[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[1:30] Recording in progress.
[1:59] I'm going to call to order the June 16th City Council meeting and ask that you stand for the flag salute if you are able. I
[2:07] pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right, and our land acknowledgement statement will be read by Council Member Emory.
[2:28] We hit your button there.
[2:31] Thank you, Mayor.
[2:34] We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this area, the Stohomis people, and their
[2:38] successors, the Tulalic tribes.
[2:41] Since time and memorial, they have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands.
[2:46] We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and honor their sacred spiritual
[2:51] connection with the land and water.
[2:53] We understand the cultural and historic significance of the city of McAteal holds in respect of the
[2:58] signing of the point, Elliot Treaty of 1855.
[3:02] As the city, we commit to being honest about the legacy
[3:04] of colonization and our indigenous predecessors
[3:07] and commit to bringing you about a future
[3:09] that includes their people, stories, and voices
[3:12] to form and just in fair society.
[3:15] Thank you very much, Council Member Emery.
[3:18] Is there any council member or staff
[3:21] have anything on the agenda order?
[3:24] Anything on the agenda order?
[3:25] Right. And I have a proclamation to read this evening as well, Juneteenth.
[3:36] Whereas Juneteenth
[3:37] is the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the ending of slavery in the United States.
[3:42] And whereas Juneteenth commemorates African-American freedom and celebrates the successes gained
[3:47] through education and greater opportunity. And whereas on June 19th, 1865, two and a half
[3:54] years after the passage of the Emancipation Proclamation, Union General Gordon Granger and
[3:59] his troops rode to Galveston, Texas and enforce the end of slavery.
[4:03] And whereas combining the words June and 19th, June 10th has been celebrated for over 150
[4:08] years.
[4:10] And whereas Washington State passed House Bill 1016 making June 10th the legal state holiday,
[4:15] which went into effect June of 2023.
[4:18] Now therefore be it resolved that I, Joe Murray, mayor of the city of Michael Tio, do here
[4:23] hereby proclaim June 19th, 2025 as Juneteenth in the city of Michael Teal, and I urge all residents to join me in celebrating the victory of ending slavery in America, and the efforts that continue to be made to support and heal the black and African-American community.
[4:38] Thank you.
[4:41] Any council comments?
[4:45] Reports? Comments? Council Vice President Moon.
[4:48] So, thank you Mayor, I have three reports, one, this past week I had the distinct honor
[4:56] of joining fellow residents aboard the Navy's guided USS John Paul Jones and it was
[5:06] alongside the Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, Kiwanis, and other members in our community.
[5:11] And I think the most amazing thing about that experience was meeting the 300 sailors.
[5:16] Now, I didn't mean all 300, but the majority of the sailors are the lower levels, right?
[5:22] And so they're the ones that are 18, 19, 20, 21 years old.
[5:26] And a lot of them didn't have family at this family and friends event.
[5:30] Which is why I think we're trying to adopt this Navy ship is because we want to be a community for them.
[5:37] A lot of them are flying from all over the country to serve in the Navy, yet they don't have family.
[5:42] And so it was really great hearing about their stories, why they joined and you know, it's a difficult time
[5:48] And I think I want to make sure we support them in what they're doing
[5:52] But anyway, it was a great experience. Great community. So incoming commander Cody Locke will soon become the commander
[6:00] And she's she's an amazing leader as well and shout out to the tenants commander Michael
[6:07] Jebson who showed me around
[6:09] Thank you so much for that
[6:10] Next, I think some Mike might mention this, and I'll mention this a little later, but I want to congratulate all the Kamiach graduates, especially with our MEAC seniors who graduated.
[6:25] Daniel, Andre, Aaron, David, and others, so proud of you.
[6:31] And lastly, we had the PSRC Economic Development Board meeting, and just a quick update.
[6:37] We did a SWOT analysis of what our economic opportunity looks like.
[6:42] We also discussed the World Cup that's coming next year, and what we can do as a community
[6:46] to really help market it as well as prepare for potential people that come to our region.
[6:55] And so that is it for me.
[6:57] All right.
[6:58] Thank you.
[6:58] Any further council comments or reports?
[7:02] Seeing none, we'll move to public comments.
[7:05] We're going to start with George Barron.
[7:07] And
[7:14] I'm on and ready to go.
[7:16] Looking forward to the current status on the McAteo speed
[7:21] cameras.
[7:23] I'm also looking forward to hearing what the results of the
[7:27] process survey were.
[7:30] With that in mind, I'd like to remind the council that the
[7:34] purpose of making the TDoc dive site into a city park is the
[7:38] keep divers and swimmers away from motor boats. The cost of maintaining the park
[7:46] should be very small. We've taken care of the dive site for about 30 years
[7:51] using only volunteer work and I'm not expecting or requesting in a
[7:57] significant change in that. I don't see any reason why it's not a goal and I'm
[8:01] glad that we're working on it. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Barron. Joe Hannon.
[8:17] So
[8:18] Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.
[8:21] And I am a Muckle Tio resident to live on 114 St. Southwest.
[8:27] I'm here tonight as a 28 year veteran and also as president of Muckle Tio Quantis.
[8:35] And in addition tonight, I'm here on behalf of three community groups, Muckle Tio Quantis,
[8:43] the South Everett, Rotary, and the Chamber of Commerce.
[8:48] South Everett, McEl'Teele, Rotary.
[8:51] The Rotary Club, so.
[8:54] But I was at the work session where a topic came up about asking the city to join into a partnership with the three community groups.
[9:06] Unfortunately, couldn't answer some of the questions, so I'll try to answer some of those that came up.
[9:12] As Councilmember Moon said, our goal here is to support the sailors and the families of one ship.
[9:23] The request for this came from the Navy.
[9:27] From the commander of Naval Station Everett, it's Captain Stacey Worthier, who made that
[9:35] request, which then in turn went to she wanted to identify a specific ship, and that was the
[9:41] John Paul Jones, and to their commander, who is a Muckle Teele resident, Brian Laws.
[9:49] And he follows a long tradition in Muckle Teele.
[9:53] Muckle Teele is the place of choice of commanders of ships there.
[9:59] So we've had most recently, some of you know, Muckle Teele Chocolate Company, started by a spouse
[10:06] of a commander of one of the ships.
[10:08] It's Jan Straub and her husband, he's just now retired, but Daniel Straub.
[10:17] In addition to that, the current and first female superintendent of anapolis lived in Harbor
[10:26] Point about a block from where I did.
[10:29] So she's a two-star admiral, now she brings, we met her last spring by accident but has
[10:37] That's very, very fond memories of Muckleteele and her time at Naval Base Everett.
[10:43] So there, we're here to invite 30 seconds left.
[10:48] Whoops, we're here to invite the city at a no cost to join with other community groups
[10:54] to meet some of the goals of the city of community engagement.
[10:59] This is the ultimate opportunity for us to reach out to people, young people that are serving
[11:05] and to help them integrate into our business community and to our schools.
[11:11] We've also approached the school district, 30 of the families on the John Pauls, well,
[11:17] 30 of the families that Everett live in Muckle Teal, and they've asked for our assistance and help.
[11:24] We have a lot more, it's a no-cost thing, and we invite the city to join with Kiwanis.
[11:33] Over 100 years old, serving Michael Tio, the Rotary Club, and the Chamber of Commerce.
[11:41] Thank you, Mr. Hannon.
[11:42] I'm done.
[11:43] You didn't have to put it up.
[11:45] Sharon Dammell.
[11:46] Any questions that I can answer?
[11:48] We don't do that with it.
[11:49] Can't do the question.
[11:54] Thank you.
[11:55] Sharon Dammell, Michael Tio.
[11:57] The land statement is part of a broad movement to indoctrinate people into thinking that America
[12:01] is bad.
[12:01] I'm very sad that our elected officials want to participate in that movement.
[12:05] America is not bad, it is very good.
[12:08] And we should all be proud and grateful to live here.
[12:10] The legacy of Americans coming to this region is the ending of slavery here.
[12:14] Last meeting, you passed the safe and welcoming city resolution and
[12:18] then you passed an additional motion to display the resolution on the walls in all city buildings.
[12:23] It is absurd to display it at all city buildings.
[12:26] That would include every storm router processing building or storage shed.
[12:30] The public never goes in some city buildings. Does this mean that council thinks our city employees won't treat residents politely and fairly if they don't have a resolution on the wall?
[12:40] And even in the buildings that the public does go in people are very unlikely to stand there and read a wordy resolution.
[12:46] I would have made these points before you voted only once again a significant motion was made after public comment was closed. This is extremely frustrating.
[12:54] This resolution doesn't accomplish anything good.
[12:58] It's just intended to virtue signal, except by including the words gender identity,
[13:02] it just signals to women that they are second-rate, that women's rights to fairness, privacy,
[13:07] and safety matter less than the desires of men with fetishes.
[13:10] It also unfortunately plays a part in communicating the trans lie to young people,
[13:15] a lie that has done enormous damage both mentally and physically to young people.
[13:19] I am very grateful that Council Member Vego had the courage to vote no on this resolution
[13:23] on behalf of women. It looks pretty bad that a council of men voted down the one woman
[13:28] on the issue of women's rights. It is impossible to support both women and transit ideology
[13:34] because transit ideology requires the erasure of women. Either males are allowed in women's
[13:39] sports and spaces or they are not. I'm very sad and disappointed that the men on this council
[13:44] chose men with fetishes over women. The situation is not actually safe and welcoming to women.
[13:50] With the land statement, you want to virtue signal about the 170-year-old past when you
[13:57] are right now saying that girls and women have no right to fare sports, that we have no
[14:02] right to privacy and safety in our restrooms, and that you are okay with children being
[14:06] lied to and subsequently being sterilized and having their bodies mutilated.
[14:10] That's what you're doing right now.
[14:12] Council members have previously accused me of injecting culture war items, and even a few
[14:16] Two weeks ago, accused me of harming multi-million dollar negotiations and being, quote,
[14:21] offensive to a government entity.
[14:23] I will just remind you that I merely respond to what you put on the agenda.
[14:27] You are the ones unnecessarily introducing divisive topics to city council meetings.
[14:31] I would be more than happy to stop going back and forth about these topics and instead talk
[14:35] about matters of city business such as the city's finances.
[14:39] On that topic, I will just say now that the local program means taking on debt and that
[14:44] is a big step.
[14:45] Normally, the public has to vote on whether the city should take on debt, such as by issuing bonds.
[14:50] Debt, burdens, future residents, and ties the hands of future councils.
[14:55] Thank you.
[14:55] Thank you, Ms. Delo.
[14:56] Tony Delo.
[15:01] On-line, we have elaine now.
[15:12] Good evening, council and mayor. First off, councilmember
[15:16] bravago does not represent this woman. Secondly, thank you for reading the Juneteenth
[15:22] proclamation. It takes me back to some comments that I heard Tyler Perry mention at the
[15:28] BET Awards a couple of weeks ago. What he said is, I want you to pay attention, he said to
[15:35] They are removing our book from libraries, they are removing our stories and our history,
[15:41] they are removing our names from government buildings as if someone wants to erase our footprints.
[15:46] Because what we need to understand is that if our children don't know our history,
[15:50] they won't know our power.
[15:53] And that sentence, they won't know our power.
[15:56] That could fit me too.
[15:59] If my children don't know my history, the good and the bad of it,
[16:03] But they won't know our power, the good things that we did, and the not so good things
[16:08] that we did.
[16:09] So just a few comments for him, but thank you again for reading the Juneteenth Proclamation
[16:16] and Councilmember Vago does not represent me.
[16:19] Thank you.
[16:20] Thank you, Ms. Nap.
[16:22] Alona Venduzer.
[16:32] Can you hear me?
[16:33] Yes, we can.
[16:34] Okay.
[16:35] I would like to ask that we do support the Navy and it's adoption of the ship and I know
[16:46] that last week there was a healthy discussion around that and not everyone was in favor.
[16:52] So I hope that the week's time in between that there was some research done and that folks
[16:58] have perhaps changed their mind. And again as one of the council members mentioned last week during
[17:06] the work session, this is about supporting the people on the ship not necessarily the war
[17:12] mission. I know that perhaps causes some conflict in the support that is being asked by the three
[17:20] city organizations but being a military wife and a military daughter I
[17:27] wholeheartedly support this endeavor. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Venduser. All
[17:33] right. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to address Kevin Stolz?
[17:45] What do you mean? I'll fill out the form a little bit. So I wanted to make some
[17:51] comments on the discussion on EV chargers. Actually I ran into three people
[17:57] people today on when I was jogging and the first person they pulled me aside, they come
[18:01] down from Harbor Point, they drive down every morning with their dog and they walk the
[18:06] water front and he asked me, did you hear about the EV that they're talking about taking
[18:12] those away and you know, and charging a dollar per kilowatt hour? He said, he's basically
[18:19] echoed exactly what I thought is a dollar per kilowatt hour you cannot expect to have any
[18:25] kind of people using that for a dollar per kilowatt hour. That's three times the go-and-rate
[18:32] on commercial chargers. So, you know, worst case, I mean, he said, well, if they're concerned
[18:38] about $4,500 a year, then why not just, you know, charge a lower rate, you know, charge
[18:45] like 10 or 15 cents or something like that. So, you know, that would, that would clear it
[18:51] out. And, you know, I think trying to use that as a profit center, you know, $20,000 if
[18:57] you had as much uses you have it for free isn't really that big of a thing.
[19:04] The other thing, let's see, so another thing is the every night when I take the dog out,
[19:11] I live like three blocks away from the speedway. And the cars at Lighthouse Park and if they're
[19:18] zoom in up the road, maybe they're getting tickets.
[19:21] I don't know.
[19:22] Every single night, it's loud.
[19:26] And we have to try to, I mean, we have to have somebody.
[19:29] Maybe the council can go down and there and see it.
[19:32] If you go down around sunset, until you like 10 o'clock
[19:36] when it closes and just the people making all that noise
[19:40] with the cars and stuff, it's not that big of a time period.
