[8:37] We're gonna start with the urban
[8:38] renewal.
[8:40] You
[8:40] » I know. Just gonna trying to get
[8:43] » Oh, there we go.
[8:44] » Ready?
[8:45] » Yes,
[8:45] » We're ready.
[8:46] » Okay. So, um it's six o'clock.
[8:51] » I'm calling this meeting of the Urban
[8:53] Renewal Agency Budget Committee to
[8:56] order.
[8:58] I'm Steve Tusky. prior year's chair.
[9:01] The meeting of the city of St. Helens
[9:04] urban renewal agency budget committee
[9:07] will now come to order. Time is now 6:00
[9:11] p.m. and 20 seconds maybe. Um first
[9:15] we'll go around the table and please
[9:17] introduce yourself
[9:19] then me and then I'm going to go to any
[9:21] members in attendance online.
[9:24] Um so start with you. Yeah. John Walsh
[9:28] and in this meeting I am the urban
[9:30] renewal agency director.
[9:32] » Thank you.
[9:33] » Uh Jennifer Massie, mayor.
[9:35] » Glory Butch, finest director.
[9:37] » Jeremy Evans, committee member, city
[9:40] council,
[9:41] city council.
[9:43] » I committee member
[9:47] committee member.
[9:48] » And then are there any members of the
[9:51] urban renewal agency budget committee
[9:53] that are currently online?
[9:57] has not shown up yet. I just sent her an
[9:59] email.
[10:00] » All right. Let us know if she does show
[10:01] up. We'll keep going along. Um
[10:07] All right. So then um I would like to
[10:10] turn this matter over to the budget
[10:15] officer to review the agenda,
[10:17] introductions, budget officer comments,
[10:21] the rules of the urban renewal agency
[10:23] budget committee, and then we can go
[10:26] over declarations of conflict of
[10:28] interest after you finish. Miss Bush
[10:30] » Butch. Butch. Thank you.
[10:33] » Okay. So if is there any changes? um
[10:37] proposed for the agenda. I think it's
[10:40] pretty straightforward a normal agenda.
[10:45] None. So the ground rules committee
[10:48] members will act professionally and
[10:50] respectfully during the meetings.
[10:52] Committee members need to remember they
[10:54] are serving the community. Political
[10:56] ambitions and personal agendas and
[10:58] vendettas do not have a place here and
[11:00] should be at home.
[11:03] The city hall rules of conduct require
[11:06] that people behave in a manner that is
[11:08] not harassing or annoying under the
[11:10] circumstances which includes refraining
[11:12] from personal attacks. Budget committee
[11:14] members must refrain from personal
[11:16] attacks and instead phrase their views
[11:18] in ways that are not personal to the
[11:20] specific person. Everyone on the
[11:23] committee has a voice and is expected to
[11:25] present represent the community as a
[11:27] whole.
[11:29] your professional city staff has worked
[11:31] hard on bringing you a proposed budget
[11:33] that is based on council priorities and
[11:36] please be respectful of city staff. We
[11:39] are part of the community that are you
[11:41] are representing
[11:43] and so conflicts of interest uh is
[11:46] everybody aware of the conflicts of
[11:48] conflict of interest statement
[11:52] » And declaration?
[11:54] » No,
[11:55] » I think we are. Does anybody need it to
[11:57] be read or any Okay, I hear nobody needs
[12:00] it to be read.
[12:01] » Okay. Is there anybody that wants to a
[12:04] conflict of interest for the urban
[12:06] renewal agency?
[12:09] » I hear no conflicts of interest being
[12:11] raised by any member.
[12:13] » Okay, back to you.
[12:15] » Okay, so it's time to select a chair for
[12:20] the urban renewal agency budget
[12:22] committee
[12:24] uh for this year. Uh, does anybody would
[12:27] anybody like to make a nomination?
[12:34] » Second that.
[12:36] » Okay. Any other nominations for chair?
[12:39] » Jeremy Evans.
