[0:00] It's right on that hill right at the
[0:01] stoplight. That was a great great spot.
[0:04] >> Do we have a good live feed?
[0:05] >> I'm on like sign number.
[0:09] >> You think that's what she's checking
[0:10] with Ryan?
[0:11] >> Oh god. He's got a lot of things.
[0:15] >> I've got them all mapped out.
[0:17] >> Oh, [snorts] good.
[0:18] >> Yeah. Do you
[0:21] >> still got one on the fence down by my
[0:23] house?
[0:23] >> Do I really?
[0:24] >> Yeah.
[0:25] >> I'm running for commissioner.
[0:27] >> [laughter]
[0:28] >> I'm running again in four years. You
[0:30] should just like
[0:31] >> my coot wants a property across from
[0:32] you. Would they let us put a sign up
[0:34] >> if I call them?
[0:35] >> Yeah. Jan, right?
[0:37] >> I'll put that on my list of things to go
[0:38] find.
[0:39] >> Where's yours?
[0:40] >> Would you ask them for me or at least
[0:41] give me a sign?
[0:42] >> My front yard.
[0:43] >> It's hard when people volunteer to put
[0:44] your signs up.
[0:45] >> Well, I mean, it's not You have to mow
[0:47] your lawn. So, I thought if it's just on
[0:48] a fence or something.
[0:50] >> I got an island.
[0:52] >> Okay.
[0:53] >> They don't need to.
[0:54] >> Okay. Thanks.
[0:56] Where's it at, Mike?
[0:58] >> Okay.
[1:00] >> It's the one that goes to the right.
[1:03] >> Welcome.
[1:05] >> Okay. Welcome everyone to our budget
[1:07] meeting. Today is
[1:11] >> Tuesday the 5th of June 20.
[1:14] >> What?
[1:15] >> May.
[1:15] >> 5th of May. [laughter] Today is the 5th
[1:18] of May 2026. Do we need to go around?
[1:22] >> No.
[1:23] >> Okay. and and I'll turn the mic over to
[1:26] Jason to present our budget workshop
[1:28] meeting.
[1:29] >> Thank you, mayor. Uh happy Cinco de
[1:32] Mayo, everyone. So, this slide is just
[1:35] the required slide again, same as you
[1:37] saw last time. Uh state requires that we
[1:40] notice this at the beginning of each
[1:42] meeting. Uh we're playing it super safe
[1:45] uh and doing it every single meeting
[1:47] pretty much this month. But uh as
[1:50] [clears throat] last time it it shows
[1:51] the proposed impact of the tax rate as proposed by staff in the budget. So
[1:58] that would be the u $14.80
[2:01] per month in impact on the average
[2:04] resident.
[2:05] I think next slide.
[2:08] Okay. Same as last time, just a
[2:10] breakdown of [clears throat] um what's
[2:12] contributing to that proposed tax
[2:15] increase. Uh next slide.
[2:18] excite.
[2:20] Um [snorts] I always try to think of
[2:23] some like inspirational thought here,
[2:26] but uh
[2:29] I know it's really contentious. The
[2:31] budget is um everyone feels it from
[2:34] staff to council to residents and um
[2:37] really just thank you for sticking with
[2:40] it. Uh, and I think that this budget or
[2:44] sorry, this mission statement really is
[2:46] our true north as a city and it'll help
[2:48] us get through discussions like this as
[2:50] we think about what's what's right for
[2:53] residents. Um, how do we protect the
[2:55] quality of life uh for our residents now
[2:58] and into the future and do that as
[2:59] efficiently as possible. And as I think
[3:02] as we continue to keep that as our true
[3:03] north goal, we'll be able to figure
[3:06] things out and and
[3:08] so next slide. uh schedule again. So
[3:11] [snorts] this is our second uh our third
[3:13] uh work session. We'll do our uh this
[3:17] Thursday night is the tenative budget
[3:19] that has to be adopted according to
[3:21] state law. That's just the tenative
[3:23] budget. Just quick question on that.
[3:25] Uhhuh. I have a whole bunch of handouts
[3:27] that were handed out earlier that said
[3:29] that we didn't need to adopt the
[3:30] tenative budget. I mean you gave us all
[3:33] a schedule earlier
[3:35] >> in the state code. Is that was it is
[3:37] that because there's a new law or
[3:39] something that I'm missing.
[3:43] >> What can you tell me what that bill is?
[3:45] I want to review it.
[3:47] >> Got some info on it.
[3:49] >> This is a resil.
[3:53] » I don't have the house bill.
[3:55] >> I just It just says that statement of
[3:57] proposed tax increase proposed has to be
[4:01] adopted by the 5th of May. looking up
[4:04] >> or is this first meeting in May?
[4:06] >> The first meeting in May. Okay. [snorts]
[4:10] » Um we have a a schedule that fortunately
[4:14] the tax commission has put out in
[4:16] conjunction with the state. Um
[4:19] is that in conjunction with ULCT? Um, so
[4:22] it's a it's a nice uh step-by-step
[4:24] schedule to make sure that we're
[4:26] following all the key new legislation
[4:28] and um so that's helping us avoid any
[4:32] mis mishaps, I guess. But uh yes, May
[4:35] 7th, first regular council meeting of
[4:38] the month has to be the tenative budget
[4:40] adoption.
[4:41] >> Uh doesn't mean that there can't be a
[4:43] modified tenative budget if you decide,
[4:45] hey, later on we don't like the
[4:46] tenative. Um, so don't feel like there's
[4:50] pressure to not go back if there's a
[4:54] desire to tweak something later on.
[4:56] Well, and I can you also expand the
[4:58] timeline that the tenative budget is
[5:01] just really an action to move forward
[5:03] talking about budget
[5:05] >> and then we will have multiple
[5:07] opportunities and meetings to talk about
[5:08] the tenative budget and to change it
[5:11] >> and then the actual budget adoption is
[5:16] >> not till August well June 18th would be
[5:20] sort of the uh final tenative budget if
[5:23] you will uh if there is a desire to go
[5:26] through truth and taxation then um yes
[5:30] August 6th would be the uh truth and
[5:34] taxation hearing.
[5:35] >> Okay. So just so people know this is
[5:37] step one of a very long process of
[5:40] >> conversation house bill 236.
[5:43] >> Good good clarification.
[5:45] >> All right next slides uh seen this
[5:49] before. Objectives
[5:50] >> want to look at
[5:50] >> next slide. Okay. So, today
[5:54] >> we were hoping that we would just set
[5:57] the stage with how did we get to where
[5:59] we are today? What's been the history of
[6:01] our property tax uh in Hisville over the
[6:05] last couple of decades? We've had a lot
[6:08] of years where we've held the rate or
[6:10] let the rate drop and um we've had I
[6:13] think three times um with most a lot of
[6:16] you that there's actually been a true
[6:18] taxation u process. So we'll go through
[6:21] some of that and then we're going to
[6:23] look at I think this is going to get
[6:24] council member Blackham to some of your
[6:27] points on Friday. you know, if we're if
[6:31] we're using so much fund balance this
[6:32] year, what's going to happen next year,
[6:34] the next year when we don't have that
[6:36] opportunity to rely on the fund balance?
[6:38] How much is that going to result in
[6:41] impacting uh future tax increases? So,
[6:45] we'll we'll get into that. And then
[6:47] last, um we just we'll get into the
[6:50] detail line by line kind of of uh what's
[6:52] making up the uh FY27 proposal. And uh
[6:58] with that this is the kind of going all
[7:01] the way back to 1997 when the rate was
[7:04] 00018 and you can see it's it dropped um
[7:08] around 2014 was the first big increase
[7:11] and that's when the city bonded for the
[7:13] police station shot up to the highest
[7:15] it's been. Uh, and then it's going to
[7:18] drop. And as you can see, firefighters,
[7:22] uh, we we did some salary increases.
[7:25] Um,
[7:26] >> that was 2021.
[7:27] >> I think that was three new fulltime.
[7:28] >> I'm sorry, three new full-time. And then
[7:31] it was 2023 that we did a TNT for public
[7:34] safety, police, uh, mainly.
[7:36] >> Now, in 2021, is that when we added
[7:38] paramedics?
[7:39] >> Yes. Sorry.
[7:40] >> Okay. So, that was required by the
[7:42] county
[7:42] >> for us to add a whole paramedic team,
[7:44] right? Wasn't that 2021? Paramedics
[7:47] haven't been here for 5 years though
[7:48] have they?
[7:50] >> 2021.
[7:51] Okay.
[7:52] >> Yep. That was the year. So, I
[7:54] [clears throat] guess the takeaway from
[7:55] here is you can see that we've rarely
[7:57] done a real uh TNT increase. There's
[7:59] been times where we've held the rate,
[8:01] but um at least going back the last
[8:04] decade plus
[8:07] u most of those times have just been for
[8:09] capturing uh new positions or new
[8:11] projects like the police station or new
[8:13] paramedics. Um we haven't really done
[8:15] TNT to capture inflation uh for the most
[8:19] part. Um last year the 2020 uh 6 budget
[8:24] that we that was adopted would have
[8:27] helped capture some uh inflation but
[8:29] unfortunately we know the story there
[8:31] that it didn't end up getting approved
[8:33] by the state. So again, the takeaway
[8:35] here is that we've done TNT
[8:37] um but mostly just for new projects, new
[8:40] people and and not capturing the the
[8:43] inflation, which we all know has been a
[8:45] lot especially since co so but again oh
[8:48] I guess go back one more time.
[8:49] >> I'm sorry.
[8:50] >> Um you can see I mean going back to 97
[8:53] we're actually lower in our tax rate
[8:55] than we were almost 30 years ago. So
[8:59] that's an interesting point.
[9:02] Uh, next slide.
[9:05] Um, I thought this was helpful. This is
[9:07] what Parker came up with. So, this shows
[9:10] back through 2017 to current each
[9:12] month's uh inflation um kind of
[9:16] comparing the last 12 months. You can
[9:18] see it really peaked during the height
[9:20] of COVID in 2022,
[9:23] but it's still um still more um now than
[9:28] it was before. I mean this is like
[9:31] compounded right capturing this plus
[9:33] it's continuing to grow at even a larger
[9:35] rate. So I mean we're all personally
[9:37] aware of of just when we go and buy
[9:39] anything these days that it's a lot more
[9:41] than it used to be. And of course that
[9:43] impacts city operations as well.
[9:45] Everything from fuel to vehicles and
[9:49] police and fire equipment, everything we
[9:51] buy is a lot lot more expensive than it
[9:54] used to be. Um, we did a nice article in
[9:56] the newsletter last summer that talked
[9:58] about, you know, the cost of road base
[10:00] and and replacing water lines and it's
[10:02] gone up, you know, uh, 200 300% in some
[10:06] cases. Uh, so again, those are real
[10:10] impacts to the city and part of the
[10:13] story is that we just haven't been able
[10:14] to capture that inflationary growth
[10:17] through new revenue. So, next. Oh, yes,
[10:21] Mayor.
[10:21] >> Will you explain why that is? Uh it
[10:24] really goes back to
[10:25] >> our revenue has been flat.
[10:26] >> Uh well sales tax has been relatively
[10:31] flat. It's it's not what it used to be
[10:33] for sure. Uh not certainly meeting the demand that we have. And then the
[10:39] real story is is property tax is is not
[10:43] capturing that inflation. So when we
[10:45] don't do TNT
[10:47] um we we lose money if we do nothing in
[10:51] order to just keep the same tax rate a
[10:53] TNT is required and I think everyone
[10:55] knows that but um so what one of our
[10:59] hopes is that going forward we can do
[11:01] TNT hopefully every year just to capture
[11:04] the inflation and cover our costs as
[11:06] inflation goes up.
[11:09] >> But anyway um
[11:11] >> TNT truth and taxation
[11:12] >> truth in taxation. T I
[11:14] >> It sounds like TNT like dynamite. It's T
[11:17] N T.
[11:18] >> Okay.
[11:18] >> But yeah, truth and taxation. Yeah,
[11:20] >> it is dynamite. [laughter]
[11:22] >> But it's it goes.
[11:23] >> Okay.
[11:24] >> Um Okay. And then I think familiar slide
[11:27] here as well, but uh we're currently the
[11:30] third lowest tax rate in Davis County of
[11:32] the 15 cities. Um if we did the proposed
[11:36] uh 32% increase that we're talking
[11:39] about, it would bump us up to number
[11:41] nine of 15. So, we'd still be just a
[11:44] little bit below middle. Um,
[11:46] and uh, that's part of the story, too,
[11:49] just with what with what's going on. I
[11:53] think it's not in the slides here, but
[11:54] another great one, and Council Member
[11:56] McBride did a great video, but reminding
[11:58] us all that um, the city's property tax
[12:01] only makes up 16% of the pie of your
[12:04] total property tax bill. Most of it's
[12:06] going to the school district as I think
[12:08] most people know and in the county and
[12:10] city of Kisville gets 16% of that. So,
[12:14] uh
[12:14] >> yeah, actually according to last year
[12:16] 15.1% came.
[12:18] >> Wow.
[12:19] >> Yeah.
[12:20] >> So,
[12:22] um next slide.
[12:24] >> So now,
[12:25] >> so yeah, now now we're in the the budget
[12:28] uh worksheets. This is the fun part.
[12:31] >> What are we doing?
[12:34] So, that's kind of the history of where
[12:37] we've been, how we got to where we are.
[12:39] And now we want to talk about, okay,
[12:41] what does our future look like? Um,
[12:43] again, Council Member Black and to your
[12:45] point, knowing that we took so much
[12:47] money out of fund balance, we can't
[12:49] continue to rely on that year after
[12:50] year. What does the future tax rates
[12:52] look like? And so, we're did some
[12:55] projections.
[12:56] >> I think you probably projection here.
[12:57] >> Hey, real quick, Jason. I think whenever
[13:00] we talk about the budget and city
[13:01] council meeting, we should always start
[13:03] out with how you started out with these
[13:06] slides. I think it helps the public to
[13:08] understand kind of what we're up
[13:10] against, but also have more pieces of
[13:13] the puzzle. Thanks, Council Member
[13:15] Jackson. That's a great point. I think
[13:17] sometimes we think we we've said it and people
[13:22] know, but I think you just you never
[13:24] people have busy lives. They don't
[13:25] necessarily follow every newsletter
[13:27] article or what. So, it's a good
[13:29] reminder for for all of us, I think. So,
[13:32] yeah, we'll definitely include that.
[13:39] » So, [snorts] it looks different over
[13:40] there.
[13:42] >> I'm just trying to get this to Are these
[13:44] slides?
[13:45] >> And you're not to this point yet, but
[13:47] this slide that you're showing us is
[13:50] assuming that the fire station gets
[13:52] approved.
[13:53] >> Uh, there's both scenarios. Great point,
[13:55] Mayor.
[13:56] >> Thank you. questions with and without.
[13:58] Okay.
[13:59] >> Yeah. With the fire station, without the
[14:00] fire station. So,
[14:02] >> good.
[14:02] >> Uh Okay. So, with the fire station, um
[14:07] we all know the 32% increase that's
[14:09] being proposed. And and I'll reiterate
[14:11] that the 32% this year is exactly the
[14:14] amount of money that we would have
[14:15] gotten last year had had it gone
[14:17] through. So, this is really just
[14:19] recapturing what we should have gotten
[14:22] um back last year. So, in effect, it's a
[14:24] 0% increase, if you will, for this year.
[14:27] Um, if the fire station were approved,
[14:30] that would result in a 40% increase in
[14:32] next year's property tax. Um,
[14:35] >> and that would be on the ballot.
[14:37] >> That would be on the ballot. Correct.
[14:38] The residents would have to vote yes for
[14:40] that, of course. Um, and so that
[14:43] wouldn't be a truth and taxation process
[14:45] so much as it would be really a
[14:47] referendum or a ballot initiative for
[14:49] residents to vote on. A lot of that
[14:51] would be. Um, so that's that 40% bump,
[14:54] that's for starting paying off the bonds
[14:57] uh for the station. And then FY29, that
[15:00] would be when the station would be
[15:02] construction would be completed and then
[15:03] we'd have to hire people to fill it. And
[15:05] so that's what's driving that second big
[15:07] number, the 44% increase. Okay. Now,
[15:10] just clarification. So, if we did the
[15:13] 32% this year, that would still
[15:18] it would still be about 1.5 million
[15:21] short that we're using fund balance.
[15:24] Okay.
[15:25] >> So,
[15:26] >> why 1.5?
[15:27] >> Oh, give me the numbers. I'm just going
[15:30] by, huh?
[15:31] >> 950,000.
[15:33] >> Okay.
[15:34] >> In general fund balance. general fund
[15:36] balance because uh everything that
[15:38] showed show showed that we were going to
[15:40] use about 1.1 of fund balance
[15:43] >> last year when we didn't get our text.
[15:45] Yes.
[15:45] >> And so you've changed that number and
[15:47] one point. So
[15:48] >> yeah.
[15:49] >> Okay. and and we're from what I can tell
[15:54] from last year to this year, we're
[15:57] adding another half a million dollars to
[16:00] our general fund and plus 900 and
[16:03] something thousand to our operations
[16:05] this year or 800 and something thousand
[16:08] >> um
[16:09] >> if we Okay, but let's let me Okay, so so
[16:13] the 40%
[16:15] would only include the fire station. It
[16:18] wouldn't include the fund balance that
[16:19] we're short next year.
[16:21] >> It does. I don't have any fund balance
[16:23] used in my projections for 28 forward.
[16:27] >> Okay. So, so 28. So, it would be at
[16:30] another 40%. Still having to use a
[16:33] million dollar.
[16:34] >> No, no, no.
[16:35] >> Sorry. No fun.
[16:37] >> No fund balance.
[16:38] >> We have fund balance in 27, but not in
[16:40] 28 going forward. So, these projections,
[16:43] we're no longer using general fund fund
[16:45] balance. So the 40% makes up for that
[16:50] million and the fire station.
[16:52] >> And the fire station.
[16:54] >> Mhm.
[16:55] >> Okay. And then the following 44%
[16:58] no fund balance.
[16:59] >> No fund balance.
[17:00] >> Strictly personnel.
[17:02] And then the full um
[17:05] fire station bond because fire impact
[17:08] fees were used in 28
[17:12] >> including staffing, right? Yes. sitting
[17:14] staff for that fire station if it gets
[17:17] >> correct. So it goes up partially because
[17:20] we will not be using uh fire impact fees
[17:23] in is it 29?
[17:25] >> Yeah. I mean I I assume we won't have
[17:28] another 300,000 built up like we do
[17:30] right now.
[17:30] >> Yeah.
[17:34] And so
[17:36] the I guess if there's any silver lining
[17:39] to this, it's that once once we've added
[17:42] those new costs, the fire station, um
[17:46] then it goes back down to single digit
[17:48] increases really just to capture, you
[17:51] know, projected inflation. Um
[17:55] >> so so does that make sense? Again, fire
[17:58] station uh construction bonds and then
[18:02] primarily fire station staffing and then
[18:05] you're back down to just covering cost
[18:07] and and again as Marin said we're not
[18:09] using any more fund balance after FY27.
[18:11] So
[18:13] >> it's a sustainable model I guess is what
[18:15] we're trying to say.
[18:18] I guess I'm skipping ahead, but why even
[18:20] without fire station is it a higher
[18:23] percentage increase in 28 than it is in
[18:26] 28? Where is the fire station?
[18:31] » Because the one and a half million to
[18:32] improve the new fire station. It's
[18:36] >> that should not be in there.
[18:38] >> Why not?
[18:38] >> If we don't get a new one, we have to
[18:41] improve ours. Sorry, it shouldn't say
[18:43] the word new.
[18:44] >> Um,
[18:44] >> okay. that is I don't know if if
[18:47] everyone's remembers that in the last
[18:49] couple years we started having the
[18:50] conversation of if we don't have a new
[18:52] station on the west side then we at
[18:54] least need to you know improve our
[18:57] current station build it out a little
[18:59] bit more for for some needs um for the
[19:02] growth and so if the fire station
[19:06] doesn't happen that $ 1.5 million
[19:07] theoretically kicks in um and we
[19:10] wouldn't bond for that so that's a
[19:12] pretty big chunk you don't bond for a
[19:14] million and a half you bond on for 16
[19:16] million. But um does that make sense? So
[19:19] that'd be a $1.5 million kind of brunt
[19:22] in one year as opposed to just doing a
[19:24] bond for a $16 million station.
[19:27] >> So question area. So to the mayor's
[19:31] point um in 28 FY28
[19:35] could we not push the 1.5 million to
[19:38] FY29 to give a break between because 326
[19:43] is such a big increase
[19:45] >> um year to back to back I mean what's
[19:49] the necessity of doing that
[19:52] I think this is just kind of comparing
[19:54] two models it it's surely there's going
[19:58] to be opportunity to have discuss
[19:59] questions about that. Um,
[20:01] >> so there's flexibility to move that 1.5
[20:03] million around a little bit.
[20:05] >> We could rep prioritize or
[20:07] >> rep prioritize
[20:08] >> or break it up.
[20:09] >> We just wanted to make sure it was
[20:10] captured, you know, to show that, okay,
[20:13] if we don't do the station, there's
[20:14] still going to be other costs. That's
[20:15] kind of the primary goal, making the
[20:17] comparison.
[20:18] >> Um,
[20:20] >> okay. So,
[20:20] >> and and kind of the point that if we if
[20:22] the bond passes, it actually is cheaper
[20:25] in terms of monthly operational costs
[20:29] to build a new one than to replace and
[20:32] repair the the current one, right?
[20:34] Because the rate's lower
[20:35] >> technically cost. Okay. So, okay.
[20:38] >> And the 16 million, keep in mind, is
[20:41] worst case at this point.
[20:44] >> Construction cost might might come back
[20:45] lower, but 16 that we're using here is
[20:48] high end,
[20:49] >> right? But on the lower projection, that
[20:51] 45%
[20:53] would be I mean I understand what it is,
[20:56] but that that 1.5 million is a onetime
[20:58] thing. So we'd be raising taxes 45% for
[21:02] like a one time
[21:03] >> but then we're not to lower them.
[21:05] >> Yeah. Right. So,
[21:08] >> that's why it's only 10% the next year
[21:10] cuz
[21:11] >> that makes sense.
[21:12] >> That so overall in the two years then
[21:15] are still more with the bond cuz you've
[21:17] got 84%
[21:19] versus 54%. Right. 28 and 29 added
[21:23] together.
[21:24] >> Mhm.
[21:24] >> Okay.
[21:25] >> Yeah. Correct.
[21:26] >> Yeah. I still think that if you
[21:27] >> So, you went off in public. Fine. You
[21:29] didn't.
[21:30] >> I still think that if you do the if the
[21:34] fire station bond passes,
[21:38] you should increase the same year. You
[21:41] should increase it for the building and
[21:43] the employees
[21:45] because it's going to be really
[21:47] difficult to convey the message a year
[21:49] later that you're raising it for the
[21:52] employees.
[21:54] It's going to be a much easier message
[21:56] to to relay that. Yeah. The reason it
[22:00] went up [snorts]
[22:01] was because of the fire station that you
[22:05] just voted yes for
[22:09] >> kind of, but you don't always have to
[22:10] pay for it immediately. It'll take a
[22:11] year and a half to build.
[22:13] >> So,
[22:13] >> and then you can wait.
[22:14] >> Well, yeah. So that's my point is I
[22:16] wouldn't mind doing it the same year
[22:18] that you that you do it for that you do
[22:21] for the for the uh for the employees if
[22:25] you can wait if you don't have to pay
[22:27] for the building
[22:29] that same year if you don't have to
[22:31] start paying for it until it's like my
[22:34] it's my whole thing with the school. I
[22:36] don't understand. If we don't have to
[22:37] pay for this, if we don't have to start
[22:39] paying on that bond until next year, why
[22:42] are we putting it into the budget for
[22:44] this year? Like,
[22:46] >> so there's certainly opportunities to
[22:48] talk about that that kind of stuff.
[22:50] >> Um, I mean, you're absolutely right that
[22:52] we could just say, let's just go ahead
[22:53] and do it that first year so it's clear
[22:56] that it's tight
[22:56] >> or the second year. I don't care, but
[22:58] just put them together because they
[23:00] should be
[23:02] >> and remember um this this isn't really
[23:05] so much TNT as it is um that's driven by
[23:08] the vote,
[23:09] >> right?
[23:09] >> Um this is where I'm getting really
[23:12] confused and I need to get straightened
[23:13] out on this because
[23:15] >> when we did the general fund review, it
[23:18] showed that we were $3.4 4 million short
[23:22] >> and that truth in taxation would only
[23:24] cover 1.7 and we would have to add
[23:27] somehow come up with 1.6.
[23:30] >> Correct.
[23:30] >> You just said we'd only have to come up
[23:31] with 800,000.
[23:33] >> No, I said 950 for general fund balance
[23:36] and then we're using MBA fund balance um
[23:38] police impact fees.
[23:40] >> Okay. But we're still in our in our
[23:42] general fund. We're still 3.4 4 million
[23:46] short
[23:47] >> and the tax increase is only going to
[23:49] get us 1.7 and we are still short 1.6.
[23:54] >> Correct.
[23:55] >> Okay, that's Yeah, you had me thinking
[23:58] we were only short 800,000. We're short
[24:01] 1.6 million.
[24:02] >> Yes. I was just
[24:03] >> You said where'd I get that number? I
[24:05] got that number from you.
[24:06] >> Well, you I thought that you said we had
[24:09] to use 1.6 of fund like general fund
[24:11] balance. I don't know where it all comes
[24:13] from, but we have to use it from
[24:15] somewhere.
[24:17] >> Just just clarifying that.
[24:19] >> So, we I created the spreadsheet live so
[24:22] we can kind of play with it. So, John,
[24:25] we just moved the fire station employees
[24:28] to fiscal year 28. So, that's what that
[24:30] would look like.
[24:31] >> Okay.
[24:33] Where are we looking?
[24:34] >> But you the top fiery 28, it now is
[24:38] 67.9. You're thinking 29 you'd still
[24:41] have to do 21.7.
[24:43] >> Yes. Because in 28 again we're going to
[24:46] use fire impact fee fund balance and
[24:48] capital fund balance to pay for the bond
[24:50] for that first year and then we'll run
[24:53] out of fund balance. So in 29 we have to
[24:55] make up for that difference.
[24:58] >> My health well I don't understand.
[25:00] Again, my thought is if you're going to be
[25:05] honest with the people, be honest with
[25:07] the people of what it's going to cost
[25:08] them every year for for this fire
[25:12] station. And so, don't use
[25:15] a balance that you can only use for one
[25:18] year. Like, let's use what it is and
[25:22] tell them exactly what it would be. Now
[25:24] granted, if we wait until the police
[25:28] station's paid off,
[25:29] >> change that to
[25:30] >> then, you know, what's the difference
[25:32] between that payment and this payment?
[25:37] >> Yeah.
[25:38] >> I don't know. That's just that's just my
[25:40] personal my personal opinion is that
[25:42] like it seems like if they vote like we
[25:45] should be honest with them. This is how
[25:46] much it's going to cost you.
[25:48] >> Uh yeah.
[25:50] >> Yeah.
[25:51] >> Well, we just changed that. So there you
[25:53] go. And it's still 11, which is crazy.
[25:55] We're still going to be deficit that
[25:57] much. But um but at least it's being
[26:03] honest with what it's going to look
[26:05] like, right?
[26:06] >> Mhm.
[26:07] >> Well, I don't know if it has to do with
[26:08] so much about [clears throat] honesty as
[26:10] it does cuz it is honest the way we
[26:14] present all the numbers to the public,
[26:16] >> right? But I'm afraid if we
[26:19] have a a tax increase this big before
[26:22] the public actually votes
[26:24] that
[26:24] >> No, this wouldn't be before they voted.
[26:27] This would be what they were voting on
[26:29] after.
[26:29] >> And I'm just saying it's a transparent
[26:31] way of saying like this is what's going
[26:33] to happen.
[26:35] >> If you vote yes for this, this is how
[26:37] much truly going to cost you.
[26:41] >> Sorry to cut you up. My only my only
[26:43] argument would be we should at least use
[26:45] fire impact fee fund balance because
[26:47] that's literally what that impact fee is
[26:49] for is for building out a new station.
[26:52] >> And there's a shot clock on using that
[26:54] impact fee.
[26:56] How much is that fire impact fee? We
[26:57] haven't had enough growth that it's
[26:59] going to be very much. What is it? How
[27:01] much is that fire impact fee?
[27:03] >> I don't know how much it is, but the
[27:04] fund balance
[27:06] >> 481
[27:07] >> um is 481 right now.
[27:09] >> 481,000.
[27:10] >> Yes.
[27:11] >> That's all. which isn't enough to
[27:13] >> um
[27:14] >> I mean it's still a nice chunk.
[27:16] >> Well, but why would why I guess why
[27:18] wouldn't that go toward why would that
[27:20] go towards just like so if the building
[27:23] costs $5 million, you put $480,000
[27:28] down and that decreases the amount that
[27:30] you have to finance. Am I Am I missing
[27:33] something there? No, I could do that,
[27:36] too. But
[27:37] >> that's how I mean that's theoretically
[27:39] that's how I would personally prefer to
[27:41] see it is like, hey, we'll just put if we have to use that impact money
[27:46] >> Yeah.
[27:47] >> down. We just put it down and it lowers
[27:49] the cost of the building, but I don't
[27:51] like using it to make the payments for
[27:54] the first year. And then
[27:57] >> that's fine. I I
[27:58] >> No, it's And I hope you're not taking
[28:00] off the fence. That's that's the way I
[28:02] would see. And maybe that maybe that you
[28:04] personally I'm not an accountant. So
[28:06] >> I I think there's maybe it's not the
[28:07] smart way to do it.
[28:08] >> A million ways to skin a cat, right? And
[28:10] I think when we get to that point, we
[28:12] can be strategic like that
[28:14] >> to create this projection,
[28:18] right? Was my opinion or or thought or
[28:22] whatever, right?
[28:23] >> And that's why I kind of created it as a
[28:25] live spreadsheet so we could kind of
[28:27] move and groove and and see see how you
[28:31] guys want to see it. Um,
[28:33] >> I would,
[28:34] >> but you have a great point. Yes, you
[28:35] could do a 500,000 down payment. I don't
[28:38] think that's going to do much for the
[28:40] yearly payment. So, this still the 83%
[28:43] to your argument. I think is still
[28:45] pretty darn close.
[28:46] >> Ends up being the most transparent way
[28:48] of saying like this is how much it's
[28:49] going to
[28:51] >> So, but again, it's kind of moot moot
[28:55] point, right? It this is going to be for the people to
[29:00] decide. So why maybe are we discussing?
[29:03] >> Well, so what I'd like to get back to is
[29:06] this year. Let's talk about this year.
[29:07] >> Right. The only point of this slide
[29:09] wasn't really to get too much into the
[29:11] how we do the fire station, but just to
[29:13] show that once we do increase the
[29:16] property tax to take care of our true
[29:17] annual costs, then it does go back down
[29:20] into more of just what you're capturing
[29:22] for annual inflation. So you get down to
[29:24] this 5.270%.
[29:27] And I and I'll be honest,
[29:29] [clears throat] I want to stop the
[29:30] bleeding. I feel like we are just
[29:32] bleeding to death. And I can see a ship
[29:35] that's sinking and it's sinking fast.
[29:37] >> I was hoping that we would come up with
[29:38] a plan to not buy a thing, not spend,
[29:41] but figure out how we can get this $3
[29:44] million deficit under control, which
[29:47] means maybe do four years of 10% plus
[29:51] inflation of truth in taxation and save
[29:55] our money, not spend our money. and get
[29:56] it to the point where where our our
[30:00] revenues meet our expenditures. And I
[30:03] >> that's what we want to talk about.
[30:05] >> That's where I'm head. That's a good
[30:08] segue into the next section here.
[30:10] >> So this next tab, yes, I um if we just
[30:14] want to review fiscal year 26,
[30:17] here is what the 1.7 tax increase was
[30:20] covering.