[19:45] And it would be really nice if we can get some action on that.
[19:51] It's just, it's really bad.
[19:53] And another person stopped me and said that, you know,
[19:56] they're trying to coordinate the time that they call.
[19:58] I've kind of given up on calling.
[19:59] It's been like five years since I originally looked up the RCW
[20:04] that allows the city to enforce that.
[20:07] And it seems like, okay, five years.
[20:09] I don't think much is happening.
[20:11] But I wish something.
[20:13] Also, I wanted to stress, you guys need to better understand the parking situation before
[20:21] you start making assumptions that the fact is that you're down like $200,000 from what
[20:28] you forecast on the parking.
[20:31] You have signs up there and nobody even knows how much it is.
[20:35] It's $3 an hour.
[20:37] You can't even tell that until you get online and put in your license number
[20:41] That's a simple thing to fix. I don't know why why you don't do that
[20:45] But you also have the ticket car and you know, you can get you can find out how many residents are down there how many people are
[20:54] paying for parking and how many aren't and so you guys should as a council you should ask for that data
[20:59] It's available, you know, so you know, use it
[21:03] Thank you, mr. Stoltz
[21:05] Anybody else in the room like to just the council?
[21:10] Okay.
[21:12] All right, we will move on with our consent.
[21:16] Is there a council member who needs
[21:18] to have any questions or pull an item off of consent?
[21:23] All right, we will move those as presented,
[21:25] which brings us to our first business item,
[21:28] the local program.
[21:30] And you will find that under tab number three
[21:38] and director Neenhouse will be coming up to the podium.
[22:05] Okay, good evening council.
[22:07] I am here for the two business items tonight, both of these fall under Council Priority 1.
[22:14] We have discussed these at work sessions and just in general in the past, so nothing
[22:19] new, but we're here at a regular meeting to possibly take action and get public comments.
[22:26] So the first one is the local program.
[22:29] So, just a reminder, summary, this is a financing tool to the Office of State Treasurer.
[22:36] And they pull these together with municipalities around the state into bonds that the cities
[22:43] then pay a fixed income stream, a regular principal interest payments, which I also have
[22:48] in Exhibit 2.
[22:50] And the financing terms also can range for four to ten years and then they give us a range
[22:56] range of a low and a high interest rate, but the interest rate obviously does not get
[23:00] set until they actually sell those bonds. So,
[23:05] quick peak at the vehicles and equipment.
[23:09] This comes from the six-year plan which was actually presented during the Bayano budget.
[23:16] These were the vehicles that we talked about for the two years. Some of these are in the
[23:20] budget. Some of these are not. So, these first ones are vehicles that are four-year
[23:25] The first two were for fire that actually council had talked about these recently.
[23:31] And resolution 2025-14 was voted on and approved.
[23:38] That should the EMS levy lit lift pass, that staff is directed to prepare a budget amendment
[23:43] for the fire department to increase the budget so these funds will be used out of that EMS
[23:51] levy.
[23:51] the self-contained breathing apparatus and the bunker here. So just as a reminder of that,
[23:55] I have them here still, but they were part of that resolution for the EMS levee.
[24:00] And then the two fort interceptors are actually in the current biennial budget
[24:06] under ERNR. Six-year vehicles and equipment, trucks and cars generally are falling under this six
[24:15] years. The ones we have, so we have some public works trucks,
[24:20] engineering escape to replace and a planning escape. That second public works
[24:24] truck I want to just highlight that that is no longer operational and I really
[24:30] don't want to be putting money the amount of money that would take to get that
[24:34] truck up and running would be significant so I do not want to continue to put
[24:38] money into that old truck so it's no longer you'll be seeing it on a surplus
[24:43] resolution in the near future.
[24:49] Ten-year vehicles and equipment. So our right-of-way
[24:52] mower, we have spent, oh and I just want to go back to this one I forgot I have
[24:58] included maintenance costs on these. You guys had asked about that last time. So
[25:02] this is your to date when I had made this the maintenance costs on these vehicles.
[25:09] Ten-year equipment to the right-of-way mower is dead. We spent a significant amount
[25:16] money over it over the years as you can see. Way more than we would ever want to
[25:21] spend and so you also we've seen that on a surplus resolution we are proposing
[25:26] to replace that with a very dedicated right-of-way mower rather than a
[25:30] tractor if in the future and then also the John Deere or the New Holland
[25:36] backhoe has had significant repairs it's well beyond its life so those are the
[25:41] two. I have a question mark in maintenance costs we could only find two
[25:44] $3,000 by remember spending a lot more than that early on, you know, like seven or eight years ago, we're just having trouble finding the receipts so
[25:53] There's any specific vehicle questions. I'll gladly answer those
[25:56] I did not include in here on the 10 year, but it has come up as the engine for the fire department
[26:02] That would be approximately $1.5 million for that, but that is also something that we could replace through this 10 year program
[26:13] payment schedule
[26:16] For your term, you can see there how much is financed, the range that would be the total
[26:24] cost depends on how much it is, and then approximately how much a year, that will vary
[26:30] a little bit, but so the four year term would be approximately $175,000 a year, six year
[26:35] term, $70,000 a year, and the ten year term, $63,000 a year.
[26:41] Now, if you want to just take the engine, if you want to figure that out, it's 1.5, so
[26:48] we take that 63 times 3, that could get us a pretty rough number of $189,000 a year
[26:53] as well.
[26:53] It would cost to finance the engine.
[26:56] So,
[26:59] steps, next steps, what's going on?
[27:02] So we have already filed the notice intent and the credit form.
[27:05] It'll be a few more weeks before we get anything back from Treasury.
[27:08] Is there working on that?
[27:09] And then they produce the council resolutions and all the financing documents that we would come back to council with to officially adopt those.
[27:18] So the no some intent in the credit app had to be in by July 3rd. We have that done.
[27:22] So we have until the middle of August to get all those documents back to OST and then the funds would be available towards the end of the year.
[27:32] Right.
[27:34] Thank you.
[27:34] Yeah, just you might ask what my own personal opinion is I would say that if this is something that council wishes to do
[27:43] We start with the long-term equipment and work our way down because those are the ones that significant financial resources to take
[27:52] Might be difficult for us to finance one off on those so I would go 10 then six and then maybe consider the four but really those 10 and six year ones in that order so
[28:03] Yes. Any questions? Council Member Harris?
[28:06] Yeah, it's a quick question. The maintenance costs on that chart. Were those the year-to-date
[28:11] or those like the life cycle? Life cycle today is what I meant to say.
[28:14] Oh, life cycle today, okay. Okay. And so there's really, so those numbers don't translate to
[28:20] a yearly maintenance cost. No, kind of. They fluctuate all over the place, but yes.
[28:25] Okay. Okay, thank you. Council President Jordan.
[28:29] Two things on the mower. What are we going to do now that we don't have a working mower and then how often does the back go get used?
[28:38] Not a working mower is a bit of an issue. They're very, very expensive to rent if we can even get one because the few that are out there getting high demand during the summer.
[28:49] And so what we do is we have to spot mo with our mini excavator that has a mower head
[28:55] but it's a lot more time consuming because we have to have a truck and a trailer unload it,
[28:59] mo load it back on, you know, so and that's really a stormwater equipment that should be being used
[29:04] on ponds and things like that and not on right away. So then we also take it away from stormwater being
[29:08] used. So we're really just trying to hit the hot spots with it. But yeah, so right away moeing is
[29:14] going to be an issue for the summer.
[29:17] We were able to get the speedway done
[29:18] and get that taken care of, so.
[29:21] And then the other question was about the backhoe.
[29:23] The backhoe gets used multiple times a week, right?
[29:27] So it's busy quite often, correct.
[29:30] And that one is mostly, so stormwater has one backhoe
[29:34] that they stormwater paste for and stormwater uses.
[29:37] This backhoe is specifically for streets and parks
[29:40] doing their work.
[29:41] And so it's cleaning the boat ramp
[29:43] and it's, you know, spreading chips and things like that, so yeah, it is all used.
[29:50] Council Member Emory.
[29:51] Thank you, Mayor.
[29:54] Your question is about the life expectancy of all of this equipment.
[30:00] Yeah. Apparently, the back ho can last a very long time, maybe. The vehicles is a 10-year contract
[30:10] to pay them off. Is that equal to their life expectancy? Or can we get more out of them?
[30:15] So one of the things that makes this perhaps more or less interesting is do we have room after
[30:23] we pay off the debt to still use all of this equipment before we have to start the cycle again?
[30:27] Yeah, so the financing has to be for
[30:31] The life expectancy or less
[30:33] To the state and so most of our cars and trucks as you can see are going to be
[30:40] 12 15 years old or so before we are replacing them
[30:43] So those are six year items. We're gonna get twice that out of it back
[30:49] Oh, we probably won't get twice 10 years although 99 you know, it's been a while
[30:53] But you know, those are at least 15 year items, correct? If you were just going on a schedule with a backup, it'd be 15 years
[31:00] Okay, I think that was good information
[31:02] Yeah, all right. Thank you
[31:06] Councilmember Harris. Yeah, so I
[31:09] Know that this is a
[31:12] Like I'm just taking a clear picture of like the city. We don't like debt here
[31:19] And we are usually very physically solvent and you know, very disciplined and whatnot, and I know that you know taking on debt kind of, you know, counter circumvents that and also circumvents one of our policies.
[31:35] I'm just going to jump right into it and say that like I believe that the bunker gear, the specifically the fire department needs, those are the things that I'm advocating to use for local because they're lifesaving.
[31:49] I'm wondering if there's another city we can contract with to maybe get theirs possibly?
[31:56] I really don't think so.
[31:58] They're going to be hot and heavy using it when we would need to use it.
[32:02] Those kinds of pieces of equipment are hard to, those are very specialized equipment.
[32:06] It's hard to do that without spending a lot of money.
[32:10] I'm curious, did we ask admins at all?
[32:13] I have not, but I've been in the industry a while and I kind of have an idea about those.
[32:17] Yes, I agree and I respect your experience and stuff. I believe Edmonds would be motivated to find revenue
[32:25] So that's kind of my thought there, but neither here nor there. I'm all for the fire department needs
[32:33] Out of this list
[32:37] Also present Jordan
[32:39] Yeah, money question
[32:41] The
[32:42] In addition to the interest rate, are there some fees up front in addition that are not reflected in in this?
[32:49] It's all built in okay, okay, so there's no like up front. Okay. Thanks. All right any further questions councilor Dixon. Okay
[33:01] So I have a couple of questions for you. What is the current balance just estimate any equipment reserve? I do not know like 650 650,000 ish
[33:12] Director Newton, yes, can probably check on that for you while we're.
[33:19] How much?
[33:20] 687?
[33:23] 847?
[33:27] Okay.
[33:30] And so currently what equipment per the budget would actually be funded by the equipment
[33:36] reserve?
[33:36] I think when you went through the analysis and we didn't include the bunker gear into breathing
[33:42] apparatus, there was like 300, 400,000 or something like that, keep you going.
[33:47] What is currently funded in the budget right now?
[33:50] Yes.
[33:51] That's on this list.
[33:52] Yes.
[33:53] The police interceptors.
[33:55] The two interceptors, the 92.5.
[33:57] Is what is budgeted for 2026?
[33:59] The 2025 items have already been purchased or ordered, right?
[34:04] So then the way the math works is the 867,
[34:07] unless the 292.5s, so about, I don't know, 700,000 or so,
[34:12] is left.
[34:13] Where's the 292.5?
[34:14] The 28th, the two interceptors, they're each 92-5.
[34:19] So, if you were to-
[34:20] $180,000, yeah, correct.
[34:23] So, that's what I meant by the two 92-5s.
[34:25] But then you would also have to make-
[34:27] I thought you were making two or nine out of that, yeah.
[34:29] No, so you'd have to, and then mechanically,
[34:33] you would have to leave the same amount that you removed
[34:37] from the equipment reserve in it, right?
[34:40] So you'd have to put another 190,000 back into the equipment replacement reserve.
[34:46] Well, you don't have to put it in, but you have to have that balance in there, right?
[34:49] So when you spend some 90, you have to have the balance of 190.
[34:52] And there's currently 870, so there's clearly that.
[34:54] Okay.
[34:55] So where I was going with it is if you were to use the equipment replacement reserve to pay for
[35:01] the breathing apparatus and the bunker gear, that's totals 450,000,
[35:07] And you were to use the equipment replacement reserve to do that.
[35:11] There's still, there'd be 450 left in there, so you don't have to put anything in, or you'd have to leave at least 450.
[35:18] How does that work?
[35:19] You're going to spend 450, you've got to leave 450.
[35:22] You're done, you have to have 450 in.
[35:23] Okay, so that's, the reason why I'm going through that is that the mechanics of that kind of, to me, highlight why this approach is important because there are very few things that you could actually do.
[35:35] If you understand the way the math works with the $800,000 with this list of, I don't know, what is this, $1.34 million of critical equipment because these are all priority one items as I recall, that two or three, but priority one and the most important priority one item that's not on there is the fire engine that's $1.3 million and has a 46 month lead time and you were currently planning on funding that with $350,000 annual contributions to the Equipment Replacement Reserve over,
[36:05] a four-year period. So I don't see how we ever would do that unless we were to take advantage
[36:11] of a program like this. Another question I got is, oh, you'd already answered if that
[36:17] was to analyze maintenance costs. The engine, you said the engine could be added and we could
[36:23] estimate that was 190,000 or so, which is fine. That makes perfect sense to me. I just want
[36:29] I'm going to push a little bit on the maintenance cost estimate for the backhoe.
[36:34] The backhoe is like 26 years and you said that the life cycle maintenance cost is $2,000,
[36:39] but it's in the shop with significant repairs in the past.
[36:43] Like I said, I think it does not, that's why I put the question plus question mark because
[36:47] I don't have the receipts for it, right?
[36:48] Okay, that's it.
