[0:07] >> Good morning. I will call
[0:10] our budget work session to
[0:11] order. Happy Friday to
[0:14] everyone. And I'll turn it over
[0:17] to Jay Chapa.
[0:18] >> Good morning, everyone.
[0:20] So you should have received
[0:20] an e-mail last night with
[0:23] budget responses from Tuesday.
[0:24] The information that we hope we
[0:27] covered the information the
[0:29] council asked for.
[0:29] One of the hearing, a second on
[0:30] the nas brave to come up and
[0:33] go through the presentation is
[0:34] put together the overall impact
[0:36] to our ratepayers and
[0:39] taxpayers. From the individual
[0:40] fees. But one of the items in
[0:43] the budget responses, the list
[0:45] of
[0:48] services that council read up
[0:52] on Tuesday concerns about the
[0:52] cuts in the impacts. And asked,
[0:53] allowed to work with the
[0:56] individual department heads
[0:59] to come together to put.
[1:01] What it would look like to
[1:01] bring back positions that are
[1:02] being impacted are programs
[1:04] that are being impacted to
[1:05] lessen the services. That's in
[1:08] your budget response. Boak.
[1:09] But the response you received
[1:12] and I just laid out your spot.
[1:17] Cost the equivalent for each of
[1:17] those areas along with the
[1:21] tax rate equivalent. If the
[1:23] the desire was to increase the
[1:24] tax rate. So the tax rate
[1:28] equivalent for each of those
[1:29] items the total one of the
[1:30] things that I did include that
[1:30] then come on Tuesday. But I've
[1:33] had several council members
[1:34] bring up to me. Was pay for
[1:38] performance or general
[1:39] employees.
[1:42] And so we included that this
[1:43] would be still having to start
[1:47] have made here. But it be 4 and
[1:49] a half percent.
[1:50] Average for everyone, not
[1:51] executive below assistant
[1:54] director and a 4% versus
[1:55] indirect or not.
[1:58] This, what's the equipment and
[1:58] hear what had included that
[2:00] for you? So you could see what
[2:02] the impact is there. But with
[2:03] that, I'm gonna as Brady come
[2:06] up and go through his
[2:09] presentation.
[2:13] >> Good morning, mayor and
[2:14] council Brady Kirk says
[2:17] director with the Fort Worth
[2:20] lab. So on Tuesday we gave you
[2:21] a very, very long report that
[2:22] included all of the fees which
[2:24] were recommended to change in
[2:26] Fy 27. But today we're coming
[2:29] to you with a much shorter and
[2:32] more focused overview of just
[2:33] those fees and rates. Which
[2:35] impact every resident that
[2:38] lives in the city. And be on
[2:38] property taxes. It's really
[2:40] a short list. So we're only
[2:42] talking about the storm water
[2:46] fee. Water and wastewater
[2:49] rates. Solid waste rates and
[2:50] the environmental fee.
[2:54] And then at the end go through
[2:54] those and how that's going to
[2:55] affect the total cost to
[2:56] residents on annual or monthly
[3:00] basis. I'll give you one quick
[3:00] summaries well of any other
[3:04] fees, depending on which city
[3:04] services resident chooses to
[3:07] engage with, they might have
[3:10] to pay.
[3:14] Starting with property taxes.
[3:16] I think you seen this these
[3:18] figures many times already.
[3:20] But within the recommended
[3:23] budget, there's a 3.2% increase
[3:28] to the tax rate, which is about
[3:29] 5%. And that 5% tax rate
[3:32] increase since that's smaller
[3:33] than the amount we've lost on
[3:36] the taxable value of an average
[3:38] home. That means that on
[3:39] average homeowner in the city
[3:43] would pay less to the city in
[3:45] Fy 27 in fy. 26. So that amount
[3:49] is about $16 and $0.69 per
[3:49] year. And not that people pay
[3:52] their property taxes on a
[3:52] monthly basis. But if if you
[3:57] break that up over 12, that's
[4:00] about. $1.39 per month. So that
[4:05] a one percent decrease.
[4:06] The storm water fee. We showed
[4:11] you in JUNE that we are
[4:12] recommending 85% that fee and
[4:14] that's to help fund some flood
[4:19] mitigation projects. Increase
[4:20] Capital Project Partnership
[4:21] participation and Channel last
[4:24] it management position. And
[4:27] so that 5% increase is going
[4:29] to be $0.36 for a typical home
[4:30] on the monthly water bill.
[4:32] And if you spread that out of
[4:35] the year, that's about $4 and
[4:42] $0.32
[4:42] And moving into water and sewer
[4:45] rates. So on the water side.
[4:48] There's a about a 5% increase
[4:52] to the fixed monthly charge.
[4:54] But this year there's no
[4:55] increase to the volumetric rate
[4:57] and that is for the cost of
[5:00] service. So. Really, for all
[5:01] these funds. After the property
[5:03] tax. None of these are general
[5:07] fund fees. So for water storm
[5:08] water, all the others.
[5:08] The revenue that they are and
[5:11] pays for the service itself.
[5:12] And so this like the other ones
[5:16] is is to pay for the cost of
[5:18] service. So on the water side,
[5:19] only that's about $0.70 per
[5:22] month to an average homeowner.
[5:27] Dollars and $0.45 per year,
[5:30] which is less than 2%.
[5:33] And on the wastewater side.
[5:37] There's a similar increase.
[5:40] Closer to 6% on the fixed
[5:41] charge. And then there is a
[5:43] small less than one percent
[5:47] increase to a typical homeowner
[5:48] on the volumetric rate. So
[5:52] those 2 combined would be about
[5:53] $0.63 per month or 7.50, per
[5:57] year, which is very similar,
[6:00] a little bit less than 2%.
[6:04] On solid waste. It's a little
[6:07] bit larger cause we're focusing
[6:07] on.
[6:09] The long-term outlook at this
[6:11] fund. And we've talked to you
[6:12] about whether or not the
[6:14] current solid waste rates that
[6:16] people are paying are really
[6:17] enough to pay holistically for
[6:19] the service that they're
[6:19] getting in. That service
[6:23] includes long-term capital
[6:25] planning. So.
[6:28] This is a recommended 20% to a
[6:29] typical household with a 96
[6:33] gallon cart that the $5.15 per
[6:36] month. Which is a little bit
[6:41] less than $62 annually.
[6:42] And then finally, the
[6:43] environmental fee, which is
[6:47] a another funds separate from
[6:48] the solid waste fund. On this
[6:52] front. We're recommending about
[6:53] an 11% That's one quarter per
[6:56] month and $3 per year to
[7:00] typical household.
[7:07] So when you sum that all up,
[7:08] you can compare that to city
[7:10] managers recommended tax rate
[7:13] of 70.2 cents. But also take
[7:13] into account how the taxable
[7:16] value of a typical home has
[7:18] fallen. You've got about a one
[7:21] percent decrease to the
[7:22] property tax bill, which is
[7:23] more than half of the whole
[7:26] equation. The typical homeowner
[7:29] is going to be paying. And a
[7:31] 6.6% increased to what people
[7:31] are going to be paying on
[7:35] average on that monthly water
[7:35] bill. And what it all shakes
[7:38] out to is a little bit less
[7:39] than a.
[7:44] 2% increased annually. So
[7:45] that's $5.70 per month that the
[7:48] typical household might see.
[7:49] And a little bit more than $68
[7:52] over the course of the year.
[8:01] And moving into other fees.
[8:02] These are not fees. The typical
[8:05] person would pay in the course
[8:06] there are daily lives, but
[8:09] out of that 150 pages,
[8:10] probably.
[8:11] 100 and something was just
[8:14] development fees because
[8:17] there's so many development
[8:18] permits. So the development
[8:21] services department is
[8:22] instituting about 5% on average
[8:25] across the board fee increase.
[8:28] And due to rounding or whether
[8:29] there are specific cost
[8:30] recovery consideration. Some
[8:33] of these mining increased by a
[8:34] little bit more than 5%.
[8:36] But the good news is that this
[8:39] increase was done with the
[8:40] support of the Development
[8:41] Advisory committee and the Real
[8:41] Estate Council with whom
[8:44] Deejays Department works very
[8:47] closely.
[8:48] And these aren't 100% only in
[8:51] development services. They also
[8:52] there are development fees that
[8:52] other departments collect.
[8:54] So, for example, there's a fire
[8:57] alarm permanent that the fire
[8:59] department, Lex. But these are
[9:03] not something that a resident
[9:03] would pay normally. Maybe if
[9:06] you are buying a brand-new
[9:06] built house, this might affect
[9:09] you. If you're doing a major
[9:10] home repair.
[9:13] But I talked to dj and he said
[9:16] that on a typical home, this 5%
[9:17] across the board increase.
[9:17] Would affect the cost of a
[9:22] newly built home by less than
[9:22] $100. So out of hundreds of
[9:25] thousands, that's a very small
[9:29] portion that cost.
