[0:00] We are live. All right. Good evening and
welcome everyone. Today is the 1st of
[0:04] September 2026. We are [clears throat]
having a special council meeting to
[0:09] discuss our finance packet for July
enhancements and 2027 appropriations.
[0:14] For those of us here, would you stand as
you're able? Help us get started with
[0:17] the meeting.
[0:21] I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[0:26] republic for it stands one nation under
God indivisible liberty and justice for
[0:33] all
of
[0:37] » Miss Chester
>> yes
[0:38] » Mr. Fischer
>> Fisher
[0:42] » yes
>> primer absent Mr. state them
[0:47] right. Is there motions to
what's the word? Forget excuse
[0:55] » excuse
absences this even
[1:01] » I have not heard from anybody
from anyone.
[1:06] » Yes sir.
[1:12] » I'm sorry. [clears throat] Um, Britney
did tell me that she is um taking a I I
[1:20] don't know how to describe it. Um,
[clears throat] I don't know what what
[1:23] she shared with me. I'm not sure if if
it's 100% present, 100% public, but she
[1:28] did express to me that she was not
intending to come tonight. So, I would
[1:33] encourage you to reach out to her if
there's a public statement that public
[1:36] something that she would like to
discuss.
[1:43] Um, absent any um motions or objections,
I'll move on and say you have an adopt
[1:51] uh you have the agenda in front of you.
[clears throat] Motion to adopt the
[1:54] agenda.
[2:01] Is there a second?
[2:05] All those in favor
[2:12] say without objection and take
unanimous.
[2:15] All right. Okay. Um we do have a someone
who's our former council person mix
[2:23] would like to address everyone
concerning 2027 appropriations.
[2:28] She's registered to speak.
>> Thank you. Uh, Melody in mail, 2437 St.
[2:35] Als,
excuse me, St. Albins's Avenue. I need
[2:38] to abbreviate here. Um, so I'll keep it
brief. Word on the curb, pun intended,
[2:44] is that you specifically, Mayor
Densmore, desire to spend an estimated
[2:48] $650,000
to improve a single bus stop. To my
[2:54] understanding, this estimate is embedded
within the two, excuse me, $710,000
[2:59] line item identified in the 2027
appropriation simply as capital outlay.
[3:05] In my opinion, this is not at all
transparent. So, Mayor Densor, please
[3:10] justify your reasoning for wanting to
spend this much money for seemingly
[3:13] little benefit. And I think that your
priorities should be one finding a new
[3:18] administrator and two securing securing
fire and EMS services for the immediate
[3:23] future. Do you have any plan for either
please and thanks?
[3:28] » Sure. Uh and M welcome to of course
reach out to me anytime about any of
[3:33] this. This is
>> No, this needs to be public. That's a
[3:35] lot of money.
>> That's [laughter]
[3:37] absolutely. It's first time I've ever
heard that this is how much it costs.
[3:40] It's first time I've ever heard that's
even appropriation.
[3:42] » I don't believe you. I've heard this at
least three, four, six weeks ago. This
[3:46] is not new information.
>> Does it matter?
[3:48] » Yeah, it does because it's not true
>> from your administrator. How is it not
[3:51] true if you're just now hearing this?
>> I know. So,
[3:54] » that doesn't make it untrue. No, this is
the first time you're hearing this.
[3:57] » Right. But you're saying that I'm doing
it. What I'm saying is if I don't know
[4:02] about it, I'm not doing it. Right. Had
no idea that it cost this much. I've
[4:06] been asking to look into the bus stops
because, and here's the thing,
[4:11] » we have no covered bus stops in Golf
Manor. We have one of the highest
[4:15] percentages of people using buses.
>> I think that's a misquote. That happens
[4:20] to be the most utilized bus stop in Golf
Manor. That is not one of the most
[4:23] utilized bus stops for Metro.
>> Yes, that's that's true. That that is
[4:29] absolutely true. It's not
>> So, we could be talking about 20 people.
[4:32] » If you will allow me to to finish
speaking, please cut me off. Right.
[4:35] Okay, make it quick then.
>> Make it quick.
[4:38] » Yes, cuz we already know where this is
going. You're so full of it. I'm calling
[4:41] you out publicly and you know exactly
why you've been letting this stuff slide
[4:45] since I've been on council. I refuse
today. You know that that cost $650,000.
[4:50] You know it cost $650,000. That's not
due to you and you are going to dig your
[4:54] heels in deeply and claim that you did
not know. So, I would like you to defend
[4:58] that amount of money for a single bus
stop and act like this is the first time
[5:01] you're hearing this. I know it's not.
I'm not even on counsel and I know this.
[5:05] » I had an officer have you removed right
now because you're pressed for
[5:08] [laughter] three minutes to ask.
>> Dude, you are so comical.
[5:12] » I'll address all of this.
>> You're fumbling. Just answer the
[5:15] question. Go ahead.
>> I did answer it. I won't know anything
[5:17] about it and I'm willing to stand.
>> That is not being transparent. You know,
[5:21] you know it's not true.
That's all you got. You're just going to
[5:25] bang that.
>> That's all I got.
[5:26] » So, it sounds like council because I'm
sure council is aware, too. So, I'm I'm
[5:30] encouraging council. I actually have
always supported council to shut that
[5:33] down. I don't think you guys support
$650,000 for a bus stop.
[5:40] Now I'll see. Thank you.
Also, an update on the administrator
[5:46] because to my knowledge, you haven't
even put out a call for proposals for
[5:50] that yet. You slipping big time.
One of the things that um is really
[5:58] unfortunate [clears throat]
about
[6:02] a situation like this is that this is a
special meeting that's for a very
[6:08] limitedly defined topic. I'm happy to
talk about this after the meeting.
[6:12] » No, you should be talking about it on
camera.
[6:13] » No, we can talk about it. What I mean is
talk about everything behind closed
[6:17] doors. I even called you all that
before. Soon as I got off council,
[6:20] please
>> by who? Yeah.
[6:26] So, what I was referring to was that
when we get through with our agenda
[6:32] items, for those who would like to stay,
I will address the questions that were
[6:37] raised and I will certainly ask
questions of our administrator about it
[6:42] and our finance officer.
[6:48] So,
[6:52] We've adopted the agenda. Do we have
do we have minutes in front of us or
[6:57] not?
>> There are minutes, but they're not
[7:00] necessarily in front of you. Does
anybody need a copy of the minutes for
[7:03] approval?
>> I do. I mean, is this this is just the
[7:07] agenda?
>> That's just the agenda. That does not
[7:10] include the Sorry.
>> Wait, is that in an email?
[7:14] » That's still on the page.
[7:18] » We can Yeah, we can skip that. that item
may
[7:23] » want to read it through or
>> what
[7:25] » you read it afterwards.
>> Okay.
[7:28] [clears throat]
[7:31] » So, we need a motion to table.
>> No, I think
[7:37] » it's on the agenda. Agenda can't be
changed. So, it would have to be a
[7:39] motion to table
>> or a motion to pass.
[7:42] » Oh, pass it. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah.
>> So, is there a motion by the way?
[7:47] » Yes. Motion to pass. Is there a second?
Second. All those in favor.
[7:53] I objection. Take that as unanimous.
Thank you.
[7:56] » That was on both of those. On both the
minutes. Okay. Thank you.
[8:02] » So you have before you the finance
packet for July. Um we have as we said
[8:06] it's special meeting to be going over
that as well as some revenue
[8:09] enhancements in the 2027 appropriations.
I apologize if that's incorrect. The the
[8:15] finance package for July is not in front
of you. Um that's just the typical
[8:18] finance packet that I read um that I put
together every month. This is the
[8:22] finance packet for July which is the
most recent one completed. Obviously
[8:25] August will be completed as soon as
possible. So being that today is the
[8:28] first day of September. There's
opportunity to complete it as we're only
[8:31] receiving bank statements and and the
check images in the next couple of days.
[8:37] Um I'm happy to go through that. uh for
the fiscal for the the month of July
[8:42] falc 26 bill combined bank balance of
$3,241,000
[8:46] $241,741
[8:50] of that amount is $90,77843
can be found the village primary
[8:54] checking account $1,359,187.73
[8:59] can be found interest savings account
remaining balance resides and other
[9:03] village funds the village gener
generated $93,64582
[9:09] 2 cents in general fund income taxes.
This continues a downward downward trend
[9:13] in Rita collections which were
approximately 9% lower than July the
[9:16] previous year and 6% lower year to date
which this is a significant finding
[9:21] significant numbers uh being that the
conversation that will be taking place
[9:25] after this received in advance of the
second bannual dispersement of real
[9:29] estate taxes from Hamilton County
auditor and homestead roll back uh not
[9:33] yet Homestead roll back funds from the
state. uh the amount was $50,000. That
[9:37] is significantly lower than what we
would expect for in advance. Um it is
[9:40] unclear when those funds will be coming.
Um yet another reason why it's important
[9:44] to have a strategic reserve. Uh because
if we are hundreds of thousands of
[9:48] dollars short from what the county is
meant to send us, we want to make sure
[9:51] that we have that cushion. The village
received $151,925.35
[9:56] in general fund receipts. This number is
$6,45141
[10:00] more than July fiscal year 25. Um the
the reduction in Rita collections was
[10:06] offset by the real estate tax advanced
from the county last year. Starf fund
[10:11] earned $5,71528.
The third savings account was down to
[10:15] 391578.
Um that number will probably continue to
[10:19] go down as we pay bills to the uh to
Adita for the yuse and Jar's projects.
[10:26] Top five payings for the month were
payroll OPWC rum container opf and jet
[10:31] person health plan. Total bill of
general fund appropriation spend for the
[10:34] month was $235,70051.
This is $6,936.93
[10:40] less in July of fiscal year 25. Um this
is a higher month than usual due to the
[10:45] three payrolls, but in the same month in
fiscal year 25 the HUKC paving company
[10:50] was paid for $60,000 for the walking
pack. So that's the offset. The village
[10:54] had nine outstanding payments that total
$12,86 $12,8616.
[10:59] Bill administration will continue mon
appropriation spend make any adjustments
[11:02] necessary deemed necessary. If I could
ask for a motion to accept a second
[11:09] motion
second
[11:15] » any questions?
Yeah.
[11:21] [laughter]
[11:25] » Yeah, it's it's it's all standard um
finance package.
[11:32] Nice. [laughter]
[11:35] I guess the most biggest question was
what's that 6 to9% decrease?
[11:39] » Yeah. So we don't collect relevant
income taxes. We we um contract with
[11:44] what's called the regional income tax
authority read. So anytime you pay taxes
[11:48] in G banner, you're not paying to G
banner, you're paying to Rita.
[11:51] » They do all the collections for us and
then they send us. Um so their
[11:54] collections year to date is about 6%
less than than last year. So is the
[11:59] reduction due to something the buildings
here either something get moved around
[12:02] or in occupants or whatever or is it due
to simply the in the collection just we
[12:07] should expect that to come through
eventually just hasn't hit yet or is it
[12:10] overall a worrying trend we have to look
at upping the
[12:14] » it's unclear there are a few um it was
holdings based on
[12:20] » so yeah so there's there's a confluence
of things um the u
[12:28] » [clears throat]
>> the
[12:30] » corporate
>> corporate net prompings
[12:34] are well be are behind um and account
for almost all of this yeartoday
[12:43] comparative reduction. Um
and as he said it's unclear because
[12:51] um for corporate net profits
you're able to file up until you know
[12:56] the end of October. So sometimes you get
October surprises, sometimes good,
[12:59] sometimes not so good. Um but uh right
now to date um those are those are the
[13:06] lagards um in terms of in terms of the
depression of tax revenues
[13:14] last year what was budgeted um
individual filers um slightly
[13:20] little bit behind but not the major
saying
[13:26] it's actually meeting expectations um so
some of this around the margins could be
[13:31] just a tiny people estimated taxes or
those payments clearing. Um but what you
[13:39] know obviously we can't publicly get
into this um confer
[13:49] out there amended their previous year's
return maybe upwards of five years ago
[13:54] and our data makers are some lost carry
forward or the like. So um we will have
[14:01] unfortunately it's towards the end of
the year so we'll have crystal clear uh
[14:06] knowledge here in about 30 days 60 45
days but until then this is what in 30
[14:13] or 45 days when we'll know if this is
just a delayed
[14:16] » or a timing thing or yeah if it's a
timing issue if it's just a one
[14:22] quarterly one quarter report was a lot
worse than the other three but
[14:34] answer.
[laughter]
[14:41] » All right. So, all in favor or is there
any more questions? Presuming that
[14:47] all in
>> favors.
[14:51] Thank you.
And uh let's see revenue enhancements.
[14:59] » Who's doing the presentation on this?
We're going to hand it together.
[15:07] » Okay. So, what you have before you pages
of charts?
[15:13] » And this is I'm putting this on TV if
you want to view it on the TV, but it's
[15:17] literally the same thing. It's just for
some reason didn't come out in color. Um
[15:21] the first effect here first page is the
general fund projections. Now right now
[15:26] the biggest issues that we have with the
general fund uh is that up until this
[15:31] year 2027 we have received just over
$105,000
[15:36] annually from Deer Park Silverton uh
excuse me from Little Miami Fire and
[15:41] Rescue from the severance agreement that
we have with the fire district. um that
[15:47] fire district uh you know that without
going into the history there we had a
[15:51] 5year separation agreement was about
$105,000 each year 2027 was the final
[15:57] year that was essentially subsidizing
our fire services so if you recall I
[16:02] think the only person in this room who
two people in this room would remember
[16:05] Mr. Mayor and Mr. Fiser. Um, when the
fire levy was originally passed, there
[16:10] were a couple different numbers that
were being thrown around, but with the
[16:12] knowledge that eventually once these
funds expired that we would not be able
[16:17] to cover the full fire contract uh with
the current levy. So, with that in mind,
[16:25] the current fire levy and police levy
are both uh are both projected here. I
[16:30] mean, it's finally it can't be negative,
but that just shows you how much every
[16:34] year it would be going negative based on
current um current price of the
[16:40] contract. It goes up about on average 4%
a year. Right now, at the end of 27,
[16:46] there will not be a gap. At the end of
28, there will be about $140,000
[16:52] gap. 120 to 140. I apologize, I don't
have a precise number. By the end of the
[16:56] five-year contract, there will be
approximately $200,000 per year gap
[17:01] which will have to be filled by the
general fund. Right now, if you all
[17:05] recall, the general fund generally
speaking, the last two three years has
[17:08] been kind of hovering about around $1
million, $1.1 million. If it goes up, it
[17:13] goes down, but it but the the average is
around a million dollars. um this would
[17:17] deplete it in five years which the trend
shows you by 2032 the general fund would
[17:24] be out of money. Um and this is just
regarding uh current trends in in
[17:30] payments uh current trends excuse me in
salaries regular you know cost of living
[17:35] increases um and that fire contract. Um
any questions at this point?
[17:43] I think maybe just to take a step back
especially for our newer members on
[17:47] council. Um you know the general fund is
the village's life. Seattle is where we
[17:54] make our last stand. Um and so prime
directive of any finance director
[18:00] manager is going to be what can we do to
preserve and hopefully grow but preserve
[18:04] the general fund because that is our
last fiscal line of defense. Um
[18:10] and you know and we're looking at you
know with fire levy because those are
[18:13] dedicated levy sources. So you know any
of those bodies obviously can't be used
[18:17] pave streets or you know mow the park or
those kinds of things you know use for
[18:22] those. Um but what what what
the narrative for this evening's
[18:29] discussion is that starting at the end
of next year
[18:34] um we are on track as a village to have
a rapid depletion of the general fund.