[36:48] This is what we actually had documentation for, but I know there's been a lot more we just
[36:52] okay.
[36:53] All right, okay.
[36:55] That's all I have.
[36:55] Thank you.
[36:56] Councilmember Schmals.
[37:00] I'm
[37:03] going to kind of follow up on a couple of questions.
[37:06] So I was looking at the budgets of what we've done in the past as far as investing in
[37:13] equipment replacement and it really hasn't been very disciplined to pay for what these
[37:22] priority one items are.
[37:25] So, I was kind of just kind of read, I think, I think, have the straight.
[37:29] In 2023, we put in zero.
[37:34] 2024, 270,000, and 25, and 26, 300 each, so that's 600,000.
[37:42] So, I mean, to do the math about trying to purchase what you're asking for
[37:49] and what we're investing in to keep the policy is kind of,
[37:53] But to me is, I think we have some catching up to do
[37:58] as far as investing into the program.
[38:01] So do
[38:06] you know,
[38:14] I mean, I really don't have,
[38:16] I'm just kind of making some observations of what you guys
[38:19] are feeling out there in the public works department
[38:22] as far as getting equipment.
[38:23] We're going to have to get it somehow.
[38:25] So any idea where what you guys have been talking about as far as if we don't do a local program is just kind of put it in the shop and keep it running.
[38:43] I think it's going to be very, very difficult to be able to purchase a new mower.
[38:47] the backhoe we probably could keep running, but it's going to start having more and more
[38:52] significant repairs and it's very old, but it's going to be very difficult to be able
[38:56] to purchase those equipment, those pieces of equipment with kind of as you laid out
[39:01] what we've gone in everywhere every year and that's for a long time, it's not been very consistent
[39:06] right, so it's going to be, it's going to be difficult to be able to purchase those bigger
[39:10] pieces of equipment.
[39:10] We've been good at replacing police cars and regular cars on a regular basis, but we're
[39:16] getting to a point where like we try not to defer maintenance now I there's two
[39:20] I'm just not going to spend the money on because it's not worth it but we we
[39:24] have deferred purchases for a long time right it's nothing new and it's
[39:29] catching up right and so looking forward even further than this list what do we
[39:35] what are we talking about have you guys done any type of forecasting what you guys
[39:41] We have a six-year plan, right, but it kind of has to roll backwards if we can't fund things.
[39:50] So we keep deferring and extending life cycles year over year over year.
[39:56] Okay, thank you.
[39:59] Council Member Dixon.
[40:01] Yeah, let me go back.
[40:02] So, if you, so a couple of quick questions, as far as the debt policy for the city, the
[40:11] first item is that debt is not to be used for operating costs.
[40:14] This is capital, right?
[40:15] This is capital expenses, this is not an operating cost, right?
[40:19] Good capital.
[40:20] Yeah, okay.
[40:20] And I know that the policy says that whenever possible the city will identify alternative
[40:24] sources to minimize the use of debt financing.
[40:27] But this is this is to purchase capital the next item is that we do actually have a long-term general obligation debt as a city
[40:36] Right and we use that to purchase the Rose Hill facility and I think that was I don't know 13 14 million dollars when it was originally issued and it was
[40:44] Reef and has to refunding bond with 17 million dollars. I believe if I remember correctly and
[40:49] My point is that we have issued long-term general obligation bonds in the past and we have
[40:59] have in fact a significant amount of debt that we've taken on when we thought as a body
[41:09] that it was warranted for capital. And this is also capital. So I just want to make sure
[41:16] that's understood. The last question is to Council Member Schmals' point, I've looked
[41:25] that the priority 1, 2, 3, 6-year schedule that you guys have, could you help me to just
[41:32] envision if you were to go down this path? Currently, I think that was $300,000 or so annual
[41:40] expense for at least four years, layering in a few, you know, in the future for vehicle
[41:47] replacement setting aside the fire engine.
[41:52] Would you say $500,000 a year would satisfy the equipment replacement requirement if
[42:01] we were to utilize a local program as a mechanism to continually maintain the equipment replacement
[42:09] needs, you know, these types of equipment going forward for the foreseeable future.
[42:14] What is sort of a steady run rate I don't know if I can answer that without sitting down and really analyzing it
[42:21] Okay, I think that would be helpful to understand
[42:24] At least for me
[42:26] Thank you
[42:28] Council President Jordan
[42:30] Yeah, it's kind of reflecting on this and I wanted to share my thoughts it to me
[42:35] It seems like the the biggest benefit is if we're going to do these between the four six and ten years is with with the ten years as you mentioned before
[42:42] And I think one of the things to consider in that is just the administrative effort that goes into setting up a local
[42:49] loan. And another kind of benefit that I see is that if you can get money at under 5%, that's a pretty good deal.
[42:58] I wouldn't be surprised if equipment costs go up by more than 5% a year.
[43:03] And then I'm asking myself and I ask you, but also do we really need this equipment?
[43:09] And coming into this, I was less certain that I am now.
[43:14] It seems to me like in particular, like a lawnmower or the mowing machine.
[43:19] It's pretty important for us to have to maintain our city looking the way we want it to look.
[43:24] And then lastly, can we afford to do this without a local program?
[43:29] And to me, it's, I'm kind of lean that the answer is no, but
[43:34] I'd be interested to hear what are the council members think on that point.
[43:41] I'm looking at the interest rates, those set, those can be read, if the interest rates
[43:48] go down or can they be renegotiated or is that pretty much set.
[43:52] Once, so that's a range that's in the amortization schedule, hi, hello.
[43:57] Once the bond is sold, the rate is set for the term of that bond.
[44:01] So if it's 4%, it's 4%, prepaying does not do us any good.
[44:07] We still have to pay the interest for the people that have the bond, right?
[44:12] So it really doesn't do us any good and there is, I don't believe we can refinance it.
[44:18] I thought maybe we could refinance real estate, but I know we can't refinance the equipment, thanks.
[44:26] Any other questions?
[44:29] Council Member Dixon.
[44:30] I guess you'd ask what are thoughts.
[44:32] I mean, this is sort of the question period, but you ask the question.
[44:35] And I think it makes all the sense in a world to go on this path.
[44:38] I don't think there's an alternative because we haven't addressed the fire engine.
[44:42] And I think back to the 2015 study for the fire department, and there were a number of items.
[44:47] Some of these are included, even as Director Neenhouse suggested that we start with a 10 year schedule
[44:53] and work our way back.
[44:54] Well, the breathing apparatus for the fire department's on the four year schedule.
[44:58] So if we do that.
[45:00] That, unless we include that, we are going to be delisted or derated or whatever, as I understand it for next year. So there's a lot of critical equipment that's not funded unless we do this.
[45:12] Can also member Harris. Yeah, it just want to add on if other council members are going to weigh in on the issue. Is like what equipment would you like to be used by a local programmer, which of this list would you like to see be used?
[45:34] Thank you, Matt. I agreed with you that if we move forward the program, my personal
[45:40] choice also was to go with the 10-year program. It does. It's less of a burden on the ERR fund,
[45:49] but I think that saying that we need to do everything isn't a good idea because that's
[45:57] That's a lot of money, and what other things are you going to cut to pay for this?
[46:02] Because you have to pay for this.
[46:04] And when you have to pay for this, you have to look at what you're going to cut out of the budget to pay for this.
[46:10] Because we don't have enough money to fund all of these things and not make a cut.
[46:15] So I would just like to know what you guys are willing to cut to pay for this program if you move forward with it.
[46:23] Council Member Emory.
[46:24] Thank you, Mayor.
[46:27] Those are good questions, actually.
[46:31] And there's some potential answers to some of them by looking at the cash flow dynamic.
[46:38] So if we were to use our replacement fund as we had been using, we would spend that money
[46:46] $840,000 of it would cover most of this, but that would be gone.
[46:54] If we use the locale program, the actual annual expenditure is far less, leaving us with
[47:01] a balance in our equipment replacement fund that I presume would be put to use as being
[47:07] invest it, which could be turned almost exactly what the interest rate is if not better on the
[47:14] bond. When we pay off any, one of these groups, we would, I would like to think we would
[47:22] have the discipline and the capacity to continue to take the money we've been using for the
[47:29] locale payments and put that back into the equipment replacement fund for the next round.
[47:34] And that amount of money would not be necessarily very significant.
[47:39] One of the advantages, one of the appeals of the locale program is we don't have to come
[47:44] up with a lot of money all at once.
[47:46] We can spread it out over years.
[47:47] So if you look at spreading out the expenses and not spending down the equipment replacement
[47:54] fund to begin with, which is what we've been doing, we have resources that we can invest.
[48:00] and when we pay off the reading effort of the other year and four years, we don't stop
[48:06] making that payment, we pay it to ourselves so that when we need to renew it, we'll still
[48:11] have some money in our equipment replacement fund.
[48:15] I think that helps me feel a little more comfortable with this concept because I otherwise am concerned
[48:24] about going into debt, but I also think that at this point, we don't have a lot of choice,
[48:31] especially for some of this equipment. We have to buy it. We don't have enough resources at the
[48:36] moment to do that. So, you know, I mean, I'm open to comments on questions on that concept,
[48:42] because I may have it wrong, but it seems like it works. It kind of works in the eastern
[48:47] And what passes for my mind at this point?
[48:51] A council, a president, Turtle?
[48:54] Yeah, so, excuse me, I'll be a little redundant, but I'm kind of picking up on what other
[48:59] people have said here.
[49:01] You know, one, I would think it makes sense to focus on the moor and the backhoe, and
[49:06] I would, you know, pay for that out of the equipment replacement money of a portion of that
[49:10] that would otherwise go in there.
[49:12] And I think, I don't think we've discussed the fire truck enough yet at this point to have
[49:17] of emotion on that tonight, at least I wouldn't be comfortable doing that.
[49:21] And then, you know, to me, it seems like, you know, another element of this, of course,
[49:25] that we have been talking about a little bit as it commits us to spending $63,000 a year
[49:30] for the next 10 years.
[49:31] And it takes flexibility away from the planners, whoever's making the budget in that given
[49:38] year.
[49:39] And there are pluses of minds to that.
[49:40] And here, I think that the pluses of having that discipline outweigh the minuses.
[49:46] But then again, I wouldn't go too far into this because you don't want to commit all your money to being spent every year without any flexibility.
[49:55] But to me, it seems like at that level of half a million dollars, which amounts to $63,000 a year, that's pretty manageable.
[50:03] Council Member Dixon.
[50:05] Yeah, no, I would build on Council Member Emery's point.
[50:09] I think you had it exactly correct, sir.
[50:12] The only piece that at least my understanding of it, the only piece that I would slightly differ on is the $800,000 balance that we have in the Equipment Replacement Reserve.
[50:23] If you spend some, you have to leave the same amount.
[50:25] You could only actually buy $400,000 worth of stuff, I think.
[50:28] So I think you had it exactly right.
[50:32] I think we've had a philosophical discussion about how to best cash fund our
[50:41] equipment purchases and as we have seen over the years, that's really difficult to do.
[50:47] The my understanding of the items on this list is these are not, the city actually goes
[50:55] through a very thorough prioritization process where they actually look at all of the equipment
[51:01] needs across the board and they prioritize them in priority item one, two, and three.
[51:06] And these are the, these are some of the priority one items.
[51:11] They're not all of them, and so I think that to not fund them would be a mistake.
[51:21] With respect to future challenges and tying, creating challenges for removing flexibility.
[51:29] In some ways, if you were going to do an equipment replacement reserve methodology,
[51:35] That is actually supposed to be the discipline.
[51:38] If you go through these processes that we have as a city, you're supposed to have the discipline to fund the equipment replacement reserve based on your prioritized planning.
[51:47] The challenge is that we have not done that because we have made trade-offs.
[51:52] And so in my view, actually the debt is the discipline we need because in the past we have not been able to impose that discipline on ourselves.
[52:04] because the trade-offs have been challenging, and that's why the equipment replacement reserve is underfunded, and that's why there's so many of these critical pieces of equipment that are not purchased because we have unable to, and as Council Member Schmalz pointed out, there were some years where we transferred nothing into the equipment replacement reserve fund in spite of all of this process, and so in my view, actually, it's cheap money, like you had pointed out, it's under five percent, two and a half, three percent, four percent.
[52:34] It's administered by the state through their Certificate of Participation Program statewide.
[52:39] So it doesn't really create much hardship for the staff.
[52:43] I think it's a gift and something that we should seriously consider.
[52:47] And I can respect if we're not going to do the fire engine today, but
[52:51] I really do think we need to look at that because as far as I understand it's critical equipment.
[52:56] It's the back up, we only have two, we don't have a third.
[52:59] So if something happens to one of the two that we have we don't have that one it's 23 years old
[53:05] I think it's got a 10-year useful life
[53:07] So if that's a that's an end and that would be
[53:11] Tremendously difficult to fund in our current approach last point on that don't forget it has a 46-month lead time
[53:18] So they don't start building that until we have we can give a deposit of at least half of that $1.3 million or something like that
[53:26] So feasibly, you're looking at six, seven, eight years out in the future is when we could, if we were to do it today is when we would get it.
[53:34] So, I mean, you're delaying it, something that's 23 years old, you're pushing, you're making that a 30 something year old decision.
[53:41] So, I would hope that we could revisit that soon.
[53:47] Council Member Vaga.
[53:49] I think that you were kind of touching on my point, Council Member Dixon, that we haven't been always replacing that money in the Equipment Replacement Fund, and there's reasons for that.
[54:04] What are those reasons? We need to identify those reasons because those reasons will be the cuts that we're going to make if we adopt this program and are forced to pay for this program.
[54:16] I don't really believe in the force discipline, without actually knowing what you're going to cut out of the budget to pay for this.
[54:23] And also, we're going into some challenging times.
[54:28] It doesn't seem like a good time to take on debt.
[54:32] I certainly would not take on debt if I was having financial difficulties in my own budget.
[54:39] I don't think it's a good idea for the city either to get into a debt cycle.