[30:21] >> Okay. For last year that didn't go
[30:23] >> for last year. I'm sorry. I I can pull
[30:25] it up on this one too for now. Um, but I
[30:27] just created these so that they kind of
[30:30] talk together and I'll show you that in
[30:31] a minute.
[30:33] But if I scroll down, here's the review
[30:36] of the tax increase from last year that
[30:39] we voted on. And we all know what
[30:40] happened.
[30:44] So employee wages and benefits for a
[30:46] million, the new assistant attorney
[30:47] position, the new police sergeant,
[30:50] operations inflation, right? fuel costs
[30:53] going up, road base going up, uh fire
[30:57] equipment and and turnouts going up.
[31:00] Then what was new for 26 was the
[31:02] elections, general plan water update,
[31:06] the fieldhouse, an ambulance, and the
[31:08] mower.
[31:09] So the reason the Kazil fieldhouse
[31:11] dollar only shows 160 is because in
[31:14] fiscal year 25 we had 20
[31:18] four budgeted for Pioneer Park debt.
[31:22] that was finished in 25. So that 200 was
[31:26] already in the budget and then I'm just
[31:29] netting the difference to up it to that
[31:31] 368 for Kisville.
[31:33] >> Okay. So rid of one bond payment and
[31:36] then we will add that payment to this
[31:38] next.
[31:38] >> Correct. So we didn't up that budget by
[31:40] the 368. We just upped it by the 160 cuz
[31:43] the Pioneer Plus. Does that make sense?
[31:45] >> Yeah.
[31:46] >> Same with the ambulance. We paid off a
[31:48] firet truck in 25. We got a new
[31:51] ambulance in 26. That's the net
[31:53] difference. And then I just found a
[31:55] budget um error with the mower lease we
[31:58] had. For some reason, it was budgeted
[32:01] 6,000 less under than it should have
[32:04] been in 25.
[32:06] So if you add all of those up, that
[32:09] equals the 1.7
[32:11] >> and that's 32%.
[32:13] >> Last year it was like 31.16.
[32:17] >> Okay. because our tax rate was higher in
[32:19] 25
[32:22] >> by not raising taxes, our rate went
[32:24] down.
[32:25] >> Yes. So then if I scroll up
[32:29] to um
[32:32] [snorts]
[32:33] 27,
[32:35] sorry, I don't know why this is stuck.
[32:42] Well, that's annoying. Oh, there it
[32:44] goes. Okay. Um,
[32:47] the items in orange are kind of what I
[32:51] don't know if the best way to say it is
[32:53] catch up or kind of what I think is
[32:56] mustd do to make up for not getting that
[32:58] in 26.
[33:01] Um,
[33:02] >> okay. But when you say not getting it in
[33:04] 26, these things were still paid. They
[33:06] were paid out of general fund balance.
[33:08] >> Correct. So I think we need to make it
[33:10] whole for fiscal year 27.
[33:12] >> The the the balance that was used since
[33:15] we didn't get our taxes.
[33:16] >> Correct.
[33:16] >> These are so those four orange lines.
[33:20] Yes.
[33:20] >> Your ongoing expenses that were
[33:22] committed to last year and that's why we
[33:24] need to create the new revenue source
[33:26] for them rather than continue to use
[33:28] fund balance.
[33:30] >> Right. So the fiscal year 26 employee
[33:33] wages
[33:35] um then fiscal year 27 employee wages
[33:37] and benefits is only the 323 because
[33:41] like we've talked about we budgeted
[33:43] insurance clo budgeted insurance closer
[33:46] to actual instead of family plans for
[33:48] everybody.
[33:49] >> Um I took everybody's actual and then
[33:53] there was only an increase of 2% with
[33:56] the U which was very very good for us.
[33:59] Right.
[33:59] >> Okay. Then in addition to that 323 are
[34:03] the new kind of things that we added. So
[34:07] that part-time police records clerk,
[34:09] council insurance, the assistant
[34:12] attorney from last year, and then deputy
[34:14] fire chief wages and benefits.
[34:17] >> So those are some easy cuts that we
[34:19] >> So those are Yes. Then fiscical year 26
[34:23] inflation is orange because we kind of
[34:25] we have to make up for that. fisc year
[34:28] 26 new operations into 27. So like we
[34:32] talked about the fieldhouse, ambulance,
[34:34] the mower and then there we have fisc
[34:37] year 27 operations inflation
[34:40] for 439 and then operations new items
[34:44] the police drone we talked about PR
[34:47] services deputy chief vehicle and then
[34:50] here is the use of fund balance where we
[34:54] tried to get creative.
[34:57] um as staff because we were very
[35:00] sensitive to your guys's, you know,
[35:03] >> we need to go
[35:04] >> concerned to be um sensitive to the
[35:08] resident and the high rate and all of
[35:10] that, right? So, they use the fund
[35:11] balance for MBA and debt and police
[35:16] impact fee. And then Josh did some work
[35:20] and moved a whole bunch of line items
[35:22] from public works over to the roads fund
[35:24] that kind of fit there. So, salt Did we
[35:27] didn't spend that much money on salt
[35:29] last year?
[35:29] >> Oh, no. Because
[35:31] >> right there snow.
[35:32] >> There was no snow. But we're still
[35:33] moving those budgeted finite out of the
[35:35] budget.
[35:36] >> And it goes back into the general fund
[35:39] or no to those in
[35:41] >> it goes to roads the special revenue
[35:43] fund.
[35:43] >> Okay.
[35:44] >> Yes.
[35:45] >> So I've created this sheet so that if
[35:49] you told me Well, I know this one has
[35:52] been a topic of conversation.
[35:54] >> We could remove it. I'll put it over
[35:56] here as an item that then in will go
[36:01] into fiscal year 28
[36:03] >> and up here you can see that tax
[36:06] increase lowers. Okay.
[36:08] >> Now, obviously doing this and cutting
[36:10] and moving things is going to affect the
[36:13] projections,
[36:14] >> which is why I I at this point might
[36:18] just go to the split screen if that's
[36:20] what you guys want to do is start
[36:22] talking about cuts or kind of pushing
[36:25] things off. Um, we can kind of see real
[36:30] time what 27 does and what the
[36:32] projections do. But if you'd rather just
[36:34] see real time what 27 on the same
[36:38] screen, that's fine. I just don't think
[36:41] it's the full story to just kick it down
[36:43] the road and make it next year's problem
[36:45] or else we're going to be here again.
[36:47] >> I I to I understand that. But but some
[36:50] of these some of these things are not
[36:53] absolutely necessary.
[36:54] >> Correct.
[36:55] >> And so I think let us look at it. And if you and if you uh want to cut it
[37:01] forever, then I just wouldn't put it in
[37:03] this blue.
[37:03] >> Okay.
[37:04] >> If it's in the blue, that's where it's
[37:06] going to add to your 28.
[37:07] >> Okay. Okay. So, I guess it's okay to put
[37:10] it in the blue knowing that some of
[37:12] these positions we will be okay. We will
[37:14] survive as a city if we don't add them.
[37:16] And now I don't think is the right time
[37:18] to be adding positions.
[37:19] >> Mhm.
[37:21] >> I think we need to cut as much as we
[37:23] possibly can. Take everything off there
[37:25] that's not wasn't paid for and approved
[37:27] in the 206 budget. Just take it off.
[37:30] >> Yeah, just take it off and show us what
[37:31] we had last year.
[37:33] >> Why don't we just go down?
[37:34] >> Sorry. What do you mean? I don't know.
[37:36] >> So last year, so you you said um
[37:40] >> the records clerk, we did not hire that
[37:42] position yet.
[37:43] >> Correct.
[37:43] >> Right. So you can take that one off.
[37:46] >> Okay.
[37:49] Jason, is this where you want to kind of
[37:51] say recommendation or do we just want to
[37:53] go for it?
[37:54] >> I Well, um, when you say go for it, you
[37:57] mean just assume it's going to get put
[37:58] in next year's budget?
[38:00] >> Well, or your four prior like your list.
[38:04] >> But let me ask you this. Is there
[38:05] possibility? Because Saul, I mean,
[38:09] >> yeah,
[38:09] >> I went to that university thing and I
[38:11] saw and it out of all the city that is
[38:15] the one thing where that girl is going
[38:16] to walk out of here if she doesn't get
[38:18] some. for sure.
[38:19] >> And um I mean that is truly the one
[38:22] thing that I can say she has zero backup
[38:25] to and doesn't have any way. And I
[38:27] didn't know if Chief Oberg in his budget
[38:31] of personnel because we budget the max
[38:35] could figure out a way to eat that
[38:38] $29,000
[38:39] in his budget.
[38:41] >> And that's
[38:42] >> What do you mean by we budget the max?
[38:44] >> Yeah. Well, usually we budget at the top
[38:47] end of the pay scale
[38:48] >> on the pay.
[38:49] >> No, we budget actual.
[38:50] >> You've changed it in the in the past.
[38:52] It's been
[38:52] >> I think you're thinking about maybe how
[38:54] we used to budget for everyone getting
[38:55] family health insurance, but we don't do
[38:57] that anymore either.
[38:58] >> We're not doing that anymore.
[38:59] >> U maybe maybe how he budgets for a full
[39:03] staff. I guess he is full now.
[39:05] >> He is full, but he hasn't been in the
[39:06] past. But I don't know what his all of
[39:08] his operations budgets are. I don't know
[39:10] what things he could put on her as a
[39:12] line item. I don't know. could be split
[39:15] between two different
[39:16] >> if he can split it between 10 of his
[39:17] different accounts, his video accounts,
[39:19] his operation. You know,
[39:20] >> I I really don't like to I don't think
[39:23] it's transparent. Um I think if you're
[39:25] going to budget for something, put it in
[39:27] there. Um otherwise that the budget is
[39:30] we're trying to tell a story and if
[39:32] there's a new position, let's put the
[39:33] new position in there.
[39:35] >> But it could be funded by other line
[39:36] items. Other cities do that
[39:39] >> reduce other line items. I mean,
[39:42] >> other other cities do. I met with like I
[39:44] told you um a city today the finance
[39:46] director and she said their lobbyist for
[39:48] example is paid from several different
[39:50] line items because he represents
[39:52] different departments depending on what
[39:53] he's lobbying
[39:54] >> right that makes sense they share that
[39:55] cost
[39:56] >> we'll distribute cost and I'm saying
[39:58] that too I'm just saying whatever Chief
[40:00] Oberg's full budget was last year did he
[40:02] spend every dime or did he actually have
[40:04] some cushion there that he didn't
[40:06] >> cushion right because
[40:07] >> okay and that's what I'm asking was
[40:09] there somewhere in that what he did was
[40:10] there enough cushion that he could pay
[40:12] for in 26. Yes. In 27, we took all of
[40:15] that out.
[40:16] >> Okay.
[40:17] >> All right.
[40:17] >> So, I think that's one that we come back
[40:19] to because I think we could all agree
[40:21] that's an essential position that we
[40:23] need.
[40:23] >> Back over.
[40:24] >> And so,
[40:25] >> for now, now
[40:27] >> maybe for now, put it back in and then
[40:30] see where we're at. I guess the question
[40:31] I would also ask too, I mean council
[40:33] insurance, we've talked about that, but
[40:35] as we go through this, like
[40:38] what is what is so bad about this year
[40:41] that moving it to next year makes it any
[40:43] different? Cuz then next year will also
[40:46] be bad, right?
[40:47] >> Just take it out.
[40:48] >> I think we should take it out
[40:50] completely. I'm not interested in
[40:52] >> in I'm sorry, which one? Council
[40:54] insurance. Okay, that one specifically.
[40:56] Sure.
[40:57] >> Even [clears throat] next year. Yeah, I think that the difference could be
[41:00] that right now we're in the middle of a
[41:02] war.
[41:03] >> Fair.
[41:04] >> Inflation [clears throat] is high. The
[41:05] economyy's changed drastically since
[41:07] last year
[41:08] >> and and people are really struggling.
[41:10] And I hope that it changes. I don't
[41:13] >> So, it's more of a hope that next year's
[41:14] better.
[41:15] >> It is a hope that next year's better and
[41:16] maybe we have some staffing changes
[41:19] internally where we could open up some
[41:21] positions.
[41:23] >> Sure. Okay. I would say a couple years
[41:26] to because to council member Blackatch,
[41:30] >> we need to catch up and get more stable.
[41:33] >> I think we're here because we did we
[41:35] over the last couple years for anyone we
[41:37] have used fund balance. Yes.
[41:38] >> Quite often and that's not good and I've
[41:41] been seeing that that's not a good habit
[41:44] >> and that's why
[41:46] offset us a little bit. Sorry, but
[41:48] that's not that's not sustainable.
[41:50] >> Correct.
[41:50] >> And so we can't do that anymore.
[41:53] >> Yeah. And we've been doing that because
[41:55] of
[41:55] >> co we've been doing it to be responsible
[41:58] but it's really not the most transparent
[42:00] way to budget because then it looks like
[42:01] we're okay when we're actually not okay.
[42:04] >> It it's not but on the other hand
[42:08] we've had a very healthy fund balance.
[42:10] >> Well we have but now we don't
[42:11] >> as of 2025 which is the last year we had
[42:14] this that was our last one. So last year
[42:17] this is our
[42:18] >> we had $7,799,000
[42:21] in fund balance. spend it fast.
[42:23] >> Had that's what I say.
[42:25] >> Some of that is restricted money.
[42:27] >> Yes.
[42:28] >> The unrestricted portion is a 7.5.
[42:32] >> Okay. 7.5.
[42:33] >> Yes.
[42:34] >> Yeah. And that's why to the fund balance
[42:38] point in 28 2930 in my projections I'm
[42:42] not using fund balance. So that's also
[42:44] why that percentage is a little bit high
[42:47] because we're making up for that millin
[42:49] we've used for at least the last three
[42:51] years.
[42:52] >> And I can look at history before that if
[42:55] you would like, but we know in 25 it was
[42:58] 1.1, 26 it was 991
[43:02] and 27 we're suggesting 950.
[43:05] >> Yeah, that's
[43:06] >> right.
[43:12] Okay. What's the next item?
[43:13] [clears throat]
[43:14] >> So, the next item would be
[43:15] >> I also put this I'm sorry in the four
[43:18] pages I passed out. Um, this one is in
[43:22] there. If you can't see that side, I
[43:24] apologize.
[43:28] » Yeah. Um, and I didn't point this.
[43:31] Sorry.
[43:34] » And I didn't point this out. I think you
[43:38] can see it, but I've also made that home
[43:40] value annual increase live as well.
[43:44] >> Um, so that 690 pink line is the one
[43:47] we've talked about that the average home
[43:50] in Cisville to U Councilman Blackman's
[43:53] point. I added some more home values.
[43:55] So, you'll see those monthly increases
[43:57] shift as we move items as well.
[43:59] >> That's really helpful. Thank you.
[44:01] >> I appreciate the dollar amount.
[44:02] >> Very proud of this.
[44:04] >> Yeah. Great. Good job.
[44:07] >> [laughter]
[44:07] >> You guys are killing it with Excel.
[44:09] >> The uh Oh, yeah. You want to see what I
[44:11] can do? I'm just kidding.
[44:13] >> No, this [laughter] this is so good. Um,
[44:16] can you see like what just happened
[44:18] there? When you took out council health
[44:20] insurance, it changed the monthly cost
[44:23] to the residents from 1480 to 1374.
[44:26] >> Yes.
[44:27] >> So, yeah.
[44:28] >> Okay. What else can we
[44:31] >> um ask one more quick question?
[44:34] >> Yes. Sorry. So, we're taking things off
[44:37] and it's lowering the tax increase is
[44:40] but I thought our hope was in general to
[44:43] lower the amount we're taking out of
[44:44] fund balance. So, how are
[44:45] >> we have that we have that tab as well.
[44:47] Those are it's not related. So, we can
[44:50] play this game with fund balance as
[44:51] well.
[44:52] >> Excellent.
[44:52] >> Yeah,
[44:53] >> that one's next.
[44:56] >> Um,
[44:58] >> okay.
[45:00] >> Yeah. I mean, do we want to just explain
[45:02] what these mean again? So, as you as
[45:04] Marin just said, the 40,000 for the
[45:06] assistant attorney, even though that was
[45:07] something that was funded this year,
[45:09] part of the cost was offset by the fact
[45:11] that we didn't budget for a part-time
[45:13] law clerk. We used to have a part-time
[45:15] law clerk. So, come FY27, it'll be the
[45:18] full cost, meaning the balance of that
[45:20] would be the 40,000.
[45:22] >> Yeah. So, the 135 from last year for the
[45:25] assistant is in fiscal year 27 wages and
[45:28] benefits, but we just have to make up
[45:30] for the difference as a part-time law
[45:32] clerk. Okay.
[45:33] >> Is the FY27 employee wages and benefits,
[45:36] does that is that include the uh merit
[45:40] or we're not calling it merit anymore.
[45:42] >> Yeah. Step
[45:42] >> what is that? What are those numbers?
[45:44] Just so cuz I know the merit I mean the
[45:48] >> we just step. Okay. The step is 3%. The
[45:52] uh but what is what do you have?
[45:54] >> Cola cola is 2.5.
[45:57] >> Okay. um which is the same as last year
[46:00] was it was 3% uh for the staff for merit
[46:04] and 2.5% for the cola. Um and and
[46:09] something I I I think I don't maybe
[46:11] remind all of us enough about is when we
[46:14] say we're going to budget for a 3% step,
[46:17] it doesn't mean we're budgeting
[46:18] personnel costs to go up 3%. It just
[46:21] means really it's it's really a net
[46:24] neutral
[46:25] um because
[46:27] a lot of people are at the top of the
[46:29] range and so they're not getting
[46:30] anything of that 3% step. A lot of
[46:33] people are starting brand new because
[46:34] there was somebody at the top that
[46:36] retired or left that position. Now
[46:37] you're starting new. But over time as
[46:39] you look at that it doesn't really
[46:41] change. Um people are moving through the
[46:44] steps at different rates. But um
[46:46] >> so you do you do budget 4 3% at all
[46:50] across the board even I guess I'm
[46:52] confused why you wouldn't use your
[46:54] amazing Excel technique and like have
[46:58] the people who aren't who are tapped out
[47:00] just like we don't even budget for them
[47:03] that it's already that way and the
[47:05] reason is because if we budgeted for a
[47:07] 3% merit or step last year that doesn't increase the next year if
[47:13] it's 3% again cuz we've already covered
[47:15] that cost if that makes sense.
[47:16] >> Yeah.
[47:17] >> Um you can think of it as of employees
[47:20] offsetting each other. You know where if
[47:21] some if somebody starting brand new and
[47:23] starting to move up in the range that's
[47:24] because somebody else retired or left
[47:26] that position. So it's all just kind of
[47:28] offsetting.
[47:29] >> The only thing that really increases
[47:31] personnel costs or wages is cola or
[47:34] market kind of adjustments that actually
[47:36] move the ranges themselves up.
[47:38] >> Yeah. So, and so we did budget a 2 and
[47:40] a.5% cola uh this year uh or this for
[47:45] FY27
[47:47] and
[47:47] >> which is equivalent to just roughly do
[47:50] you know how much
[47:52] >> Oh gosh, it's about it's about 45,000
[47:55] for every half percent. So
[47:59] yeah, 200 something,000 200,000
[48:02] >> 45,000 for half%. Okay.
[48:04] >> Okay, great. Okay. Um,
[48:06] >> so
[48:07] >> and and as far as well I mean market
[48:10] goes, we've talked about it before, but
[48:12] um we are using Davis County as our
[48:14] comparators. We're we're shooting for
[48:17] trying to get employees to uh at least
[48:19] 5% below the average um wage for Davis
[48:23] County cities.
[48:24] >> So that's that's kind of what drives
[48:26] that 323 in addition to the health
[48:29] insurance costs going up and stuff.
[48:31] >> Okay.
[48:31] >> Plus plus budgeting closer to actual,
[48:34] right? Okay. Yep.
[48:36] So the next thing, assistant attorney,
[48:38] we already
[48:41] >> I think I would recommend keeping that.
[48:43] I don't know.
[48:44] >> Yeah. So next thing is deputy fire
[48:46] chief.
[48:46] >> Deputy fire chief.
[48:47] >> Okay. So
[48:49] >> that's 300,000.
[48:50] >> I know he's been asking for a couple
[48:52] years, but I I think that I bet he'd
[48:55] take one for the team.
[48:56] >> It's a bad
[48:56] >> if we could postpone that conversation.
[48:59] >> That would take
[49:01] That's a lot of money. It is a lot of
[49:03] money. and I appreciate you.
[49:05] >> I know it's hard for you.
[49:06] >> I know that's a hard for you.
[49:08] >> Um
[49:09] >> 204,000.
[49:10] >> Mhm. Yeah,
[49:11] >> that's a lot.
[49:12] >> It's a lot of money. Um I
[49:14] >> if Chief were to take one for the team,
[49:17] um the important thing there is like it
[49:18] can't be one of those like just
[49:20] >> put it off forever and ever. It just
[49:21] means hey that position it does need to
[49:24] get funded. Um we've been recommending
[49:26] it for a long time. I feel like that
[49:29] would be an easy one after the vote
[49:31] because if if if in fact the if in fact
[49:33] the vote is yes,
[49:35] >> then that will be an easy one to tack on
[49:38] to the expense of doing you know the p
[49:42] part of the personnel that we're going
[49:43] to have to hire for the new station
[49:45] >> station. Uh and then uh if it
[49:48] [clears throat] doesn't pass then the
[49:51] other thing that we have to do is we
[49:53] have to update the current station and
[49:56] that is a great time to additionally add
[49:59] the add the deputy fire chief.
[50:03] >> And to council member Adam's point if we
[50:05] do have a new station over there
[50:07] technically it would be the deputy chief
[50:08] that would run that station. Correct.
[50:11] >> Have no idea.
[50:12] >> Or kind of overseas.
[50:14] >> Not necessarily. Yeah. Not necessarily.
[50:16] Um, but it is adding you're adding a
[50:18] whole bunch of new staff which just
[50:20] increases the administrative burden that
[50:21] much more. Um, so the idea I think would
[50:26] be if if the station were to be approved
[50:29] certainly when you budget to you know
[50:31] add those [clears throat] all those new
[50:32] positions having another you know
[50:34] administrator to kind of help oversee
[50:36] that in addition to all the other stuff
[50:37] that he's been doing for the last
[50:39] several years. Um, so but yeah, to push
[50:43] it off one year, I think the chief is
[50:45] willing to take one for the team.
[50:47] >> He's been asking for three, four years.
[50:49] I I get that. But that's a huge expense
[50:51] right now, especially where the second
[50:52] station is in limbo.
[50:54] >> I I would I would put it on staff to
[50:57] figure out if you want him to have that
[50:59] position next year, you guys figure out
[51:01] how to fund it.
[51:03] Figure out make the numbers work
[51:06] because,
[51:08] you know, we need to catch up. We need
[51:09] to catch it first.
[51:10] >> Yeah, that's what that's what I'm
[51:11] saying. We need to catch
[51:12] >> Call it a hiring freeze. Call it
[51:13] whatever you want. Call it the council.
[51:14] Won't let us hire anybody. Fine. But we
[51:16] need to get this in under control.
[51:18] >> Yeah.
[51:19] >> What is operations inflation?
[51:22] >> Uh operations inflation
[51:24] >> 439,400.
[51:28] » Um Oh.
[51:31] >> Uh that that's boy. I mean everything.
[51:35] It's everything from
[51:37] fire boots and turnout gear going up to
[51:40] vehicles and fuel and it's just
[51:42] everything that we've been seeing. Uh
[51:44] >> hard hard costs.
[51:45] >> These these are these are
[51:48] >> no
[51:49] >> I mean
[51:49] >> these are soft costs.
[51:50] >> Soft costs. These are nothing is new.
[51:54] These aren't new items that we're
[51:55] budgeting for. This is just
[51:57] >> software went up. We can't control that.
[51:59] Those seem
[52:01] >> I guess but I guess I'm maybe using the
[52:03] wrong word. But when I say hard meaning
[52:05] there's nothing we can do about it.
[52:06] >> Oh, right.
[52:07] >> But my question is there's already line
[52:09] items for these guys to purchase all of
[52:11] these things and you're saying that is
[52:13] an increase of those.
[52:14] >> Correct.
[52:15] >> That's exactly what we're saying. Yeah.
[52:17] >> These are none of these things are new
[52:19] line items. No new items at all. These
[52:21] are simply the current existing
[52:24] >> software, equipment, vehicles, fuel that
[52:28] we've been budgeting all along for many
[52:30] years, but those are all going up and
[52:33] >> we can kind of go into the anecdotal,
[52:35] yeah, information of like here's how
[52:37] much, you know, a new set of fire boots
[52:39] cost or here's how much this software
[52:41] license costs. But they're all going up
[52:44] and we've seen it all in our personal
[52:46] lives, too. But everything is just
[52:47] >> But but is this just strictly the
[52:49] general fund? Yes.
[52:51] >> Yes.
[52:51] >> You're not talking about any of the
[52:53] enterprise funds.
[52:54] >> Correct.
[52:55] >> Or special revenues. This is strictly
[52:57] general
[52:58] >> fund.
[52:59] >> Well, don't some of those operational
[53:01] >> Yeah. some those operational things
[53:03] enterprise funds.
[53:05] >> Yeah. Like power if it's power related,
[53:06] if it's booth equipment.
[53:10] That's not
[53:11] that might be exhaustive to have that
[53:14] list, but it would be kind of unique.
[53:16] It'd be interesting to see.
[53:18] >> Why does it Sorry. Why does it need to
[53:20] be included there?
[53:21] >> I'm just saying it shouldn't be if it
[53:22] comes from
[53:22] >> Oh, it's not.
[53:23] >> It's not. No, it's not.
[53:24] >> This is not including this is only for
[53:26] general fund
[53:27] >> admin council. That's what I'm saying.
[53:29] This is general fund. But if some of
[53:30] those soft those costs, those
[53:33] inflationary I can't I see it that far.
[53:36] New operations. If some of it is to fund
[53:38] other things for the fire department,
[53:40] shouldn't it come out of their line
[53:43] items for their clo They've got line
[53:45] items for clothing.
[53:46] >> It is. But I've just combined it all
[53:48] into one number.
[53:49] >> Okay. Okay.
[53:50] >> So that 400 isn't just for fire. That's
[53:52] for all general fund. The whole 5.4
[53:55] million operations budget we have is
[53:58] going up by 400.
[53:59] >> So you're just making it simple to put
[54:00] it on.
[54:01] >> I apologize, but this is wild cuz that's
[54:03] almost 10%. Right. Like if we're 5.4 and
[54:07] this is almost five. I mean I guess it's
[54:08] not almost five, maybe 9%. But that's
[54:10] still a lot. Like
[54:11] >> not that I'm saying it's on you, but I
[54:13] think it's wild that inflation is that
[54:15] high. Well,
[54:16] >> what percent is that? Because right now
[54:18] inflation's at 2 and a half%.
[54:20] >> Um, it's like 9.6%.
[54:25] » Why aren't we bud Why aren't we putting
[54:27] in 2 and 12%.
[54:28] >> Because we can't control that the
[54:30] software went up.
[54:32] >> I I don't understand that, but that's
[54:33] what inflation is. It's 2 and 12%.
[54:36] >> Okay. When you say inflation though, if
[54:38] you're talking about basket of goods
[54:39] like loaf of bread and you know,
[54:40] whatever things they pick up, that
[54:43] doesn't necess necessarily translate to
[54:44] the city's inflation. I mean, when we're
[54:47] seeing, you know, cost of road base or
[54:49] vehicles, fire equipment like double,
[54:51] triple, you know, that's going up a lot
[54:54] of times a lot faster than just average
[54:56] inflation.
[54:56] >> I mean, EMS supplies went up 20% in the
[54:58] past 6 months.
[55:00] >> I mean, that unfortunately
[55:02] >> can't do anything about that. These are
[55:04] things that that are just driven by the
[55:06] simple market. We have very little
[55:08] control, well zero control over. If if
[55:11] EMS supplies go up 20%.
[55:13] >> Switch vendors. But what do you do
[55:14] there? I mean,
[55:16] >> maybe you do it stuff out for this type
[55:20] of law.
[55:21] >> I think I think with fire and police,
[55:24] there's very specific like only a few
[55:26] vendors do those things and I think we
[55:28] know that, right? Cance martins for the
[55:30] vehicles and things like that. But I
[55:33] mean, fuel, what are you going to do
[55:34] there? You can't bid that out? I I don't
[55:36] know.
[55:37] >> Right. I mean, our purchasing policy
[55:39] requires that um that we bid out items
[55:41] over a certain amount. So, it's
[55:43] naturally built in that we're going out
[55:44] and getting competitive pricing.
[55:46] >> Okay.
[55:47] >> Um or we'll use the state contract,
[55:49] which is already done that for us, bid
[55:51] out, you know, on a large scale for for
[55:53] the cities.
[55:54] >> Um
[55:55] >> so, Jay, I have a question with that. I
[55:57] think it's 5,000.
[55:59] Once we hit 5,000, we need to bid it
[56:01] out. [clears throat] So, if we have
[56:03] enough product that inflation's causing
[56:06] it to be more than 5,000 when it wasn't
[56:08] before, does that automatically trigger
[56:11] a new bid?
[56:12] >> That's a good question
[56:15] >> because I think we should explore that.
[56:16] >> Yeah, I think so, too. It's more work.
[56:18] >> And it would be nice to Adam's point to
[56:21] I would like to see a list just for
[56:24] comparison so we could speak to it, but
[56:27] >> a list of what's increasing.
[56:29] >> Yeah. Yeah, it'd be nice to know, hey,
[56:31] plastic gloves cost 50 cents and now
[56:33] they're $5. Or
[56:35] >> just just for our own ability to explain
[56:38] when people are asking us, well, what do
[56:40] you mean by their cost? Transformers,
[56:42] they used to cost this much, now they're
[56:44] costing this much. Yeah. FY26, FY27
[56:48] >> until it
[56:50] 139.
[56:50] >> It's just a matter of having more
[56:51] information that we can share.
[56:55] >> Not factchecking it, just having more
[56:57] information. And I think
[57:00] >> you guys like this idea though, this
[57:01] concept of the of saying let's wait on
[57:04] the deputy chief, but definitely tell
[57:07] him this is going to be something if the
[57:10] if it's approved, we bring it on as an
[57:13] additional employee with the with the
[57:16] approval
[57:17] and if it's not approved, we bring it on
[57:19] as a fact that we have to grow.
[57:23] >> Seem good.
[57:24] >> Yeah.
[57:25] Um,
[57:26] >> but I do think we postpone
[57:28] >> I think as far as telling our story too,
[57:30] I mean, I'll take the opportunity right
[57:31] now to say we're we're reducing um two
[57:34] full-time employees this coming year as
[57:36] well. So we we I just I say that because
[57:41] I want you to know that we are always
[57:42] looking for opportunities to save money
[57:45] and we whether that's hey take this
[57:48] position and turn it into that you know
[57:49] like we did last year with hey we don't
[57:51] need as a locator position but we need a
[57:53] water guy and we we changed you know a
[57:56] position around this year we eliminated
[57:59] a utility billing clerk or this coming
[58:02] year utility billing clerk and a cash
[58:04] receiving clerk position. um
[58:07] >> that will be replaced by one.
[58:08] >> And is that on is that factored into
[58:10] this one or have we not put those
[58:12] savings into this yet?
[58:13] >> We've put the savings in here.
[58:15] >> Yeah, savings are built in. But I I just
[58:17] again say that to show that we are
[58:19] always looking for opportunities to try
[58:21] to operate efficiently. Um as you all
[58:25] know, we over the last several years,
[58:27] we've added very very few positions. Um
[58:29] just those two last year really, the
[58:31] attorney and assistant attorney and
[58:33] sergeant position. Um we've had
[58:37] obviously requests for lots of positions
[58:40] from um many of the departments over the
[58:43] years
[58:44] but uh we we are being careful about
[58:48] which ones we bring forward to the
[58:49] council. We don't just automatically
[58:51] say, okay, there's a list of positions.
