[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.

Special Meeting of Council, Sep 1, 2026 7p

Transcript