[54:44] And when we could potentially look at our budget and say, okay, what are we going to cut to pay for these items?
[54:53] And then, you know, before we even know what they are, go into debt and say, well now we have to pay for it.
[55:00] Because what are you going to do? Are you going to cut staff? Because if you cut staff, who's going to use the lawnmower?
[55:05] Is what I want to know?
[55:08] That's it.
[55:09] Council Member Harris.
[55:11] Yeah, we didn't really discuss this.
[55:14] I think this is exhibit two.
[55:18] I was wondering if you can obviously these are the terms and the percentages and stuff, but I'm wondering if you could just like do a quick run through of it just to clarify for residents.
[55:29] Yeah, so I just did a kind of synopsis in the PowerPoint.
[55:32] point. And so we have four and six year term, these are amortization schedules. So we have
[55:39] the payment dates. So one date is paying principle, one date is paying interest, so twice
[55:44] a year, that's just like a traditional bond. And then one is kind of what they anticipate
[55:51] to be their current interest rate, if you're paying those, there you go, if it's two. And then
[55:56] the other line is kind of that pessimistic scenario. It's a little higher. And so most likely
[56:01] we will fall somewhere in there hopefully you know on the lower side so that is the actual
[56:06] amortization payment schedule for the 10, 6 and 4 year term based on these numbers in here.
[56:12] Now this will change if we prioritize you know maybe only buy a few of them out of the six year
[56:17] you know that'll change and that we'll come back to council with that later on if that's kind of
[56:21] the decision they make so this is the best that the treasury could get us based on these current
[56:27] numbers. Okay so okay so that's very helpful. So are these numbers based on the higher of the two
[56:34] percentages? I have both so okay I'm sorry so the 2.89 is the well I'm looking at the six-year
[56:42] term the debt service current interest is for 2.89 and the pessimistic scenario is for 3.8 okay got
[56:49] Okay, that's what I wanted to know. Thank you.
[56:52] Okay, Councilmember Schmals.
[56:55] Hey, Matt, so just looking at,
[57:01] if we funded
[57:12] all of these, for example, if we did all
[57:16] the different four, six and ten-year program, the payment would be between 300 and what would
[57:26] that payment fee for people 300,000 a year. Is that about right? Between three and it kind
[57:34] of goes up every year.
[57:38] Yeah, a little over 300,000 a year. Okay. 300,000 a year. Okay. I'm
[57:44] just making sure I understand how this is working. And so the four year and the six year and
[57:51] 10-year are different equipment that can be leased by the program.
[57:58] Those are the limitations of how much they can be leased on.
[58:01] Those are based on the useful life of the vehicle or equipment.
[58:06] The financing terms have to be less than that.
[58:09] And the treasure is very specific on what you're buying and the terms.
[58:13] And so, they have, I mean, it's a list that's very detailed.
[58:18] And so, you know, for instance.
[58:22] So we could literally do for, yeah, we could, okay, be 300,000 and then we get to four years and obviously that would fall off right.
[58:33] Okay, great, thanks.
[58:36] Councilor Antikson.
[58:38] Yeah, but then you'd have to buy it again, right?
[58:40] It would fall off but you'd buy the-
[58:41] No, you usually would have a year or two or whatever, but yes.
[58:43] So that's why I was saying maybe three to 500 is probably an annual realistic operational cost for
[58:52] running this program to use it to fully fund all of our critical capital equipment.
[58:59] That in my mind that's kind of how I think of it and just wanted to remember what Council Member Emery was pointing out,
[59:04] which is the $840,000 or so in the equipment replacement reserve could easily pay for
[59:12] or one, two and a half, maybe three years of the payments that are required.
[59:20] And in fact, since you're only paying 300 a year, you would still be earning interest on that.
[59:28] And it's probably comparable to the two and a half, three percent annualized debt service that you're paying.
[59:34] So there is probably enough money in the equipment replacement reserve to pay the debt service for
[59:40] a few years without having to lay off anybody or make any other cuts.
[59:44] The money is actually there in the equipment replacement reserve.
[59:47] So from a cash flow standpoint, if we utilize that to pay the debt service, it's actually
[59:51] a win-win.
[59:53] I think that was Councilmember Emory's point, and I think it's a great way to look at it is
[59:57] if we use the equipment replacement.
[1:00:00] Fund to simply cash fund in the prior way that we were doing it, it's less efficient, but if we use that money to pay the debt service, it's really efficient because it would pay for three years of debt service almost without ever doing anything, without changing anything, laying off anybody, firing anybody, making a single cut, we have the money there to pay for three years of this, and surely we'll be able to put another 100 or 200 a year into it and continue it all in perpetuity.
[1:00:28] Council Member Vado.
[1:00:32] I'd like to also note that the interest rate is one thing, but there's also additional
[1:00:38] fees attached to this money.
[1:00:40] And when you look at it from a perspective of adding in the fees, the four-year program
[1:00:48] equals about 8 or 11% of total money that we're putting that it's costing us about 8 or 11%
[1:00:56] If you include the fees in that, if I'm correct.
[1:01:02] I'm unclear of what fees you are referring to if you were asking me that question.
[1:01:08] Let me turn yours back on, there you go.
[1:01:11] Sorry, I turn my button off all the time.
[1:01:14] There's also fees associated with this correct, it's not just straight interest.
[1:01:18] There's also additional fees attached to this.
[1:01:22] All of the fees are built into the interest rate that we are charged.
[1:01:27] Okay, then I misunderstood that.
[1:01:28] As far as what we have been talking to, talking to them, we do not get additional fees.
[1:01:34] We have to pay the interest, but-
[1:01:36] So the interest and this bottom line includes all the administrative fees that are included.
[1:01:41] They all roll up into the interest rate.
[1:01:43] Okay.
[1:01:44] I'm misunderstood.
[1:01:45] Sorry about that if I made the unclear at any time.
[1:01:50] Councillor Harris.
[1:01:52] Oh.
[1:01:53] Yeah.
[1:01:53] Yeah, well, I just wanted to respond kind of to the point about the added runway we would
[1:02:01] be giving the city over the next three or so years because of our equipment replacement.
[1:02:07] Like we should have either a clear idea of what revenues going to meet that need in that,
[1:02:14] you know, at the end of that time span or where the cut's going to come from.
[1:02:18] And so, like, that's why I'm pretty significantly just sticking with the fire department needs with the lifesaving apparatuses because those are things that have an immediate impact on people's lives that is very important.
[1:02:37] We still have lots of discussion to have about the budget, the financial, long range financial plan and the like.
[1:02:46] And so, like, I'm, I don't really, there's just, there's some things out of sync for me and also it just feels like there's a lot of equipment here that we can roll up in this without a very clear picture of what our future is going to look like.
[1:03:03] And so, so yeah, that's why I'm saying yes to the, to the fire department equipment. Now we could have this discussion again later about other equipment or other needs.
[1:03:13] But, and I'm not, you know, I just, that's my individual opinion and something that I think we should weigh.
[1:03:21] Council Member Emory. Thank you.
[1:03:25] Thinking about this in the casual dynamic and the future, it's possible that we will also have
[1:03:31] some additional revenue to work with to build up or protect the equipment replacement fund.
[1:03:37] And so I find that concept encouraging, although I have no idea what the money might be.
[1:03:46] But I am also want to be,
[1:03:50] I want to express my concern about just becoming a permanent
[1:03:53] policy.
[1:03:55] I see this as something that we could use at the moment because we really don't know where
[1:04:01] it will be in six months or a year in terms of revenue.
[1:04:03] You know, and I think it would be who we what we can to save our resources now and not
[1:04:11] go out and out and pay for things and go and do the alone route because that helps
[1:04:19] us protect our resources for if we need it for something else.
[1:04:24] But we also have to be prepared to begin to figure out how to get out of this process once
[1:04:31] we started. I don't think this is a long-term functional way to deal with our equipment replacement
[1:04:41] fund because there's a whole lot of money that we have to be maintained here or built
[1:04:48] up or reserved in order to do that. So I think if we do have extra revenue we can look at that
[1:04:55] That is a way to protect the equipment replacement fund and to build a plan to use the local
[1:05:03] program for a while and then stop using it.
[1:05:09] Councillor Schmals.
[1:05:12] Thank you.
[1:05:13] I probably wanted to start getting the public some comment on, but I'll just say, just kind
[1:05:20] of listen to the conversation.
[1:05:22] It sounds like there's some council members that don't even have the confidence that we're
[1:05:25] We've been going to fund our own equipment replacement fund each year, not to mention just
[1:05:32] the small amount to pay a yearly payment.
[1:05:37] So I'm kind of listening to that and saying, okay, well, if we can't, if we're having problems
[1:05:47] or questions about funding, just our payments for each year for this equipment, what means
[1:05:54] said we're going to have a whole lot of confidence to fund it, the whole paying cash down the rail when we really need to do it.
[1:06:04] So I'd rather have that conversation about making, being able to afford the payments than just the whole thing.
[1:06:12] I would love to have cash.
[1:06:13] If you look at the old equipment replacement funds from 2022, it had $4 million, $21, $4 million, then it just dwindled down because we never really invested it.
[1:06:23] but we did that, but we just don't have the money.
[1:06:27] We're running a $4.6 million deficit in our budget.
[1:06:31] We have not much revenue coming in to fund it,
[1:06:34] but maybe what we could do is part,
[1:06:36] if we do this program, is that we put a resolution together
[1:06:39] and say we're disciplined, we're going to fund it at least 350
[1:06:42] or whatever that payment is, we put it in
[1:06:46] into each year to make that payment.
[1:06:49] So there's a lot of things we can do for it,
[1:06:51] but I just don't hear a whole lot of confidence
[1:06:53] in the council funding any equipment replacement at this point.
[1:06:58] Thank you.
[1:06:59] Council member Moon.
[1:07:03] Thank you.
[1:07:05] I've been listening and I've been in the middle
[1:07:07] because I know the local programs good.
[1:07:10] The interest rate's great.
[1:07:11] We're working with the state to get money if we need it.
[1:07:16] But discipline is not supposed to be something nice.
[1:07:20] Discipline, when you discipline something or someone, it hurts.
[1:07:24] And I think the best way to discipline ourselves is perhaps not fully utilizing the local program.
[1:07:30] I think that will force us to be more disciplined.
[1:07:35] Yes, I think local program has benefits, but the question is will we be disciplined with the local program?
[1:07:41] I don't know, and I think that's where I'm at, is I don't know, like council member Emmey said.
[1:07:46] I don't want it to be a long term thing.
[1:07:48] If we do use it, I want to make sure it's temporary, and that we get back on being quote unquote disciplined.
[1:07:55] But I think the best way to discipline ourselves is to not use the program.
[1:07:59] I think it all hurts, but there are probably other ways to fund the equipment that we need.
[1:08:06] But again, I think I'm still in the middle.
[1:08:10] I don't know what will be the best for the city, but my personal mindset is I don't like that.
[1:08:16] And I want to discipline myself to make sure it doesn't happen again and to pay it off in other ways
[1:08:22] Then getting into debt. So that's kind of where I'm asked, but I'm again. I'm open to more conversation
[1:08:31] Councilmember Emory
[1:08:32] We'll speak briefly to pass budgets and the failure to fully fund the equipment placement fund. We
[1:08:41] It's not a discussion to just what happens
[1:08:45] organizations find that they're having a revenue problem.
[1:08:49] They focus on keeping the business or function running with personnel and find the equipment
[1:08:58] or capital projects and have to pay catch up, pay catch up at some time in the future.
[1:09:04] That's what we've done, other communities have done that, businesses do that, some of us
[1:09:08] do that with our home budgets.
[1:09:10] You know, we really can't afford to replace the roof this year.
[1:09:13] We have to wait a couple of years to do it.
[1:09:15] I guess we have other things that we need to do.
[1:09:20] So there's nothing wrong with doing that.
[1:09:25] It's just what we do because it's the least worst option
[1:09:29] when it comes around.
[1:09:30] And now we find ourselves in a spot where, again,
[1:09:33] we may have the revenue to be more comfortable in funding
[1:09:36] all the things that we should be responsible in funding.
[1:09:41] So again, this is to stop, get a measure for a couple of years until we can figure out
[1:09:47] how to really be disciplined and maybe have the revenue, then I have to be in this position
[1:09:52] again.
[1:09:53] Thank you.
[1:09:55] Council Member Dixon.
[1:09:58] Director Neenhouse, when you were researching this, did you get a sense from the state how
[1:10:04] How many other cities use this and how they go about their capital equipment procurement?
[1:10:11] I have not been actually the one talking to the state.
[1:10:14] I don't know how many other municipalities use it.
[1:10:17] They continue to offer it so I'm assuming that.
[1:10:20] Okay.
[1:10:21] So we see that I do not have that kind of information now.
[1:10:25] And I guess, you know, Councilmember Van Gogh actually asks a very good question and the
[1:10:31] The question is, while we can philosophically debate on whether it's 10, 50, or 100%.
[1:10:38] The bigger question is, what do we do with what we don't fund?
[1:10:43] Because the things on that list are critical.
[1:10:46] I haven't heard what we're going to do if we don't buy the fire equipment, the breathing
[1:10:52] apparatus.
[1:10:53] If we don't do this, where do we get the money from?
[1:10:56] I guess it's going to come from the equipment replacement reserve because that's all it
[1:11:00] purchase. What are we going to do about those other vehicles? How are we going to actually
[1:11:06] do that? We are. We don't. The only thing that as as Director Neenhouse mentioned, the
[1:11:13] only thing in the 26 equipment budget is the two interceptor vehicles, which are 92,500 each.
[1:11:20] We did not have the breathing apparatus included. We would have to purchase it in some way,
[1:11:25] shape reform. So I think that's the bigger question if philosophically to answer is, in my
[1:11:34] mind, I would go 100% obviously, but that's fine if you disagree, but I guess the question
[1:11:40] back to you would be kind of a dovetailing on Councilmember Bagel's question is if you
[1:11:45] don't use this approach, how are you going to buy the equipment?