[58:53] There's over 15 positions, I think, that
[58:55] have been requested over the years that
[58:57] continue to be requested by departments,
[59:00] and we only are bringing forward the
[59:02] deputy chief position is is a new FTE.
[59:06] Um, but
[59:07] >> okay, I think you know, go ahead. Well,
[59:10] last year we all agreed as a council
[59:12] that absolutely an assistant attorney
[59:16] and the um records clerk, but then
[59:19] through our conversations suddenly the the the police position the the
[59:25] deputy position popped up if I remember
[59:28] correctly.
[59:29] >> So last year I started in the first work
[59:31] session I had a list of four positions
[59:33] that were requested. It was two
[59:34] sergeants, a deputy fire chief and the
[59:37] assistant attorney. And then after
[59:39] feedback from the council, I reduced
[59:40] that to just one sergeant instead of
[59:42] two. And then I eliminated um
[59:46] >> fire chief
[59:46] >> the fire the deputy fire chief and it
[59:50] ended up being just a s one sergeant and
[59:52] one assistant attorney. So I went from
[59:54] four to two
[59:55] >> originally. There was no sergeant.
[59:57] >> There were two in the first session. We
[59:59] got rid of both and there was only going
[1:00:00] to be one hire and that was the
[1:00:02] assistant city attorney and the sergeant
[1:00:04] came up late.
[1:00:04] >> It did come up later first.
[1:00:06] >> Yes. The first meeting there were two
[1:00:08] sergeants though. The first meeting
[1:00:10] budget.
[1:00:10] >> Yeah, that's right. Hey, water under the
[1:00:13] bridge. But anyway, all right. So, um
[1:00:17] >> so police drone.
[1:00:18] >> Yeah, we we added the drone back in. Um
[1:00:23] again, that's that's to help that's a
[1:00:24] man power um what's the word?
[1:00:29] Enhancer, I guess. It helps when there's
[1:00:31] like a search for a person in the
[1:00:32] foothills or an autistic child goes
[1:00:34] missing. like it's able to to fly and
[1:00:37] look for for people. It's just
[1:00:39] >> I think that's
[1:00:40] >> has a lot of uses.
[1:00:41] >> We can move over and maybe get help. We
[1:00:44] can still fund it.
[1:00:46] >> I think that'd be We're the only
[1:00:47] department in Davis County that does not
[1:00:49] have a police drone just so you kind of
[1:00:51] have an idea of, you know, we're not
[1:00:53] asking for crazy stuff.
[1:00:55] >> Does the fire department have a drone?
[1:00:57] >> They do.
[1:00:58] >> Yeah. And so, but we but it's difficult
[1:01:00] to borrow theirs because then we have to
[1:01:02] also have their drone operator, right?
[1:01:04] takes away from their staff and that's
[1:01:06] >> why can't we just train a drone operator
[1:01:08] at the police department?
[1:01:09] >> I don't know.
[1:01:10] >> Um I mean that's what Farmington did. I
[1:01:12] hate to use Farmington. I know but they
[1:01:14] had a drone operator and the police
[1:01:16] wanted so the so the police just trained
[1:01:18] their own drone operator and now he uses
[1:01:20] the drone.
[1:01:21] >> Yeah. Is that possible? [clears throat]
[1:01:23] >> I think that's what we do.
[1:01:25] >> But we were saying why do you need two
[1:01:26] >> when why do we just kind of have one for
[1:01:28] that share with police and fire? I mean
[1:01:31] >> because if using Is it getting used?
[1:01:34] >> I think the fire department has it on
[1:01:35] their truck.
[1:01:36] >> Yeah,
[1:01:36] >> they take it out with them.
[1:01:37] >> They do.
[1:01:38] >> And it's a matter of do we need to boot
[1:01:40] it up or not? Okay.
[1:01:42] >> Yeah. I'm just imagining like emergency
[1:01:44] situation where it's like, hey, we've
[1:01:45] got a hostage situation. We're trying to
[1:01:48] >> like, you know, look for the perimeter.
[1:01:50] We got a lost person in the mountains
[1:01:51] like
[1:01:52] >> and then they go and try to hunt it down
[1:01:54] from the other department. And it just
[1:01:55] it's
[1:01:56] >> I guess there's some things you can look
[1:01:58] at, but
[1:01:58] >> it's smart.
[1:01:59] >> Yeah.
[1:02:00] As far as the PI service,
[1:02:02] >> can't believe they cost
[1:02:05] real quick.
[1:02:06] >> Don't a lot of that
[1:02:08] training, too.
[1:02:09] >> I think that I mean, a nice drone is
[1:02:11] going to cost like seven grand or
[1:02:12] something, but then they have to go
[1:02:14] train the officers to do it.
[1:02:16] >> I think we could take the drone off this
[1:02:17] list and still have conversations about
[1:02:20] it.
[1:02:21] >> I agree with that.
[1:02:22] >> I'm curious to hear from everyone to
[1:02:24] see. Do you mean you might because we
[1:02:26] might get donations for
[1:02:27] >> we might we might have a donor that
[1:02:29] would be willing to
[1:02:30] >> grants. There are grants out there.
[1:02:32] >> No, there's a donor.
[1:02:33] >> Donor,
[1:02:34] >> I like donors.
[1:02:35] >> So, let's take that off. Are we okay
[1:02:37] with that?
[1:02:37] >> I want a donor.
[1:02:39] >> Uh just with just with an asterk that is going to be part of that
[1:02:44] >> that we do understand that that's
[1:02:47] >> right.
[1:02:47] >> Yeah.
[1:02:48] >> Because I Yeah,
[1:02:49] >> I'm not fundamentally opposed to it. I
[1:02:51] don't think
[1:02:53] >> they're a very b they're a huge benefit.
[1:02:55] I'm not going to take that away. They
[1:02:56] are a huge benefit.
[1:02:57] >> We had a person for hours.
[1:02:59] >> We might have been able
[1:03:02] >> there was a mechanical thing in there
[1:03:05] rather than a person when there's
[1:03:10] the sheriff the county sheriff.
[1:03:12] >> It is just time is a yes. Uh maybe maybe
[1:03:16] if just because whoever might be
[1:03:18] listening maybe do you mind uh I hate to
[1:03:21] mess with your Excel sheet but do you
[1:03:23] mind making some type of a
[1:03:26] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[1:03:27] >> There you go.
[1:03:27] >> Yeah.
[1:03:28] >> So or something so that it can be Yeah.
[1:03:32] >> Cuz if there's not a donation I'm going
[1:03:34] to donate for
[1:03:38] >> now the PR service to city manager. I
[1:03:40] thought that we'd had a discussion that
[1:03:41] we wouldn't have the consultant group
[1:03:43] and so that money can come from the
[1:03:45] consultant pot to pay for the PI or the
[1:03:49] PR services person.
[1:03:52] >> Am I looking at the right line? Yeah.
[1:03:53] >> Yes.
[1:03:55] >> Right.
[1:03:56] >> I thought in the last year in the last
[1:03:58] meeting
[1:03:58] >> but we're paying we're paying for that PR on a case by
[1:04:03] case hourly basis. Right.
[1:04:04] >> Right. But we won't be able to pay them
[1:04:06] anymore because this person would work
[1:04:08] there. I guess the question is how much
[1:04:09] have we been spending on them?
[1:04:12] How much have we been budgeting for?
[1:04:14] >> Yeah, it was already in there.
[1:04:15] >> So, there's 35,000 budgeted. Sorry, JC,
[1:04:19] you can speak to that.
[1:04:20] >> Go ahead, Ren.
[1:04:20] >> There's 35,000 budgeted for the fires
[1:04:23] the new fire station PR and then this
[1:04:26] 10,000 was for those videos that you
[1:04:28] guys have talked about for all the other
[1:04:30] departments.
[1:04:31] >> Okay.
[1:04:31] >> So, together there's technically 45,000
[1:04:34] in the budget for PR.
[1:04:36] >> Okay. 35 is just impact fee worthy.
[1:04:39] >> Okay.
[1:04:39] >> 10 is general fun.
[1:04:41] >> So this is different than hiring that
[1:04:42] guy. I'll put
[1:04:44] >> Okay. So there's two ways to go about
[1:04:46] it. Um like you said, mayor, currently
[1:04:48] we're contracting PR services case by
[1:04:51] case. Um and we're paying a lot more per
[1:04:54] hour than we would if we just hired a
[1:04:56] person part-time. And so I think you
[1:04:59] have a good point there. it if we just
[1:05:01] got rid of the contract entirely,
[1:05:03] >> we'd probably be net neutral there or
[1:05:06] maybe even see some savings. But u we
[1:05:08] just wanted to show it as transparent
[1:05:10] that hey, this would be in addition to
[1:05:12] the contracted service. This would be
[1:05:14] also adding like extra little things
[1:05:15] like the videos and whatever it
[1:05:20] feel like people could I think we can do
[1:05:22] 174 an hour right now.
[1:05:23] >> Yeah. Okay.
[1:05:24] >> Yeah. and and I would say take it off
[1:05:27] and I would love to cancel the contract,
[1:05:29] >> but I would love to see that contract
[1:05:31] canled and and explore the option of
[1:05:34] hiring that gal.
[1:05:34] >> There's there's we're looking into it. I
[1:05:37] mean, it's one of those things where we
[1:05:39] want to do that,
[1:05:40] >> right?
[1:05:40] >> But if if she's willing, you know, we
[1:05:42] don't know yet
[1:05:43] >> or or someone else.
[1:05:44] >> Strong to the direction of the council
[1:05:46] to cancel that contract.
[1:05:48] >> Um, I mean, if we cancel it and we can
[1:05:51] get somebody else, great. If we can't
[1:05:53] get somebody else, the reason this is a
[1:05:55] unique situation because this particular
[1:05:56] individual is really wellqualified to do
[1:06:00] a good job. If we hired somebody off the
[1:06:01] street, I don't know if we could get
[1:06:03] what we need. Maybe we could, maybe we
[1:06:06] couldn't. But
[1:06:07] >> we're trying to save money here, Jason.
[1:06:08] I know you're fighting for everything,
[1:06:09] but when we say when we take a straw
[1:06:11] pull, we want to say take it off, take
[1:06:13] it off. We don't need
[1:06:16] >> Well, he's not talking about the 10
[1:06:18] grand. He's talking about
[1:06:19] >> I know he's talking about the contract
[1:06:20] with the other one. So, we got a net
[1:06:21] savings there that we could maybe spend
[1:06:23] on cost.
[1:06:24] >> Okay. Knowing just for context, I agree
[1:06:26] with what you're saying, but this PR
[1:06:28] company was hired to help with PR for
[1:06:31] the fire station,
[1:06:32] >> right?
[1:06:33] >> Correct. They do telling that story and
[1:06:38] that need. And so, let's just remember
[1:06:40] that if that is our goal to get this on
[1:06:42] the ballot and get it passed, we need to
[1:06:44] be able to tell the story. We don't have
[1:06:46] the in-house talent to do it. So maybe
[1:06:49] we find someone cheaper or even for free
[1:06:52] >> and it won't be good.
[1:06:54] >> So as I was going through some of my
[1:06:56] previous paperwork,
[1:06:57] >> yeah,
[1:06:58] >> where we were talking about capital
[1:07:00] improvements and stuff,
[1:07:02] >> we didn't even have the design of the
[1:07:04] fire station until 2028.
[1:07:07] I don't know what what has brought it to
[1:07:10] the forefront so much sooner than that,
[1:07:13] but I believe it was in maybe last
[1:07:16] year's or the year before talking about
[1:07:18] capital improvements and it had fire
[1:07:20] station design in 2028.
[1:07:22] Um, you know, so
[1:07:25] >> I vaguely remember a straw poll to move
[1:07:27] it forward, but
[1:07:28] >> it it was one of those deals where I've
[1:07:31] said I don't believe it will pass, but I
[1:07:34] won't if you want to put it on a ballot.
[1:07:36] But but I sit here and I look at this
[1:07:38] and I say as a council is it really
[1:07:41] should we be moving it forward? I don't
[1:07:43] know. I don't know. But I I said that I
[1:07:47] would commit to the ballot which are
[1:07:50] >> suggesting maybe it moves forward
[1:07:51] without a campaign. It just is on the
[1:07:53] ballot and if it fails it fails. Is that
[1:07:55] kind of what you're saying?
[1:07:57] >> They got they've got but they've got 35
[1:07:59] grand to use towards it.
[1:08:01] >> The money's there. We're not
[1:08:04] additional money. I think the difference
[1:08:05] I guess what I'm talking about is you're
[1:08:08] saying though the PR gal the PR firm
[1:08:11] that we pay case by case
[1:08:14] 175 whatever an hour that that above
[1:08:18] like take the fire station out of it.
[1:08:20] We've been spending enough with that
[1:08:23] firm just on regular things
[1:08:25] >> to probably compensate for hiring
[1:08:28] somebody if it's the right person and it
[1:08:32] would be a net net or maybe savings.
[1:08:34] Take the fire station out cuz the fire
[1:08:36] station is only going to be onetime
[1:08:37] thing,
[1:08:38] >> right?
[1:08:38] >> This is like an annual
[1:08:40] >> This would be an annual I think we could
[1:08:42] get 15 to 20 hours possibly
[1:08:45] uh a week of of just doing more. A lot
[1:08:48] of we've had a lot a lot of
[1:08:49] conversations obviously about doing a
[1:08:51] better job of being you know sending
[1:08:54] information to residents and a lot of
[1:08:55] cities have
[1:08:56] >> require an additional monies what you're
[1:08:58] saying.
[1:08:59] >> Uh if if if yeah if we could hire this
[1:09:01] particular individual we think so. I'll
[1:09:05] just say though as far as the using that
[1:09:08] company to do our fire station
[1:09:10] education, public education, that's
[1:09:13] based that's using fire impact fee money
[1:09:15] which is earmarked for fire
[1:09:18] >> and not part of the general.
[1:09:19] >> Right. And so we could use it for
[1:09:21] anything else. I'm just saying that it's
[1:09:23] a lot of money but it's it's for
[1:09:26] earmarked for that very purpose.
[1:09:27] >> Yes. No, I get that. Yep.
[1:09:30] >> Okay. Cool.
[1:09:30] >> All right. So we're we're down from 1480
[1:09:33] to 1099 for the
[1:09:35] >> Wait. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[1:09:36] >> Sorry, Jason. Can So I just want to
[1:09:38] clarify where we're at where we are
[1:09:40] after that whole discussion. So we've
[1:09:43] got we want to end the that contract,
[1:09:46] hopefully hire this other person.
[1:09:48] However, we feel like
[1:09:50] publicity for the fire station can be
[1:09:52] covered with fire impact fees. That's what it's but right now we've
[1:09:56] budgeted the 35,000
[1:09:59] next year out of fire impact fees to do
[1:10:01] public education for the fire station.
[1:10:03] >> Okay. So not going forward with that
[1:10:05] contract doesn't mess with fire station.
[1:10:08] >> It it would it would just take the girl
[1:10:10] that does that right now for this
[1:10:12] company that we have under contract and
[1:10:14] bring her in as a part-time employee
[1:10:18] >> and temporary mo most likely. If she
[1:10:20] can't be a temporary employee, then
[1:10:23] >> then most likely what what he's saying
[1:10:25] is we shouldn't terminate the contract
[1:10:28] with those folks until we know if she
[1:10:29] can come over because the job still
[1:10:32] needs to be done for the
[1:10:34] >> right. So, can't we just flexibly say
[1:10:37] try to hire her and if not then at least
[1:10:40] fund the fire stuff?
[1:10:41] >> That's exactly what we want to do. Yeah.
[1:10:43] >> Okay. I we got a little hairy there for
[1:10:45] a sec. I just want to make sure I
[1:10:46] understand. That was a good good point.
[1:10:48] Okay.
[1:10:50] So, where else can we
[1:10:52] >> So, we went from 1480 a month to $10.99.
[1:10:56] Is that what it says?
[1:10:58] >> Good start.
[1:10:58] >> I also just got a text um that Josh
[1:11:02] found another 106,000 we can move from.
[1:11:06] >> Hey,
[1:11:07] Josh is the man, man. Let's go.
[1:11:12] >> Who's next? What department? Texas.
[1:11:18] Who's watching the lines?
[1:11:19] >> Josh, you're the hero. Your hero.
[1:11:22] >> He's moving up from public.
[1:11:25] >> Okay,
[1:11:25] >> perfect.
[1:11:26] >> Love it.
[1:11:27] >> That's what we're talking about.
[1:11:28] >> Yeah. [laughter]
[1:11:31] Okay.
[1:11:31] >> Go, Josh. Go.
[1:11:32] >> Hey. And we have a use of balance
[1:11:36] instead of gluten-free.
[1:11:37] >> Yep.
[1:11:38] >> What?
[1:11:38] >> There you go.
[1:11:39] >> No. Use up on balance instead of general
[1:11:41] fun.
[1:11:44] >> Okay. Listen, John, this is confusing
[1:11:46] enough as it is.
[1:11:46] >> I know exactly,
[1:11:47] >> but I'm confused. What your police
[1:11:49] station payment and fieldhouse payment
[1:11:51] both? Is that what you're saying?
[1:11:52] Fieldhouse is the
[1:11:54] >> Okay,
[1:11:55] >> and then the police station payment or
[1:11:57] using the police impact fee money.
[1:11:59] >> Okay. Okay. But here, okay,
[1:12:01] >> here's the question. When does a bond
[1:12:02] payment actually start? And when do we
[1:12:04] actually have to pull that trigger?
[1:12:06] >> Yeah,
[1:12:06] >> for real. Could we wait till next year?
[1:12:08] >> That's what I understood. that I
[1:12:10] understood we have to start paying for
[1:12:11] it until it was open and it wouldn't be
[1:12:13] open until
[1:12:14] >> right knowing knowing that we we have
[1:12:17] already committed just so we all are in
[1:12:19] agreement we have committed to pay for
[1:12:21] that okay right yes
[1:12:23] >> okay so could we go to the school and
[1:12:25] say look
[1:12:27] >> we want to start our payments
[1:12:30] >> and we would do the bond next year
[1:12:31] instead of now
[1:12:32] >> but I guess what she's saying right now
[1:12:34] is that essentially you're having it
[1:12:36] come out of
[1:12:39] fund balance But if we kept it in fund
[1:12:41] balance, then we could use that fund
[1:12:44] balance to decrease
[1:12:47] the amount of increase. I I guess that's
[1:12:49] what we're trying to figure out.
[1:12:50] >> Well, we're trying to pay off the fil
[1:12:52] the police station with that money
[1:12:55] sooner.
[1:12:55] >> Pay it off faster.
[1:12:56] >> I wouldn't pay it off. I mean, we could
[1:12:58] pay it off faster if you really want,
[1:13:00] but uh
[1:13:01] >> I'm just saying don't use general fund
[1:13:04] tax increase.
[1:13:07] Like the fact that we can use Sorry,
[1:13:10] we've already identified general fund
[1:13:13] money to pay the the police station. B,
[1:13:17] >> but instead of that general fund cash,
[1:13:19] I'm now freeing that up and using the
[1:13:21] fund balance of the police impact fees
[1:13:23] cuz we've never touched those.
[1:13:25] >> Okay.
[1:13:26] >> Can you do that? Yeah.
[1:13:28] >> Use the pack fees to
[1:13:29] >> to pay the police [clears throat]
[1:13:30] station.
[1:13:31] >> Okay. Okay. So, you're switching pots.
[1:13:33] >> You can because that's more than six
[1:13:35] years old and it was not identified as
[1:13:38] part of the impact fees.
[1:13:39] >> It was identified that the build out of
[1:13:41] that station was reason
[1:13:43] >> and it's because it's more than six
[1:13:45] years. You can still use that money.
[1:13:46] >> Um, we hit six years this year. So, I'll
[1:13:49] have to do a budget amendment for that.
[1:13:51] It's like 32,000 and we'll use that in
[1:13:54] this year's
[1:13:55] >> What is the yearly payment for the
[1:13:57] police station?
[1:13:58] >> It's like 3
[1:14:00] Goodness, can you look it up? It's like
[1:14:01] 350.
[1:14:04] >> So you're taking that 350 and adding
[1:14:06] another 243
[1:14:09] for the
[1:14:10] >> That's for the fieldhouse, the
[1:14:12] ambulance, the Yeah. the mower.
[1:14:17] So, it's not just the fieldhouse, it's
[1:14:19] the mower and something else
[1:14:21] >> and the ambulance.
[1:14:22] >> The ambulance.
[1:14:24] >> Why is the ambulance not coming out of
[1:14:25] enterprise funds?
[1:14:28] >> Cuz it's ambulance which is fire general
[1:14:31] fund.
[1:14:32] >> But there's an ambulance enterprise
[1:14:34] fund.
[1:14:34] >> No, we got rid of that.
[1:14:37] >> Why did we get rid of the ambulance
[1:14:38] enterprise? I think it was losing money
[1:14:41] and uh don't quote me, but I'm pretty
[1:14:44] sure I heard the history was it was
[1:14:45] losing money and not performing as an
[1:14:47] enterprise fund. So therefore, the
[1:14:48] general fund kept subsidizing for it. So
[1:14:52] it like legally it had to be
[1:14:54] >> absorbed into the general fund since it
[1:14:58] wasn't performing.
[1:14:59] >> But we bill
[1:15:02] all those patients.
[1:15:04] >> Remember how many how little amount of
[1:15:06] patient
[1:15:06] >> patients went to an enterprise fund?
[1:15:08] Yes, we did have to subsidize part of
[1:15:10] the enterprise fund.
[1:15:11] >> You're not allowed to do that like more
[1:15:12] than 3 years. So that's why like the
[1:15:15] storm water and pressure irrigation, we
[1:15:17] have to raise those or else
[1:15:20] >> you think
[1:15:20] >> when we get audited again and we keep
[1:15:22] subsidizing that.
[1:15:24] >> You would think that the the actual
[1:15:26] thing is you'd start you'd just start
[1:15:28] billing.
[1:15:28] >> So then what we do with the money that
[1:15:30] we get from getting
[1:15:32] now it goes in general fund. It's
[1:15:34] general fund revenue now.
[1:15:37] It just doesn't go
[1:15:39] >> why doesn't show it as a general fund.
[1:15:42] >> But that's the interesting aspect of
[1:15:44] that
[1:15:44] >> it's under charges for services.
[1:15:46] >> The interesting part about that could be that it might that gives you a
[1:15:50] difficult way to track if if maybe you
[1:15:54] should be increasing the fee for those
[1:15:58] ser that service especially assuming
[1:16:01] that the insurance the health insurance
[1:16:04] >> laws.
[1:16:06] for sure. I think it's how
[1:16:08] >> you can only charge so much.
[1:16:10] Um, now we
[1:16:12] can't even bill for supplies.
[1:16:14] >> I I think we're only getting like 42
[1:16:17] cents on the dollar refund.
[1:16:21] >> Ambulance services out.
[1:16:23] >> Don't ask me. [clears throat]
[1:16:26] >> I don't know. How would you
[1:16:27] >> We can't do that. Why?
[1:16:29] >> Well, because we're in charge of the
[1:16:30] paramedics. I don't think you could
[1:16:32] contract the service out. Could you?
[1:16:34] Isn't the ambulance the paramedics for
[1:16:36] the most part?
[1:16:36] >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Why can't
[1:16:37] you have an ambulance? It would be very
[1:16:40] difficult for a fire department.
[1:16:42] >> Very hard for our people to be the
[1:16:43] paramedics and not have the ambulance.
[1:16:45] >> So, but how did the county get rid of
[1:16:47] [clears throat] exist?
[1:16:48] >> I don't think so.
[1:16:49] >> They did.
[1:16:50] >> I thought Yeah, but I thought they I
[1:16:51] thought that would that like they only
[1:16:53] got rid of it with the requirement that
[1:16:55] we take it over.
[1:16:56] >> Yeah, but I'm saying they still have
[1:16:58] fire. They just don't have paramedics
[1:17:01] now because we all
[1:17:02] >> Doesn't the county have the special
[1:17:04] district fires?
[1:17:05] >> But then but then they but then they
[1:17:07] didn't they
[1:17:07] >> Am I wrong
[1:17:10] fire district in the South D fire
[1:17:11] district? They're special service
[1:17:13] districts. They're not anything to do
[1:17:15] with the county period.
[1:17:16] >> And then but then they lowered the
[1:17:18] county
[1:17:19] >> and then they lowered the amount that
[1:17:21] they
[1:17:22] >> Dane County
[1:17:22] >> and then they lowered the amount that
[1:17:24] they were charging.
[1:17:25] >> Okay.
[1:17:26] >> To compensate for that, I think.
[1:17:28] >> All right. Okay,
[1:17:30] back to the
[1:17:32] >> Isn't there a state rate that sets that
[1:17:34] as well? I mean, there's state
[1:17:36] requirements, right? Charge more
[1:17:38] >> which you can charge and you can't again
[1:17:40] like you said we're in
[1:17:41] >> and then it's only health insurance
[1:17:42] reimbursement rates and yada yada.
[1:17:44] >> But we can't we can look at those fees
[1:17:46] and we can charge more, right?
[1:17:48] >> State rate within.
[1:17:49] >> So we're charging state now. So we can't adjust that. Is that correct?
[1:17:53] That's
[1:17:54] >> according according to
[1:17:56] >> it already cost like 1,200 bucks to go
[1:17:57] from here to Davis North or more. Might
[1:17:59] even be more. Probably 2,000. Oh yeah,
[1:18:02] that's not much.
[1:18:03] >> So much.
[1:18:04] >> According to this uh the decision to do
[1:18:10] the fieldhouse
[1:18:13] is not affecting any monies
[1:18:16] >> for 2027.
[1:18:18] >> Justund 160,000.
[1:18:20] >> Yeah.
[1:18:22] um where am I missing that
[1:18:24] >> part is coming from ramp on
[1:18:28] >> because you just you put it there as a
[1:18:30] negative 593
[1:18:33] >> that's right cuz we're instead of
[1:18:34] transferring out instead of using
[1:18:35] general fund money right
[1:18:37] >> we're utilizing the fund balances
[1:18:39] >> right right so so then is there zero
[1:18:42] then that's being affected by the truth
[1:18:44] and taxation now for the fieldhouse
[1:18:46] >> no there's still a little bit
[1:18:47] >> how didn't you say seven
[1:18:50] >> yeah if we just did a truth in taxation.
[1:18:52] It was like a $65 increase. But
[1:18:55] >> I know. Okay.
[1:18:57] >> But to to ease the burden this tax year,
[1:19:01] I'm suggesting to use fund balance for
[1:19:03] it instead.
[1:19:04] >> So I'd be okay. The whole thing for the
[1:19:06] whole thing or just part?
[1:19:07] >> No, we're using I thought we were using
[1:19:08] ramp tax for partial.
[1:19:09] >> Ramp tax is part, but the general fund
[1:19:11] portion. Yes. All fund balance.
[1:19:14] >> Okay. So
[1:19:15] >> So next year you'd have to do
[1:19:17] >> but it's totally out now.
[1:19:20] >> Yes. In a way, it's being covered by
[1:19:23] fund balance, not tax.
[1:19:24] >> It's being covered by fund balance. So
[1:19:25] the 21 you couldn't by by delaying the
[1:19:30] payment of the fieldhouse, it wouldn't
[1:19:32] lower that 21.
[1:19:33] >> It would not lower our tax on this
[1:19:36] >> to the taxation
[1:19:37] >> for 27.
[1:19:38] >> So we're not saving residents by
[1:19:40] delaying the payment till it actually is
[1:19:42] due, which would be next year.
[1:19:44] >> Correct.
[1:19:44] >> But it does lower fund balance, right?
[1:19:46] It does lower the fund. But we could
[1:19:48] take it out of the fund balance and then
[1:19:50] use fund balance next year. Yes. Yes.
[1:19:52] >> Okay.
[1:19:52] >> But it does it's not affecting this
[1:19:54] truth and taxation increase.
[1:19:56] >> Okay.
[1:19:57] >> So question, how much does RAMP
[1:19:59] contribute towards that payment?
[1:20:02] >> Um half. So 368 for RAMP, 368 for
[1:20:06] general fund. And obviously, like I
[1:20:09] said, there's a ton of ways to skin a
[1:20:10] cat. So we could talk about the split
[1:20:13] there, what RAMP could give. I don't
[1:20:15] know. I don't want to speak for Cole. Um
[1:20:18] there's also if you look at the fund
[1:20:20] balance amounts, there's some fund
[1:20:22] balance and ramp. Maybe we use those as
[1:20:23] down payment. Again, we can get creative
[1:20:25] there.
[1:20:27] >> But for the sake of these spreadsheets,
[1:20:29] I kind of just had to pick something and
[1:20:31] present it, right?
[1:20:33] >> Um yeah, that's another day. I think
[1:20:35] like it it like the for example, I think
[1:20:39] Leighton's ramp almost exclusively goes
[1:20:41] towards the amphitheater or at least
[1:20:43] does until it's paid off. And so there's
[1:20:46] not like I don't think it's the worst
[1:20:49] thing in the world if if we end up
[1:20:51] taking the majority of the ramp for the
[1:20:53] fieldhouse for a period of like and say
[1:20:55] to them like and say like yeah this was
[1:20:58] our decision was to have the majority of
[1:21:01] it go towards the fieldhouse for a
[1:21:02] period of time.
[1:21:04] >> But that's that's a thought. I mean and
[1:21:06] I don't think it's a decision we have to
[1:21:08] make today because again it's not going
[1:21:10] to affect the truth in taxation because
[1:21:12] it's going to be just like a
[1:21:13] distribution of funds. But it definitely
[1:21:15] would be a next year
[1:21:17] >> discussion.
[1:21:17] >> Is there a way to get our truth and
[1:21:19] taxation under 20%.
[1:21:21] In my professional opinion small,
[1:21:25] >> I think the only way you do it is use
[1:21:27] more use more uh fun uh fun balance
[1:21:32] >> and there there is an option for that
[1:21:34] which is kind of my my point with if we
[1:21:37] delay paying the fieldhouse this year,
[1:21:40] which I'm like I still don't understand
[1:21:42] why we're budgeting for something we
[1:21:43] don't have to pay for for another year,
[1:21:45] then we could use that money and it
[1:21:48] would towards decreasing and
[1:21:51] >> fun.
[1:21:52] >> We I we're in right up a great point. We
[1:21:55] talked about we've used u some of our
[1:21:58] MBA building authority u uh fund balance
[1:22:03] this year. Also some debt service fund
[1:22:05] balance. We didn't use it all though. We
[1:22:06] could use more of that
[1:22:08] >> and we could completely drain those fund
[1:22:10] balances uh this year and put it all
[1:22:12] towards
[1:22:14] >> lowering bad. We can't do that. We know
[1:22:17] that.
[1:22:18] I mean, I would rather see that money go
[1:22:21] towards shoring up our general fund fund
[1:22:24] balance, which I'm more worried about.
[1:22:25] But
[1:22:26] >> yeah, we can play that game next.
[1:22:28] >> So, let me ask a question. says we're
[1:22:30] getting into fund balance and stuff like
[1:22:31] that because we're trying to get our
[1:22:33] taxes down and I'm trying to get it so
[1:22:36] that we're using some fund balance but
[1:22:39] I'm looking say
[1:22:42] multiple years of truth in taxation
[1:22:45] maybe not quite as high but one of the
[1:22:48] things that I I want to talk about is
[1:22:50] let's go to the enterprise funds the
[1:22:52] proprietary funds and if you look at
[1:22:54] unrestricted funds in water we have two
[1:22:59] As of this report, sorry I have to use
[1:23:01] this report. So that only one we don't
[1:23:03] have a 2026 cuz we haven't got our money
[1:23:05] yet. We have a total of $15 million of
[1:23:09] unrestricted funds in water, electric,
[1:23:12] storm water, sewer, and then total non-
[1:23:14] major funds. And we have 15 million in
[1:23:18] there. Why can't we transfer some of
[1:23:20] those unrestricted funds, do a budget
[1:23:23] amendment, and transfer some of those
[1:23:26] into fund balance so that we can use
[1:23:28] some of that money um
[1:23:31] >> so that we can get this tax increase
[1:23:33] down a little more,
[1:23:35] >> use some of this fund balance out of
[1:23:37] here. And and I know he says you send a
[1:23:40] thing out and says look at the operating
[1:23:41] loss income like in water was 745,000
[1:23:45] but yet you didn't take into
[1:23:47] consideration depreciation was 937,000
[1:23:52] and and depreciation isn't real money.