[18:42] uh to the extent that if no action
in terms of adjusting revenues were to
[18:49] occur
and even implementing what limited
[18:55] cost reductions could maybe be
considered by council.
[18:59] um
the village starts approaching a level
[19:03] of uh state fiscal watch, fiscal caution
level uh starting in probably about 20
[19:12] 30 and then rapidly
nose dives from there. Um, so the good
[19:18] news is though is that council has time
to think the matter through and to, you
[19:24] know, make the right choice to speak
right on some of these issues. Um, but
[19:31] when I first started here and was
talking to people who want the I
[19:35] expressed is that the village does not
have a expenditure problem. It has a
[19:41] revenue issue.
Um, it's actually kind of impressive
[19:45] that local level the the level of lean
around the organization in terms of
[19:52] still providing services and and
programming that the village does. Um
[19:57] but you know with with the you know
reality that any substantive reduction
[20:02] in expenses will have to curtail the
level of service that's that's provided
[20:08] to the community in a very noticeable
fashion. Um and so um and also public
[20:17] safety um by large by and large and that
is true of most any community in in the
[20:23] region. Um public safety is a major cost
driver. It is usually your most
[20:28] expensive operational cost here in your
house. It's very vital and important and
[20:33] it's one of the core things that local
government does. Um but it also, you
[20:38] know, has a cost associated with it. Um,
so
[20:43] some of these scenarios that we are
presenting here tonight are focused on
[20:49] that prime directive of how do we
preserve andor begin again to slowly
[20:56] build that general fund reserve to then
hopefully allow council, this council
[21:02] and future councils to be able to make
investments in the community that, you
[21:08] know, unfortunately have been deferred
word. There's just there's just not the
[21:12] the horsepower yet financ to do that. Um
and so this is a kind of a sad graph. So
[21:20] maybe we'll go to the next one.
Okay. So, what we have here is
[21:29] throughout these slides, there are
three,
[21:33] as I told the mayor earlier, kind of
three entre on the menu that the staff
[21:39] has identified are worthy of
consideration.
[21:44] One, um, you may want to write these
down. One is
[21:51] a
ballot issue
[21:55] for a property tax levy for public
safety costs.
[21:59] And what is modeled here on the screen
in your packet is um revenues that would
[22:05] be generated by an additional six mills.
The idea behind a public safety levy
[22:12] instead of just fire only or police only
or whatnot is it allows the village a
[22:17] little bit of flexibility
to um address the drivers of of what is
[22:24] projected to be the two major completion
sources of the general funds balance. Um
[22:30] but it has the ability to help supplant
the general funds annual budget to
[22:36] possible. Um, so
what what you're seeing here in this
[22:42] graph, I'll let Eric walk you through it
here because I actually made it, right?
[22:47] So what you're seeing is a basically
preservation of levy funds. So in the
[22:53] first year, the main the main thing to
focus on is the red and the blue. The
[22:58] red and blue is police and fire, right?
Although for some reason it's switched,
[23:02] but whatever, we'll ignore that. So
police and fire levy um would be almost
[23:07] entirely entirely [clears throat]
depleted in the first year um if we do
[23:12] nothing. Now you'll notice there's a
large dip between 26 and 27. That's
[23:17] because the way that property taxes work
is that any property taxes that are
[23:21] passed in the next election, which would
be in May, will not actually go into
[23:27] effect until the following January. So
there will be one year where the fire
[23:33] levy is basically eating into into the
um the fire fire contract will be eating
[23:40] into the levy. Right? We do expect there
to be a significant um increase in
[23:46] general general fund spend based on
current appropriations. Um but that
[23:51] would level out after the first year and
then essentially the levy funds would be
[23:57] replaced every year and would cover the
fire contract and any additional police
[24:04] services. Um should be maintaining it
kind of [clears throat] you see it's not
[24:08] really getting smaller as it gets as it
gets bigger. I mean it's slightly
[24:12] smaller as the contract goes up but it
should last through 20 2032. Um the
[24:19] general fund will remain healthy for
about three years, but as staffing costs
[24:24] increase in the police department, that
will eventually fall off by 2031. And
[24:30] again, the general fund could be
projected based on this depleted by
[24:34] 2032. The difference being that there
would be money to continue to pay for
[24:39] fire services, right? The the fire levy
essentially the the public safety levy
[24:45] would be supplanting those funds. So
this is the least uh this is the least
[24:51] um invasive approach. This would be the
smallest foot footprint. This is going
[24:56] to be the smallest cost to the
residents. And it puts us in a good
[24:59] position that in five years, right, we
well really four years, we'd have to
[25:05] address this conversation again
depending on where costs are, depending
[25:08] on where the contract what it looks
like, but by 2031, we would have a good
[25:12] idea of how much that would be
increasing and there could be smaller
[25:16] steps taken at that point to keep things
solvent. It does not solve the greater
[25:21] issue of [snorts] staffing in general,
which continues to get more expensive
[25:25] every year. and the police department is
certainly the biggest uh the biggest
[25:30] driver of that cost. But but this is a
more conservative approach. This would
[25:34] be the lower uh the least expense to the
residents. And I think as as Mr. Cal
[25:41] said, it's the most universal because
everybody who lives in G Manor is either
[25:47] paying, you know, rent or mortgage,
right? Everybody's going to be paying
[25:51] this property tax as well as the
businesses. It's going to increase on
[25:54] everybody.
walking through what's going
[25:57] [clears throat] on there. The the the
gray is
[26:00] » the gray is the general fund
>> meaning and as that goes down is
[26:04] basically showing us how much less is
going to be taken out of the general
[26:07] fund due to the levy.
>> What?
[26:09] » Yes.
This is showing those are the
[26:12] approximate balance.
>> Our general fund is decreasing over time
[26:16] that we're spending more than we have
down.
[26:24] » That's how much left in the bank.
>> Correct. That's the fund balance.
[26:27] » And this is with doing a levy.
>> This is with doing just a levy.
[26:31] » So that's what you're saying is because
there's salary will go up. So this is
[26:36] not a permanent solution.
>> Correct. This is going to be a stop gap,
[26:39] » right?
>> Essentially. Okay. And then
[26:41] » being Yeah. our
>> And then the other one is is telling me
[26:45] what that's what the actual that's what
the yearly cost is.
[26:47] » No, that's the approximate fund balance
of the fire levy and the police levy
[26:52] that again they will they will decrease
>> saying because at the end of the year we
[26:56] generally have a leftover.
>> So this is okay. So that's what these
[27:00] two funds will look like if so starting
in 27 for fire.
[27:06] » Got it. Yeah. Okay. It is going to
flatline. Every dollar that's received
[27:10] is projected that it will get spent. So
at the end of every year, the fire fund
[27:14] will have squad.
>> Yeah.
[27:16] » And then by probably about 28ish, maybe
early 29, then the police levy fund is
[27:23] the same way. So it'll just be an in and
out
[27:26] » and everything. And then the general
fund picks up the the tab on whatever
[27:30] needs. Are
>> there numbers and what's cost like what
[27:33] what are we currently spending on them a
year? What are those costs going to? You
[27:38] know, why is it costing us so much?
Meaning,
[27:41] if we're paying an outside organization
to essentially provide services, um I
[27:46] would have thought that the classic
setup would be that the taxes would
[27:49] offset the classic amount charged. So,
is it is our issue is that we're not
[27:54] charging enough taxes or is the issue
that we don't have a good enough
[27:56] contract or we're asking for too many
services? Outsourcing certainly, maybe
[28:00] we should be insourcing. To me, that's
the fundamental before I start looking
[28:03] at maybe taxing more. This is a taxes
issue. If I look at it and the averages
[28:07] in the the region is that we're just not
taxing nearly as much as everyone else,
[28:11] but every other region's kind of have
the same problem. Then I would have
[28:13] taxes.
>> Yes.
[28:15] » To answer your question, Park Silverton
just passed the levy because they also
[28:19] had an increase in cost and they're
passing on a smaller increase to us at
[28:23] 4% a year. But but there is an I mean
it's it's increase in staffing cost. So,
[28:27] so, so the world of public safety,
especially fire has really changed over
[28:32] the last
right before and then right after co it
[28:36] really accelerated. So, keep in mind
that especially for fire and EMS
[28:42] compared to maybe police operations and
public safety
[28:46] um your at rat vehicle [clears throat]
costs are as much if not more of a cost
[28:52] driver than actually your operation
expenses for personnel.
[28:57] And so I have witnessed in this industry
in the last half dozen years
[29:03] um your standard typical fire engine
maybe costing you 350 to $400,000
[29:10] is now $900 to a million dollar. And by
the way you can take delivery of it in
[29:17] 30 months. Um yeah um ladder trucks are
now north two and even your ambulances.
[29:26] So you get a E250 chassis and put a box
on it. Those used to be, you know, 150,
[29:34] now those are $300,000.
So the capital in on fire and EMS is
[29:40] actually more of the driver than it is
inflationary growth and benefits your
[29:46] personnel. Um and that's really where
you know, our fire cost really gets
[29:51] exacerbated. I think maybe in hindsight,
I don't know, believe it or not, eating
[29:56] 4% a year of contract increase is
actually not that bad. Um, because
[30:02] that's going to be a little bit lower
than what I can tell you is going to be
[30:05] Silverton's inflationary cost of just
operations. Um,
[30:11] then, you know, on the police end of
life, it yeah, it is driven by your
[30:15] personnel costs. Um, and really
even the wage proposal that's in front
[30:22] of the council for a second reading in a
couple weeks, that really just places
[30:27] the bill just basically kind of in the
middle of the earth. Um, it's not
[30:30] necessarily a
a BMW plan by any means. Um, but the the
[30:38] thing is is that really the only way to
reduce cost to the police department
[30:43] would council to make a decision that
it's best for the community to perhaps
[30:49] have a lower lower level of staffing.
Um, and that's a, you know, that's a
[30:54] policy decision council level of service
decision. Um but that's really to make
[31:01] any type of substantive change on that
trajectory is there would have to be a
[31:04] reduction force.
>> What what in staffing you're referring
[31:08] to administration or
>> number of officers
[31:13] » unless we're about the police more of a
fire how many fires we have on average
[31:17] per month and how much are we spending
per month average?
[31:20] » So yeah so the main driver like any fire
department in the catch they all should
[31:24] rebrand themselves as we are the EMS
department that occasionally fights
[31:28] fires. Okay.
>> Um, depending upon the community,
[31:31] anywhere from 80 to 90% of your run
volume is EMS. Um, and even that fire
[31:37] volume that's recorded fire calls, most
of those are traffic accidents, you
[31:43] know, lift assist, you know, those types
of things, down wires, you know, those,
[31:48] you know, whatever, not going structure
fires and the like. Um, and so that's
[31:54] the driver. Um, keep in mind that our
costs, just like with any department, we
[31:59] have our own, um, are offset on EMS
because of EMS billing.
[32:04] » Yeah.
>> So, you know, that does help. Um, and at
[32:08] least I think keeps the the contracts
inflationary factor lower. Um, but
[32:14] that's just unfortunately that has been
way a little bit.
[32:17] » Why don't we talk the prices of that
offset cost? So those so those are set
[32:23] and established by the centers for
Medicaid and Medicare.
[32:27] » Um those are updated I think every
couple years. Um obviously Medicaid
[32:33] anyone who's a Medicaid or Medicare
patient on billing scenario that is all
[32:38] the FS will pay. Um
most private insurers
[32:44] for the most part that's what they their
default will be as well. Um, so not a
[32:51] lot of wiggle room on that.
>> If I may, I got an executive summary of
[32:55] this right before this meeting and I'm
thinking that it might serve us really
[32:59] well to start with that and then we can
dive into some more of the details.
[33:04] We're spending a lot of time on one of
four different possibilities, right? And
[33:09] so, um,
>> there's some others that are maybe a
[33:11] little easier,
>> right? So maybe if we start with kind of
[33:14] the [clears throat] overview and an
executive summary. Yeah. You gave me and
[33:18] then we could go into the details of it.
>> So that's that's that's one option. The
[33:24] another second option would be um the
proposal of the same levy and mind you
[33:36] staff is able to model different levy
[clears throat] amounts. We chose and
[33:41] laid it on six
um just to kind of as a hypothetical you
[33:47] know you can model whatever but you know
certain voters tend to also get you know
[33:52] a little squeamish if the numbers too
high off initial ask that's something.
[33:57] So, next on the screen would be um no no
increase in property tax.
[34:05] Right now, the village has an income tax
rate of 1.7%.
[34:10] This would be going to the ballot and
asking the voters to increase that to
[34:15] 2%.
Additionally to that 2% rate request,
[34:24] this scenario would also show that the
village would reduce its reciprocity
[34:30] level to 50%. Right now we give a 100%
credit. So what does that mean? So let's
[34:37] say I live in G Manor, but I work in
downtown Cincinnati.
[34:43] I first pay where I work. So, in
Cincinnati, I'm going to be paying 2.1%
[34:48] [clears throat] to the city of
Cincinnati.
[34:51] And then there's a look back to where I
live. Well, we provide a 100% credit if
[34:56] you pay
1.7 or more to another jurisdiction. You
[35:02] have no tax obligation here for the
village. Um, or let's say I work in
[35:07] Mason, which is at 1 and a half%. I
would pay 1 and a.5% to Mason and 2%
[35:15] to the village.
What this would do would be um a tax a
[35:21] property tax uh or not tax income tax
increase to 2% and a reciprocity change
[35:29] by council which would just be an
ordinance that would need to be passed
[35:33] by council. um that would change our tax
code that would only provide up to a 50%
[35:39] tax credit. So regardless of where you
work and who who you know the income tax
[35:45] is withheld for where you work and
regardless of how much that is at a
[35:50] minimum you would still have a a tax
obligation to the village of 1%
[35:56] of your earned income.
As you can see there, that is a scenario
[36:03] that
um starts to accomplish,
[36:08] you know, the 180 that we're that we're,
you know, hoping is achievable in that
[36:14] over time over the next half dozen years
starts to grow the area of the general
[36:19] fund compared to what would be projected
expenses.
[36:25] And let me just preface this while we're
on it because we're adding income tax
[36:30] now
as you folks are wrapping your minds
[36:34] around options and what you think you
know may be the best course. Um changes
[36:39] to the villages level of reciprocity
that it provides to taxpayers is
[36:46] something that resides with this body.
You can adjust the level of tax credit
[36:52] by ordinance at any time.
Um,
[36:57] all of the other component pieces,
whether it's an increase [clears throat]
[37:00] in the income tax rate or an increase in
property tax mage, does do require voter
[37:06] approval.
So, there's several options available to
[37:11] us. Some of them we can do as a body
here. Some of them we would have the
[37:15] only thing we can do it here as a body
is to put it to the voters. All right.
[37:19] Um the uh
so I think it's important to understand
[37:23] each one of those in terms of what the
what we would be getting like how much
[37:28] would this be affecting our
our general um our general fund. All
[37:36] right. So the trend is our general fund
is going down even expenses increased uh
[37:42] increased expenses over time we're not
able to catch up for it. So we got to do
[37:46] something or what's the projection? What
are we out of essentially having to cut
[37:50] services if we do nothing?
>> You're having to start making painful
[37:55] decisions for 2028 and really painful
for 29. All right. So that's that's what
[38:00] happens. We just do nothing. All right.
So we've got four options here. Again,
[38:05] one of them is something that we can
just do by passing an ordinance. The
[38:09] other three are all is that correct? The
other three are all have to go to the
[38:12] voters. And we can we don't have to just
choose one. we can do like so if one is
[38:18] bringing in this much and it's not
enough we got to do this other one but
[38:21] we can like adjust them however we want
to adjust them right the uh I think what
[38:26] was helpful to me was looking at what
have other communities done because to
[38:31] your point it's not something that we
golf man are dealing with that nobody
[38:35] else has dealt with other communities
have dealt with this and um essentially
[38:40] what other communities have done is gone
the um ordinance route out.