[1:11:53] I have to say, philosophically, I'm a little uncomfortable with this because it is a bond and normally our bonds are put forward to the residents because it's a big debt that we're taking on and they should have a say in it.
[1:12:09] So from that perspective, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the fact that this is a bond that's not going to go to the residents for a vote.
[1:12:19] Council Member Jackson.
[1:12:21] Yeah, that's a good point.
[1:12:22] It's not really, but it is analogous.
[1:12:26] But I mean, it's not really, and I know you understand a difference, but it's a good point.
[1:12:31] I think that this is a lease, you know, and it is the way to think of it.
[1:12:36] A certificate of precipitation is a lease vehicle that the state is issuing.
[1:12:41] We're able to purchase the equipment through it.
[1:12:44] And you're right that it is signing up for a fixed, you know, fixed obligation.
[1:12:50] And so it looks like debt, but it is not incurring the full faith and credit of the city.
[1:12:57] We're not levying taxes to do it.
[1:13:00] We're not creating a revenue bond where we create a road or something and we're going to prove that we have enough operating cash flow to support that with that service coverage and do a rating.
[1:13:11] So it is an operating, it looks like a lease, it's essentially it's a capital lease.
[1:13:17] And if we were to lease a copier, we don't ask the city to, we don't ask the residents
[1:13:20] to vote on that, it's, so it looks like it, but it is different.
[1:13:25] In my view.
[1:13:28] Councillor Schmals.
[1:13:30] You know, just remind the council and the public that Rose Hill
[1:13:34] bonds were not voted by the public if there were councilmanic bonds issued by the council
[1:13:39] that made the decision to
[1:13:43] create $18 million worth of debt, which we're still paying off today.
[1:13:49] Thank you.
[1:13:52] All right.
[1:13:53] We've got a loan here.
[1:13:56] Thank you, Director Nenel.
[1:13:57] So when we go to the public, I have at least one name on this Mr. Tony Dammock.
[1:14:08] Tony Dammock, Michael Tio, first I'd like to start out with debt is never the discipline any
[1:14:13] fiscal wise person needs.
[1:14:16] Fundamentally, I'm opposed to using debt to purchase equipment like those listed in the
[1:14:20] agenda bill attached, since they are items that are not new, they are replacements and
[1:14:25] have known life cycles. A long-range financial plan should have taken this into account,
[1:14:31] and budgets over the years should have set aside funds. Now the council is wanting to strap
[1:14:36] citizens with debt without their explicit consent. This is fundamentally wrong. The Rosehill
[1:14:42] bonds, and I'll be corrected if I find otherwise Mr. Smolt said, the people got to vote, and
[1:14:47] And there is a defined dedicated revenue source for those bonds.
[1:14:51] The local program is a process which two conveniently side steps the voters and creates
[1:14:56] bond type obligations without a dedicated revocute...
[1:15:00] Revenue source like REIT. Local will potentially force the taxpayers into future tax increases to avoid default or could shortchange other essential services if general fund general revenues run out. REIT cannot support both local and Rose Hill for the short term. Also REIT funds should not be dedicated should be dedicated to bigger capital infrastructure projects like waterfront development and not for replacing equipment.
[1:15:28] Next, local is likely to start a debt treadmill.
[1:15:33] The council needs to stop side-stepping the main issue.
[1:15:36] The EER has not been adequately funded.
[1:15:40] Revenue has not kept up with the 20% inflation since 2020.
[1:15:44] And now collective bargaining agreements are adjusting salaries higher due to cost of living.
[1:15:49] The 1% property tax and sales tax revenue increases have not kept up.
[1:15:54] EMS Levy Lidliff is the first step in adjusting the revenue side of the budget, but this local
[1:15:59] program is band-aiding the main issue.
[1:16:02] It is kicking the can down the road and increasing the expense side of the budget.
[1:16:06] There should also be a break-even analysis showing local is improving the city's financial
[1:16:12] condition, but all I see is the city getting the equipment it says it needs.
[1:16:17] There is nothing here to say the city is better off financially in the long term.
[1:16:21] Here are some other shortcomings in the attachments.
[1:16:24] Maintenance costs are shown as justification,
[1:16:27] but the life cycle costs do these life cycle costs include routine maintenance
[1:16:31] like oil changes that new trucks will also need.
[1:16:34] Shouldn't the truck purchases be spread out by years?
[1:16:37] Why purchase three trucks all at once?
[1:16:40] And just like a spin-thrift husband,
[1:16:42] this agenda bill shows replacing a practical SUV with a sports car.
[1:16:46] Why not an escape plug-in hybrid that cost about 45K, or even better a gasoline model that costs in the mid-30s?
[1:16:56] Instead, they want to purchase a 56K sports car.
[1:17:00] The same goes for the planning department vehicle.
[1:17:02] Why a sports car and not a more practical SUV or passenger car?
[1:17:06] To summarize, this local program is simply strapping the taxpayers with too much debt and too much cost
[1:17:12] without a long-term revenue plan and the tax payers have no say.
[1:17:17] Thank you.
[1:17:17] Thank you, Mr. Damoff, online, and a loan of end user.
[1:17:30] I think you can hear me now.
[1:17:32] Yep.
[1:17:33] All right.
[1:17:34] As Councilmember Vago pointed out, I too would really like to have more of a discussion
[1:17:39] of what cuts may possibly need to be enforced if we take on the local program.
[1:17:45] And one question that you may have answered or the long-range financial planning committee
[1:17:50] may have addressed this and I just fail to understand. But why do we have to fund the
[1:17:55] ERR as we do? Dollar spent is a dollar kept. Could we potentially look at a dollar spent
[1:18:03] as a dollar spent and we could bring this down to zero? I understand we have the $847,000
[1:18:11] in there. I am more in favor of using that money to buy the priority one equipment that
[1:18:17] we need now and then discipline ourselves into, as Tony stated, funding that and at a regular
[1:18:27] cycle and build that into any future budgets. But again, I'd like to better understand if there's
[1:18:33] the possibility of changing that to be a fund that we could zero out. And then as far as the engine,
[1:18:40] the fire engine. I agree it needs to be replaced. However, in my opinion, that discussion needs to occur, or that decision needs to occur once we've made a decision on whether we go RFA or not, I am not in favor of
[1:18:56] of children that debt for 10 years if the engine then goes to a South County fire.
[1:19:03] So that is something I certainly hope you don't vote on this evening.
[1:19:07] Thank you.
[1:19:08] All right. Thank you, Ms. Venduser.
[1:19:09] Is there anybody else in the room?
[1:19:11] Sharon Dammell.
[1:19:16] Thank you. Sharon Dammell, Michael Tio, I just jotted down some things here and some of it.
[1:19:21] Alona just said, fire engine should not buy until the RFA question is settled.
[1:19:27] Just for the reason she said, we shouldn't take on that debt if it's just going to go away.
[1:19:30] I totally agree with considering what will be cut.
[1:19:34] It's best to think about that before you commit to taking on the debt instead of committing
[1:19:38] to the debt and then saying, okay, now what will we cut?
[1:19:42] It sounds like we really need the mower.
[1:19:46] The one point that makes me think this might be okay in a limited way is that inflation might
[1:19:52] make future costs higher, though inflation has recently cooled dramatically from what it
[1:19:58] the last four years. As Tony mentioned, it was 20% from 2020 to 2023. Once you get on the debt treadmill,
[1:20:06] it's hard to get off. I appreciate hearing council members say we need a way to exit.
[1:20:12] debt is the millstone around your neck. It's not a good thing to do. The equipment reserve policy
[1:20:19] is a policy that could be reviewed. So maybe I wouldn't go as far as alone and say take it down
[1:20:25] on the zero, but it is a policy that you could review
[1:20:28] and say we will spend some of that
[1:20:30] rather than incurring debt.
[1:20:32] So I realize those were a little bit,
[1:20:34] back and forth kind of mixed comments
[1:20:36] much like how council member Moon said he sees this,
[1:20:39] but he also sees that.
[1:20:41] I'm the same way, the one positive thing is that
[1:20:44] if inflation made it reasonable,
[1:20:47] and it is a low interest rate,
[1:20:48] but in general debt is bad,
[1:20:50] don't buy things on credit.
[1:20:51] Okay, thanks.
[1:20:52] Thank you, Ms. Timoff.
[1:20:53] Is anybody else in the room or online?
[1:20:58] All right, Councilor, we're back at you.
[1:21:05] Councilor President Chordell.
[1:21:07] Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to use local for the 10-year items.
[1:21:14] All right.
[1:21:14] We have a motion by Councilor President Chordell.
[1:21:16] This is for a second.
[1:21:17] All right.
[1:21:18] Second by Councilor Member Emory.
[1:21:20] Councilor Chordell.
[1:21:21] Councilor President Chordell.
[1:21:22] Yeah.
[1:21:22] Yeah.
[1:21:23] And just my thoughts on this.
[1:21:25] You know, one, do we need this equipment?
[1:21:27] And I think we've been convinced from what I've heard the answer is yes.
[1:21:32] Secondly, are there other ways to pay for this?
[1:21:34] And I think the answer is no.
[1:21:38] And therefore, I think that's why I think it makes sense to use local.
[1:21:43] And you could argue, well, yeah, there are always other, you can cut something to pay for it.
[1:21:48] But I don't think that that's likely to happen.
[1:21:51] And third, is this a good value to use local?
[1:21:54] I think that's a very important point and I think it is between a fair interest rate and
[1:22:01] inflation that we're going to encounter otherwise.
[1:22:03] Fourth,
[1:22:06] people bring up about this imposing discipline and is this forever?
[1:22:12] And I think those things are linked and yeah, I think it's the second best option that we
[1:22:17] have.
[1:22:18] The first one would be if you had the money and you saved it and you had this great discipline
[1:22:22] I just don't think that's reality in our case, and therefore I think this is a good way to get some additional discipline.
[1:22:28] And to me, I think there's some people are concerned that, yeah, this is going to go on forever.
[1:22:33] And to me, if every 10 years we use it to buy a new mower and back over every 20 years, to me that's okay.
[1:22:41] And I don't really have a concern with it being forever.
[1:22:44] I think if you're, if you disagree with all those points strongly, then I would say don't support it.
[1:22:49] But, yeah, those are my reasons for thinking this is a good idea.
[1:22:53] I also wanted to say that the Fire Department equipment that we're really going to need,
[1:22:59] I think that we're one of the reasons we're going to have an EMS levee just to pay for those things.
[1:23:05] And I also do think that we should review our equipment replacement policy.
[1:23:09] And I think that would be a good item for the long range financial planning committee to work on.
[1:23:14] Thanks.
[1:23:17] I would agree with the motion to go with the 10 year, but only if we were going to limit it to that one program this one time, and see what this program is like going forward, just kind of put our foot in the water as it were, and see if it actually works out for us that I would like to make an amendment to do that.
[1:23:43] And
[1:23:46] right now the motion is just for the tenure items, the two tenure items, so unless somebody does an amendment to the motion to, because I think from your comments, you were saying you support.
[1:23:59] Well, I'm just making sure that I understand you want it to be just for the tenure items.
[1:24:06] Yes, and for the one time for this one program, this one time that we can't go back into the future or
[1:24:15] go forward in the future and buy additional items on a 10-year program.
[1:24:19] And I understand I don't that would almost be tying future councils.
[1:24:25] Yeah, you can do that, but I think you have 95% of what you want in the main motion, which
[1:24:33] is on the 10 years items unless somebody amends it to include more than you can adjust your
[1:24:39] vote accordingly.
[1:24:40] I assume.
[1:24:41] Okay.
[1:24:41] Okay. Council member Emory. Oh, you all just for the second.
[1:24:48] You were the second second. Okay. Council member Dixon.
[1:24:52] How will we, so the EMS Levy lid lift, if it's successful, we would utilize that to fund
[1:25:00] the bunker gears at your thought. So then the $1.7 million that we were, that we might
[1:25:06] raise, which would reduce the general fund reliance by $1.7 million. You're going to, right,
[1:25:14] isn't that the idea? It would transfer. So if we raise the EMS levy, we don't have to take
[1:25:19] the 1.7 million from the general fund to transfer into the EMS fund. But if we reduce that 1.7 by
[1:25:27] 400,000, 450,000. We have 1.2-ish to transfer to it. Okay. And then how exactly would we
[1:25:37] fund the other equipment?
[1:25:46] So the question you've been in particular,
[1:25:48] just the 367,000 and the 190,000 of fire equipment. What are your thoughts on that,
[1:25:57] Council President? I guess. Hold on a second. There's no work
[1:26:01] So we can't just go back and forth and but Councilor Addiction, are you good for now, okay?
[1:26:10] Your mic's not on is the issue. Councilor Addiction, do you want to continue?
[1:26:15] So yeah, let me be succinct. I appreciate that. Thank you mayor. If we go down this path without amending the motion
[1:26:20] How do you propose funding the remaining equipment?
[1:26:24] I
[1:26:26] think you wanted to answer Council President Jordan. Yeah, on the funcord you're in breathing apparatus. I think that
[1:26:34] All right, is that, well, my thought is that that was the EMS levee would cover those items, and so that would, you know, that way you wouldn't be able to say that 1.7 million from the General Fund be because you used 450,000 for those items.
[1:26:48] And then on the police cars, I guess my, I need to think this through a little bit more, but I don't have an answer to that.
[1:26:54] I guess you've run the ones you have longer, but there probably needs to be more thought put into it than just that.
[1:27:00] Council member Schmultz?
[1:27:08] I think about this a minute.
[1:27:10] So are we not going to invest any more money into the Equipment Replacement Fund?
[1:27:15] I mean, it sounds like that's kind of the kind of where we're heading.
[1:27:20] Because last in the budget that was passed just recently,
[1:27:26] we invested $300,000 in 25, $300,000 in 26.
[1:27:32] that would have covered the payment for all of this equipment here.