[12:41] » Okay. There's another
[12:43] Jeremy Evans being nominated for chair.
[12:47] I hear a second.
[12:51] None. So, uh, I'll move for a vote for,
[12:55] um, Steve Tasks to be the chair of the
[12:59] urban renewal agency budget committee
[13:01] for 2026. Let's see.
[13:05] » Pardon?
[13:06] » 27 budget. Thank you. Uh, all those in
[13:09] favor?
[13:10] » I
[13:12] against.
[13:14] Now, I'd like to call for nominations
[13:16] for vice chair.
[13:19] And uh do I hear any nominations or a
[13:23] vote for vice chair for the urban
[13:25] renewal agency budget committee 2027?
[13:28] » I nominate Jeremy Evans.
[13:30] » All right.
[13:32] Any other nominations?
[13:34] I hear none. So there's a nomination in
[13:37] a second. Can I get a show of vote for
[13:41] eyes for Jeremy Evans as the vice chair
[13:45] of the urban renewal agency budget
[13:47] committee?
[13:48] I any nays?
[13:51] There are none.
[13:53] » The second on that was Brandon Sundine.
[13:59] » Okay. So, I'd like to move on to the
[14:01] approval of the minutes.
[14:04] Um have uh these are the minutes for the
[14:07] May 29th, 2025 urban renewal budget
[14:10] committee minutes. As I recall, we had
[14:13] one meeting um and we have those the
[14:16] minutes for the and the meeting was
[14:17] relatively brief and so has everybody
[14:21] had a chance to review the minutes and
[14:24] if so is there anybody proposed any
[14:27] corrections to the minutes?
[14:31] I'm hearing nothing about corrections to
[14:34] the minutes.
[14:36] And I have a motion to approve the
[14:38] minutes uh for the 2026
[14:42] uh urban renewal agency budget
[14:44] committee.
[14:46] » Motion to approve the minutes.
[14:48] » Second that.
[14:51] » Right. And uh all in favor I
[14:54] » I and against none.
[14:59] Okay. So the minutes are now the
[15:01] minutes. Let's go to public comment on
[15:04] the proposed urban renewal agency
[15:07] budget.
[15:09] Committee members who wish to
[15:12] oh see community members who wish to
[15:15] please state your name for the record
[15:17] and observe the time limit of three
[15:19] minute and focus your comments
[15:21] specifically on the city's proposed
[15:24] budget for fiscal year 2627 as it
[15:28] relates to the urban renewal agency.
[15:31] That's what we're here to talk. The
[15:33] Urban Renewal Agency uh request that you
[15:36] refrain from personal attacks and
[15:37] instead focus on the budget for the
[15:40] urban renewal agency as it is proposed
[15:42] for 2027.
[15:44] There any public comments from the
[15:46] community members?
[15:50] Yes, Brian. Um, you look at the last
[15:54] year of the budget, you will notice that
[15:57] the the proposed budget for following
[16:00] year, you will notice that the revenue
[16:03] is less than the expenses and it's
[16:06] negative. I've been saying for literally
[16:09] five years that the income from the
[16:12] industrial property did not pay for the
[16:14] property and would not pay for the
[16:16] properties. The only reason that it's
[16:18] not going to be bankrupt, which is what
[16:19] I've been telling you for ever, is
[16:22] because you've had enough time to build
[16:23] up some desert. Hopefully, over time,
[16:26] the value of that property will increase
[16:29] and that negative cash flow option will
[16:31] not continue to happen. This is what
[16:34] happens when you spend money you don't
[16:35] have. Donald and I opposed it from the
[16:39] beginning. I opposed it now that you
[16:42] that it's not filled with dreams. You
[16:44] don't build it and they will come. No
[16:46] one's come. We have to have development
[16:48] and you had to have development before
[16:49] you spent the money. Spent the money and
[16:52] you are now in a c negative cash flow
[16:54] situation. I'm hoping that that
[16:55] situation changes but it hasn't and it
[16:58] was there and contrary to the
[17:01] administration and your finance director
[17:03] who says, "Oh, no, no, don't worry. In
[17:05] fact, it's right there on black and
[17:07] white that in fact you are in a negative
[17:09] cash flow situation." Um, for how many
[17:11] years that happens? No. But uh this is
[17:15] what happens about when you spend money.
