:45:54] to respond to the ones that did not,
[2:45:57] which I do not agree with.
[2:46:01] I
[2:46:04] >> I so I like the mayor one of them is
[2:46:07] recommendation by the mayor in
[2:46:10] one of them we got an email from another
[2:46:13] one we got um who was here in her
[2:46:16] department so um
[2:46:20] as I can see we're talking about two
[2:46:23] three
[2:46:24] four five six seven
[2:46:28] and one by until we already have an
[2:46:31] explanation for third
[2:46:33] um then that's form one
[2:46:38] and again I think we should we should be
[2:46:40] looking and perhaps by
[2:46:44] however I I don't know how I'm hoping
[2:46:46] that people looked at that report when
[2:46:48] they did this we should take a look and
[2:46:50] see if if if they do coincide with the
[2:46:54] additional information people have
[2:46:55] provided us
[2:46:57] and if if it doesn't come outside and if
[2:47:00] out of rate pay is if the explanation
[2:47:03] that we receive is because people are
[2:47:05] doing things outside of their normal job
[2:47:08] then I will concur that that that's when
[2:47:10] the excitement so I don't think it's a
[2:47:12] one-sizefits-all in this particular
[2:47:14] situation
[2:47:17] >> that's
[2:47:18] >> no okay I I want to I just
[2:47:20] >> I'm I'm just going to stick to I'm okay
[2:47:23] with this chart here
[2:47:26] >> okay
[2:47:27] >> for for the purposes of trying to have a
[2:47:30] 2026 budget by November 1st.
[2:47:33] >> Just a quick note, if we're looking to
[2:47:36] do an imagined study, I would recommend
[2:47:38] the council allocate some funding
[2:47:41] towards that. Uh I believe in 22
[2:47:46] study and they paid 125,000.
[2:47:50] So we're looking at doing some of that.
[2:47:51] I recommend putting some money resources
[2:47:54] department today and I'm assuming it's
[2:47:56] going to be more than that since a few
[2:47:57] years ago
[2:48:02] » but I think the recommendation was to do
[2:48:04] an internal study. I mean we have an HR department that can can do that
[2:48:09] study.
[2:48:10] >> We don't have enough staffing to that
[2:48:12] study.
[2:48:21] Go ahead, please. My concern again is if
[2:48:24] we can't get in a place where we can
[2:48:27] get the information to make the
[2:48:29] decision. That's what I'm hearing. We
[2:48:31] don't have staffing to do that. We put
[2:48:33] money aside. Um last year that we said
[2:48:36] we're going to do it. It didn't happen.
[2:48:38] So it's like
[2:48:41] how are we
[2:48:43] how do we justify
[2:48:47] » what we're doing without
[2:48:50] doing the due diligence and getting the
[2:48:52] information that we requested. And I
[2:48:54] think that what ends up happening is
[2:48:56] that we find ourselves here and then
[2:48:58] there's a growing and mounting pressure
[2:49:01] and then we're playing um the you know
[2:49:05] not it game and I'm not the one that's
[2:49:07] holding it up and I don't want to hold
[2:49:08] it up based on this. Um and if we're
[2:49:12] having the conversations from a genuine
[2:49:14] place, you know, we need to recognize
[2:49:17] that there's some missing information.
[2:49:19] There's people who have submitted things
[2:49:21] to us. There's other people who haven't.
[2:49:23] there's uh people who have said that you
[2:49:26] know
[2:49:27] that this has happened in previous years
[2:49:29] as well um and the council has made
[2:49:32] adjustments based on the information
[2:49:34] that we get but again if being equitable
[2:49:38] in our practices is something we value
[2:49:40] at least
[2:49:42] minimum I think we need to acknowledge
[2:49:44] the fact that our practice thus far has
[2:49:47] been not equitable at all and just And I
[2:49:53] would give anyone any uh opportunity to
[2:49:58] challenge that. I think that we just
[2:50:01] need to part of fixing what's going
[2:50:02] wrong is admitting that something is
[2:50:04] wrong here. And that doesn't mean
[2:50:06] anyone's doing a really bad job. That
[2:50:07] means that some of our practices are
[2:50:09] just outdated and and we need to just
[2:50:12] work on. So I'm just saying this is not
[2:50:14] an equitable practice. But to the point
[2:50:16] that we might not be able to come up
[2:50:18] with an equitable practice in the point
[2:50:20] at this point, you know, I I'm I find
[2:50:23] myself aligned with what Mr. Williams
[2:50:24] suggesting the recommendations are. Um,
[2:50:28] but we need to call a space F.
[2:50:51] Are we asking to have a
[2:50:56] holder for Nikon
[2:50:59] to to look at these? Is that just
[2:51:04] or missing?
[2:51:05] >> I I think Mr. the way you're set up
[2:51:08] could be solid idea as to how to
[2:51:10] approach it and if that's something
[2:51:11] that's feasible I can align myself with
[2:51:13] that because that's we're we're making
[2:51:15] progress um towards the the proposed bud
[2:51:18] budget however we're keeping in mind
[2:51:20] that there's been some inequitable
[2:51:22] practices that have gone on that we're
[2:51:23] working to rectify so that's why I said
[2:51:25] I would align with your thoughts on
[2:51:38] any other suggestion regards to this? I
[2:51:42] mean I don't need to restate my position
[2:51:43] but again for for based on what's being
[2:51:47] proposed uh if if someone has increased
[2:51:50] responsibilities that remain permanent I
[2:51:53] don't see us using the site method for
[2:51:55] those that are only temporarily taking
[2:51:57] on things because other uh positions are
[2:52:01] invas
[2:52:02] I
[2:52:05] >> wouldn't be able to differentiate those
[2:52:07] Mhm.
[2:52:14] » Go ahead, please.
[2:52:14] >> I'm just going to also reiterate my
[2:52:16] position that we respect the department
[2:52:19] head's recommendations about the people
[2:52:20] that they supervise. So, I'm okay with
[2:52:22] I'm just saying I'm okay with what's on
[2:52:24] this um sheet and I don't want to
[2:52:28] prolong the our ability to be able to
[2:52:30] pass a budget by having to look at a
[2:52:33] report now um or within the next couple
[2:52:36] of days um on the salary survey. So, I'm comfortable with this this chart and
[2:52:42] I think that the other discussion is one
[2:52:43] that we can have after we pass the
[2:52:45] budget.
[2:52:46] >> Let me just address that. We all been
[2:52:47] prolonging this budget including myself.
[2:52:50] So, we should have got this done since
[2:52:52] last week. All of us keep putting it
[2:52:53] out. All of us keep saying I'm coming
[2:52:55] recommendation tomorrow. I'm going to
[2:52:57] put my recommendation tomorrow. So, I
[2:52:59] want to address that. We'll be pushing
[2:53:01] it down to to the end of the day, end of
[2:53:04] October. So, I want to make it clear.
[2:53:07] We're coming out here and we all want it
[2:53:09] to happen right now.
[2:53:11] >> Mhm.
[2:53:11] >> But we should have think about that
[2:53:12] since last week. Go ahead,
[2:53:14] >> M. I I did. I sent my recommendations
[2:53:17] and the time you requested. I set my
[2:53:19] recommendations in the only
[2:53:20] recommendation that
[2:53:21] >> I copied every single
[2:53:24] do that so again not it we're going to
[2:53:26] start that but can I so so I guess the
[2:53:28] point I I would like to make is that to
[2:53:30] miss uh Patrick a point around um
[2:53:33] trusting what the department heads are
[2:53:35] saying the reality is
[2:53:37] >> we need to be clear that what's proposed
[2:53:40] in to city council is not necessarily
[2:53:42] what department heads recommended
[2:53:44] >> I will agree with you on that I guess I
[2:53:46] will come back to what I What I mean is
[2:53:50] that the department has had to meet with
[2:53:52] their supervisor and negotiate the same
[2:53:55] way that any of us I don't know what
[2:53:56] other people's life experiences have
[2:53:58] been and I think I said this last week
[2:54:00] as well but basically whenever I have to
[2:54:03] present a budget in my work life to a
[2:54:06] supervisor
[2:54:08] um then you negotiate you know you try
[2:54:10] to come together like I might have put
[2:54:12] oh here's what I want um and my
[2:54:15] supervisor would have said okay not sure
[2:54:18] we're going to be able to do that. Let's
[2:54:20] talk about it. I'm confident that those
[2:54:22] discussions did happen within
[2:54:26] city hall. I'm also going to base on my
[2:54:28] work experience, my own life experience
[2:54:31] that
[2:54:33] again I come from a nonprofit priv, you
[2:54:36] know, background for the most part in in
[2:54:37] the private sector. um
[2:54:41] you know the h you you you don't always
[2:54:44] get what you want first of all and you
[2:54:46] also have to negotiate these things uh
[2:54:49] moving forward. So I I am just saying
[2:54:51] that um I'm I'm going to say that I'm
[2:54:55] confident that the discussions that
[2:54:57] might have happened with department
[2:54:59] heads and then and their staff and then
[2:55:03] department heads and the mayor have come
[2:55:05] up with this these salary
[2:55:08] recommendations and for our purposes I'm
[2:55:10] confident moving forward with these
[2:55:12] salary recommendations based on those
[2:55:14] discussions.
[2:55:16] And I did lose a point. I lost my train
[2:55:18] of thought for a moment there. So I'll
[2:55:20] have to come back to that one.
[2:55:25] » Have you had it?
[2:55:26] >> No, I just we have to make a decision.
[2:55:28] >> That's I I agree.
[2:55:33] » Mr. Chairman, just you just you know I
[2:55:36] see a lot here. I'm just throwing this
[2:55:38] out. um was filling this out that we get
[2:55:42] a request for information from the
[2:55:43] department heads regarding those of
[2:55:45] salaries and then you couple that with
[2:55:47] the with the report and then you review
[2:55:51] it between now and Thursday and if
[2:55:53] you're not satisfactory this way you
[2:55:56] have something in writing RFI why you
[2:55:59] for this particular person not person
[2:56:02] line item you know why is this person
[2:56:06] that blind item getting it the study.
[2:56:09] Does that marry up with the studies from
[2:56:12] the from the uh Nighth
[2:56:20] » you have and it's a short suspense and
[2:56:24] it it may not satisfy everybody but at
[2:56:27] least it may you've got something
[2:56:30] additional
[2:56:31] >> based on something
[2:56:32] >> and I would just say that you know the
[2:56:34] following line items we need
[2:56:37] justifications request for information
[2:56:39] from them. Why is this going up and then
[2:56:41] you have something
[2:56:43] >> are there particular
[2:56:45] >> throwing back?
[2:56:48] » You okay?
[2:56:49] >> I go Mr. Williams and then I come back
[2:56:50] to you. I would say we compromise the
[2:56:53] integrity of getting more information
[2:56:54] based on how this conversation has been
[2:56:56] conducted. I would highly have to say I
[2:57:00] imagine seeing all staff are listening
[2:57:03] right now. I would take notes.
[2:57:08] I probably take out various assignments
[2:57:11] um and adjust my my my logic and you'd
[2:57:13] be remiss if they didn't. So I think
[2:57:16] based on that logic we have to kind of
[2:57:18] eliminate that if the if the inclination
[2:57:22] is to reference your Nikon study I can
[2:57:25] accept that I would say that it's been
[2:57:28] further prolonging this and I have every
[2:57:30] intention of passing in two nights.
[2:57:32] >> Me too.
[2:57:32] >> I do too. Hence, hence moving these
[2:57:35] phones above 3% to the out of grade
[2:57:38] category to get to where my peers are in
[2:57:42] some respects while still leaving
[2:57:44] impossibility to have this study or not
[2:57:46] reference this information in the
[2:57:48] following year without punitively
[2:57:50] holding hostage these compensation
[2:57:52] salaries for individuals. That is awful.
[2:57:56] Go ahead.
[2:57:57] >> I I agree. I'd like to do this tonight.
[2:57:59] Um my only question is and um I just
[2:58:03] maybe the commissioner of finance can
[2:58:05] tell us
[2:58:07] what is meant by out of grade when it
[2:58:09] comes to management staff again in my
[2:58:12] because it's not something that I've
[2:58:13] encountered in my own work life. So um I
[2:58:16] just need an explanation of that. But it
[2:58:18] sounds like we're in alignment in terms
[2:58:20] of trying to determine this tonight. I
[2:58:23] think the best person to give you that
[2:58:24] answer would be uh mayor
[2:58:27] >> scenario would be the deputy
[2:58:30] commissioner of finance is filling in
[2:58:32] for the finance commissioner so it's a
[2:58:36] bump in pay
[2:58:37] >> gotcha that's out of grade
[2:58:39] >> okay
[2:58:42] >> I'm not giving either
[2:58:52] I'm willing to compromise for those
[2:58:54] things because we we're currently saying
[2:58:56] we need to get a budget. We need to get
[2:58:58] a budget because we only have hours
[2:59:01] left.
[2:59:02] >> Mhm.
[2:59:05] >> So,
[2:59:07] >> anybody else?
[2:59:08] >> Mfield.
[2:59:09] I'm willing to compromise but u because
[2:59:12] I compromised with Mr. Farley to remove
[2:59:15] where I was move towards uh because both
[2:59:19] of us align now and Mr. is saying let's
[2:59:22] move all the
[2:59:24] So you're saying anything above the 3%
[2:59:27] move into a
[2:59:30] is it out of bre
[2:59:33] um bucket
[2:59:36] and then draw them from that to pay the
[2:59:40] individual um positions
[2:59:44] until we realign with a study and then
[2:59:47] we can able to do a budget
[2:59:48] reappropriation
[2:59:50] and increase those final position
[2:59:52] accordingly.
[2:59:53] >> Oh,
[2:59:54] >> okay. Hold on. Now I think I'm getting
[2:59:56] it. Are you saying that if we move that
[2:59:58] into an outofgrade line then not
[3:00:01] necessarily will these people actually
[3:00:02] get these increases?
[3:00:03] >> That is correct.
[3:00:04] >> Oh yeah, I don't support that then. I
[3:00:06] want I want these I think these
[3:00:08] increases which are based on perform
[3:00:11] based on performance evaluation and
[3:00:13] discussions that department heads have
[3:00:15] had both with their staff and then with
[3:00:17] the mayor are what I would support. So I
[3:00:20] hear what you're saying. So what you're
[3:00:21] saying is if it goes into out of grade
[3:00:23] then and even take it another step down
[3:00:25] the line to next year. It could be that
[3:00:28] now we have to renegotiate these. What
[3:00:31] if it's the same person right that's in
[3:00:33] that position? Um now they may not get
[3:00:36] the salary increase next year. Am I
[3:00:39] understanding that correct? Is that over
[3:00:43] you jump
[3:00:47] right into it? I was trying to reignite
[3:00:49] what Mr. Williams was saying and I was
[3:00:50] going to say sometimes we jump into each
[3:00:53] other conversation and allow
[3:00:54] >> I'm just trying to understand it.
[3:00:56] >> No. So Mr. Williams, did I capture what
[3:00:59] you're trying to suggest? What is lost
[3:01:02] in translation? I think Mr. Farley
[3:01:04] eloquently identified it. the manner in
[3:01:06] which we've been providing compensation
[3:01:08] in the city is out of date. There's
[3:01:10] nothing wrong with that. We need a
[3:01:12] source material to reference and apply
[3:01:14] whenever we are considering compensation
[3:01:16] reinvestments or just an entire
[3:01:19] collective reassessment of who we are as
[3:01:21] a city. May point previously to my
[3:01:24] comment of inflated salary lines. I
[3:01:27] accept that in comparison to industry
[3:01:31] standards within the city of Skenctity
[3:01:33] because I do not hope that having a
[3:01:34] comparative analysis of us to Newberg or
[3:01:38] Rochester has any relevancy for the city
[3:01:40] of connect whatsoever. I think it's how
[3:01:43] does this align with comparable
[3:01:45] positions in the job market and that is
[3:01:48] different than where we are now. you're
[3:01:49] required to do a review for all the
[3:01:52] rules, not just the ones that were
[3:01:53] approved for this budget proposed
[3:01:56] discussion right now.
[3:01:58] So, it's that until we had that
[3:02:00] discussion because the intent was last
[3:02:02] budget year to have that discussion this
[3:02:04] year didn't happen.
[3:02:05] >> Yeah.
[3:02:06] >> Didn't happen for whatever reason.
[3:02:07] Didn't happen. I'm not going to continue
[3:02:10] with the same logic of hoping that
[3:02:11] that's going to happen. how I can
[3:02:13] protect the interest that I have from my
[3:02:16] seat at the table is that we make these
[3:02:18] temporary until we have a permanent
[3:02:20] solution moving forward.
[3:02:23] >> Uh and based on this conversation and
[3:02:26] based on what we had asked for, I'm
[3:02:28] going to align myself for Mr. Williams
[3:02:31] recommendation. Mr. Chair, if you will,
[3:02:34] uh the the issue here or one of the
[3:02:36] issues that that I think that needs to
[3:02:38] be flagged um is that you know we can
[3:02:42] look at the impact of the what we're
[3:02:45] having the conversation we're having at
[3:02:47] the table right now and assign a number
[3:02:49] to it that might seem um not as
[3:02:53] significant in regards to the overall
[3:02:56] budget. The issue with what we're facing
[3:02:59] is that these have compounding effects.