[1:27:37] That would have covered it all.
[1:27:38] So people are saying, well, we've got to be disciplined, we've got to make cuts.
[1:27:44] We've got to make cuts.
[1:27:45] Well, we invested in 300,000.
[1:27:48] We invested into the payment of all of this equipment in both years.
[1:27:54] So really what this is saying is if we want to invest, continue to invest,
[1:27:59] a $300,000 from the general fund into the Equipment Replacement Fund to fund all of this
[1:28:06] equipment. I think that's more easily attainable than trying to fund $1.2 million. I'm trying
[1:28:18] to fund it with cash. It's just not going to, we just don't, we just don't can't do that.
[1:28:22] So when I hear just the 10 year, I'm like, okay, but why not look at the other equipment as well?
[1:28:31] That would be probably a,
[1:28:36] it seems folks are kind of like saying, well, we don't want to fund,
[1:28:42] we don't want to fund our equipment replacement, but we're going to have to, because we're going
[1:28:47] to have to pay for equipment that's going to be coming down the line in the future.
[1:28:51] So this is just not a list of just now, we're going to have to fund it in 27, 28, 29,
[1:28:57] all of that.
[1:28:58] So we're going to have to invest into it anyway.
[1:29:00] So I'm not sure what the argument is is that people don't want to carry on debt.
[1:29:07] We might just have to because we don't have the money to buy this in cash.
[1:29:12] And people say, well, we want to keep things going.
[1:29:15] Well, as Matt said, I mean, this is no longer operational, you know, I mean, police cars
[1:29:20] far as go. I mean we just have to be kind of realistic in all this. As far as the kind
[1:29:29] of sidelines and this comment about debt and I will guess I'll make the comment afterwards
[1:29:34] about Rose Hill. We had to make adjustments for funding Rose Hill to fund our streets and
[1:29:44] another capital because we dedicated RE-1 to Rosehill payments because we didn't have
[1:29:51] enough money in the fund money coming in to pay for it.
[1:29:55] So, I mean, that, you know,
[1:30:00] Hold, you know, tie our hands up on a lot of capital projects because of that. So that was a commitment, a 20-year commitment. So we have acquired debt. We've acquired a lot of debt. And it's kind of funny that folks are talking about not don't want to acquire debt. We have debt. And it's really cost us dearly. And then we had actually had to go to the transportation benefit district, the .1% sales tax to pay for roads. And that was going to be paid by RE-1.
[1:30:29] but we couldn't do that because we dedicated that to pay for Rose Hill.
[1:30:33] So all of that, I understand, but this seems to be kind of a low interest rate, kind of a way to,
[1:30:44] I don't know, I guess I'll make the amendment.
[1:30:47] I'll say funded all, funded all four, four, four years, the six year in the 10 year program.
[1:30:58] We have an amendment by Councilmember Schmoles, seconded by Councilmember Dixon, I assume.
[1:31:05] Okay. Did you want to speak to your amendment?
[1:31:09] Sorry to do it, okay.
[1:31:12] So we have a second on that, so we are speaking to the amendment council member Harris.
[1:31:19] Or whatever you'd like to say.
[1:31:19] Thank you.
[1:31:24] Okay, just, I was looking through the minutes and obviously we did commit for
[1:31:31] the increase in the budget if the EMS levy passes. And that's a huge if, right? We don't
[1:31:38] know if that's going to pass. And I just wanted to make that pretty clear because we don't
[1:31:47] know if that's going to pass.
[1:31:48] And we'll also have a public safety fund that we would probably look at as well.
[1:31:55] Thank you, Mayor. I haven't heard anyone suggest that we not fund the equipment replacement
[1:32:02] fund in future years. I think that would be really incumbent upon us to figure out how
[1:32:09] to do that. That's the way out of revolving that cycle. So I think that's an important element
[1:32:17] of moving forward. There are two or three different potential options that might provide
[1:32:24] us the resources to help make that happen. One is our next topic of discussion, which
[1:32:31] will raise $400 and $7,000 per year that would take that much out of burden off of the
[1:32:38] general fund, which we could use to expand the point and equipment replacement. The other
[1:32:44] There is the Mets Levy, which performs the same function, which removes a burden loss
[1:32:50] in general fund.
[1:32:51] And the third is he still has a yet unknown revenue from our traffic cameras.
[1:32:58] So I would like to think, at least one of those three is going to work, to some extent,
[1:33:04] and that we will be in a better position to do the thing that we would all like to do.
[1:33:09] which is to fund the equipment replacement fund and build it up so that when these items,
[1:33:16] when the contract expires and these items reach the end of their useful life, we don't have
[1:33:20] to go back into debt to replace them.
[1:33:24] But I will support the three categories for this cycle.
[1:33:30] Councilor Jackson? Yeah, I wanted to discuss a slight tweak on the approach because I think I have
[1:33:38] a solution that might actually work for us.
[1:33:40] If we were to go forward with the 10 year program and the four year program, that would
[1:33:46] be $220,000 in annual payment, roughly, for the first four years, and then 60, whatever
[1:33:55] the 10 year payment is for the remaining six.
[1:34:00] The six year equipment we could actually purchase with the equipment replacement reserve fund,
[1:34:06] because the $840 or $50,000 we could easily purchase the $367,000 of equipment and leave the $367,000 at least in there and have sufficient money to pay for the two years of the debt.
[1:34:27] So I think if we were to slightly modify this, we could actually utilize the equipment replacement reserve in a way that it just described to maximize the current funding that we have and going forward if we had as has been suggested if we were to add 200, 300,000 dollars per year, which is sort of the traditional amount that we've added to it, it would definitely support that going forward and be sufficient.
[1:34:55] So if this motion does not pass, I would like to make the motion that I just described where we fund the 10-year and the 4-year program and utilize the Equipment Replacement Reserve to purchase the items that are currently the 6-year items.
[1:35:17] Councilmember Votto.
[1:35:19] I can't support the motion to add all of these things when we're looking at uncertain
[1:35:27] revenues and budget restrictions going forward.
[1:35:31] It doesn't make sense to me to take on more payments and to take on more expenses that
[1:35:38] we're not completely 100% sure we're going to be able to pay.
[1:35:42] Okay, yes, we do need the equipment, but I think we could be more selective about buying that equipment, and so I wouldn't support this.
[1:35:53] The Council of Vice President Moom.
[1:35:56] I think I'm closer to a decision.
[1:36:00] I am not comfortable with that.
[1:36:02] I don't think we're disciplined enough to go into the local program.
[1:36:05] I can see our council leaning on the local program more and more.
[1:36:09] Because again, it's a great program, low interest rates, and I think it's affordable, but I think it's a dangerous place to be.
[1:36:18] Similar to the hiring freeze that we did, we had many exemptions, and a lot of us were like, this is a position that we really need.
[1:36:26] It'll be a similar thing to our local program, this is a really important piece of equipment, we really need it, and I think it'll be similar.
[1:36:34] I don't, you know, if we don't purchase the mower, you know, maybe we mow less, maybe we
[1:36:41] don't mow it all.
[1:36:42] I don't know what we're going to run into, but I think that's where our discipline
[1:36:46] will kick in rather than going through a program like local.
[1:36:50] Again, it's, I think, it's a great program, but I think we're not disciplined enough to
[1:36:54] go into it.
[1:36:57] Councilmember Dixon.
[1:36:58] Call the question.
[1:36:59] You were the last one, so all right.
[1:37:03] Okay, we are voting on the amendment and let's see if that's up there, that's still on the 10-year items.
[1:37:12] We will be voting again on the amendment, which is to fund it all from the local program.
[1:37:18] On your list, not everything, the city needs, but just what's on the list in front of you.
[1:37:23] And that is the amendment, there we go, okay.
[1:37:28] All right. You should be in the second. Here you go. You should be voting on the amendment.
[1:37:40] All right. That will fail. Four to three with council member Schmals, council member Emory, and council member Dixon voting yes.
[1:37:50] That brings us back to the main motion as unamended council member Dixon.
[1:37:55] I can make an amendment to fund the 10-year program and the four-year program and purchase
[1:38:04] the six-year items using the equipment replacement reserve.
[1:38:09] 10-year and the four-year, okay, with the six-year well.
[1:38:13] I think, okay.
[1:38:14] We have an amendment to the motion.
[1:38:17] Is there a second?
[1:38:21] Okay.
[1:38:22] I got a second by Councillor Schmoles.
[1:38:24] He was about tied.
[1:38:26] Does anybody want to speak to the amendment? Councillor Dixon.
[1:38:29] Just to reiterate, if we go on this approach and we commit to procuring the six-year items
[1:38:36] using the equipment replacement reserve, we purchase critical equipment that has been outlined
[1:38:40] by the city staff through their deliberative process. These are items that, according
[1:38:46] to the city's processes and the staff, cannot be deferred. And if we utilize the combination
[1:38:53] of the two approaches, it actually utilizes the existing funds in a cost effective manner and would only require in maybe year three subsequent injection of $300,000 per year into the equipment replacement reserve, which has been the level that we have done in the past two years, so it should be quite doable.
[1:39:14] Thank you.
[1:39:16] Council Member Vago.
[1:39:18] Yeah, I think Council Vice President Moonja said that this is what he was afraid of.
[1:39:24] That you will start adding on to this program before you know it.
[1:39:28] And so in favor of that, I'm just going to say I wouldn't support this.
[1:39:34] Council Member Emory.
[1:39:37] I think this is a reasonable compromise to get us through the next while I think we can't
[1:39:46] not have the Moor.
[1:39:48] It's something our citizens would be very unhappy about.
[1:39:52] It would make maintenance work much, much more difficult and probably more expensive.
[1:39:59] And this is a good path to pursue on that because the Moor will last longer than the
[1:40:04] the obligation, the same as true of the backhoe.
[1:40:07] So I think that's a really good investment in this program.
[1:40:11] And I think the bunker gear in reading apparatus
[1:40:14] are absolutely essential.
[1:40:17] And I think it's another way to, again,
[1:40:19] to protect our assets while we figure out how to move forward
[1:40:23] in a more rigorous and responsible way.
[1:40:29] Council President Dirtle.
[1:40:30] Yeah, I just think we should really focus on the EMS led me to pay for the bunker gear and breathing apparatus and if we can't do that then to pay for that out of the equipment reserve account.
[1:40:42] Right. Any more discussion on the amended amendment to the motion?
[1:40:50] We will go to voting and if you remember the amendment is to fund the ten year and the four year with the local and the six year through the existing equipment replacement fund.
[1:41:10] All right that will fail four to three with council member Dixon council member Amory and councilmember Schmultz voting. Yes
[1:41:18] Brings this back to our main motion has unamended in
[1:41:22] Any further discussion on the main motion
[1:41:25] Are we can go to voting on that?
[1:41:28] We'll see how quickly Leslie can type
[1:41:31] She's working hard
[1:41:33] Doing a great job Leslie.
[1:41:37] I'll give you a second
[1:41:42] Council President Jordan it's a question that can that be without amending it can it be paid out of the equipment reserve account the the month
[1:41:51] Payments every year for this
[1:41:54] It could be it could be right okay good to say yeah, it's just coming from the general right out of the up. Thanks
[1:41:59] There
[1:42:04] we go the voting should be up can
[1:42:14] missing one
[1:42:19] Okay, and that will actually fail four to three with councilmember Emory council president Jordan and
[1:42:26] and Council Member Dickson voting yes.
[1:42:31] Okay, not exactly how I thought that would go on here, but all right.
[1:42:35] We are going to move on to our next item, which is the Transpiration Benefit District
[1:42:43] and Director Neen House who did not go for.
[1:42:50] No, I'm still here.
[1:42:58] Okay, Transportation Benefit District.
[1:43:01] Just a little background reminder, we've looked at this a few times, but we do have a Transpiration
[1:43:05] Benefit District that was formed in 2017.
[1:43:08] the voters did approve a .1% sales tax that same year became effective 2018 it
[1:43:16] will sunset after 10 years and again these funds can be spent on transportation
[1:43:21] maintenance operation preservation but generally we have transferred these funds
[1:43:28] into the payment preservation program so the current street budget each year
[1:43:38] transfer $635,000 from the general fund into the street fund to fully fund that, however
[1:43:45] the transportation benefit district can cover these funds if council wishes.
[1:43:53] And so an
[1:43:57] additional 0.1% sales tax can be done by councilmatic action and so if this was
[1:44:06] tonight for 2025. It'd be about $112,500 and then 2026 we have $456,000 could be
[1:44:17] for that year.
[1:44:19] And the benefits of this just helps ensure sustainable funding
[1:44:24] for our transportation and maintenance and operations and does reduce the
[1:44:28] general fund burden by what as we have been in the long-range financial plan by
[1:44:33] about one and a half units. So if
[1:44:41] we adopt this ordinance night, we can accomplish that
[1:44:45] and any questions for you. Councilmember Dickson.
[1:44:50] What is the current sales tax for the city of Michael Teo and 0.6% if we did this
[1:44:56] This consummatic tax increase would we have the highest tax.
[1:45:00] State's sales tax in the state? Yes, right now we are tied with several other entities. We are all about the same, but we would go up .1%. All right. Thank you. We don't want to win that. Any other questions? That's not a win. Any other? Okay.
[1:45:20] Thank you. There are no questions at the moment. This is a perfect opportunity to go to the public. I don't have any people signed up for this.
[1:45:29] It doesn't mean that you cannot comment.
[1:45:32] Tony Dammell?
[1:45:38] Tony Dammell, if you want to say in general, anytime you raise taxes, you should go to the
[1:45:42] people for a vote.
[1:45:43] That's just the way it ought to be, because we are the ones that are paying the bill, just
[1:45:48] like with the EMS.
[1:45:49] I mean, people didn't want to pay the EMS, let the last few times around.
[1:45:53] You need to give the people the opportunity to vote.
[1:45:55] The other one is going to sunset, so you might as well go to the people now and vote.