[9:33] And then getting into some
[9:33] other fees which residents MAY
[9:37] pay if they want to use the
[9:39] services. A lot of the balance
[9:41] of the fee increases were in
[9:42] golf just because they had so
[9:42] many categories for the very
[9:48] services that they provide.
[9:48] So for the first one where
[9:49] parks and recreation overall is
[9:51] what I meant to say for the
[9:52] first one is golf. And that's
[9:56] an increase to the junior past
[9:57] fee. In golf. Just like those
[9:58] other funds. We talked about
[10:01] water, storm water. That's the
[10:02] fun where.
[10:03] The revenues that the Gulf and
[10:06] collects pays for the cost.
[10:09] Golf services. So this is just
[10:10] cost recovery. These other
[10:13] categories would be in the
[10:15] general fund. So for community
[10:15] centers, there's a lot of fees
[10:19] increasing. There's a lot of
[10:19] fees decreasing. It's part of
[10:20] the study the department did.
[10:22] And just overall streamlining
[10:25] these and trying to make it a
[10:27] little bit more efficient and
[10:29] straightforward and then some
[10:30] similar changes to the other
[10:33] services. So the Log Cabin
[10:34] Village, for example. The
[10:35] nature center, if you want to
[10:37] have a birthday party, one of
[10:38] our community centers or if
[10:39] you're taking part in athletic
[10:42] league, some of those might
[10:44] have gone. It.
[10:46] Before we leave this and I want
[10:47] to throw you off your pace if
[10:49] you prefer to take questions.
[10:51] At the end, I making notes.
[10:52] >> But on the other fee
[10:56] increase categories, I do want
[10:57] to get some more detail as far
[11:01] as the increase of junior past
[11:01] fees and how that impacts
[11:04] clumps. And right now we've got
[11:05] first team down there. We also
[11:07] have a high school days clubs
[11:09] that come in. They're rely on
[11:11] Rockwood, for instance, my
[11:14] council district 2. Your
[11:14] practice or programs Reiser.
[11:17] And I know in the past they
[11:19] have a told me and I
[11:22] communicated this to to Dave
[11:23] Lewis as well.
[11:24] They're concerned, you know,
[11:26] about the fees and now we're
[11:27] proposing an I'm wondering what
[11:29] kind of effect that's going to
[11:30] have on them.
[11:33] >> Nast data company already
[11:35] is.
[11:37] Good Morning Council Dave
[11:38] Lewis, director Park and
[11:39] Recreation. Yeah, really.
[11:42] There's a few things going on
[11:44] there. So we as with all fees,
[11:45] we benchmark coffees in each
[11:48] fall in order to prepare fee
[11:50] changes.
[11:50] With the junior few. We found
[11:52] that there are only 2 other
[11:53] municipalities are courses near
[11:55] road courses in our vicinity.
[11:56] That even offer a junior
[11:57] passed. And like with all of
[11:58] our fees, we strive to be the
[12:01] median for that. And so raising
[12:03] that he gets median first, he
[12:05] has its own feet in the range.
[12:05] And do we have with the
[12:07] construction of the building?
[12:08] We also through near local
[12:09] green that we offer isd.
[12:10] He's a special rate as well.
[12:13] Some of them were taking
[12:15] advantage of the junior golf
[12:17] annual pass because it is much
[12:17] lower. Then the fee that we
[12:21] offer them as a discount to be
[12:23] on the course. But really the
[12:24] the increase in the junior
[12:25] annual past. We should not
[12:25] affect either the first he or I
[12:28] see because we have special
[12:31] pricing for them.
[12:37] >> Talk about
[12:39] >> fees for the increase for
[12:41] birthday parties that it has
[12:42] that risen substantially are.
[12:46] >> Yeah, I think birthday
[12:46] parties are mostly at forward.
[12:48] They've sent a refuge where
[12:48] they actually didn't have a
[12:49] birthday party fee before Fs
[12:51] a few men. Tulsa, lot of this
[12:52] is just clean up. We want to
[12:55] for fees are in accordance with
[12:57] the ordinance. So it's just
[13:00] cleaning up what we do changing
[13:01] the title of some things.
[13:03] But again, it's all
[13:03] benchmarking and community
[13:05] centers log Cabin Village, 4th
[13:05] data center, the benchmark, all
[13:06] their fees against similar
[13:08] facilities in the region and
[13:09] across the state.
[13:12] >> Can you send us the new
[13:15] rate?
[13:15] Is it somewhere gets in the
[13:16] packzi that 2 days ago with
[13:17] okay these nights and that
[13:23] separately 271 page. Yes, it's
[13:24] a good thing. That's the
[13:26] 400 page. Okay. Yeah. Just just
[13:27] for the I want to make sure
[13:29] when we talk about the fees
[13:30] that are changing at the nature
[13:30] center.
[13:34] >> Is that is that include the
[13:34] non resident and increase and
[13:37] fees or did we talk about that?
[13:38] Is that having no?
[13:40] >> Yeah, we have not. We've
[13:42] changed a number of fees, but
[13:43] we avoided a non resident few
[13:44] because it is a tourism
[13:46] facilities. We do. We want to
[13:46] make sure they're in a case
[13:48] that attracted to people who
[13:51] don't live in the city to city.
[13:52] >> But we are the and the
[13:55] Veterans Free Access. Okay.
[13:58] Thank you.
[14:00] >> Ready, I don't think you
[14:01] got to it yet or maybe barely
[14:02] mentioned at the fire
[14:02] department lift assist. I know
[14:03] that's been a topic from
[14:06] several council members.
[14:07] So I don't know. It said if she
[14:08] forton tear anybody wants to
[14:11] speak to that decision, that
[14:15] would be helpful.
[14:17] >> I think you're going to get
[14:18] Christine's in more detail on
[14:20] that of public safety Committee
[14:21] near future.
[14:21] >> We didn't have a fee.
[14:25] So we wanted to include a fi Yi
[14:26] where where that forward and so
[14:27] that the public Safety
[14:30] committee was going to get a
[14:30] full presentation on that.
[14:31] To see if they want to
[14:33] recommend lifting the Senate
[14:35] even more what you want to do
[14:35] it going forward. But when will
[14:38] that briefing happened on
[14:41] public safety? The beauty and
[14:42] SEPTEMBER.
[14:45] Its next It would. And I guess
[14:47] I'm just backing up in time.
[14:48] Is that going to be before
[14:49] these decisions are made the
[14:51] budget? So we're not going over
[14:51] increasing more me on 7.50, or
[14:52] not. Yes, we should be able
[14:52] to and just then make the
[14:56] amendment for the budget
[14:57] ordinance. Okay.
[15:00] Cuts were larger to a speech
[15:01] that Al, you're welcome to.
[15:02] I don't know that the more for
[15:04] it. And just to go ahead and
[15:04] just skip public safety
[15:05] committee altogether does bring
[15:06] us to go to work. And then as
[15:07] mayor and council for decision
[15:09] because I'm pretty sure that's
[15:09] something we can.
[15:10] >> We're all going to be up to
[15:10] get behind because it's
[15:12] something that's been needed
[15:15] for quite some time to question
[15:16] on the amount. So staff are
[15:17] recommending the 7.50, but we
[15:18] want to take it to you all to
[15:19] see if you guys wanted to make
[15:19] it even higher.
[15:21] >> And that is public safety
[15:23] committee and it will it'll
[15:24] be whatever the committee
[15:27] recommends will add that into
[15:28] the budget ordinance that gets
[15:29] approved. And then from there
[15:29] after that after because they
[15:30] didn't want it to work session
[15:32] or from just re district budget
[15:33] that straight to the budget.
[15:35] Whatever recommendation will
[15:36] put it in today as a budget
[15:37] recommendation, you know, going
[15:37] straight into the ordinance,
[15:38] it'll get approved and they'll
[15:40] be the new fee. Whatever's most
[15:41] remind process to get that.
[15:42] Yeah. That sounds great to have
[15:44] you back. Comes on. The council
[15:46] brought it up.
[15:47] >> Related to this on the next
[15:48] slide. We have the ms fee
[15:49] increase at an existing fee.
[15:51] So would that be also taken
[15:53] on by the Public Safety
[15:56] Committee of errors as well for
[15:59] yeah. Yeah. I think that can be
[16:02] discussed as well. Right?
[16:05] Thank you. Cross an awesome.
[16:09] I both points for me.
[16:09] >> Next one, the municipal
[16:11] court fees. So there are some
[16:14] new fees that involve civil
[16:16] parking. There's a a technology
[16:17] fee to support that in and one
[16:20] of the one related civil
[16:23] parking. And there's a an
[16:24] increase to the booth fee.
[16:25] These are city services.
[16:27] You do not want to engage with.