[1:23:54] It's just depreciating and I don't even
[1:23:57] know where that number even comes from.
[1:23:59] Um it's like uh 430,000
[1:24:03] in electric but we use 957,000
[1:24:07] in depreciation.
[1:24:09] >> I get it will come to you later. you'll
[1:24:11] say that, but we're trying to fix a a
[1:24:14] budget that's bleeding in my opinion and why we constantly
[1:24:20] keep this amount there and and and we're
[1:24:24] proposing an increase and you you're
[1:24:26] propo proposing a 10% I think and a 15%
[1:24:30] >> increase, but yet we don't even know
[1:24:32] what our projections are yet from last
[1:24:35] year's 10 and 15% increases. I mean, you
[1:24:39] could probably give me those exact
[1:24:40] numbers, but we don't have anything. We
[1:24:42] don't know for the year. And if
[1:24:43] inflation was only 2 and a.5%, why are
[1:24:46] we asking for a 5% increase and a 15%
[1:24:48] and water? Was it 15 and 10? Is 10 in
[1:24:51] power, 15 water?
[1:24:53] >> Balances have to be so high.
[1:24:54] >> Yeah. Why do these balances have to be
[1:24:56] so high?
[1:24:57] >> Boy, we're I feel like we're going off
[1:24:59] way into something that is another whole
[1:25:01] meeting.
[1:25:03] >> Trying to figure out how to pay the
[1:25:04] bills. But I I I see what you're saying
[1:25:07] >> because we're supposed to come up with a
[1:25:08] budget by Thursday. And if we can use
[1:25:11] some of these unrestricted funds to do
[1:25:13] so, why not?
[1:25:14] >> The short answer to that, in my opinion,
[1:25:16] is we did the Waterworth models that
[1:25:18] builds in the future costs of what we're
[1:25:21] expecting to have to invest in the
[1:25:22] infrastructure for those utilities. And
[1:25:24] the depreciation is absolutely a real
[1:25:26] number. I know we've talked about this
[1:25:28] before. It's not a madeup number.
[1:25:30] Depreciation is looking at the cost of
[1:25:33] it's like a forced savings account
[1:25:34] basically is you know that every year
[1:25:37] those assets are are starting to uh
[1:25:40] deteriorate and you have to make sure
[1:25:42] that you're investing a certain amount
[1:25:44] of money to make sure that when those
[1:25:45] things have to be replaced you've got
[1:25:46] that money so you don't get to the end
[1:25:48] of the life and say oh we've got $10
[1:25:51] million worth of water lines to replace
[1:25:52] and we've got you know no money to do
[1:25:55] it. So that depreciation is a really
[1:25:58] important part of making sure we're
[1:25:59] saving for those those infrastructure
[1:26:01] improvements and they are going to come
[1:26:03] to
[1:26:03] >> I understand what you're saying but but
[1:26:07] when you come to me in a meeting prior
[1:26:09] to this one and you tell me that the
[1:26:11] water and you wanted me to look on a
[1:26:12] page and you tell me that you wanted the
[1:26:14] tell me that the water lost $745,000
[1:26:18] last year. I say, "Well, okay, but if I
[1:26:22] took the 937,000,
[1:26:25] then that would no longer be in
[1:26:26] parentheses, it would be a positive
[1:26:28] number,
[1:26:30] and I still have a 22,700,000
[1:26:33] reserve in that account."
[1:26:36] That's where I get a little when we're
[1:26:38] trying to reduce.
[1:26:42] Well, the point I'm trying to get to is
[1:26:44] our revenues don't meet our
[1:26:45] expenditures. And I'm trying to figure
[1:26:47] out how to fix that in in a 2 3 4 year
[1:26:51] cycle. But in the meantime, I've got to
[1:26:54] come up with some way to start reducing
[1:26:57] the fund balance out of the general fund
[1:26:59] that we keep using.
[1:27:00] >> But you don't want other money.
[1:27:01] >> I see. I think I see what you're saying.
[1:27:03] We don't want to reduce the general fund balance at the expense of the fund
[1:27:07] balances in those enterprise funds.
[1:27:09] Those are just as important
[1:27:10] >> there too. Yeah.
[1:27:11] >> Right. And we always talk about the need
[1:27:13] to make sure that we're putting money
[1:27:15] aside for future capital needs.
[1:27:18] >> There's nothing more expensive out there
[1:27:20] than our power and our water lines. And it's absolutely critical that we're
[1:27:24] putting that money in there now so that
[1:27:26] when those replacements come due, we've
[1:27:28] got money to to do it. And that's what
[1:27:30] the whole purpose of that water worth
[1:27:31] exercise is to look out several years
[1:27:33] and say, "Okay, here's the big projects.
[1:27:35] We know that are coming at us. We know
[1:27:37] it because we we've planned out the
[1:27:39] project. We estimated the costs and in
[1:27:41] order to be able to meet those costs and
[1:27:43] not just all of a sudden say, "Hey
[1:27:44] residents, guess what? We've got to do a
[1:27:47] 100% increase in water rates this year
[1:27:48] cuz we don't have any money to do all
[1:27:50] these, you know, we've got a major water
[1:27:52] tank replacement coming in a few years,
[1:27:54] you know, or new water tank, I should
[1:27:56] say. Um, and
[1:27:58] >> numerous expenditures, right? So, but I
[1:28:01] just think getting into taking away from
[1:28:03] those those reserves and the enterprise
[1:28:05] funds is a really bad idea.
[1:28:07] >> Not all of them, just some of it. Not
[1:28:09] all of it. But I guess what I'm saying
[1:28:11] is you've done the five and the 10%, but
[1:28:14] I don't even know what the projections
[1:28:15] have gained for us. I don't know. But
[1:28:17] before I even know what those
[1:28:18] projections have gained, you want
[1:28:20] another 10 and 15%. I want to know where
[1:28:23] they're at.
[1:28:24] >> Yeah. And I have a question since we're
[1:28:25] talking about these types of funds. Um
[1:28:27] the um movement of the field station or
[1:28:30] the fill station is a million5, right?
[1:28:33] >> Uh the fuel station 500,000.
[1:28:36] >> We take that out of one of these funds
[1:28:37] that he's talking about. Public works
[1:28:39] power. I'm not looking at the worksheet.
[1:28:42] >> We do have it split.
[1:28:44] >> So general fun.
[1:28:45] >> So you don't So that does not come from
[1:28:46] the general fund.
[1:28:47] >> Um small portion does because we have
[1:28:49] parks and mechanics down there and their
[1:28:51] general fund.
[1:28:53] >> Okay. Okay. But we are trying to take
[1:28:54] from some of those enterprise funds.
[1:28:56] >> Correct. Yes. They pay the those
[1:28:58] enterprise funds pay their fair share of
[1:29:00] anything that goes on at the op center
[1:29:01] including the fuel station.
[1:29:03] >> Okay. And that brings me to my next
[1:29:05] question. So openter is part of this
[1:29:07] budget here.
[1:29:08] >> Correct.
[1:29:09] >> Uh yeah. So this is the general fund and
[1:29:12] only a tiny bit of the general fund is
[1:29:14] going towards the op center. the vast
[1:29:15] majority of it is coming out of
[1:29:17] enterprise funds because that's what
[1:29:19] it's power, water, and those utilities
[1:29:21] that are using
[1:29:22] >> the majority.
[1:29:23] >> So, can't the whole thing come out of
[1:29:25] those funds since we've got the money?
[1:29:28] We have 15 million in enterprise funds.
[1:29:30] Can't that extra 75,000 that we're
[1:29:32] taking from general fund come from one
[1:29:34] of those funds?
[1:29:35] >> And and I don't mind that at all because
[1:29:37] it's a onetime expenditure like you
[1:29:40] know, if we're talking about saying,
[1:29:42] "Oh, let's take from this other thing
[1:29:44] like for for things that are going to be
[1:29:46] perpetually happening,
[1:29:48] uh, then that's an issue. But if we're
[1:29:50] talking about a one-time expenditure, I
[1:29:52] think that like every little bit will
[1:29:54] count. like if we if the field like to
[1:29:57] mayor's point not only the fuel station
[1:30:00] but also anything from the from the new
[1:30:04] um
[1:30:05] op station like I just would say since
[1:30:08] it's a one time let's take anything and
[1:30:10] everything out of the
[1:30:13] >> the increase
[1:30:15] >> yes
[1:30:16] >> and how much would that look like and
[1:30:17] because I want to be very mindful of
[1:30:19] what you're saying Jason as well I think
[1:30:21] you're spot on
[1:30:22] >> but I also think that we need to.
[1:30:25] >> But this is one of those deals where it
[1:30:27] is a one time capital type improvement.
[1:30:29] And I can't think of a better fund to
[1:30:31] use that for than to count it as part of
[1:30:34] a general
[1:30:36] >> fund portion that's going to be in there
[1:30:38] every year now. I don't want
[1:30:40] >> You're saying it's what 75?
[1:30:42] >> It's 800 500,000 or something.
[1:30:46] >> Oh, the general portion is like 67,000 a
[1:30:49] year.
[1:30:49] >> Yeah, 67. So, can we do that? That
[1:30:51] That's an easy. Yeah, I think it's a
[1:30:54] little bit more transparent to like Mike
[1:30:58] said, probably transfer some fund
[1:31:01] balance to general fund and then general
[1:31:03] fund still pays because general fund
[1:31:05] uses it.
[1:31:06] >> Okay. However, it's just
[1:31:07] >> however, yes.
[1:31:09] >> Um
[1:31:10] 67,000 a year
[1:31:13] >> for the 20-year bond
[1:31:14] >> for which one? For the
[1:31:15] >> op center. So 67 grand. And then how
[1:31:19] much were the how much was
[1:31:21] >> I've only I've only done the onetime
[1:31:23] payment for the fuel. So general funds
[1:31:24] portion would be 75,000.
[1:31:26] >> So we got we've got 150 almost 150 grand
[1:31:30] 40 grand that we could
[1:31:32] >> do the taxation number
[1:31:33] >> that is either or not you wouldn't do
[1:31:36] both
[1:31:37] >> because the fuel station um move is that
[1:31:43] cost is built into the opcenter bond.
[1:31:45] So, we either have to do the whole
[1:31:46] kitten kaboodleoodle of the op center
[1:31:48] remodel
[1:31:49] >> or there was move the fuel line. Pardon
[1:31:51] there, but I thought there was an amount
[1:31:53] that talked about the fuel. I thought in
[1:31:55] these papers it had a specific cost for
[1:31:57] the fuel station.
[1:31:59] >> There was a number.
[1:32:00] >> It's 500,000,000.
[1:32:04] » Can't we just get that done now and get
[1:32:06] that fixed and take that out of those
[1:32:07] enterprise plants?
[1:32:08] >> Yes, but we're just proposing if we're
[1:32:11] going to move it and eventually bring it
[1:32:13] off center.
[1:32:15] We
[1:32:16] >> I'm just trying to get the expenditures
[1:32:18] in the general fund down to where the
[1:32:20] revenues are starting to, you know,
[1:32:21] because I I would really love to balance
[1:32:23] the general fund revenues to the general
[1:32:25] fund expenditures. I agree with you.
[1:32:28] >> Have to pay interest on that. If we have
[1:32:29] a new enterprise fund on a bond,
[1:32:33] >> it's not a huge impact, but still we're
[1:32:34] paying interest on it. So, can't we just
[1:32:36] take that money out or move it however
[1:32:39] we need to so that it reduces that
[1:32:41] amount and we're not paying interest on?
[1:32:44] Yeah, I I think we have to be sensitive
[1:32:46] to Prop Five. There's probably rules
[1:32:48] there which we have to look into.
[1:32:50] >> We need We need to have a public hearing
[1:32:53] >> and explain why we are moving.
[1:32:55] >> Yeah.
[1:32:56] >> And I 100% all
[1:32:59] >> Yeah, I know. I So, I don't want to just
[1:33:01] tell you yes, we solved it, right? I
[1:33:03] think there's still more to do, but it's
[1:33:06] Yep. we have.
[1:33:08] >> So, but I would also argue if we're
[1:33:10] moving fund balance from enterprise to
[1:33:13] general fund to save the general fund
[1:33:15] from bleeding fund balance.
[1:33:18] >> Aren't you kind of doing that?
[1:33:19] >> What I'm proposing that we do is we take
[1:33:22] the fuel island completely out of the
[1:33:24] general fund.
[1:33:25] >> Yes. and move it to an enterprise fund
[1:33:28] expenditure. Have public hearings and
[1:33:30] say we are going to replace our fuel
[1:33:33] island with fund balance out of these
[1:33:36] funds. And that means we have to have a
[1:33:38] public hearing that says we're going to
[1:33:41] move them out of these enterprise funds.
[1:33:43] >> Yes. And
[1:33:44] >> specific to that,
[1:33:46] >> right? And that will reduce our TNT
[1:33:48] number.
[1:33:49] >> It reduces TNT
[1:33:51] a little bit. Right.
[1:33:52] >> Yes. in the in future years, not for 27.
[1:33:55] I have it coming out of capital fund
[1:33:57] balance.
[1:33:57] >> Oh, that's right.
[1:33:59] >> We'll move it from capital to
[1:34:02] >> I mean that
[1:34:05] >> can't you move it from capital to this
[1:34:06] one?
[1:34:06] >> I mean that helps from the budget. I
[1:34:08] want to see that number reduced and
[1:34:10] >> yes, but I'm just telling you it's not
[1:34:11] going to affect your TNT.
[1:34:13] >> Why not? Because it's
[1:34:14] >> because I have it budgeted out of the
[1:34:16] fund balance right now.
[1:34:17] >> A different Oh, you did? I thought
[1:34:18] capital.
[1:34:18] >> Okay. Okay. I thought it was coming out
[1:34:20] of the general fund. Well, capital fund
[1:34:23] is funded by the general government.
[1:34:25] >> Okay, but wait a minute, Marin, can't
[1:34:26] you do this? Because you're taking that
[1:34:28] money
[1:34:30] >> out of the enterprise funds,
[1:34:32] >> right?
[1:34:33] >> And using it to do the fuel lines,
[1:34:35] >> right?
[1:34:36] >> Can't we still have the money that's
[1:34:40] that money? Can't we take that money now
[1:34:42] out of the general fund, put it into the
[1:34:46] and use it as fund balance to pay down
[1:34:49] the cost? So, it does it's just moving
[1:34:51] it, but it's going to look like there's
[1:34:53] less of a tax increase, more being used
[1:34:56] out of the out of the um fund balance,
[1:35:00] but we're also replacing the fund
[1:35:02] balance with enterprise fund balance to
[1:35:05] do the fuel line on.
[1:35:06] >> Yes.
[1:35:06] If I had it budgeted that way, but
[1:35:09] right now I have it budgeted out of
[1:35:10] savings.
[1:35:11] >> But you can change that, right?
[1:35:12] >> But you can change it, right?
[1:35:13] >> Yeah. But then it'll raise this to to
[1:35:15] lower it to the same 21.97.
[1:35:18] I don't know.
[1:35:18] >> Yes. Cuz right now I have savings
[1:35:22] covering the fuel island part.
[1:35:24] >> Okay. So you're saying it's
[1:35:26] >> Yes.
[1:35:26] >> Okay. Okay. We're just trying to see
[1:35:28] what we can do.
[1:35:29] >> No, I get it.
[1:35:30] >> Additionally,
[1:35:31] >> no, I'm I don't I'm not I feel great.
[1:35:34] I'm not offended. I I understand the
[1:35:36] goal
[1:35:37] >> and you know this completely more than
[1:35:38] we do. I get So do you.
[1:35:40] >> So I hope you guys aren't offended
[1:35:41] either because I'm just like I'm in this
[1:35:43] every day, right? This is my job. Um,
[1:35:47] and this is your job.
[1:35:48] >> Coming up with all these questions to
[1:35:50] make your life crazy.
[1:35:51] >> So, I'm just trying to explain it in a
[1:35:54] way. I'm I'm I I'm all good. We're good.
[1:35:58] [clears throat]
[1:35:58] >> Okay.
[1:35:59] >> Is there a way to take I was just going
[1:36:00] to Sorry, just Is there any
[1:36:03] >> Okay. The enterprise funds are not for
[1:36:05] Well, they could be to help pay for
[1:36:07] different um salaries, right?
[1:36:10] >> If it has to do with that department,
[1:36:12] >> which we already do. Yes,
[1:36:13] >> we already do that. So, I was just
[1:36:14] saying the assistant attorney.
[1:36:16] >> They do a lot of Yeah. land use type
[1:36:18] things and they do a lot of um legal
[1:36:20] things. Could some of that come out of a
[1:36:23] different account, an enterprise
[1:36:25] account?
[1:36:26] >> Technic technically, we could start
[1:36:29] having her track her time and split it
[1:36:32] to whatever that amount. I'm just
[1:36:34] saying, is there a way to It's more
[1:36:36] work. I get it.
[1:36:37] >> Yes. I don't think it's going to be Yes.
[1:36:40] Your answer is yes, we can do that.
[1:36:43] or any of those positions.
[1:36:45] >> Correct.
[1:36:45] >> Yes. Okay.
[1:36:46] >> We do that with public works positions
[1:36:49] um mainly and some of the building guys
[1:36:54] I think are split.
[1:36:56] >> Maybe parks.
[1:36:57] >> Yeah, move parks.
[1:36:59] >> Okay.
[1:37:00] >> Um but yeah, everyone else is pretty
[1:37:04] much out of their specific fund or
[1:37:07] department. Sorry.
[1:37:08] >> Okay. and and those numbers for um let's
[1:37:11] see operations inflation is that a fixed
[1:37:14] number can we reduce that at all is that
[1:37:16] an estimate
[1:37:17] >> um
[1:37:17] >> that is an estimate
[1:37:18] >> based on our meetings with department
[1:37:21] heads that that is what we came up with
[1:37:25] now I technically you could have
[1:37:27] department heads go through and kind of
[1:37:29] comb and but again like we talked about
[1:37:31] the hard costs right we can't control
[1:37:34] fuel increase we can't control the EMS
[1:37:37] supplies increase. We can't control
[1:37:39] software and internet went up and this
[1:37:42] and that, right? But sure, we could take
[1:37:44] out
[1:37:46] I don't I can't even think of a good
[1:37:47] example cuz
[1:37:48] >> and we we did want to look I know
[1:37:50] >> a lot of these are truly just like
[1:37:52] jersey costs went up.
[1:37:54] >> Okay.
[1:37:54] >> For our wreck programs. So,
[1:37:56] >> but don't we pass that cost on?
[1:37:58] [clears throat]
[1:37:58] >> Yeah, we pass it on, but we still have
[1:38:00] to up the operations to up the revenue
[1:38:03] >> set.
[1:38:04] >> Correct.
[1:38:05] >> Okay. And Nate, so sorry. The last thing
[1:38:07] I'm probably getting ahead of you maybe,
[1:38:10] but I know Nate's been asking for a
[1:38:11] fleet list.
[1:38:12] >> Oh, and I talked to him today
[1:38:13] >> in this conversation. Oh,
[1:38:15] >> are there any vehicles that we donate
[1:38:17] that we could decommission that would
[1:38:19] help lower our fuel costs?
[1:38:22] >> I have not gotten that far on the list.
[1:38:24] I apologize. I just learned of it last
[1:38:26] week.
[1:38:26] >> Yes.
[1:38:27] >> And then we have the meeting Friday and
[1:38:29] this special meeting and so I am working
[1:38:31] on that
[1:38:32] >> to put that together. Yes.
[1:38:34] >> Okay. Thanks. We're just trying to do
[1:38:36] everything we can.
[1:38:37] >> I know. And I'm happy to help and
[1:38:39] answer. Um,
[1:38:40] >> okay.
[1:38:40] >> We're all good.
[1:38:43] >> Um, I
[1:38:45] don't know where we landed with the
[1:38:47] transferring of funds from other things
[1:38:49] and what we decided to do. I think um,
[1:38:51] but regardless, Prop 5 is only for
[1:38:54] power, right?
[1:38:55] >> That's what I thought.
[1:38:56] >> Okay. So, as long as we're not moving
[1:38:59] Well, it was brought up. As long as
[1:39:01] we're not moving things from power, we
[1:39:03] don't have to do anything with Prop 5,
[1:39:05] right? We don't have to.
[1:39:06] >> Okay,
[1:39:07] >> that's correct.
[1:39:07] >> Okay, cuz it w it was talked about and I
[1:39:10] just I am uncomfortable.
[1:39:12] >> I thought it was all enterprise funds
[1:39:13] and it just got brought up because
[1:39:17] Okay, great.
[1:39:18] >> Okay,
[1:39:18] >> I'm okay with moving some of that out.
[1:39:21] >> Well, I'm uncomfortable using power
[1:39:23] without
[1:39:26] >> doing something public.
[1:39:28] >> Yeah, we can do a public. I know, but I
[1:39:29] don't want to use this
[1:39:31] >> 10 years
[1:39:31] >> to repeal Prop 5.
[1:39:34] >> Well, the state law says you can use the
[1:39:36] money on enterprise funds. Always has.
[1:39:37] And state right in our code says anytime
[1:39:40] a state fund is more it it takes
[1:39:44] precedence over your ordinance, which we
[1:39:46] we've had situations like this before,
[1:39:49] >> but and I don't disagree with you. I
[1:39:51] think we need to be as transparent as
[1:39:53] possible. And so we would have to hold a
[1:39:56] specifically different
[1:39:59] public hearing for that electric to use
[1:40:01] any money out of that enterprise funds
[1:40:03] for
[1:40:04] >> I understand.
[1:40:05] >> Okay.
[1:40:05] >> I just am not a huge fan of using this
[1:40:08] as an excuse to access it especially
[1:40:10] when our water worth models show that
[1:40:12] we're still struggling in that fund.
[1:40:13] Anyways, it seems odd to me that we're
[1:40:15] saying, "Oh man, our general fund is so
[1:40:18] low. Let's take from other general funds
[1:40:21] that are also struggling. We're like
[1:40:22] doing the same thing only like like in another layer.
[1:40:26] >> That was I guess I'm missing out.
[1:40:29] Explain to me how it's struggling,
[1:40:31] please. I need to know the money is
[1:40:34] struggling.
[1:40:35] >> How the power fund is struggling.
[1:40:36] >> Yes. I need to know how the power fund
[1:40:38] is.
[1:40:38] >> I only know what the graphs say and they
[1:40:40] say we're going down even with our rate
[1:40:43] raises. Is that correct, Marin?
[1:40:45] >> Correct.
[1:40:47] >> Is that what the projections of that
[1:40:48] last 10% increase that we did?
[1:40:51] >> No.
[1:40:52] Well, last year when we presented an
[1:40:54] increase, we we also presented we would
[1:40:56] have to do increases every year moving
[1:40:58] forward. Same with how we presented this
[1:41:00] year.
[1:41:02] >> But that 10% will compound in future
[1:41:05] years. I you know it's
[1:41:07] >> correct as well 10% operation cost amps
[1:41:12] cost employees cost.
[1:41:14] >> I understand all of that but I want to
[1:41:16] know where the projections go with our
[1:41:18] increase. I want to see what that did to
[1:41:20] the graph. What did it exactly do to the
[1:41:22] graph?
[1:41:22] >> The graph shows what it is. The graph
[1:41:24] incorporates the 10%
[1:41:26] >> included the 10%.
[1:41:27] >> Correct. On Friday we showed that my
[1:41:29] mistake.
[1:41:32] >> So I think that's why I'm uncomfortable
[1:41:33] using I mean sure 75,000 one time for
[1:41:37] the fuel island. Sure. But a continuing
[1:41:40] ongoing for the op center maybe not.
[1:41:45] >> Especially comes out of power.
[1:41:48] >> Comes out of what?
[1:41:49] >> Power. Okay.
[1:41:51] Sorry, it's a little streamed.
[1:41:52] >> Well, the op center should come out of
[1:41:55] power,
[1:41:55] >> right? It its part should come out of
[1:41:57] power, but I'm saying the additional
[1:41:58] 67,000 I'm not sure should come out of
[1:42:01] power since a lot of it's restricted
[1:42:03] with that Prop 5.
[1:42:04] >> The last time we brought it up with the
[1:42:06] public, I don't know if it was last
[1:42:08] year, the year before.
[1:42:09] >> It's been a few years.
[1:42:10] >> And I'm not sure why you'd even have to, be honest, I'm not sure why you even
[1:42:13] have to because the power uses the fuel
[1:42:16] line. I'm not sure why you couldn't
[1:42:18] would even have to have a public
[1:42:20] hearing.
[1:42:21] >> There's other departments that use it as
[1:42:23] well. You can only $500,00 I understand
[1:42:27] that $500,000 and you just take the
[1:42:29] proportionate share and you could take
[1:42:31] it out of their enterprise out of their
[1:42:33] unrestricted funds and you could say to
[1:42:35] power company and you would not have to
[1:42:37] do a public hearing and they should pay
[1:42:39] for their proportionate share of the
[1:42:40] fuel island being replaced. Well, I
[1:42:42] think they are
[1:42:42] >> and they are that's already
[1:42:43] incorporated.
[1:42:44] >> And that's all and that's what I've been
[1:42:46] trying to say is let's take that 500,000
[1:42:48] out of the enterprise funds and then use
[1:42:51] the 500,000 that we're talking about
[1:42:54] that we save that you're going to do in
[1:42:56] fund balance
[1:42:58] and use it for paying down
[1:43:01] the
[1:43:03] other the main one. Sure.
[1:43:06] >> And so we're using less taxes to make up
[1:43:09] the 3 million. That's what I'm saying.
[1:43:12] >> Compete.
[1:43:13] >> That is $75,000.
[1:43:15] Yeah. Yes.
[1:43:16] >> 500,000 is what it is.
[1:43:18] >> Not out of general fund.
[1:43:19] >> 500 is spread out.
[1:43:21] >> I I understand. Spread out. I understand
[1:43:24] that. But to buy the fuel island is a
[1:43:26] one-time purchase.
[1:43:28] >> One time. We got to get it done this
[1:43:30] year.
[1:43:30] >> So I do have a question about that. So
[1:43:32] if we bond for a ops center remodel,
[1:43:36] which we've been talk which is included
[1:43:37] in this 21%, right? Um and and we put
[1:43:42] the fuel line in as part of the bond and
[1:43:44] we've got to have this fuel line in by
[1:43:45] December of No,
[1:43:47] >> this year. Next year, this year.
[1:43:49] >> This year. This year.
[1:43:51] >> Um
[1:43:54] but we How soon are we really planning
[1:43:56] on remodeling the op center? That means
[1:43:57] that we would be remodeling it starting
[1:43:59] this year.
[1:44:00] >> Yeah, I think we already have some
[1:44:02] designs works. I think we already have a
[1:44:05] lot of that. So yes, we would start it
[1:44:08] now. One part of that would be the
[1:44:09] >> Okay. I I guess I was just wondering if
[1:44:11] we put that.
[1:44:12] >> So the officer bond payment is in this
[1:44:14] where at which line
[1:44:15] >> capital projects fund balance.
[1:44:17] >> Yeah.
[1:44:20] >> It is not in the truth and taxation. It
[1:44:22] is in this budget.
[1:44:24] >> Oh the truth. Okay.
[1:44:26] >> Not in the truth and taxation.
[1:44:27] >> Truth and taxation is not affected by
[1:44:30] correct.
[1:44:31] >> Right. That's totally separate. at this
[1:44:33] in this fiscal year 27th it is non-
[1:44:36] effective
[1:44:37] >> next year will be
[1:44:38] >> correct
[1:44:39] >> and that's why you look at a projection
[1:44:41] of 30% next year
[1:44:42] >> correct
[1:44:45] >> okay
[1:44:46] >> that plus the fire yes
[1:44:47] >> if the fire station passed that's two
[1:44:49] capital projects in one year that are
[1:44:52] significant so that would be a lot
[1:44:55] >> so okay that being the case I'm just
[1:44:57] wondering
[1:44:59] if the fire station bond
[1:45:02] doesn't pass, I think. Yeah. Okay. Do do
[1:45:05] the bond for the op center next year. If
[1:45:08] the fire station bond does pass, I don't
[1:45:10] think we should do both in the next
[1:45:12] year. So, is there a way to delay that
[1:45:15] operation center bond in this fiscal
[1:45:18] task tax year? Talk about it next year
[1:45:21] after we see if the fire station bond
[1:45:23] passes.
[1:45:25] >> From what? Yes. We just have to do the
[1:45:27] bare minimum 500,000 fuel island from
[1:45:29] what I understand. So, in in that part
[1:45:31] of that discussion is why couldn't we
[1:45:34] just use and I know it's not convenient.
[1:45:35] I talked to Jason about this, but why
[1:45:37] couldn't we at least for one year just
[1:45:39] use the fuel station at the fire station
[1:45:41] and then wait and do both of them at the
[1:45:44] same time in two years, assuming that
[1:45:46] the that the fire station bond doesn't
[1:45:49] pass, right? Then we don't have two more
[1:45:50] bonds out.
[1:45:52] >> We
[1:45:53] >> if that doesn't work at all, you tell
[1:45:54] me.
[1:45:55] >> It'd be really tough to move them big
[1:45:56] old snow plows in.
[1:45:57] >> Is it okay? That's what Jason said. I'm
[1:45:59] just thinking, is there a way to save
[1:46:01] money?
[1:46:01] >> Tough to not be
[1:46:02] >> I just don't think we should have two
[1:46:03] big bonds in the same year.
[1:46:05] >> I agree 100%.
[1:46:07] >> And and I I just don't think that
[1:46:10] >> I just don't think that's a good idea.
[1:46:12] >> Yeah, I agree as well.
[1:46:13] >> So, I think we should wait and see if
[1:46:14] the fire station bond passes this year.
[1:46:17] We'll know in November and then we'll be
[1:46:18] able to put the geo the the bond for the
[1:46:21] op center on next year and know that the
[1:46:23] fire station discussion won't come up
[1:46:25] again for five six years
[1:46:27] >> assuming it doesn't pass though the bond
[1:46:30] is not in this for the shop right
[1:46:34] >> is not in but it's in the budget
[1:46:36] >> correct
[1:46:37] >> under what how's it
[1:46:39] >> capital projects fund balance being paid
[1:46:43] for how
[1:46:44] >> fund balance
[1:46:46] Yes, the unrestricted capital project
[1:46:48] fund mount.
[1:46:50] >> Not general fund balance,
[1:46:51] >> but it would be part of the general fund
[1:46:53] next year.
[1:46:54] >> It is general fund balance.
[1:46:56] >> No, it is not. It is separate. It was
[1:46:58] funded by general fund at one point, but
[1:47:00] it landed in capital projects fund
[1:47:02] balance.
[1:47:03] >> But next year there would be a bond
[1:47:04] payment. So truth and taxation would go
[1:47:06] up for that payment next year.
[1:47:07] >> Where does capital projects fund balance
[1:47:09] come from?
[1:47:10] >> General fund
[1:47:12] >> money. So in order
[1:47:13] >> a transfer.
[1:47:15] >> Okay.
[1:47:16] >> So in order to put money there, you have
[1:47:18] to take it out of the general fund. So
[1:47:20] it's part of the expenditures. Okay.
[1:47:22] >> So it's part of the expenditures. So if
[1:47:25] you did get a bond, it's part of the
[1:47:27] expenditures and it would be yeartoear.
[1:47:29] >> And so somehow you'd have to transfer
[1:47:31] money from the general fund revenues
[1:47:33] into that to pay that bond down. Correct
[1:47:37] or not?
[1:47:38] >> That is correct.