[38:45] » Yeah, they kept their tax rate stable,
>> right? So, if you look at what our what
[38:51] our reciprocity is, what what we allow
for that, that's not what everybody else
[38:57] is doing. We're we're giving a gift to
other communities are not. And the
[39:01] reason why they're not is because they
we have to be sustainable. So, in my
[39:05] calculation, that's an important one to
look at.
[39:10] And uh of course we also have the option
of the
[39:17] levy for [clears throat] public public
safety services, right? Um that would
[39:24] capture a lot of different
a lot of different components that then
[39:29] is saving our general fund, right? And
it's basically putting out there to the
[39:33] community if you want to keep these
services is very specific to what this
[39:38] tax is for, right? And it keeps those
services out of our general fund.
[39:45] So what it's important that is piggy
back on the mayor is that just so you
[39:49] have a walking around number that the
change in reciprocity
[39:54] um to require just at a minimum 1%
obligation
[39:59] raises in today's dollars about $225,000
[40:05] that would be the increase
um in terms of you know reducing
[40:10] reciprocity is being reducing it to what
to a minimum of one 1%. So
[40:18] » we only provide you know 58% credit or
whatever.
[40:22] » If we got rid of reciprocity alto
together be like 400
[40:26] » 37474
[40:32] » and that that obviously is going to hit
people harder that are working you know
[40:36] not from home. It's going to hit people
harder that are working in in city.
[40:41] » Yeah. So like you know if you said hey
there's a minimum of 1% that has to be
[40:46] paid here if we're only going to provide
a credit for the first 7%. You know if
[40:52] you say you work in Cincinnati which is
a 2.1 you're you've been used to paying
[40:56] 2.1 and nothing here now you're you know
your overall local tax liability will go
[41:02] to 3.1%.
um if you're, you know, working, you
[41:08] know, in a in a township around here,
you know, you're not going to see any
[41:12] difference if the rate stays the same.
But there's there's that to keep in mind
[41:19] the surrounding village villages, how
much um is their tax%
[41:27] what I understand
and city
[41:33] that high or woods at two uh I believe
unless I can't remember off top of my
[41:38] head I should have had this research I
believe reading and linking are at
[41:44] one and a half maybe one or something
along those
[41:47] » lines are currently at
>> and those others that are at our level
[41:54] are also they do not provide full
reciprocity
[41:57] » right some of them don't provide some of
them in the in the Cincinnati region
[42:02] like I think like Glend Dale or
Woodwater or what they may not provide
[42:07] they may only get statutory 1% but they
provide no reciprocity or other
[42:12] communities that are a little bit higher
um may only provide a partial credit you
[42:16] know whether that's a half percent that
has to be paid or a full 1% or one and a
[42:21] half whatever that might be that's
because it's it's strange because most
[42:26] of my career has been in Dayton region
Dayton region all the communities for
[42:30] the most part provide close to if not
all of them but Most of them provide
[42:34] full reciprocity, but their income tax
rates are two and a quarter, two and a
[42:38] half. And that's how they've gotten by
is raising rates and still provide
[42:42] certain reciprocity. Cincinnati is a
little interesting is that many
[42:46] communities, especially your kind of
your first your first suburban
[42:50] municipalities, have traditionally kept
the rate relatively moderated, but they
[42:54] have just not provided full credit.
[43:00] the um they're
the two different strategies as far as
[43:06] again they don't necessarily need to be
two different ones that can be going on
[43:09] simultaneously but going to the voters
on it versus
[43:14] in the mechanism of passing it as an
ordinance
[43:18] both are accountable to the voters I
mean you can you know if there's an
[43:22] ordinance that council makes that the
community does not like they can replace
[43:26] all those council members running on a
platform of you know we're going to
[43:31] change the tax code back to the way it
was.
[43:35] So there's not a
I see it as both are very accountables
[43:43] not necessarily one more so than the
other and I think for comparison sake we
[43:47] should have probably also provided a
slide tonight that's on me at just
[43:52] showing what keeping the tax rate the
same
[43:56] with just the change in reciprocity
Um,
[44:01] you're going to it'll be very close
though to the slide that has the safety
[44:05] levy plus
the income tax 58% across that's pretty
[44:12] close pretty much near that
>> how many residents.
[44:18] So you know what was the question?
>> So how many how many uh resol
[44:31] we also have folks working here that are
[44:36] um
double check I had asked this question a
[44:39] few times to our rep ata and I I don't
remember getting super clear answers. Um
[44:47] it's it's difficult to drill down
because filings come in in kind of three
[44:52] categories, three types of filers. Your
corporate filers and the company itself,
[44:56] you know, they're not residents, but
then you have individual filers.
[45:01] They may be self-employed. They may just
have LLC or escort passive revenue,
[45:06] whatever. And then you have W2s. Well,
all the W2s are all co-mingled.
[45:11] There's W2s where I might work
[clears throat] in Cincinnati. my
[45:14] employer withholds on my behalf as a
courtesy and you know I show up as a W2
[45:19] but I also maybe I live in you know co
ring but I work down the street you know
[45:24] at Mills fence company I'm also a W2 so
it's kind of hard to discern typically
[45:29] you know if I had to guess a community
this you know this size with resident
[45:34] population you know I would I would
guess there's probably about 700 folks
[45:43] » out of
>> about 3811. So last 800 I'm sorry
[45:49] » out of 3811
>> out of 3811 residents. I I'm actually
[45:53] suspect that it's it's lower than that
because they couldn't they couldn't give
[45:57] me a clear answer. They gave me
percentages. They just said 75%
[46:01] of
>> our our demographics in the community um
[46:05] were a little grayer than maybe some
other shiny communities. And we have a
[46:09] larger proportion of only single
um income households
[46:16] [clears throat] with still a a I won't
say disproportionate but a slightly
[46:20] elevated level of um minors per
household.
[46:29] You said that's going to bring in 200
>> 220 225,000
[46:34] » 2252
>> versus wiping the whole thing out. And
[46:39] that's 375. We said all 380. You just
said no reciprocity
[46:46] [clears throat] 375. That still wouldn't
get us all the way. You're saying we are
[46:51] solving a problem for
>> Yeah. I mean if you're solving a problem
[46:55] for about 415 is what we're trying to
solve for.
[46:59] » Yeah.
>> If that we need $415 too that basically
[47:03] by 2032 we are on
>> public
[47:09] about $175.
Uh sorry $265
[47:15] » for
six because our mill has just gone
[47:18] meaning the value of our mills went up.
Now it's up to
[47:22] » Now it's up to what did we say? 58,000.
Give me one second. I think it was it
[47:27] was 38500
by 1,700.
[47:31] Um yeah, it's approximately I'm sorry
226 not 200. So $26
[47:36] per house. Yeah.
>> Per house.
[47:38] » Yeah. So if it's 385 is what we said
divided by 6 that comes out about
[47:44] $64,000 per mill as opposed to what we
had previously. 48. No.
[47:53] Sorry.
[snorts]
[48:03] » And you've done the numbers like on the
in two scenarios. One, if you just bring
[48:08] down that um reciprocity by a certain
amount, not the entire amount and bring
[48:12] down by a certain amount. And then if
you that requires that you bring that
[48:16] levy up, right? So if reciprocity is
here and then levy's up here if
[48:22] reciprocity you know it's so yeah so
this was this is the model this is the
[48:28] second page this is going to be public
safety le plus income tax at 1.7
[48:35] remaining but with a 58% private rest
profit which means it's a 1%
[48:41] minimum everyone has to pay off 1% of
the bill and what that does is it raises
[48:47] around what is it 485 plus 225 is about
600 $10,000 annually and the advantage
[48:55] of that is in terms of reciprocity that
will continue to grow slightly because
[49:01] income tax and as incomes go up with
inflation that will slightly increase.
[49:06] So that puts us in a position
[clears throat] where the long-term
[49:11] general fund will be in a much healthier
place. it just doesn't go down nearly. I
[49:16] mean, it doesn't you see it slightly
goes up and then it kind of falls off in
[49:21] 2032 as again as wages catch up. Um, and
that's with an estimated 4% increase in
[49:27] the fire levy which we don't know. 2032
is disaster is after the contract
[49:32] » public safety is going to change how
much? $385,000 is what we project if
[49:37] it's a six mill [clears throat]
[49:43] » but that won't change.
>> Um the adjusted mill right now is about
[49:49] 91 mills
that includes schools. Does that mean if
[49:53] you know include school you pay like 40
mills 35 mills for the village only
[49:58] » person that pays taxes every
[50:06] » effective is oh the effective
it's like 20 22
[50:13] » really
>> 22 mill
[50:16] » for just the village
>> for I think it's 26% of 91 one.
[50:28] [clears throat]
[50:36] » Are we good?
[50:43] » You want to go to the lottery or you
want to go to the treasure? Turn on the
[50:46] treasure.
[50:49] » Um
[50:54] What's
that?
[50:59] Am I correct to understanding that the
reciprocity piece is more stable with
[51:04] regard than the levy would be as far as
continuing to protect the general fund?
[51:11] » Yes,
[51:15] that's what most communities it appears
have been doing. So it depends. I mean
[51:20] it doesn't actually seem like that many
community like Silverton offers zero
[51:24] reciprocity,
>> right? That's part of what I was paying
[51:28] is the question.
>> They have police with the county
[51:33] » village
total
[51:38] » not what it says how much is it?
>> Yes. I took over money and we have to
[51:43] make sure that we're looking at how much
each person is going to be paying into
[51:47] this. You know, we look at other
communities what they did, but at the
[51:49] end of the day, if they're paying
somewhere else and they didn't take long
[51:52] care, we're not paying that. Oh, yeah.
We have to work on what the at the end
[51:56] result is going to be with our
either people making money or living
[52:02] here, what they're paying,
>> right? Yeah.
[52:07] So, that's what I'm trying to figure
out. Yeah. My sense of it where I'm at
[52:10] with it is that it's that the
reciprocity I'm more inclined to say um
[52:17] that that's where the bulk of it should
come in terms of the balancing act
[52:21] because it's more stable. Um so right
now the effective rate I'm sorry 25
[52:29] » where do you get that
reduction? It's 42 42 mills voted and
[52:35] then there's a 41%
>> res Oh, fine. That's why you Okay, I'm
[52:40] sorry. I was looking
[52:44] » that's average around their area.
>> No, that's just
[52:50] » so on a $200,000 house here in town.
Let's just say that
[52:56] » your property tax bill. What did I say?
20.
[52:59] » Yeah. So you are paying to the village
$1,750
[53:04] in property taxes.
So that's about $145 a month.
[53:10] That provides your roads, your streets,
total.
[53:16] » It's on $200,000 house.
>> Um
[53:22] we're going to add on 250 to
>> No. Uh oh. Yeah. Sorry. At the end of
[53:26] the year 226 226. Yes. Correct.
[53:31] That's the levy.
>> So village taxes for property would be
[53:36] around 375 [clears throat]
[53:40] that price
[53:45] 3750
[53:54] plus 225
that's almost $2,000. So pay $1,000 for
[54:00] per $100,000.
>> 200,000
[54:04] » per Yeah. Oh yes, you're right.
>> Just to make it simple. Your own
[54:08] property.
>> I like where you're going.
[54:11] » With the new levy, you pay
[clears throat]
[54:15] um about $1,000 or you're paying now
about 800.
[54:20] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[54:24] » A little more. You almost pay 900.
[clears throat] Right. Go up to about
[54:28] every 100,000. That's if we add on the
public safety
[54:34] itself
>> at that amount.
[54:38] » Yes.
>> Now, if that makes pays income tax
[54:44] right now,
there'll be adding on,
[54:47] » right? So if a person's let's say
$80,000 a year and they would if they
[54:53] work outside of the village and right
now the village acknowledges their taxes
[54:57] paid to the city of Cincinnati and not
charging. So that would be an additional
[55:02] $800
as well
[55:06] $800
that they have never
[55:12] be the net increase.
>> Correct. And so to the village 1.7 not
[55:17] going to be touched.
>> Uh correct
[55:21] » if we keep going.
>> Yeah.
[55:26] » How common is the public saf?
>> I mean Amberly has one. It's common. Um
[55:33] » what would that come that is that charge
per individual? Is that that's per
[55:37] household?
>> It's per household based onund like
[55:39] based on millillage which is per
$100,000 of valuation. That's what
[55:44] » house has in a house. Yeah, it's just
value property
[55:49] has a million dollar house obviously
a little bit more $100
[55:55] » right
>> surrounding villages for example Amberly
[56:00] how much in total mill are they
>> much less than us because their value of
[56:04] properties is significantly higherly
village alone uh their total millage for
[56:11] their full rate is
>> voted rate is actually, interestingly
[56:17] enough, not that much less than us. It's
about 107, but their um their adjusted
[56:24] rate is significantly lower. I guess
it's just whatever their tax. So our our
[56:29] full rate officially according to this
is
[56:33] 135. Theirs is 107 but they're you know
around us.
[56:39] » Uh so deer park deer park is total full
rate is 155 significantly higher than
[56:45] us. Uh silver is 151.
Um
[56:51] Wyoming is 164. So I mean again total
full rate of millage
[56:58] we're not we're not all that high but
we're not this on
[57:08] » what was that
>> we had this is after we added on or
[57:11] before
>> all before if we would add this on so
[57:15] that would add six to our total voted
millage that would put us at
[57:21] 13 141
[57:24] Okay. 141 is not
>> it's not what we're paying right now.
[57:28] » It's not really there's a 40% reduction,
>> right? So basically to us but everybody
[57:34] else reductions.
>> Yeah. question about property taxes
[57:39] because it's very Byzantine to try to
understand but you know
[57:43] all things being equal what let's say
say somebody like the city of Mason what
[57:48] they could raise in hard dollars for one
mill may take a community like Golf
[57:54] Manor seven mills to do
[58:00] » so if you want to know in terms of um in
terms of total mills
[58:06] » terms of dollars
dollars. I mean that you'd have to go
[58:10] based on the it's it's I don't know if
we can pull that so quickly
[58:14] » because every village has to figure out.
>> Yeah. We also have their overall assess
[58:20] valuation right that we don't know.
>> And we also break down the difference
[58:25] between resial versus commercial
industrial
[58:30] different.
[58:34] » All right. A lot of other states make
this really easy. It's property tax
[58:37] sales tax. It's just a percent.
[58:42] Um but I think the reciprocity is easier
to understand.
[58:47] » Yeah. I think what the the takeaway from
maybe tonight's discussion on this is
[58:53] that
reciprocity
[58:58] a adjustment to reciprocity to at least
require a minimum of 1%
[59:04] coupled with some level
at or around six mills of extra property
[59:12] tax millage maybe something less
provides the village you know some extra
[59:19] runway
um and I see this slide um it's not how
[59:24] Eric titled this slide I call this slide
the north we slide because what this
[59:30] scenario does maybe even without the
public safety levy right now. Maybe
[59:36] that's something that's a fall
consideration
[59:41] is
whoever you know
[59:46] is in this room, you know, sit around
later
[59:50] and council collectively spearheading
the redevelopment of that area. If you
[59:55] can provide something that will that
will create some income tax revenue
[59:59] whether that's through employment or
whether that's through new res
[1:00:03] residences residential something higher
density
[1:00:08] then potential level of need for future
you know property tax increases maybe
[1:00:14] dissipates or goes away.
um you know if that's if that's a hey
[1:00:20] collective you know position of council
is let's do something now but maybe not
[1:00:25] everything right away and let's see what
we can maybe accomplish in the next
[1:00:29] couple years. You know that's not
necessarily a bad call either but you're
[1:00:34] just trying to charge around this.