[16:31] If you can avoid it. And then
[16:32] credit card fees. Last year
[16:33] we authorize the city to let
[16:35] vendors just pass those fees
[16:38] directly on to end users.
[16:39] So instead of
[16:40] taking them is revenue paying
[16:42] them out of our own pocket.
[16:43] We're just letting the end
[16:44] users pay for those. So we
[16:47] authorized 2 and a half percent
[16:49] last year because that was
[16:50] enough for existing city
[16:52] vendors. There's a couple
[16:53] vendors that. If we were going
[16:54] to passes on, there would be a
[16:57] little bit higher than 2%.
[16:58] So we're recommending.
[16:59] Giving authority to go up to
[17:02] the statewide maximum, which is
[17:05] 5%.
[17:05] And then finally be on the
[17:08] solid waste, monthly charges
[17:11] that you saw. There are a few
[17:12] extra fees on there. If you
[17:12] have something like an
[17:15] overloaded cart, there's an
[17:16] extra charge for that bags
[17:16] outside the card. I think
[17:19] that's the one where we had.
[17:20] Something funny, like 12 of
[17:23] them in the whole city and all
[17:24] year. But that is going to and
[17:25] then nothing out trips to where
[17:28] if you've requested, pick up
[17:28] and then you're not there for
[17:31] them to come get it, that he is
[17:32] increasing as well.
[17:34] >> Brady, do you know what the
[17:35] actual collection charges for a
[17:37] credit card company? What
[17:39] percentage?
[17:41] >> So for ours.
[17:43] >> Are you talking about the
[17:44] there?
[17:44] >> On what they're passing on
[17:47] us. And we're not gonna pass on
[17:49] to customers. Typically it's
[17:51] 3%, but they're so last year
[17:55] the council approved us
[17:56] allowing a direct charge.
[17:58] A pass to so that when a person
[18:00] pays the they pay with a credit
[18:01] card, they would pay that fee,
[18:01] whether it's 2% to have actual
[18:04] feeds, not an upcharge it off
[18:06] in the city. The issue is not
[18:07] all our systems or other
[18:07] systems. Again, are getting
[18:10] upgraded. And we have some.
[18:12] The vendor charges. More than
[18:15] 3% up to 5%. Sometimes 3 and
[18:16] a half. So we're having to
[18:19] cover the difference. So we're
[18:20] just trying to get.
[18:21] Requests be made whole
[18:22] completely basically making the
[18:24] money just to be a baby.
[18:24] And so it's it's just the
[18:26] actual cost. Some of them are
[18:29] 4%. That's what we have.
[18:30] Multiple vendors.
[18:33] On the system's. It's a it's
[18:33] like
[18:34] you have a different vendor,
[18:35] for instance, on the water
[18:38] side, then you have. On the
[18:39] city said you don't do because
[18:42] of the system's the types of
[18:44] systems that are used.
[18:45] >> Just to understand. So
[18:47] you're saying a flat fee of
[18:49] 5%, no matter which system
[18:51] they're accessing. Our do know
[18:52] it will be a charge. The will
[18:54] be charges stated with the with
[18:54] the system. Exactly. And and
[18:55] all of them. We went up to 5%
[18:58] because we don't have any that
[18:58] are well state doesn't let us
[18:59] go to 5% were just trying to be
[19:02] made whole from the city side.
[19:05] I think that's okay.
[19:11] >> Any questions or comments
[19:13] on the summary if Ian rates
[19:17] right now, yes, cause before
[19:18] >> I do forget which one it
[19:18] was. I think I know the answer
[19:19] to this, but I just want to
[19:23] confirmation solid waste charge
[19:25] slide 6. There's a nasty note
[19:28] based on typical home using
[19:29] 96 gallon cart.
[19:30] Does that also inclusive of
[19:32] the recycling Curtis? Well,
[19:36] yes, sir. Thank you. That's it.
[19:43] Everybody gets recycled part
[19:43] with that.
[19:47] First and second because the
[19:48] 96 cart, you know, our size
[19:48] rather, I mean, you have an
[19:51] option to upgrade to a larger.
[19:56] Council. Looks like you also
[19:56] have updated budget responses
[19:57] in your packet. If we want to
[19:58] have Christian walk through
[20:00] those that might be helpful.
[20:03] >> Sure thing. Good morning,
[20:05] mayor and council Christine
[20:06] Simmons with the 4th lab.
[20:08] So just 3 budget responses in
[20:09] your packet last night. The
[20:10] first is an updated version of
[20:13] the vacancy, eliminations and
[20:14] freezes budget response.
[20:16] Adding in the column for the
[20:17] total team personnel and the
[20:19] number of those positions that
[20:20] occur across the department
[20:21] now as unresponsive
[20:22] Councilmember Flores's
[20:24] question, maybe others about,
[20:26] you know, what kind of team
[20:27] strength is left. If we do
[20:27] eliminate or freeze a position.
[20:31] So that date is there for you.
[20:32] The second budget response is
[20:36] about gas lease revenue gas
[20:37] while revenue outlines the
[20:39] policy and our typical process
[20:40] for appropriating those funds
[20:41] and a little bit of the history
[20:42] of kind of what the order of
[20:45] magnitude of those funds has
[20:48] looked like.
[20:50] And then the 3rd budget
[20:51] response is the one that Jay
[20:52] mentioned where we worked with
[20:53] a couple of select departments
[20:56] based on your questions Tuesday
[20:58] to ask them, you know, with
[20:58] it with judiciously, like what
[21:02] positions would you add back?
[21:04] Knowing we're balancing the
[21:04] budget, but really looking
[21:06] again at the service level
[21:08] impacts for the programs that
[21:09] has asked about and that we've
[21:11] been hearing sort of similar
[21:15] themes in the community
[21:18] meetings. And so you'll see
[21:19] Code Development Services,
[21:20] Library, parks and recreation
[21:22] and transportation and public
[21:23] works. Each of those directors
[21:24] and staff sort over the last
[21:24] couple of days to say if I
[21:27] could add something back here
[21:28] is what it would be. And then
[21:29] the 4th lab staff layered and
[21:31] some serviceable impacts that
[21:33] we gathered from the
[21:33] departments and we produce the
[21:35] handout that you have, which
[21:36] is the tax rate equivalent of
[21:37] adding those back so that you
[21:40] can kind of have this menu in
[21:41] front of you and say, you know,
[21:41] these are really important
[21:44] things and know how that would
[21:46] affect the tax rate. And again,
[21:47] the one item that's not
[21:50] >> written up as the pay for
[21:53] performance fees.
[21:55] And the total all the items
[21:56] would be impacted. 0.3, 6, 4,
[21:58] 3, 9, 1, which would still put
[22:01] the average bill lesson.
[22:01] The current year's bill.
[22:05] But it basically lessons of
[22:06] by half. It would be $8 for $16
[22:12] that was added to the tax rate.
[22:13] And act. Talk about.
[22:15] >> The 7 positions for the
[22:17] public safety communicate or 2,
[22:20] that 7 out of 13 just so people
[22:20] understand what's happening
[22:23] there.
[22:23] >> Sure. So that so
[22:26] traditionally that area has a
[22:27] lot of turnover. And so we have
[22:30] typically 7 to 10 positions
[22:31] that are they can all the time.
[22:32] We're always recruiting.
[22:34] We're still recruiting now.
[22:34] We still have vacancies.
[22:39] And so the idea was just to.
[22:40] Not fund the salaries so that
[22:41] we could have that savings
[22:44] because they're basically
[22:45] always vacant anyway.
[22:49] >> Library page position.
[22:50] It says there's 12 positions
[22:51] but total 6 on the team.
[22:54] And so I'm confused about how
[22:57] that.
[22:59] Yes, you'd add those together.
[23:00] So we're at much amending
[23:02] freezing 12. There are 6
[23:03] additional and then sort of us
[23:07] across the whole department
[23:07] there. 41 pages and then
[23:09] libraries response this week.
[23:10] They did ask to add back just a
[23:11] couple of those for consistency
[23:13] in stopping in a few locations.
[23:26] I can Dave Lewis Kimono because
[23:27] I have some parks related.
[23:31] He said, no, I'm just kidding.
[23:33] I of not. On a Friday morning.
[23:37] Yeah. Is out you look silly.
[23:43] I just I'm looking at this
[23:44] maintenance worker and has
[23:47] worked were cutting a lot of
[23:49] those positions and then the
[23:49] recreation.
[23:50] >> Assistant position looks
[23:53] like we're cutting a lot of
[23:54] those, but they have a lot of
[23:54] positions and can you walk me
[23:57] through what the maintenance
[23:59] workers do and
[24:00] realistically what we can
[24:00] expect, the reduction services
[24:05] to look like without those.
[24:06] 6 maintenance workers.