[1:47:40] >> Okay. That's
[1:47:41] >> but in fiscal year 27 I have proposed
[1:47:45] capital projects fund balance. So the
[1:47:48] Bob center bond payment is not coming
[1:47:50] out of a truth and taxation increase
[1:47:53] >> still being through fund balance
[1:47:56] >> but then next year it will be and moving
[1:47:57] on the bond payment will come out
[1:48:00] >> until it's paid off
[1:48:02] come back out of general fund which we
[1:48:04] don't have.
[1:48:05] >> Right. That's what I'm saying. So I
[1:48:06] don't think we should have them both on
[1:48:08] at the same time. Yeah,
[1:48:09] >> these ratios don't make sense to me.
[1:48:10] >> Okay,
[1:48:11] >> so the 1 is Oh, maybe the 1.795
[1:48:16] 251 isn't changing as we change stuff.
[1:48:20] >> Be that top one. You're talking about
[1:48:21] the bolded one.
[1:48:22] >> Uhhuh.
[1:48:23] >> That's just the start.
[1:48:24] >> That was a proposal. Sorry.
[1:48:26] >> The line [clears throat]
[1:48:28] now with everything you talked about
[1:48:30] now, it's the 1.2.
[1:48:31] >> I didn't realize that wasn't showing. I
[1:48:33] apologize.
[1:48:33] >> You're good. That's helpful for me cuz I
[1:48:35] was like, wait,
[1:48:36] >> that's really delayed. How how does
[1:48:38] everyone feel about that?
[1:48:39] >> How does everybody feel about
[1:48:41] >> having potentially two bonds at the same
[1:48:43] time? So, if the fire station bond
[1:48:45] passes next year, we would have that and
[1:48:47] we would also have the bond for the fire
[1:48:49] station the the off center because we
[1:48:51] would have agreed to it this year.
[1:48:52] >> Probably looking at a bigger b bigger
[1:48:54] tax increase than yard.
[1:48:55] >> That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm
[1:48:56] saying. So, we just do one or the other.
[1:48:57] >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So, are we
[1:48:59] comfortable with that? That would mean
[1:49:00] that we would remove the openter out of
[1:49:03] this fiscal year.
[1:49:04] >> Yes.
[1:49:05] >> Calculation. Boy, that's really
[1:49:07] >> So Jason, I'm curious to hear from you
[1:49:10] like on this because I hate putting off
[1:49:13] the op center, but I think we're kind of
[1:49:16] found ourselves in a predicament here,
[1:49:19] fire station and the op center. So if
[1:49:22] the fire station passes, then we'll have
[1:49:25] that bond. If does that mean that we
[1:49:27] don't want to do the bonds for the op
[1:49:30] center the next year because we will
[1:49:31] have had the fire station bond in. How
[1:49:33] far do we push off the fire the officer?
[1:49:37] >> I would think until the um police
[1:49:39] station is paid off.
[1:49:40] >> Until how long?
[1:49:41] >> Till the police station.
[1:49:44] >> Oh, 2032.
[1:49:45] >> Whoa.
[1:49:45] >> How does that for the op center? And
[1:49:47] >> I mean that would mean we would just
[1:49:50] >> last payment. So 2032 budget wouldn't
[1:49:52] have that payment in it,
[1:49:54] >> right?
[1:49:54] >> Okay.
[1:49:55] >> I mean, believe me, I would love the
[1:49:58] city to have everything nice. I get
[1:50:00] that. I really do. At the same time,
[1:50:02] that is a lot. And I think it will be an
[1:50:05] east west sort of conversation
[1:50:09] on on the bond for the fire station. I
[1:50:12] do hope it passes. I think we I would be
[1:50:14] great if the citizens voted for that,
[1:50:17] but to have two
[1:50:20] >> That's a lot of money.
[1:50:21] >> It's a lot of money.
[1:50:22] >> It's a lot of bonds.
[1:50:23] >> It's a lot of money
[1:50:24] >> at one time. It is a huge tax increase.
[1:50:27] >> Yeah. Well, the vast the vast majority
[1:50:29] of that one is enterprise fund though.
[1:50:31] It's enterprise and I mean
[1:50:33] >> you said it will come out of this
[1:50:34] general fund next the payment will start
[1:50:36] not this year but next year unless I'm
[1:50:39] misunderstanding you
[1:50:40] >> yes for for
[1:50:41] >> 67 yeah 60,000
[1:50:43] >> only $67,0007
[1:50:46] and that's one of the things that if we
[1:50:47] were to change it if we were to change
[1:50:49] it so essentially they have the pay the
[1:50:52] payment for the op center is mostly
[1:50:55] coming out of the enterprise funds so I
[1:50:59] yeah I kind of I would probably just
[1:51:02] like I would probably say
[1:51:04] in that like it's back to like the prop Five like you know if we we're not
[1:51:10] we're using the money to help the power
[1:51:12] company that's that's money that they
[1:51:14] have. I think we should stick with what we've got with the OPC center.
[1:51:20] But I do like the idea of even even that
[1:51:23] 67,000 I like moving it like so that the
[1:51:27] whole thing is being paid through that fund. I don't think that we
[1:51:32] should be paying for 67,000 of it
[1:51:34] through the other funds.
[1:51:35] >> Okay. That being the case, we would
[1:51:37] still have two two more bonds. That's my
[1:51:39] point. It's still debt to the city.
[1:51:40] >> It's still debt.
[1:51:42] >> Yes.
[1:51:42] >> So So you know, just be mindful of that.
[1:51:44] It is still debt to the city,
[1:51:45] >> but we can pay for it. We projected to
[1:51:48] be able to pay for it, right?
[1:51:49] >> Yeah. And and in I mean just to be
[1:51:52] devil's advocate in the grand scheme of
[1:51:54] debt we don't have
[1:51:56] >> that much and the auditor themselves
[1:51:59] this last December said
[1:52:00] >> get more
[1:52:01] >> debt isn't basically
[1:52:04] >> debt isn't bad to be able to do projects
[1:52:06] and move forward and and create
[1:52:09] >> a better environment for employees to
[1:52:11] work and and create that you know
[1:52:14] provide better services.
[1:52:15] >> Okay. And while those bonds do come due
[1:52:18] soon, uh get retired soon. 2031 for the
[1:52:21] police station
[1:52:22] >> is soon. Uh I also worry that you know
[1:52:26] those costs also only go up. We see
[1:52:28] construction costs just holy cow 5 years
[1:52:30] ago we should have built that you know
[1:52:32] but I fear that if we hold hold off on
[1:52:34] the power or the op center for five more
[1:52:36] years we're looking at a lot more
[1:52:38] expensive project at that point. So you
[1:52:41] know there's there's pluses and minuses
[1:52:43] for sure. PE things being open to the
[1:52:46] elements and like it's just wearing on
[1:52:48] our equipment and all those things.
[1:52:50] >> So could we commit that that payment
[1:52:51] that 67,000 whatever that comes out of
[1:52:54] the enterprise fund and not the general
[1:52:56] fund
[1:52:57] >> for the payment
[1:52:59] >> so that it doesn't affect our tax
[1:53:01] increase next year
[1:53:03] >> and and be bigger. I know it's not that
[1:53:05] much bigger but and increase
[1:53:07] >> and we can figure out how to split it.
[1:53:08] >> We can figure out how to split that.
[1:53:10] >> It'll probably increase. I'm sorry. Go
[1:53:12] ahead. No, I was just going to say I
[1:53:14] mean the way the way we came up with the bond schedule was was working with
[1:53:18] department heads to figure out what
[1:53:20] their usage is between different funds.
[1:53:22] >> Okay.
[1:53:22] >> And so yeah, that was the portion that
[1:53:24] was general fund the 67,000
[1:53:26] >> which is parks mechanics. Yeah.
[1:53:28] >> Right. And so yeah, we could change it,
[1:53:30] but we're also I don't know
[1:53:32] >> that would change enterprise to increase
[1:53:34] those rates a little bit.
[1:53:35] >> That's what I was going to ask. That
[1:53:37] increase those rates.
[1:53:38] >> Yes. But divide it across the five other
[1:53:41] funds that there are. Power, water,
[1:53:42] road.
[1:53:43] >> It's not going to be huge.
[1:53:45] >> Right. Okay. I I would prefer that. That
[1:53:47] would just be my vote. Great. Figure
[1:53:48] that out.
[1:53:49] >> So, leave it in this budget, but take it
[1:53:52] out. General fund.
[1:53:53] >> Yes.
[1:53:54] >> Right.
[1:53:54] >> That would be my vote. What do you guys
[1:53:56] all think?
[1:53:56] >> I would approve that.
[1:53:59] >> I We're also all going to have to admit
[1:54:01] to ourselves that we're not going to be
[1:54:02] able to
[1:54:04] >> say, "Hey, lower rates." Well, no, we
[1:54:06] need lower rates. Like, we can't raise
[1:54:07] rates. Like if we're going to move this
[1:54:08] into those into those funds, we're going
[1:54:11] to have to pay for it with those funds
[1:54:12] and not dip into those funds fund
[1:54:14] balances.
[1:54:15] >> Mhm. Or or accommodation, right? Sure.
[1:54:19] >> There are 100 ways it's going to cap.
[1:54:20] I'll say that multiple times.
[1:54:22] >> I just mean it would be irresponsible
[1:54:24] [clears throat] to move it over and then
[1:54:25] plan to take it out of that that fund
[1:54:27] balance and say, "Oh, no. Oh, we don't
[1:54:29] want to raise rates this year, so yes,
[1:54:31] >> so let's not correct." You know, I think
[1:54:33] we're going to it otherwise we're going
[1:54:35] to be robbing Peter Pay, whatever that
[1:54:37] phrase is.
[1:54:37] >> Yes, there'll be a delicate dance there.
[1:54:39] >> It will in theory pay for itself
[1:54:42] >> 100% generated from those entities
[1:54:45] >> and and the positive morale and the
[1:54:48] equipment being saved and all of that
[1:54:50] like
[1:54:51] >> you can't put a number on it.
[1:54:52] >> There there's Yeah, there's immediate
[1:54:54] benefits financially to us uh by saving
[1:54:58] equipment. Also, it's not like we don't
[1:55:01] have other major projects coming up down
[1:55:03] the road with those enterprise funds. I
[1:55:04] mean, we got a big water tank. You know,
[1:55:07] we've got other things that we're going
[1:55:08] to have to bond for as well. So, I'd say
[1:55:10] the sooner we just start tackling what's
[1:55:12] in front of us and then we'll get that
[1:55:14] done and then move on to the next
[1:55:16] projects in the enterprise funds down
[1:55:18] the road.
[1:55:19] >> You've convinced me, Jason.
[1:55:20] >> So, keep you both.
[1:55:20] >> Good job.
[1:55:21] >> You
[1:55:23] convinced me as well. So, I want to add
[1:55:25] one other thing. I know today's I don't
[1:55:28] think today's discussion necessarily
[1:55:30] should be enterprise but we are separate
[1:55:33] we are you know we're we're conscious of
[1:55:37] all the or all all the different rates.
[1:55:39] >> So if you remember we are our plan is to
[1:55:42] delay water paying their portion
[1:55:44] anyways. So I think I think the goal is
[1:55:46] we're we're trying to be creative as we
[1:55:48] can be.
[1:55:49] >> So I think I think to your point moving
[1:55:52] >> moving the general fund portion again
[1:55:55] that's doable. we can do that.
[1:55:57] >> Um, it's just
[1:55:59] >> Yeah. Anyway, that's how we came. That's
[1:56:01] how we created this budget is
[1:56:03] >> by Yeah,
[1:56:05] >> we appreciate the efforts that
[1:56:10] » and I appreciate this discussion
[1:56:11] >> talking general fund.
[1:56:12] >> Great.
[1:56:13] >> Multiple questions
[1:56:14] >> and um
[1:56:16] >> since we're supposed to adopt a budget
[1:56:19] on Thursday which
[1:56:20] >> tentative
[1:56:21] >> I haven't seen one yet on Thursday.
[1:56:24] >> You'll see it Thursday.
[1:56:26] or tomorrow,
[1:56:27] >> but we're adopting it before we actually
[1:56:29] have time to go through it. We're just
[1:56:31] adopting it.
[1:56:33] >> But tell me,
[1:56:35] >> what is our general fund expenditures in
[1:56:38] the 2027 budget? What is that line item?
[1:56:41] >> 26,86
[1:56:43] >> 26,800,000,000.
[1:56:46] >> 26,800,000.
[1:56:47] So, it's actually gone up from last year
[1:56:51] >> about 700,000. Well, last year's was
[1:56:53] 26,672,000.
[1:56:57] So, you're saying it's going up to 26
[1:56:59] million now? I'm only going off what you
[1:57:01] guys had.
[1:57:02] >> No, that's what we're looking at, too.
[1:57:04] >> So, that's 688.
[1:57:06] >> Basically, I guess where I'm really
[1:57:08] concerned, and this is what I
[1:57:12] is in 2023, our general fund
[1:57:15] expenditures were 21,300,000
[1:57:18] and now they're going to be 26 million.
[1:57:20] How much?
[1:57:22] 26,800
[1:57:24] >> 26,800,000.
[1:57:26] So they're basically going to go up
[1:57:27] about
[1:57:30] >> 4 and a.5 million
[1:57:31] >> in in five years.
[1:57:33] >> 5 years
[1:57:34] >> and three of those years were
[1:57:35] unprecedented inflation from 202.
[1:57:38] >> This was 2023. Inflation was in 2022.
[1:57:41] >> I know. But a lot of that is a lag.
[1:57:43] >> A lot of that is a lag on our budgets.
[1:57:45] And that was
[1:57:46] >> I think it went 8% 4% 2 and 1/2 2 and
[1:57:50] 1/2
[1:57:51] >> is about.
[1:57:52] >> So that's every that's everything. We're
[1:57:54] not buying milk and bread. We're buying
[1:57:56] fuel.
[1:57:57] >> But but it goes back to my issue of
[1:58:01] >> we're only still collecting in revenue
[1:58:05] the 20 Well, my what's the revenue?
[1:58:08] is like 22 million. We're
[1:58:11] collecting 22 million in revenue, but
[1:58:13] we're spending 26 million. There's a $4
[1:58:16] million gap there. That's That's where
[1:58:19] I'm concerned. And that's what I keep.
[1:58:22] We're just not fixing it. I want to I
[1:58:24] want to know what the four What's the
[1:58:25] two, three, fouryear plan to
[1:58:28] >> I think is it a 20% tax increase for the
[1:58:31] next four years?
[1:58:35] » I think we need to. Yeah.
[1:58:36] >> Is there anyone? Okay. And I just want
[1:58:39] to point out that
[1:58:41] >> what what you're looking at on there
[1:58:43] those those first couple years 2023 2024
[1:58:46] those are actuals too right from our act
[1:58:49] >> and so
[1:58:50] >> I got all those with me the actuals
[1:58:53] >> and if you remember last year we had
[1:58:55] like a I don't know we had we've been
[1:58:59] pointed out we had a $700,000
[1:59:02] difference in what we had budgeted
[1:59:03] versus where we ended up landing. And so
[1:59:06] this this number you're seeing this
[1:59:08] year, the 26 it's 26,784,159
[1:59:13] that's also that's also we budgeted much closer to actual. Um and so and so
[1:59:21] in 2025 our revenues was 22.4 million.
[1:59:25] So are you saying in 2026 we're going to
[1:59:28] get a lot more in our general fund
[1:59:30] revenues
[1:59:31] >> or are we looking at a $4 million gap,
[1:59:34] $3 million gap? He's saying 2026 still
[1:59:36] has that insurance,
[1:59:39] >> right?
[1:59:40] >> I don't want to call it fluff uh space
[1:59:43] where everyone was budgeted a family
[1:59:45] plan. So remember how last year we were
[1:59:48] like ah fiscal year 25 we used a bunch
[1:59:50] of fund balance and it was only like
[1:59:52] less than 200,000.
[1:59:54] I think we'll see that in fiscal year 26
[1:59:56] as well.
[1:59:57] >> You've already account you've already
[1:59:59] accounted for that or you haven't yet.
[2:00:00] >> I have not because I don't know what
[2:00:02] it'll be. When does those numbers occur?
[2:00:05] >> After our audit.
[2:00:05] >> Audit is you between September and
[2:00:08] November.
[2:00:08] >> Yep.
[2:00:09] >> Yeah. Cuz I mean you we had budgeted 24
[2:00:11] million as expenditures in 2025, but
[2:00:15] actual was 23,100,000.
[2:00:17] I imagine we're going to see something
[2:00:19] relatively somewhere similar to that.
[2:00:21] I'm hoping.
[2:00:22] >> But it's just I'm concerned that we keep
[2:00:25] going up a million dollars every year,
[2:00:28] but our revenues aren't even coming
[2:00:30] close to catching up with it. So, we're
[2:00:32] going to do a tax increase.
[2:00:34] >> So, how much are how much how much are
[2:00:36] you covering this year? Because I guess
[2:00:38] the advantage of covering
[2:00:41] >> some of this increase with uh with
[2:00:44] general fund I mean uh fund balance
[2:00:49] uh is somewhat banking on the fact that
[2:00:52] we might be off by a million bucks.
[2:00:55] >> Mhm. And that'll cover
[2:00:57] >> and I don't have that in this one
[2:00:59] because I didn't want to make that
[2:01:01] assumption and and
[2:01:04] >> Yeah.
[2:01:05] >> But this is So you're you're saying
[2:01:06] we're we're putting 991.
[2:01:10] >> Mhm.
[2:01:11] >> It you know from that but last year we
[2:01:14] were off by how much? A million or more
[2:01:18] than a million?
[2:01:19] >> How many is that much?
[2:01:21] >> There's 900,000.
[2:01:23] Yeah,
[2:01:23] >> we were off by like 900,000.
[2:01:25] >> Mhm.
[2:01:26] >> So, you know, that it may end up being
[2:01:29] >> I mean, conservatively, yeah,
[2:01:31] >> it might end up being a wash.
[2:01:34] >> Will you show us the um the price per
[2:01:36] household again?
[2:01:38] >> Yes.
[2:01:38] >> Dollar amount based upon what we've just
[2:01:40] done,
[2:01:42] >> the conversation we've just had. Okay.
[2:01:44] So, I take a picture of it.
[2:01:46] Sorry, I don't
[2:01:49] >> I should just not extend it and
[2:01:52] duplicate it now.
[2:01:53] >> Do you control the routine?
[2:01:57] >> I also request HDMI
[2:02:00] with the screen
[2:02:03] >> since 1997.
[2:02:05] >> Yeah. Let me just um
[2:02:08] >> Oh. Uh are you going to leave that
[2:02:10] screen now?
[2:02:12] I'm just going to duplicate instead of
[2:02:14] playing in the double game situation.
[2:02:19] » So when was the big inflation that we're
[2:02:22] talking about? You said 2022, right?
[2:02:24] >> 21 22 23 the red box.
[2:02:26] >> Okay. So I think it's fair
[2:02:29] >> that even though we're calculating uh
[2:02:32] it's been brought up from 2023 on, we
[2:02:35] during those massive inflation things,
[2:02:37] our rate went down quite a bit. So, it's
[2:02:40] almost like we're playing catch-up.
[2:02:41] Yeah.
[2:02:42] >> But you understand because the valuation
[2:02:45] of the houses go up with inflation, the
[2:02:47] valuations go up, the tax rate goes
[2:02:49] down. It still generates the same amount
[2:02:51] of revenue. You just times it by a a
[2:02:54] lower number,
[2:02:55] >> right? And she's saying it,
[2:02:57] >> but I'm saying inflation went up and the
[2:03:00] amount we were capturing either stayed
[2:03:01] the same,
[2:03:02] >> stayed exactly the same.
[2:03:04] >> It did not go up with inflation during
[2:03:05] those years. What I'm trying to increase
[2:03:07] at that time,
[2:03:08] >> correct? Unless we did well but
[2:03:10] obviously not a massive one increase for
[2:03:12] the firefighters and stuff,
[2:03:14] >> right? But not a huge one is
[2:03:17] [clears throat] because the rate I
[2:03:19] understand the rate and the amount we're
[2:03:20] collecting are different but that amount
[2:03:23] collected does not look like it's going
[2:03:25] to cover the inflation that we
[2:03:27] experienced during that time and we're
[2:03:29] still playing catch-up I think is what
[2:03:30] I'm trying to say. Okay. So I think
[2:03:32] starting from 2023 may not give us the
[2:03:35] best picture of where our finances are
[2:03:37] from the last decade
[2:03:40] >> or 5 years or
[2:03:42] >> does does that
[2:03:43] >> see what you're saying?
[2:03:44] >> Right. Am I wrong? I don't want to be
[2:03:46] misleading but to me that looks like we
[2:03:50] lost money and now we're paying for it.
[2:03:53] >> I think one of the years we used over 2
[2:03:56] million of fund balance.
[2:03:57] >> It was in 22 or 23 very recently. Yeah.
[2:04:01] Yes.
[2:04:02] >> Can Can you go back to that box?
[2:04:05] >> Sorry.
[2:04:06] >> The inflation or the spreadsheet, sir?
[2:04:07] >> The the one that was the spreadsheet,
[2:04:09] too.
[2:04:10] >> Okay.
[2:04:10] >> I just love looking at that.
[2:04:12] >> I love it, too. Thank you.
[2:04:15] >> You're so nice.
[2:04:15] >> On the blue section, can you just type
[2:04:17] in
[2:04:22] » Type in 1.2 [clears throat] million.
[2:04:28] I
[2:04:30] what?
[2:04:31] >> Wait, what did you just do?
[2:04:32] >> Is that what you wanted to do?
[2:04:33] >> It didn't take the percentage down.
[2:04:34] >> That's
[2:04:37] it. Has to be on the
[2:04:39] >> take one of those white cuz those are
[2:04:41] >> Well, then that's not fun. I was excited
[2:04:43] for it to go to zero and say my job's
[2:04:45] done. [laughter]
[2:04:47] >> That's how I do my finances. I just type
[2:04:50] it in. I'm like, oh, hey,
[2:04:52] >> time for your shenan. We did it. Do
[2:04:54] >> you go your bank account and do HTML to
[2:04:57] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it changed the number.
[2:04:59] This is good. Yeah, that's right. Okay.
[2:05:02] Well, just a little bit of lighthearted
[2:05:04] to make us all remember what we're doing
[2:05:06] is good.
[2:05:06] >> Thank you, John.
[2:05:08] >> Can I I just want to reiterate that
[2:05:10] every pnt we've done, we've had specific
[2:05:12] reasons for doing that. And what this
[2:05:15] spreadsheet is showing you are those
[2:05:17] specific reasons on why we did it last
[2:05:19] year and this year as well. Um, I just
[2:05:22] wanted to point that out there because
[2:05:24] when we're when we're looking at our
[2:05:25] budget and saying, "Oh, well, our
[2:05:26] expenditures are going up." That's
[2:05:29] exactly what we're showing you here.
[2:05:30] Fiscal year 26 and fiscal year 27. This
[2:05:33] is what makes up that increase.
[2:05:35] >> I don't know why that turned off.
[2:05:37] >> Why did that go off?
[2:05:39] >> Because it's a computer.
[2:05:41] >> That's true.
[2:05:42] >> Because it's a presenting.
[2:05:44] >> How Okay, I have a question. So, we um
[2:05:47] took out the deputy fire chief, right?
[2:05:49] assuming that we could um we we get this
[2:05:53] bond or this thing passed. If we don't
[2:05:55] get it passed, we promised him this will
[2:05:57] be our fourth year
[2:05:59] >> promising him to have his deputy.
[2:06:02] >> Okay.
[2:06:02] >> So,
[2:06:04] >> y
[2:06:06] we haven't promised. He's asked. He's
[2:06:08] asked.
[2:06:08] >> We've agreed that it's we've agreed that
[2:06:10] it's a need.
[2:06:12] >> So, what kind of consensus can we come
[2:06:14] up with
[2:06:16] >> for the future? I deputy fire chief.
[2:06:20] >> I mean, I did say Jason
[2:06:22] >> you guys figure it out.
[2:06:24] >> I'm I only said that out of frustration
[2:06:26] because
[2:06:26] >> I think he's okay with it.
[2:06:28] >> I think you'll be okay with it,
[2:06:29] >> but I don't expect
[2:06:31] >> I mean if if there's a if that's a need,
[2:06:34] which there is, how are we going to
[2:06:36] figure that out? I guess.
[2:06:37] >> Well, it'll be our I mean, we used to
[2:06:40] talk about if we could just get staffing
[2:06:42] increases down to maybe one or two a
[2:06:44] year, like that would be great. Um, if
[2:06:47] we come next year with one, it'll be
[2:06:49] that. Um,
[2:06:51] >> I know it's a big one, but it's it's one one position.
[2:06:54] >> It's a big job. I know that there are
[2:06:55] things she can't get to because he just
[2:06:57] literally can't do it.
[2:06:59] >> I think yeah, public safety is obviously
[2:07:01] an important is a high high priority.
[2:07:03] Um,
[2:07:07] there's a there's a cost to that. I
[2:07:09] don't know how else to
[2:07:13] Huh?
[2:07:16] >> Yeah. Okay.
[2:07:19] What are you whispering about?
[2:07:20] >> I was laughing at John.
[2:07:22] >> What's John whispering?
[2:07:23] >> I'm figuring stuff out.
[2:07:27] >> I'm trying to get I was just telling
[2:07:28] Mike his hair is just His hair is
[2:07:31] something else today. It's [laughter]
[2:07:33] He's been using some other product on
[2:07:35] him.
[2:07:36] >> So, at this point, we're down to 21.97.
[2:07:39] >> Mhm.
[2:07:40] >> Okay.
[2:07:41] This just pushes it to other ears.
[2:07:43] >> I'm just not convinced. I mean, don't
[2:07:46] get me wrong, I don't want to raise tax
[2:07:48] a lot. Like, we're feeling it just as
[2:07:49] much as anyone else.
[2:07:52] And if we feasibly can take it down to
[2:07:55] this rate, then fine. But I just wonder
[2:07:57] if we're continually setting ourselves
[2:07:59] up for the same thing over and over and
[2:08:02] over again. I mean, it's our job to have
[2:08:04] these hard conversations. It's our job
[2:08:06] to make the decisions. If this is where
[2:08:08] we're comfortable, that's fine. But I do
[2:08:10] worry that we're continually pushing it
[2:08:12] down and it's just I mean this year we
[2:08:15] feel like we're in a panic but it's just
[2:08:17] going to keep getting worse I think if
[2:08:19] we keep pushing things off. It's like
[2:08:22] you don't get through your checklist
[2:08:23] unless you check off the things like I
[2:08:25] mean and and and in the past we put off
[2:08:27] things and they have fallen off the
[2:08:28] list. So that's definitely a possibility
[2:08:30] also. But I do worry not that I want to
[2:08:33] raise taxes more. I mean that sucks. The
[2:08:35] whole thing sucks. But um
[2:08:39] I want to make sure that we're very
[2:08:41] comfortable with wherever we land and
[2:08:44] we're not just putting things off to put
[2:08:46] things off cuz this year sucks cuz every
[2:08:48] year will suck.
[2:08:50] >> I will advocate again for truth and
[2:08:52] taxation every year.
[2:08:54] >> You guys, there is a reason that I've
[2:08:56] been harping on this since we started on
[2:08:58] council. Not because I liked taxes and
[2:09:00] tax discussions, but it's transparent.
[2:09:02] >> Yeah.
[2:09:02] >> We talk about it. We go through the
[2:09:04] process. we look and see where we our
[2:09:06] high low we can project for the future
[2:09:08] and I think that part of the reason is
[2:09:11] that we haven't done that and we haven't
[2:09:12] been consistent. So I get what you're
[2:09:14] saying as far as pushing some things off
[2:09:17] that 59% um in that's that's the
[2:09:21] assumption that this fire station passes
[2:09:23] >> right and 61 if it doesn't because we
[2:09:25] will have to remodel the fire station
[2:09:26] that we currently have.
[2:09:27] >> Correct.
[2:09:28] >> Okay. the remodel of the current fire
[2:09:30] station.
[2:09:33] Can that can that be spread over a
[2:09:35] two-year period or does it all have to
[2:09:37] be funded at one time?
[2:09:38] >> Um, it's it's an expansion, I guess,
[2:09:41] really. Or well,
[2:09:43] >> you can bond for it just like we did
[2:09:44] here.
[2:09:45] >> Um, bonding is expensive. I mean, I I
[2:09:48] don't see people bonding for a million
[2:09:50] and a half just because it's
[2:09:52] >> No, but
[2:09:54] >> could the changes be made like modularly
[2:09:56] though? like a couple changes, one year,
[2:09:58] a couple changes, or is it all one big
[2:09:59] construction
[2:10:00] >> can phase?
[2:10:01] >> So, you could look into I don't know
[2:10:05] broke it down and to see
[2:10:07] >> I do know other cities that bond for
[2:10:09] multiple things at one time and they'll
[2:10:11] say we just did this, you know, $15
[2:10:12] million bond and we we knocked all these
[2:10:15] things out. And so, I know you can I I
[2:10:18] know you can do that. Not that that's a
[2:10:20] good idea, but sometimes if the rates
[2:10:21] are appropriate and stuff, you can do
[2:10:23] that.
[2:10:26] So
[2:10:27] >> yeah, anyway,
[2:10:28] >> you could kind of like just model that
[2:10:29] financially and see what would be in the
[2:10:31] city's best interest if we'd save money
[2:10:34] >> by bonding versus just um trying to
[2:10:36] >> one bond. We did a bond for the
[2:10:38] operations and the fire station together
[2:10:40] as one bond instead of two bonds. Do we
[2:10:42] save money on that
[2:10:45] >> to to wrap both projects together? I
[2:10:47] know that other cities do that kind of
[2:10:48] thing. So
[2:10:49] >> uh that's a great point. Well, I mean I
[2:10:52] would Yeah. And we have to bond for the
[2:10:54] fieldhouse, right? So
[2:10:56] >> maybe we bond for all three.
[2:10:57] >> Maybe we bond for the fieldhouse and
[2:10:59] the,
[2:11:01] you know, the fire station if it's the $
[2:11:04] 1.5 million version
[2:11:06] >> all together.
[2:11:07] >> Certainly. Yeah, that's a great idea to
[2:11:09] look at.
[2:11:09] >> Okay.
[2:11:10] So your your goal, at least from
[2:11:13] my standpoint, is to get a list together
[2:11:16] of that 430
[2:11:18] plus. Is that going to be manageable?
[2:11:21] >> I'm sorry. manageable $430,000
[2:11:25] of increased hard cost, soft cost,
[2:11:28] whatever you're calling them.
[2:11:29] >> That list is is something that you could
[2:11:33] >> pull out
[2:11:34] >> probably
[2:11:34] >> possibly for us.
[2:11:36] >> I think that would be interesting to
[2:11:38] look at just because uh where we're
[2:11:40] putting it into something where we're
[2:11:41] counting on it to be a continual
[2:11:44] expense. to be interesting to see like,
[2:11:46] oh, well, maybe this price goes down,
[2:11:49] maybe gas prices go down, maybe these
[2:11:51] things go down. And if that's the case,
[2:11:53] I want to look at like, okay, well,
[2:11:56] maybe budgeting it for future
[2:12:00] expenses is not the best idea. It's
[2:12:02] like, is it a one-time type of deal? I
[2:12:04] just think
[2:12:05] >> that's fair.
[2:12:05] >> Does that Does that make sense? I just
[2:12:07] like to see kind of
[2:12:08] >> Sure.
[2:12:09] >> Um,
[2:12:11] what the what those things mean? Boy,
[2:12:14] that's a huge increase.
[2:12:17] >> I'm just curious in terms of like when
[2:12:19] were those numbers calculated like
[2:12:21] >> Well, just it's just it's I think it
[2:12:24] Yeah, I mean it seems like a lot
[2:12:25] >> last few weeks have been unprecedented.
[2:12:27] >> Crazy high, right? Yeah.
[2:12:30] >> So, anyway,
[2:12:31] >> so there's one other thing that is
[2:12:33] possible that maybe you could do.
[2:12:35] >> Okay.