[3:03:03] Okay. So this year
[3:03:06] what we do this year as far as a raise
[3:03:10] impacts what happens next year and then
[3:03:12] as well as the next hire. So it's like
[3:03:14] when we think of how we're getting the
[3:03:17] formula that we're using I don't it
[3:03:19] doesn't necessarily always need to be
[3:03:21] apples to apples but it can't be apples
[3:03:24] to pigs. It can't be
[3:03:27] so far off that that we're not even
[3:03:30] having the same conversation. Um, and I
[3:03:33] just I
[3:03:36] don't accept or receive the notion of
[3:03:40] like, hey, we, you know, we have to pass
[3:03:42] a budget, so we have to do it.
[3:03:45] I think that of course we all know that
[3:03:47] we have to pass a budget, but what's the
[3:03:50] purpose of passing a budget that we
[3:03:53] don't believe in just for the sake of
[3:03:55] doing? I think that we all have relative
[3:03:57] amount of compromise that we have to
[3:03:59] give. and I I've done it um in good
[3:04:04] faith, but it doesn't take away from the
[3:04:06] fact that there's some glaring practices
[3:04:08] that have compounding results that we
[3:04:10] really need to factor in or we'll be in
[3:04:12] here same position next year cuz guess
[3:04:14] what? We was in that same position last
[3:04:16] year and guess what? It'll be year
[3:04:18] before that. So, I think at some point
[3:04:22] we might have to stay stay later to have
[3:04:25] that conversation.
[3:04:28] Are you still going to be staying till
[3:04:29] 2:00 tomorrow morning?
[3:04:31] >> Man, I'm saying I'm saying that. Just
[3:04:35] >> I'm saying what I'm saying. It's clear,
[3:04:37] man.
[3:04:39] >> I'm with you.
[3:04:42] >> Yeah. Let's take I'm going to take a
[3:04:44] private plate.
[3:04:45] >> Let me So,
[3:04:47] >> yeah.
[3:04:47] >> May I ask you, are you aligning with u
[3:04:53] >> Oh, yeah. Very clear what William said.
[3:04:56] My my concern is what is is the how practical is it based on how
[3:05:05] these lines are being identified. Um
[3:05:08] that that's that would be my
[3:05:11] only concern. But I think that it
[3:05:14] absolutely makes sense and it show it
[3:05:16] demonstrates that we're being responsive
[3:05:18] to what we've learned over the couple
[3:05:20] years.
[3:05:22] This is totally
[3:05:23] for what proposed.
[3:05:25] >> Yes, absolutely. I just I just want to
[3:05:28] what did I I didn't hear the question or
[3:05:29] answer.
[3:05:30] >> Are you form on what was proposed the
[3:05:32] mayor's proposed budget in terms of the
[3:05:34] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:05:35] >> Are you okay?
[3:05:36] >> Oh, yes, you are.
[3:05:37] >> I I'm sticking with this with this
[3:05:38] sheet. I I really feel that our human
[3:05:41] resources are probably one of our most
[3:05:43] valuable things that we have. Um and at
[3:05:46] this point I I want to respect what um
[3:05:49] is being presented to us and I was I do
[3:05:51] remember what I was trying to say from
[3:05:53] my own life with and job experience
[3:05:55] which is that um again I was in private
[3:05:59] nonprofit but rule of thumb and all the
[3:06:02] training all the education I had over
[3:06:04] four decades of that is you know you
[3:06:07] want to make sure that you're also
[3:06:08] understanding roles and responsibilities
[3:06:10] as well and I don't want to cross into
[3:06:14] uh necessarily
[3:06:16] um going against what our expert the
[3:06:20] expertise of our staff, our department
[3:06:22] heads and the people that are here on a
[3:06:24] day-to-day basis. So, um I'm sticking
[3:06:27] with the sheet um with the idea that
[3:06:30] >> down the line if we want to do some sort
[3:06:33] of an evaluative study whether it's
[3:06:35] in-house or whether we put I don't know
[3:06:38] 125 $200,000 back into this budget um to
[3:06:42] do that study um you know I'd be open to
[3:06:46] talking about that at a later date after
[3:06:48] we have a budget in place for 2026. Miss
[3:06:51] Patrick, with all respect, it was a
[3:06:53] reason why last year we passed that um
[3:06:58] that resolution to ask for the study
[3:07:01] because we felt at that time that
[3:07:05] management is not fully compensated
[3:07:08] across the board and we wanted that
[3:07:10] study to see where there's any shortfall
[3:07:13] and we could have addressed that and
[3:07:14] pick up. Yeah,
[3:07:16] >> I without that study we don't know where
[3:07:19] we are. It could be yes these are
[3:07:21] correct but how do we know that these
[3:07:23] are correct? Maybe there could be shortf
[3:07:24] falls in in this right now here that we should have been addressed and
[3:07:29] that's why we're asking for the study.
[3:07:30] So
[3:07:31] >> but are you study within the next week?
[3:07:35] We're all concerned about the study. Did
[3:07:38] it happen? If it happened, how do we
[3:07:40] know that everybody's being compensated
[3:07:42] accordingly?
[3:07:44] And you know, it's it's hopefully that
[3:07:46] we can get it. You know, next question.
[3:07:50] It should happen, but it didn't happen,
[3:07:51] but what are we going to do? Move
[3:07:53] forward.
[3:07:54] I just want to say I believe our last um
[3:07:57] BR
[3:08:01] as we sat around this table talking
[3:08:03] about it um was under the same
[3:08:06] impression that uh you know looking into
[3:08:09] and doing an in-house that I remember
[3:08:12] >> I don't think we talk about it
[3:08:14] >> you mean last year
[3:08:15] >> yeah last year when we asked last year
[3:08:19] for it
[3:08:20] >> then yes it can it was proposed to be
[3:08:22] done in house
[3:08:24] >> in So there were no recommendation for
[3:08:26] outside consultant at that point in
[3:08:27] time. It was more of driven inhouse
[3:08:30] study.
[3:08:30] >> I'm fine with that. I'm fine with having
[3:08:32] an in-house study for next year.
[3:08:34] >> Morfield, what what is your position on this?
[3:08:37] >> I I'll restate it. My position is for
[3:08:42] the POS for those who explanation was
[3:08:45] given to us that they working outside of
[3:08:48] their regular job duties then to move
[3:08:51] them to a segment. for those who gave us
[3:08:54] clear explanation that the job had
[3:08:57] expanded that I am fine with the race
[3:08:59] that there but that explanation came
[3:09:02] from their supervisor or whoever it was.
[3:09:04] So I'm not again that's not going to be
[3:09:07] for me it's not a cookie cutter
[3:09:08] approach. I think I'm looking at each of
[3:09:10] these individually or or sim couple are
[3:09:14] in the same situation but I'm not going
[3:09:16] to say that every single person moving
[3:09:19] all of the extra into out of great pay
[3:09:21] because it doesn't qualify as out of
[3:09:23] great pay because it's a regular duties
[3:09:25] that they do as regular basis and I know
[3:09:29] it's not ideal and I know we should have
[3:09:31] a study must please not revisit that but
[3:09:34] this is where we are today.
[3:09:36] >> Can you identify the position that uh
[3:09:38] Should we
[3:09:41] please so I can make notes?
[3:09:42] >> Well, we all got the email.
[3:09:44] >> Yes. So I one one I have there in terms
[3:09:47] of the supervisor receive.
[3:09:49] >> That's correct. And that individual
[3:09:53] explanation supervisor might
[3:09:59] » executive secretary.
[3:10:00] >> Can I just clarify? So, you're okay with
[3:10:03] >> I I think I'm hearing you say that
[3:10:04] you're okay with these these recommended
[3:10:07] salary increases tonight.
[3:10:09] >> Well, not not 100%. Maybe I'm saying
[3:10:14] if those recommendations were because
[3:10:16] they were getting doing dupies
[3:10:20] and not because their duties had
[3:10:21] expanded.
[3:10:25] » I do, but what about um if their
[3:10:27] performance was, you know, excellent or
[3:10:29] not excellent? What about if they were
[3:10:31] here for a long time or not here for a
[3:10:33] long time? I mean, I think the raises
[3:10:35] also pro I I think that the raises and
[3:10:38] I'm not same as same as you. I'm not
[3:10:41] going to I'm not saying we don't need a
[3:10:43] study.
[3:10:45] >> Good idea. Um but in terms of 2026 and
[3:10:49] what we're trying to do, um
[3:10:53] you know, I I think there is going to be
[3:10:55] variation in in the salary increases. I
[3:10:59] think we're saying that you and I are
[3:11:00] saying the same thing. Okay.
[3:11:04] >> So, so the executive secretary, we
[3:11:06] received the explanation.
[3:11:08] >> Well, that that that would be the mayor
[3:11:10] >> accounting supervisor uh advisor
[3:11:13] received.
[3:11:17] » I see. So, you're looking at the
[3:11:19] >> registr.
[3:11:25] Oh, you did. Yeah, you did that. Okay.
[3:11:28] payroll manager,
[3:11:33] » deputy.
[3:11:34] >> Okay.
[3:11:35] >> Payroll manager.
[3:11:39] » Uh down to supervisor of buildings,
[3:11:41] right?
[3:11:46] » Chief technology officer,
[3:11:52] commissioner of public safety.
[3:11:55] Is that what we're doing, guys? We're
[3:11:57] looking at the
[3:11:58] >> commission of public safety is that's a
[3:12:00] typo.
[3:12:02] They file their other fire.
[3:12:07] >> I think that that's going to be fixed.
[3:12:12] >> Oh, okay.
[3:12:15] >> Deputy commissioner went to
[3:12:20] » Oh, yes. I remember that. Okay. We have one two three four five six
[3:12:28] that we receive um explanation.
[3:12:42] » So the ones that we need to talk about
[3:12:44] are
[3:12:46] executive secretary. No, we
[3:12:49] >> already done that. We already received
[3:12:52] explanation.
[3:12:57] » Okay. You tell me then.
[3:13:00] >> Do you need it again?
[3:13:02] >> I I was highlighting any that were above
[3:13:04] 3%.
[3:13:06] >> So, did you explanation like from from
[3:13:08] the mayor from the executive secretary?
[3:13:10] Do you need that again?
[3:13:11] >> I I don't. No.
[3:13:12] >> Okay.
[3:13:12] I'm sorry. I thought you were all
[3:13:14] looking for that but tonight but I I'm okay with these.
[3:13:18] >> Okay.
[3:13:22] » I don't think everybody is.
[3:13:24] >> Yeah, I think it's done.
[3:13:25] >> Can we
[3:13:30] just
[3:13:38] Okay.
[3:13:40] >> Okay, that's fine. I'll take a like 10
[3:13:43] minutes
[3:13:44] recovery time.
[3:40:17] Miss Porterfield needs her too.
[3:40:20] >> I just got to that.
[3:40:21] >> Okay. Well, we convene a finance
[3:40:22] committee,000.
[3:40:25] >> Let's count
[3:40:27] and
[3:40:39] So we have before us the icon
[3:40:46] is
[3:41:00] hold back up This the one we're going to
[3:41:02] use.
[3:41:04] >> Yeah, there was a conversation.
[3:41:06] >> Oh, a newer one. So, I don't know if
[3:41:07] that's the one we want to use.
[3:41:08] >> I think we should
[3:41:11] going to be
[3:41:14] updated number
[3:41:18] one here. I should I
[3:41:28] Yes.
[3:41:37] to us would be what?
[3:41:38] >> One, two, three.
[3:41:42] I don't
[3:42:13] But this looks like it's based on I
[3:42:16] don't think they're going to put
[3:42:19] anything off service. So this I think
[3:42:22] this is really
[3:42:25] >> that
[3:42:27] uh population. So
[3:42:31] similar population the city is spending
[3:42:33] you have terms of you part time but we
[3:42:36] don't know what each individual position
[3:42:39] has to the city.
[3:42:41] >> Yeah.
[3:42:41] >> So it's how you can't really compare it.
[3:42:44] Well, this to me exactly on
[3:42:48] looking under the president gives what
[3:42:50] salary to determine what and when this
[3:42:53] was done exactly what how many years
[3:42:56] I've been on the house. Well, this is by
[3:42:57] me, not like somebody else.
[3:43:03] I don't know about the accuracy of that.
[3:43:10] So, but
[3:43:12] the where we at uh mission isn't based
[3:43:16] on this one that's in front of us,
[3:43:18] right? It hasn't
[3:43:20] >> strong
[3:43:24] our salaries are corresponding with
[3:43:26] this, right?
[3:43:29] >> They should um HR administrator
[3:43:34] um
[3:43:36] survey was sent to her. Um she uploaded
[3:43:39] all the salary associated with these
[3:43:41] comments.
[3:43:42] >> Excuse me.
[3:43:43] >> I'm saying I'm so
[3:43:46] wrong question. I'm not talking about
[3:43:48] council members. I'm saying that the
[3:43:50] proposed budget and salary lines for the
[3:43:52] proposed budget that was presented to us
[3:43:54] is not based on this information.
[3:43:56] Correct.
[3:44:06] » It's just not easy.
[3:44:08] >> Yeah.
[3:44:09] threat lands
[3:44:14] I think that's why
[3:44:17] you imagine now
[3:44:22] which was quite
[3:44:26] >> I'm Sorry. Can I get you 2020 by 111?
[3:44:32] » Sure.
[3:44:49] So we disregarding this further because
[3:44:54] uh it'll be printed for us.
[3:44:58] >> I believe
[3:45:10] able to print a copy for us.
[3:45:14] asked him.
[3:45:15] >> No, this is this is simply a survey and
[3:45:18] it is exactly and you look at the
[3:45:20] mayor's salary when he was in office for
[3:45:22] a number of years. It's exactly within
[3:45:24] our budget. This is a survey of what's
[3:45:26] being made. It's not an analysis. Yeah.
[3:45:30] >> Then I look at it and say it's more
[3:45:32] taken from the city
[3:45:33] >> and just upload it into my
[3:45:37] >> show across the board what the city
[3:45:40] feeling these position.
[3:45:50] » Yeah. But I don't know why Saratoga
[3:45:53] because of the difference in population
[3:45:55] and all of that.
[3:45:58] That's why we wanted to go a certain
[3:46:02] direction that happened and that's
[3:46:04] understood.
[3:46:08] So the parents are the I mean we have to
[3:46:10] know like how close to the population
[3:46:12] we're at 678
[3:46:15] and
[3:46:17] it's the closest to Westchester County
[3:46:25] » I don't mean ter I don't mean in terms
[3:46:26] of miles I mean in terms of miles
[3:46:29] >> right I just mean city
[3:46:33] Rome
[3:46:39] tends to pay more for the city.
[3:46:42] >> Mhm.
[3:46:46] » All right. So, so I think
[3:46:50] >> yes,
[3:46:50] >> we need to talk about where we can and
[3:46:53] again I mean I'm not on get it
[3:46:58] and and go to Dallas so we can get there
[3:47:00] tonight. So can we continue on the
[3:47:03] salary set?
[3:47:04] >> Yes, we can. Not because of this
[3:47:07] committee, but I I wanted to hear
[3:47:09] recommendation. uh one is a goal where
[3:47:11] we expand individually
[3:47:16] if uh we don't want to say we want to
[3:47:20] finance maybe and experiment
[3:47:25] and then we come up with a compromise
[3:47:27] and if we can't we just look at the
[3:47:29] finance community for the last resort to
[3:47:31] move forward
[3:47:32] >> I think
[3:47:33] >> and that's what that's that's how I
[3:47:35] wanted to you know those
[3:47:39] » so Um, yes, we can continue with the discussion and then we'll move
[3:47:44] our way down.
[3:47:48] » So, I'm not sure if that sheet was very
[3:47:51] any help.
[3:47:52] >> No.
[3:47:54] >> Yeah.
[3:48:02] for the field. You had some um you know
[3:48:06] split
[3:48:08] you support what was explained to us
[3:48:14] the one that the ones that wasn't
[3:48:17] explained to us we are in favor of
[3:48:19] moving that into a bucket. Am I quoting
[3:48:22] you correctly? Can you can correct me
[3:48:24] please? Is that
[3:48:26] >> what I'm saying is I don't we don't have
[3:48:28] all of the information is that if the
[3:48:31] person has expanded duties I recommended
[3:48:34] that they
[3:48:36] as is
[3:48:38] if people are working out of grade
[3:48:42] because they have to have additional
[3:48:43] duties because there's a vacancy within
[3:48:45] their department then I would say that
[3:48:48] makes up
[3:49:00] So based on the have we went through the
[3:49:03] emails or we were just trying to
[3:49:05] configure the notes. So we had one 2 3 4
[3:49:09] 5 six six positions that we received
[3:49:13] clarification.
[3:49:15] Is that correct?