[17:18] » Thank you, Brady. Any other public
[17:21] comments from anybody here regarding the
[17:25] budget for the urban renewal agency?
[17:29] There are none. Any public comments from
[17:31] anybody online?
[17:35] There are none. So, the public comment
[17:38] time frame is now closed. And I would
[17:42] like to turn over uh our discussion to
[17:46] Gloria Bush with Butch our budget
[17:50] officer.
[17:52] » Thank you.
[17:54] Uh the message for the
[17:57] St. Helens Urban Renewal Agency for
[18:00] Fiscal year 2027. It's our pleasure to
[18:03] present to you the fiscal year 2027
[18:05] proposed budget for the St. Helen's
[18:08] urban renewal agency. Fiscal year 2025
[18:11] was the first year since the formation
[18:14] of the urban renewal where funds were
[18:17] appropriated in categories other than in
[18:20] contingency for the prior eight years.
[18:23] Basically was collecting resources to
[18:26] ensure and enable the agency to to
[18:29] advance the priority infrastructure
[18:31] projects identified in the adopted St.
[18:33] Helen's urban renewal plan. This plan
[18:36] and project list is available on the
[18:39] city's website.
[18:41] The proposed budget appropriates $50,000
[18:44] in a capital outlay as a placeholder. It
[18:48] also appropriates $25,000 in materials
[18:51] and services for the annual audit.
[18:54] Additionally, this will be the first
[18:56] year that the agency expects to begin
[18:59] death service payments on the loan that
[19:01] provided the financing for the
[19:02] waterfront improvement projects. This
[19:05] project focused on improving key streets
[19:08] and intersections in the downtown
[19:10] riverfront district, extending utilities
[19:13] onto the city's riverfront property, and
[19:17] improvements along the Columbia River
[19:19] and Columbia View Park. These projects
[19:22] have set the groundwork for future
[19:24] public amenities and private investment
[19:26] in the city's riverfront property. For
[19:28] more information, see the project page
[19:30] on the city's website.
[19:33] The resources for project expenditures
[19:35] included a loan from IFA
[19:39] infrastructure financing authority and
[19:41] grants administered by the state.
[19:44] Additionally, some eligible expenditures
[19:47] are accounted for in the city's SDC
[19:49] funds. The IFA loan balance is
[19:53] $14,630,318.
[19:58] Maximum indebtedness or MI for the
[20:02] agency is $62 million.
[20:05] This is measured by the project
[20:07] expenditures of the agency. By June 30,
[20:10] 2026, the amount of MI
[20:13] used by the the agency is expected to be
[20:17] $18,254,496.
[20:22] Project expenditures
[20:25] that are financed by system development
[20:27] charges are not counted against the MI.
[20:31] The agency property tax
[20:34] revenue for fiscal years 2024 and 2025
[20:38] declined due to the departure of
[20:40] Cascad's tissue. The sale of the old
[20:43] mill site was anticipated to close in
[20:45] June 2025. However, that did not occur
[20:48] until late December 2025.
[20:51] too late for the property to return to
[20:53] the tax roles to be assessed for fiscal
[20:55] year 2026.
[20:57] Private investment on the city's
[20:59] waterfront redevelopment project,
[21:03] the city's
[21:04] industrial business park and
[21:06] reactivation at the former Armstrong
[21:08] World Industry site have all all have
[21:11] potential to improve the financial
[21:13] outlook for the agency in the long term.
[21:17] In the future, the city of St. Helens a
[21:21] urban renewal agency may request
[21:23] reimburse Oh, sorry. In the future, the
[21:27] city of St. Helens may request
[21:29] reimbursement of expenses from previous
[21:31] years that were related to the agency.