[24:07] >> Yeah, there's 2 sets of
[24:07] maintenance workers are talking
[24:11] about. One group is with the
[24:12] Athletics division and we have
[24:14] built those back in essentially
[24:15] for six-month freeze for the
[24:15] year, meaning we can get
[24:16] through the winter, but we got
[24:19] to hire them back to get them
[24:21] into the spring and the other
[24:24] maintenance workers are spread
[24:25] throughout the different park
[24:26] operation divisions. We have 7
[24:27] divisions, north, northwest
[24:28] southeast. All of those we
[24:30] build back some of those.
[24:30] So really looking at it's kind
[24:33] of helps to look at the overall
[24:35] strength of that. It's hard
[24:36] to quantify really what the
[24:37] difference is, the way we've
[24:39] talked about this over the last
[24:43] couple weeks is. For people
[24:46] that are changing trash.
[24:47] Where they might be able to do
[24:49] that. In today's now, it'll
[24:50] take them 3 days. So obviously
[24:52] a little bit slower for that.
[24:53] But there MAY also be some
[24:54] things that they don't get,
[24:55] too. It's really hard to
[24:57] quantify exactly what that
[25:00] looks like. The good news is we
[25:01] have only seen a slight uptick
[25:03] in complaints via our app, son,
[25:05] emails and phone calls. But
[25:06] restoring that back should have
[25:09] less of an impact than was
[25:10] originally frozen. But it's
[25:12] really hard to quantify.
[25:13] Exactly. So it's things like
[25:15] trash pickup. It's what I'm
[25:17] trying to figure out is does
[25:17] this mean want to swing breaks?
[25:19] It takes longer for the swing
[25:20] to get prepared or is this like
[25:23] internal?
[25:25] >> You know, Quitman repair.
[25:27] We do know it. Good Something
[25:28] like a swing repair generally
[25:29] would be our skilled trades
[25:34] technician, which is also on
[25:34] that list. And it's why we've
[25:35] request to build those back.
[25:35] Ok, we have to we have to trade
[25:36] screws. One does maintenance
[25:37] and went to small capital
[25:38] projects.
[25:40] >> And what we would do if
[25:41] those aren't restart is
[25:43] actually shift some people from
[25:45] the small capital projects crew
[25:46] into the maintenance repairs.
[25:47] So MAY slow up some of our
[25:48] small peco projects, but it
[25:49] make sure that we're staying on
[25:52] top of repairs and maintenance
[25:52] to amenities within the
[25:53] facilities.
[25:54] >> Okay. And then let's talk
[25:55] about recreation systems out.
[25:57] Looks like we have a lot in the
[25:57] department. There's 95. But
[26:02] we're getting rid of 9 out of.
[26:05] About half of them. Half of
[26:06] this particular team, I guess
[26:06] so.
[26:08] >> Yeah. In the way they've
[26:10] divided up is the team would be
[26:12] essentially the community
[26:13] center. So that's the strength
[26:14] of that of an average community
[26:18] center. It's not the strength
[26:20] of all of them. And so it's
[26:20] really that's being spread out
[26:21] in the combination of
[26:25] Recreation Assistance Committee
[26:25] center, aids, the all work on
[26:27] programming. They'll work on
[26:29] answering phones, hosting
[26:30] people with the program are
[26:31] being more in a system being
[26:34] more heavy on the program side
[26:35] with being more on custodial
[26:36] service is answering phones.
[26:38] And so really it's trying to
[26:40] find the balance between those.
[26:42] We believe that this this new
[26:43] proposal would have very
[26:44] minimal impacts. What we're
[26:45] trying to do is really relook
[26:47] at things in shuffle to make
[26:49] sure that we're covering
[26:50] things. I think what's just as
[26:51] important as looking at the
[26:52] program, Dayton, really having
[26:54] a better understanding of when
[26:56] community centers are needed.
[26:58] Are we open times that we don't
[27:00] need to be? Are we opening to
[27:01] early staying too late open on
[27:02] days that the community hasn't
[27:03] expressed an interest in really
[27:05] needing that center? So that's
[27:06] part of our exercise, too.
[27:08] All of that analysis is part of
[27:09] regular recreation programming
[27:13] development really doing a much
[27:13] deeper dive right now to be
[27:17] more efficient. Thank you,
[27:18] >> This is not a day with his
[27:21] question. So you're off the
[27:24] clock. Okay. My pertains to
[27:27] development services.
[27:30] >> Don't lay day at it. He's
[27:30] going to be close to a day.
[27:33] I was they are right in line
[27:39] and the front row. It's in the
[27:40] >> Dj as far as development
[27:42] services. The customer service
[27:46] rep too. I know that in recent
[27:46] years we've been.
[27:48] Trying, you know, to to
[27:50] increase, you know, the Florida
[27:53] processes in your department.
[27:53] You've done a lot of work
[27:55] towards that. I want you to
[27:59] talk about this proposed, you
[27:59] know, reduction in force.
[28:00] How does that affect you?
[28:03] Does it affect you how you're
[28:03] going to compensate?
[28:05] >> Good Morning. Mary Council,
[28:08] thank you for the question.
[28:11] Councilmember Flores. Yes, we
[28:11] have been trying to increase
[28:13] customer service reps to
[28:14] increase the flow on the 5th
[28:18] floor. People in and out online
[28:20] what we plan to do to
[28:23] compensate with these cuts is
[28:26] to try to lean on technology.
[28:28] We've been working with it and
[28:29] some of the resources that they
[28:30] have to look at like chatbots
[28:31] other solutions that we can put
[28:34] a line that can get people off
[28:34] the phone obviously, without
[28:36] that, you know, the call time
[28:40] or the Cole whole time with
[28:41] the increase. But with
[28:41] technological solutions, we
[28:42] think we can, you know, kind of
[28:45] keep development moving
[28:45] forward. That MAY be a slight
[28:48] impact on, you know, wait times
[28:49] in the lobby. Maybe also with
[28:51] like, you know, plan review or,
[28:54] you know, moving things from
[28:54] like Tw to water to development
[28:57] services. But we're going to
[28:58] try to compensate, you know,
[28:59] with no technological
[29:00] improvements as much as
[29:02] possible and process
[29:04] improvements as well.
[29:04] >> All right. Or any of these
[29:07] proposed Do they impact the x
[29:10] team?
[29:21] If you're back up?
[29:27] >> After you are present.
[29:29] >> I heard from multiple
[29:33] residence about making sure
[29:34] that we did not do away with
[29:37] any services in parks and
[29:39] recreation. It's a forward
[29:40] facing department. So are you
[29:44] comfortable that these cuts
[29:44] will ensure that we don't do
[29:47] away with any of those
[29:51] services.
[29:52] And I know that's a broad
[29:55] question. But I you know, I
[29:56] want to support this, but I
[29:56] can't support it. If we're
[29:59] gonna lose services to the
[30:03] community.
[30:04] >> The new proposal minimizes
[30:05] any impacts. And again, we have
[30:07] to do more homework to really
[30:08] understand community need in
[30:10] each of the locations. So I'm
[30:11] confident that we can still
[30:12] provide the same level of
[30:13] service. It's just being more
[30:13] efficient, effective in and
[30:17] really understanding community
[30:18] need better. We look at all of
[30:19] our community centers
[30:20] differently. They serve
[30:20] different audiences with
[30:22] different needs and so really
[30:24] customizing that making sure
[30:25] that we're serving those local
[30:27] residents, but in a fashion
[30:28] that they need and making sure
[30:28] that we're not staying open,
[30:30] we don't need to. That's it.
[30:30] That's the big part of it.
[30:34] But it's also a maximizing
[30:34] those spaces.
[30:36] Well, we say that the community
[30:37] center supervisor's job is to
[30:38] make sure that at community
[30:41] center is bustling from open
[30:42] to close. How do you do that?
[30:42] You offer programs that people
[30:46] are interested in and how do
[30:47] you do that? You ask. And so
[30:49] it's really just making sure
[30:50] that we're understand that
[30:50] community need.
[30:52] >> Well, and that's good.
[30:53] So I 3 of the people that I
[30:55] heard from more ministers who
[30:57] rely believe it or not, handily
[30:57] on the community center for
[31:00] activities for their youth.
[31:02] And so I just want to be sure
[31:04] that I can reassure them that
[31:07] we're not going to disrupt some
[31:08] of those activities that they
[31:11] think help deter crime and keep
[31:12] their folks busy.
[31:14] >> Yeah, it's great to hear and
[31:15] I'd love to hear from them
[31:15] directly on what is important
[31:16] to him and what their needs are
[31:19] making sure that we're able to
[31:20] meet that.
[31:21] Thank you. They've had similar
[31:25] concerns and receive the same
[31:27] communication. I wanted to also
[31:28] inquire about community centers
[31:31] that have after-school programs
[31:32] and things of that nature and
[31:34] that have different, you know,
[31:34] organizations that are ready
[31:38] convening there regularly for
[31:41] whatever reason. And will those
[31:42] be given priority also
[31:43] considered? And we have not
[31:45] recommended any reductions to
[31:46] any of those programs at all.