[1:46:00] maybe you want to vote for point two now and let the other one sunset. Thanks.
[1:46:06] Thank you, Mr. Damov. Elaine Nath.
[1:46:14] Elaine Nath, Michael Teo. I didn't know whether you passed by public comments at the end of
[1:46:19] the meeting like you sometimes do. So I just want to apologize to Council Member Vaggle for my comments
[1:46:25] earlier. I didn't mean to imply that I have not agreed with her on some issues because I have.
[1:46:31] what I don't want is for any member of the public to determine who represents me
[1:46:36] because I can do that by myself. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments
[1:46:42] on the TBD? Don Durant.
[1:46:50] Michael Teo, you know as much as this bums me out to be standing right here next to the
[1:46:55] guy that I think totally deserves the resources to get his job done. I don't
[1:47:00] like this methodology whatsoever, I'll tell you when the vote was taken, I obviously
[1:47:07] was not in politics at the time, and I just read it as, okay, I'm just going to have to
[1:47:12] start buying stuff outside the 98275. I mentioned it to my wife, but I can't decide what
[1:47:20] she does, so from that standpoint, she hasn't listened to me at all. But what I would say
[1:47:25] is this. What I have learned through the course of time is that if you want less of something,
[1:47:32] and it doesn't matter what it is, if you want less of something, you tax it. You will
[1:47:36] get less of that because people will make buying decisions based on that. I do it. That
[1:47:42] having been said, I'm going to tie that back to something that Council Member Dixon continues
[1:47:47] to pronounce, and that is that sales tax apparently, and we don't know for certain, but it appears
[1:47:56] as though this trend line on sales tax is dramatically lower than the historical trend line, and
[1:48:04] certainly lower than forecast. So to that end, I'm not sure why we would increase something that
[1:48:11] is apparently already influencing, potentially influencing people's buying decisions, thinking
[1:48:17] that if we tax more we will get more, right? That's just flawed logic as far as I can tell.
[1:48:26] Thank you, Mr. Dren. Anybody else there or online?
[1:48:34] All right, Council back to you.
[1:48:45] You can
[1:48:45] and die for a lack of interest.
[1:48:47] Councilor Vago.
[1:48:49] Okay, for the sake of keeping the conversation going.
[1:48:53] It's a little bit of a catch-22 because we need more tax revenue and to get more revenue,
[1:48:59] we have to increase taxes and nobody wants to increase taxes.
[1:49:04] And I don't know, I'd like to know anybody else's thoughts about if this would really make that big of an impact on our budget,
[1:49:12] it seems like it would, to me, and I also understand that, you know, if you put a higher tax on it, somebody might shop somewhere else, which would be unfortunate, I don't think that way personally, I think I'm supporting my city by paying that sales tax, that's why I shop online a lot, but anyway, I'd kind of like to know your thoughts about, if you think
[1:49:42] I think this would benefit the city if this tax would actually benefit the city or not?
[1:49:47] Council Member Harris.
[1:49:48] Yeah, I'd have it away in on that.
[1:49:51] Yeah, we have a, I'm just going to be frank, we have a bleak, financial picture.
[1:49:57] We either need to cut expenses or we need to raise revenue, period.
[1:50:02] And the reality is that we have not done the work or we haven't had the gumption enough to
[1:50:10] want to cut the expenses straight off the bat, right? And while I'm a full supporter of
[1:50:19] our staff and stuff, so that's not it, but obviously staffing is the biggest expense
[1:50:24] and I don't want to dampen the mood or anything like that, but let's talk reality, right?
[1:50:30] We do need the revenue. You know, the traffic camera revenue, it's going to be a bump for
[1:50:37] a little bit, but the reality is it's going to go down after several months, so it's one
[1:50:42] of those things that's not going to have a long-term impact or solvency in my opinion.
[1:50:48] The EMS Levy Lidliff, we still don't know if that's going to go through, hopefully it
[1:50:53] does, but the point is that I'm looking at finances as a total picture, which is why I'm
[1:50:58] bringing in these other elements.
[1:51:00] And I believe that this is a small drop in the bucket to increase our revenue.
[1:51:06] the reality is, is that people, I do choose, like Council Member Vago, to purchase in the city
[1:51:15] because of the taxes going to the city. Our community really needs to rally around the true
[1:51:21] financial picture of the city. And that's something that I, you know, I keep posing to our residents,
[1:51:26] because I do care about them, I do care about the costs, and I do care that it's expensive.
[1:51:32] But the reality is that we are at a time where we have the ability to see the problem before
[1:51:40] it is too big to really deal with.
[1:51:43] And if we don't do something now, then we will be in a situation where we're, you know,
[1:51:50] we're caching in on our investments to pay for basic needs.
[1:51:56] This is what is happening in Edmunds currently.
[1:51:58] And so, it's just one of those things where it's like I'm a firm believer that we need
[1:52:04] to either raise revenue or cut expenses because we're not at the point where we're ready
[1:52:08] to cut expenses.
[1:52:10] Revenue is the option for me, and that's it.
[1:52:13] Councillor Schmals.
[1:52:15] Thank you.
[1:52:16] A couple of things.
[1:52:19] When I see sales tax revenue, especially when it comes to transportation, I look at the
[1:52:28] look at it as, you know, I think everyone should participate in funding that.
[1:52:36] So it would be tourists, people, visitors who ride our roads, businesses who drive on
[1:52:43] our roads, residents that drive on our roads, and we would all participate in that.
[1:52:47] And I think that's probably as the tax structure in Washington State is probably the most regressive
[1:52:54] of any state there is in the country.
[1:52:56] this seems to be the most fair than to put the burden, complete burden on our
[1:53:01] residents to repair our transportation needs or our roads. So I think that the
[1:53:07] sales tax warps as good as it can and that's why we did the TBD I think was
[1:53:15] back in 2017 or 2017 is when we went to the voters again. I still believe that
[1:53:20] that's the way to go. I don't feel comfortable it was a council voting to do that.
[1:53:26] I think the residents should or the voters should vote on this, put it to the people,
[1:53:32] the voters to decide whether they want to increase their taxes to fund transportation needs.
[1:53:40] The other thing is, is that what will we do with the general fund money that we save,
[1:53:44] again, sort of like the EMS, is like what we're going to do with it.
[1:53:49] You know, we're going to put it back into public safety, what are we going to do with it?
[1:53:53] I think that's a legitimate question that I think we should also be trying to answer as well.
[1:53:59] So, if we do decide to go, I would favor of going to the ballot and ask the voters to vote for it.
[1:54:06] I know we have one that's sunsetting that we need to address, but it might be good to go to both of these.
[1:54:12] Thanks.
[1:54:14] Council Member Dixon.
[1:54:15] I would
[1:54:27] agree that it's a consulmanic action to increase sales tax would be very on wise where we failed three levy lid lifts.
[1:54:36] I don't think it would make a lot of sense to, as a body, simply choose to increase the sales taxes for everybody that buys anything in the city of
[1:54:48] to you. Number one, number two, as Don Durant even mentioned earlier, we have baked into
[1:54:59] our Long Range Financial Plan forecast $4.2 million in sales tax revenue and whether
[1:55:05] it was 3.7 last year or not. The 4.2 is probably not reality and increasing at 4.5%, which is
[1:55:13] is what we have baked into the long range financial plan is clearly not reality.
[1:55:19] And so it is highly likely that that $3.7 million number which is on audited, evidently
[1:55:25] is the number now for last year, is probably the peak.
[1:55:30] And so if you go down the path, I don't think it makes a lot of sense, but I guess the last
[1:55:37] The first thing I see is, I'm really disappointed.
[1:55:41] I guess I'll save this for later, but that's all I have to see.
[1:55:46] Thanks.
[1:55:47] Council President Jordan.
[1:55:49] Yeah, I think the reason that our council priority and probably the highest priority was to
[1:55:56] look at generating revenues is because we have a budget problem in the coming years and I
[1:56:01] think we can't forget that and it's a real problem and the student you would start addressing
[1:56:05] at the smaller of a problem it'll be, and the less painful it'll be down the road.
[1:56:11] And so I think it makes sense to consider the additional tax.
[1:56:16] And if you look at where it impacts, we were given some numbers in the handouts that show
[1:56:20] about 30% is from retail sales tax, I guess that's from all of retail outlets here.
[1:56:26] 20% is from construction, and I think that I don't think that a .1% increase in taxes
[1:56:35] is going to affect construction at all.
[1:56:38] And lastly, 15% on hotel and restaurant.
[1:56:42] And I don't suspect that you're going to go
[1:56:43] to a different restaurant for 0.1% different in sales tax.
[1:56:47] I think it's really important, too,
[1:56:49] that you balance new revenues with cost cutting.
[1:56:53] And I would say that the city's actually
[1:56:55] done a fair amount of effort in that regard.
[1:56:58] I know we have two positions that are currently not filled.
[1:57:01] And one kind of voluntarily, because the city decided
[1:57:03] not to bring it forward.
[1:57:04] and the other one that was held back by, because of the hiring freeze.
[1:57:08] And we should also remember that the city cut $150,000 from the budget that was presented last year.
[1:57:14] And that was a painful thing for the city to do.
[1:57:18] And yeah, you can always find more cuts, but I think the more you do, the more painful it is and
[1:57:23] the more services are going to get reduced.
[1:57:25] I think that we're a relatively lean city.
[1:57:28] And I'm thankful for that.
[1:57:30] So anyhow, I'm supportive of this for that reason.
[1:57:33] Councilmember Harris.
[1:57:34] Sorry, thank you for your points, Council President Drartelman.
[1:57:40] Councilmember Dixon.
[1:57:45] Yeah, I guess I would differ with that point of view.
[1:57:51] In my opinion, we have not done a good job of implementing cuts in any meaningful way.
[1:57:57] The only thing that we actually did was pass the hiring freeze for six months and 11 of the 12 positions were
[1:58:04] exempted from the hiring freeze. One was voluntarily not brought forward and at which saves the city one month of salary because they're gonna bring it on July 1st
[1:58:14] when we cancel this in 10 days and then yet we choose to not fund critical equipment that we know is dire.
[1:58:24] We don't know if the levee lid lift is going to pass, and we're asking the citizens to bank on having the breathing apparatus on that basis.
[1:58:34] But yet we have no issue putting in place devices to take money from people.
[1:58:41] And those are easy choices for us.
[1:58:43] But when it's time to actually look at saving money or using the money we have economically, for some reason we choose not to do that.
[1:58:51] So I really don't understand the logic of the council.
[1:58:57] All right,
[1:59:00] anything else?
[1:59:02] Councilor Emory.
[1:59:04] The long range financial planning committee was tasked with a number of things.
[1:59:09] One of them was I think potentially suggestions for revenue increases.
[1:59:15] Because it's the issue is the disparity between what the city has been doing.
[1:59:23] The services that is provided, what a resident said, become a custom too, and I think expect
[1:59:29] and the income that we have generated to support all that.
[1:59:36] We are in a difficult position, and if we're not interested in actually pursuing opportunities
[1:59:46] to increase revenue, we would need to hear from our residents and
[1:59:52] and what services they would like to see reduced.
[1:59:56] It's pretty much that stark, at least at this point.
[2:00:00] That particular point, the budget that we have shows a significant deficit at the end of 2026.
[2:00:07] And leaving an ending fund balance below the minimum that we think is responsible. And I think
[2:00:12] it's really essential that if we really aren't going to be able to raise revenue, we need
[2:00:21] some really difficult discussions on what is it we're not going to do, that we have been
[2:00:27] and historically able to do, that will be a difficult conversation and we don't have a lot
[2:00:33] of time to have that conversation in order to get through 2026 under current circumstances.
[2:00:41] I would support certainly taking this to the residents I think, however personally I would
[2:00:50] vote for this as a council member without taking it to the public, I know that's probably
[2:00:56] political suicide but it's my job to look out for the benefit and welfare of the city as a whole
[2:01:03] and to do the things that I think are responsible to keep the city running and moving and
[2:01:08] operating in the direction that we all appreciate and value.
[2:01:18] That's up to you guys. Yeah,
[2:01:19] Council President Jordan. Yes, I would like to make a motion to adopt ordinance 1518 imposing
[2:01:25] an additional sales and use tax. All right, we have a motion by Council President Jordan,
[2:01:30] but also going to be council member Harris,
[2:01:32] do you anybody want to speak to the motion?
[2:01:35] The discussion, council member Harris.
[2:01:37] Yeah, and this is really just,
[2:01:40] this is information, this is really a call to our residents
[2:01:43] to really just pay attention over the next several months
[2:01:46] because like the picture is very clear
[2:01:50] over the next five to 10 years.
[2:01:52] It is not good, and excuse me for being a warmist,
[2:01:56] but I don't see much alarm about this issue
[2:02:00] and I'm trying to make logic out of it, and it just doesn't make sense.
[2:02:05] But the point is, is that in no way, shape-former fashion, do I want to raise taxes
[2:02:10] on anybody in the stands, anybody not here or myself?
[2:02:16] But the difference between what I want and what's needed for the government to run are two different things.
[2:02:24] And people really need to ground themselves in that reality because the difference
[2:02:29] what's beneficial for you and what's beneficial for the government to run is starkly different and people today really need to understand that because it's making the emotional but the point is that yeah, it's not fun to have to raise taxes on people, but it's what we have to do.
[2:02:50] Any further discussion on the motion? Council member Dixon?
[2:02:55] Yeah, I can respect your comments a little bit of a beg to differ slightly.
[2:03:02] One of the things that we could have done when we did the budget not to rehash all of
[2:03:06] this, but we never even looked at implementing a salary freeze or a salary reduction for the
[2:03:13] non-represented employees, which in my analysis, because of the structure,
[2:03:18] the way that we implement the increases for the non-represented employees who were compensated
[2:03:24] at the max of the band, that was easily a $300,000 increase.
[2:03:30] And simple things like that, implementing that freeze, rolling it back to 2023,
[2:03:36] which is actually quite legal because those are at-will employees.