[1:00:42] » When do we do this?
>> That's a really good question. So
[1:00:47] um if it is council's brothers to adjust
reciprocity level
[1:00:54] ideally it would be great for that to
take effect January 1 [clears throat]
[1:00:58] new tax year that would require
legislation to start
[1:01:04] in October.
Um if anything that you desire to do um
[1:01:12] would require placement on the May
ballot that legislative process will
[1:01:17] have to start probably November
because that requires first council to
[1:01:23] pass a resolution to ask the auditor
g will so many mills raise and then
[1:01:29] auditor will certify that amount and
send back to us and then ultimately you
[1:01:32] folks will then be asked if you still
want to proceed to then has an ordinance
[1:01:37] to place that on the ballot and we have
to be what 100 days out from the filing
[1:01:42] 100 days out from the election the
filing time. So
[1:01:44] » yeah, so being absolutely would be
resolution of necessity would be the
[1:01:49] December meeting.
>> Yeah.
[1:01:50] » That we'd get a offer certificate of
resources and then resolution proceed
[1:01:54] would have to be in the January meeting
because it's a February 3rd deadline.
[1:01:58] » That's right. It is.
>> So yeah. So really anything maybe wise
[1:02:04] just to start it next month
[1:02:09] my questions again
uh feels to me we I'm new to the council
[1:02:15] so I don't know how long this has been
on the table so I want to just drag that
[1:02:18] into the past but to me my starting
point when [clears throat] I'm when I'm
[1:02:23] faced with this kind of you know
budgetary problem my first my first
[1:02:28] thing that I look at before I even look
at what are the possible increases is is
[1:02:31] the current contract and what can I do
to lower the expenses which I just feel
[1:02:34] like I completely I had no idea what
what we're spending what we're getting
[1:02:37] out of it what are what are other
options to cut our expenses I personally
[1:02:41] would wouldn't even look at this before
I have a much better picture of that and
[1:02:44] nail down all the expenses and costs and
say this is just it and now what it is
[1:02:47] and then I think these are some great
solutions and I'm pretty much in the
[1:02:50] same boat as you you know make sure
between those two items I think it's
[1:02:53] probably a pretty good move although I
probably also would hesitate to put it
[1:02:58] all in place before we actually need it
but to
[1:03:00] This is this is all secondary. The first
thing is what are the contracts and
[1:03:04] expenses? Are we able to put that
forward before voting on on this?
[1:03:08] » Oh yes. I think that dot tales well into
kind
[1:03:16] [clears throat]
[1:03:19] of [laughter]
>> great question.
[1:03:23] also understanding like why all of a
sudden
[1:03:29] » exactly so I think an important point is
there is nothing all of a sudden about
[1:03:33] this
>> this is we knew about this 5 years ago
[1:03:37] and the previous administration was more
focused on I think the um the
[1:03:44] possibility of developing north the
possibility but but no concrete plans
[1:03:49] had really been um had really been
explored a Um the we're not in we're not
[1:03:57] in danger right now. Um
>> we're just smelling smoke.
[1:04:00] » We're smelling smoke and there's there's
a million dollars in the reserve right
[1:04:05] now.
>> Yeah.
[1:04:05] » And that reserve will be depleted in
three years, four years if we don't do
[1:04:11] anything now. But nothing needs to be
done this year.
[1:04:15] » But I think the analogy that uh that Mr.
shallow wave which um
[1:04:22] the coal barge right you cannot co turn
a coal barge right before you hit the
[1:04:27] big
>> end of the river the river start
[1:04:30] thinking ahead of time
>> this is this is thinking ahead of time
[1:04:33] » I no problem I totally agree I think
this is a great conversation I think
[1:04:36] it's something that definitely needs to
be rectified I'm just saying I would
[1:04:38] like to look at the expenses part of it
>> and there's no vote there's no action
[1:04:43] this is this is beginning that
conversation
[1:04:46] » so if I may we can switch to
preparation. Okay,
[1:04:50] » that is not on the screen. Um, you are
welcome to follow along with your copies
[1:04:56] as an extra
>> I know how much you love. [laughter] So,
[1:04:59] this is the this is the appropriations
of the general fund. I'm just going to
[1:05:04] go through a general overview because I
think you have not. So, yeah, that's the
[1:05:08] five pages like this.
>> [clears throat]
[1:05:13] » Um
so we start the very first paper we're
[1:05:18] just starting with the general slide and
this is just kind of a preview to kind
[1:05:21] of gather some feedback to see you know
are we right zip code some things or not
[1:05:28] or if there are other council priorities
like um but on this general fund which
[1:05:34] is our primary operating fund and it can
be used in general service
[1:05:39] [clears throat]
Um
[1:05:41] we are projecting so at the top of the
top of this this chart um are is the
[1:05:48] revenue section and then second half are
our expenses obviously that are listed
[1:05:54] and so we are expecting right now we
have adjusted it based on what we're
[1:05:59] seeing income tax wise we expect that we
will have a starting fund balance
[1:06:05] January one of just a little more than a
million dollars so you you can see kind
[1:06:10] of, you know, we had a little bit of a
uptick. Now we go back down to kind of,
[1:06:18] you know, equal the room. Um, as you see
here, [clears throat] our major revenue
[1:06:24] sources,
uh, one at 750 or 775,000
[1:06:29] are property taxes that go to the
general fund. That is our inside
[1:06:33] millillage. Um, in addition, we have
some voted millage that actually is on
[1:06:38] the ballot here in November. We know it
still stays the same. We'll get a lot of
[1:06:43] remarks on this real quick. Um, and then
our then our largest general fund
[1:06:48] revenue source is income tax. In this
proposal, we are projecting income tax
[1:06:52] to be flat compared to where we're at
this year.
[1:06:56] um that may be subject to maybe a slight
adjustment between now and two weeks
[1:07:01] from now, but we are willing to be
conservative um because we are a
[1:07:06] jurisdiction that we don't have the
margins that other communities do in
[1:07:10] terms
[1:07:23] to adjust it. It's it's it's just it's
not working.
[1:07:31] » Um
when we look at, you know, state share
[1:07:34] taxes, we do get about $65,000 a year in
government fund revenues from the state
[1:07:39] of Ohio. That's just a direct payment.
Um as well as some reimbursements on
[1:07:44] some of the homestead exemption,
property tax roll backs.
[1:07:49] Um we do have some special assessment
revenue. It's very dimminimous. That's
[1:07:53] usually when we have to use golf
painters finest landscaping service and
[1:07:58] mow people's yards for them and and
build them. Um and some other things. Uh
[1:08:03] the charges for services
um that is the Rumpky contract. That's
[1:08:08] really just an in and out. Um we do have
some fine revenue, fee revenue and and
[1:08:15] earnings on our investments. Um we're
projecting this to kind of be flat. We
[1:08:21] don't necessarily believe we'll see a
substantive rise or a major decline in
[1:08:26] the
federal open markets committed
[1:08:31] rate. Um so and we we are more actively
looking at our investment portfolio to
[1:08:37] kind of maximize yield as much as
possible.
[1:08:40] Um the biggest uh delta that you'll see
here and this is here just for
[1:08:46] discussion purposes um um is uh in the
intergovernmental line item um that's a
[1:08:53] that number is assuming that as we'll
get further down into the budget
[1:08:59] proposal here for potential capital
projects that would be revenues that
[1:09:05] would be coming in from sorta um for a
75% share share um of of a proposed
[1:09:12] project um with you know the village
matching being 25 plus plus engineering.
[1:09:20] We we'll go into much more detail on
that momentarily. Um so by and large
[1:09:27] looking at a relatively flat revenue
environment um compared to you know
[1:09:33] previous year last couple years um
somewhere you know in the $3 million
[1:09:39] range.
Um and so now we go
[1:09:45] to the expenditure portion of the
general fund. Um, and let me preface
[1:09:52] this that you'll see some police and
fire line items. So, our police
[1:09:58] department's operations
are funded first by the police levy
[1:10:07] and then what remains is picked up by
the general fund. Um and so
[1:10:14] for police, for personnel services,
along with some other related costs, um
[1:10:21] we're looking at
um about 1.2 million for um police
[1:10:28] operations
um that are not covered by the uh police
[1:10:34] levy.
Um we do have just some minor for street
[1:10:39] lighting. We do electric and joyfully
sends us that bill and um and then you
[1:10:44] see the rumpy contract there at 318
change. Um you'll see that our
[1:10:51] collections are a little bit higher than
that 318
[1:10:55] um only because then you also have to
pay back waterworks has a collection fee
[1:10:59] to deal with a few other odds and ends
there. Um so that fun that that
[1:11:04] operation essentially breaks even year
[clears throat] to year. Um
[1:11:10] We do then have our administrative
costs. One thing you'll see here and it
[1:11:15] was a slight adjustment maybe to
comparison previous proposals in years
[1:11:21] past um is that overhead costs for the
administrator's position and fiscal
[1:11:27] officer have been broken up between
multiple funds.
[1:11:33] um just to show that you know there is
you know certain overhead and
[1:11:38] administrative you know cost allocation
to other funds other than just the
[1:11:42] general fund
and so you'll you'll see that uh that
[1:11:49] map mapped out there. Um
that's really where you see the largest
[1:11:55] reduction is in previous years there was
158,000 and change for you know mayor
[1:12:00] ministry of office other that's been
reduced down to 69,000
[1:12:06] um the same way and I also want to say
that for personnel services you're going
[1:12:12] to see wow Nathan that number is really
a lot more than last year what's going
[1:12:19] on
This is more to present the budget in
[1:12:24] terms of especially for council to show
this is that what's our true personnel
[1:12:29] cost. Previous budgets you had personnel
cost which was just salary and wages
[1:12:35] only but then the benefits package was
embedded in other line items. This is to
[1:12:40] allow you to see, okay, whole hog, what
do we have? What what's it cost for
[1:12:45] personnel instead of having to hunt
through the budget of, okay, Rene's
[1:12:49] wages are there, but her health
insurance premiums over here, and then
[1:12:52] EWC and, you know, Medicaid, Medicare
withholding and the roll up and is over
[1:12:58] here. So, we want to be able to just
show that, you know, in as much, you
[1:13:02] know, transparent fashion as possible.
just we we show that um we do have you
[1:13:09] know uh some costs for buildings and
grounds um some you know board
[1:13:14] commissions unfortunately we we get
property tax revenues but then we have
[1:13:19] to pay the auditor the treasur's office
to
[1:13:23] do their statuto jobs um and the biggest
the the two biggest bogeies um on this
[1:13:31] general fund and the like are um
the cost for legal services.
[1:13:38] Um you know, we've had a bizarre last
probably 12 to 15 months only because of
[1:13:46] the cyber attack. And I mean, you know,
we have some extra legal expenses that
[1:13:49] are being reimbured by insurance and the
like and you know the village to engage
[1:13:53] with a solicitor firm. Um and there's
been some onboarding and some uptick in
[1:13:59] bill hours that seems to be plateauing
and we're hopefully in the right
[1:14:03] direction. Um, I think it's more than
reasonable to say, all things being
[1:14:08] equal, that $10,000 a month or less is
[snorts] where your legal expenses not
[1:14:15] only should be, but will be avoided next
year. Um, and and frankly, maybe maybe
[1:14:22] less than that.
Um, but that's, you know, that's
[1:14:26] something to to, you know, monitor and
the like. And then you know we show a
[1:14:30] capital out layout of the general fund
um just because as we get into the
[1:14:35] county street fund the public works
related funds um you know there was fund
[1:14:40] balance and I think you know the speaker
um you brought this up. So wanted to
[1:14:47] just show to council and everybody okay
um what is the capital outlays
[1:14:54] versus take a year off or whatever. What
does that do with fund balances and the
[1:14:58] like? So that 710,000
[1:15:03] um about 650 of that is is for the
[clears throat] potential bus stop
[1:15:11] enhancements there in the vicinity of
Rosedale and we
[1:15:16] um
I'm still kind of taken aback a little
[1:15:20] bit by that number, but
once you start getting into the roadway
[1:15:25] and start moving utilities and
everything else, it gets kind of
[1:15:27] expensive. Um the thought on that one
and this may be something that the
[1:15:32] village lands on an alternative path um
and solution. That price tag is I will
[1:15:38] say was kind of a worst case scenario in
that we if that facility were to be
[1:15:45] built what we would do is we would give
we curve the curve a road diet and we
[1:15:50] would kick out the Rosedale
side we heat out bump it out so that
[1:15:56] that new structure
first of all isn't right on top of that
[1:16:01] house at the corner also alleviates
domain takings and all that
[1:16:05] unpleasantness
Um but moving that curb line, ripping up
[1:16:09] that road and then some of the storm
sewer modifications and utility
[1:16:13] relocates would be looking at 650 was
thought by JMA, our engineering
[1:16:19] consultant, to be a safe number.
Probably be less than that, but it's a
[1:16:24] safe number.
That 650 would include engineering cost.
[1:16:30] Um and the thought would be okay the
village um could in early next year
[1:16:36] apply for sort of funding for that. Sort
of typically we'll only pick up you know
[1:16:43] at most 80 but say okay 75% of the
construction cost
[1:16:49] with the village picking up the 25%
and you know the engineering. Um and so
[1:16:55] that's what that is. Um as we will move
into the street the street street fund
[1:17:02] permissive tax and gas tax funds you
know it's staff's recommendation that we
[1:17:08] have been on a pretty steady cadence
over several years to where we are going
[1:17:13] out
partially funded project for street X
[1:17:17] street Y street Z most recently you
folks authorized an agreement for
[1:17:22] Rosedale
in consideration of the condition of our
[1:17:27] infrastructure here, which is in
fantastic shape in most areas compared
[1:17:32] to so many folks around this county.
It's thought to be prudent that we take
[1:17:38] a breath, sit out a play or two of the
game, let the let those funds replenish
[1:17:44] themselves, and then start back because
longer term, you know, I think it's a
[1:17:51] it's it's a wise thing for the village
to consider further enhancements off the
[1:17:55] Santa and some of the other secondary
streets. And there also may be a need
[1:18:00] for some of those capital dollars for
the redevelopment of North Mey area in
[1:18:05] the near future. So this gives you
options without sacrificing
[1:18:11] you know significant you know
deterioration of of certain streets and
[1:18:17] roads here in town to the point where
it's not just minor reconstruction and
[1:18:21] mill and fill. It's to full depth repair
which is
[1:18:26] not good and expensive.