[31:47] The only thing we're looking
[31:48] at is again, streamlining some
[31:49] of the hours. If we can
[31:49] determine.
[31:52] >> That the community doesn't
[31:53] need the facility. It's one of
[31:56] the topics are talking about.
[31:56] There are 4, 5 cities open on
[31:57] Sundays. All of them are open
[31:59] on Saturdays. Is it still
[32:00] necessary that to be open those
[32:01] days? When we start looking
[32:04] at the data, some of the usage
[32:05] is low on Saturday. So is that
[32:05] something that's that's
[32:06] necessary? But we need as the
[32:09] community that question and
[32:11] think about kids are back in
[32:11] school. Do you want to go to
[32:12] community center program on a
[32:13] Saturday after that busy week?
[32:17] Maybe. But that's what we need
[32:19] to better understand.
[32:20] >> And not to belabor the
[32:21] point. When you say we're going
[32:22] to ask the community is their
[32:25] formal method in which you're
[32:26] going to communities. We don't
[32:28] have a formal unplanned, but
[32:30] each community center does
[32:31] survey on their own and then it
[32:32] obviously is a lot of the
[32:33] anecdotal, Stephen. We've got a
[32:35] neighborhood association
[32:35] meetings and
[32:38] >> various stakeholder input
[32:38] that we get. Some of it's
[32:39] anecdotal, but somebody says
[32:41] serving as well and not one big
[32:42] survey. We do that. But every 5
[32:45] years we test community need is
[32:48] part of our strategic planning.
[32:48] >> Outside of us of formal
[32:51] survey, is there data that you
[32:51] can pull like check ins
[32:53] checkout skier is in in our
[32:54] system. We have all of that.
[32:55] Whether it's rentals, whether
[32:55] it's drop in or actually
[32:56] registered used. That's the
[32:57] data that we're looking at.
[33:00] >> That in combination with
[33:02] Placer ai the kind of overlap a
[33:03] little bit. But so we can tell
[33:04] when people come in just the
[33:05] traffic of looking to see who's
[33:08] actually registering for
[33:09] programs as well. I think my
[33:10] preference would be that we
[33:12] rely heavily on that data
[33:13] because I think sometimes
[33:14] preference.
[33:15] >> And what people voices,
[33:17] their preference versus what
[33:18] their actual habits are might
[33:21] be different. And so and I want
[33:22] to make sure that that's if we
[33:24] have that ability that's
[33:27] factored in. Absolutely.
[33:29] Anyone else for days. Thank
[33:30] you, Dave. Front row seat or
[33:33] I use month. Stay closed.
[33:35] Just never know. Yeah.
[33:39] And maybe add a question for dj
[33:41] again. If you don't mind.
[33:42] Dj, you alluded to working with
[33:43] it and different solutions that
[33:44] are maybe in turn already be
[33:47] able to the city of Fort Worth
[33:48] to feel like we have properly
[33:50] extinguished all options that
[33:51] are outside maybe vendors that
[33:54] were not currently working with
[33:55] the pilots. Some of this work.
[33:57] >> I'm not sure, mayor, to be
[33:58] honest, I think that'll come to
[33:59] light when we start doing some
[34:00] of these lean process analysis,
[34:02] obviously with these cuts, we
[34:05] need to look at how we keep the
[34:05] same level of service for our
[34:09] customers. So we'll be looking
[34:09] at, you know, all options,
[34:10] right? If there is a 3rd party
[34:12] that can do something faster
[34:15] for cheap and we'll definitely
[34:15] be looking at that. Yeah.
[34:18] >> You know, I I bring that up
[34:18] because council members hb
[34:19] public and interact with
[34:20] different vendors at lc
[34:22] meetings or tm outlook, cetera.
[34:24] I would encourage us to bring
[34:24] any of those options to dj his
[34:27] team so he can tell us a quick
[34:28] look at what's out there.
[34:29] What's interesting is a lot of
[34:31] these companies will let you
[34:31] pilot at no cost to the city
[34:34] for a period of time. You still
[34:34] have to have the man power on
[34:35] your. And so that's not
[34:35] actually creating more work for
[34:37] your team. So recognize it
[34:39] takes time. But to the extent
[34:40] that this body can be helpful
[34:41] and bringing options to you?
[34:43] I think I would encourage us to
[34:44] do so. Now and and let them
[34:46] start thinking about that.
[34:49] The next fiscal year. Park
[34:52] Ranger question.
[34:58] >> I just want to check with
[35:00] the use. Part of this budget
[35:00] have been scrubbed through it,
[35:03] but do any of the proposals
[35:04] come forward? You have any
[35:04] services or our cuts for the
[35:07] rise Community Center or
[35:10] library. No, not really.
[35:12] Thanks for that. Yeah.
[35:15] Questions council. Go ahead.
[35:17] Controllers have cut.
[35:18] >> I was going to ask will
[35:20] first from last meeting we've
[35:21] back and watch that. You want
[35:22] to thank you, mayor and the
[35:23] colleagues who stepped forward
[35:24] PetSmart Alliance because after
[35:27] as watching, of course, is wait
[35:28] after that. Snow. So certainly
[35:29] hearing a lot from the
[35:31] residence on that one, too.
[35:32] So long live PetSmart Alliance.
[35:37] Thank you for that advocacy
[35:37] and also to really make to
[35:38] cause checked to go in there
[35:41] like that. Yeah, so definitely
[35:42] don't want to at
[35:44] a couple things I'd like to
[35:47] learn more about.
[35:48] >> You know, as we
[35:49] your reach out to their
[35:49] residents and 11 about that
[35:52] Sunday's possible fee
[35:53] increases. And although some
[35:54] your tax or tax rate goes up,
[35:57] although they MAY be painless,
[36:00] it's really hard to justify a
[36:03] lot of that has we spend on
[36:07] public art hot topic and one
[36:07] that hard to bring up
[36:08] but it's really hard to look
[36:10] them in the face. And back,
[36:11] by the way, when asked to spend
[36:12] more on some of these fees
[36:13] while we're in a deficit year.
[36:16] >> While paying for these, so
[36:17] I know.
[36:18] We clearly know the process
[36:19] for moratorium. I don't know.
[36:22] That's necessarily the right
[36:23] way for this. But
[36:24] what does it look like as far
[36:25] as temporarily suspending
[36:29] funding for some of the larger?
[36:29] Public art projects that
[36:31] haven't been contractually
[36:33] obligated yet. I know it's if
[36:34] a pot because it's tied to the
[36:37] bond. What does that look like
[36:38] as far as deferring that to
[36:40] possibly year would become
[36:40] painter ears on up more
[36:43] positive budget year. What does
[36:43] that look like?
[36:45] Well, I think the council could
[36:48] take action not to not to fund
[36:49] those, but
[36:50] those are like you said its
[36:52] capital so would really help
[36:52] the general fund.
[36:54] >> Or any of the areas where
[36:57] we're asking for a fee
[36:57] increases right dollars.
[36:58] Just wouldn't be spent. And
[37:00] I guess it would you be used
[37:01] for capital instead?
[37:03] >> Yeah, I think that be the
[37:04] key theirs. You know,
[37:05] understanding we can move that
[37:07] back to general fund. But I
[37:08] think it also has a lot to do
[37:09] with just the perception and
[37:10] the you know, we're say, hey,
[37:12] guys, it's really tight year
[37:13] now. Again, we tell somebody,
[37:15] hey, we're kind of broke right
[37:16] now, but we're gonna go out,
[37:18] has taken lobster. It's kind of
[37:19] a bad perception. My opinion.
[37:19] It's important still. But I
[37:21] think about I think there's a
[37:22] legal question since we went
[37:25] to the bondholder, you know,
[37:27] to the voters and they voted
[37:28] for a bond that included public
[37:29] arts. I'm not sure. And then
[37:30] looking at Dennis Kneale is
[37:31] looking at him.
[37:34] >> Well, if there's even a
[37:35] mechanism for that.
[37:36] >> With that being even allow
[37:37] those inserting designated to
[37:38] public. That's what that's
[37:40] things like. I'm looking more
[37:41] for like a temporary pause and
[37:43] tell so maybe not but this year
[37:43] or next year, but the year
[37:47] where we can actually afford
[37:49] it. At. Good morning, Dennis
[37:50] Michael City attorney's office
[37:53] with respect to James question
[37:56] about allowed use of the bond
[37:57] funds. It was.
[37:59] Presented to voters MAY use
[38:00] up to 2%. So council does not
[38:03] allocate that money. Previous
[38:06] allocated money. Paws were
[38:06] implemented, as Jay said.
[38:08] Those projects just wouldn't
[38:09] get paid during this period.