[3:49:23] Go ahead. For the for the for the
[3:49:26] purpose of of only making the process
[3:49:28] less uh complicated, I'll I will uh um
[3:49:34] defer to the finance committee as as far
[3:49:36] as this section of our budget goes. I
[3:49:38] think I was really clear about how I
[3:49:40] felt about it. I think Mr. Williams was
[3:49:42] very clear how he so I feel like you
[3:49:44] know the conversation has become um
[3:49:48] somewhat uh circular. Uh but for this I
[3:49:50] think I you know looking at the overall
[3:49:52] budget impact I will defer uh to the
[3:49:55] finance committee the finance committee
[3:49:57] recommendation on that um
[3:50:01] being very clear about where you know
[3:50:03] that this is something that needs to be
[3:50:05] addressed or will just keep compounding.
[3:50:08] So I think that for the purposes of
[3:50:12] making the process move on I would defer
[3:50:16] >> I would those are my positions but I
[3:50:18] mean again I'll say it again even though
[3:50:20] you say our input is important it's
[3:50:23] >> yeah
[3:50:26] we're so far apart let me just
[3:50:33] » All right
[3:50:35] let's let's move on we'll revisit before
[3:50:38] we conclude this.
[3:50:41] So the next uh big ticket item here for
[3:50:45] this is a fee for service. I propose
[3:50:48] that we look at all of these and able to
[3:50:52] work you know such as a recommendation
[3:50:55] for us to kind of like discuss I
[3:50:58] initially
[3:50:59] asked for 20% sorry 10%.
[3:51:03] when I looked at the numbers on the
[3:51:05] paper they quite significant as you know
[3:51:08] it's about that 5%
[3:51:12] >> uh this was a discussion I had with uh
[3:51:15] you know we had this discussion and then
[3:51:17] I had a discussion with three council
[3:51:21] member
[3:51:21] >> okay
[3:51:22] >> in terms of uh what do we think about
[3:51:24] fees for service
[3:51:26] and I I'm just throwing that out there
[3:51:28] for this question it's not
[3:51:30] recommendation it doesn't mean that I'm
[3:51:31] going to you know
[3:51:34] taking my heat on this and what would be
[3:51:37] think about it.
[3:51:46] » Um, so if we're looking at your
[3:51:49] absolutely sure and I'm talking about
[3:51:52] A17
[3:51:56] for the wrong form. Okay. So that's the
[3:51:59] particular cost
[3:52:02] is that
[3:52:06] I know is that the actual pay
[3:52:17] » my comies
[3:52:22] I'd be hesitant to freeze fees for
[3:52:24] service
[3:52:26] fees for
[3:52:28] justify without the assisted money line
[3:52:33] to um
[3:52:36] certain event not having a staff present
[3:52:42] to help with staffing
[3:52:45] operations in certain departments.
[3:52:52] » Yeah, I think that piece of service is
[3:52:54] kind of different. Let's
[3:53:05] see it. I mean,
[3:53:07] >> most of these lines have been cut from
[3:53:09] what the department
[3:53:24] of this
[3:53:30] I mean, I guess we should just look. We
[3:53:32] have to write what they are for if we're
[3:53:34] going to have to if we have to have a
[3:53:36] conversation about them. So 10 10 404,
[3:53:40] right? I mean, you can't just have to
[3:53:42] know what they are.
[3:53:46] It's 2,000 for city council.
[3:53:48] >> Yeah, we got that.
[3:53:50] >> What is that? Why would we have fees for
[3:53:52] service for city council? That's true
[3:53:55] programs.
[3:53:56] >> I'm sorry, what?
[3:53:57] >> Computer programs, the code online,
[3:54:00] things like that
[3:54:02] >> for us.
[3:54:04] >> It says city city council fees for
[3:54:06] service, but
[3:54:07] >> I'd have to look specifically, but
[3:54:09] that's usually what what they are.
[3:54:15] and like so 56 board
[3:54:21] services what is paid to the individual
[3:54:24] so you know that without
[3:54:28] >> oh my gosh
[3:54:29] they spend so much time at their work I
[3:54:32] mean
[3:54:34] >> I know but still it's huge service and
[3:54:37] also
[3:54:39] affects other parts of our budget
[3:54:43] It does, but just keep in mind the
[3:54:45] notification
[3:54:47] sensor has told us that the duties that
[3:54:49] have been performing for the length of
[3:54:50] time, the number of cases that have been
[3:54:52] has gone down. Don't know if it'll go up
[3:54:54] again, but it has gone down.
[3:54:59] >> We'd have to look at I I keep drawing. I
[3:55:02] don't know what uniformly.
[3:55:05] >> So, this is audit.
[3:55:07] >> No, I'm just I'm trying to fill in what
[3:55:09] they are so that we can actually
[3:55:10] converse about it. So yes, that was the
[3:55:12] audit is the second one which I would
[3:55:14] imagine is kind of a lot in we probably
[3:55:17] know how much we have to spend on the
[3:55:19] audit.
[3:55:21] >> I know
[3:55:22] >> it's probably in the budget accurately
[3:55:24] in terms of what the audit costs.
[3:55:28] >> So Mr. motiv
[3:55:32] although I you know was you know giving
[3:55:34] a level of difference in the last
[3:55:35] section we're reviewing
[3:55:37] the larger issue for N is when are we
[3:55:40] going to get the information about the
[3:55:42] existing funds because every
[3:55:45] conversation that we're having moving
[3:55:48] forward
[3:55:49] there might be funds to support some of
[3:55:52] these things that would return this
[3:55:53] money back to back to the general fund
[3:55:56] and thus far we've part of I've talked
[3:55:59] about $700,000.
[3:56:02] Um, and if we're trying to collectively
[3:56:05] stay under that tax cap, I don't know
[3:56:07] how we pass a budget without that
[3:56:09] information. So, I'm asking when are we
[3:56:11] going to get that information?
[3:56:13] >> May we please ask you to work with the
[3:56:16] department head to us tomorrow?
[3:56:18] >> At 4:00 today, they didn't have it. So,
[3:56:21] I assume it's going to get put together
[3:56:23] sometime tomorrow.
[3:56:27] I hope in the morning but maybe in the
[3:56:29] afternoon.
[3:56:29] >> Okay. All right. So, we'll do a followup
[3:56:33] with regards to uh that report.
[3:56:36] I'm going to personally make a maybe a
[3:56:38] follow up. Go ahead, please.
[3:56:40] >> So, I think does that mean that we are
[3:56:43] going to be back tomorrow because we're
[3:56:45] not getting information tonight?
[3:56:46] >> I can't come back tomorrow, but you guys
[3:56:48] can go ahead. I'm not going to be coming
[3:56:50] back tomorrow.
[3:56:51] >> Oh, no press release for tomorrow.
[3:56:53] Definitely won't come back tomorrow.
[3:56:55] Never mind. you what you're not able to
[3:56:58] >> Thursday. So that means
[3:57:00] >> yeah because we had initially
[3:57:02] availability was not um
[3:57:04] >> right okay
[3:57:08] >> we had the full council
[3:57:10] >> I did not want to set the meeting
[3:57:14] >> with one or two
[3:57:16] >> is there any chance that we could meet
[3:57:18] if we have to meet on Thursday which I
[3:57:20] have on my calendar but is there any
[3:57:22] chance we could I know people work but
[3:57:24] is there any chance that people could
[3:57:26] break away at like four o'clock um I I
[3:57:29] mean, some of us have
[3:57:31] an event that evening. Um, but
[3:57:36] >> you know, Mr. Mudarin's getting an award
[3:57:38] at that dinner. Um, it's connected to
[3:57:40] shares is getting an award at that
[3:57:41] dinner.
[3:57:43] >> Huh. Yeah.
[3:57:44] >> Exactly.
[3:57:46] >> I like that.
[3:57:49] >> But I mean, because I can meet, you
[3:57:51] know, earlier, but even if it was a
[3:57:53] lunchtime, I think, you know, when
[3:57:55] people become more that I'm not doing.
[3:58:00] >> I also could meet Friday, Friday night.
[3:58:02] By the way,
[3:58:02] >> we we cannot meet. We cannot meet before
[3:58:05] 5:30 tomorrow.
[3:58:06] >> We have to stick with the house.
[3:58:09] >> Oh, that's right. We already publicized
[3:58:10] it.
[3:58:11] >> And we have time to publicize if we're
[3:58:13] going to come on Friday, right?
[3:58:15] >> There is no meeting on Friday right now.
[3:58:17] >> There is no meeting on Saturday right
[3:58:18] now.
[3:58:19] >> Thursday.
[3:58:20] >> Yeah.
[3:58:21] >> Saturday
[3:58:24] >> right now. Well, the next meeting
[3:58:25] doesn't kick in until you recess this
[3:58:27] meeting.
[3:58:28] >> You can keep this meeting going
[3:58:32] >> to the alternative.
[3:58:38] » I'd rather try tomorrows.
[3:58:44] I think staff needs to preventation.
[3:58:48] I think that by
[3:58:50] >> Sam can make a note that relate to just
[3:58:54] a follow with the mayor with the we have
[3:58:58] those uh the report from
[3:59:01] department of development
[3:59:03] funding
[3:59:06] >> and we would have it prior to the
[3:59:08] meeting so we would be able to look at
[3:59:09] it.
[3:59:10] >> Yes. and be prepared.
[3:59:11] >> All these things need to get to us now
[3:59:13] so that we can
[3:59:15] >> All right.
[3:59:15] >> Make a decision and then
[3:59:18] >> that's that's to make the salary
[3:59:19] decisions. Is that what you're saying?
[3:59:22] >> The funding the CDBG
[3:59:24] >> Oh, the CDBG funding.
[3:59:26] >> Yes.
[3:59:28] >> Have a whole meeting just because of
[3:59:29] that one thing. Okay.
[3:59:30] >> But so just for clarity, that one thing
[3:59:34] has produced 700 $700,000.
[3:59:38] >> Yeah. to keep us under the tax cap. I
[3:59:41] think that that is a if there's a
[3:59:43] possibility of more money being out
[3:59:46] there, we need to make sure that we have
[3:59:49] that information. I mean, to me, quite
[3:59:51] honestly, I don't see how we pass the
[3:59:54] budget in good faith without that
[3:59:55] information.
[3:59:57] >> Follow that is like 2%.
[3:59:59] >> That's
[4:00:02] significant.
[4:00:03] >> 700,000 and not 400
[4:00:06] >> 202 and 206, right? Nope. It's
[4:00:09] >> 408
[4:00:12] plus 150 plus 222
[4:00:16] from
[4:00:16] >> 200 for contingency.
[4:00:19] >> Okay. Okay.
[4:00:23] » 200.
[4:00:24] >> Yeah,
[4:00:25] >> that's right. I hear you I
[4:00:27] >> 150 of that was as the proposed budget
[4:00:30] is neutral in the proposed budget
[4:00:31] because that line was zero. But all the
[4:00:34] uh the remainder of that um and that's
[4:00:36] even only in theory because we all
[4:00:38] committed to find money to f to fund
[4:00:39] that line for our youth line. So we are
[4:00:41] going to have to find that money. So
[4:00:42] when you have $700,000,
[4:00:46] you know, appearing by a process, I
[4:00:48] would like to see that process play out
[4:00:50] because that can really change the
[4:00:52] scenario that we're in right now as far
[4:00:54] as saying
[4:00:55] >> step
[4:00:58] to further um as we're looking at these
[4:01:01] fees for service and I you know we just
[4:01:04] can't uniformly cut them. I don't think
[4:01:06] about what they're
[4:01:08] >> Yeah. I was going to make a suggestion
[4:01:10] to commission of uh finance in the
[4:01:13] position of can you put the bure
[4:01:17] department
[4:01:21] and what they're for.
[4:01:22] >> Yes.
[4:01:23] Yes. So yes, you can add um yeah.
[4:01:31] » Yes. So I'm going to ask that we just um
[4:01:33] add some more detail onto that. Please
[4:01:37] can revisit this
[4:01:41] so it will guide us along because right
[4:01:43] now it's going to be a lot for us to
[4:01:45] just look at this go into the book back
[4:01:47] and forth soon and it's a lot I'm going
[4:01:51] to ask we wait for more detail for each
[4:01:54] line and then revisit.
[4:01:58] >> All right.
[4:02:01] I'm going to stop filling it
[4:02:02] in. Yeah, I was almost
[4:02:06] um let's move to um the next one of
[4:02:08] stipens
[4:02:14] this board and then Mr. F
[4:02:20] again I I will refer to the finance
[4:02:22] committee for that. Um
[4:02:25] my position around that is pretty clear.
[4:02:27] I do um but it's a matter of process.
[4:02:31] I'll definitely give deference to the
[4:02:33] finance committee for that, but even
[4:02:35] that I think is going to be a another
[4:02:37] situation that there's information out
[4:02:39] there we need.
[4:02:41] >> So, just to be clear though, what you're
[4:02:44] trying to recommend here is just not
[4:02:46] having the stipens though.
[4:02:47] >> No, that's not
[4:02:49] >> Well, it's $30,000 in the proposed
[4:02:51] budget and your cuts would take out
[4:02:53] $30,000.
[4:02:54] >> No, that's not that's incorrect.
[4:02:55] >> So, this is wrong.
[4:02:56] >> Yes.
[4:02:57] >> Okay.
[4:02:57] >> Yep. So we were supposed to back out all
[4:03:00] day 24 hours.
[4:03:03] >> Correct.
[4:03:05] >> Oh, so some of these are those people.
[4:03:07] Correct.
[4:03:08] >> Can we make notes again
[4:03:11] all the ones that
[4:03:13] >> are on 24
[4:03:15] and reverse it out from this section?
[4:03:19] >> And I and I also said to start with a
[4:03:21] number, a starting number for a context
[4:03:24] of $10,000.
[4:03:26] um
[4:03:28] said so that information is missing.
[4:03:30] >> It's right here.
[4:03:34] >> From what? From what Miss uh Patrick's
[4:03:37] guessing, I'm saying. Yes. That's why
[4:03:38] I'm saying no.
[4:03:41] >> Okay. So, we need to clean this section
[4:03:42] up. We work all day. But go ahead,
[4:03:46] please.
[4:03:47] >> Um as we talked about this yesterday, I
[4:03:49] think it was yesterday.
[4:03:51] >> Yes. As far I went through each
[4:03:53] statement, as far as I could see, there
[4:03:55] was one and we asked a question about
[4:03:57] the other one. A680
[4:03:59] um was clear was clear to me that that
[4:04:02] was the news of so that might not
[4:04:04] change.
[4:04:05] >> 1680.
[4:04:06] >> Okay. Yes.
[4:04:07] >> And A510.
[4:04:08] >> Could you tell me what that
[4:04:10] >> A680?
[4:04:11] >> Yeah. Okay. I'll look it up.
[4:04:14] >> Technology.
[4:04:14] >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. And then
[4:04:17] I asked if A5010 was a 24-hour gay
[4:04:21] person. Didn't get a response. So I
[4:04:24] don't know the answer to that question.
[4:04:26] >> I'll tell you.
[4:04:26] >> That's the only one who may have
[4:04:28] >> Well, I looked it up as well, but it's
[4:04:30] not clear that person.
[4:04:31] >> Can you just ask it now though is what
[4:04:33] I'm saying.
[4:04:33] >> I asked yesterday. I asked today
[4:04:39] position.
[4:04:40] >> I'm looking it up.
[4:04:43] facing street food under
[4:04:46] >> Oh, the street department manager.
[4:04:48] >> Mhm. That's the same person.
[4:04:53] » I did not follow up on that.
[4:04:56] >> I think
[4:04:57] >> I did not follow up on
[4:04:58] >> Oh, I thought
[4:05:01] >> I thought
[4:05:05] Nice. It didn't take them long to do
[4:05:08] that. So, you may
[4:05:09] >> service administration.
[4:05:10] >> All right. Can we make notes follow up
[4:05:12] on that please? S can you also make note
[4:05:15] please
[4:05:16] >> so that um we can realign and make sure
[4:05:18] that these things are here
[4:05:24] » and can
[4:05:25] >> that's the only two
[4:05:26] >> commissioner can we can we look at all
[4:05:28] this typing and see who else is on 24
[4:05:31] hours
[4:05:32] >> all
[4:05:34] I think under the mayor's position on
[4:05:36] all these positions
[4:05:39] they're 247 call polic.
[4:05:44] >> Okay,
[4:05:44] >> the mayor stated that one.
[4:05:47] >> Let's just go back based on what I
[4:05:51] looked at. Um, let's start with a 10.
[4:06:00] Yes, which is in the mayor's office.
[4:06:03] Um other than the mayor who tomorrow
[4:06:13] you refer to
[4:06:14] >> the studongs
[4:06:16] to just
[4:06:23] call 24 hours
[4:06:31] 1910
[4:06:36] 136
[4:06:40] finance. You probably could tell us
[4:06:42] about that one.
[4:06:46] » Um, so the mayor and the judge me.
[4:06:50] >> Oh, it's for you. Oh, okay. Yeah. No,
[4:06:52] you don't have to go further.
[4:06:53] >> Access to a laptop. So, if I need to
[4:06:55] access something, I can. Um,
[4:06:59] >> Gotcha. You don't have to go further.
[4:07:12] » Uh there's time for the office at the
[4:07:15] wires
[4:07:17] >> for the wires.