[21:34] Currently, city staff is recommending
[21:36] that it wait to seek any reimbursements
[21:40] from the agency, expenses from previous
[21:43] years to ensure sufficient revenues are
[21:45] acred to make loan payments when they
[21:47] come due. These expenses can include
[21:51] agency planning fees and professional
[21:53] services along with a percentage of
[21:55] staff time that was used to create and
[21:58] administer the agency. These expenses
[22:00] are tracked in our financial system if
[22:03] the city chooses to seek reimbursement
[22:05] reimbursement in the future from the
[22:08] SRA.
[22:10] Sincerely, John Walsh and the agency
[22:13] administrator and William Butch agency
[22:14] finance. Correct.
[22:20] Okay. Any discussion
[22:23] concerning the urban renewal agency
[22:26] budget?
[22:28] I have a couple questions, but I'd like
[22:29] to open it up to other people. I I just
[22:32] note it appears that the debt servicing
[22:35] cost is exceeding the revenues and will
[22:38] continue to. Uh so if this fund balance
[22:41] is depleted by year end 20 fiscal year
[22:44] end 27 uh it's unclear how the debt is
[22:48] going to be serviced going forward.
[22:49] However I don't see any flexibility to
[22:52] make a change at this juncture.
[22:59] » I I what I'm saying is I think there is
[23:02] a fiscal challenge coming down the pipe
[23:04] that possibly could have been foreseen
[23:06] um and it may be a tough spot next year.
[23:09] what are the numbers that you're looking
[23:10] at?
[23:11] » So, if uh if you look at the the
[23:15] estimate or the proposed budget here and
[23:18] you add up total resources and then you
[23:21] back off the fund balance, so you just
[23:23] look at what's coming in this year,
[23:25] there's less coming in than the $85,000
[23:29] in interest. So, um without that fund
[23:33] balance, effectively be bankrupt.
[23:36] insolvent maybe is a more proper term.
[23:39] So I will not be surprised if these
[23:41] revenues do not materialize or
[23:43] materialize higher than this if the
[23:46] following year this will be solvent.
[23:49] But we do have uh
[23:52] uh Arcadia
[23:54] coming online for this uh next tax
[23:58] season.
[24:00] Uh they will be assessed in November. So
[24:04] our projections for fiscal year 2027 is
[24:07] based on that. Um
[24:11] projecting forward
[24:14] I believe you're correct you it's going
[24:15] to be tight and so we are we are
[24:19] dependent on growth
[24:22] in the urban renewal district in order
[24:25] to um cover debt service. Is there
[24:28] additional is there additional debt
[24:31] services going to be coming online in
[24:32] the next three years?
[24:34] » No. No planned.
[24:36] » Is this a full year of debt service? Not
[24:38] knowing exact covenants. It's like two
[24:40] coupon payments semiannual. Is that
[24:42] » Um so this is this is the first time the
[24:46] first year of debt service on the loan.
[24:50] And this uh projection that we have for
[24:54] the fiscal year 2027 is the acred
[24:57] interest on the loan because it was a a
[25:00] draw loan
[25:02] and the interest costs accured over the
[25:07] life of the project. Um
[25:10] it is possible
[25:13] depending on the timing of the IFA going
[25:18] to the bond bank. So, this was a
[25:21] temporary loan
[25:22] » Basically that was
[25:24] » It's like a bridge loan to get you
[25:26] » Right and then if goes to what's called
[25:30] the bond bank to refinance that loan and
[25:35] depending on the timing of that we may
[25:37] have another year before we're have uh a
[25:41] payment due.
[25:44] » Okay. But we we put this in here
[25:48] as a just in case it comes due in
[25:51] September.
[25:52] » Okay. So that's very interesting. If
[25:57] it's going to be refinancing current
[25:58] market conditions, I know for sure the
[26:01] interest rates are higher than when this
[26:02] was initiated. So what would you expect
[26:05] the annual interest to be it or
[26:09] refinanced in market rates today?