[38:09] I we'd have to do a deep dive
[38:12] into the contract, Jeanette,
[38:14] like.
[38:15] Offer. This probably is a good
[38:18] topic for the council really
[38:19] wrestle with so.
[38:20] >> If I'm hearing you correctly
[38:22] j it wouldn't actually impact
[38:22] our ability to change this
[38:24] discussion on this fiscal year
[38:25] but has 0 impact on our
[38:26] operating budget. So if the
[38:27] body would be okay with it
[38:28] because we do need to get
[38:29] through this budget process.
[38:31] Let's push this conversation
[38:33] to a work session in SEPTEMBER.
[38:35] OCTOBER and talk about it
[38:36] openly and that way, we're not
[38:37] derailing this because I can
[38:39] already feel against the bill.
[38:39] Really want to keep it on
[38:42] track. And some understandably
[38:43] have to worry about
[38:43] perceptions. So that's one
[38:44] thing. I'll say they want same
[38:45] thing about that can cause
[38:47] we're back. I think it's for
[38:49] them to say no.
[38:49] >> And I'm just the other one,
[38:52] if a person but a response or
[38:56] rfi, if you will, if we can
[38:56] just get at because whenever I
[38:57] heard the credit card
[38:58] processing out of that, that
[39:02] part of Myers because as a
[39:02] small fry campaign, 3% for for
[39:06] us and my Pinellas and dollars.
[39:06] So it's not much at all.
[39:08] City our size, you know, kind
[39:08] of scale should be paying a
[39:09] lot last night and they were
[39:14] passed on. So it's easy for
[39:15] us to Sara. Well, whatever
[39:16] they're charging is what will
[39:16] pay for some development
[39:18] services. The last year when I
[39:18] came on board, the first thing
[39:20] that brought to me because they
[39:21] were spending almost a million
[39:22] dollars.
[39:24] >> Out of their budget to cover
[39:26] the credit card fees for that
[39:27] for people that came in to pay
[39:27] with credit cards, right?
[39:30] We try to push folks to do a ch
[39:32] or to do debit card. And so
[39:35] that's what we brought to city
[39:36] council. That change.
[39:38] Like I said, different. We have
[39:39] different vendors on different
[39:40] systems is type of systems.
[39:41] And we're trying to kind of
[39:43] streamline all those kind of
[39:46] things. And so the systems that
[39:47] have been we've been able to
[39:50] change to go ahead and pass.
[39:51] That forward has been done.
[39:54] We found that some of them are
[39:55] over 3%. And so.
[39:57] We're having to pay it out of
[39:59] work, collecting the dollars.
[40:00] But we were kept the 3% because
[40:00] that's what we asked. The
[40:03] council is just an increase in
[40:04] the cap.
[40:06] So yeah, Mahle widely to to
[40:07] see who's charging more than
[40:09] 3% does believe it's be said it
[40:09] actually charge under spies
[40:10] that they're charging a
[40:12] customer of more than 3 and a
[40:14] half percent or more. 3%.
[40:15] >> be really cares to see that
[40:17] certainly be some economies of
[40:18] scale there. You know, the
[40:21] average large businesses paying
[40:22] around 2, 2.1%
[40:23] And of course, we're going to
[40:24] pass that on shore. But it's at
[40:28] least one lesson that spent
[40:29] and quite frankly, there.
[40:30] If you're spending that much
[40:31] money to your smart about, if
[40:32] you're lucky enough to have a
[40:34] 3% cash back and look at charts
[40:35] to net percent great like I'm
[40:38] going to use my credit card,
[40:38] right? You're going to. Like,
[40:41] like Michael said, you're gonna
[40:42] get your miles real quick.
[40:43] But I just like to see what
[40:44] we're paying. And is that
[40:45] something that we we put an rfp
[40:46] out on or credit card
[40:48] processing cause? That's so
[40:50] yes, I think we do it from the
[40:50] different for the different
[40:52] vendors. And worst Reggie
[40:55] Reggie.
[40:56] >> He's maybe even getting one.
[40:57] >> Credit card processor for
[40:57] all of them end up. There is I
[41:00] can see getting an even better
[41:03] rate.
[41:05] >> Yes, the that process it has
[41:08] been our speed over the years.
[41:11] And as Jay indicated, it's a
[41:13] decentralized process. We have
[41:14] several systems that are
[41:16] managed by that have been
[41:19] implemented over the years.
[41:20] And so, yes, the city has
[41:23] considered and standardize
[41:25] process a bit. But, you know,
[41:27] with a little bit behind.
[41:30] >> And in doing that.
[41:34] >> The credit card fees are
[41:34] charged by the various
[41:36] merchants and there's not not a
[41:37] whole lot we can do about that.
[41:40] And I think the change is just
[41:41] simply to ensure the city's
[41:42] reimbursed.
[41:44] >> Right. And my point there is
[41:45] just what the city can do and
[41:46] that's negotiate those rates
[41:47] with those credit card
[41:49] processors because that is
[41:52] easily negotiable.
[41:53] That's one thing I just like
[41:54] us to look at, because it's
[41:57] easy to say that's the rate
[41:58] that.
[41:59] We can find vendors who will
[42:00] charge a lot less because they
[42:02] want the business with the city
[42:02] of Fort Worth because are.
[42:05] >> They're gonna count act with
[42:10] some data.
[42:12] Be as easy to negotiate that.
[42:12] >> Right to an rfp process you
[42:15] can. That's kind of what you
[42:16] get in on the.
[42:18] >> I mean, it's business.
[42:19] It's if you reduce the business
[42:21] with the city of forward, a
[42:22] number 2% of them. I would want
[42:26] that business from city forward
[42:27] because the amount it also tied
[42:29] to the fees they charge us for
[42:30] our vendor. Right? So
[42:32] >> one might have a better
[42:35] credit card fee to the end.
[42:36] User should be charging them to
[42:36] be a vendor, right? I mean one
[42:38] or visit us the more expensive
[42:41] on a system side, right process
[42:41] in the building. I don't go to
[42:44] Don the red hold and it's
[42:48] expensive.
[42:51] So is the as I in front of you
[42:51] is an equivalent on those items
[42:54] at this. The department's came
[42:55] back.
[42:56] As you'll see the the average
[42:57] tax bill for what it's worth
[43:00] would still be below the
[43:01] current one.
[43:04] Confirmed that it would be
[43:05] another.
[43:06] Not almost to 1.5 million
[43:11] before we would get to people
[43:12] too. The current tax rate.
[43:13] Or the current bill would
[43:14] match. The new bill would match
[43:18] the current bill. So that's the
[43:19] at this point. You can still
[43:20] make the argument that the
[43:23] average taxpayer would pay less
[43:25] with her if you wanted to
[43:28] increase the tax rate. Based on
[43:29] what we provided today.
[43:30] We're back. Yeah, I'm sorry.
[43:32] I just want to make sure that
[43:33] I'm clear. So if we look at it
[43:36] and budget response, number 20,
[43:37] I'm not 20.
[43:39] >> 19 that had all of the
[43:40] positions. What you're saying
[43:42] is this handout. Here is the
[43:43] cost difference. If we brought
[43:45] back all of those positions
[43:47] notes, the ones that are on
[43:48] tied to budget response.
[43:51] 21 post 21. Okay. All right.
[43:52] So the staff, the Aztecs this
[43:53] week when departments were
[43:54] trying to pick into sort of
[43:54] their biggest priorities for
[43:57] adding back. That's what I see
[43:58] your hand up.
[43:58] >> Okay. Lets a pay for
[44:00] performance at mid-year for
[44:01] general employees.
[44:05] >> Are typical. Glad I asked.
[44:05] Thank you.
[44:06] >> So again, I'm gonna repeat
[44:06] that. His anybody to hear it.
[44:08] You've on the sheet that he
[44:10] said you, that's this one here.
[44:12] The top line under restoration
[44:12] is increased pay performance.
[44:13] That is not in a better
[44:16] response, but they articulated
[44:18] here based on conversation this
[44:19] week. In addition to that at a
[44:22] budget response, 21 are each of
[44:25] these departments he went
[44:27] through and scrub which
[44:28] positions would have impacted
[44:29] services the most for us to
[44:29] consider restoring back into
[44:33] the originally proposed budget.
[44:33] And if you go up and you
[44:37] compare the budget scenario,
[44:38] you've got this year, 2027
[44:38] recommended. Then you have
[44:40] restorations and you have a
[44:43] total there. And what Jay-z
[44:44] articulating is if you move
[44:49] over to the right column under
[44:50] average tax bill, $1642 and
[44:52] $0.62 Compare that to the
[44:54] current fiscal year 2026.