[4:07:20] >> Mhm. So the office man that could be
[4:07:23] >> has it happened with Derek one time
[4:07:27] playing Ferrari
[4:07:29] team there was a police pursuit
[4:07:31] sheriff's department of fatality.
[4:07:34] >> Oh jeez.
[4:07:34] >> He was at the scene
[4:07:39] less than
[4:07:42] >> scenario to have to deal with
[4:07:45] >> seems to happen.
[4:07:46] >> But you exactly have time.
[4:07:48] >> Yes. So we will find
[4:07:56] » all
[4:07:59] the part make sure we weren't getting
[4:08:01] sued. That's a good thing. So,
[4:08:04] you know, I think I think we really So,
[4:08:07] my understanding it was like this with
[4:08:09] the start people who were also a scene
[4:08:12] because there was a water being break or
[4:08:15] you know um all various things
[4:08:22] » entirely with facilities, building
[4:08:26] maintenance. Yikes.
[4:08:37] said one.
[4:08:39] Yeah, I was more aligning this kind of
[4:08:41] align myself with this in terms of like
[4:08:43] more drivenness towards like people with
[4:08:46] OGS who has to be on call stream OS
[4:08:51] uh you know personnel
[4:08:56] and anybody who has to be like
[4:08:57] infrastructure stuff deal with
[4:08:59] >> this one's code
[4:09:00] >> there's a break in the main or there's
[4:09:03] something happened you know that needs
[4:09:05] to be at the se fire or something like
[4:09:07] that some technology.
[4:09:09] >> Yeah, technology is different because
[4:09:11] there's certain things happen. They have
[4:09:12] to you know come in and shut down and
[4:09:15] you know run
[4:09:18] and things like that.
[4:09:22] I was kind of like
[4:09:24] my thought about this in terms of
[4:09:28] like more like administrative stuff
[4:09:31] that's a I don't know.
[4:09:35] >> Oh, go ahead. Well, I have all the I can
[4:09:38] tell you who each of the I just slipped
[4:09:39] them out if you want to know who each I
[4:09:42] know by the positions.
[4:09:44] >> Yeah. Yeah. And then we can find out.
[4:09:46] Well, I I wouldn't say the person's name
[4:09:48] unless executive session, but um
[4:09:52] >> I just if you know, so the first one is
[4:09:54] in the mayor's office and we've been
[4:09:56] told it's the director of operations.
[4:09:58] The next one is our finance
[4:10:00] commissioner.
[4:10:01] >> What was the last year? I'm sorry.
[4:10:03] >> I'm sorry.
[4:10:04] What did we spend last year on that
[4:10:06] statement?
[4:10:08] >> It didn't exist last year.
[4:10:09] >> So that's a new statement.
[4:10:10] >> That's a new
[4:10:13] >> $3,000.
[4:10:14] >> 3,000 was spent last year.
[4:10:16] >> No, I'm saying that's what it is right
[4:10:18] now in this in this year's budget. Um in
[4:10:22] 1410, that's in the city clerk's office.
[4:10:25] It is the city clerk, I believe. I
[4:10:27] remember that from previous years. Uh
[4:10:30] 1620 is facilities and building. Um, I
[4:10:34] actually don't know specifically who
[4:10:36] that is, but um, 1622 is in utilities
[4:10:41] administration. I can see how both of
[4:10:44] those would be people that would get
[4:10:45] called upon, could could get called upon
[4:10:48] in the middle of the night.
[4:10:50] >> Um, 1680, very important. Chief
[4:10:52] technology officer obviously gets called
[4:10:55] upon. Now 5010, it says service
[4:10:59] administration.
[4:11:01] Um, so I'm not actually can't think of
[4:11:03] who that would be. Um,
[4:11:08] » 5010. Yeah, that's what we're talking
[4:11:10] about.
[4:11:12] >> Street department.
[4:11:12] >> Okay. Street. Okay. Streets. So that's
[4:11:15] obviously important. And then the next
[4:11:17] one's code enforcement.
[4:11:21] » The last one.
[4:11:26] And this doesn't say who, but I'm sure
[4:11:29] these are tied to a specific individual.
[4:11:33] Is that correct?
[4:11:35] >> Yeah.
[4:11:39] » Just
[4:11:42] paid on
[4:11:46] the Yes.
[4:11:47] >> For the building.
[4:11:49] >> Okay. manner outside of
[4:11:53] >> Yes.
[4:11:56] » Other ones they get over.
[4:12:16] » Any other question regarding this? We
[4:12:18] need more clarification. We need to
[4:12:21] reverse some things out. This report
[4:12:24] needs to be updated.
[4:12:25] >> So, could we just look at the act the
[4:12:26] expenses last year for all of those?
[4:12:28] all got spent, I'm sure. Right.
[4:12:31] >> I can look it up.
[4:12:34] » Want me to look it up?
[4:12:36] >> I'm happy to.
[4:12:37] >> No, I I'm sure I'll
[4:12:42] » Okay. I just
[4:12:46] >> like of I think it's the fire department
[4:12:48] A34 CS
[4:12:51] stipens
[4:12:52] >> right in the A3411 just I'm just curious
[4:12:56] as to
[4:12:57] >> 411 that's all contractual
[4:13:00] >> oh okay
[4:13:01] >> that is not here
[4:13:02] >> no I I know it's not there but
[4:13:05] >> I mean we're talking stipens so I'm
[4:13:08] wondering why it wasn't there but it's
[4:13:11] just
[4:13:11] >> anything that has to do
[4:13:13] CSC
[4:13:14] fire department
[4:13:15] >> contractual
[4:13:17] >> is not here.
[4:13:18] >> Can I be this is not part of a
[4:13:20] negotiation
[4:13:22] is just asking
[4:13:24] >> anything
[4:13:26] that we all
[4:13:33] » right go. No, no, no, no.
[4:13:43] So just just a sick moving um we'll just
[4:13:46] move on with this revisit
[4:13:49] and um
[4:13:57] » we have
[4:14:00] any any members have any other expense
[4:14:04] that we need to discuss
[4:14:06] the lease.
[4:14:09] >> What do you have anything else?
[4:14:11] >> I mean,
[4:14:13] >> no more no more expense.
[4:14:15] >> I mentioned that you had some expense
[4:14:16] that we didn't
[4:14:19] >> that would be good.
[4:14:21] >> Okay.
[4:14:25] » That's
[4:14:40] Oh, I did have a couple questions that
[4:14:43] >> Yeah, we can go ahead and add please.
[4:14:45] Yeah.
[4:14:51] » Okay. So I asked that would be uh any
[4:14:53] other that was in 2025
[4:14:57] what percent
[4:15:03] and how many employees currently outside
[4:15:16] Yeah, that's not good.
[4:15:18] >> So, as for
[4:15:21] you have a new report
[4:15:25] that was fun
[4:15:40] later.
[4:15:49] pass around.
[4:15:52] >> I got two of the mayor need one of
[4:15:53] these.
[4:15:55] >> Uh, I got
[4:15:56] >> Okay.
[4:16:14] So
[4:16:16] in fact this is a this this report
[4:16:20] combined will be for
[4:16:24] as 3 million8181
[4:16:28] and 48
[4:16:31] 3.8
[4:16:33] automating forms that we got.
[4:16:35] >> Yes.
[4:16:38] Um, so I before I asked for it and then
[4:16:43] told us it was like 3 million and then
[4:16:44] this is the additional because I'm
[4:16:46] really just trying to get to how we got
[4:16:48] to the $6 million gap.
[4:16:51] That's why I asked for this.
[4:16:54] And so if this plus what?
[4:16:59] Well, we have fun balance. Uh
[4:17:03] you look at previous year we was it last
[4:17:06] year 6.6 million our funding
[4:17:10] >> correct?
[4:17:11] >> Um 6.1
[4:17:13] >> 24 6.6 approximately. So
[4:17:16] >> and
[4:17:20] 3 million change
[4:17:23] of about 5.4 4 million above balance.
[4:17:30] » So look at this report. So we have three
[4:17:32] employee currently out of work and 19
[4:17:35] from
[4:17:36] that.
[4:17:40] » Is that correct? Soal,
[4:17:43] but there's only three of
[4:17:46] >> this is that provided by
[4:17:51] » and so your three currently out 19 uh
[4:17:54] from January to 1020 in total
[4:18:00] >> um of the 191
[4:18:04] that's is that everybody actually went
[4:18:06] on one
[4:18:08] laugh
[4:18:11] sometime this year they've been out
[4:18:15] for
[4:18:18] somebody can be out for a week usually a
[4:18:20] day mostly it's tends to be a week or
[4:18:23] longer
[4:18:30] » so none of these people every one of
[4:18:32] these occurrences started in Janu excuse
[4:18:35] me in 2025 so nobody was out from 2024
[4:18:38] They carried 2025.
[4:18:40] >> No. Get another report to see what's
[4:18:45] right. I just want to make sure that we
[4:19:06] » um
[4:19:06] >> so we do not so we do not have any any
[4:19:09] anyone on long-term workers
[4:19:12] >> on this list I'm not 100% Sure. I'm sure
[4:19:15] I can get the information for council.
[4:19:17] >> Yeah, if you don't mind can doing that.
[4:19:19] Um, if you can get if there's anyone we
[4:19:23] have anybody in 207 which is different
[4:19:26] than
[4:19:27] >> workers.
[4:19:31] That's
[4:19:34] >> Yeah. Um
[4:19:37] I'm just looking to see if there are
[4:19:41] long-term
[4:19:43] except for 207 which is by now we have
[4:19:47] full salary. Yeah, I'm just trying to
[4:19:50] see if we have anybody
[4:19:53] on long term and do we still carry the
[4:19:56] salary line perhaps
[4:20:00] » position
[4:20:02] up now? So yes, their salary line is
[4:20:05] budgeted.
[4:20:10] » Is there anything else
[4:20:12] there? Do we do we should we budget for
[4:20:16] them on that line or are we keeping budget in anticipation
[4:20:20] that they're going to come back next
[4:20:21] week? Those are all I believe are
[4:20:25] shortterm
[4:20:27] thing. So it's two weeks a month.
[4:20:33] » Okay.
[4:20:34] >> Standard account
[4:20:39] of position for that.
[4:20:42] Our
[4:20:44] claim ratio right now is fairly good.
[4:20:47] It's natur sometimes you can't tell how
[4:20:50] it's going to go.
[4:20:53] » So there's 30 people that I just see who
[4:20:57] >> what was the specific question?
[4:21:00] It it was more driven towards how do we
[4:21:03] have how many employee do we have long
[4:21:04] term workers
[4:21:07] >> but you know not overall the timeline
[4:21:12] >> I think and excluding um 207 because
[4:21:16] regardless we have to pay them the full
[4:21:19] sum rate so you exclude 27
[4:21:24] >> I think another way of capturing it
[4:21:26] since it's not just without people just
[4:21:30] how long employ.
[4:21:39] » Can can you please add that into the report
[4:21:47] by by department also?
[4:21:54] » So my question was um
[4:21:58] It was responded to when it came to 207
[4:22:01] whether it was contractual but for the
[4:22:04] rest of the employees who are not part
[4:22:06] of 207 is this contractual or it's just
[4:22:09] a practice by the city.
[4:22:12] >> No, sorry. Let me let me let me just
[4:22:15] >> 207 and 20.
[4:22:18] >> So let me just take So we have to
[4:22:20] exclude 207
[4:22:23] including 207.
[4:22:25] >> That's coming.
[4:22:26] >> Oh okay.
[4:22:28] swimming 207.
[4:22:29] >> Yes.
[4:22:29] >> The other
[4:22:30] >> CNC. Yes.
[4:22:32] >> Anybody has 207 in front of it?
[4:22:36] >> The rest of the workers common.
[4:22:40] >> Yeah.
[4:22:40] >> Is this based is it contractual or is
[4:22:43] this
[4:22:45] >> based on practice of for the city
[4:22:47] >> state law? State law. Workers
[4:22:49] compensation. I think that's one that's
[4:22:52] generically
[4:22:54] referred to. You don't know. It's a
[4:22:55] felony. Yeah.
[4:22:58] >> So,
[4:22:59] and state law says we have to pay you a
[4:23:01] full salary.
[4:23:04] >> That's only for 207.
[4:23:08] » Could you pay a full salary? They might
[4:23:11] be paid partial salary. They might
[4:23:13] depends on
[4:23:15] the actual claim.
[4:23:21] So it sounds like this is not something
[4:23:23] that we really can be fooling around
[4:23:25] with anyway, right? This is something
[4:23:27] >> No. Well, not the not the 207.
[4:23:31] >> Well, we can look at the report for the
[4:23:33] ones that long term and they're
[4:23:36] receiving workers.
[4:23:39] >> And what state actually says about this?
[4:23:41] >> Yes. So, um let's look at the report.
[4:23:44] Let's look at u the position and
[4:23:47] department.
[4:23:50] And can you attach a dollar a dollar
[4:23:52] amount to that also
[4:23:56] plus uh plus benefit?
[4:23:59] >> Let's see where how much it's costing us
[4:24:02] to um fun
[4:24:04] each position into the budget.
[4:24:07] >> Can we change that? Why how could we
[4:24:09] change that if that's what it is? I
[4:24:11] guess is what I'm asking.
[4:24:13] >> Oh,
[4:24:15] >> isn't it workers compensation? I mean,
[4:24:17] it is what it is.
[4:24:18] >> No, it just seemed like that there's
[4:24:20] some variables in there around like
[4:24:24] outside of certain
[4:24:27] 207 maybe ZDFG. Outside of that,
[4:24:30] depending on the on the on the case,
[4:24:31] there's some variables that the mayor u
[4:24:34] unless I heard them wrong. There's some
[4:24:36] variables depending. It could be full
[4:24:37] pay, could be a percentage based on
[4:24:41] >> No, I I heard that, but I guess I'm
[4:24:42] saying
[4:24:43] >> there are employees who sometimes will
[4:24:45] take advantage of those plans and we do
[4:24:48] manage that and do bring in
[4:24:52] outside investigators and independent
[4:24:55] medical eval.
[4:24:58] >> I'm just answering why the information.
[4:24:59] >> No, I'm just saying I mean I don't I
[4:25:00] just feel like this is probably an area
[4:25:02] that
[4:25:04] we would not be necessarily arguing with
[4:25:07] the budget as well. probably spend
[4:25:09] another 3 or four hours in.
[4:25:14] » I think right now we still need
[4:25:16] clarification. We will be spending three
[4:25:18] or four hours.
[4:25:19] >> It's just a matter of getting the
[4:25:20] information over so we can look at the
[4:25:22] report and and that's what I'm trying to
[4:25:24] get to we're not going to analyze
[4:25:27] anything. We're just
[4:25:29] >> we're just trying to get the best
[4:25:31] information over to the commissioner so
[4:25:32] you can provide a report to us so we can
[4:25:34] look at it. And when you get the report
[4:25:36] tomorrow, please email it to us so that
[4:25:39] uh we have it ahead of time and we can
[4:25:41] review it and then come back uh with
[4:25:44] looking for the city page
[4:25:47] >> without the city.
[4:25:49] >> Yes. What we what we have in the budget.
[4:25:51] So if we have a long-term amount of work
[4:25:53] everybody that we have on work has come
[4:25:56] except for the 207s
[4:25:58] how much we have in the budget
[4:26:01] we have in the proposed budget for that
[4:26:04] position and that's
[4:26:07] the position plus dollar amount plus
[4:26:10] benefit
[4:26:14] and that's including everybody
[4:26:28] Okay. All right. Any other question
[4:26:30] regarding that?
[4:26:34] We'll wait on that.
[4:26:37] >> Anything uh do you have any other
[4:26:38] question any back any questions what you
[4:26:40] have there?
[4:26:45] Go ahead, please.
[4:26:46] >> I believe that was all I had
[4:26:48] >> for my
[4:26:51] >> You had some Mr. Far, you had some
[4:26:52] questions. You got you're good with
[4:26:54] those.
[4:26:56] >> All right. You I submitted my question.
[4:26:59] I had to
[4:27:00] >> Oh, that's the one. Okay. Yeah, that's
[4:27:01] fine.
[4:27:04] >> All right. We should have this document
[4:27:06] here
[4:27:10] to be the package.
[4:27:15] » Yeah.
[4:27:29] Yes.
[4:27:34] >> Which one are we looking at?
[4:27:35] >> The waste partisan
[4:27:59] » just for clarification purpose. So
[4:28:01] whatever we're
[4:28:04] uh commissioner whatever number we were
[4:28:06] crunching all the time here has no
[4:28:10] effect on this
[4:28:13] separate
[4:28:30] whatever we were on this.
[4:28:32] >> Uhhuh. They were working our way.
[4:28:36] >> Okay.
[4:28:51] » Which one? What do you mean?
[4:28:53] >> You don't have it.
[4:28:54] >> It's attached to this.
[4:28:56] >> It's attached to a memo.
[4:28:59] How can you
[4:29:01] >> was one of the first things like this?
[4:29:04] So you might lost something.
[4:29:07] >> I'm very sorry.