Um and before you move on on that
[1:18:31] because I think it's unfair for me to
address this uh having a bus stop
[1:18:34] [clears throat] at that corner. So we
had done a study number of years ago
[1:18:38] about you know which bus stops are the
most used and everything. One of the
[1:18:42] things that I raised is on one of my
running routes I was recognizing I have
[1:18:45] a whole bunch of students waiting for
school standing in the rain all the
[1:18:49] time. I talked to the um CEO over at
Sorta about hey can you give us some
[1:18:54] funds to have covered bel shelters? We
got statistics from our most recent
[1:18:59] census stuff that says that we have a
huge percentage of people that are using
[1:19:03] public transportation. We don't have any
covered bus stops here. The only ones
[1:19:09] there are two that were potentially
eligible. One was on the corner of the
[1:19:14] north where excuse me the almostville
where you have the stop sign where it
[1:19:21] then turns and heads on up to ridge. Um,
and then the other one is over here on
[1:19:26] Wehei. The one on Wehei had more. Um,
and so that one's the one that was
[1:19:31] eligible for funding where they could
not pay for the the cover of it, but pay
[1:19:37] for um putting in basically like a chair
and redesigning and everything. That's
[1:19:42] outside of the relationship with the CEO
of the company [clears throat] talking
[1:19:46] about, listen, this is huge. Can you
help us out with that? Right? No
[1:19:50] guarantees made on that. That was a
conversation I was having a couple years
[1:19:54] ago on this. Um I discussed with Nathan
what you know what would be the
[1:19:59] possibilities like what would that look
like because one of the issues is that
[1:20:02] you know you got a house right there
right we don't want to just put it in
[1:20:06] the person's yard right and uh I was
thinking it was just a dead idea because
[1:20:11] of that right we put on the other side
but then was brought to our attention
[1:20:15] there'd be a lot of expenses with having
a crosswalk there and and all this kind
[1:20:19] of stuff so what Nathan has suggested is
well what if we uh
[1:20:25] basically where cars are parking there
on the side of Leuhi. Bump that out and
[1:20:30] make that the bus stop where they're
parking, you know, build it build it
[1:20:34] right there. Uh, which I thought
[snorts] was a a fantastic idea. Um, my
[1:20:38] understanding because I've been in the
loop on what's going on with the budget
[1:20:42] for quite a while is it's absolutely
something that we can't afford right
[1:20:45] now. Um, so in terms of it being put
into the budget, this is the first that
[1:20:50] I've heard about it that it's actually
like in the budget. And what I'm
[1:20:54] understanding, Nathan, to say is that
it's a placeholder that can be used for
[1:20:58] a lot of different things. Is that what
you were
[1:21:00] » Yeah. Essentially
passage of budget doesn't necessarily
[1:21:08] go for any type of capital outlay. Um if
say that project wasn't pursued
[1:21:16] obviously the revenue side would
probably be reduced as well because you
[1:21:21] know there wouldn't be you know sort of
dollars or some other third party
[1:21:25] funding source and the like but this was
just thrown out really sincerity for
[1:21:30] discussion to see is this something that
folks have an appetite for or not. And
[1:21:34] so you can see that, hey, all things
being equal,
[1:21:39] assuming you get some grant loving and
then what would have to be picked up
[1:21:44] locally, you're looking at probably
about a two to $220,000
[1:21:48] potential reduction in the general, you
know, local dollars that that would be,
[1:21:54] you know, not reimbured
with construction and engineering. And
[1:21:59] and the thing about the general fund and
why I think all of us would be so
[1:22:03] interested in protecting it is it allows
us to do things like this for our
[1:22:08] residents, right? You know, you take a
portion of it one year and you know the
[1:22:13] next year you're still budgeted for that
amount. Your your general fund isn't
[1:22:17] going down then, right? But we have to
do something to be able to make those
[1:22:21] kind of projects possible. Otherwise,
we're continuing to have less and less
[1:22:26] services like that for our people.
[1:22:36] What project did we do this year over
last year? Last year had 1087.
[1:22:43] » So we did uh
and bridge acres.
[1:22:48] Now we also have some preliminary costs
for engineering for May flower which
[1:22:55] hopefully will be here about 45 days
[1:23:02] water works for less water [snorts]
[1:23:06] but going forward for right now the only
thing that um and it's already been
[1:23:12] encumbered
as part of this year is Rosedale
[1:23:16] Chuck Arman that project
So beyond that, [clears throat]
[1:23:22] there's nothing of a significant nature
um in the hopper
[1:23:29] um capital standpoint that would be
coming from the the street.
[1:23:37] So
and really that's going to allow the
[1:23:40] street lef
allow it to rebound because we're
[1:23:45] already in the year pretty
in that fund because we have and for
[1:23:51] good and for good purposes we through
good deal that's where it's for
[1:23:56] » where are we saving money by the mayor
administration officers
[1:24:03] offices other than 69
>> so this is yeah
[1:24:10] so really let's let's take police
[clears throat] personal services and
[1:24:15] other those two items
Think of those as as those should be
[1:24:19] combined into correct
>> what's your personal cost. So um right
[1:24:24] now you're looking at fairly status quo
in that last year this current budget
[1:24:28] year was 1.4 million basically and
you're basically around the same number
[1:24:35] um for 27.
Um we were very fortunate. Um we got a
[1:24:41] 0% increase on
Michigan for this upcoming year. So
[1:24:47] that's fantastic.
>> This is this is just a reclassification
[1:24:50] of how those funds are are being
reported. Um
[1:24:57] » what the the one the one
[1:25:04] not the same as
[1:25:08] » that's correct. Oh you're saying why is
there significant reduction
[1:25:17] » so what was the major I think it was the
health insurance is the big s is one of
[1:25:22] the big savings there. Yeah.
>> So, previous
[1:25:28] administrator was on
>> it was a more expensive health insurance
[1:25:33] plan.
[1:25:38] Okay. Then it goes back then it goes
back to the previous year
[1:25:43] 2027 December.
>> Yes.
[1:25:46] But it's also the um like the there's
certain benefits which are we nor we
[1:25:51] normally paid them out of the what is
the 158 in 2026 in 2027 [clears throat]
[1:25:57] those benefits are being paid out of the
administrator line item which is that
[1:26:02] two 255
is it's it's a little bit confusing of a
[1:26:09] shuffle. Um, and I'm clarifying with the
auditor of state whether this may
[1:26:14] change.
>> Yeah, that this this may change by the
[1:26:17] next meeting just because there's
there's a little bit of a legal
[1:26:21] ambiguity in how certain funds are
supposed to be shown and how uh we've
[1:26:28] been doing it in the past,
meaning for the last five year, four
[1:26:33] years that I'm here. And if you look at
any previous budget sheets, they all
[1:26:36] look similar to what we have in this
current budget year. Um, I don't have a
[1:26:42] I don't have a great explanation why it
was always done that way. Um, but we're
[1:26:49] we're making sure that it's being done
correctly with the auditor and those
[1:26:54] conversations are ongoing.
[1:26:58] » So, we show them our numbers and then
they say, "Actually, you should show it
[1:27:02] this way."
>> Correct. Right.
[1:27:04] » You end up with the same aggregate
amount.
[1:27:06] » It's Yeah, exactly. It's just a question
of okay.
[1:27:10] [clears throat]
[1:27:14] » Going back to the 710.
>> Yeah.
[1:27:19] Why is it at 710? If you said our only
be 250.
[1:27:25] » So our out of pocket, I'm talking about
a net cost to the general fund. So
[1:27:30] that's 710. There's more than just that
$650,000 project in there. There's a CG
[1:27:37] kind of match. There's a few other
things for next year, but you know,
[1:27:41] we're talking like 50 grand.
Um, it is what you'll see here is that
[1:27:47] there's that cost, but then some of that
cost is offset by the 510,000 in
[1:27:53] revenue.
And so we're in the 200,000ish range
[1:28:00] probably, [clears throat]
you know, that would be the net
[1:28:05] impact with general fund 200
[1:28:11] versus
um
[1:28:15] it's not dollar
like that
[1:28:20] 75%
last Here we got
[1:28:25] » [clears throat]
>> um 400,000
[1:28:32] rest.
[1:28:37] So these are appropriations
um which some of that money was
[1:28:42] encumbered then or has been now
encumbered this year
[1:28:48] um as as or not encumbered but it
depends on the revenues when they come
[1:28:53] in. So like as you remember like some of
Bridge Acres should have been done last
[1:28:57] fall and it just now got closed out and
so we are now those re the timing of
[1:29:04] those reimbursements has changed.
>> So
[1:29:13] what do you mean?
So the the question is really just is
[1:29:19] that is there a desire I think at the
end of the day is there a desire council
[1:29:22] to pursue
you know something there at Rosedale
[1:29:28] or football or what
math
[1:29:32] » yeah
whatever comes in
[1:29:43] » 510 is based on whether or not we get
for 75% for the cost project.
[1:29:49] » There's other projects
[1:29:53] other rooms that
[1:29:58] » not other rooms. The the 510 only
includes the reimbursement for bus stop
[1:30:03] and then CVG funds. So here the 710
would [clears throat] be the actual or
[1:30:07] the safe estimate 650 plus 60,000. The
other road funds are not dealt with
[1:30:13] directly in this in the general fun.
They're going to be on on page four.
[1:30:21] » If we drop it down,
[1:30:26] » it's still Yeah, it's
>> kind of
[1:30:34] » Is there anything we could do with
the girls?
[1:30:40] road.
[1:30:56] There is a potential
that we could include a bid packet at
[1:31:04] alter
at least get pricing on it.
[1:31:12] And technically, if it was council's
brothers, we wouldn't necessarily have
[1:31:16] to
pay out of pocket. We could request just
[1:31:22] an add-on to the loan amount from OPC
for that project and pay zero interest
[1:31:29] for 20 years,
[1:31:33] which would probably be cheaper than the
sort of to begin with.
[1:31:39] Um,
can you look into that?
[1:31:44] » I most certainly can. That might be that
might be the middle path on something
[1:31:49] like this.
[1:32:03] » So that's for the um which is also
There's two funds which we have not yet
[1:32:08] put on here. Um Mr. Cow reminded me but
this this uh would be basically the um
[1:32:16] this is the termination of benefits fund
um and the and the vehicle replacement
[1:32:23] equipment
>> vehicle and equipment replacement funds
[1:32:25] » both the same.
>> Yeah, they're just it's transfers out.
[1:32:29] If you see that at the bottom, those
would be would be transfers,
[1:32:32] » right? So those are basically like
savings accounts into separate funds
[1:32:36] that would be slowly building and we
built projections to make sure that the
[1:32:40] building roof HVAC all the uh cars and
equipment will be
[1:32:49] » yes
[1:32:53] the idea is you know this is a
discretionary move by council choose not
[1:32:56] to do it you know totally dr um but the
thought was to create. We already have
[1:33:03] the termination fund which should back
on us. Um but the proposition of
[1:33:08] creating the equipment fund which would
charge the general fund police fund or
[1:33:15] you know some of the public works funds
a little bit of depreciation every year
[1:33:19] that would be transferred into this fund
and it's almost kind of like a forced
[1:33:23] savings account. We just have the fiscal
discipline that I'm just going to move
[1:33:27] it away every year. So that when the
police chief walks in here, walks in the
[1:33:33] administrator's office in about four
years and says, "Guess what? You know,
[1:33:36] we we bought all these cruisers all
around the same time and now they're all
[1:33:40] getting replaced around the same time
and everyone's going, "Oh, holy gez,
[1:33:44] Batman, what's going on?" We're like,
"Oh, no. We have a fund for that. We've
[1:33:48] saved for it." And so you're not getting
the the up and down of hey everything's
[1:33:53] great and all of a sudden now there's
this big supplemental appropriation
[1:33:56] really remember what's coming. So it's
more just kind of even it outs and
[1:34:05] so next time you know Jim needs a new
dump truck we've saved for that for the
[1:34:09] last seven years
or whatever else.
[1:34:16] So, um,
>> is that divided per item?
[1:34:19] » Yeah, I mean it's there's there's a lot
of specific items that
[1:34:24] » Oh, no. What I mean is what I've seen
historically when such a fund is created
[1:34:29] when it's all lumped into one sum, then
as you said, police officer, you know,
[1:34:35] walks in and says, "I need three new
cars." He says, "Great, no problem. We
[1:34:39] got the money." You hand him everything.
And then the dump the trip the the
[1:34:43] dumpster comes and wast
his is even worse condition. But because
[1:34:47] you had the money you gave a much easier
yes much faster when really if the money
[1:34:52] hadn't been there and you do have to
kind of divide it up and everyone's
[1:34:54] panicking that's when grinds and exact
numbers was things divided up into
[1:34:59] depreciation assets per capita which is
what most bigger companies have it set
[1:35:03] to to offset this exact problem. Then a
police chief walks in and says, "I need
[1:35:07] three prisons, but there's only one
accumulated, so let's buy you one."
[1:35:11] » Correct.
>> Yes. So that's So you you get the nail
[1:35:13] on the head. So without getting too
wonky on this, um some of the money
[1:35:18] that'll be coming into this fund will be
general fund. That's just do whatever.
[1:35:23] But the portion of the pro of the
transfers every year that maybe come
[1:35:26] from the street lobby fund or or the
police fund, those will be accounted
[1:35:32] for. or [clears throat] it'll show an
overall fund balance, but there'll be a
[1:35:35] sub fund, maybe two sub funds or three,
however you want to do it, and that it
[1:35:40] will account for to make sure that there
is segregation that if there's some
[1:35:43] police loving money that comes in 5
years from now, it doesn't go towards a
[1:35:47] new backup and vice versa. Okay? But the
depreciation levels that are being
[1:35:53] proposed are
are estimated to well that will cover
[1:35:59] the replacement cost. I say for cruisers
the replacement cost net of trade in
[1:36:05] value of what we expect in five years,
six years, whatever the case might be.
[1:36:09] But to make sure that you everything's,
you know, we're all imperfect, you know,
[1:36:13] but we think it's at least better, hey,
we save 92% of what it really costs us
[1:36:18] than you come to council and say, yeah,
oh, by the way,
[1:36:22] forgot to mention that there's, you
know, couple,000 now forces
[1:36:31] out of control. There we go. There we
go.
[1:36:34] » I for that just just to see that. So I
think I think the takeaway I think with
[1:36:40] discussions on the general fund is I
think he and I will go back to the
[1:36:43] drawing board a few things. I think we
can probably present to you in two weeks
[1:36:47] a fairly more balanced proposal
in terms of revenues and expenditures
[1:36:55] and kind of show how that that can work.
I think we'll be in a really good place.
[1:37:01] Um so that's the general fund.
The rest of this will go much quicker, I
[1:37:08] promise.
Uh the next the next fund is just our
[1:37:12] fire fund. As Eric and and others, you
know, uh communicated that
[1:37:19] this has been a fund that has been
depleting,
[1:37:23] you know, not not rapidly, but it's now
starting to stop. It's going to start
[1:37:28] going in the wrong direction, but we
know that. And so after 27,
[1:37:35] at the end of 27, we were projecting
about 156,000 left in the fund and then
[1:37:40] that will be all spoken for and taken
care of in 28. That goes to our original
[1:37:45] discussions this evening. Um, but this
is, you know, 100% being
[1:37:54] down.
>> So the uncumbered balance at the very
[1:37:57] bottom or excuse me, the fund balance,
I'm sorry.
[1:38:00] » Yeah. um 1231. So
>> that's what you were saying that there
[1:38:05] we were getting monies every year from a
previous thing that ends in the end of
[1:38:08] 2024.
>> Our last our last payment from the
[1:38:11] former fire district was this year.
>> So that's it. You see on miscellaneous
[1:38:16] » 2026 109,13527
we've been getting alimony for several
[1:38:21] years.
So
[1:38:25] so that ends and so that's but that's
really and there's nothing really
[1:38:28] exciting about that fund. It is
money comes in and then we pay the fire
[1:38:32] contract.
>> Revenue is still going down.
[1:38:40] » Uh the police levy is a similar
situation based on where we're at, you
[1:38:45] know, in terms of the council feels
right on whether to do it or not. Um but
[1:38:53] this is something that we spend down um
the police levy predominantly first
[1:39:01] before
dipping into the general fund you know
[1:39:05] in concept. I mean we we pay out both of
them starting January but this is how we
[1:39:09] model it but we are um you know we are
paying for certain personnel costs and
[1:39:16] the like and this is also where we are
paying leases
[1:39:21] on the these purchase of the vehicles um
and the like. So really just kind of
[1:39:27] more status closed the proposal it is
dropping down a little bit. It has been
[1:39:32] previous staff's um kind of MMO and
makes a lot of sense to me that we try
[1:39:38] to leave just a little bit. We don't
drain it fully every year just to leave
[1:39:41] a little bit of cushion just because of
the nature of the operation and you know
[1:39:46] things happen. So um but you know as
this sheet shows we're we're getting
[1:39:52] there in terms of you know crunch on
balance. Um so now we move to the street
[1:39:59] funds. So the next couple funds that
we'll talk about are street fund and
[1:40:04] then on the back sheet you'll see some
of our last sheet you'll see some of our
[1:40:08] smaller funds but you'll have street
fund permissive tax and gas tax.