[26:12] » Right. So
[26:13] » Essentially what's the debt burden
[26:15] burden that you would
[26:16] » It's different than going out on the
[26:18] market or going to a bank because the
[26:21] IFA will basically um be borrowing from
[26:26] the feds
[26:28] through the bond bank.
[26:29] » Sure. So the rate will be lower
[26:33] » Than they were in 21.
[26:35] » Um that's yet to be
[26:38] » We don't have we'll know we'll know what
[26:40] the rate is. um I believe in June.
[26:46] » So
[26:46] » Correct. Yeah, the the interim financing
[26:48] is charged 6%. Pretty favorable rate
[26:51] that the state that's what the the 800
[26:53] is based on is 0.6%.
[26:56] » It was acred over time.
[26:58] » Okay. So it's let's call it project
[27:00] » Five years of 0.6 peranom.
[27:03] » So 3%.
[27:05] » Do you think we'll get a coupon rate
[27:07] lower than 3% when it's refinanced?
[27:11] That would be follow if he gave in any
[27:13] indication.
[27:14] » I mean, I'm just trying to draw a very
[27:16] broad conclusion of will the interest be
[27:18] higher or lower? And it sounds like it's
[27:20] more likely to be higher than lower.
[27:22] » I would I would assume that that's
[27:24] correct. The agency did a lot of
[27:26] financial work on the front end to kind
[27:27] of safeguard high, medium, low growth.
[27:31] We targeted the a lowest low growth rate
[27:33] figuring that would be
[27:40] gades going away and coming off tax
[27:41] roles was not part of that equation. So
[27:44] » Absolutely understood.
[27:45] » But there arcades coming back on. So
[27:47] » Looking from here forward and thinking
[27:49] that that interest line could get worse.
[27:53] So to rehab,
[27:56] » You won't know until September if this
[27:58] even needs to be done and you won't know
[28:00] till June what the interest rate would
[28:01] be. We have we are currently going
[28:05] through the process with IFA with the
[28:07] state for um going to the bond bank. So
[28:11] we won't know if um we won't know those
[28:16] answers until June.
[28:18] » Okay.
[28:18] » At least.
[28:18] » And what was the September date? The
[28:20] September date is um from our interim
[28:25] financing amortization schedule. So that
[28:28] is what we're basing this on. So it's
[28:31] it's a theoretical
[28:35] um uh amortization schedule for the
[28:39] loan, the interim loan that um we had to
[28:43] use as the place marker.
[28:45] » Okay. And then
[28:47] you said that this was based the number
[28:50] is based on projected growth. Is that
[28:52] from what from Arcadia or some other
[28:56] projected growth?
[28:57] » Um also for the riverfront for any
[29:00] development that happens on the
[29:02] riverfront. So anything that happens in
[29:04] the urban renewal um plan area.
[29:08] » You want to talk about that? How would
[29:10] how do you arrive at that number that
[29:12] something at the riverfront is going to
[29:14] like? But that's what I'm trying to
[29:15] » That's that's going to be in the future.
[29:18] So that would be forecasted out. We
[29:21] don't have the a forecast for that. Um
[29:26] or I don't uh you want to talk about
[29:29] that John?
[29:31] » Yes. Well, getting too urban renewal,
[29:34] but urban renewal encompasses about 20%
[29:37] of the commercial industrial area city.
[29:40] There's a urban renewal plan shows the
[29:42] boundary and growth within that
[29:47] area. The city receives there's a frozen
[29:50] base when we informed the district and
[29:52] then any growth after that, the city
[29:54] captures all of the taxing agencies, not
[29:57] just the city's $1.90. It gets the the
[30:00] it gets
[30:02] fire, it gets police, it gets the
[30:04] county, you get school districts, it
[30:05] gets everything. So, it gets a a larger
[30:08] you get a little bit of growth. It's a
[30:09] lot.