[4:29:12] » This came to us on October 1st. This was
[4:29:15] with the budget
[4:29:19] » here. I'll shut
[4:29:26] » you is
[4:29:38] give you time to review and then open
[4:29:41] for discussion and then
[4:29:46] the sector
[4:29:49] a real quick glance through um and we
[4:29:51] asked like where a lot of our workers
[4:29:53] compensation is on page two at the
[4:29:56] bottom
[4:30:03] to 730,000
[4:30:10] page two.
[4:30:16] » Oh yeah.
[4:30:41] It's
[4:31:41] Let's
[4:31:52] see.
[4:34:07] So, we're talking about waste now or
[4:34:09] >> Yes.
[4:34:10] >> When are we going to do we
[4:34:12] >> I'm really lo here now. It's getting
[4:34:14] pretty late.
[4:34:18] So
[4:34:22] » I mean
[4:34:24] >> I don't know
[4:34:27] continue for discussion. I mean
[4:34:31] if any would you know I would like to
[4:34:34] have every member that if some reason
[4:34:37] >> if some reason for some reason a member
[4:34:42] has to leave
[4:34:44] And I respect that.
[4:34:46] >> Thank you.
[4:34:52] » We will have to still maintain a a a two
[4:34:55] member.
[4:34:57] >> Y.
[4:34:57] >> So if for some reason two member of the
[4:34:59] finance decide
[4:35:01] of then
[4:35:02] >> Well, do you have a a projected time of
[4:35:04] the planning might end this evening or
[4:35:06] are we going all the way through?
[4:35:08] >> No, seriously. Hi.
[4:35:11] >> I'm here till the pass.
[4:35:13] >> Okay.
[4:35:15] >> He said he's here.
[4:35:17] >> Extremely close pending questions into
[4:35:20] tomorrow. Well, are you going to wait
[4:35:22] for the information
[4:35:24] tomorrow right now? So, being close
[4:35:28] get closer. We can't we I don't think we
[4:35:31] can push it for weeks. We need some
[4:35:32] information.
[4:35:33] >> Mhm.
[4:35:34] >> With regard
[4:35:35] >> some you know that I'll send staff home
[4:35:38] and you can bring them back the next
[4:35:40] meeting. There's a limitation in terms
[4:35:42] of people's performance.
[4:35:49] » I hear you.
[4:35:51] >> I don't understand
[4:35:53] >> that these guys could go home. All these
[4:35:55] guys could go home. not staying until 1
[4:35:58] 2 in the morning until it's done. Mhm.
[4:36:02] So we can start discussion on on this
[4:36:04] place here with um cost analysis study.
[4:36:09] >> Uh
[4:36:14] » so starting from the back
[4:36:19] >> the talk of commission general services
[4:36:21] is all one
[4:36:23] >> now
[4:36:26] that only for one. So what? Um just
[4:36:29] showing that because they do run the
[4:36:32] waste department. Yes. Uh but they learn
[4:36:36] their salary
[4:36:37] to water and sewer. So just reflecting
[4:36:40] that as part of the whole picture for
[4:36:42] the waste cost.
[4:36:44] >> So they lose their salary benefits.
[4:36:51] » And then the other thing too is to not
[4:36:54] for
[4:36:58] from sector 2025 delta budget. Uh it
[4:37:02] didn't include all the seasonals. So
[4:37:05] that 9.85
[4:37:08] more like 1.4 that's not included
[4:37:12] within this analysis.
[4:37:18] 256
[4:37:20] whole pages will be there.
[4:37:23] So the the commissioner and the deputy
[4:37:26] both
[4:37:28] are full
[4:37:29] >> right
[4:37:32] now.
[4:37:35] >> Okay.
[4:37:44] advance. So for 816118,000
[4:37:50] and then for 8162,000
[4:37:55] that wasn't there last year that is
[4:37:56] there this year.
[4:38:15] in the near days to see what was
[4:38:16] expected.
[4:38:33] Let's
[4:38:49] go.
[4:39:03] with the air.
[4:39:05] Sorry.
[4:39:30] for being
[4:39:33] over time
[4:39:36] 8,000 here today
[4:40:00] I put that
[4:40:05] file that's been here to date
[4:40:19] » and 122 is a new added time.
[4:40:26] That one
[4:40:28] has $8,000 in the current.
[4:40:37] » It wasn't in the 25 budget.
[4:40:47] So we spent money that wasn't
[4:40:52] » I'm sure
[4:40:55] address that. So, so we wasn't much
[4:40:58] interest.
[4:41:04] » I wonder if that's brought over with the
[4:41:06] other employees that
[4:41:08] >> I believe so
[4:41:10] uh seasons
[4:41:16] $20,000.
[4:41:19] » Uh if you need more details,
[4:41:23] Commissioner will probably walk you
[4:41:25] through it. So yesterday we paid on that
[4:41:27] line that was 8,000.
[4:41:30] How much did we pay?
[4:41:33] >> I got it.
[4:41:34] >> That line currently 8,000
[4:41:36] >> for this year.
[4:41:42] And what's
[4:41:55] » okay?
[4:42:08] Um, and then we added a line 8163
[4:42:14] 122. No one for that. We added 3,00
[4:42:25] 163.
[4:42:33] Mhm. Yeah. 3,000
[4:42:35] 13.
[4:42:45] It's page 24 on the year to date.
[4:43:00] Enter.
[4:43:18] I already pointed out a little bit and
[4:43:32] In terms of the um the revenue
[4:43:38] a 2130
[4:43:41] commercial waste
[4:43:44] 530
[4:43:54] that Any advice about commercial
[4:43:56] contracts?
[4:44:01] um
[4:44:04] Tell me
[4:44:28] new waste violation for 15 gallons. I'm
[4:44:31] not sure what that is for.
[4:44:37] What number is that, Mary?
[4:44:39] >> Oh, I see it. I got it.
[4:45:06] again. It wasn't expected.
[4:45:10] I recall
[4:45:17] that
[4:45:18] was
[4:45:22] well spray
[4:45:29] trash
[4:45:31] >> infestations
[4:45:31] >> and Mr. chairman that I thought I for
[4:45:34] the council that fee
[4:45:36] it's a lean on the propert so it goes a
[4:45:39] little under tax
[4:45:44] for that type of control it's it's a
[4:45:48] bill is sent to the property owner and
[4:45:50] if they don't pay a benefit on the
[4:45:51] property
[4:45:53] >> so this is new because we didn't do it
[4:45:55] before it wasn't in the budget funny
[4:45:59] >> it's a waste collection fee I think we
[4:46:01] didn't know that last I think they
[4:46:04] I think that was something that we had
[4:46:06] discussions on and that's how come we
[4:46:08] realized they could do that.
[4:46:10] >> That's what they be doing. Or I I would
[4:46:13] let Mr. Hon speak to that. That's what
[4:46:17] the commissioner just talked about and
[4:46:19] that's that fee. The only other thing I
[4:46:22] can think of is the administrative fee.
[4:46:24] It's at $25. raised the administrative
[4:46:26] fees for other entities to $50 last year
[4:46:31] and the administrative fee if they go to
[4:46:34] house they site somebody and their
[4:46:36] garbage is out early and they go back
[4:46:38] and it's still out it's it's the
[4:46:40] administrative fee for 50 bucks
[4:46:43] >> right now the code is for waste
[4:46:45] collection is at that 25 so he may be
[4:46:48] thinking
[4:46:49] >> he may want that change I'm speculation
[4:46:52] you might
[4:46:54] >> um I do have another question when you mention that. So probably this
[4:46:59] is probably since you brought it on the
[4:47:01] mask if you know they mask out and they
[4:47:08] um don't the trash people don't collect
[4:47:10] it but they drag it back to their homes.
[4:47:13] They still get the administrative fee.
[4:47:15] >> You have to talk to Mr. Lefondor.
[4:47:18] >> Okay. But I think that may be what
[4:47:21] they're looking at there because it's
[4:47:24] $25 and all the other administrative
[4:47:26] fees last year were raised to 50. So you
[4:47:29] can speak to that. Now I remember Mr.
[4:47:31] Leaf was saying that
[4:47:33] at the initial start of this he was you
[4:47:36] know making sure that people like
[4:47:39] understood he was trying to help educate
[4:47:41] people and then at some point then you
[4:47:43] know would be more enforcement right and
[4:47:47] I'm wondering those things that aren't
[4:47:48] budgeted are those something that's not
[4:47:53] budgeted or they are the something about
[4:47:55] moving over from another so I'm just
[4:47:57] trying to figure out I'm sure Mr. can
[4:47:59] answer that question cuz it might be a a
[4:48:02] line that's moved
[4:48:05] then it is a new line
[4:48:07] right
[4:48:11] I don't know but it may be that there
[4:48:12] was a enforcement last year
[4:48:15] >> as the the new structure was rolled out
[4:48:18] and now he's now accounting for it but
[4:48:21] he needs to speak
[4:49:10] discussion is open please
[4:49:17] comment
[4:50:54] We all set in this section. Are we all
[4:50:56] set in this section?
[4:50:58] >> Commissioner benefits from here
[4:51:01] in the yard from this overall benefit.
[4:51:06] It is it's included and separated uh at
[4:51:09] least related to the waste.
[4:51:13] Also just note
[4:51:17] that 1037
[4:51:19] is coming up. So these numbers will
[4:51:21] increase
[4:51:24] what occurs.
[4:51:26] No, I'm talking about
[4:51:29] >> I understand that.
[4:51:30] >> Well, you get it,
[4:51:31] >> right?
[4:51:32] >> It's in here.
[4:51:34] >> Is it also in here?
[4:51:38] » This is separated for the council to say
[4:51:40] yes or specifically waste. But if you
[4:51:42] look at the end of the general fund
[4:51:45] with the employee benefit section
[4:51:49] underway
[4:51:50] group
[4:51:53] >> doesn't delineate waste just total
[4:51:56] benefits.
[4:52:00] » Oh I see I'm very near the end of our
[4:52:03] budget. Right.
[4:52:12] So our standard for benefits is anywhere
[4:52:17] between 72 and 75. Uh I believe CSA
[4:52:22] 5%
[4:52:23] off the buff. So that's that number
[4:52:26] there. Um
[4:52:27] >> wow.
[4:52:27] >> And then our debt service is a million
[4:52:29] borrow past years.
[4:52:42] So sanctified that sort of sphere uh you
[4:52:46] have one point
[4:52:49] 1 1.1 million here
[4:52:53] you put 1.1 million
[4:52:57] 1.12 million
[4:53:11] I'm sorry. Could you say that a little
[4:53:13] louder for me, please?
[4:53:14] >> Death service.
[4:53:24] » Page 65.
[4:53:28] >> 65.
[4:53:30] >> 75.
[4:53:38] You have you have that page 75.
[4:53:51] » And this was just broken out
[4:53:55] the cost for this the whole picture.
[4:54:00] It's coming in.
[4:54:58] I guess since we're speaking about debt
[4:55:00] um is a topic to bring up but counc uh
[4:55:05] ask a button on time.
[4:55:08] So be aware in 23 um 24 and 24 um there
[4:55:14] was um physical uncertainty um and our
[4:55:18] S&P uh rating potentially could have
[4:55:21] been affected didn't at the time but
[4:55:24] negatively affected our interest rates
[4:55:26] increase which uh just for a quick
[4:55:29] example
[4:55:31] we have 21 million at 3.56%
[4:55:34] 15 million approximately 3.56%
[4:55:37] uh if you increase that by.5% if our
[4:55:40] rate goes down. This is just a
[4:55:42] hypothetical scenario
[4:55:45] it would increase our interest by 170
[4:55:48] 187k um in 2027 and that'll be
[4:55:52] additional years forward.
[4:55:54] >> So it's important that the council pass
[4:55:57] on time
[4:55:58] >> and that's and that also if you don't
[4:56:01] consider
[4:56:02] >> uh borrowing for 2026.
[4:56:05] that number and B.
[4:56:09] » This thing is
[4:56:12] it's important that we capture what this
[4:56:15] process is. Um the council
[4:56:21] wants to pass a budget on time. Council
[4:56:23] needs information, the relevant
[4:56:25] information to pass the budget. So if
[4:56:28] the budget doesn't pass on time
[4:56:32] based on the information that's given or
[4:56:34] not given and we need to, you know, hold
[4:56:37] that in appropriate context. I'm not one
[4:56:39] to, you know, quite honestly, we've had
[4:56:42] the scenarios where it has gotten to,
[4:56:45] you know, quite contentious in the
[4:56:48] process of trying to pass a budget. And
[4:56:51] I've worked really hard to try to get us
[4:56:53] to a point where we could. Anyone that
[4:56:55] is here at that time knows that.
[4:56:58] But that still is under,
[4:57:01] you know, right now I don't want to, you
[4:57:03] know, have this level of pressure to
[4:57:06] pass a budget and essentially the clock
[4:57:09] gets run out without the information
[4:57:10] that we need.
[4:57:12] And that's kind of where I'm feeling
[4:57:14] right now. So, as much as I can
[4:57:16] appreciate your clearance for us why we
[4:57:18] need to pass a budget, we need
[4:57:20] information.
[4:57:22] And there's important information that I
[4:57:23] have yet to receive that can change the
[4:57:25] landscape of this budget.
[4:57:39] » I mean this is a lot for us to digest.
[4:57:43] I'll be honest.
[4:57:45] So I ask that um we look at this and if
[4:57:49] you have questions u please email them
[4:57:52] out or be ready to
[4:57:56] ask questions when we come back
[4:57:59] >> to make suggestion or recommendation in
[4:58:01] terms of the ways
[4:58:05] increase you looked at the the last page
[4:58:08] in terms of the refuge and trash her
[4:58:13] >> it's going up to $9.5 million
[4:58:15] from $7.2 million.
[4:58:18] So that's an increase of $2.2 million
[4:58:21] right there.
[4:58:22] >> I think we got this on October 1st.
[4:58:25] >> We got it with the budget.
[4:58:27] >> It was the first thing that came to us.
[4:58:28] So it was October 1st. Yeah.
[4:58:31] >> Just saying that we all had it for
[4:58:33] >> So I as 28 days,
[4:58:35] >> but this is the first time we're
[4:58:36] discussing it. I ask you to
[4:58:43] dive into it and if you have question
[4:58:47] submit it
[4:58:49] ahead of time.
[4:58:52] Um
[4:58:54] let me jump into capital. Oh sorry.
[4:58:57] >> Um so Mr.
[4:58:59] the of Mr. from Are we going to email
[4:59:04] him the question that I raised or are
[4:59:05] you going to ask him to come here on
[4:59:07] Thursday?
[4:59:08] >> Well, we can email the question
[4:59:10] >> and if you would like to
[4:59:13] have
[4:59:14] >> Okay. Yeah. But um we can we try to get
[4:59:19] the questions
[4:59:26] with
[4:59:30] capital.
[4:59:33] » Yes.
[4:59:45] » Sure. have it.
[4:59:52] » Yeah, we do have a copy here. It should
[4:59:54] be in your package.
[4:59:59] » Take the package.
[5:00:00] >> We just got it today. I mean, this one
[5:00:02] was was here today.
[5:00:03] >> This is where couple couple days ago.
[5:00:05] >> Okay, I've got it. It was It was part of
[5:00:08] Yeah, I think it was today's package.
[5:00:10] This
[5:00:24] You can also turn up to page 91
[5:00:34] and then that will help guide us along.
[5:00:50] Now there we haven't talked about
[5:00:53] capital
[5:01:00] work recommendation.
[5:01:13] Yeah,
[5:01:14] >> thank you. I would like to say that I
[5:01:16] believe each department was as cut back
[5:01:19] on but through very necessities that
[5:01:22] they need to make the department
[5:01:23] official of the department. This whole
[5:01:27] list, the most department has been
[5:01:32] scrutinized and cut back already. I'm
[5:01:34] just putting that out there
[5:01:44] and we've had presentations on each one.
[5:01:46] >> We've had presentations on all of this.
[5:01:50] >> I wrote lots of notes as we were hearing
[5:01:52] from the department heads.
[5:02:13] What was the date of our first budget
[5:02:14] meeting? Anybody remember?
[5:02:18] >> 14th.
[5:02:22] » October 14th.
[5:02:24] What?
[5:02:25] >> Four.
[5:02:29] » Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I was just listening.
[5:02:34] » I think it might have been the seven.
[5:02:37] >> I'm just trying to find notes.
[5:02:38] >> I remember being here.
[5:02:42] >> I don't know.
[5:02:44] >> Yes. Happy birthday.
[5:02:52] I'm gonna have to go by memory. Oh, no.
[5:02:55] I know. Was I probably took notes on the
[5:03:05] » Oh, it's
[5:03:54] Are we
[5:03:55] updated?
[5:03:59] But we got this one.
[5:04:07] » Yeah.
[5:04:09] >> Oh, sorry.
[5:04:23] » I have a hard copy.
[5:04:25] >> I don't need a hard copy.
[5:04:26] >> No,
[5:04:27] >> I have it. No, we know you don't need
[5:04:29] it.
[5:04:29] >> Okay. I didn't know. I heard my name.
[5:04:32] >> They need They want to run a copy off of
[5:04:34] your copy.
[5:04:35] >> Oh, sure.
[5:04:36] >> Okay.
[5:04:57] probably
[5:05:03] does anyone state
[5:05:06] that
[5:05:20] these were all
[5:05:21] Yeah.