[1:40:13] Street levy that's what it is that's
those are the property tax proceeds that
[1:40:17] we get off the road less um that are on
the books. The permissive tax is that
[1:40:25] extra add-on fee every time you have to
go to the BMD and get new tags uh for
[1:40:30] your car. Everyone knows doing that. Um
we do have um you know a portion of
[1:40:36] every time you go to BMD and renew your
tags, a portion of that check you write
[1:40:40] to the state actually comes back to the
village. It's on a per license plate
[1:40:46] basis. Um, as was rings with council
earlier, um, it's a modest revenue
[1:40:52] enhancement, but the village has one
additional $5
[1:40:59] per tag fee that it could impose that
would raise about $18,000 annually, but
[1:41:06] just something, you know, if there's um
appetite for that. I mean, we could
[1:41:12] start that legislative process, you
know, whenever desired. um with that.
[1:41:18] But these funds, all of these funds,
what's important to know is that it can
[1:41:21] only all these funds only go towards um
maintenance and capital outlay for you
[1:41:28] know streets and storm sewers and um
related equipment and personnel. Can't
[1:41:34] go fun the police department or pay the
fire contractor or the like. Um bust up.
[1:41:41] It could very well could. It may. We'll
see here in a second.
[1:41:46] Um,
>> um, the biggest thing that you're seeing
[1:41:51] in budget year 27 is you're seeing a
significant amount of intergovernmental
[1:41:56] revenue and that is a byproduct of
expecting to have reimbursements from
[1:42:03] OPWC for both Mayflower and Rosedale
which will be
[1:42:09] » probably both in some state of
construction simultaneously. Mayflower
[1:42:15] will start earlier, but Rose Dale will
probably start in July of next year,
[1:42:21] maybe August is the latest. Um,
so those just account for what we expect
[1:42:26] to be the the reemergence from OPWC.
Um, and then we have, you know,
[1:42:34] offsetting 1.5 million for street
reconstruction because even though we're
[1:42:38] getting those revenues, we're the first
payor of those costs before we get
[1:42:42] reimbured. we have to appropriate the
those amounts. Um this also includes uh
[1:42:48] some uh community planning and zoning
work. Um which is just I mean that's
[1:42:54] literally just some
personal cost there
[1:43:00] whatot and then really just kind of your
normal stuff. The other thing that
[1:43:05] you're going to see and we can give you
more of a detail if desired is you'll
[1:43:10] see debt service at the end of this fun.
So this is the fund also we are paying
[1:43:14] all of our existing OPWC loans.
Um several projects in the recent past
[1:43:22] where a certain percentage of the OPWC
money was grant which we love grants but
[1:43:27] the remainder was in the form of a
20-year low interest loan or no interest
[1:43:31] loan I should say and so that accounts
for those annual payments. I think we
[1:43:34] have what? Six.
Six projects. There's five.
[1:43:39] » Five.
>> Five.
[1:43:40] » It'll be six after six. So, right now,
we're paying debt service on five legacy
[1:43:45] projects over so many years. Um,
but all in all, you're seeing a decline
[1:43:52] in the ending fund balance down to about
a half million dollars. And that's why
[1:43:56] staff's kind of recommending that for 27
is that there's maybe not consideration
[1:44:04] of applying for any OPWC or other types
of partially funded projects of that
[1:44:10] nature and allow there to be maybe a
positive uh increase in the ending fund
[1:44:16] balance for the end of or end of 28 that
hopefully get there a little bit closer
[1:44:21] to a million dollars
or at least 850ish.
[1:44:26] which then allows you to have some
options to pursue projects maybe that
[1:44:32] may require some a little bit more local
match
[1:44:37] but really just kind of the basics
there. Um
[1:44:42] and then finally
um you know we we showed the street
[1:44:46] reconstruction which we just
[clears throat] we just talked about. We
[1:44:50] do have some various minor special
revenue funds. Some of these we show
[1:44:55] only because they're legacy. You'll see
that there's Corona [clears throat]
[1:44:58] virus. So there's the CARES Act. Um you
know we have you know license fee. There
[1:45:04] are certain law enforcement funds. So um
there are you know certain fees that are
[1:45:10] charged by the court
likely come back to us but they have to
[1:45:14] be used for very specific purposes like
you know training or want to be used for
[1:45:19] equipment or whatnot. Uh the federal law
enforcement trust is one of those. Those
[1:45:23] are when when our officers are part of
uh federal uh federal efforts that
[1:45:29] result in the forfeiture of assets by
the courts, we get a percentage or based
[1:45:34] on you know various factors of some of
those foreure sales. Um but that can
[1:45:40] only be used for certain restricted
purposes as well.
[1:45:44] Um there is one note here just so you
know we are approp we've already
[1:45:50] appropriated
um but the uh fund 2151 that's the ARPA
[1:45:56] fund
um bad news on that one in that um
[1:46:03] that is actually going to be liquidated
before the end of the year
[1:46:08] um and sent back to Treasury.
Unfortunately, the village didn't take
[1:46:15] necessary action to encumber those funds
prior to the deadline which was
[1:46:23] December of last year.
[1:46:26] Website not coming out.
[1:46:31] » Yeah.
[1:46:39] Treasury Treasury regulation on our vote
was that it had to be committed. That's
[1:46:44] what the federal register defined as you
know defined as it was committed. What
[1:46:48] that really means in our clature at the
local level here in Ohio is that we had
[1:46:54] to either have it encumbered by purchase
order or council had to have authorized
[1:46:59] some sort of contract or project in
connection with
[1:47:04] 24.
So
[1:47:09] 26
>> the first um the first payment of the
[1:47:14] website I don't believe actually came
out of that. I think the
[1:47:18] What was it that came out of that? Was
was the
[1:47:22] walking path? Yes, the walking path is
what came out of that.
[1:47:26] » We started doing the website
and we approved it.
[1:47:30] » Correct. But it ended up the the payment
actually was [snorts] not made out of
[1:47:35] ARPA because more out of the I can look
up the specific numbers, but I don't
[1:47:40] believe it actually ended up coming out
of ARPA. It was going to be the second
[1:47:43] half was come out.
[1:47:47] was supposed to
>> the walking I have to I apologize I have
[1:47:53] to look up there was one other major
purchase that I think it end up being
[1:47:57] that could be mistake
>> why wouldn't that be committed
[1:47:59] considered committed we've already
allocated the monies to come in the
[1:48:02] second the website that considered
committed already
[1:48:05] » because it was supposed to have been
committed in 24
[1:48:09] only
>> approved it 24
[1:48:11] » what the website
>> was before
[1:48:19] » I believe it was 25.
>> Yeah, it was in the fall. I could be
[1:48:23] wrong. I would hope that was wrong.
>> Melody was on council.
[1:48:29] » Yeah, that was October 25.
[1:48:34] » She left in November or December this
past year.
[1:48:38] » May I have tried to get creative
[clears throat]
[1:48:41] office?
[1:48:47] You know, the village has consistently
appropriated that residual 79 grand the
[1:48:52] last couple years, but has never
encumbered or spent it um attached to
[1:48:59] any type of expense.
I was even on the line to say well you
[1:49:03] could argue that
it's committed because it's been
[1:49:08] appropriated and you know it can be used
as revenue replacement in police offic
[1:49:15] but yeah there's pretty clear clear
determination
[1:49:21] what
if the walking path isn't done yet
[1:49:27] can be used on the walking path
because we specifically
[1:49:34] encumbered in your mark the amount of
money for that
[1:49:38] contract.
So it's a certain amount of money. This
[1:49:42] is not just the purpose of it. Yeah.
>> So when we agree to
[1:49:50] that we're funding website and we want
to take parts
[1:49:53] that way.
[1:49:58] So
all turned into a pumpkin at the end of
[1:50:03] 24.
[1:50:09] So just so you know, you will see that
not be there any longer by the end of
[1:50:15] the year. So that's that's what we got.
Um, other than that, um, there is one
[1:50:22] thing that I think, um, is a good policy
discussion for council and community
[1:50:28] members and others to have is that
although there isn't a huge amount of
[1:50:34] money in it, but it's it's it's it's
building over time and it will over the
[1:50:38] next years is what if any, you know,
what if there's any specific village
[1:50:43] would like to see the one Ohio recovery
fund dollars go towards?
[1:50:52] just
start think
[1:50:56] » um current balance is around $25,000.
>> Yeah,
[1:51:03] we're
>> now
[1:51:07] just sit there and grow. There's just I
mean every year we get a couple thousand
[1:51:11] dollar and we've been collecting a
couple thousand dollars a year for about
[1:51:15] five six years now.
>> Yeah. And is there any strings attached
[1:51:20] to how we use it?
>> So it has to be per the pharmaceutical
[1:51:25] companies settlement.
[1:51:29] It has to be used I'm paraphrasing but
it has to be used
[1:51:34] for programs, initiatives and other
efforts that are related to mitigating
[1:51:40] the opioid crisis.
So communities in this region and across
[1:51:46] the state have typically used these
monies for certain health departments,
[1:51:53] you know, or you know, drug addiction
services.
[1:51:58] Um seen some funding for you know
homeless uh homeless you know mitigation
[1:52:04] projects
some public safety but then
[1:52:10] predominantly EMS type of maybe
purchases or
[1:52:16] something that um I know in Middletown
we use some of it when I was there we
[1:52:22] used some of it to we actually bought
bought a side by side altering vehicle
[1:52:27] only because that's how we got into a
lot of homeless camps in the city
[1:52:31] because they were back to the Molly
Grubs and so you know you know stuff
[1:52:35] like that um or helped fund um so in
that city they had what was called HRT
[1:52:42] stands for but essentially at the height
of the opioid crisis I typical day there
[1:52:48] there were multiple ODS a day and this
team was a specific team that would show
[1:52:54] up with a paramedic a social worker and
you know plain clothes, you know,
[1:52:59] officer and would show up at the
residence of whoever ODed
[1:53:05] and survive the next day or two. Check
in with them to see, hey, here's some
[1:53:10] counseling. Here's some other options
for you. You know, we care about you
[1:53:15] more than just when you're on the run
sheet. Dispatch just tell us to go take
[1:53:20] care of you and try to, you know, obey
it that way. So
[1:53:24] » what's it budgeting for your
>> It's just essentially to be it's just
[1:53:30] budgeting the whole thing to give you
the options just so you don't
[1:53:34] appropriate specific
>> it's appropriated with no intended
[1:53:37] » where does the money come from?
>> So it comes from a large multiational
[1:53:43] settlement like with
>> um
[1:53:47] from
these
[1:53:49] » Yeah. And there's and this one opioid
fund is kind of being used. There are
[1:53:53] multiple settlement agreements like you
know with Walgreens and you know
[1:53:59] you know and CVS and then with what was
the the
[1:54:04] family group that they all filed
bankruptcy died from it. the Sandler
[1:54:08] family, you know, that whatever
pharmaceutical company that was, you
[1:54:12] know, this that and the other, but they
said, okay, here in all the states, we
[1:54:15] are going to, you know, put this money
in this trust fund for the set purposes,
[1:54:20] but there are strings attaching.
So, different communities get different
[1:54:25] amounts um depending on there's a
commission formed at the county level
[1:54:31] that decides which communities were most
impacted, right? And so you get a
[1:54:36] percentage of that funding countywide
based upon their assessment of how much
[1:54:41] your community was affected by.
>> I'd be curious what creative ways other
[1:54:48] villages have used that money because
I'm sure there's a few places that have
[1:54:52] like how how great does this get?
>> You know, some people might think drugs
[1:54:58] are getting rained on waiting for the
bus. I mean, who knows?
[1:55:02] [laughter]
Well, and and it's it's been established
[1:55:06] both at the World Health Organization
level as well as um federal and and
[1:55:12] trickle down to the state level that
events that promote community um attack
[1:55:18] the drug problem. All right. So,
>> I mean, so excellent example of what I'm
[1:55:23] saying, like what's considered a good
community service, which I think a lot
[1:55:26] of people in the village actually
appreciate something like,
[1:55:30] » right? I was uh thinking just you know
spitballing that you like do a community
[1:55:34] art project. I love the like the um the
Harmon statue of uh know the ball player
[1:55:41] and everything else. I love those kind
of statues, right? I like the ones that
[1:55:45] like promote family like where you love
the one in McGomery where you have like
[1:55:48] a bicycle with a kid on it. You got the
family like helping with it and
[1:55:52] everything. Always thought it would be
nice in our village.
[1:55:55] » Yeah. Let's dig a little bit. Um because
the issue thing with this money is that
[1:56:01] obviously the money was coming but then
the state kind of trying to figure out
[1:56:04] how to organize and it kind of fell onto
these little regional districts maybe
[1:56:11] large counties you know we kind of start
moving up and there wasn't a lot of
[1:56:16] guidance other than the language within
the settlement agreement but it's
[1:56:22] so that was kind of one of the things
the state and some of these county or
[1:56:25] regional level you
boards are supposed to kind of spell out
[1:56:30] is that okay here's kind of the list of
example things that like yeah no problem
[1:56:35] you know you can spend it on
>> so 20,000 isn't a lot like a smaller
[1:56:40] thing you know nice or something but you
potentially we know this money is coming
[1:56:44] and we want to take a one of these
non-interest loans and try to make for
[1:56:49] the next 10 years that this money will
your market pay that off potentially
[1:56:53] make a much bigger type of thing. Yeah,
basketball court is definitely an
[1:56:58] option. So, let us dig a little bit and
come back with some better answers.
[1:57:08] » Cool. Depends on the settlement. Um,
some of the settlements are like
[1:57:16] 10, 15, maybe even 20 years worth of
payments.
[1:57:21] Um, some of them were maybe four or five
in.
[1:57:36] But again, like every payment we get is
somewhere between $600 and $1,800.
[1:57:54] » Right.
[1:57:56] You have like a just to show a whole
range of things. You have a workshop
[1:58:01] every couple months where you bring in
some drug counselors.
[1:58:05] [laughter]
>> Yeah. All kinds of options. I like the
[1:58:08] community ones.
[1:58:13] Um I know that's rather abbreviated but
[clears throat] and the like um
[1:58:19] takeaways from a stack perspective I
think are we're going to do a little
[1:58:23] sharpening
um come back with a general fund
[1:58:27] approach more balanced
and like um I guess
[1:58:36] our job is to help you folks make
decisions more easier
[1:58:42] fashion. So
after everyone has some time maybe just
[1:58:47] to kind of think sleep on some things or
whatnot. If there are specific scenarios
[1:58:52] you want us to run on revenue
projections we will crank that out very
[1:58:58] quickly um so that you know you all can
deliberate and come to a decision that
[1:59:04] you think is best for for the community.
Um but you know I think the problem
[1:59:10] we're solving for is we're trying to the
comfort level is some combination that
[1:59:16] gets us to about four and a quarter
enhancement. Is that all right? Um yeah,
[1:59:22] that's 450ish
gets us
[1:59:27] by us time
>> and grows slowly if it goes with any
[1:59:33] income tax, you know, adjustments, but
that may that that's a that's a
[1:59:38] decision. Yeah, I will also say and I
think the mayor brought up this several
[1:59:43] months ago just so you're aware it is
getting towards the end of the year and
[1:59:48] so
however you feel about this the general
[1:59:51] assembly will be back in session soon
and the last couple months of every year
[1:59:57] they usually push some legislation
through very quickly. They usually also
[2:00:01] have maybe what's called a Christmas
tree bill where it's kind of one of
[2:00:05] these things that no one can be against.