[2:03:39] There are a variety of things that could be done.
[2:03:42] We could have implemented furloughs.
[2:03:43] We could have done all kinds of things and each of those things was a three to five hundred thousand dollar item
[2:03:47] And so before we go down the path of raising taxes to generate a hundred thousand this year and four hundred thousand next year
[2:03:54] It is disappointing to me that we never took seriously any efforts to actually reduce costs by five hundred thousand dollars or a million
[2:04:03] Dollars and there are many things that we could have done
[2:04:08] Council member Vago
[2:04:09] Yeah, when we're looking at cutting our budget, I don't see why we should turn down revenue.
[2:04:18] If you're talking about cutting the budget, then why would you turn down revenue that doesn't make sense to me?
[2:04:24] And unfortunately, we have to raise taxes to get that income.
[2:04:30] And so I'm going to support this.
[2:04:35] Okay, any further discussion on the motion?
[2:04:40] Hearing none, we will go to voting.
[2:04:43] All
[2:04:58] right, that will pass four to three with Councilmember Dixon, Councilmember Schmultz and Council Vice President Moon voting no
[2:05:04] All right, thank you counsel. This will take us to new business
[2:05:13] Staff
[2:05:15] Councilmember Dixon yeah
[2:05:17] City minister of powers. I think there were one or two items that I had asked to add as new business
[2:05:21] And I thought you'd said you would I don't remember them coming up tonight
[2:05:25] Did I miss read that I think council president?
[2:05:34] Yes, sorry about that. Councilmember Nixon. Let's see here. I checked minus real quick here.
[2:05:43] Oh, the one in particular that I noted was about a report from the salary commission on the council compensation.
[2:05:52] And we didn't find it. I didn't find that there was enough support from the rest of the council to bring that one forward.
[2:06:00] You had one last week that you emailed me after the agenda setting committee met, which I told you will take up tomorrow.
[2:06:08] And for the life of me, I don't remember what it is, but if you give me a moment, I can find it here.
[2:06:12] Okay.
[2:06:14] Oh, yes, yes, it was to explore forming an RFA with Everett and airport fire and I said I'll make sure we talk about it at tomorrow's meeting.
[2:06:22] Oh, at tomorrow's meeting, okay, thank you.
[2:06:25] And so, very good.
[2:06:29] So I made the request that we explore joining a forming an RFA with the city of Everett
[2:06:36] and the airport fire department because it would be a lot cheaper than joining South County
[2:06:43] and would retain local control and might be an interesting approach.
[2:06:49] that was the new business that I had asked for.
[2:06:52] So thank you for taking that up tomorrow.
[2:06:54] Are we doing comments now as well, Mr. Mayor?
[2:06:56] Well, we may.
[2:06:57] I'm gonna see if anybody else has any new business.
[2:07:00] Staff, council, any other new business?
[2:07:02] Or we will go to council comments?
[2:07:06] Council member Dixon.
[2:07:08] So since this is comment,
[2:07:13] we kicked the can on whatever the priority one items
[2:07:18] terms were tonight because we chose to not fund any of them.
[2:07:22] We chose to not fund the 10-year, six-year and four-year.
[2:07:26] We chose to not fund the 10-year and four-year.
[2:07:29] We chose to not fund even the 10-year, yet we also chose to increase taxes on people.
[2:07:36] I don't know how I can become more effective as a council member.
[2:07:41] I'm not certain if I am helpful, but I don't think we did a good service to our residents tonight by choosing to kick the can on all of this equipment and leave all of these questions hanging in the balance.
[2:07:59] If you're a fireman and you're sitting there wondering how are we going to buy the breathing apparatus.
[2:08:05] And, you know, the levies failed three times, and the council, as a body, chose to say, well, you know what?
[2:08:14] If the citizens really want it, then yeah, you'll get to buy the breathing apparatus and re-rate the fire department next year.
[2:08:23] And if they don't, even though we fail three levied lifts, that says a body what we are doing.
[2:08:28] And so these kinds of decisions, I just think are highly reckless.
[2:08:32] this, maybe they're deeply personal, I don't know what they are.
[2:08:36] But they just do not strike me as rational or responsible.
[2:08:42] Council vice president move.
[2:08:44] Thank you.
[2:08:44] And to respond to your comment, I think what you're forgetting is we're not funding it through local.
[2:08:50] For the scuba, the tanks, for the gear, we're going to fund it.
[2:08:55] Whether it's from the equipment replacement or wherever it is, we're going to be funding it.
[2:09:00] And if the EMS, we're still going to fund it.
[2:09:02] So I think we just got to keep in mind that the local programs didn't pass this time.
[2:09:07] But for those other things, especially for the fire, they will get their equipment.
[2:09:13] It's just a matter of not through local.
[2:09:16] So I want to make sure that our firefighters know that for sure.
[2:09:22] But yeah, there were very difficult decisions that we made.
[2:09:24] And I think we're going to be learning from them in the next six, 12 months.
[2:09:29] But I'm hopeful that we will learn and we will be disciplined because again like I said discipline isn't an easy thing
[2:09:35] It's going to be tough and it's supposed to be that way. So yeah looking forward to learn more together
[2:09:43] Any other council comments
[2:09:48] All right, and I feel compelled to I don't really speak during
[2:09:54] The discussions and try to sway but I was quite frankly glad
[2:09:58] we didn't pass local just so the public knows that did not come from the
[2:10:02] administration knorted this transportation benefit district sales tax
[2:10:06] increase. This was from council direction on trying to get revenue. I don't
[2:10:12] believe in the local program except for I would have supported on the 10 year I
[2:10:16] think those items like a fire truck a 1.4 million dollar item that has a 20 to
[2:10:22] 25 year lifespan makes sense. I'm doing it because I think what and it wasn't
[2:10:27] I don't really mention tonight, but the problem you're going to have is if you started
[2:10:30] it, it was only 300,000 a year.
[2:10:32] Well this year looks great the first year, but when you start stacking it, before you're
[2:10:36] spending a million dollars a year in debt payment, and you still have new vehicles coming
[2:10:41] do, and you just get behind.
[2:10:44] And that was my fear on doing that, but for those large items, maybe a tool that we could use,
[2:10:51] and on the sales tax it would raise close to half a million but I for one I'm
[2:10:58] not excited that our city will have the highest sales time I mean that'll be a
[2:11:01] story probably on most major news things so not not too excited about that
[2:11:07] especially if they you know and all of this doom and gloom and shredding of
[2:11:11] garments about our budget and we're going oh we got it it I think again you guys
[2:11:17] or discounting the public safety fund through the traffic
[2:11:21] cameras and the numbers that we've seen coming in and I have
[2:11:26] faith in our community that they will pass the MS Levy
[2:11:30] this time. We just have to, if we want to support our fire
[2:11:35] department, we just have to do that. So I know there will be a
[2:11:38] number of us out there encouraging that passage. So with that
[2:11:43] I'll give one more chance, council, comments,
[2:11:46] otherwise we will move to our public comments.
[2:11:49] All right, Sharon Dammell.
[2:11:55] Thank you.
[2:11:56] Sharon Dammell, Michael Teo, I would just like to say
[2:11:58] I hope no council members actively work against the EMS
[2:12:02] levy this time as has happened in the past
[2:12:04] because I think it does need to be funded.
[2:12:07] Thank you.
[2:12:08] Thank you.
[2:12:09] Delona Venduser.
[2:12:15] Yes, I would like to go on public record
[2:12:18] as sometimes use the phrase.
[2:12:20] I did hear very distinctly that regardless of whether the EMS levy passes that the two
[2:12:28] firefighter items will be funded.
[2:12:31] They will either be funded through the EMS levy
[2:12:38] from
[2:12:41] the 1.7 million that is projected
[2:12:43] to be raised fund, but regardless of that firefighting equipment will be funded.
[2:12:49] And that did not come up for me as a debatable item.
[2:12:52] So I just want it to go on record that that is what I heard and I'm sure if I
[2:12:57] myths heard somebody will correct me. As far as the local program I just want to
[2:13:02] give kind of an anecdotal example. I had one credit card company reach out to
[2:13:09] me as they do every couple of years. Hey if you don't use us we'll go ahead and
[2:13:14] close you out. I did not want that to happen. And since Jack and I retired we do
[2:13:20] consider ourselves debt-free, besides the local, you know, water, electricity, etc., and
[2:13:28] so I used that credit card to make a purchase and then my daughter and I went shopping
[2:13:32] a couple of weekends ago and using my JC penny card afforded me a much better discount
[2:13:38] coupon while having those two credit card payments that month, this last month, that
[2:13:43] really caused me some anxiety.
[2:13:45] So, yes, that's my family budget, but knowing that I had those small outstanding debts out there, which I paid off immediately, caused me stress.
[2:13:57] So, I for one and glad that we did not go for the local program. I agree with what the mayor said that when and if we discuss the purchase of the fire engine, that type of a purchase I can get behind.
[2:14:09] But other than that, I appreciate that we did not go down that path. Thank you.
[2:14:17] All right. Thank you, Ms. Venduzer. Elaine Nath.
[2:14:21] Hi. Elaine Nath, Michael Teo. I just wanted to say that I agree that we need to get our firefighters whatever it is.
[2:14:29] They need however we have to do it. Secondly, I don't mind paying a little extra in sales tax, especially if it's going to mean more staff down at the park.
[2:14:39] because down there this morning was an absolute disgrace.
[2:14:43] All of the trash cans, greasy piece of boxes,
[2:14:46] you went to go into the lighthouse,
[2:14:47] and there was so much on the sidewalk,
[2:14:50] mayonnaise, cartons, bottles.
[2:14:54] It was an absolute disgrace.
[2:14:56] So I don't mind kicking up my sales tax a little bit
[2:14:58] if it's going to help.
[2:15:00] Now, get us appropriate staffing to keep our lighthouse park pretty. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Nell. Don Durant.
[2:15:13] Just a couple items. Two real quick ones. Let
[2:15:19] us see what they are. Oh, so to the chargers, you know, I really don't care. But sitting in that audience, listening about how difficult the budget is and the calamity that apparently is coming in the foreseeable future.
[2:15:36] I can't get my head wrapped around the fact that the council is so comfortable with giving power away.
[2:15:44] And again, I don't care. I don't drive a battery-powered car.
[2:15:50] And so it doesn't make any difference to me, but it makes a difference to me as a resident to hear you guys agonizing about the budget
[2:15:58] and then being so cavalier about giving away power.
[2:16:02] Now, I don't have any idea what it should charge, and I do believe that, I was going to say
[2:16:08] councilmember Stoltz, that Mr. Stoltz does know that, and so I'm completely comfortable
[2:16:14] with it, let us at least capturing the costs of the infrastructure.
[2:16:20] Can we at least cover our costs?
[2:16:23] That's it, we don't need to make a profit, okay.
[2:16:26] Parking tickets, you guys talked about that last week, just something to be aware of.
[2:16:30] We raised parking tickets on my tour of duty and we got
[2:16:36] summarily shafted by the municipal courts.
[2:16:39] So just one thing to keep in mind, they will only accept certain levels of parking tickets.
[2:16:44] If the parking ticket is too high, they will let the person go.
[2:16:50] So I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't raise them because it sounds like they're about
[2:16:53] the same levels they were when I left office.
[2:16:56] but you probably wouldn't be able to double them unless you're going to find the communities around here have $50 parking charges and I doubt they do.
[2:17:07] So just be cognizant of that.
[2:17:09] You can do whatever you want but the courts are going to decide whether they enforce it or not.
[2:17:13] And so don't be out of control on that one.
[2:17:18] Any more public comment? Kevin Stoltz.
[2:17:24] You can when we're done I guess even though we passed council comments but I'll come back.
[2:17:29] I have a couple of questions about the ticket cameras and do we know what the threshold
[2:17:36] is right now, I mean is it what was originally proposed at six miles an hour over in the
[2:17:43] school zone in 11 everywhere else or is it something different, we know yeah we know
[2:17:49] I'm kind of I'm kind of curious about that I haven't heard what it is and I'm also wondering
[2:17:55] what is with the radar speed indicators, because I know the ones at OV used to go like 5 over,
[2:18:03] like when you're 35, it used to start flashing the speed 5 over up until 40, and then it would
[2:18:12] say slow down. Now, recently, if you're going 37 or 38, it just flashes slow down.
[2:18:24] If you go
[2:18:25] and the last time I went up there, it's not even working.
[2:18:29] And so, I'm not quite sure what, I know it's changed,
[2:18:33] and this probably has something to do with the ticket cameras,
[2:18:37] but, you know, not having it there doesn't help the speed situation
[2:18:44] when the school zone is not in effect, and it's still a problem
[2:18:48] with people zooming up the hill and through that.
[2:18:51] And also it seems like the one down on just past the bridge, the rare speed indicator there,
[2:19:02] seems like it's kind of quirky too. So I'm just wondering if that has something to do
[2:19:07] with the ticket cameras or if it's just another setting that needs to be tweaked.
[2:19:13] Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Schultz. So anybody else like to address the council in your comments?
[2:19:18] That's okay. Councilmember Schultz.
[2:19:21] Oh, thanks.
[2:19:22] And I'm going to actually just try to answer Mayor Durand's comment.
[2:19:29] The hearing examiner now will handle most parking tickets, is that correct?
[2:19:34] So they'll be along with the speeding tickets, right?
[2:19:38] So the costs, we're not going through the Everett Municipal or anything like that, it'll
[2:19:43] be this handled in-house, okay.
[2:19:44] So I think that would help with the costs on that.
[2:19:48] that you have some concerns on.
[2:19:50] Thank you.
[2:19:52] All right, since you're asking,
[2:19:53] Mr. Stoll, 6 and 11, that's still a red.
[2:19:58] Okay, anything for staff comments?
[2:20:02] Oh, I thought sure, just what?
[2:20:04] Cole, you sure?
[2:20:06] Okay.
[2:20:07] All right, then we are adjourned.