[5:05:52] There are some recommended changes. So I
[5:05:54] ask
[5:05:56] you one of the school changed and
[5:06:01] be with the to the board has you making
[5:06:05] some changes there.
[5:06:06] >> Yeah, I think it's supposed to take all
[5:06:07] the
[5:06:13] sheet record
[5:06:15] there. Whatever.
[5:06:16] >> I might stay. Yeah, just take them off
[5:06:18] and then I might stay with them.
[5:06:29] » He's getting a new seat.
[5:06:33] I'm sorry.
[5:06:36] And I still might say true.
[5:06:55] That's empty.
[5:06:57] >> It's empty. I think unless they filled
[5:06:59] it recently
[5:07:11] here.
[5:07:14] >> How's your wife doing?
[5:07:16] >> Um, good. Good for now.
[5:07:18] >> Good for now.
[5:07:19] >> Yeah.
[5:07:21] >> Coming right up.
[5:07:24] >> I will tell.
[5:07:25] >> Absolutely.
[5:07:27] It's exciting. My phone just
[5:07:30] >> Oh jeez. Oh my gosh. Don't tell us that.
[5:07:36] » Your first one, right? So your phone
[5:07:38] will ring, but then you go to the
[5:07:40] hospital 17 hours later. No.
[5:07:52] » Hopefully hopefully it's on the weekend.
[5:07:54] >> That's so special. So so special.
[5:07:56] >> Oh, that'd be great.
[5:08:01] » Do you have any like family beds going
[5:08:04] on about the day?
[5:08:07] >> Everyone's saying Halloween.
[5:08:09] >> Halloween.
[5:08:11] That's always fun.
[5:08:12] >> Uh my wife
[5:08:17] soon.
[5:08:17] >> Oh, I have a friend.
[5:08:21] Actually, since we're on a breakish and
[5:08:23] I also love
[5:08:44] you going to be back in the morning. I
[5:08:47] said I hear the big the mayor's
[5:08:49] statement about staffing
[5:09:06] kids from this is actually
[5:09:12] That's what
[5:09:16] these are
[5:09:25] set up by
[5:09:30] your
[5:09:31] >> Thank you.
[5:09:42] I think I was on
[5:09:45] >> I said it was maybe my fifth birthday.
[5:09:52] Halloween's a good time to have
[5:10:11] » seriously
[5:10:12] >> I'm going to get I'm going to get Billy.
[5:10:15] >> What the heck, man?
[5:10:22] You're trying to get rid of all those
[5:10:23] equipment pieces.
[5:10:24] >> No, this tutorial I did it the wrong
[5:10:26] way.
[5:10:27] >> Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.
[5:10:28] >> What I said not to do was so the
[5:10:32] opposite of
[5:10:34] putting in there. So, we'll we'll we'll
[5:10:36] discuss the capital.
[5:10:41] » Okay.
[5:10:45] Most of the five if I may ask because u
[5:10:50] if you can walk us through the change
[5:10:51] and then we um I can ask member to align
[5:10:55] themselves
[5:10:57] if they have any changes to go one by
[5:10:59] one.
[5:11:00] >> Yes, if you don't mind please. Let's say
[5:11:01] starting in parks and property
[5:11:03] management their recommendation was to
[5:11:05] reduce the regular
[5:11:09] from two.
[5:11:10] the expectation took into consideration
[5:11:12] comments we heard from the rail um about
[5:11:16] considerations for future expenses. I
[5:11:18] know this will not impact our current
[5:11:20] budget but sincerely need to be more
[5:11:22] intentional with capital projects ever
[5:11:26] since I've been on the council. It's
[5:11:28] always been interpreted as
[5:11:30] the flag that works at blunt check. I
[5:11:32] don't think we've ever considered it.
[5:11:34] social capital projects moving forward.
[5:11:37] We need to be more dependent tomorrow
[5:11:38] with evaluating these in our current
[5:11:43] financial states. It's we need to ensure
[5:11:46] that the vehicles we are bringing down
[5:11:48] reflect um future financial implications
[5:11:52] on having this debt this
[5:11:57] » so do you want to can we talk about them
[5:11:59] as we go down Mr. Mudarin or do you want
[5:12:01] to question yes
[5:12:03] >> Mr. Williams.
[5:12:04] >> Yes.
[5:12:05] >> Um, so I just will comment um because I
[5:12:08] did talk to our parks director about
[5:12:10] capital and the equipment is very very
[5:12:12] old uh that we have. Um and also he has
[5:12:16] to do the plowing like for example over
[5:12:18] at Stein. It's not just central. I mean
[5:12:20] he's at the parks having to do the
[5:12:22] plowing. So that one in particular I
[5:12:24] think is um is actually one that he
[5:12:28] mentioned to me is very very important
[5:12:30] to um because it's just very old. So
[5:12:32] we'd have to buy it next year maybe if
[5:12:34] we don't do it this year.
[5:12:36] >> Please go ahead.
[5:12:37] >> So um I also had to move one of them and
[5:12:41] in the 2020 um but for 2025 we um put in
[5:12:46] for two
[5:12:47] in additional in addition to that we
[5:12:49] also had another pad crew crew had to
[5:12:52] pick up file. So a total of three. I'm
[5:12:55] not sure why they differentiate between
[5:12:59] different type of truck, but last year's
[5:13:01] budget, capital budget, um was for three
[5:13:04] the purchase of three uh cab pickups
[5:13:07] with plows. So I removed one in this
[5:13:09] budget as well.
[5:13:12] >> May I say is that is that going to be
[5:13:15] delivered
[5:13:17] next year? almost capital last year.
[5:13:22] >> We're taking delivery bills.
[5:13:24] >> We took delivery bills. So those
[5:13:26] >> usually by time we get the money
[5:13:31] for May, June.
[5:13:35] um happen on an annual basis. Um and
[5:13:39] once the orders go in
[5:13:42] third, second, third, fourth quarter,
[5:13:44] usually takes about a year or so before
[5:13:46] you get the vehicle
[5:13:49] pick up.
[5:13:50] >> Yes. Garbage
[5:13:52] >> pick up with the
[5:13:54] >> F350 regular cab pick up with
[5:13:58] depends on the vehicle.
[5:13:59] >> Yeah.
[5:14:00] >> Okay. garbage trucks like in Europe.
[5:14:04] >> Pickup truck is different,
[5:14:06] >> right? So
[5:14:08] we we put these in last year. We must
[5:14:11] have them now. Thanks a you get a pickup
[5:14:13] truck on
[5:14:14] a different dealership.
[5:14:16] >> Well, some of it is not just going to a
[5:14:19] dealership, but you want it on a state
[5:14:21] contract for consolidated supply at the
[5:14:24] best price. Some of the vehicles are
[5:14:28] sold missile fleets which put down
[5:14:30] cheaper.
[5:14:32] It's not just going to the local dealer
[5:14:35] and taking something off the lot.
[5:14:37] >> So I guess
[5:14:38] >> I have to ask Paul specifically and
[5:14:41] >> yeah have we gotten these the ones from
[5:14:43] last year?
[5:14:46] >> I don't know because we've taken
[5:14:48] delivery.
[5:14:52] Can we uh make that put that on as a
[5:14:54] question please to ask um OS
[5:14:57] commissioner
[5:14:59] because and I I just want to echo
[5:15:01] because you know over the years we have
[5:15:02] been buying equipments like pickup
[5:15:05] trucks and you know all these
[5:15:06] equipments. So I don't feel it's it's a
[5:15:09] hard ask to delay a year. So that you
[5:15:13] know we need to you know some not asking
[5:15:17] for a a reduction and I'm just asking
[5:15:20] for a removal of everything and to kind
[5:15:23] of you know balance our finance and then
[5:15:26] move forward and then continue buying
[5:15:27] more equipment as we move into 2027
[5:15:30] 2028.
[5:15:34] » Specifically for the the cat.
[5:15:37] delivery for the uh capital order 2025.
[5:15:44] >> It would be good to have our last year's
[5:15:48] capital projects in front of you too cuz
[5:15:50] I think if you reference that then you
[5:15:52] know that puts us in a better position
[5:15:55] to look at some of that stuff. You mean
[5:15:56] our expense or
[5:15:58] >> so if we bought pickup trucks last year
[5:16:01] then that might change our position on
[5:16:04] do we need to get the pickup truck this
[5:16:06] year and having that information right
[5:16:08] there readily available to to access
[5:16:10] probably will be helpful as a part of
[5:16:13] this conversation.
[5:16:23] No, these uh these pickup truck from
[5:16:25] last year. This is on the parks or
[5:16:29] >> parks. This one says under parks.
[5:16:31] >> Yes. So last year last year on the park
[5:16:34] probably man we order two
[5:16:38] >> two and then another
[5:16:40] >> and then we order a two tab with flour.
[5:16:45] So they combine it for a year.
[5:16:51] how I can
[5:16:54] purchase any
[5:16:57] problem.
[5:17:00] » So yes, we last year. Yes. So if you com
[5:17:06] could you print out last year's capital
[5:17:08] for us, man.
[5:17:09] >> Yes.
[5:17:09] >> Yeah. Therefore, just for reference.
[5:17:14] » Okay. So that's why you know
[5:17:18] we always keep ordering machine and
[5:17:21] vehicle
[5:17:24] >> and mine was to the wrong on that line
[5:17:28] the changes under me were the only
[5:17:30] change was the total
[5:17:33] that in that line so I did I did cut
[5:17:36] down on
[5:17:37] >> so pickup truck see the 70,000
[5:17:46] Do you want to save it as?
[5:17:49] >> Yeah.
[5:17:50] >> Oh, you're on this now, right? No. Here.
[5:17:56] » It's pretty good. I believe that's
[5:17:59] >> Yes.
[5:18:05] I mean, look at what we ordered.
[5:18:08] We had budgeted sorry for 2025
[5:18:12] >> 241,000.
[5:18:14] >> Yes.
[5:18:14] >> For parts as opposed to
[5:18:17] >> I will be I would be comfortable to
[5:18:19] align with um dropping one this year and
[5:18:23] hopefully we can um
[5:18:26] add that back in 2026
[5:18:29] for 2027.
[5:18:34] » I'll be comfortable with that.
[5:18:38] Oh, our next one is a ground master
[5:18:40] mower
[5:18:43] to flip it out. He's the only person.
[5:18:46] >> Yeah, the only thing I had was minus one
[5:18:48] pickup truck. The rest
[5:18:50] >> I'm on. We're on the ground master now
[5:18:53] for 105. And it looks like you removed
[5:18:55] it.
[5:18:57] >> All those changes crossed them out. The
[5:18:58] only changing parts is I asked them to
[5:19:01] do that.
[5:19:02] >> You want to go back?
[5:19:04] >> Four times ago and it never came out. So
[5:19:06] only one cap.
[5:19:08] only one capture.
[5:19:12] » I mean, I think it's listening to Mr.
[5:19:14] Mistake is extremely important the way
[5:19:16] we maintain our
[5:19:18] >> A diamond, C diamond, B diamond, you
[5:19:21] know, in our home park. So, I think
[5:19:23] those things are
[5:19:24] >> with the more
[5:19:25] >> Yeah, maintenance is extremely
[5:19:26] important.
[5:19:29] >> Much bigger fields that we're that we're
[5:19:32] maintaining.
[5:19:34] >> Mr. Somebody just moved to the next one.
[5:19:39] >> Collection is reducing the number
[5:19:43] practice from two to one. Now is a good
[5:19:46] point to kind of um remind the council
[5:19:51] of the mayor's previous comments about I
[5:19:54] understand the cycle of
[5:19:57] bringing the vehicles vehicles in and
[5:19:59] old vehicles out if we are going to make
[5:20:02] these determinations as we're continuing
[5:20:04] on our conversations understanding that
[5:20:06] there will be a cost specifically to
[5:20:09] maintain those vehicles. I think also
[5:20:11] part of it is just approach.
[5:20:14] I think we can be intentional with just
[5:20:16] access and then servicing not
[5:20:21] continue on this path at least for this
[5:20:23] year. But I did want to just highlight
[5:20:25] that as a consideration. We need to make
[5:20:27] sure we're into account
[5:20:37] » discussion on this. I also
[5:20:39] >> this is the annual
[5:20:41] >> and I did last year what you purchased
[5:20:43] too
[5:20:47] and this is
[5:20:49] the share one.
[5:20:52] >> Yeah, he he definitely mentioned buying
[5:20:53] two per year when he presented to us
[5:20:56] >> and we don't get them for a couple of
[5:20:58] years, right?
[5:21:00] >> I didn't write a note on that.
[5:21:01] >> No, I'm sorry.
[5:21:04] These are at least the only
[5:21:07] we get them um usually they're model.
[5:21:27] » Okay.
[5:21:31] Safari myself um
[5:21:40] with Patrick you what's your position on
[5:21:43] this
[5:21:44] >> on the real load packet?
[5:21:45] >> Yes.
[5:21:46] >> I mean if you want to just get one
[5:21:50] that's okay. Again we're this is going
[5:21:52] to be influencing next year's
[5:21:54] >> Yes. So
[5:21:55] >> I I I'm okay with um with keeping one
[5:22:03] » unless we want to go back to Mr. Leond
[5:22:05] and
[5:22:06] >> you know
[5:22:08] I'm on track for two please.
[5:22:10] >> Yeah
[5:22:11] >> only because when they break down
[5:22:13] >> Yeah. I mean it's going to affect
[5:22:15] a lot of stuff from the city if we don't
[5:22:17] have enough place garbage trucks.
[5:22:21] Okay. So I'll stay with two.
[5:22:24] Oh, currently the guy picked up the the
[5:22:28] trucks.
[5:22:36] » Yeah, my thought, you know,
[5:22:39] as we in as increasing
[5:22:42] fees for people, I want to make sure
[5:22:44] that we're
[5:22:48] that it shows up in the service that
[5:22:50] they're getting. Um,
[5:22:52] >> thank you. That's
[5:22:56] Thank you.
[5:23:00] » Mr. McLast,
[5:23:14] » did we actually buy
[5:23:19] a general fun?
[5:23:20] >> So, we did have two last year.
[5:23:22] How many did we take out of service? Did
[5:23:24] we I think we take two out.
[5:23:27] >> They sell them sometimes.
[5:23:31] » Speaking of Mr. MC, I think basically
[5:23:33] because I did ask specifically about
[5:23:35] parks when before we started the whole
[5:23:37] budget process when we first got
[5:23:40] >> Oh, you're on trash.
[5:23:42] >> I'm sorry. I thought you do with parks.
[5:23:45] >> Yeah. No, sorry. I thought you were not.
[5:23:48] >> No, it's okay.
[5:23:49] >> I guess I guess the question is how many
[5:23:51] do we have? How many does he like to
[5:23:52] keep in stock or keep running? Um I
[5:23:56] thought he mentioned that sometimes he
[5:23:58] sells to other municipalities.
[5:24:02] >> I guess how many I'm comfortable keeping
[5:24:05] two.
[5:24:06] >> Okay.
[5:24:07] >> But that's the end of my statement.
[5:24:13] » I'd like to go with the two.
[5:24:14] >> Okay.
[5:24:17] » Yeah. See
[5:24:19] you.
[5:24:22] So far,
[5:24:26] » I can support the tool
[5:24:28] for increasing fees.
[5:24:36] » Okay, let's keep going. Um, smart build
[5:24:41] upgrade.
[5:24:43] My consideration for that is talking
[5:24:45] about the pay of investments
[5:24:48] and the financial nature that we're
[5:24:49] going to be addressing
[5:24:51] and trying to consider words. Uh and
[5:24:56] these funds that we put out there are
[5:24:57] community challenges of anyone.
[5:25:00] I think we're highlighting the issues
[5:25:02] that we've been experiencing at Kings
[5:25:03] Road. I understand that this will as
[5:25:06] specifically help promote safety. I
[5:25:09] think we're trying to help ensure the
[5:25:10] tax burden doesn't push people out of
[5:25:12] the city or have people making very
[5:25:16] difficult financial considerations. I
[5:25:18] don't disagree with the importance of
[5:25:21] it. I'm saying we can absolutely
[5:25:23] consider a job.
[5:25:26] I I was of the same thought. I I'm
[5:25:29] thinking you guys correct me if I'm
[5:25:31] wrong that this is our like there's a
[5:25:33] grant that's tied to this.
[5:25:35] >> Correct.
[5:25:37] >> No.
[5:25:37] So, so we don't have so we don't
[5:25:40] need to. Okay.
[5:25:42] >> All right. Then yeah, then I would rely
[5:25:44] on Mr. Williams on that.
[5:25:46] >> May would
[5:25:48] this fall on the credit from the state
[5:25:52] available?
[5:25:55] >> The grant is going to expand the network
[5:25:57] into Belleview. This will replace the
[5:26:01] nodes in downtown go Central State
[5:26:05] Street, Hamilton.
[5:26:07] If
[5:26:07] >> we don't update those, the police
[5:26:10] overtime is going to go up. This network
[5:26:14] and the camera data provides that
[5:26:18] support level of deterrence and
[5:26:20] documentation
[5:26:21] of criminal activity plus the traffic
[5:26:24] counts
[5:26:27] and other things and it's very
[5:26:29] shortsighted to look
[5:26:34] if I can respond to that. So those in
[5:26:37] place are they functioning or are we
[5:26:39] trying to upgrade their functionality?