It's like, you know, some sort of
[2:00:08] household that says we all love puppies
and then everybody in the brother throws
[2:00:11] on unrelated amendments to it to get
things through they couldn't otherwise.
[2:00:15] One of them is to preclude Miss Alice
from changing their income tax credit
[2:00:22] without going to. So that's just
something to think about in terms of
[2:00:25] timing.
[2:00:29] » That looks like the mayor has to tell on
this one. It looks like it's going to
[2:00:34] get slipped in whether that's on the
Christmas tree bill. There's House Bill
[2:00:38] 113 that's circling onation and CR stuff
and it's a Frankenstein monster thanks
[2:00:45] to the bird Claremont County, but it is
what it is.
[2:00:52] Okay.
[2:00:55] Just just piggy back.
[2:00:59] » Um, regarding our current police, I'm
sorry, our farm police department.
[2:01:06] That's fine. Our current fire,
our contract was negotiated five years
[2:01:13] ago. At that point, it was a lot of of
the old contract. At that point they
[2:01:19] tried to turn over every stone and
figure out is there any other path to go
[2:01:24] and they couldn't find now when we
signed resigned the contract on the city
[2:01:30] what steps were done and wasn't looked
into if there's another approach or
[2:01:35] cheaper approach.
>> Yeah, there was a number of things that
[2:01:39] were looked at. I'll let you speak to
that.
[2:01:42] » Yeah, I can speak that the fire contract
is my 10 years. that fire contract was
[2:01:47] the first meeting that was here ready to
go. I think it kind of you know this is
[2:01:53] what we got for right now. Um the issue
you're raising though Mr. Fischer is the
[2:01:58] timing of that is perfect. Um because
for the village to pursue some sort of
[2:02:04] alternative it's probably a process that
you want to start now only because it's
[2:02:10] going to take a few years.
um you know it's a lot of coordination
[2:02:16] it's a lot of conversations both public
and private with maybe partnering
[2:02:20] communities or you know whatever other
direction council wants to go but um I
[2:02:24] think that that you know if that is
something collectively council wants to
[2:02:28] continue to look at um you know I don't
want to come across I don't believe that
[2:02:33] you know the village is is stuck in a
bad contract contractual situation
[2:02:39] um what is different though compared to
either doing it in house or the previous
[2:02:46] situation with little Miami
um is that the village
[2:02:52] is not an equity partner in the
district. It has no claim to any assets.
[2:02:58] You the village is a renter period. Um
you're just purchasing a service.
[2:03:04] There's no equity to build. There's no
you know seat at the table for you know
[2:03:09] managing the organization. Not that
there's anything wrong with
[2:03:12] organization. But yeah, I mean that's
something that you know that's council's
[2:03:16] brothers. So that's something that
preliminary work needs to start now. Um
[2:03:23] and really there may be ability for you
know price reduction one way or another.
[2:03:30] Um the lynch bin is finding a
alternative service provider
[2:03:36] that is open to it.
Um, you would think Golf Manor were
[2:03:41] surrounded by a lot of communities, all
kinds of sides. There may be something
[2:03:45] out there, but there may not be. So,
and it's one of those services, too,
[2:03:52] that it's as much as it is
[2:03:59] more
[2:04:03] um
[2:04:07] To be clear, my understanding is going
to probably answer
[2:04:10] » this question. My number one question,
>> bunch of your questions are going to be
[2:04:14] answered right now is that
in order for us that contract when we
[2:04:20] allowed it 5 years ago to go when we
switched out of Little Miami into
[2:04:26] um De Park,
it was said then this is a perfect
[2:04:30] contract for the next five years. At
year two or three, we're going to start
[2:04:34] working on looking at a new place.
This place went through a lot over the
[2:04:39] past two years. So for us to be able to
put together another plan within two
[2:04:46] months or a month from when we got into
that position is not something that I
[2:04:50] was able to do. It was easy to take this
or we don't have fire department more or
[2:04:54] less. So um and the contract wasn't that
bad in the first place but we just don't
[2:05:00] have the funds allocated for it. And all
along we knew this was going to come up,
[2:05:06] but we also assumed that we're going to
have administration that's more closer
[2:05:11] to to be able to see is there something
another approach or what we have to do
[2:05:16] like we have to decide now we're going
to have to get more
[2:05:20] um are we stuck five years?
>> No.
[2:05:24] » No, we there is a termination provision.
I think it is. Yeah, it's one year
[2:05:30] notice.
>> Okay. Um I mean precisely what what I
[2:05:35] was saying before to raise taxes I need
to know what all the alternatives are to
[2:05:40] lower the expenses and you know a just
different versions of what people what
[2:05:45] other villages do in terms of their fire
and then even if we're going to stick to
[2:05:48] this rental style option just like you
said we have a bunch of communities
[2:05:52] around just warrant a phone call to each
one
[2:05:56] it's way more comp
>> I want to hear about the politics
[2:06:01] go through there is a different options
that could be pursued and discussed and
[2:06:05] it is going to take as as administrator
said very well it's going to take more
[2:06:09] than just like that one of my parts
about me join the council my violent ang
[2:06:15] I've been in is I don't do politics
what's the problem what's the solution
[2:06:18] and here I am folks [laughter]
[2:06:22] » um so my my my humble opinion to this
situation is that we are we have to keep
[2:06:29] the current contract alive at le at at
at least for now. Do we have to and we
[2:06:35] have to work on be able to see if
there's another option out there or not?
[2:06:38] At the same time, we also have to go
ahead and make sure that within that
[2:06:42] time period within the next two three
years, we have to be able to have funds
[2:06:47] to to um keep us keep that contract
alive. Um, so my approach would really
[2:06:54] be that if we're just going to not go to
add on to all in our village another
[2:07:02] $200 or $110
per $1,000 to them and not ask for a
[2:07:08] levy right now. We could always do that
next year. We don't have to do it right
[2:07:13] now. But for us to go ahead and those
that are have income that have not been
[2:07:18] paying into the development income taxes
and ask them to help us out with our
[2:07:23] police department. I think that is a a
decent ask for
[2:07:28] » you're saying it's a property department
>> correct
[2:07:32] to go ahead. Meaning these those people
did not pay income tax to this village.
[2:07:37] They make money and they live here. They
pay property tax. They never paid into
[2:07:41] the village from what they earned.
>> Well, they're paying they're just paying
[2:07:45] they just pay somewhere else. So,
everyone is located somewhere else.
[2:07:48] » Correct. That should come out where you
live also to protect your house and
[2:07:54] protect your fire and protect all that
and the fact that you're like you said
[2:07:59] if you're going to buy lemonade in the
service when you buy it here in this
[2:08:02] state when you buy it there you should
be paying the place that you're buying
[2:08:06] it and and over here we're getting the
services you're getting the services of
[2:08:10] fire here you should be paying for it
for sale
[2:08:15] » I agree with you as it is the closest
logic and pure logic I simply disagree
[2:08:19] agree with the starting point meaning I
agree with you fundamentally why should
[2:08:22] it start with the where the business is
located it should go where the person or
[2:08:25] at least has to be split on some
theoretical levels I agree with you as
[2:08:29] it being the closest logic if I have to
input one I would put this one as
[2:08:32] probably the top
>> but I still say the expenses and there's
[2:08:36] no
>> and my opinion is then this point tell
[2:08:40] me if you agree but at this point
there's absolutely no way for us to cut
[2:08:44] ser to cut expenses unless we cut
services to say that fighter. There's no
[2:08:50] we're in a contract and it's going to
take more than two years for us to build
[2:08:53] another relationship or build up a
relationship that we want with other
[2:08:58] departments to be able to go ahead and
join them for that fire if they would
[2:09:02] give us a better contract that we don't
know if they will to be able to cut
[2:09:07] those expenses. So from this point on we
need to be able to at least get
[2:09:11] ourselves flowing in the right direction
over the next two three years. That
[2:09:15] would be my opinion. Also, our revenue
and our general fund is declining either
[2:09:20] way. So, if we decrease our expenses, so
it will hold us for longer, but it's not
[2:09:25] going to solve the problem.
>> Well, it's only decreasing our general
[2:09:28] fund because it's getting taken because
the fire is taken out of that fund. If
[2:09:32] the fire stop, then it won't decrease
only in the immediate future.
[2:09:36] » Yes. And in the long run
>> because
[2:09:46] we
are then are we inputting we we're
[2:09:51] taking a very specific metric that we
know is a hard metric because have
[2:09:54] already voted on the uptick in in
salaries. But we input what would be a
[2:10:00] projected let's say 8% income increase
based on real estate valuations going
[2:10:06] up. Is that part of it which would
offset salaries?
[2:10:09] » So you got to love the state
legislature.
[2:10:12] [clears throat]
>> Um by their infinite wisdom um some of
[2:10:16] the property tax reforms air quotes
included um the um
[2:10:24] inside millage capture.
it is now subject to the inflationary
[2:10:30] cap.
So I'll paraphrase. Let's say
[2:10:35] [clears throat] you're in accounting
auditor goes out and says everyone's
[2:10:39] property values increased by 20%.
Well, it used to be for all the unvoted
[2:10:46] inside millage that actually grew. It
didn't have any reduction factors. So as
[2:10:50] things increased in value, your millage
at least on that inside 10 mills that's
[2:10:55] between you know the facility or village
of the township when the school district
[2:10:59] prevails. They at least got some
inflationary. Now, it's based on some
[2:11:05] state auditor taxation or whoever is
going to determine annually what the
[2:11:09] inflation cap is. So, let's say
inflation's 3% although you saw 20%
[2:11:14] increases in your value of all your
properties in town, you can only collect
[2:11:18] 3%, not 20 on an inside village. All
your voted all your voted levies are
[2:11:26] stuck.
It's kind of tax is capped to whatever
[2:11:30] inflation is
>> it's capp on the mill
[2:11:34] now the mill will go up but your mill
state so technically that's what I was
[2:11:39] asking that's the actual mill not what
the mill is on paper
[2:11:42] » but the mill go up if our property
>> notable no
[2:11:51] » so um
when we say a voted devoted millage. Um,
[2:11:58] it's really not a millage rate forever.
It's a mil snapshot in time. Exactly.
[2:12:05] It's on the day of that election or that
year of that election. What's the mill
[2:12:10] rate? But so let's pretend you're in a
town with uh with uh nine you and nine
[2:12:18] neighbors all have the same house, 10
houses in town, and you have a millage
[2:12:23] rate that um there's a levy passed and
the mill rate is going to bring in $100
[2:12:30] a year. So you and each one of your
neighbors is going to pay 10 bucks a
[2:12:34] year on that levy. But then somebody
moves into somebody comes to town and
[2:12:39] says, "I'm going to build myself a
house." And now you have 11 houses. And
[2:12:43] so now you still need to bring in, you
know, I'm going to fudge the math a
[2:12:48] little bit. That levy is only allowed to
bring in $100. So the new neighbor you
[2:12:54] have is going to pay $91 and so are all
of your friends and neighbors. you have
[2:13:00] the reduction factor because what you're
voting in place is a fixed dollar amount
[2:13:07] annually. And so as property values go
up, the the effective rate of that
[2:13:13] millillage goes down and won't be won't
we be voting in 2027
[2:13:19] essentially for the new millillage in
effect. So yes, so the first year so the
[2:13:24] first year that that levy is in effect
it's voted millage and effective millage
[2:13:29] will be the same.
>> Yeah. But as the county auditor's office
[2:13:33] does trienal updates the values or
there's new construction or you know a
[2:13:39] property sold and out get now they kind
of look at the valuation they're going
[2:13:43] to make annual adjustments and by and
large with the exception of the great
[2:13:47] recession you know almost 20 years ago
um properties have appreciated over time
[2:13:54] you know every 3 to six years there
hasn't been you know a decrease in you
[2:13:59] know raise value anywhere that would
actually change the reduction factor in
[2:14:02] the other direction. Um [clears throat]
but yeah, I mean that's the thing. The
[2:14:07] only part of your tax bill is that does
rise with we'll call it inflation. It
[2:14:14] rises with the increase in property
values in the community is what is
[2:14:18] called the inside millillage. So state
law says that all the taxing all the
[2:14:24] property all the taxing jurisdictions
that can impose an income tax
[2:14:29] in combination. So that could be your
school district, a township, a village,
[2:14:33] you know, everybody, you know, come
together, the overlapping jurisdictions.
[2:14:38] You can impose up to 10 mills of
property tax amongst all of you without
[2:14:43] a vote of the electorate.
So it's very common, you know, where
[2:14:49] you'll have a community like ours or
another municipality that may it may
[2:14:53] have a couple mills of inside millage. A
township might have a little bit of
[2:14:58] inside knowledge for general fund
purposes and road and bridge fund. The
[2:15:01] schools might have a little bit of
millage altogether that can be up to 10
[2:15:06] 10 mill and it's historically how it's
been divided up dates back to you gee
[2:15:10] the 40s and 50s that rises but
everything else is just a fixed dollar
[2:15:15] now. So
at the beginning of the year
[2:15:19] » pardon isn't that voted on at the
beginning when is that set
[2:15:22] » and when it goes on?
>> Yep. So now if we're going to make it
[2:15:27] now, for example, we're having a
renewal, that renewal is based on the
[2:15:31] old mill.
>> Yeah. How often is this millage voted
[2:15:35] on? It depends on the on on the levy
because this is [clears throat] Ohio. So
[2:15:39] you got to love it. There are permanent
levies or continuous levies that once
[2:15:43] they're voted, they're in place forever
[clears throat]
[2:15:46] unless they're legislatively removed by
the legislative authority. So, like for
[2:15:50] instance, our our general fund levy
that's on the ballot that brings in like
[2:15:56] $70,000 a year. It's what it was passed
in.
[2:16:02] I don't even know.
>> Yeah. But I I've been I've been in
[2:16:05] communities where there might been a
continuous levy for all say fire
[2:16:09] protection that was passed in 1985 and
it's still bringing in $185.
[2:16:15] » What I'm saying is specifically property
tax. I mean like if there's an appraisal
[2:16:19] done generally one to three years on a
property and then the property tax will
[2:16:23] increase based on the new the new amount
if you made an additional
[2:16:27] » where does that money go to then%
goes to Cincinnati public schools
[2:16:33] » only on that 10 internal
>> that's being that's you're referring to
[2:16:38] what David's referring to is the your
portion which goes to the village which
[2:16:42] is I believe for golf man about 22 and a
half% so of that 22 and a2% %. So we
[2:16:48] said the effective millage is around 25.
So 10 of those 25 is inside millillage
[2:16:55] which can increase slightly but the
village doesn't have all those 10.
[2:16:59] » We don't get
>> right. We don't get all that's right.