[30:13] » Yeah. I mean, I'm just trying to figure
[30:14] out what what you base your projections
[30:16] on, but
[30:19] numbers are solid.
[30:20] » You used to consult in Tiberious
[30:22] Solutions, which is a specializes in
[30:24] urban latencies and plants and
[30:30] objections. There was a high, medium,
[30:32] and low growth rates and targeted the
[30:35] the no growth conservative most
[30:37] conservative rate to protect ourselves.
[30:39] » Just one major salt number Jeremy does
[30:44] » I mean we we're we're leveraged on the
[30:48] industrial
[30:50] productivity within the zone
[30:51] essentially. So
[30:54] personally I I wouldn't wouldn't put a
[30:57] lot of stake in any particular
[30:58] projection. I think it's actually quite
[31:00] a lumpy situation. You have something go
[31:03] away and it's a big event. You have
[31:04] something coming in that's a big event.
[31:06] Um
[31:07] but certainly a big question for the
[31:10] future whether the revenues will be
[31:12] there which kind of had to come back to
[31:15] my prior line of of questions. is
[31:18] thinking what happens if the revenues
[31:22] don't materialize to cover the debt in
[31:24] that case
[31:27] what happens does it who covers it uh
[31:31] you know how does insolveny get resolved
[31:38] it's very common for the agencies and
[31:40] cities to work back and forth and that
[31:42] one agency will loan money to the other
[31:44] agency and the other will pay it back or
[31:46] depending which has more money at the
[31:49] kind of money moves back and forth. So
[31:51] » Effectively the city would would kind of
[31:54] be on hook on the hook for lending money
[31:58] » To cover. So almost like they're the
[32:02] ultimate obligor here on the bond.
[32:05] » I mean can can the urban renewal agency
[32:07] default on the bond? I guess is the
[32:08] question I'm asking. Is it possible or
[32:11] will the city have to
[32:13] » Yeah. Okay. So the city's the ultimate
[32:15] all
[32:16] » Okay. the city's on.
[32:17] » So the city's on the
[32:18] » I have a quick question just in relation
[32:21] to the expenses. I assume that the
[32:23] professional expenses the in the permit
[32:25] that's all in the professional
[32:27] » I can barely hear you.
[32:28] » Uh sorry about that. Um the uh the
[32:31] reimbursements I'm just making sure that
[32:33] that is the only line item we're talking
[32:35] about is in the professional services or
[32:37] » We're not doing a reimbursement.
[32:39] » Yeah, that's my question. Why are we not
[32:41] or is there a reason why is because it
[32:42] takes out of the fund and we need that.
[32:45] So, we're not doing we're the city is
[32:48] not um
[32:50] asking for reimbursement from
[32:54] the agency
[32:56] for the very reasons that we just talked
[32:58] about.
[32:59] » I just want to make sure because it's
[33:00] going to come up, right? Because what on
[33:02] the front page here when it talks about
[33:04] Sinclair Y we're not asking for the
[33:06] reimbursements
[33:08] » Until the agency until such time as the
[33:11] agency becomes solvent and we're sure
[33:14] that we can make all the debt service
[33:16] and other payments.
[33:19] » Okay. So it's like giving free services
[33:21] from the city to the urban renewal
[33:23] agency until the point where they could
[33:25] afford to pay as they go.
[33:27] » Right.
[33:27] » Okay. which is different than
[33:29] accumulating those and having them
[33:30] recovered eventually. date.
[33:33] » No, we will. We do plan on
[33:36] » The event that at some point in time in
[33:38] the future, the urban renewal agency
[33:41] will reimburse the city for all of the
[33:44] accumulated.
[33:46] » Oh, what are the accumulated expenses?
[33:49] » Yeah, that number
[33:51] there need be money.
[33:52] » Is it is it material? Are we talking
[33:54] about like a million dollars or,000? No,
[33:57] it's
[33:59] between two and 5 thou $100,000
[34:03] » For the entire Okay.