[2:12:35] >> Let's say we projected a truth in
[2:12:38] taxation of 20% for 4 years. didn't do a
[2:12:43] fire station, didn't do a shop, waited
[2:12:46] four years. Can you let us know where
[2:12:48] that would possibly get us as far as the
[2:12:50] general fund goes, as far as revenues
[2:12:52] and expenditures
[2:12:54] >> is that
[2:12:54] >> just to just calculating inflation into
[2:12:57] the general fund.
[2:12:58] >> I think if you didn't do those stations,
[2:13:01] you'd be crushing it. I and that's what
[2:13:03] I'd like to see because if that's a
[2:13:04] possibility, if we could do something
[2:13:06] similar to that for four years, yes,
[2:13:08] it's going to hurt and everything have
[2:13:10] to be tight and that, but I'd like to
[2:13:11] see what it would turn out. I'd like to
[2:13:13] see where we would be. I'd like to see
[2:13:15] if we did a 20% truth in taxation for
[2:13:18] four years in a row and didn't do the
[2:13:20] great big projects, which we know we
[2:13:22] have to pay for the fieldhouse that we
[2:13:24] can't get out. That's an absolute.
[2:13:27] I I would like to know where that puts
[2:13:29] us as far as general fund revenues and
[2:13:31] expenditures. Where's that at?
[2:13:35] >> Cuz you know, that might be one of the
[2:13:36] hard decisions you have to say is we've
[2:13:38] got to stop the bleeding and the only
[2:13:40] way to do this is to get us to where
[2:13:41] we're at a net zero and then start
[2:13:43] talking about projects. But where we're
[2:13:46] losing a million dollars or getting a
[2:13:47] million behind every year, it's hard for
[2:13:50] me to talk about these additional
[2:13:53] >> projects where I know we're getting
[2:13:54] behind every year. take the off center
[2:13:57] where that would put us in three.
[2:13:58] >> I'd like a plan like that of some you
[2:14:01] know.
[2:14:01] >> So that's this is where this
[2:14:05] >> I took out the 1.5. So in the
[2:14:08] projections without fire station section
[2:14:11] I took out the op center and that 1.5
[2:14:14] million uh for the fire station remodel
[2:14:18] >> project. So we're still at 57%.
[2:14:20] >> Correct.
[2:14:21] >> So it didn't really it's 2%.
[2:14:24] >> Mhm. So I guess I don't understand what
[2:14:25] you did. I I'm saying that we did a tax
[2:14:28] increase of 20%
[2:14:30] >> for four years Can't you just And tell
[2:14:34] me what how that right now our revenues
[2:14:36] are 22 million roughly in our general
[2:14:39] well not really because 22% it's only
[2:14:42] going to affect the one line property
[2:14:43] tax doesn't really affect everything.
[2:14:48] I mean, I could do that, but we're still
[2:14:49] going to be underfunded because I've
[2:14:51] already projected out revenues and
[2:14:53] expenses.
[2:14:54] >> You've projected that out with the
[2:14:55] station in there, though. He was saying
[2:14:58] >> I just took it out.
[2:14:59] >> Oh,
[2:14:59] >> you took it out. So,
[2:15:00] >> and the projection,
[2:15:02] >> where's the 20% in 27, 20% in 28, 20%
[2:15:06] 29? How much revenue does that generate?
[2:15:09] Um, and how does that match our with say
[2:15:13] a 5% or 4% inflationary number?
[2:15:17] Where do we come out? I want to know
[2:15:19] where we come out. You want to see that would do like to our fund balance
[2:15:22] or what?
[2:15:22] >> Yeah, exactly.
[2:15:24] >> We're
[2:15:25] >> Yes, I can do that. But I I mean off of
[2:15:28] this fiscal year 28, we're going to use
[2:15:31] what? 2.5 million of fund balance to
[2:15:34] cover the expenses that
[2:15:36] >> even if we're doing a 20% increase every
[2:15:38] year.
[2:15:39] >> Yes. Because because you I can't spend
[2:15:42] money that we haven't earned. So fiscal
[2:15:44] year 28, I still have to cover all those
[2:15:46] expenses.
[2:15:47] Therefore, I'm going to have to use
[2:15:49] >> I thought I thought you said this year
[2:15:50] we're only using 99.95.
[2:15:53] >> Yes, we are. In fiscal year 27, but if
[2:15:55] he's saying fisc year 27, do 20%.
[2:15:58] >> Okay.
[2:15:58] >> And then fiscal year 28, change that to
[2:16:01] 20%, it's going to be around the 1
[2:16:03] million.
[2:16:03] >> I got you. So you're thinking it needs
[2:16:05] to be 59.37
[2:16:06] even if you don't do the fire stations.
[2:16:08] >> Sorry, the the bottom one, the
[2:16:10] projections without fire station. Do you
[2:16:12] think it would be 57? It's the fire
[2:16:14] station only changes it 2%.
[2:16:16] >> Yeah, that's right.
[2:16:16] >> Yes, because we're using capital fund
[2:16:18] balance and fire impact. Gotcha. Gotcha.
[2:16:21] >> For that first year.
[2:16:22] >> That's crazy.
[2:16:23] >> Or for the remodel. I'm sorry.
[2:16:25] >> Then it's the third year where it drops
[2:16:26] down.
[2:16:27] >> Correct.
[2:16:28] >> Just wonder what a 20% tax increase did
[2:16:31] as far as bringing into our revenue.
[2:16:33] >> It'll be the about the 1 million the
[2:16:36] same the fisc year 27.
[2:16:37] >> So we're going to Mike, are you saying
[2:16:39] take off the remodel as well?
[2:16:40] >> Yeah. Take take everything off except
[2:16:42] for the general front extension. Don't
[2:16:44] get stuck.
[2:16:50] » Sorry. What just happened? There's a lot
[2:16:52] of noises.
[2:16:55] » I don't like I'm just saying to do the
[2:16:59] 20% I'm assuming it would match your 20.
[2:17:03] >> I think you're tracking because what
[2:17:05] she's saying is the 57. If you dropped
[2:17:07] that to 20 and then the next year
[2:17:08] instead of nine you did 20 and then the
[2:17:10] next year instead of five you did 20 I
[2:17:11] think it would track it be about the
[2:17:13] same
[2:17:14] >> which is fine but f 28 you're still
[2:17:17] going to be in trouble because I have
[2:17:18] this
[2:17:19] >> I understand but maybe by year 20 29 and
[2:17:23] 30 we're catching up finally
[2:17:26] >> that's what I'm saying I'm looking for a
[2:17:28] plan I'm looking for a
[2:17:30] >> that's fair what happens when an
[2:17:32] emergency comes into sphere 30 and we
[2:17:34] have less than a million of fund balance
[2:17:37] So you constantly have to use fund
[2:17:40] balance. I mean it's not going to change
[2:17:42] to to do a 20% increase uh on this 5,600
[2:17:47] and something,000 every year for the
[2:17:49] next four years. I'm still going to have
[2:17:52] to use fund balance, but I'm not doing
[2:17:54] any. I'm just assuming
[2:17:56] >> on on this year. Yes. Based on this
[2:17:58] projection because I need a tax increase
[2:18:00] of 4 million. You're saying only do a
[2:18:03] tax increase of one. Why do we need that
[2:18:05] 4 million tax increase?
[2:18:06] >> Yeah. Why do you need the 4 million?
[2:18:07] >> I'm confused by the huge amount.
[2:18:10] >> Because we're not using the million of
[2:18:12] fund balance. We're not using NBA fund
[2:18:13] balance anymore. We're not using the
[2:18:15] debt service fund balance anymore and
[2:18:18] general fund fund balance I took out.
[2:18:20] >> Okay. Is there point when we used a
[2:18:22] million dollars and if let's say we used
[2:18:23] a million dollars of fund balance for
[2:18:25] three years with it by the fourth year,
[2:18:28] could we quit using fund balance and be
[2:18:30] caught up?
[2:18:30] >> Well, we'd have to because our fund
[2:18:32] balance would be zero.
[2:18:34] can't do
[2:18:34] >> at the end of fiscal year 27. Our fund
[2:18:36] balance is going to be like 3.5
[2:18:39] or something. We go to that fund balance
[2:18:41] >> only if we're only if we're assuming
[2:18:44] that last year was the same as the
[2:18:45] previous year. It won't be like that.
[2:18:47] >> No, I have that we don't Yes. Yes. Yes.
[2:18:50] I'm sorry. Yep. You are correct.
[2:18:52] >> So really the only mechanisms we have to
[2:18:54] increase our revenue internally is
[2:18:57] increase impact fees. Maybe look at
[2:18:59] that.
[2:18:59] >> Yes. which we have that study in the
[2:19:01] budget
[2:19:01] >> which we going to do that study that
[2:19:03] will help us a little bit. We don't have
[2:19:05] a ton of development but we can charge a
[2:19:07] fair rate for the development that
[2:19:09] occurs.
[2:19:10] >> Yes.
[2:19:10] >> Um we have really tried to do some
[2:19:13] economic development tools within our
[2:19:16] cities to be able to attract businesses
[2:19:17] that was shot down by our residents and
[2:19:20] not very well received.
[2:19:22] >> Correct.
[2:19:22] >> And we did try to do that. We spent five
[2:19:24] years working on that to try to help
[2:19:26] ourselves generate revenue and
[2:19:28] opportunities and economic opportunities
[2:19:30] for growth. Um, people want to build
[2:19:32] higher density homes within our
[2:19:34] community. Our residents don't like
[2:19:35] that. So, we say no to that as much as
[2:19:38] possible and we try to monitor and
[2:19:40] manage that within the confines of what
[2:19:42] our community wants. And so, I guess
[2:19:44] what I'm saying is I don't know. We have
[2:19:46] done literally everything. We did a big
[2:19:47] Trader Joe's thing. We've been trying to
[2:19:49] reach out. We've been trying to get
[2:19:51] businesses that are appropriate for
[2:19:53] Kisville and there's only so much that
[2:19:55] we can do,
[2:19:57] but we have chosen a lifestyle here. We
[2:20:00] are hometown. We want to be that way. We
[2:20:02] are churches, schools, and people homes.
[2:20:05] And and because of that, we are paying a
[2:20:08] price and and that's a hard thing to
[2:20:10] talk about and tell people, but that's
[2:20:11] the truth. So, aside from going back and
[2:20:15] doing a new RDA and trying to which
[2:20:17] we're, you know, going to try to circle
[2:20:18] that wagon again and attract some
[2:20:20] businesses, we're having a dealership
[2:20:23] come in. That'll help
[2:20:24] >> with tax revenue. We need to be
[2:20:26] >> grateful for these businesses willing to
[2:20:28] be do business in our city.
[2:20:31] >> But also, our expectation is high. So,
[2:20:32] you look at our budget and I think,
[2:20:33] okay, where can we really cut? What do
[2:20:35] we do? Sell parks?
[2:20:37] >> Well,
[2:20:38] >> you know, what do we do? Not replace
[2:20:39] equipment. I think what I think like if
[2:20:42] I don't know if you can slide of where uh where we lie as a city
[2:20:50] >> compared to the other cities. I think
[2:20:52] the the point that you're bringing up,
[2:20:54] mayor, is a very valid valid point
[2:20:56] because you look at the cities that are
[2:20:57] the highest. The majority of them are
[2:21:00] supplementing their lifestyle or their
[2:21:02] life by through property taxes because
[2:21:06] they don't aren't generating
[2:21:09] revenue from
[2:21:11] uh businesses.
[2:21:12] >> Yes. So like West Woodscross, I mean
[2:21:15] Woodscross, West West Point, West
[2:21:17] Bountiful, those are like for the most
[2:21:19] part they don't have businesses there.
[2:21:21] And so they're saying like, "Hey, as a
[2:21:23] resident, the only way we can pay for
[2:21:25] things is through property taxes." And
[2:21:28] your point is that as Kisville, if if we
[2:21:31] continue to say that we want to be more
[2:21:35] like those cities, we will have to
[2:21:38] increase the property tax to gen to pay
[2:21:41] for it.
[2:21:42] >> Or or we figure out how as a state to to
[2:21:46] find some other source of revenue,
[2:21:48] right? Nobody wants property tax. I
[2:21:50] would love to get rid of it. Every
[2:21:51] single person in Utah would love to get
[2:21:53] rid of it. I don't know what we replace
[2:21:55] it with. I know there are other states
[2:21:57] looking at options. I don't know what
[2:21:59] the answers are, but that's that's
[2:22:03] the only way we help ourselves. Manage
[2:22:05] costs like Mike's saying, but at the
[2:22:07] same time, you can't be stagnant.
[2:22:09] >> We still have to replace lines and
[2:22:11] infrastructure and make sure that our
[2:22:13] community stays nice because that's why
[2:22:14] people like it here. That's why they
[2:22:16] want to live here. Our values are high
[2:22:17] because we've held the line. So, you
[2:22:21] know, it's just it's frustrating. I
[2:22:23] guess my point is none of us want to
[2:22:25] make these decisions, but like you said,
[2:22:27] we have to make hard decisions.
[2:22:29] >> Yeah.
[2:22:29] >> And we and and it's irresponsible to not
[2:22:31] make decisions when we need to.
[2:22:34] >> Yeah.
[2:22:34] >> And and saying, you know, I'd love to
[2:22:36] just say no to a property tax. Believe
[2:22:37] me, that would be a very easy thing to
[2:22:39] do,
[2:22:40] >> but we can't do that because that's not
[2:22:42] responsible. So, I appreciate staff
[2:22:44] being willing to look at this with us
[2:22:46] because we've gone we've had multiple meetings about this. I
[2:22:50] appreciate council all of your input,
[2:22:52] your suggestions.
[2:22:55] >> Where would uh 0 now that if we're now
[2:22:58] that we're down to like what 30 or 20
[2:23:01] whatever, I bet that puts us at a
[2:23:05] proposed rate that's much significantly
[2:23:07] lower than 0001923.
[2:23:10] >> I've also talked to the 15 cities in
[2:23:11] Davis County and so far I think seven of
[2:23:14] them are doing truth and taxation.
[2:23:16] Yeah, I think that there there are seven
[2:23:19] so far that have committed to doing it.
[2:23:21] Um I don't know what their numbers are
[2:23:23] like, but they've said yes, we will have
[2:23:25] some sort of taxation.175.
[2:23:29] » Wow.
[2:23:31] >> Which was I didn't see that I printed it
[2:23:35] out if you want to look at this spot.
[2:23:38] >> So same spot. Oh, so remember we started
[2:23:41] lower into a lot closer to fruit he
[2:23:44] kites rather than center.
[2:23:46] >> Oh my
[2:23:48] height.
[2:23:49] >> That's hilarious.
[2:23:51] >> All that for that.
[2:23:53] >> We're still in the same spot.
[2:23:54] >> Mhm.
[2:23:55] >> Yeah, but it means a lot to our
[2:23:57] >> I know. I know. I'm sorry. I'm not
[2:23:59] trying to be at least.
[2:24:02] >> I understand. But
[2:24:03] >> it's just life because we have to do it
[2:24:06] again next year and next year.
[2:24:08] >> Yes.
[2:24:09] If anything, we're going to make we're
[2:24:11] just making it harder for ourselves to
[2:24:13] >> I think we'll be here at this exact time
[2:24:15] talking the same conversation next year
[2:24:18] >> and surprised that we have to point like
[2:24:20] we are.
[2:24:20] >> We got to fix that.
[2:24:22] >> Yeah.
[2:24:22] >> Something's got to get
[2:24:24] >> It's got to
[2:24:24] >> I'm not sure what that is.
[2:24:25] >> I don't either.
[2:24:26] >> And then the sad part is is the only
[2:24:29] thing this
[2:24:31] >> damn thing's going to do is fix the 5
[2:24:34] million number. Doesn't fix anything
[2:24:36] else,
[2:24:36] >> right?
[2:24:37] >> It's all it does. fix the $5 million $6
[2:24:40] million 5.85 whatever.
[2:24:43] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I know what you're
[2:24:44] talking
[2:24:44] >> but that's our only way that we can have
[2:24:47] money. And I, you know, I know that you
[2:24:50] guys
[2:24:52] really
[2:24:54] you you talk bad about how Quasville ran
[2:24:58] early days from previous
[2:25:00] administrations, but they used to call
[2:25:03] Quesville City Corporation because they
[2:25:05] ran it like a business and they ran it
[2:25:07] specifically based on revenue. And if
[2:25:09] they had the revenue, that's what the
[2:25:11] budget was. And if it meant we had to
[2:25:13] increase the budget to cover, that's
[2:25:16] when they would do a tax review. But
[2:25:18] basically, new growth covered most of
[2:25:20] everything at that point.
[2:25:21] >> But it was more than 1%. New growth it
[2:25:24] sometimes was 5% 6%.
[2:25:27] >> Yeah.
[2:25:27] >> But and it's like it's really hard when
[2:25:30] you have all your neighbors and they're
[2:25:31] all on a budget and if if I don't make
[2:25:33] my budget at my house,
[2:25:35] >> I can't ask my neighbors to make up the
[2:25:37] budget. Well, that's what we're doing
[2:25:39] here. We're asking our neighbors to make
[2:25:41] up the city's budget because we can't
[2:25:44] also pay for the past example you just
[2:25:47] past example but that's how they ran it
[2:25:49] and that's why I'm trying to figure out
[2:25:51] >> in a 5year fouryear plan somehow to get
[2:25:54] these revenues up so that we're at net
[2:25:56] zero so that when these projects come up
[2:25:59] like a fire station or the shops we're
[2:26:01] saying
[2:26:02] >> okay we're going to do truth and
[2:26:04] taxation to cover inflation stay at net
[2:26:07] zero but we're also going to have to
[2:26:09] bond on for this, but it seems like
[2:26:11] we're doing we're just never getting
[2:26:14] ahead ever.
[2:26:15] >> It's frustrating.
[2:26:17] >> Believe me, it's so frustrating.
[2:26:18] >> I woke up at 4 in the morning and I had
[2:26:20] all this stuff out. I mean, I've been up
[2:26:22] since
[2:26:23] crap. It's four.
[2:26:24] >> Yeah. Ask my husband. I haven't slept
[2:26:26] for a long time. This is really
[2:26:28] frustrating. And what's frustrating is I
[2:26:29] don't know how to fix it because of the
[2:26:31] nature of the way our community is built
[2:26:33] out.
[2:26:33] >> I don't know how we fix it unless we cut
[2:26:35] services. But what are we going to cut?
[2:26:38] the right.
[2:26:39] >> We do need to have that conversation.
[2:26:40] >> Cut C cut the parade. Cut the I don't
[2:26:42] know. What do we cut? We We've cut
[2:26:45] already quite a few things. We used to
[2:26:47] do a tree lighting ceremony. We used to
[2:26:48] do a a New Year's Eve big block party.
[2:26:51] We used to do a lot of things that we
[2:26:53] don't do anymore. And things are so much
[2:26:55] more expensive than they used to be. So,
[2:26:57] I don't know how to fix it
[2:27:02] without lowering the level of service.
[2:27:06] And maybe I don't know. What do you do?
[2:27:09] Just tell people, "Okay, well,
[2:27:14] » I don't know. I I don't I know that
[2:27:15] that's not what our community is."
[2:27:17] >> You said enough time and money, you can
[2:27:18] do anything.
[2:27:19] >> Well, maybe we should have a detailed
[2:27:21] conversation of what lowering service
[2:27:23] looks like
[2:27:24] >> because we keep saying that, but I
[2:27:25] really don't know what that means.
[2:27:27] >> I I don't I don't either because what do
[2:27:28] you do? You You don't have first
[2:27:30] responders. You can't do that. you you
[2:27:33] don't have um parks because people like
[2:27:36] parks and you you sell parks, you sell
[2:27:39] properties. I mean, that's not good. I
[2:27:41] know some cities have resorted to those
[2:27:44] things, but those are also one time, you
[2:27:46] know, cuts.
[2:27:48] >> I mean, I as a city, I've always said
[2:27:50] you never want to sell any of your
[2:27:51] property, but on the other hand, I'm not
[2:27:54] sure what we're doing with that piece of
[2:27:55] the top of Crestwood. Maybe that's how
[2:27:57] you pay for a fire station. I don't
[2:27:59] know. I hate
[2:28:00] >> that's what Farmington did. Farmington
[2:28:02] sold some property.
[2:28:03] >> Did they sold that
[2:28:04] >> piece out on North Main?
[2:28:06] >> They did.
[2:28:06] >> The old farm potter farm out there and
[2:28:09] >> pot of fire.
[2:28:10] >> I mean, is that Crestwood property deed
[2:28:12] restricted though?
[2:28:12] >> Well, that particular one is, but we've
[2:28:14] got pocket parks. I mean, we have
[2:28:16] properties that the city owns. Of
[2:28:18] course, we don't want to part with
[2:28:19] things, but
[2:28:20] >> I know I've always been in the habit of
[2:28:22] ever since,
[2:28:24] >> but that's what that's what cities do.
[2:28:25] >> We probably have five extra acres that
[2:28:27] sit behind the shops down there. Yeah.
[2:28:29] >> I mean, I don't know. lease. We lease to
[2:28:31] a landscape company. I don't know what
[2:28:33] our lease prices are
[2:28:34] >> in our projections of 20, 30 years. Are
[2:28:37] we ever going to use that property? If
[2:28:39] not, do we need to make it work for us
[2:28:41] otherwise? I don't know.
[2:28:42] >> I think we are planning on using that as
[2:28:44] part of the off center buildout. Yeah.
[2:28:46] >> I mean, and if you start selling parks,
[2:28:48] obviously obviously bad, but that's kind
[2:28:50] of like dipping into fund balance. It's
[2:28:51] like, well, one time use and that's gone
[2:28:53] forever now.
[2:28:54] >> Well, but if you put it into a long-term
[2:28:55] capital project, I'm not suggesting we
[2:28:57] do it. I'm not suggesting we do it. It
[2:28:59] is a one time.
[2:29:00] >> Well, you also, like you say, you sell
[2:29:02] that piece at the top of the Crestwood
[2:29:03] Road. Yes, increase, but it also
[2:29:05] increases more more uh property tax,
[2:29:08] more revenue, but it also increases the
[2:29:10] need for services and all that stuff,
[2:29:12] but you have to look at what is your
[2:29:13] return.
[2:29:14] >> So, we got to look at our impact fees.
[2:29:16] >> Exactly. I think we increase impact fees
[2:29:18] >> since it's not built out that way.
[2:29:20] >> Impact fees are huge
[2:29:21] >> or we need to attract more businesses on
[2:29:24] North.
[2:29:24] >> We do. We need more business
[2:29:26] >> because we can't get more businesses
[2:29:27] here. No, but North Beam could.
[2:29:29] >> Yeah,
[2:29:31] >> but we the ways to do that are to create
[2:29:33] those CRAAS so that we can open up
[2:29:36] opportunities for redevelopment and for
[2:29:38] entities to help us redevelop.
[2:29:40] >> We also have to have buyin from the
[2:29:42] property owners unless we want to
[2:29:44] exercise eminent domain, which no
[2:29:47] why I said that out loud. It's like I
[2:29:48] swear
[2:29:48] >> building out down there and it's not
[2:29:50] service. It's it's not income tax
[2:29:53] income. Right.
[2:29:53] >> Right.
[2:29:54] >> We need more taxable income businesses
[2:29:56] there. Yes.
[2:29:57] >> Not just businesses.
[2:29:59] >> Yes,
[2:29:59] >> that's what we need.
[2:30:00] >> I mean, I think we could have gotten
[2:30:01] that CRA across the finish line if we
[2:30:03] didn't include a bunch of people's
[2:30:05] homes.
[2:30:06] >> Yeah, that is true.
[2:30:08] >> I mean, so and and that CRA, remember,
[2:30:11] was just kind of like uh not a lot,
[2:30:13] right? We weren't projecting what more
[2:30:15] than a little more than $5 million
[2:30:17] maybe,
[2:30:18] >> right?
[2:30:18] >> And new uh property tax revenue. So,
[2:30:21] >> it's
[2:30:22] >> I thought it was maybe up to 10, but
[2:30:24] >> yeah, just pretty limited in
[2:30:27] opportunity. There's a couple key
[2:30:28] properties that maybe one day will
[2:30:29] develop and be uh something great, but
[2:30:34] >> there are little slivers of properties
[2:30:35] though around the city that we're not
[2:30:37] maintaining. We're not doing anything
[2:30:38] with that property owners may be willing
[2:30:41] just to buy them that we're not we can't
[2:30:44] do anything with them. Just little tiny
[2:30:47] >> 10x10 pieces of property.
[2:30:49] >> It's true. Unless it's blocking a road.
[2:30:52] >> I know. What did you say?
[2:30:54] >> Give it to him. That's
[2:30:58] [laughter]
[2:30:59] >> why Keville is a great place to live.
[2:31:00] We're generous and we are a wonderful
[2:31:02] community.
[2:31:03] >> Give it to them. I like it. And then
[2:31:04] increase the taxes on that property.
[2:31:06] >> Yeah. On a commercial and then give it
[2:31:10] to him. [laughter]
[2:31:12] >> Anyway, well,
[2:31:15] >> so we still have another slide to go
[2:31:17] through, right?
[2:31:18] >> What else do we have? this fund balance
[2:31:21] tab if you want
[2:31:22] >> to play the same game.
[2:31:24] >> We were done.
[2:31:27] >> So this is what is being budgeted with
[2:31:30] fund paid for with fund balance
[2:31:33] um for fiscal year 27th. You know, it
[2:31:37] would be nice when we do have our
[2:31:38] meetings with all the director heads
[2:31:41] next year. Go line by line and hear the
[2:31:45] justification and pros and cons of
[2:31:48] keeping
[2:31:49] >> that really would take a very long time.
[2:31:51] >> Well, I'm willing to go through it
[2:31:53] because considering the state we're in,
[2:31:55] I think
[2:31:56] >> Yes. And that's that's fair. I I mean, I
[2:32:00] don't know if Jason wants to speak to
[2:32:02] kind of our strategies for next year.
[2:32:04] >> Yeah. I mean, great time adop bring that
[2:32:06] up. I think we should we talked about
[2:32:09] this earlier today and earlier this week
[2:32:11] that I don't know if the council wants
[2:32:13] to commit that kind of time. These are I
[2:32:16] think I guess you're just thinking we
[2:32:17] just don't spend enough time talking
[2:32:18] about budget. So, let's schedule like 10
[2:32:21] more of these. I don't I'm just joking
[2:32:23] obviously, but I think if there were a
[2:32:25] council member or two that wanted to be
[2:32:27] a part of a committee
[2:32:28] >> Yeah. that we could take a deep dive on
[2:32:31] each line item, you know, and then
[2:32:33] somebody could say, you know what, I've
[2:32:34] seen it all. I'm feel I feel comfortable
[2:32:36] or here's what we discovered. Kind of
[2:32:38] report back cuz um
[2:32:41] >> or maybe we kind of split it up and all
[2:32:43] do
[2:32:43] >> I'd like you to do it all.
[2:32:45] >> What if we did it during our council
[2:32:46] meetings
[2:32:48] >> just like an hour before something
[2:32:50] >> or something or just invite one of them
[2:32:52] in
[2:32:53] >> and we can talk about it then
[2:32:55] incorporate it. Why are we doing the
[2:32:57] 200,000 concrete bleacher upgrade?
[2:32:59] >> I don't know that.
[2:33:00] >> Oh, it it's I forget how old Barnes Park
[2:33:03] is, but those are just
[2:33:05] >> 20 30 something year old, right? Um
[2:33:08] they're deteriorating. It's a kind of a
[2:33:10] tripping hazard and some concrete. And
[2:33:12] >> there are concrete bleachers. I don't
[2:33:14] even know where they are.
[2:33:15] >> Are there concrete ones there now?
[2:33:19] >> Are they just trying to replace the
[2:33:21] aluminum ones with concrete? What if we
[2:33:24] just put new aluminum ones in there?
[2:33:27] Save us to do that.
[2:33:28] >> Kick that down the road.
[2:33:29] >> There's no way. 200 grand.
[2:33:31] >> I just need to determine if there's a
[2:33:33] safety hazard.
[2:33:34] >> There definitely is.
[2:33:36] >> It's a safety hazard. I know. That's why
[2:33:38] it came up.
[2:33:39] >> They've lasted 30 years already just
[2:33:41] being aluminum. Put some new aluminum
[2:33:43] ones in there.
[2:33:44] >> Some duct tape.
[2:33:45] >> Seeing it's like this one right here.
[2:33:47] >> We spend a ton of money when we replace
[2:33:50] this building to do this.
[2:33:53] It works. Not great, but it works.
[2:33:55] >> I know.
[2:33:56] >> Take it out.
[2:33:58] >> Yeah. Take it out.
[2:34:00] >> Okie dokie.
[2:34:01] >> The system.
[2:34:02] >> I mean, yeah, because it doesn't work.
[2:34:04] Great.
[2:34:05] >> Well, what does that what does that
[2:34:06] mean, take it out? Like, we still have
[2:34:07] mics, right?
[2:34:08] >> Well, the system we have now.
[2:34:10] >> Oh, just not upgrade it.
[2:34:12] >> Remember when we had the Symphony Homes
[2:34:14] um public hearing and we actually lost
[2:34:16] internet connection for like 20 minutes
[2:34:19] or something? I mean, it's it's a
[2:34:21] problem. Every time it's like, oh, is it
[2:34:23] going to work tonight? And it's I mean,
[2:34:25] we could wait, but ultimately, this is
[2:34:28] not a system that's working.
[2:34:30] >> How often does it happen?
[2:34:31] >> That was one time.
[2:34:34] >> We have a problem. Almost every
[2:34:35] >> every
[2:34:38] planning commission, any other meetings,
[2:34:40] we have a problem. You guys just don't
[2:34:42] see it,
[2:34:43] >> right? Because there's so many things
[2:34:44] duct taped together around here that
[2:34:46] >> But how does it fix itself? I mean
[2:34:48] that's what I'm saying. If it does get
[2:34:50] fixed it is here all the time
[2:34:52] >> in there for transparency. I think it's
[2:34:54] a transparency.
[2:34:56] >> The reason the reason why
[2:34:58] >> the reason why we don't see it so much
[2:35:00] during
[2:35:03] » back to A I mean that's a great point.
[2:35:05] All right. So we had it here every
[2:35:07] single night we have council meeting.
[2:35:09] They're back in the back room just
[2:35:10] making sure everything's not going to
[2:35:11] fall apart. They're not here during
[2:35:14] planning commission meetings. And that
[2:35:16] one meeting where we had the big
[2:35:17] symphony meeting where there were gosh
[2:35:19] what 50 people in the room
[2:35:21] >> and we we we it went down. No one was
[2:35:24] here from it and it just happened to be
[2:35:26] that Ryan was in the area and he was
[2:35:28] able to come right in and we only went
[2:35:30] down for about 15 20 minutes and that
[2:35:32] was a really lucky call. But I mean
[2:35:34] obviously really bad optics for the city
[2:35:36] that all of a sudden people are trying
[2:35:37] to watch this important meeting and no
[2:35:39] feed no explanation of what's going on.
[2:35:41] So
[2:35:42] >> I have a question. Are they recorded
[2:35:43] though? Even though it goes down online,
[2:35:45] is it still recorded?
[2:35:46] >> Everything goes down.
[2:35:47] >> It's down. Down. Systems down.
[2:35:48] >> Are we paying over time for people to be
[2:35:50] here?
[2:35:51] >> Uh yeah.
[2:35:52] >> So maybe maybe that does pay for itself.
[2:35:54] I mean overtime know that we spent a lot
[2:35:57] of money uh when we did the remodel to
[2:36:00] get a whole new system.
[2:36:01] >> That is not working.
[2:36:02] >> Unfortunately, the value engineers money
[2:36:05] back.
[2:36:05] >> No kidding.
[2:36:07] >> We didn't pay them.
[2:36:09] >> Yeah, they didn't pay them for
[2:36:10] >> We did not pay them. Yeah, we walked
[2:36:12] away from it.
[2:36:13] >> We Yeah,
[2:36:14] >> they agreed.