[2:17:01] And then outside of that there's 18% of
that goes to the county and about 55%
[2:17:07] goes to synthetic public schools which
is
[2:17:12] yeah we're only receiving less than a
quarter of
[2:17:15] » most of the state the local school
district is anywhere from 60 to 75%
[2:17:22] which is what tax
and then the rest is residual between
[2:17:27] you know a county that may have a leies
[2:17:33] by the JS
[2:17:39] and if we do if we do this on the income
tax then that will go up literally where
[2:17:45] my head was at
the I
[2:17:51] » well but again this the bigger picture
that when I looked at this was maybe it
[2:17:57] makes sense to do kind of a hybrid of
the two is that it's a it's it's a
[2:18:02] bigger impact for fewer people if it's
an income tax because it's only people
[2:18:07] who are working outside of the village
who are right I mean it's there's
[2:18:11] there's definitely people who are
working within the village and people
[2:18:14] are working from home they're going to
be paying village taxes so that's one
[2:18:18] it's it's a lot more money I mean if
we're talking about the $80,000 salary
[2:18:22] it's $800 if it's a $40,000 salary it's
$40,000 that's significantly more for
[2:18:27] one individual idual then on one
household is $226 that also spreads
[2:18:33] amongst the businesses. So that that
kind of [clears throat] I think as as we
[2:18:38] had discussed it that makes it a little
bit more of a universal uh tax if it's
[2:18:43] on on but of course the limitation is
that it doesn't grow whereas if it's a
[2:18:47] combination of the two it's a little bit
easier for to see how that would grow
[2:18:51] over time slightly and affect fewer
people in a in a severe
[2:18:56] » on the flip side you're also going to be
affecting people that specifically
[2:19:00] seniors that are young in their homes
and they are living
[2:19:03] » yes I That's actually a big
>> that'sing why there's certain solutions
[2:19:10] out there that actually
[2:19:14] » I mean but I hear definitely
according to the numbers you're
[2:19:18] presenting
[2:19:22] » 622
>> I don't know if that we have to we have
[2:19:26] I was never able to confirm that number
that comes out to be that every person
[2:19:33] yearly would pay $350.
That's it.
[2:19:38] » Be significantly less than making every
single
[2:19:40] » It would be less than making every
person payundred
[2:19:44] over 110 $120.
But again, this is based on something
[2:19:49] that if inflation grows, it grows. And
>> so the the just to give you I think this
[2:19:54] is actually maybe a more accurate range.
So it's $225,000.
[2:19:59] It's approximately right at 1% if we if
we would say that. So the average
[2:20:04] salaries I think in golf banners are
around $45,000 a year. So if you're that
[2:20:09] that means it's $450. So you're talking
about 225 divided by 450. You're talking
[2:20:16] about 500 people that this would this
would be affecting 500 individuals.
[2:20:23] » That's less than
that. Correct. That's I I'm not I'm not
[2:20:27] 100% confident in that number. This is I
just came up with this thought right
[2:20:31] now. If it's $225,000 is the projection
and the average salary in Gulf Manor,
[2:20:36] but that doesn't include how many people
are being maybe the average salary man
[2:20:41] is lower than the people who are working
outside of those. It's it's it's inevit
[2:20:46] that that actually would be a good
causation. Generally higher salaries are
[2:20:50] maintenance will create more travel
time. People will travel
[2:20:54] » be outside the village.
>> That's what I'm saying. It may be
[2:20:58] actually fewer people
>> because they have higher salaries in
[2:21:01] which case it might only be 250 people
>> and honestly it's going to ruffle less
[2:21:04] feathers here because they can they can
more afford as big drop in terms of this
[2:21:10] is exactly what my point is in terms of
like a senior who's 30 feet off their
[2:21:12] house and they're on a set budget and
they just knock off $200. that's going
[2:21:16] to be a big deal to a lot more people
than if you take the higher income
[2:21:19] people and you're charging $300. It's
just not it's just less impactful on the
[2:21:24] community as a whole.
>> I was inclined to say take that um just
[2:21:29] eliminate tax
[2:21:34] reciprocity
just they got to pay us
[2:21:39] and it's affecting less people. It's
more stable over time.
[2:21:46] makes money,
>> right? Well, that's, you know, we're
[2:21:51] rolling the dice with how many people
that is
[2:21:54] » 100% is not like
[2:22:02] I know that pays tax.
[2:22:08] That's why I think that's the best
person to do right now. So, I would put
[2:22:12] forth the
administrator to work on a 58% resp
[2:22:30] to pen a legislation for us to pass that
done and I would table the
[2:22:38] public safety levy for a little bit to
give us time to start working on other
[2:22:43] ways to get our contract or see if we
have any other bridges we can build and
[2:22:48] if we can't and we have to go back then
we can
[2:22:50] » also potentially if we are going to the
via public safety thing um if we are
[2:22:55] making a really nice change we got a
really creative way to do something else
[2:22:58] to the fire and that's a really good
explanation to the people of golf manner
[2:23:02] of why we're putting on this le we're
going to make some really big
[2:23:04] improvement whatever it is but all of a
sudden even if that is not necessarily
[2:23:08] exactly what we're charging maybe that
more than what that contract necessitate
[2:23:13] But that will overall come across much
easier to the voters than like oh hey
[2:23:19] you know we ran out of money. So you
know that that feeling of just like
[2:23:23] getting taxed all the time if you
actually tie that into something
[2:23:26] meaningful. So I don't know what that
would mean because I haven't seen any of
[2:23:30] what that could be but I was saying
potentially that would make
[2:23:32] » or we tell people that we try every
angle couldn't find any it's the
[2:23:36] cheapest contract we have we can't
afford it. That's also something for
[2:23:41] right now where we're standing right now
that we haven't worked on trying to
[2:23:44] figure out if there's another approach
to go. I think that we should public
[2:23:49] safety.
>> No, I agree.
[2:23:54] Is there a second you said
>> 50% means that it would be an effective
[2:24:02] 1%.
>> Minimum
[2:24:05] » minimum tax would be 1. Say we pay 1.7
if you want
[2:24:10] » 50 or 58 I just you're
>> say 58 is not shown there 58 is just the
[2:24:15] um well actually
1% minimum
[2:24:22] » we will write it as 1%
>> so increasing it to 2%
[2:24:28] » no
zero we want to make it 1%
[2:24:30] » no increasing income taxre
>> local local people will not be paying
[2:24:35] anymore.
>> If you work in the village and you live
[2:24:38] in the village, you're not paying. If
you work out of the village, this that
[2:24:42] you got your discount till now, that's
what we're taking away. We're not taking
[2:24:45] it fully away. We're going to make you
pay 1% instead of 1.7,
[2:25:02] » right? We need to have the numbers on
how much is bringing in and maybe it'd
[2:25:06] be helpful to show what different
percentages we bring in.
[2:25:09] » What's the question you're asking?
[snorts]
[2:25:12] » No problem.
>> No problem.
[2:25:20] We'll get you something
[2:25:27] [clears throat]
[2:25:34] [clears throat]
[2:25:37] reciprocity. How much is coming versus
[2:25:44] hybrid.
>> I'm doing the total.
[2:25:48] » No, because I'm trying. Well, my hybrid
is a long-term
[2:25:51] » right now. Let's pass over,000
to start.
[2:25:56] » I mean, to me, that's kind of what like
what your point was. There's one part of
[2:26:00] like the fire is costing us more. So,
how do we look at lowering that? There's
[2:26:04] a separate problem with salaries are
going up and how do we alleviate that?
[2:26:07] So, we can just isolate those problems.
One, we're going to table and try to
[2:26:10] look at the expenses. one way to offset
by potentially sort of reciprocity
[2:26:15] aspect
>> kind of yeah I want to eat up a little
[2:26:20] of that next year we need to a little
bit to pay up our
[2:26:25] » our current
[2:26:32] I didn't hear you
>> no that's fine just
[2:26:36] the numbers we're talking about are not
accurate because
[2:26:39] » also did this budget reflect
I'm pretty sure last council meeting
[2:26:44] this year voted that all the council
members should get $100,000 a year or
[2:26:48] something like that.
>> I don't remember the exact number
[2:26:54] » as a mayor. I think also same percentage
based
[2:27:00] » everyone say I
[2:27:05] » So there's still a motion by Mr. Fiser
requesting the administrator to pursue a
[2:27:11] % model for legislation
available.
[2:27:19] So the easy
motion
[2:27:24] » second
all those in favor
[2:27:29] just want to double check with
administration is that a fair um ground
[2:27:34] to stop
>> yeah I would say that you know it's it's
[2:27:37] it's
stopping
[2:27:42] temporary you're putting a tourniquet on
on on the edge you're going to make it
[2:27:45] to the ER you're going to be fine but
there's other work to do.
[2:27:50] » Correct.
>> It doesn't mean that we're not going to
[2:27:52] pass or have to just means right now.
Let's see all the options on the table,
[2:27:57] but let's do that.
[2:28:10] » Yeah, let's drill down. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[2:28:17] Is that census data or is that something
else?
[2:28:20] » It's going to be a talk with Rita. Um,
[2:28:26] because
[2:28:30] we know individual filers are pretty
straightforward
[2:28:34] about corporate profit filers. It's
going to be the W2 withholders.
[2:28:41] They're gonna have we're gonna have to
ask them to do a search to geocode the
[2:28:45] W3 address.
Yes, we will drill
[2:28:53] the W2 W3.
[2:28:58] [snorts] The final thing I had was
not even close. We're at the halfway
[2:29:04] point on my re. Um, I I actually like
the idea of putting the $5 addition on
[2:29:11] the the license plate, but only if we
tie it into a specific aspect of things.
[2:29:17] So, if we just put in another $18,000 a
year, that's just going to get lost and
[2:29:20] nothing really impactful happen. I don't
think really $5 is is going to really
[2:29:26] care when they have to renew their
license by $5, but if we can tie it to
[2:29:29] something specific, for instance, like
these type of bus stop type of ideas,
[2:29:33] things that really can make a real
improvement. And even if that's every
[2:29:35] five years, you know, wait for the
$8,000 $100,000 budget, whatever it is,
[2:29:39] and make something impactful. If we can
tie that bill into something specific, I
[2:29:44] think that would be something worthwhile
that I would pass.
[2:29:47] Yeah, I think that's uh from what I
understand that's a very popular way of
[2:29:52] doing things because people can see
where the money's going, how much the
[2:29:55] money is, and where specifically
[2:30:01] » just here. The idea I think is we could
prepare legislation for consideration
[2:30:08] that would direct the Department of
Public Safety BP division to add this
[2:30:16] extra $5. And then in that or in that
resolution ordinance whatever it has to
[2:30:21] be there would be a kind of a section of
talk about
[2:30:27] council council policy for the use of
these funds is that they are to be you
[2:30:32] know
stockpiled or the like you're
[2:30:39] for [clears throat] you know on an
annual basis reviewed by council to be
[2:30:43] you know released or authorized for
whatever you know whatever is Is it
[2:30:48] limited to things that are connected to
the road? Can we say improve parks?
[2:30:52] » No, we have to runway or in the right
way.
[2:30:55] » Yeah.
>> Um but yeah, so yeah, there's we can we
[2:31:00] can endeavor to do something. We have
something
[2:31:08] at the crosswalks. There should be a
button for every kid to play with
[2:31:14] sparkly lights around, right? [laughter]
It's doing say it's doing something.
[2:31:20] Press again.
[2:31:24] » I think there's a statistic statistic I
for I think it was 75% they found a
[2:31:29] crosswalks and elevators the closed door
button and crosswalk and was literally
[2:31:33] not hooked up to anything. It was just
something for their patients. People
[2:31:37] feel better when they're pressing a
button. So [clears throat]
[2:31:42] » one push button that I did another time
was in a different country. I was
[2:31:45] already impressed. Pressed,
[2:31:55] » right? Anyone else?
[2:32:00] » Yeah, for the time. Gez, one, two,
almost three hours.
[2:32:04] » Oh, no. We're good. I had another
possible meeting at 9:30, which I said
[2:32:07] if we go over time, I won't be able to
make. We just just barely
[2:32:14] » I've got an announcement.
I have to make it over that. I've got an
[2:32:18] announcement relatively new um new event
that just got scheduled. So um we
[2:32:26] partnered with the county to host a uh
an event that they've done before. It's
[2:32:31] called uh toteen.
It's kind of like a resource event where
[2:32:36] they highlight um all the different
services that are available that um
[2:32:43] increase outcomes. Increase isn't the
the best word for that. Better the
[2:32:46] outcomes that we have for things like uh
infant vitality um and vitality of
[2:32:53] individuals from time of infancy all the
way through teens. That's all services
[2:32:56] that have to do with supporting
families, supporting kids um that
[2:33:03] that have rough stuff going on. And uh
so September 19th, which is a Saturday,
[2:33:09] uh here at the park, I believe it's
[clears throat] from 11 to 2:00 p.m. Uh
[2:33:14] we've got both the chiefs, the police
chief and the fire chief already
[2:33:17] notified of this and and working on it.
Again, lots of different um service
[2:33:22] providers will be present there. Um,
I'm told uh to prepare for between three
[2:33:30] and 400 kids because it's uh
specifically focused to be a family uh
[2:33:35] centered event. And so I talked to
Cincinnati Circus about that. They
[2:33:39] agreed to get some playable stuff out
for kids for that. I've talked to Kona
[2:33:45] ice. They'll be there as well. and I'm
working on getting donations so that uh
[2:33:50] we can give away at least like between
300 and 400 free.
[2:33:57] So that's uh is that two Saturdays from
now is is when that will be and I'm
[2:34:03] working with uh members of the community
engagement uh to help get the word out
[2:34:08] about that. I'll be putting something on
the website and then they'll push it out
[2:34:13] on social media. Um, so it's being being
advertised, you know, a county event,
[2:34:20] right? Um, so they're doing their stuff
to like the whole county, but I'm
[2:34:24] wanting to try to make sure that our
local people know about it as well. So
[2:34:28] if you have any ideas on how to help us
with that, certainly let me know. Um,
[2:34:32] what I know to do is put it on the
website. Um, you know, short of going
[2:34:35] door todoor. Um, put it out on the
website and then push that out to social
[2:34:41] media. So that's one. Um, we've already
addressed uh what
[2:34:46] our registered speaker um
brought up. I would say, and I think
[2:34:52] it's it's true of any of us, if um you
know, if certain individuals would
[2:34:58] talked to the mayor as much as they talk
about the mayor, um we would have all
[2:35:03] kinds of great things going on in this
community. We can get past a lot of the
[2:35:07] gotcha kind of politics stuff and get to
get to some real solutions. I think the
[2:35:12] uh [clears throat] the bus project that
she was talking about, yeah, it's a
[2:35:16] fantastic project. I'm wholly 100% been
want to have that for a number of years.
[2:35:22] Do I have any power over the purse? I
don't. That's totally a council thing.
[2:35:27] Um, and uh, you know, we when we're
looking at these things, you do need to
[2:35:32] get a price of how much something in
total costs, but that's not anything
[2:35:37] that I would ever even if I had the
power to endorse what was it, it
[2:35:41] $600,000 or whatever it is. Like, no, I
would be trying to get the money from
[2:35:46] other places, but I need to know how
much it's going to cost. And no, I
[2:35:49] didn't know how much it was going to
cost. It was I this is the first time I
[2:35:53] know it was sent out to us or whatever.
This is the first time I was actually
[2:35:56] looking at it. other than like executive
kind of summaries I've received from
[2:36:01] administration on things. But that
number was something new to me. As far
[2:36:05] as the admin update, I just refer
everyone to look at my
[2:36:11] mayor's reports the past few months.
that addressing that and uh they want to
[2:36:15] rewind the tape the conversation that
David and I had at our previous previous
[2:36:20] meeting about um our guest speaker that
will be coming in at the next meeting to
[2:36:25] address what that process looks like and
answering questions.
[2:36:29] » Right.
>> Next meeting things change because this
[2:36:32] » September 15th.
>> Yeah.
[2:36:36] » Are there any other announcements? That
would actually be the next two
[2:36:39] announcements. The executive is on so
two meetings. September 15th, executive
[2:36:44] committee is at 6 p.m. and full
council's at 7 p.m.
[2:36:58] » All right. If there are no other
announcements, I would ask if there's a
[2:37:02] motion to adjourn.
>> Second. [clears throat]
[2:37:05] » All in favor?
Thank you for your service everyone.
[2:37:10] [clears throat]
[2:37:14] » Your pen fell over here.
>> He wishes he could pick it up.
[2:37:19] [clears throat]
Bending down.
[2:37:24] Hacker blue.