[34:05] » Yeah.
[34:05] » And what kind of estimated time frame do
[34:08] you think that's going to happen?
[34:10] » Uh
[34:11] that's going to be really based on how
[34:14] soon we get development and how soon
[34:16] that development is um affects the tax
[34:20] roles.
[34:20] » $3 million is a4 million.
[34:24] That's the what we thought that was what
[34:26] that was what was answered in the last
[34:28] budget committee. $20 million assessed
[34:33] in the urban renewal creates quart
[34:35] million dollars in revenues.
[34:39] So,
[34:41] » Invest
[34:43] and build.
[34:44] » It's good for us.
[34:45] » At least one $20 million
[34:49] be great. Um, I had one question
[34:53] just consideration about getting more
[34:57] properties online. I I know a couple of
[35:00] properties are built but not yet
[35:02] occupied and there are other people that
[35:03] are properties working on it. I don't
[35:05] know if there's a mechanism that we can
[35:07] trigger
[35:09] people that are working on things that
[35:10] we can somehow get those onto the tax
[35:13] roles uh those just consideration going
[35:16] forward
[35:18] because we've got some people that are
[35:19] sort of mid- project. Can we get them
[35:22] the more favorable tax ro
[35:24] » Expedited
[35:25] » And I don't know what the triggering
[35:26] mechanism is. got one building that
[35:29] looks done, put that one on the tax roll
[35:32] so that we get the more favorable tax
[35:33] treat. But the earlier the better is
[35:36] just the thought. I don't know if you
[35:39] want to respond to that or not.
[35:40] » Properties come on the tax rolls after
[35:42] they're issued occupancy and and hits
[35:44] the tax the assessor cycle cycle
[35:48] » To occupancy.
[35:48] » They also cycle through the project if
[35:51] it's long. the assessor will come and
[35:54] appraise it what's been done if it's
[35:56] even not habitable if it's a structure
[35:58] they will tax you for the structure and
[36:00] then they'll come back the next year and
[36:02] tax it when it's finished
[36:04] » So they can start tax
[36:05] » They do they do start taxing my
[36:08] experience
[36:09] » So I guess uh suggestion from me would
[36:12] be to try to make sure that we as early
[36:15] as possible get these developing
[36:17] properties onto the tax ro such that
[36:19] we're collecting as much as we
[36:25] Is that is that within the the bounds of
[36:27] what can be done? Is there some legal
[36:30] distinction to when you can start
[36:32] taxing?
[36:33] » Because I believe,
[36:36] » Right? Is that a policy or is that a
[36:38] legal piece? Because, you know, say I
[36:41] built a house and I did it, you know,
[36:43] it's done November 1st and I'm assuming
[36:45] that's past the cycle because I pay my
[36:47] taxes, property taxes in November. Do I
[36:49] then basically get
[36:52] a a tax holiday until we get to the next
[36:55] year?
[36:55] » No, we would get we would get a greater
[36:57] share the only than the state would
[37:00] normally state takes huge chunk of the
[37:03] property tax. What urban and renewal
[37:05] allows us to do is get a bigger piece of
[37:07] the pie.
[37:08] » Right. I'm just talking about the cycle
[37:09] time. Do there end up being a
[37:12] » Type
[37:12] » Like a holiday where you don't have to
[37:14] pay tax in between until you get this
[37:16] occupancy and is that legal or is that a
[37:19] policy decision?
[37:21] » Property owner has to pay
[37:22] » The assessor isn't it?
[37:23] » Yeah. I mean taxation's run through the
[37:25] county. So we don't have over that.
[37:28] Right.
[37:30] The point I'm trying to bring up and I
[37:32] think you know Jeremy's is that
[37:36] we say to the state
[37:41] we want bigger piece of the pie on this
[37:43] building, this building, this building
[37:46] this year. And then state is going to
[37:50] either say yay or nay and then we're
[37:51] going to get a bigger piece of the pie
[37:54] like on the Klondike which has been
[37:56] chipping away for a while. We've got two
[37:57] buildings that I don't know if they have
[37:59] occupancy or not. There are a number of
[38:01] buildings that are sort of been
[38:03] developing people and putting money in.