[5:26:42] >> They're the end of their useful life and
[5:26:45] some components within it are not
[5:26:47] supported on the platform.
[5:26:50] >> So I just asked what's their end of
[5:26:52] shelf life then if that's not an issue
[5:26:55] then we should put it on here.
[5:26:58] So yeah, and uh what is it? M live
[5:27:03] >> shelf life.
[5:27:06] What do you want to say or can we follow
[5:27:08] up with that?
[5:27:09] >> I think I made my position clear as some
[5:27:16] can follow up on an
[5:27:18] uh fiction.
[5:27:24] This is the PD or it what they will
[5:27:26] consist it
[5:27:28] >> PD
[5:27:30] it supports.
[5:27:31] >> So how do you tell these um
[5:27:35] Mr.
[5:27:38] If you don't mind, you just want to
[5:27:39] repeat that you just so we can get that
[5:27:42] question
[5:27:43] live or to point these are
[5:27:48] differential increases to the
[5:27:50] functionality of smart node features. Um
[5:27:54] want to get clarification of the
[5:27:57] individual
[5:27:59] life.
[5:27:59] >> Yes. Yes. U Thank you. because the data
[5:28:03] is definitely going to be important as
[5:28:04] we continue to try to figure out traffic
[5:28:07] caling um situations
[5:28:11] measures I guess situations. So again it
[5:28:15] ended up there to take it out but under
[5:28:18] like Mr. making my notes, it was
[5:28:21] mustave, promote safety,
[5:28:23] >> important for city. So, um I I would be
[5:28:28] in favor of leaving it in there.
[5:28:32] >> And you would also add one install if
[5:28:34] that helps the decision process.
[5:28:38] >> Thank you.
[5:28:40] >> We can look at 2025.
[5:28:44] There wasn't anything.
[5:28:46] >> No, not for smartphone.
[5:28:48] Oh,
[5:28:49] >> what?
[5:28:49] >> We're talking about um
[5:28:52] >> what are you?
[5:28:54] >> Police.
[5:28:54] >> Oh, you're on police.
[5:28:55] >> SUVs.
[5:28:57] >> For some reason, I had cut one SUV and
[5:28:59] one unlocked.
[5:29:02] >> Let me look at my notes.
[5:29:04] >> And somehow it came for that amount of
[5:29:05] money. that that might have been based
[5:29:06] on the conversation that the chief said
[5:29:08] if I remember correctly he said that
[5:29:10] they'd like to have them but we they
[5:29:13] would work with you know yes
[5:29:14] >> our recommendation so that's what we
[5:29:16] said that
[5:29:16] >> they were not pulling to us the
[5:29:19] reduction
[5:29:20] >> on the vehicles except for the evidence
[5:29:23] >> yeah the evidence storage is essential
[5:29:26] >> I'm go back to the evidence car
[5:29:29] >> yeah let's stay with the car
[5:29:42] So last year in terms of the police
[5:29:45] department and the vehicle that we got
[5:29:47] purchased, there were two SUVs, three
[5:29:51] hybrid sedans, and three hybrid vans.
[5:29:55] >> So
[5:30:00] Um,
[5:30:03] but um,
[5:30:05] why would we do the SUV
[5:30:08] in an unmarked car?
[5:30:20] » Would that align us to 4:15?
[5:30:23] Yeah.
[5:30:25] One at one.
[5:30:29] Mr.
[5:30:40] » Yeah, I don't have a problem.
[5:30:45] U
[5:30:48] look, I'm looking at the wrong color.
[5:30:49] Sorry.
[5:30:55] » Those you Were
[5:30:58] you doing one reduction in SUV, one
[5:31:00] reduction in
[5:31:08] the vehicles by half?
[5:31:18] » There's one thing that we don't have
[5:31:19] clear information on. This is grouped.
[5:31:21] It's all the vehicles. So I we all know
[5:31:24] the cost of the SUV versus the evidence
[5:31:26] car versus the unmarked cars.
[5:31:35] It's cut off.
[5:31:40] » It's all cut off, but it's
[5:31:44] actually
[5:31:45] >> okay.
[5:31:46] >> 50 mark,
[5:31:52] but that those are the figures. I don't
[5:31:53] know which one for
[5:31:56] it is in our capital. Right.
[5:31:59] >> So, we need to know exactly if we're
[5:32:01] changing and removing vehicles, how much
[5:32:03] we need to actually
[5:32:05] >> remove based on the cost of the vehicle.
[5:32:12] My follow is if we're not going to even
[5:32:14] have the discussion of evaluating
[5:32:19] these higher department funding, which
[5:32:20] is one of the larger contri
[5:32:23] contributions we currently are. I think
[5:32:25] it's very reasonable to say driving
[5:32:29] vehicles for a little longer.
[5:32:34] » I think their original need was 13
[5:32:36] vehicles, but in hearing their budget um
[5:32:39] at the request that the departments had,
[5:32:41] they went down to nine vehicles that
[5:32:43] they asked for or they ended up with in
[5:32:46] this budget. But they basically
[5:32:48] essentially said everything they needed
[5:32:50] for team vehicles,
[5:32:57] » but at the same time they did mention in
[5:33:00] order to make any adjustment.
[5:33:02] >> Yes,
[5:33:02] >> they can continue to use the vehicle
[5:33:04] that they have.
[5:33:06] >> They did say that
[5:33:07] >> until it's not like they they have to get it. They can do as much as
[5:33:13] they can with until the next year.
[5:33:15] >> Yeah. The distinction that needs to be
[5:33:17] made is like so if we're talking about
[5:33:20] you have a S you have a S uh you right
[5:33:24] now that's running and you would like a
[5:33:29] newer one. There's a difference between
[5:33:31] replacing that and I'm I'm
[5:33:34] leaning into definitely holding off on
[5:33:36] replacing existing vehicles that are
[5:33:38] functioning. Um, but and then the
[5:33:40] distinction would be like the evidence
[5:33:42] vehicle I think is something that we're
[5:33:44] all saying like they need that, right?
[5:33:46] We're all saying we that because that's
[5:33:47] not something I think that they're
[5:33:48] necessarily replacing just based on what
[5:33:50] I remember the conversation was. So if
[5:33:54] we're saying we want to buy that, we
[5:33:56] don't need to purchase this.
[5:33:59] The conversation is different when there
[5:34:01] is something a vehicle that's existing
[5:34:03] and functioning right now.
[5:34:06] It's not the same level of urgency, I
[5:34:07] would say. And that's where all of the
[5:34:10] departments that we're looking at.
[5:34:14] >> Mr. 273,000
[5:34:22] is 133
[5:34:26] » 131. Yeah.
[5:34:33] But we don't know if those numbers are
[5:34:34] right until we find out if that's
[5:34:38] pretty clear. Um
[5:34:42] being a cheap and what the cost of that
[5:34:45] is
[5:34:45] >> right.
[5:34:54] So can can we get that uh as a as a as a
[5:34:59] question
[5:35:01] the cost breakdown
[5:35:03] just
[5:35:05] but you don't know which
[5:35:06] >> correct
[5:35:08] >> so uh we can we can put that as a
[5:35:10] question break down for the
[5:35:15] vehicle.
[5:35:18] All right, let's uh move. Okay, we can
[5:35:21] move uh here. Evidence storage.
[5:35:29] Um
[5:35:30] in this case, they mentioned that every
[5:35:33] single as piece of their storage is
[5:35:35] already filled.
[5:35:36] >> Um including uh they needed the freezer,
[5:35:40] the HVAC were completely out of space.
[5:35:43] um the retention
[5:35:46] they can't get rid of evidence because
[5:35:48] they have to align with retention rates
[5:35:51] that must be like a state federal
[5:35:54] >> new law they have no
[5:35:56] >> longer so they they absolutely said the
[5:35:59] evidence storage
[5:36:01] was essential
[5:36:02] >> we all agree
[5:36:03] >> I'm going to respectfully ask us
[5:36:06] this and cut this
[5:36:08] >> yeah I think we all
[5:36:10] have this additional
[5:36:15] that
[5:36:19] » even chief was talking about I don't
[5:36:21] know if it was the mayor would have
[5:36:22] these units that they can put out the of
[5:36:25] the police station with storage so it
[5:36:29] won't take up room in a parking lot or
[5:36:30] whatever and maybe eventually when that
[5:36:33] fills up finding an actual building
[5:36:34] where things might be able to go but
[5:36:36] this I think it's a good idea.
[5:36:38] >> Yeah. The next the next item is on
[5:36:40] regular streets regular pick up um with
[5:36:44] cloud tool
[5:36:48] recommendation here if
[5:36:52] one I'm going to do and I'm going to
[5:36:56] answer it to one
[5:37:13] Not small but I I I couldn't decrease
[5:37:16] that. Knowing all the small streets that
[5:37:19] they get on
[5:37:19] >> these are regular cab
[5:37:22] two
[5:37:23] >> last year.
[5:37:28] » They spent 1.33
[5:37:32] million last year and they're asking for
[5:37:34] 52 525 this year. They're different
[5:37:36] trucks.
[5:37:37] >> No, I'm just saying I'm looking at the
[5:37:39] total
[5:37:40] capital.
[5:37:41] >> I think the importance of smaller trucks
[5:37:42] in the city and that might even cut down
[5:37:45] on who we
[5:37:47] >> Oh,
[5:37:48] >> yeah. Well, then if you look at the year
[5:37:49] before, I can recall that we did order
[5:37:52] these small um small size um truck
[5:37:55] beating
[5:37:56] >> because we had we had issues with um a
[5:37:59] larger truck can't pass through the
[5:38:01] small street
[5:38:02] >> and then they were they were funding to
[5:38:05] buy a small um
[5:38:07] >> size.
[5:38:10] So a year or two ago, yes, we did.
[5:38:16] Just going back to the uh these
[5:38:18] vehicles, I have the numbers council.
[5:38:26] » So 78k for SUVs,
[5:38:30] >> 70
[5:38:31] >> 78K for SUVs.
[5:38:32] >> Mhm.
[5:38:34] >> 63
[5:38:35] for these vehicle,
[5:38:38] >> 53 for the unmarked,
[5:38:41] and then the parking was 37. Yeah,
[5:38:43] >> that's still 31.
[5:39:20] So engineering
[5:39:24] So there's two in streets.
[5:39:32] » Any other any other suggestion in
[5:39:34] regards to the regular care pickup with
[5:39:36] on the streets?
[5:39:42] » Well, I do have a question. And so we're talking about purchasing them on
[5:39:48] something under parts or one parts
[5:39:53] main.
[5:39:54] Do they share them ever?
[5:40:02] » I believe so.
[5:40:15] In that case, I could reduce it to
[5:40:20] » I can follow that logic.
[5:40:22] >> The snowpl
[5:40:28] supposed to be a really bad winter this
[5:40:29] winter, but
[5:40:30] >> Oh, that's this winter actually. Maybe
[5:40:32] next winter it won't be a bad winter.
[5:40:36] >> So, all we need is not promal streets of
[5:40:38] snow.
[5:40:40] That would get us nice phone calls.
[5:40:43] >> These are small.
[5:40:45] >> Oh, I thought they were I thought they
[5:40:46] were with a bomb.
[5:40:48] >> No,
[5:40:52] » we don't.
[5:40:54] >> It's totally different in terms of the
[5:40:56] bigger truck.
[5:40:56] >> It's not a snow plow. Got it.
[5:40:57] >> It is not. It flows small section or
[5:41:01] small street that is hard for the big
[5:41:03] trucks
[5:41:04] >> like the stockade probably would have
[5:41:07] need a smaller a smaller snow plow
[5:41:10] stockade.
[5:41:11] >> Well, we have been buying these over the
[5:41:13] years.
[5:41:22] I'm sticking with two. Yes. Thank you.
[5:41:24] >> I just want to
[5:41:30] » I'll stick I'll stick with two. Yeah.
[5:41:32] >> Okay. All right. Let's move on. Next.
[5:41:36] Electric and
[5:41:40] engineering.
[5:41:42] We have
[5:41:43] >> Mhm.
[5:41:48] » electric vehicle charing station.
[5:41:53] $100,000.
[5:42:10] This had to do with the transition in
[5:42:12] the parking thing right from link well
[5:42:14] uh to link well from charge point
[5:42:17] >> I believe for those transition
[5:42:21] engineering
[5:42:24] >> I'm not sure
[5:42:26] >> isn't it's going to
[5:42:31] fall
[5:42:32] >> we're set up there these were this was
[5:42:34] Mr. Wallen's request. Um, and the note
[5:42:36] that I wrote was that this whole
[5:42:38] transition that we're doing in the
[5:42:40] parking
[5:42:42] um,
[5:42:43] no it wasn't I'm sorry it's not parking.
[5:42:45] It's it's any any electrical vehicle
[5:42:48] charging station right now that are
[5:42:49] charge point, you know, that's what you
[5:42:52] have to have your credit, you know, and
[5:42:55] now we're moving into something called
[5:42:57] link well um from charge point. And so
[5:43:01] these charging stations were going to I
[5:43:04] just wrote notes while Mr. Wallen was
[5:43:06] talking, but that's I can't tell you all
[5:43:08] the technology.
[5:43:09] >> Put those new ones.
[5:43:11] >> Oh, they're okay. Well, they're probably
[5:43:13] in one year's budget, but
[5:43:15] >> those are the DC fast charges.
[5:43:17] >> Oh, nice.
[5:43:19] >> I think so. Mr. Bman neighborhoods
[5:43:24] >> as I recall these stations are going to
[5:43:26] be at the golf course as I recall
[5:43:28] because currently department
[5:43:32] um stage the golf course with a total of
[5:43:36] I think
[5:43:36] >> four.
[5:43:39] >> We've had those. Yeah.
[5:43:40] >> Yeah. He was saying
[5:43:41] >> these are admission in addition to that.
[5:43:43] >> That's what he told us.
[5:43:45] >> But not at the golf course.
[5:43:46] >> At the golf course.
[5:43:48] >> Why would they need additional
[5:43:50] >> That's incorrect.
[5:43:51] >> That's not That's not He told us he
[5:43:52] wanted them in neighborhoods because a
[5:43:54] lot of individuals don't have garages or
[5:43:56] even
[5:43:57] >> He said that's considered later. He
[5:43:58] didn't say the need because you have to
[5:44:00] be able to figure out where to put them.
[5:44:02] That's something he said we consider
[5:44:03] later. He distinctly said these
[5:44:06] clarification on
[5:44:08] >> He was saying he was saying They don't.
[5:44:11] >> Okay. I was going to say because we have
[5:44:12] the whole facility that has all of our
[5:44:15] um we bought 62
[5:44:17] >> entirely separate mistake.
[5:44:18] >> Yeah.
[5:44:21] >> Our program has charging for golf carts.
[5:44:24] There are electric vehicle charging
[5:44:26] stations in the parking lot of golf.
[5:44:29] >> Probably just four, right?
[5:44:32] >> Two stations, four,
[5:44:34] >> right? And he said these were in
[5:44:35] addition to that definitely. Let's try
[5:44:38] to find. Sorry.
[5:44:40] >> No, no, no. So, I was going to say, so
[5:44:42] >> we'll get we'll get clarification, but
[5:44:44] that's a simple thing because if we're
[5:44:46] saying that they're going to go to the
[5:44:48] golf course, then are are you supporting
[5:44:52] it? Yes or no? And if not, then we get
[5:44:55] that information. Mr. Wild was talking
[5:44:57] about moving into the neighborhoods,
[5:44:59] trying to find place to say it, put them
[5:45:01] at. I suggested that that would be a
[5:45:03] good place to partner with the school
[5:45:04] district because schools are in the
[5:45:05] neighborhood and that's the conversation
[5:45:07] that we had.
[5:45:08] >> That's right. I remember that.
[5:45:09] >> Yes.
[5:45:11] >> Neighborhood Lisa for direct member
[5:45:15] for
[5:45:17] >> a golf course
[5:45:19] >> and I gave you um there was a number of
[5:45:22] them going to be there. So I did make a
[5:45:24] reduction in that and I actually spoke
[5:45:26] with Mr. Wall and he felt that there was
[5:45:28] some place that was um you know
[5:45:32] business by hand.
[5:45:35] >> Excuse me. Going back to that sentence
[5:45:39] the council on
[5:45:41] the point some of the questions that
[5:45:46] releasing the vehicle private station
[5:45:49] 50%
[5:45:53] and I'll be able to change all existing
[5:45:55] charge point stations
[5:45:57] charging city commercial street.
[5:46:01] So either one or the other.
[5:46:03] >> Either one of the other main
[5:46:06] >> um city lot or
[5:46:09] think about a commercial which is in
[5:46:11] street
[5:46:13] locations but
[5:46:15] >> I was he said
[5:46:18] we need to clarify that part.
[5:46:19] >> So can we have can have can have can have can have we have that
[5:46:21] question please
[5:46:23] can we can we go to that to verify?
[5:46:27] >> Yes. Yes. just follow up with verify.