[2:36:15] >> It's It's something that's been a need
[2:36:18] for many years and it just isn't going
[2:36:20] to go away. We've tried different ways
[2:36:21] to fix it.
[2:36:23] >> But
[2:36:25] the
[2:36:25] >> Mike, we're all trying. I think we all
[2:36:27] just value things differently.
[2:36:29] >> Yeah. The three patrol, one detective
[2:36:31] vehicle. Is there any way to squeeze out
[2:36:35] >> a little more time?
[2:36:36] >> No. So is that in addition to is that
[2:36:40] 351 there in addition to their already
[2:36:42] vehicle that they have on their line
[2:36:44] item or is that
[2:36:45] >> that is the line item.
[2:36:46] >> That's the line item. They they just
[2:36:47] took that out of their budget.
[2:36:49] >> No, I'm just I'm just suggesting fund
[2:36:51] balance instead of choose taxation cuz
[2:36:53] last year they took it out a little bit
[2:36:55] to get rifle replacements instead of
[2:36:57] equipment. So they did like last year
[2:37:00] meaning fifth year 26 they did like one
[2:37:02] vehicle instead of the four. And so now
[2:37:05] we're putting that back in.
[2:37:06] >> Okay, just to clarify, this is already
[2:37:08] included in that 20%. What we're talking
[2:37:11] about from fund balances,
[2:37:12] >> none of this affects the 20%.
[2:37:14] >> Okay, it's already included.
[2:37:16] >> Yes.
[2:37:16] >> Well, the issue No, the issue here is
[2:37:19] we're using 991
[2:37:21] >> from fund balance If you were to remove
[2:37:24] some the the advantage of using the 991
[2:37:27] right now is that there's a hypothetical
[2:37:29] I'm saying hypothetical that it will
[2:37:31] follow next year's plan which is that we
[2:37:34] were off by 900ish,000.
[2:37:37] >> We won't be voting.
[2:37:38] >> You're saying
[2:37:38] >> not for 27 for 26.
[2:37:41] >> For 26 yeah
[2:37:42] >> for 26 we may be off.
[2:37:44] >> Correct.
[2:37:44] >> So which would mean that this actually
[2:37:46] wouldn't end up coming from found
[2:37:48] balance.
[2:37:49] >> It would it would wash itself away. Can
[2:37:51] we just go through this line by line and
[2:37:53] do a stronghold on each thing and talk
[2:37:55] about it because I feel like we're going
[2:37:57] through different all we're all over the
[2:37:59] place
[2:38:00] >> from efficient.
[2:38:03] >> This is 991 fund balance from
[2:38:06] >> that's a one time that's a one time
[2:38:09] purchase that would drop that right
[2:38:11] there. All of these are one,
[2:38:13] >> right? We want to get rid of as many
[2:38:14] things on here as we can, but I think we
[2:38:16] need to go through one at a time.
[2:38:17] >> We did go. Yes, we can. That's fine. But
[2:38:20] we did present this at the March meeting
[2:38:22] and department had spoke to each of
[2:38:24] these items,
[2:38:25] >> right? I don't know that we need a
[2:38:26] detailed explanation so much as a straw
[2:38:27] poll of what are we keeping, what are we
[2:38:29] getting rid of.
[2:38:30] >> Great.
[2:38:31] >> Fire station fix.
[2:38:32] >> I think it
[2:38:35] >> pretty bad. I think the walls falling
[2:38:37] off.
[2:38:37] >> Okay.
[2:38:38] >> The walls coming up. There's water
[2:38:41] damage.
[2:38:42] >> I thought it was cosmetic only
[2:38:45] funds.
[2:38:46] >> This is This is
[2:38:47] >> The thing about some of these too is
[2:38:49] like if we don't fix that, you know,
[2:38:51] water damaged um wall, it's just going
[2:38:54] to get worse and more expensive. And so,
[2:38:57] >> okay,
[2:38:58] >> keep raise your hand if you want to keep
[2:39:00] it,
[2:39:01] >> I guess.
[2:39:01] >> Or nod your head.
[2:39:04] >> I guess
[2:39:08] replacements. What's that?
[2:39:10] >> That right there is they got to replace
[2:39:11] some units in the police station.
[2:39:13] >> No, this these two are
[2:39:15] >> This is the fire station, right?
[2:39:17] >> I think this was the wreck building and
[2:39:19] public works.
[2:39:21] >> But I remember Cole talking about it.
[2:39:23] >> HVAC wreck building and public isn't
[2:39:26] public works in a new building.
[2:39:27] >> Are we the old building where they're
[2:39:30] basically working in closet?
[2:39:31] >> No, I know that.
[2:39:32] >> Are we going to be remodeling that soon
[2:39:34] though?
[2:39:34] >> You guys just took it off.
[2:39:36] >> Oh, we did take it off. [laughter] No,
[2:39:38] wait. No, we didn't. No, we didn't.
[2:39:40] >> No, we didn't.
[2:39:41] >> If if the fire
[2:39:42] >> No, no, no, no, no. We
[2:39:44] >> We talked about adding bonds together.
[2:39:46] >> Yeah, we mistake.
[2:39:47] >> We said don't take the 75.
[2:39:49] >> So, if we're going to if we're going to
[2:39:51] remodel their building, we don't need to
[2:39:52] give them new HVAC systems right now,
[2:39:55] right?
[2:39:56] >> Is it making is
[2:39:57] >> the section that we're remodeling might
[2:40:00] different?
[2:40:00] >> Is it different?
[2:40:01] >> I don't know. it. I thought Jason I
[2:40:03] thought you said they would start right away.
[2:40:06] >> But remodeling isn't like the full
[2:40:08] kitten kaboodleoodle. It's like adding
[2:40:10] space, adding office space, taking out
[2:40:13] the front, making that driveway bigger,
[2:40:16] the asphalt, the yard, the covered
[2:40:18] spaces, right? It's not like plumbing,
[2:40:21] electric.
[2:40:23] >> You're talking about
[2:40:24] >> the the design was adding office spaces,
[2:40:26] >> right? But if we add office spaces,
[2:40:28] don't we need new
[2:40:30] >> space on the
[2:40:32] >> Yes, it does.
[2:40:33] >> Yeah, that's all part of the million.
[2:40:34] >> I I can't speak to it. I'm sorry. I'm trying.
[2:40:37] >> Yeah, I I try to remember. Um there were
[2:40:41] a good reason. I wish Cole were here on
[2:40:43] this.
[2:40:43] >> Um he said it's one at the op center
[2:40:45] that's 34 years old and one at the wreck
[2:40:47] building that's lost its condenser. So
[2:40:50] these are like they don't work.
[2:40:52] >> Yeah, they don't work. Okay, we need to
[2:40:54] do that. Yep. Okay.
[2:40:57] We talked about council chamber AV.
[2:41:00] >> Do we all want to put out the bid?
[2:41:02] >> Say something else.
[2:41:03] >> Well, there's I mean
[2:41:04] >> it's one vendor I think that
[2:41:07] >> we got a quote to get a budget number.
[2:41:09] >> Oh, he's done bids. Yes. Sorry. He's
[2:41:11] done bids.
[2:41:12] >> He's looked at several people and he's
[2:41:14] done this for a long time and
[2:41:17] >> we're at our wits end with this. And
[2:41:19] this one, if I remember right, the
[2:41:22] council chambers and the EOC, if we do
[2:41:26] Yeah, if we do both, it's a cheaper
[2:41:28] deal.
[2:41:29] >> But that price doesn't include both.
[2:41:30] That's just for council chambers.
[2:41:33] >> The 115, I think,
[2:41:35] >> assumes we do EOC, which is down a
[2:41:37] little bit more.
[2:41:38] >> So, we don't do both.
[2:41:40] >> Oh, okay. EOC is 156.
[2:41:42] >> Yeah. L 12. Sorry.
[2:41:44] >> So, the 115 plus 156.
[2:41:47] >> Mhm.
[2:41:47] >> Okay. Okay. That means we keep them
[2:41:49] both. That's what you're saying.
[2:41:50] Correct. Because we can't be in a
[2:41:51] minute. Okay.
[2:41:52] >> Okay. Fuel master software. What's that?
[2:41:57] >> Um, so right now we have an old fuel
[2:41:59] master software which is the
[2:42:06] » what? No.
[2:42:07] >> No. It's connected to the fuel pumps
[2:42:09] that tell, you know, they type in their
[2:42:11] pen and they type in how many miles they
[2:42:12] have and then it feeds in. Um, right now
[2:42:15] it lives on Citrix. It's really old.
[2:42:18] We're trying to get rid of Citrix, which
[2:42:20] kind of forces our hand to upgrade this
[2:42:23] to a clouds base. Um, it affects anyone
[2:42:27] that fills up their fuel. It helps our
[2:42:29] mechanics because it can easily give
[2:42:32] them the mileage of each vehicle, which
[2:42:34] helps us create more of a maintenance
[2:42:36] schedule so we can start reaching out
[2:42:37] like your local Jiffy Lube and say,
[2:42:39] "Hey, you're at 5,000. You're due for
[2:42:42] cuz right now it's kind of the honor
[2:42:44] system. you got to bring it in when your
[2:42:46] sticker says you're due. A lot of people
[2:42:47] don't. Therefore, our um maintenance
[2:42:52] costs are up because they're going over
[2:42:54] mileage, blah blah blah.
[2:42:55] >> Does it eliminate
[2:42:57] >> should let those employees be held
[2:42:58] accountable, though? I think it's if you
[2:43:00] have a car, you should be held
[2:43:01] accountable if you're not.
[2:43:02] >> That is very good point.
[2:43:04] >> Does it create efficiencies? Can we
[2:43:06] eliminate a position or hours with a new
[2:43:09] system, software system? Um,
[2:43:12] >> or no, it's just a double check.
[2:43:16] >> Um, I think we'll lower maintenance
[2:43:18] costs for sure. I think we'll improve
[2:43:21] tracking of fuel and who's using it and
[2:43:24] how much. I think we'll improve
[2:43:27] Yeah, there's a lot of positives to it.
[2:43:30] I mean, reporting itself is going to be
[2:43:32] a lot better, which will show us who's
[2:43:34] using the fuel and how often and how
[2:43:36] much and which vehicles and
[2:43:40] You're doing so well. Okay. UPS
[2:43:43] [laughter] battery backup.
[2:43:45] >> Um gosh, I wish I remember this. I'm so
[2:43:48] sorry, Ryan.
[2:43:49] >> Yeah. Um I believe that one was just
[2:43:52] it's we don't have it anymore. It's or
[2:43:54] it's not working. And so if the police
[2:43:57] go down in order for them to continue
[2:43:59] operating, um
[2:44:02] need the battery back up.
[2:44:04] >> Yeah.
[2:44:05] >> Okay. So, if they're telling us they
[2:44:07] need that,
[2:44:07] >> right?
[2:44:10] >> Barnes Tower. This one, um, some money,
[2:44:13] >> we talked about that. Yeah, it's going
[2:44:15] to fall over.
[2:44:16] >> Yeah, some money is in fiscal year 26.
[2:44:19] This is just the increase of the cost of
[2:44:22] concrete for fiscal year 27. Being
[2:44:26] transparent, Cole did say this is one
[2:44:29] that he could hold off on.
[2:44:31] >> Okay.
[2:44:32] >> The whole 200 grant.
[2:44:34] >> Yes.
[2:44:35] Wow.
[2:44:36] >> Right, Jason?
[2:44:36] >> Yeah, it's one that obviously it's it's
[2:44:39] really old and but
[2:44:43] >> forever.
[2:44:44] >> Sorry. This 200,000 is the concrete trip
[2:44:46] tripping hazards making each entry point
[2:44:49] ADA accessibles. The bleachers was 27 I
[2:44:52] mean 26. So this one is the tripping
[2:44:54] hazards. The concrete around the area is
[2:44:57] ADA compliant or accessible trails to
[2:45:01] around the park. Oh wow.
[2:45:02] >> But you said it's not urgent.
[2:45:04] >> Yes. You're saying somebody delay this?
[2:45:06] >> Yes.
[2:45:06] >> Oh, only 26 grand of it or
[2:45:08] >> 200,000? Sorry, 200.
[2:45:10] >> My cursor is on the wrong line.
[2:45:11] >> Okay.
[2:45:12] >> Um Okay. So, if we took that 200 out,
[2:45:16] could we keep the amount at 991?
[2:45:22] » If you want 911,
[2:45:23] >> you want to keep it at 99. The reason I
[2:45:25] want to keep it at the only reason I've
[2:45:27] thought about keeping it at 991 is it is
[2:45:29] if and maybe I'm not understanding this
[2:45:31] right but I was under the impression
[2:45:33] that we've consistently
[2:45:36] come up with
[2:45:38] that last year we anticipated it was
[2:45:41] going to be like 1.7 something 1.9
[2:45:44] something remember and it came back and
[2:45:47] it was only
[2:45:48] >> well and and as I'm sitting here looking
[2:45:50] at this John I'm looking at every one of
[2:45:52] these as one time items
[2:45:54] >> I I don't understand why we're
[2:45:56] >> so why yeah why we're even including it
[2:45:59] as next year's budget out I mean this
[2:46:02] year yes we have to because there's
[2:46:03] 900,000 the fund balance you've done
[2:46:05] there but every one of these are one
[2:46:07] time items why that automatically mean
[2:46:09] next year it's going to be another
[2:46:10] million in fund balance
[2:46:11] >> but it's also different projects that
[2:46:13] we've done
[2:46:14] >> that was a new set
[2:46:15] >> yes ma'am
[2:46:15] >> we do know what next year's are
[2:46:17] >> no sorry but fisc year 26 fund balance
[2:46:20] items are right there right
[2:46:21] >> those are all different than the 27
[2:46:23] >> they're done they're gone But they're
[2:46:25] what she's saying is that they're
[2:46:26] usually around 900.
[2:46:29] >> That's just like you said, they were 1.8
[2:46:31] and it went to 900,
[2:46:33] >> right?
[2:46:33] >> Yeah.
[2:46:34] >> But yeah,
[2:46:35] >> but the also the amount that we ended up
[2:46:37] getting for uh sales tax ended up being
[2:46:41] like 900,000 or 8 $950,000 more than
[2:46:45] >> right
[2:46:46] >> what we thought. And so this year, could
[2:46:48] that happen again that we end up with
[2:46:50] 900,000 more than we thought
[2:46:53] >> in sales tax? Well, isn't that what you
[2:46:55] said that we ended up with?
[2:46:56] >> No.
[2:46:56] >> After the
[2:46:57] >> It's related to to how we were budgeting
[2:47:00] expenditures.
[2:47:02] >> So, we spent we spent 900 less than what
[2:47:04] we thought we were going to spend.
[2:47:05] >> Yes. Because
[2:47:06] >> But you've already ant you've already
[2:47:08] anticipated that we won't spend as much
[2:47:10] this time around. So, most likely that
[2:47:12] won't happen again.
[2:47:13] >> Not for 27. Correct. Right.
[2:47:16] >> Now, I'm even more interested to see
[2:47:18] what my four years of a 20% tax increase
[2:47:22] would do with no fund balance being
[2:47:24] included because we don't know what they
[2:47:25] are yet. Just
[2:47:26] >> I didn't include fund balance.
[2:47:28] >> 28 going forward. I did not include any
[2:47:30] use of fund balance,
[2:47:31] >> but you told me we still had to use
[2:47:32] another million. That's what you said.
[2:47:34] >> And 27
[2:47:35] >> and 28 you said just 27.
[2:47:39] >> 28 is is capital. It's not general fund balance. different funds.
[2:47:45] >> Okay.
[2:47:46] >> Yeah. I just I Yeah. So, what Yeah. What
[2:47:49] would the 200 like moving that 200 over
[2:47:52] to the truth and taxation side of things
[2:47:56] >> that the only reason that's problematic,
[2:47:59] which might be a strong word, is now
[2:48:01] you're underfunding ongoing expenses.
[2:48:05] Fund balance is for one-stop shop
[2:48:09] >> one-time expenses. truth in taxation is
[2:48:11] for as Mike says the gift that keeps on
[2:48:13] giving inflation staff
[2:48:16] >> operation increases.
[2:48:17] >> Mhm.
[2:48:18] >> So,
[2:48:19] >> okay.
[2:48:19] So, I was just maybe I was
[2:48:21] confused. I thought I thought in this
[2:48:23] case we were using
[2:48:26] uh monies that we didn't have to lower
[2:48:29] the amount that we were going to incur
[2:48:30] through the truth and taxation.
[2:48:37] We not
[2:48:38] >> we are we're getting
[2:48:41] >> sounds like a pavilion restroom probably
[2:48:43] needs to be fixed. It does it not work
[2:48:45] at all.
[2:48:46] >> Um it's like the shingles and the
[2:48:51] >> Cole will tell you
[2:48:54] order issues too.
[2:48:56] >> 40 years old. Needs a new roof. Interior
[2:48:58] finishes. Pavilion's 40 years old. Needs
[2:49:01] new roof.
[2:49:02] electrical need to help.
[2:49:04] >> They're just old. So again, another one
[2:49:06] that we just ignored and instead of
[2:49:08] doing maintenance over the years, now
[2:49:10] it's all going.
[2:49:14] >> No, now fixing the restroom.
[2:49:16] >> We're still now 791.
[2:49:19] >> Yeah, you got three. Yes, right.
[2:49:22] >> Great.
[2:49:24] >> Okay. Water conservation at fire
[2:49:26] station. That is flipping the strip,
[2:49:28] right? Flipping. Didn't Cole say there
[2:49:30] might be the potential for correct
[2:49:34] >> like $2.50
[2:49:36] square foot I think.
[2:49:38] >> And we should get a discount from Rock.
[2:49:41] >> Yeah.
[2:49:41] >> Gene Barack. I called them a couple
[2:49:43] years ago and said, "Hey, if Case calls
[2:49:44] [cough] you on a certain [clears throat]
[2:49:45] day, will you give us a discount if we
[2:49:46] all flip our strips at a certain date?"
[2:49:48] They said they would consider it. So,
[2:49:50] I'm going to follow up on that.
[2:49:52] >> Yeah. I mean, if we get a book rate or
[2:49:54] something or
[2:50:02] No, I I don't know. I was just saying if
[2:50:04] cities could you have certain city days
[2:50:07] and just say, "Okay, if you're from
[2:50:08] Kisville on this date or during this
[2:50:10] week, you get a discount."
[2:50:11] >> Wouldn't that be slick? That's a great
[2:50:13] idea.
[2:50:13] >> Yeah. Right. It'd be good PR for them.
[2:50:16] >> That's what you were just talking about
[2:50:17] the other day.
[2:50:17] >> Good PR. We could have a little
[2:50:19] >> content. Get a discount on a day for
[2:50:21] flipping a strip to get rock or whatever
[2:50:23] else. That's what she was talking about.
[2:50:25] >> That's a great idea.
[2:50:26] And yeah, Cole City is applying for
[2:50:28] grants for that 30,000. So if we get the
[2:50:30] grants, then
[2:50:32] >> it goes down or goes away.
[2:50:34] >> So should we not include it then? If
[2:50:36] we're going for grants cuz
[2:50:38] >> Well, I mean, if we don't get the
[2:50:39] grants, I mean, it's
[2:50:41] >> But if you do get the grants and
[2:50:42] suddenly they get 30,000 on top of it
[2:50:44] that's just sitting there.
[2:50:45] >> Take it off.
[2:50:50] >> Okay.
[2:50:51] >> Take it off.
[2:50:52] >> What if we don't get the grid? It's
[2:50:54] conservative to leave it on and then
[2:50:56] it'll just
[2:50:57] >> if we don't spend it, it'll go back in
[2:50:59] the fund balance.
[2:51:00] >> I if it's not if if your plan isn't to
[2:51:03] use the saved money to lower the amount
[2:51:06] that we're going to put on
[2:51:09] the citizens, then I think that we
[2:51:12] should probably do the tower and
[2:51:14] everything. I mean, it doesn't make any
[2:51:16] sense why we're we why would we delay it
[2:51:18] if it's coming out of a pot that's not
[2:51:20] incurring an increase in taxes? because
[2:51:23] it's decreasing our fund balance.
[2:51:24] >> Yeah, we don't
[2:51:25] >> Yeah, but but will it come out of fund
[2:51:28] won't it come out of fund balance next
[2:51:30] year? The bleachers and and the
[2:51:32] >> It's not including anything in fund
[2:51:33] balance.
[2:51:35] >> I mean, it's got to be paid for one way
[2:51:37] or the other. It's only going to get
[2:51:38] more expensive. It needs to be done. I
[2:51:41] mean, whether it's this year, next year,
[2:51:43] I don't know. I mean, if we were talking
[2:51:45] about like, oh, we can take we can push
[2:51:47] this 200 to next year and then now
[2:51:50] that's going to be 200 less that we have
[2:51:52] to do on truth and taxation. Okay, now
[2:51:55] you're talking. But if that's not going
[2:51:57] to happen, then I would probably say
[2:52:00] >> then I'd probably say keep it on there.
[2:52:02] I mean,
[2:52:02] >> yeah, but I'd love to see us knock this
[2:52:04] fund balance down to $500,000 and then
[2:52:07] add an and then next year we'll use
[2:52:10] $500,000 of fund balance to keep our
[2:52:13] taxes down.
[2:52:14] >> We should have capital.
[2:52:16] >> That's fine.
[2:52:18] There's 100 ways it's going to set up
[2:52:20] >> this and it's just like never ending as
[2:52:22] long as
[2:52:24] you're coming from though. If that's our
[2:52:26] plan, maybe we put it back to staff and
[2:52:28] say bring it down to 500,000 and you
[2:52:31] guys prioritize these cuz we literally
[2:52:34] don't know.
[2:52:34] >> Why 500 though? That that's just an
[2:52:37] arbitrary
[2:52:38] >> I don't Well, I'm just saying 500 or you
[2:52:41] know cuz we I don't know. I
[2:52:44] >> know. I'm sorry. Maybe it's not a fair
[2:52:45] question, but it's just I could ask the
[2:52:48] same question with why do you want the
[2:52:50] tax rate below 20 when we're showing you
[2:52:53] the needs and the and I get it. All the
[2:52:57] political hoopla with it, but
[2:52:59] >> well, not not even that. It's just it's
[2:53:01] actual dollars.
[2:53:02] >> So, I have a question.
[2:53:03] >> Yes, but there's actual needs.
[2:53:05] >> How much do we expect our fund balance
[2:53:07] to grow?
[2:53:08] >> We don't.
[2:53:10] >> Okay, then I think that comes back to
[2:53:11] the point of we have to we can't that
[2:53:14] much
[2:53:16] >> every year
[2:53:18] that much
[2:53:21] >> un Yeah, unless we
[2:53:22] >> have like a old lady with a can that
[2:53:25] says like fund the Barnes Tower.
[2:53:28] >> I like the idea. fun
[2:53:31] back to the director heads and saying,
[2:53:32] "Okay, 500,000 figure it out
[2:53:35] >> and let them prioritize what they think
[2:53:37] is
[2:53:38] >> if there is a real need that's like a
[2:53:41] danger to the community, then let's talk
[2:53:44] about that." But
[2:53:46] >> I mean, this is their wish list and I'm
[2:53:48] sure they've really prioritized what
[2:53:50] they really do wish we would do. And if
[2:53:53] we aren't comfortable with that amount,
[2:53:55] I think it is fair to say, "Okay, Jason,
[2:53:57] you go talk and
[2:53:59] You guys figure out what you can do with
[2:54:01] 500,000.
[2:54:02] >> Yeah. The Barnes Park pavilion restroom
[2:54:04] work. Yeah. So, the roof leaks a little
[2:54:06] bit. Hardly ever rains. No one goes to
[2:54:08] parks when it rains anyway. So, I think
[2:54:11] there are probably ways to
[2:54:13] >> see I don't even know
[2:54:13] >> whittle this down.
[2:54:15] >> Okay.
[2:54:15] >> Um Yeah. I mean and I like that's where we are.
[2:54:22] It's like, you know, we these
[2:54:25] >> But at some point, when are we going to
[2:54:27] replace, you know, that 40-year-old
[2:54:29] roof?
[2:54:30] >> But then I think that has to go back to
[2:54:32] taxes, right?
[2:54:33] >> We just don't have the money for it.
[2:54:34] >> So, we increase the amount we need in
[2:54:37] taxes for the parks department by a
[2:54:40] little bit and they can save up, you
[2:54:42] know, after three years and actually do
[2:54:44] that project. I think that's when you
[2:54:46] need to start thinking more in lines of
[2:54:48] that.
[2:54:50] >> That's fine. But you also just cut taxes
[2:54:52] and you're going to cut projects. So
[2:54:54] there's never going to be savings to be
[2:54:56] able to do that.
[2:54:59] >> But that's what we're trying to do is
[2:55:00] we're trying to get that bottom line
[2:55:02] down. Whether that means cutting taxes
[2:55:03] and cutting some projects. We're trying
[2:55:05] to get the number down. That's what
[2:55:07] we're trying to do. We're trying to stop
[2:55:09] that that number from that has seemed to
[2:55:13] have grown exponentially in the last
[2:55:16] four years. We're trying to slow that
[2:55:17] down to get it down to a manageable
[2:55:19] percent.
[2:55:20] You got to because if we don't
[2:55:22] >> and that's why we're talking about every
[2:55:24] dollar matters at this point. Every
[2:55:25] single dollar matters at this point.
[2:55:27] >> So to Nate's point, what if we were to
[2:55:30] put and what I was kind of trying to say
[2:55:31] earlier, what if we were to put in an
[2:55:34] amount into the truth and taxation that
[2:55:36] is just supposed to be building up like
[2:55:41] say like cuz everything in the truth and
[2:55:42] taxation is attached to something and so
[2:55:45] we're not really
[2:55:46] >> growing. So, if we were to put in
[2:55:48] 200,000 and say, "Okay, this year it's
[2:55:50] going for these bleachers. Next year
[2:55:52] it's going to be for whatever." We would
[2:55:54] be increasing what we're doing a a
[2:55:55] little bit this year, but it would in
[2:55:57] theory I mean, I don't know.
[2:55:59] Everything's going to eat my inflation,
[2:56:00] but in theory, we could then roll that
[2:56:02] over to something else. It's I don't
[2:56:05] want to say overcharging, but adding a
[2:56:07] little bit extra kind of to Mike's
[2:56:08] point, too, of 20% each year until we're
[2:56:11] at where we want to be. I I just think
[2:56:14] this year we've cut so much and it's not
[2:56:16] going to get us where we want to be. No.
[2:56:18] >> In the next So So that's why I'm saying
[2:56:20] add 200,000 or or however much. I don't
[2:56:22] know.
[2:56:24] >> Use it for something this year and carry
[2:56:26] it over for the next year. It's a small
[2:56:28] amount, but it'll do something.
[2:56:31] >> That's fair.
[2:56:32] >> Yeah. And I would Yeah,
[2:56:34] >> cuz we were looking at 32%. I don't feel
[2:56:36] bad about any of the things we've taken
[2:56:37] off of the truth and taxation. I mean, I
[2:56:40] don't love it, but um but I think if
[2:56:43] we've gotten it down to 21% and you
[2:56:46] know, 22, what if we put it to like 23
[2:56:48] or something?
[2:56:49] >> 24
[2:56:49] >> and and and use that money to start
[2:56:52] getting on top of these things or or
[2:56:53] whatever. Not not necessarily. I don't
[2:56:55] know. You know, not even a full full
[2:56:57] percent. I have no idea the money
[2:56:59] amounts, but $200,000.
[2:57:03] >> O I I don't think I
[2:57:06] >> I just don't think that's a great idea.
[2:57:08] I mean, I get it in theory just because
[2:57:11] the whole purpose of truth and taxation
[2:57:12] and the whole reason that they've
[2:57:14] changed all the laws is to be completely
[2:57:16] transparent about what we're doing.
[2:57:18] >> And so this year it would be
[2:57:20] transparent, but we can't account for
[2:57:22] >> We are allowed to save for projects
[2:57:23] though.
[2:57:25] >> That's still I mean it was an idea. We
[2:57:28] don't have to.
[2:57:28] >> Well, you can save for projects, but
[2:57:30] they're supposed to be in capital
[2:57:31] accounts, aren't they?
[2:57:32] >> Yeah. And we can transfer it to the
[2:57:34] capital account. So it wouldn't it
[2:57:37] wouldn't build general fund funds.
[2:57:38] >> So we we go to our residents and we say
[2:57:40] okay actually we only really needed
[2:57:43] 21.9% but we're going to add it you know
[2:57:46] a couple 3% so that we can start
[2:57:47] building up our fund balance again
[2:57:49] because we weren't very
[2:57:51] >> um
[2:57:51] >> but careful with your money.
[2:57:53] >> That's you remember the discussion they
[2:57:56] had with that's exactly why inflation is
[2:57:58] not built into truth and taxation. I
[2:58:00] know that's what I'm saying.
[2:58:02] >> Absolutely. That's the very thing that
[2:58:04] they did not want you to do is so I
[2:58:06] agree. You're here's what you're saying
[2:58:08] is exactly right.
[2:58:08] >> Well, and I'm saying and even there were there um were laws that Dan
[2:58:13] McCay tried to pass that said that if
[2:58:14] you have a um bond payment as soon as
[2:58:17] that bond is retired, you return that
[2:58:20] money back to the taxpayers. You don't
[2:58:22] roll it into a new bond. You don't save
[2:58:24] it in your general fund.
[2:58:25] >> The other bond that
[2:58:26] >> you don't keep collecting it. You
[2:58:27] >> Peterson had in there that says that
[2:58:29] maximum tax increase is 5%. It's coming
[2:58:32] back. It's not coming back.
[2:58:34] >> I guess that's what I mean by being
[2:58:35] transparent.
[2:58:36] >> Well, but they will.
[2:58:37] >> So, why not do this now?
[2:58:38] >> They will.
[2:58:39] >> That's a great point.
[2:58:41] >> Yeah, Abby, you made a good point cuz
[2:58:44] >> cuz $200,000 doesn't move. I mean,
[2:58:47] >> no.
[2:58:48] >> What What does $200,000 do?
[2:58:49] >> I mean, it's bleachers or whatever that
[2:58:51] line.
[2:58:52] >> Well, if you want to add the bleachers
[2:58:53] back in, it's already included in that
[2:58:54] 21%.
[2:58:56] >> It's already included from the fund
[2:58:58] balance.
[2:58:59] >> Yeah. As the
[2:59:02] as a one times.
[2:59:05] >> Yeah,
[2:59:05] >> but I don't know how we can even use
[2:59:07] fund balance if we're not building that
[2:59:08] fund balance.
[2:59:10] >> I just don't know how that
[2:59:11] >> checks out.
[2:59:16] Eventually, you'll run out.
[2:59:17] >> Exactly. And so I don't know what's the
[2:59:19] answer.
[2:59:20] >> The answer is you have to be consistent
[2:59:22] with your truth and taxation
[2:59:23] >> and and set a pace and make it
[2:59:27] repeatable and consistent.
[2:59:30] I always have
[2:59:33] that will answer the question with all
[2:59:34] these one time expenditures.
[2:59:38] >> Mhm. There's always going to be
[2:59:40] projects.
[2:59:43] >> I I would say that I would love to get
[2:59:45] to the point like Marin's pl pushed into
[2:59:47] the you know future projections that we
[2:59:49] don't dip into fund balance like that's
[2:59:50] not part of our plan
[2:59:52] >> because it obviously that's not
[2:59:54] sustainable.
[2:59:56] I think the 200 would be a great
[2:59:57] opportunity for if if this uh person
[3:00:00] that you've spoken to is truly
[3:00:03] interested in
[3:00:04] >> 250
[3:00:05] >> in donating
[3:00:08] >> $250,000
[3:00:10] towards the city. I think that would be
[3:00:13] an awesome one to do because you could
[3:00:15] actually even put something on like
[3:00:17] donated by anonymous.
[3:00:19] >> You know, it's a tower. like it seems
[3:00:21] like that would be a great opportunity
[3:00:23] to be able to pay for something like
[3:00:24] that and and we don't want to use any
[3:00:27] type of donation for ongoing expenses.