[44:55] Adoption. You are still below
[44:59] are costing taxpayers less than
[45:01] $8.20 sits on average per year
[45:02] and their tax bill, even with
[45:03] the tax rate increases that
[45:08] are necessary to stabilize our
[45:10] budget and prevent furloughs,
[45:11] layoffs and impacts to
[45:13] services. So at this point, the
[45:14] council really needs to wrestle
[45:18] with what's in front of them,
[45:19] which is does the body majority
[45:20] want to move forward with what
[45:23] was recommended originally for
[45:25] 2027. Do they want to wrestle
[45:26] with a 2027 with restorations
[45:27] number and at this point would
[45:28] be really helpful to staff to
[45:30] give some direction where we
[45:31] want to go. So at this point
[45:34] out in the floor, we can have
[45:38] that discussion.
[45:44] Nobody wants to go first.
[45:48] Looking at the 0, 0, 5, 6, I
[45:50] mean, I think it's it's stuff,
[45:53] but I think it's the reasonably
[45:55] prudent thing to do. It's
[45:56] >> I think staff did a good job
[45:58] of going through and really
[45:58] figure out where we can where
[46:00] we can cut without really
[46:03] affecting service it's it's
[46:08] tough. To increase in the rate.
[46:09] However. We just have they just
[46:09] got so much more expensive.
[46:12] And I think as long as we can
[46:13] really articulate. Going to
[46:16] the year, if this is what this
[46:17] body decides to approve, I
[46:17] think we have to be really
[46:18] diligent on the things that we
[46:21] do approve going forward and
[46:21] making sure that it is a basic
[46:24] city service getting back to
[46:25] the basics. It's not a bunch of
[46:28] nice to haves because it's
[46:32] going to be really. It'll be a
[46:33] black eye for all of us to
[46:35] raise the rate even though it's
[46:36] effectively still lowering
[46:38] their tax bill. Perhaps most
[46:41] are. And I did go up and then
[46:42] turn around and give, you know,
[46:44] a nonprofit or get someone
[46:46] else. You know, millions of
[46:47] dollars at the same time.
[46:48] So I think it's really careful
[46:50] as we go for it. This is what
[46:50] we do said to be really
[46:51] diligent going forward on the
[46:55] dollars we spend and allocate.
[46:57] Council home.
[46:58] >> Not to devalue which said a
[47:01] COUNCILMAN, our staff. I think.
[47:06] Very often we substitute, you
[47:06] know, we consider raising rates
[47:07] and we start talking about
[47:08] nonprofit and that's where like
[47:11] they were giving them money
[47:13] often. I hear this body and and
[47:14] several colleagues that
[47:15] suggests that we rely on
[47:17] nonprofits to stand in the gap.
[47:18] So I don't think it's fair to
[47:21] talk out of both sides of our
[47:21] faith to say.
[47:24] Let's look for nonprofits to do
[47:24] certain things. Reports are the
[47:26] services and then we start
[47:27] talking about tax rates star
[47:30] saying that we're giving money
[47:31] away to nonprofits.
[47:34] >> All right. I guess just to
[47:37] which I hear you, however, I
[47:38] have never had a single
[47:39] nonprofit come to our office
[47:40] mic and say, can we help you
[47:42] out the infrastructure
[47:44] potholes?
[47:45] Parks and rec? So no, but they
[47:47] are standing in the gap, a
[47:50] social services and often and
[47:51] this friend, we suggest that we
[47:54] call upon them to stand in the
[47:54] gap for us on social services.
[47:55] So they are not in the job in
[47:57] the in the business of doing
[47:58] pothole. I'm just saying I'm
[48:01] not the value of point. I just
[48:03] want to.
[48:05] Remind you remind us that we
[48:06] often try to strike a balance
[48:07] with nonprofits and it's not
[48:08] fair to look at them like
[48:13] there's some type of charity
[48:14] case when we pay for services
[48:16] that the nonprofit is, in fact,
[48:17] a charity case. I mean, it's
[48:18] it's nonprofit. And I think
[48:19] that every nonprofit just say
[48:22] we have to be very diligent,
[48:23] make sure that the money we are
[48:23] getting out is to ones who are
[48:28] going to be good stewards of
[48:30] those dollars and the service
[48:30] they're providing is one that
[48:31] he says that is the got, which
[48:31] I completely agree. There's
[48:34] going to be some that are
[48:34] great. They're doing amazing
[48:35] work out there. And I want to
[48:37] see is continued because it
[48:39] that will really reduce the
[48:41] burden, I believe on on our
[48:42] system. And that's the Senate.
[48:44] And so I'm gonna not to belabor
[48:45] the point, but let's be
[48:46] specific. And in the future
[48:47] when we make a statement,
[48:48] that's all I'm asking. If we're
[48:48] going to throw that out there
[48:49] into the East Coast. Let's just
[48:51] be specific about when to
[48:52] nonprofits. We're talking about
[48:53] which ones with incident
[48:56] charity cases, which ones were
[48:57] considering part well, and
[48:57] that's where people's has a
[48:59] question. Maybe I'll ask for
[49:00] she and her Brady in the
[49:00] overall budget process and
[49:02] working with departments.
[49:03] I would assume.
[49:05] >> That our departments really
[49:06] looked closely at additional
[49:07] services that were being
[49:09] provided external to the city
[49:11] are contracts that we had as a
[49:13] part of their 3% or one percent
[49:13] cuts to either of you have any
[49:14] additional comment you could
[49:15] make about that process or
[49:16] things that you saw for
[49:19] departments. And I'll turn
[49:22] accounts for peoples.
[49:22] >> I would say, well, you know,
[49:23] it's a went through the
[49:23] process. And when we asked
[49:24] departments to cut one percent
[49:26] and 3%, we did the same thing
[49:30] with. Partners that we provide
[49:33] funds to. So we. They took the
[49:36] impact as well.
[49:37] >> You have an example. Maybe
[49:38] Jay, you can pry the clears.
[49:39] Ones are the 3 chambers of the
[49:41] lower chamber's been
[49:42] African-American
[49:44] black chamber, commerce that
[49:44] they you know, we went to them
[49:47] and say especially the first we
[49:49] didn't ask for that. But it's
[49:49] when we got further in the
[49:50] process. And when you the gap
[49:52] is getting bigger, we said.
[49:54] We need to were looking for
[49:57] every, you know, diamond, the
[49:59] in the cushion. So. They all
[50:00] said we understand will look
[50:02] at it and we'll come back and
[50:03] we can and they'll come back
[50:04] and said, yeah, we will make it
[50:07] work. So. So we went through
[50:11] that process.
[50:12] Qatar, people's incomes were
[50:13] back.
[50:14] >> So, mayor, I want to start
[50:14] out by saying I'm gonna catch
[50:17] my remarks because my budget
[50:19] meeting with the community
[50:22] isn't until AUGUST the 31st.
[50:24] But based on the conversations
[50:25] that I've had with community
[50:29] meetings, the things that j
[50:31] brought us today are things
[50:32] that my constituents were
[50:35] asking for. They ask about
[50:37] making sure that we provided
[50:38] for parks and recreation.
[50:40] They asked that we go back and
[50:42] look at library services and
[50:45] me. One of the things I was
[50:47] one of the council members Sj
[50:49] about going back to look at
[50:52] taking care of our employees by
[50:53] making sure that we provided
[50:55] them opportunities far pay for
[50:57] performance because I
[50:59] understand employee
[51:00] satisfaction and employee
[51:03] retention. Some I will just
[51:04] tell you.
[51:07] I am comfortable and at catch
[51:08] that by saying I need to hear
[51:11] from the rest of my residents
[51:13] on the 31st. But I am
[51:16] comfortable that j and team
[51:19] went back and did what I
[51:22] personally asked them to do
[51:23] because I feel like residents
[51:24] want the services provided to
[51:28] them and we need to and we U.S.
[51:30] Deal giving them a. We're still
[51:31] trying to keep their bills
[51:35] manageable. And we came in with
[51:37] a right that's below of what
[51:40] they mean with the tax I'm
[51:41] comfortable with this in j you
[51:43] and your staff have done an
[51:46] admirable job. I know this was
[51:50] it a tough one? I know we ask a
[51:51] lot of you, but today I'm
[51:52] comfortable now on the 31st.
[51:56] Most it MAY change. Thank you.
[51:57] Cause we're back.
[51:58] >> So I had I actually had my
[51:59] budget meeting yesterday and
[52:02] I own a j, though those weren't
[52:02] plants. I promise.
[52:04] >> All of the things that I
[52:05] brought up on Tuesday, it was
[52:07] like they every person hammered
[52:08] at home. But it was we heard a
[52:11] lot about not wanting a cut
[52:13] in services, particularly when
[52:16] it came to Code Library in
[52:19] parks, which we all kind of
[52:20] communicated and Tuesday.
[52:21] I have never been comfortable
[52:23] with the fact that we got to
[52:24] this budget solution on the
[52:27] backs of our employees. It just
[52:29] didn't feel right with me.