[5:46:31] Miss Michael, can you also u
[5:46:33] >> follow up too to make sure that uh we
[5:46:36] capture that
[5:46:40] » the location
[5:46:42] and then uh the next one is a firehouse.
[5:46:44] Um
[5:46:45] >> yes, and I don't know why that's there, but
[5:46:49] that's for group repair. So that stays
[5:46:51] in
[5:46:58] The next one is signage.
[5:47:01] >> I I don't have a problem removing that.
[5:47:06] >> Central Park way finding signage.
[5:47:08] >> Yeah, we can figure out.
[5:47:20] » Oh, some stuff already got taken out.
[5:47:25] Yeah, I I I would I would join the M
[5:47:28] tour on this and I said we put this off
[5:47:31] for a year.
[5:47:32] >> The signage.
[5:47:33] >> Yeah, we do have a couple signing. We
[5:47:36] can live with those until you know
[5:47:41] maybe there are grants over there that
[5:47:43] can help.
[5:47:46] » Um
[5:47:48] my colleagues on this one.
[5:48:00] Mr. Williams, you take
[5:48:03] >> part of my original.
[5:48:09] » Oh, you did. Okay. It was It's not on
[5:48:12] here, so she Okay,
[5:48:16] Patrick.
[5:48:18] And
[5:48:19] >> if you want to take the signage out,
[5:48:21] that's fine.
[5:48:23] Um
[5:48:24] >> I think one of the things that we talked
[5:48:25] about seeing if we could get some money
[5:48:28] from the county maybe.
[5:48:31] >> No, we can ask.
[5:48:33] >> Oh, actually I crossed it out. I must
[5:48:35] have asked the question though and I
[5:48:39] crossed it out. So I must have gotten
[5:48:42] the answer from Mr. or from the chief I guess.
[5:48:48] >> No. Why would that be under?
[5:48:50] >> That's engineering. Yeah. Yeah, Chris definitely Mr. Wallen um must have
[5:48:55] vetoed that when I asked it during his
[5:48:57] presentation.
[5:48:58] >> Miss
[5:49:01] >> Okay. All right. Let's move to the um
[5:49:07] paving.
[5:49:10] >> I think that's essential.
[5:49:13] I don't know what other people hear
[5:49:15] about from residence, but
[5:49:19] » I would not want to take us off the
[5:49:20] paving schedule of the city.
[5:49:25] » Well, that's not what Mr. said. He said
[5:49:27] this is in addition to nine bunch of
[5:49:29] grant projects. So, it's not that paving
[5:49:31] won't continue. I think this is just
[5:49:34] any projects exceeding.
[5:49:36] >> Well, I see. I don't have a note on
[5:49:38] that.
[5:49:39] >> Yeah, you mentioned it. This is on top
[5:49:42] of what the regular
[5:49:43] >> Oh, so in other words, paving must be in
[5:49:45] a different part of the budget, not just
[5:49:47] under capital.
[5:49:48] >> No, not chip.
[5:49:50] >> It's chip.
[5:49:52] >> It's what? I'm sorry. Can you tell me
[5:49:53] again? I can't hear you.
[5:49:54] >> Chip funding.
[5:49:57] » Oh, this is chips.
[5:49:59] >> No, this is
[5:50:03] so be okay if we don't have this paving
[5:50:06] money.
[5:50:06] >> I didn't see that.
[5:50:08] >> Street. Yeah, that's what I'm that's why
[5:50:11] I'm like I'm going to change my phone
[5:50:13] number with stuff. Yeah.
[5:50:16] >> No, no, let's let's speak. Let's
[5:50:18] >> I don't know about the resty, but that
[5:50:20] is definitely something we hear about
[5:50:22] all
[5:50:22] >> Let's disc let's um accurate
[5:50:25] information. So, the proposal is to
[5:50:27] borrow on 1.250
[5:50:30] 2550 to complement the chip funding
[5:50:34] >> that is all set aside for bathing
[5:50:36] >> but they must
[5:50:39] needing that money
[5:50:42] >> for bathing.
[5:50:43] >> Okay.
[5:50:45] >> Yeah. Okay. I mean,
[5:50:59] » what other
[5:51:11] street painting?
[5:51:16] Mr.
[5:51:17] >> Um I I find I'm leaving it there for now
[5:51:21] and
[5:51:23] revisiting based on new information that
[5:51:26] can get some.
[5:51:27] >> Okay. Uh
[5:51:30] >> there
[5:51:36] we have like that you know all the sub
[5:51:38] projects that we're looking at moving
[5:51:41] that you know we're going to have to
[5:51:43] borrow and we are
[5:51:46] artist talked about, you know,
[5:51:49] and all that. So, it may be more
[5:51:52] impactless is this year it's going to
[5:51:56] um in terms of what I took out, I you
[5:52:00] know, put that in mind and maybe and
[5:52:02] also kept in mind what we need to make
[5:52:04] sure that we kept our shoes clean and
[5:52:06] safe and all that.
[5:52:10] And that's it. Oh yes. Okay. Stuff is
[5:52:16] >> do we have anything else that we need to
[5:52:18] touch on?
[5:52:20] >> So are we going to get the revised mill?
[5:52:23] Let's will the finance go back and take
[5:52:25] our numbers and give us back a
[5:52:28] >> Are we going to do it tonight or
[5:52:30] >> that's I would not I would not recommend
[5:52:32] that.
[5:52:32] >> Okay.
[5:52:33] >> We have to be considerate
[5:52:36] for daytime. What time is it now?
[5:52:39] >> 11:00.
[5:52:40] >> Yes. So
[5:52:50] » no
[5:52:51] >> just in general we haven't talked about
[5:52:52] yet.
[5:53:05] No,
[5:53:07] for management
[5:53:10] services.
[5:53:13] >> Well, that
[5:53:16] we asked that to revisit that. So, we'll
[5:53:18] do that.
[5:53:20] >> And just for the record, you know, you
[5:53:22] know what information I'm asking for is
[5:53:25] the community block grant money in
[5:53:30] each department by each by each year
[5:53:33] going back to 20
[5:53:35] 21
[5:53:37] I believe that was the earlier sharer
[5:53:39] said um
[5:53:44] and any
[5:53:46] one report and then the second report
[5:53:47] would be any you know outstanding or I
[5:53:50] couldn't say outstanding but any
[5:53:52] invoices
[5:53:53] um that correspond to that money as well
[5:53:56] as when those invoices were
[5:54:01] clear. Mhm. So we have all the notes, we
[5:54:04] have everything. What I would ask um
[5:54:08] commission uh if we can can we mail us
[5:54:11] this these reports.
[5:54:13] Okay, we are not meeting tomorrow. So
[5:54:16] it' be nice for us to have it ahead of
[5:54:18] time tomorrow.
[5:54:20] Uh hope you can get all the u the report
[5:54:24] that was asked and all the answers for
[5:54:28] the question exam tomorrow.
[5:54:31] when we meet um correctly
[5:54:38] understanding available um regarding the
[5:54:41] invoices they might have fallen through
[5:54:43] and like I said
[5:54:47] for C2 but uh funding wise see
[5:54:52] report
[5:54:55] the operating budget
[5:54:56] >> okay well if there's not if the invoices
[5:55:00] are we're not able for example,
[5:55:02] invoices, then I would I'll be moving
[5:55:04] forward with the understanding that they
[5:55:07] won't be coming
[5:55:10] cuz how I mean
[5:55:13] sorry
[5:55:16] >> I mean I didn't take off um if I still
[5:55:18] would call to a recommendation that
[5:55:20] perhaps we able to start at like 4 or
[5:55:22] 3:30 on Thursday.
[5:55:24] >> We cannot start
[5:55:26] because we already have
[5:55:27] >> we note this out there.
[5:55:30] Um so we just forget so if we can get
[5:55:33] those reports those answers to the
[5:55:35] questions then tomorrow so uh we can
[5:55:38] better equip oursel when we come here to
[5:55:42] our city because the thing is if we get
[5:55:45] if we know that if we get the report
[5:55:47] funding that's there but then there's
[5:55:49] still questions and we hear out about
[5:55:51] invoices then the information that we
[5:55:54] get for the funding that there is can be
[5:55:57] somewhat use because the invoices is
[5:56:01] technically could impact that funding.
[5:56:04] You see what I'm saying? That's what I'm
[5:56:06] saying.
[5:56:07] >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So, we got
[5:56:08] to have it all.
[5:56:13] » Go ahead. Please have some.
[5:56:15] >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the
[5:56:17] group, as you know, you
[5:56:21] four votes four votes to uh pass the
[5:56:25] budget. That's without the P.
[5:56:28] Five votes with the local law adopted
[5:56:31] prior to it adopt
[5:56:34] four votes below the tax the mayor veto
[5:56:38] five votes
[5:56:41] just giving you that you know
[5:56:44] for meetings right now you've got a
[5:56:46] meeting scheduled for 5:30 was going to
[5:56:49] be the council meeting but they're
[5:56:53] recessing excuse me recessing the uh
[5:56:56] >> uh finance committee to that time. If
[5:56:59] you want to then convene the council
[5:57:03] meeting, the special council meeting to
[5:57:04] adopt the budget, you can do that and
[5:57:07] then recess that to the next day or to
[5:57:11] Saturday. Saturday meeting, the last
[5:57:13] day, you know, it's November 1st.
[5:57:17] So at this point I guess we'll leave it
[5:57:20] at 5:30 for the recess meeting finance
[5:57:24] and then if necessary go into the
[5:57:26] council special council meeting and if
[5:57:30] just recess it if you know to get the
[5:57:32] additional paperwork together to pass a
[5:57:35] budget because obviously um as you all
[5:57:39] know you know figures have to be added
[5:57:42] up have to be placed in the ordinance
[5:57:45] they have to be attached to the the
[5:57:47] ordinance itself and then of course then
[5:57:50] we have to deal with the issue of
[5:57:51] whether or not there's going to be
[5:57:54] tax.
[5:57:56] That's how is your availability Friday?
[5:58:03] » What if we can come in?
[5:58:06] >> I guess if we could be done if we don't
[5:58:08] get it Thursday
[5:58:12] because I will not be available to the
[5:58:13] entire meeting Thursday.
[5:58:17] » What does that mean?
[5:58:19] >> Yeah, but I would have to hand over
[5:58:22] step away.
[5:58:23] >> For how long? I mean, I don't know how
[5:58:25] long you going to step away. I mean, how
[5:58:26] long do you have time do you have?
[5:58:38] » So, how long do we have to be here?
[5:58:42] I I think that you know for me that
[5:58:45] leading I think we need everybody here
[5:58:48] to share an audience. I'm going to start
[5:58:50] touristly but I have to step away for an
[5:58:52] event and I have to come back.
[5:58:55] >> Oh, you're going to go to the public.
[5:58:56] >> Yes.
[5:58:58] >> So, um
[5:58:59] >> yeah, but in my in my abset in my absent
[5:59:02] continue.
[5:59:03] So, I just want to maybe set M.
[5:59:06] >> Can I say something though? Um we won't
[5:59:08] have we won't have a form of finance if
[5:59:10] this Patrick is going as well. So, that
[5:59:12] won't happen. Once we once you leave and
[5:59:14] she leaves, it's over. But then we can uh reset them and come back
[5:59:20] >> after event.
[5:59:21] >> Yeah.
[5:59:22] >> You want to see phone to come back?
[5:59:29] » I was hoping I was hoping that this
[5:59:31] didn't travel like this. We going to get
[5:59:33] you know more more corporation in terms
[5:59:36] of providing numbers but it didn't
[5:59:38] happen.
[5:59:39] >> And that's what I'm asking. I mean can
[5:59:41] we make oursel Friday and Saturday
[5:59:43] available? I can do Saturday. No,
[5:59:46] Friday. I can do Saturday. Saturday.
[5:59:50] >> Either way.
[5:59:52] >> Yes. Yes.
[5:59:52] >> Either way. Yeah.
[5:59:54] >> I do Saturday, but we I mean like
[5:59:56] Saturday is like the drop dead day. We
[5:59:58] got to get it done.
[6:00:00] >> Just I mean I could do Saturday evening
[6:00:02] as well. But again, no Friday. No Friday
[6:00:05] >> before midnight. So no Friday. No Friday.
[6:00:09] >> Well, I can do Friday. It doesn't
[6:00:12] >> I mean it's trick or treat.
[6:00:15] I mean
[6:00:18] >> I said so for meeting times your event
[6:00:21] start
[6:00:35] » I suggest we we we place the special
[6:00:38] city council meeting um for you know
[6:00:41] Saturday whatever time work circ
[6:00:45] that
[6:00:49] day
[6:00:49] >> a meeting on Thursday and then if
[6:00:51] necessary not getting it done on on
[6:00:54] Thursday then Saturday definitely. Well,
[6:00:57] yeah. My my only concern about that is I
[6:01:00] don't again I don't want us to be in a
[6:01:02] position where it's like well we're not
[6:01:04] getting information and the clock is
[6:01:06] running and then it's like Saturday.
[6:01:07] Well, we have to do it now and we can't
[6:01:10] provide the information right now
[6:01:11] because Saturday I don't want to be in
[6:01:13] that position
[6:01:14] >> just to be safe.
[6:01:17] >> We've been here going to be here on
[6:01:19] Saturday.
[6:01:21] >> Well, you're camping on Saturday.
[6:01:23] >> Yeah.
[6:01:25] Friday
[6:01:31] here on the weekend. So
[6:01:37] » now we need the numbers before Saturday
[6:01:40] and that's why I ask them to have the
[6:01:42] numbers available to us tomorrow
[6:01:44] >> and then we can come
[6:01:46] >> then we can individually look at the
[6:01:48] numbers and
[6:01:50] come back with recommendation and we can
[6:01:52] ask them to update the report
[6:01:55] and we we send it to us before Thursday.
[6:02:01] You'll have to text me.
[6:02:03] >> Okay.
[6:02:04] >> I'm thinking about I'm thinking we
[6:02:07] should send a notice out.
[6:02:09] >> A revised notice
[6:02:11] >> just a placeful
[6:02:12] >> for
[6:02:14] >> Friday too.
[6:02:15] >> Yeah, I think we should just do a
[6:02:16] placeful for Friday. I if we just
[6:02:20] reconvene and just in and out and you
[6:02:22] know for be to be on the safe side.
[6:02:25] Well, we need to check with Miss Patrick
[6:02:27] if she's going to be able to be
[6:02:28] available on Friday because if she's not
[6:02:31] but only you, M. Williams has already
[6:02:33] said he's not going to be here.
[6:02:35] >> But we can dest.
[6:02:41] But I think we're going to have Mr.
[6:02:43] Pretty much once we have the report
[6:02:44] tomorrow. Oh, I'm hoping that we have
[6:02:47] the reports and the updated reports we
[6:02:49] can able to look at it and able to come
[6:02:52] up with more suggestion. So come to a
[6:02:54] conclusion.
[6:02:56] >> I mean that's the only variable out
[6:02:58] there for me. I produced all the numbers
[6:02:59] based on information we have. I did it
[6:03:01] that before. So that's already done. I'm
[6:03:03] just saying that it's the main variable
[6:03:05] for me.
[6:03:07] >> So
[6:03:09] Thursday are
[6:03:14] what?
[6:03:15] >> Mr. and CB.
[6:03:17] >> No, I'm talking about how does the
[6:03:19] meeting function? Miss yourself. Miss
[6:03:22] Patrick highlighted
[6:03:28] » I think she'd like to go. She hasn't
[6:03:30] said she's committed to go and
[6:03:37] » doesn't talk to
[6:03:41] you for the elbow rubbing.
[6:03:51] All right.
[6:03:52] >> Are we all set then?
[6:03:54] >> Oh, what time are you looking at?
[6:03:57] >> Nothing.
[6:03:58] >> What time is What time Saturday is good
[6:04:00] for you?
[6:04:00] >> I can anytime Saturday.
[6:04:04] » Yeah, that's going to be tough. I can
[6:04:06] only do Saturday evening.
[6:04:10] » I mean, I mean,
[6:04:12] >> evening starts at what time for you?
[6:04:14] >> I'll figure it out. If everyone if you
[6:04:15] have a consensus for Saturday, make it
[6:04:17] happen.
[6:04:23] » Mr. Tor said 9:00 works for you.
[6:04:25] >> I just really
[6:04:26] >> I'd say
[6:04:28] it was the rest of the day.
[6:04:29] >> Saturday night
[6:04:30] >> family whenever. Yeah.
[6:04:31] >> Okay.
[6:04:32] >> Have start.
[6:04:34] I'm sorry.
[6:04:36] >> I've been hanging in.
[6:04:39] >> Let's do a place for Friday.
[6:04:42] Let's do a place open. Uh Saturday, 9, Friday 5:30
[6:04:50] and we already have tourist.
[6:04:54] » So we just need to do
[6:04:56] another notice.
[6:04:58] >> Okay.
[6:04:58] >> All right. Any other businesses for
[6:05:00] finance?
[6:05:02] We have a motion to
[6:05:03] >> recess. Motion to recess
[6:05:08] >> to second.
[6:05:14] Bet you wish sometimes
[6:05:21] I think this That's it.