[3:00:30] We definitely only want to use it for
[3:00:32] >> onetime funds and so
[3:00:34] >> that could [snorts] be I think that
[3:00:36] could be one of those that we should
[3:00:37] probably look at. Um
[3:00:39] >> could we wrap money towards that?
[3:00:42] >> We could except it's all committed right
[3:00:44] now. I mean every year it gets
[3:00:45] recommitted so that would be a cool
[3:00:47] question. And you could even do the the
[3:00:50] restroom and the and the toilets could
[3:00:52] say donated by
[3:00:54] >> Sure.
[3:00:54] >> When you flush when you
[3:00:58] >> when you flush, think anonymous.
[3:01:00] >> I [laughter]
[3:01:01] I just want to bring up anonymous
[3:01:04] singing.
[3:01:06] >> I mean, all great points. There's so
[3:01:09] many things to think about. But I want I
[3:01:10] just want to bring up Aby's point again
[3:01:12] of if the 5%
[3:01:14] limit comes back
[3:01:19] » we deal with it.
[3:01:20] >> I mean we deal with it then fine but
[3:01:21] that's kind of why we're here right now
[3:01:24] >> because we just keep pushing things
[3:01:27] budget now because
[3:01:28] >> I'm not asking to pat it. I'm asking to
[3:01:30] fund the needs instead of pushing those
[3:01:32] needs down the road.
[3:01:33] >> Catch up. We still need to catch it up.
[3:01:34] We we still got we're we're still not
[3:01:37] even coming close to catching up to the
[3:01:39] needs that we have now with that figure
[3:01:41] in future stuff that we might want.
[3:01:44] >> And the second that 5% comes back, we're
[3:01:47] screwed.
[3:01:48] >> Well, I don't know if it's 5%, but it
[3:01:50] was
[3:01:50] >> it was proposed that way and then it
[3:01:52] went to 10, I think,
[3:01:54] because we're done. Yeah.
[3:01:56] >> So,
[3:01:57] >> I'm just saying if if that that was I
[3:02:00] just wanted to bring that back up, you
[3:02:01] know,
[3:02:01] >> because nothing is going to get better.
[3:02:04] Nope.
[3:02:05] >> Well, that's when you say like we've got
[3:02:09] to either have we've got to have
[3:02:11] businesses come in. I guess
[3:02:14] >> the state needs to come in and start
[3:02:16] defending some of this infrastructure
[3:02:17] that they should be having.
[3:02:21] >> We expect you to do that.
[3:02:22] >> Okay.
[3:02:23] >> And Senator,
[3:02:25] >> I Okay. So right at this point,
[3:02:28] >> if we rightsize the the property tax
[3:02:31] like the model showed before, then we
[3:02:33] get back into just capturing inflation.
[3:02:35] But right now, we're still in this
[3:02:37] discussion of we're not funding this
[3:02:39] with uh property tax. So, we're dipping
[3:02:42] into fund balance, but this is the only
[3:02:44] year we're proposing that. After this
[3:02:46] year, then we're looking at, like Marin
[3:02:48] said, just funding it with with true
[3:02:51] taxes, paying the true cost of operating
[3:02:54] the city, and just capturing inflation.
[3:02:57] And but it's it's painful those first
[3:03:00] couple years to actually rightsize
[3:03:01] property tax and get us up to probably
[3:03:03] somewhere around here where we should be
[3:03:05] to fund just the status quo of what
[3:03:07] we're doing. I mean in theory if you did
[3:03:09] 20% for four years that's an 80%
[3:03:11] increase
[3:03:13] >> and and that's we probably should be up
[3:03:16] here around bountiful west Clinton
[3:03:18] >> that does it in a gradual way and people
[3:03:21] can help it can help people because
[3:03:23] people do tend to hopefully capture a
[3:03:26] little bit of inflation in their budgets
[3:03:29] and so
[3:03:30] >> and it encourages the the it encourages
[3:03:33] possibly the the change in mindset Uh,
[3:03:38] do you want as a city, do you want to
[3:03:40] continue to keep doing this or do you
[3:03:42] want to bring some businesses in that
[3:03:44] will help supplement that?
[3:03:47] >> Well, okay, back to the chart. So, the
[3:03:49] 949,
[3:03:51] >> are we going to what are we going to
[3:03:55] 791?
[3:03:55] >> If I Yeah, I would say though that we
[3:03:59] really look hard on that 200. I think
[3:04:02] that would be a great opportunity.
[3:04:03] >> Okay. So, we maybe try to talk to this
[3:04:05] donor person, see if they pitch in their
[3:04:06] 250, which they said, and then just fund
[3:04:08] the 791.
[3:04:10] >> Oh, I think the range should
[3:04:12] >> Sorry, now I'm picking and choosing, but
[3:04:14] I think I remember talking about that
[3:04:16] and it's essentially just that they
[3:04:17] we're allowed not to have space at one
[3:04:18] of the ranges and they want to have a
[3:04:20] shed for their stuff. But
[3:04:21] >> Oh, okay. Then that's
[3:04:22] >> is that what that is?
[3:04:23] >> That's the bountiful
[3:04:25] the
[3:04:26] >> So, they don't there. So, it would be
[3:04:29] they would be able to put that shed
[3:04:31] there. you know,
[3:04:32] >> she's just off
[3:04:35] take it off because I mean I don't know
[3:04:37] that they necessarily need need it this
[3:04:39] year.
[3:04:40] >> I can't answer that one, but
[3:04:41] >> I can't either, but they have asked it
[3:04:43] for it the past
[3:04:45] >> four, five, six years.
[3:04:48] >> And we did just take the drone off, too.
[3:04:51] So,
[3:04:52] >> no, no, no. We put the drone on.
[3:04:54] >> Well, the drone's hopefully going to be
[3:04:56] paid by
[3:04:56] >> Yeah, we're trying to get a donation.
[3:04:58] >> I think we can get the drone. I'm I'm
[3:05:00] confident we get the show.
[3:05:01] >> I was like the drone's off. I thought
[3:05:03] [laughter]
[3:05:04] >> poor Marin is like
[3:05:06] >> my gosh.
[3:05:07] >> It's in limbo.
[3:05:09] >> Okay.
[3:05:10] >> 6 hours to make this tenative budget
[3:05:12] tomorrow. So
[3:05:14] >> motion to close the meeting.
[3:05:15] >> Okay. Well,
[3:05:19] you guys talk.
[3:05:22] I don't need to put up more signs.
[3:05:24] >> Okay. Who wants to just who what are we
[3:05:26] doing with this budget with this
[3:05:29] proposed fund balance transfer?
[3:05:31] >> Are we leaving 500 the cap or are we
[3:05:33] going to just fund what's there?
[3:05:36] >> Oh yeah.
[3:05:36] >> Now say that again.
[3:05:37] >> I said are we wanting to cap it at 500?
[3:05:41] >> I would like to see it capped at 500
[3:05:42] right now because it's something we can
[3:05:44] change later.
[3:05:45] >> Okay. I would like to see a cap at 500.
[3:05:48] >> If there's a a really good uh reason to
[3:05:53] go over that, I would like to know that.
[3:05:55] >> We can talk about it.
[3:05:57] >> But you guys have got to
[3:06:01] figure out what the five is. I don't
[3:06:03] like that arbitrary.
[3:06:04] >> They go back to their departments and
[3:06:06] they decide.
[3:06:07] >> Yeah, but what are we going to be
[3:06:08] presented on Thursday?
[3:06:10] >> Right. I I'm h I can make that number
[3:06:12] 500 for Thursday, but it's not going to
[3:06:14] be a strategic conversation.
[3:06:16] >> But it is tentative.
[3:06:18] >> It's tentative. I just we don't have
[3:06:19] time to get all eight department heads
[3:06:21] together tomorrow to
[3:06:23] >> Can we make it tenatively just like a 5%
[3:06:27] increase then on
[3:06:30] just change it?
[3:06:31] >> Sure. Okay.
[3:06:32] >> You know what's the tentative? Let's just be honest, right? That's
[3:06:36] >> Are we wanting it to be Are we wanting
[3:06:38] it to really be five at one point in
[3:06:40] time or are we going to eventually go to
[3:06:42] 791 or at
[3:06:43] >> 99? Five.
[3:06:45] >> Huh?
[3:06:45] >> I want to be five.
[3:06:46] >> Okay. Five.
[3:06:47] >> But why?
[3:06:48] >> Can I still ask why 500?
[3:06:50] >> If if we're at five though,
[3:06:52] >> what is 400,000 savings going to do for
[3:06:54] us?
[3:06:55] >> So 256 plus 115. I mean a half million
[3:06:58] or a quart million of that's already
[3:06:59] gone in just getting a
[3:07:01] >> keeps us $500,000 more
[3:07:02] >> our stuff.
[3:07:04] But why not? Why not 600? Why not
[3:07:06] nothing? Why not? I'm just asking.
[3:07:08] >> Okay, I'm good. Drop. They're all one
[3:07:11] time purchases. Take them through the
[3:07:13] taxation and stuff. Wink wink.
[3:07:15] >> I think conversation should be, are
[3:07:16] these projects worth funding? The
[3:07:19] question number one, are they worth
[3:07:20] funding period?
[3:07:22] >> Um, are we fine with letting some of
[3:07:24] these things like restroom building
[3:07:26] just, you know, continue? It's 40 years
[3:07:28] old now,
[3:07:30] >> right? Yeah.
[3:07:31] >> Um, and if it's if it's the question to
[3:07:33] answer one is, yeah, we should probably
[3:07:35] fix that 40-y old restroom building,
[3:07:37] then then the question is, is it better
[3:07:40] to do it now or wait till next year, the
[3:07:42] next year when it's still going to be a
[3:07:44] need, but probably costs only go up,
[3:07:46] right? We've got one time money now we
[3:07:48] could use given it's lowering our fund
[3:07:51] balance. But
[3:07:53] um all these projects are probably
[3:07:55] things that we'll need to fund um
[3:07:58] whether it's this year or next year or
[3:07:59] maybe the next.
[3:08:00] >> I think the big fear is the fear of
[3:08:03] lowering the fund balance and having an
[3:08:05] emergency. For me, that's the biggest
[3:08:07] fear is taking that down and having an
[3:08:09] emergency.
[3:08:10] >> And I think that's why we're trying to
[3:08:12] lower the number, not because we don't
[3:08:13] think these things are valid and useful
[3:08:16] and needing to be funded in the future.
[3:08:17] And I also understand the fact that
[3:08:19] they'll likely become more expensive,
[3:08:20] which is a big argument for just leaving
[3:08:22] it. But to me, I worry that we're going
[3:08:25] to take this down and then something's
[3:08:28] going to happen and we're going to be in
[3:08:29] trouble,
[3:08:30] >> right? Probably the issue with
[3:08:32] increasing increasing property tax to f
[3:08:36] for these things is that they're
[3:08:37] one-time things. And the nice thing
[3:08:39] would be using property taxes to only
[3:08:41] pay for
[3:08:43] >> ongoing expenses supposed to be for.
[3:08:45] Yes.
[3:08:45] >> Right. And I know and I know that what
[3:08:47] you're saying is that there's always
[3:08:49] going to be projects, right? Is that
[3:08:51] that's your point is that there will
[3:08:53] always be projects that will be part of
[3:08:56] what should be part of ongoing expenses.
[3:08:59] >> Correct.
[3:08:59] >> So that makes sense and I get it and I
[3:09:02] understand the concept.
[3:09:04] >> I don't know that maybe Saul or somebody
[3:09:06] can't look at that and go, you know
[3:09:08] what, I didn't buy all the guns that I
[3:09:10] thought I was going to buy this year.
[3:09:11] I'll probably have about 8,900 bucks.
[3:09:14] I'll just go buy a shed this year.
[3:09:17] >> Sure.
[3:09:17] >> And that does happen.
[3:09:19] >> That does happen.
[3:09:20] >> Yeah. And that's why I say I'd like go
[3:09:22] dropping it down.
[3:09:23] >> Okay.
[3:09:23] >> And then let these guys look and see
[3:09:25] maybe I have money elsewhere.
[3:09:27] >> We need to have a strict policy in place
[3:09:29] >> until I know how we're going to build up
[3:09:31] that fund balance again.
[3:09:33] >> We haven't much.
[3:09:34] >> We can't keep doing this,
[3:09:36] >> right?
[3:09:38] >> And four patrol, three patrol vehicles,
[3:09:40] one. No, he's saying we can't
[3:09:44] >> that won't be changed by
[3:09:46] >> Okay. So, are we good with having right
[3:09:48] now at 500 and and having them make a
[3:09:51] case if it needs to be more than that?
[3:09:53] >> Making and choosing the projects.
[3:09:55] >> Seems like that.
[3:09:56] >> So, tenative budget on Thursday night
[3:09:58] should show a 21% tax increase.
[3:10:02] >> How much?
[3:10:03] >> 21.97.
[3:10:04] >> 21.9. Okay. 22 and uh 500,000 capital.
[3:10:09] That's it. Yeah,
[3:10:10] >> that should be a budget we should
[3:10:12] approve and then say we're going to
[3:10:14] approve the taxation.
[3:10:15] >> An enterprise fund will stay how we
[3:10:17] presented last Friday.
[3:10:19] >> Correct. Enterprise funds will stay how
[3:10:21] we presented on Friday.
[3:10:23] >> I say no.
[3:10:25] >> I say we're
[3:10:26] >> talking about the rates.
[3:10:26] >> I say we uh raise the rates instead of
[3:10:28] the percents. I say we raise the rates,
[3:10:30] the inflation.
[3:10:31] >> Oh, for the enterprise funds.
[3:10:32] >> Yeah, enterprise funds. We only we we
[3:10:34] take we took the costs last year and we
[3:10:38] raised them and now this year I'm not
[3:10:40] saying don't raise them. I'm saying
[3:10:41] raise them what inflation is. Raising 3%
[3:10:43] inflation raising 3%.
[3:10:45] >> Wait, wait, wait. Is inflation 3% or is
[3:10:47] cost of living 3%.
[3:10:48] >> Inflation. It says it said that Utah
[3:10:51] inflation in Utah right now is
[3:10:53] supposedly between 2 and 1/2 and 3 and
[3:10:56] 1/2. So I figure 3%.
[3:10:58] >> I think we're running across.
[3:10:59] [clears throat]
[3:10:59] >> I'm asking the Google machine. That's
[3:11:01] all I can go by. I think we're running
[3:11:03] across the same problem we saw with the
[3:11:04] tax increases. I don't think rates
[3:11:07] increased when we were experiencing that
[3:11:09] unprecedented inflation. Maybe they did,
[3:11:12] but if they didn't increase when we were
[3:11:14] hitting that inflation, then we're
[3:11:16] behind again.
[3:11:16] >> Yeah, I feel like we should break out
[3:11:18] the water model again if we're going to
[3:11:20] adjust rate just so we're really clear
[3:11:21] about, hey, if we do it differently,
[3:11:23] what does that mean for next year? Just
[3:11:25] to hold ourselves accountable. But
[3:11:27] remember, we're only talking about what
[3:11:28] $1.69 on the actual impact of residents.
[3:11:32] uh for the it was minimal. Um it was
[3:11:35] going to be more right sizing the the
[3:11:36] rate for the commercial which have been
[3:11:38] under build or not build really where
[3:11:41] they should be for a number of years.
[3:11:42] >> Consumption has been higher than what
[3:11:44] we've been billing.
[3:11:45] >> Yeah.
[3:11:45] >> And residents have been subsidizing it
[3:11:48] >> and and I think we've been subsidizing
[3:11:50] those commercial
[3:11:50] >> water and electric businesses too long.
[3:11:53] So, I think the enterprise funds are
[3:11:55] great because we're trying to just
[3:11:57] charge the commercial businesses what
[3:11:59] they should be charged.
[3:12:01] >> Residents for power, I just want to add
[3:12:03] real quick. Residents for power going
[3:12:04] into summer are going to actually be
[3:12:06] paying less. That's right.
[3:12:07] >> Than they than they've paid for summer
[3:12:09] traditionally because that top tier, the
[3:12:12] >> the base rate is going up 25 cents. The
[3:12:16] two tiers are unchanged and then the one
[3:12:18] t the the very top end tier is actually
[3:12:21] going down. Um
[3:12:23] >> so in that case maybe we keep them
[3:12:25] however keep them the way they are
[3:12:28] >> well at least for this through this
[3:12:30] tenative budget
[3:12:32] >> and then we can have another meeting
[3:12:34] >> and then we raise impact fees when we
[3:12:35] get the state
[3:12:36] >> because we can speak to that as we talk
[3:12:38] about the other
[3:12:39] >> and mo most of the enterprise fund
[3:12:43] >> well I shouldn't say most but the the largest dollar amounts are pass
[3:12:46] through costs too
[3:12:48] >> from from our partners that we work with
[3:12:51] the portion that we can control.
[3:12:54] It's late, so maybe this number is
[3:12:55] wrong, but it's like a $1.68 on water
[3:12:59] and power. Like, we're maybe increasing
[3:13:01] it maybe $2 or $3.
[3:13:04] >> Caseville City's fees.
[3:13:05] >> Caseville. Yeah,
[3:13:07] >> that we can control. The rest is sewer
[3:13:10] district sanitation,
[3:13:13] >> right? All cost that we don't control
[3:13:15] really. So,
[3:13:18] but we can we can
[3:13:20] >> we re revisit those um at some point. I
[3:13:23] mean,
[3:13:25] >> I just say let's take the time to make
[3:13:26] sure we're
[3:13:29] understanding.
[3:13:29] >> So, we obviously are going to have
[3:13:30] another work session.
[3:13:32] >> Yeah. Do we want to schedule another
[3:13:33] general uh enterprise fund work session
[3:13:36] for
[3:13:38] >> maybe next week?
[3:13:39] >> Let's figure that out on the council. We
[3:13:41] >> have a question.
[3:13:43] Is it the council
[3:13:45] >> desire [laughter] to have a live water
[3:13:48] session instead of just a screenshot?
[3:13:51] >> Yes.
[3:13:52] >> We would like to see the numbers.
[3:13:53] >> Yes. Where we can put the numbers and
[3:13:54] change the percent.
[3:13:56] >> Absolutely.
[3:13:58] >> Tonight was fantastic. Thank you.
[3:13:59] >> Thank you.
[3:14:00] >> Yeah, it's been really good.
[3:14:00] >> Thanks.
[3:14:01] >> It's painful.
[3:14:02] >> And yeah, I'd say it's been great. I
[3:14:04] think uh probably
[3:14:08] going to be some upset staff about this
[3:14:10] most likely because we're not approving
[3:14:12] what we approved last year. I would say
[3:14:15] that they're probably going to be
[3:14:16] discouraged about that. But um you know,
[3:14:21] like Tammy pointed out, it's a different
[3:14:24] the mayor pointed out, it's a different
[3:14:26] time. We're we're at war and
[3:14:29] >> Yeah. And that's a fair comment. I I
[3:14:31] think we just want to know
[3:14:34] >> what to do and the direction.
[3:14:36] >> We are approving a um and I think we
[3:14:38] should definitely look at mass like one
[3:14:40] bond to do our projects because I think
[3:14:43] it'll save money
[3:14:44] >> and we are approving that uh the op
[3:14:47] center potentially to have that
[3:14:50] >> remodeled. So I mean we've got projects
[3:14:52] in here. I I know that, you know, it's
[3:14:56] not everything that probably would like
[3:14:58] to be done or prioritized, but
[3:15:02] we're doing the best we can.
[3:15:05] >> I think staff knows that.
[3:15:07] >> Yes, we are approving the 6.7 something
[3:15:10] million bond for the op center right
[3:15:12] now.
[3:15:12] >> That's what I'm hearing.
[3:15:13] >> I thought that I thought it was because
[3:15:15] it's
[3:15:15] >> with the transfer of an enterprise.
[3:15:17] taking that 67,000 from the payment,
[3:15:19] putting it back into the capital
[3:15:21] account, and it will all be paid by the
[3:15:23] capital account is not part of our
[3:15:24] budget.
[3:15:25] >> It's not reflected in this, right?
[3:15:27] >> And so with And so you're saying that we
[3:15:29] will bond and redo
[3:15:32] the ops.
[3:15:34] >> I'm saying that that's what was
[3:15:35] included. I thought that that's what we
[3:15:36] talked about. As long as that 67,000 or
[3:15:39] whatever isn't from the truth and
[3:15:41] taxation increase,
[3:15:43] >> it is in the enterprise fund.
[3:15:45] >> And the enterprise fund will pay for
[3:15:47] that
[3:15:47] >> 67,000 will pay what?
[3:15:49] >> It was part of the payment portion. It
[3:15:51] was the general fund portion
[3:15:52] >> of the bond payment.
[3:15:53] >> Okay. So, you're taking that completely
[3:15:55] out, but you're still planning on
[3:15:56] bonding the 6.9 million this year.
[3:16:00] >> I thought that's what we
[3:16:02] was already in the budget.
[3:16:03] >> Yeah, that was that what we agreed on.
[3:16:05] Yes, that's what I heard. That will be
[3:16:07] intended budget on Thursday.
[3:16:10] >> What you thought we were doing?
[3:16:10] >> Well, we went kind of back and forth.
[3:16:12] >> Yeah, we went back and forth.
[3:16:13] >> You Jason, you convinced me to move
[3:16:16] forward in the mayor on this plan to
[3:16:19] move forward with that bond
[3:16:20] >> because I thought if we could bond for
[3:16:22] the school and this capital project at
[3:16:25] the same time, we probably will get some
[3:16:26] savings.
[3:16:27] >> Okay. If there's a $6.9 million
[3:16:30] shop or whatever,
[3:16:31] >> Yeah. Are we going to have to increase
[3:16:33] rates again to make that payment?
[3:16:36] >> Yes, sir.
[3:16:38] >> Then my answer would be no.
[3:16:39] >> Wait. Okay. So,
[3:16:41] >> that's what the increase is this year.
[3:16:43] And then we've we showed you on Friday
[3:16:45] how the increase has to go the next few
[3:16:48] years as well for other projects that
[3:16:52] are that are on our plan.
[3:16:54] >> Okay. The current the current fiscal
[3:16:56] year 27 that increase includes all the
[3:16:59] opcenter though if that's what you're
[3:17:02] >> minus that 67,000 that we know how to
[3:17:05] >> but not including increase rates that's
[3:17:07] what you're we are we haven't talked
[3:17:09] about rate increases and that's what
[3:17:10] you're talking about right
[3:17:12] >> we're going to have to raise rates to
[3:17:13] pay the $6.9 million bond
[3:17:16] >> okay I didn't
[3:17:19] already been included in
[3:17:20] >> it was what we showed on
[3:17:23] that budget
[3:17:24] Right.
[3:17:25] >> Yeah. And it's a $6.4 million bond that would be this, you know, coming
[3:17:30] year. But again, there's projects all
[3:17:33] throughout the future in those
[3:17:36] enterprise funds. We've got a big water
[3:17:37] tank project that's going to have to be
[3:17:39] bonded for in a few years. Like there's
[3:17:42] just a lot of projects. So, it's if
[3:17:44] we're going to do it, I don't know that
[3:17:46] there's a better time to do it. Um if we
[3:17:49] wait do it in a few years then we're
[3:17:51] looking at some other big costs at the
[3:17:53] same time that would start up. So
[3:17:54] there's other
[3:17:55] >> just trying to smooth out that
[3:17:57] >> cost. Okay. Let cuz you made some
[3:17:59] comments earlier. You said if the bond
[3:18:02] pass is in November, we're going to
[3:18:04] immediately start with design because we
[3:18:06] put money aside for that. That that's a
[3:18:10] whole bunch more than $30,000.
[3:18:13] >> We'd have to do a budget amendment. I
[3:18:15] think if we if the bond passes,
[3:18:17] >> the design's going to be about
[3:18:18] >> fire station
[3:18:20] 10 five 6% of the total cost,
[3:18:23] >> right?
[3:18:24] >> Which would be like hundreds of
[3:18:26] thousands of dollars. We would have to
[3:18:28] come up with this year's budget. I'm
[3:18:30] saying even if the bond passes, it needs
[3:18:33] to go to the 28 tenant the 28 budget to
[3:18:37] fund
[3:18:37] >> for the fire station But in the
[3:18:41] meantime, um I'm not in for a $6.9
[3:18:45] million bond for the shop.
[3:18:47] >> Okay.
[3:18:47] >> If it's going to require an additional
[3:18:50] increase in 27 to do so in 28.
[3:18:56] >> I thought it wasn't.
[3:18:57] >> It's not additional. It's what we've
[3:18:58] already presented.
[3:18:59] >> No, I mean
[3:19:00] >> already in there.
[3:19:01] >> Correct.
[3:19:01] >> Okay. You'll be able to show us that in
[3:19:03] the water model when we do the
[3:19:04] >> correct. Okay.
[3:19:05] >> Cuz I cuz my understanding was it
[3:19:06] doesn't it was we've already it's not
[3:19:08] increasing. It's not increasing.
[3:19:10] >> It's not increasing what we already
[3:19:11] looked at tonight.
[3:19:12] >> Well, okay, we're only we're talking
[3:19:14] about enterprise funds.
[3:19:16] >> So, yeah, that $169 impact per month and
[3:19:19] stuff for for I can't remember the
[3:19:20] numbers $169 for water a month
[3:19:23] >> and that
[3:19:24] >> and then electric was
[3:19:28] >> $2. I can't remember now,
[3:19:30] >> but it was that that includes the $6.4
[3:19:34] million bond payment.
[3:19:36] >> Okay.
[3:19:37] That's already done.
[3:19:39] >> It's already in there.
[3:19:40] >> Is that
[3:19:41] >> I wasn't clear.
[3:19:43] >> I was not clear on
[3:19:44] >> that. It's already in that
[3:19:46] >> already. Yep. There we go.
[3:19:49] >> Electric is going up 31 cents.
[3:19:51] >> 31 cents. Yeah, there we go. 31
[3:19:54] and $163.
[3:19:57] That's baked in already. The the $6.4
[3:20:00] million bond is baked into those
[3:20:01] numbers.
[3:20:02] >> Correct. And for anyone who's watching,
[3:20:04] I just want to remind them that we now
[3:20:05] have lowered what we think property
[3:20:07] taxes will be. So even if someone's
[3:20:09] maybe taking a picture of this screen,
[3:20:11] it's not 100% accurate.
[3:20:13] >> That's a good point. The 1480 is now
[3:20:15] what 10.99 or something.
[3:20:17] >> So it's down to about $20 a month.
[3:20:20] >> Yeah.
[3:20:22] >> For the total total. And that includes
[3:20:26] $6.8 million
[3:20:28] for the shop.
[3:20:29] >> That's what I understood is. I just want
[3:20:31] to make sure we're clear.
[3:20:32] >> Yes. Thank you for clarifying.
[3:20:34] >> So Mike, you're good. Then that we'll
[3:20:37] look at it. [laughter] Good.
[3:20:42] » I will bring it on Thursday.
[3:20:44] >> Unified.
[3:20:44] >> I I want us to be too because we all
[3:20:47] hate property taxes. We all want to say
[3:20:49] no to this
[3:20:50] >> for sure.
[3:20:52] >> But we made commitments last year. Yeah.
[3:20:55] >> So, while we're sewers got two stars by
[3:20:58] it
[3:21:00] >> up there and it says pass through cost.
[3:21:04] >> They already increased their stuff two
[3:21:06] times last year. Is this increase the
[3:21:08] 325 per month?
[3:21:11] >> Is that just for our administrative
[3:21:13] costs or is that also going to them too?
[3:21:17] >> $3 goes to them. 25 cents is ours.
[3:21:22] They [snorts] did another increase last
[3:21:24] year.
[3:21:24] >> They did another they did last year
[3:21:28] >> without any public.
[3:21:29] >> So why don't we just say
[3:21:30] >> they had their in December. Get rid of
[3:21:32] it.
[3:21:33] >> Why don't we just Why are we doing their
[3:21:35] utility? Why don't we just drop it?
[3:21:38] >> Um I think Josh,
[3:21:40] >> is there an agreement or something that
[3:21:41] we made somehow? I think Josh
[3:21:44] >> Josh spoke to the history of pressure
[3:21:47] irrigation. I think it's similar to
[3:21:49] sewer where we don't own the
[3:21:52] infrastructure, therefore we're not on
[3:21:54] the hook for those capital costs.
[3:21:56] >> I understand.
[3:21:57] >> I I think there's positive there. If we
[3:21:59] don't do their billing, I think we'll
[3:22:02] have to have our own sewer system.
[3:22:06] >> No, they own the sewer system. They're
[3:22:07] not giving that up.
[3:22:09] >> Well, if we don't do the building, then
[3:22:10] we'll probably I'm just doing at one
[3:22:13] time when we started doing this, there
[3:22:15] was very few people working down there.
[3:22:17] They have full staff, big department.
[3:22:18] They have a whole thing, huge budget.
[3:22:20] They have three cities that they do this
[3:22:22] for. They should be and I know that the
[3:22:25] other other cities around here are
[3:22:27] >> trying to figure out why they're doing
[3:22:29] their administrative work. We should be
[3:22:32] >> they still do.
[3:22:33] >> Yeah, they should have their own audited
[3:22:35] financials.
[3:22:37] >> City's bill for sewer. I don't I don't
[3:22:39] know.
[3:22:39] >> Just so I'm clear, this picture that I
[3:22:41] took of like home values and the monthly
[3:22:44] increase on a $1.2 $2 million home
[3:22:46] was$,758. That includes this bond
[3:22:49] payment.
[3:22:49] >> Yes.
[3:22:50] >> Increase, right? Of the rates plus our
[3:22:52] truth and taxation at 22%.
[3:22:54] >> Yes.
[3:22:55] >> That's all included in that $17
[3:22:57] >> and 58.
[3:22:58] >> 58 cents a month.
[3:22:59] >> Yes.
[3:23:00] >> Okay.
[3:23:00] >> And Josh reminded me too that uh we have
[3:23:04] existing agreements with the sewer
[3:23:06] district that there's no sunset on them.
[3:23:08] So there's really kind of legal binding
[3:23:10] documents that we're going to
[3:23:13] >> for them. Smoke.
[3:23:14] >> Who made that?
[3:23:18] » I don't know.
[3:23:19] >> It does smell like smoke.
[3:23:21] >> Nobody ever smells like smoke right now.
[3:23:24] >> Not like a cat like a like a like a
[3:23:28] firefire.
[3:23:33] » It's the smoke.
[3:23:35] >> That's That will happen when you don't
[3:23:37] feel [laughter]
[3:23:39] >> I feel like there's a breeze coming from
[3:23:41] outside.
[3:23:42] >> On fire.
[3:23:45] There is smoke.
[3:23:46] >> Smells like wood. Smell like electrical.
[3:23:48] >> It does smell like smoke.
[3:23:50] >> It smells like being specific about
[3:23:52] that. We just want smoke.
[3:23:54] >> Don't you think we should call somebody?
[3:23:58] >> Jeeps around. Honestly,
[3:24:00] >> outside
[3:24:03] if anybody's listening.
[3:24:07] [laughter]
[3:24:07] >> Are we enjoying this? John.
[3:24:14] » Wait, wait. Do we need a motion to
[3:24:15] adjourn?
[3:24:16] >> Motion to
[3:24:17] >> I have no idea. All
[3:24:18] >> in favor?
[3:24:19] >> I
[3:24:20] >> live.
[3:24:28] » Did that counting going on?
[3:24:33] » Is this nitro?
[3:24:41] » [laughter]
[3:24:46] » Hey, if I can smell exact
[3:24:48] I have no sense of
[3:24:49] >> smell.
[3:24:53] I smell smoke
[3:25:02] from
[3:25:12] water.
[3:25:18] helps me stay away.
[3:25:20] >> I need to do the zero sugars, but I love
[3:25:23] >> Oh, no, no, no.
[3:25:27] Look at it like I'm okay with a little
[3:25:30] bit.
[3:25:31] >> Why? I love uh you have the Viking