[52:32] We ask so much of them already.
[52:33] And if we're honest, government
[52:34] work is not one that comes with
[52:38] a lot of parks. They don't get
[52:39] bonuses. They don't get, you
[52:40] know, fun parties are cool swag
[52:42] right there coming here for the
[52:43] love of the game. And I want to
[52:46] make sure that that we're
[52:49] taking care of them. So.
[52:49] And no one likes an increase,
[52:50] but we're already going up.
[52:53] You've already recommended 3.2
[52:58] And since the increase and this
[53:00] minor increase gets us to a
[53:00] place where we're not cutting
[53:03] services and we're supporting
[53:05] our employees. And I think,
[53:07] you know, and we still get
[53:07] below what their tax bill was
[53:08] last year. And I personally
[53:11] think that's a win for
[53:12] everybody.
[53:15] >> Anyone else guess comes from
[53:17] a teen is.
[53:18] I'm so my budget e of meetings.
[53:21] Also coming up on Saturday,
[53:23] will this information as
[53:24] a second? That's because being
[53:25] counseled kind of gives us
[53:26] direction. Today will update
[53:26] the to let everybody know we're
[53:29] we're we're headed at least.
[53:30] >> I would really like to see
[53:32] included because, you know,
[53:35] people need to know that, you
[53:35] know, adding this well, provide
[53:40] the least impact on service.
[53:42] To piggyback on COUNCILMAN
[53:42] Martinez, my budget meetings
[53:44] that's really held already this
[53:46] week files on Tuesday night.
[53:48] And if there's going to be some
[53:49] changes, is there any way that
[53:50] I could call a concept to maybe
[53:52] get a brief summary so that I
[53:52] could fund that day to my
[53:55] constituents just to know that
[53:56] we have pivoted and to some
[53:56] extent with those
[53:59] conversations, the numbers that
[53:59] we proposed already have to
[54:02] have change or we can. We can
[54:03] put something together and and
[54:04] once we had at the presentation
[54:06] to include that with this is
[54:07] kind of where we're going, it
[54:11] will be updated on the website
[54:13] is thank you for for us.
[54:14] >> Kind of emphasized some of
[54:17] these talking points that were
[54:19] all having here. I my budget
[54:21] meeting is still up coming be
[54:22] interesting to see. Hopefully
[54:24] get some good participation.
[54:27] What I will be looking for that
[54:29] was like most Council members
[54:31] little clarity. What's
[54:31] important to, you know, our
[54:34] constituents with that said.
[54:36] I wish we have all the budget
[54:39] meetings, not because I think
[54:41] it would help us to reaffirmed
[54:41] what our priorities are as
[54:44] counsel because I'm still not
[54:44] clear on that. I could
[54:47] articulate what's priorities in
[54:47] my district, but that doesn't
[54:49] necessarily mean it's going to
[54:52] match up with everyone else.
[54:54] Right? So that's what I'm going
[54:56] to be looking forward to.
[54:56] And I know that's what's
[54:57] intended j when all this is
[55:01] done in this exercise is
[55:04] completed I'm looking for that.
[55:06] What do our priorities look
[55:09] like following these meetings
[55:09] following having received
[55:10] public input. Is it then?
[55:13] I think we can start making
[55:15] more refined choices on right.
[55:18] Word caught would reduce and
[55:20] we're not too.
[55:20] And at.
[55:21] >> I can honestly say after
[55:23] 4 meetings and I meant made the
[55:26] comment last night.
[55:28] COUNCILWOMAN That refer to
[55:30] after 2 or 3 speakers and one
[55:33] person kind of brought their
[55:35] list of grievances
[55:35] that merit exactly the
[55:38] conversation from this group
[55:41] on Tuesday. And so these items
[55:41] that were brought up Tuesday
[55:44] is exactly what we're hearing
[55:46] from.
[55:49] The 4 meetings we've had so
[55:50] far that folks are saying.
[55:52] You know, somebody said last
[55:54] night the other day you're
[55:56] already proposing a. The tax
[55:58] rate increase. Nobody wants
[56:01] less services because a little
[56:02] bit more to.
[56:03] Get get us back. Those services
[56:03] would rather do that because it
[56:05] doesn't look like you're not
[56:08] going to have a decrease on the
[56:09] tax rate.
[56:09] It doesn't make that much
[56:11] difference. If it's not going
[56:13] to change or overall customer
[56:14] on. That was a comment last
[56:15] night, but it's been consistent
[56:18] in every meeting. I think
[56:19] there's. I would guess maybe
[56:21] 100 people so far to the 4
[56:25] meetings 120 people. There's
[56:26] been one person that says and
[56:27] all they said was I like lower
[56:28] value like lower taxes. And
[56:30] that was his comment and
[56:31] everybody else. It's that's the
[56:34] only person out of all of that.
[56:37] Is that so? Yeah, we have a
[56:39] server results and you know
[56:39] that that chart that shows the
[56:41] departments that went up versus
[56:42] the ones to gun down. That
[56:45] mayor is almost exactly this.
[56:46] Non scientific survey that we
[56:48] put out to the public this
[56:51] summer. And so, Jay, back to
[56:52] you. So
[56:54] >> I haven't had my meeting it.
[56:55] But I told you I've heard from
[56:59] multiple people in this is what
[57:01] I heard. And I just got a text
[57:02] that said good job. Go for it.
[57:04] So I think, you know, residents
[57:06] do watch this and I hope people
[57:09] are listening or looking now.
[57:10] But the consensus I have unless
[57:14] it changes on the 31st is that
[57:14] people want don't want to drop
[57:16] and services and they're
[57:18] willing to pay a little bit
[57:19] more are see a little bit of an
[57:20] increase because they won't
[57:21] be paying more. But he a little
[57:24] bit of an increase to get
[57:26] those.
[57:29] >> Yes, thank you. I do want to
[57:29] support this recommendation.
[57:32] And a note comes, asa still
[57:33] being talked around. Other
[57:37] things that we can do. And I
[57:38] want to Thao directly to our
[57:41] employees. I general employees
[57:44] because I think
[57:44] they are the heartbeat of our
[57:45] community. And what makes the
[57:49] city wants a parks department.
[57:50] Alright, couple compliance
[57:54] ashtray teen and there were
[57:54] concerns
[57:55] raises are not getting raises
[57:59] and we know cost of living goes
[58:01] up every year. And so this
[58:01] budget supports to make sure
[58:04] they can still put food on our
[58:06] table. And I remind
[58:09] you that even a county last
[58:10] year get a tax decrease.
[58:10] But they also got rid of the
[58:14] whole department with 100 plus
[58:15] jobs and I want to make sure
[58:18] that I'm please know that we
[58:19] value here. We certainly not
[58:19] going to be could mean the
[58:22] body's Joplin departments.
[58:23] And if that
[58:24] costs us to raise at Texas,
[58:25] then that's what we want to
[58:28] do. And so I can support what
[58:29] you have to post today.
[58:32] Any other comments from
[58:36] council?
[58:36] Again, your staff's and an
[58:37] awesome job.
[58:38] >> Jay, I know this has not
[58:38] been easy. If you listen really
[58:39] across the state and several
[58:41] jurisdictions are all grappling
[58:43] with budgets. And I'm just
[58:45] really proud. Also this body
[58:45] to to Alice, give staff
[58:48] direction as we move forward in
[58:49] future meetings. So it sounds
[58:50] like follow-up that Kristi and
[58:51] her team will provide kind of a
[58:52] summary of what these changes
[58:53] look like to all council
[58:54] members will be helpful.
[58:54] Future meetings and also those
[58:57] of you that already had budget
[58:58] meetings as well. And then it
[59:00] might be helpful just one more
[59:01] time to articulate the timing
[59:02] of what we're going to do in
[59:04] the next month before we vote
[59:04] on the final budget to give
[59:05] your body time, you do have
[59:05] plenty of time. We're just got
[59:07] this recommendation front of
[59:08] you to allow staff to run with
[59:11] this rather than the original
[59:13] proposed budget present.
[59:14] >> So on AUGUST, 25th, so
[59:15] Tuesday's regular work session
[59:17] meeting, we have a place Holder
[59:17] for budget, follow-ups and
[59:21] items. They're just as part of
[59:21] the regular meeting. We have
[59:22] continued community engagement
[59:22] into next week with the last
[59:26] meeting occurring on SEPTEMBER
[59:29] for 3rd. And we have a budget
[59:29] public hearing special called
[59:32] meeting at 02:00pm on SEPTEMBER
[59:34] first. So that's just with all
[59:35] of you at once hearing from
[59:36] many community members who
[59:38] would like to speak on the
[59:38] budget and then you're
[59:39] scheduled to adopt the tax rate
[59:42] in the budget on SEPTEMBER.
[59:45] 15th.
[59:46] Any other questions on this
[59:49] topic before we even to ccpd.