[38:05] Can we grab more money?
[38:08] They say to the state we want more
[38:10] money. This is an urban renewal.
[38:13] We want more. We want a bigger piece of
[38:16] the pie
[38:18] and try to brings forward those concepts
[38:23] and defend them if we need to, how we
[38:25] need to defend them. But we we need
[38:26] revenues and we do have people that are
[38:29] significant putting significant amounts
[38:31] of money into their properties and the
[38:34] properties are appreciating in value.
[38:38] Faster we get them the bigger piece
[38:41] better for us.
[38:43] » Russ have you had experience with that?
[38:46] Can you explain? I don't think the
[38:48] state's going to give you anything but I
[38:49] mean
[38:50] » You're have to take it for sure.
[38:52] » Yeah. and you try to ask
[38:54] » We want it and they're going to
[38:56] » Well my problem problem is is the system
[38:58] development charge which is almost
[39:00] doubling in fees and this goes on every
[39:03] door that's built so I don't know how
[39:06] much urban growth boundary or the urban
[39:08] growth uh is is taking out of that
[39:11] » The urban renewal has no no effect on
[39:15] system development charges and has no
[39:18] benefit to
[39:19] » It says it may charge
[39:27] some some eligible expenders are
[39:29] accounted for in the SDC,
[39:31] » Right? So the urban renewal or the SDC
[39:35] funds for it's its um water SDC fund uh
[39:40] there was water SDC's used in some of
[39:45] the infrastructure project
[39:48] portion of the infrastructure project.
[39:50] So those um are used for the project,
[39:53] but they're not urban renewal
[39:58] um benefit.
[40:01] They're a benefit to the project.
[40:02] They're and the city,
[40:06] but not for urban renewal.
[40:09] » But when a developer comes in and
[40:12] develops, then they're given that. So
[40:14] that's
[40:14] » When a developer comes in, they will
[40:17] still have to pay their SDC's.
[40:20] It's not uh prepaying for that
[40:23] development.
[40:26] One thing I advocated for last year was
[40:28] consideration for for postponing the
[40:30] SDC's and I see that our SDC's have gone
[40:33] up and I know that our funding is short
[40:36] but we have to be smart about
[40:39] encouraging development
[40:42] and if we can give the developers a a
[40:47] break on the front end that means they
[40:50] have less cost on the front end to get
[40:52] the projects going.
[40:55] And so I know that WA uh Seattle area
[40:59] had something going and and I know that
[41:01] that there have been other initiatives
[41:04] in Oregon
[41:06] where
[41:08] the lay of the STC's have been done to
[41:11] encourage housing development.
[41:14] And so I really believe that those items
[41:18] should be explored aggressively
[41:21] because we could really use more housing
[41:23] and in our city in my opinion and that
[41:27] it's clear that we need to have building
[41:30] done. We need it.
[41:34] So this is I think year two or three for
[41:36] me to say that we should be tell we
[41:40] should be incentivizing our developers.
[41:42] should be saying to them, hey, look,
[41:44] now's the time to get a good seat on the
[41:46] bus. We're going to wave your STC's or
[41:47] not wave, but delay till sale or
[41:50] something some something that is shown
[41:52] to work. There there is a mechanism for
[41:55] that and uh there is and by state law we
[41:59] are um
[42:02] we by state law we are required to allow
[42:07] a a payment program for SDC's.
[42:11] » Well I know that council Hubard has a
[42:15] project he's doing but doesn't matter to
[42:18] me who is working on the project. We
[42:20] have a lot of people that are interested
[42:21] in building St. balance and whatever can
[42:24] be done to maximize
[42:27] and incentivize the building to get done
[42:29] and as quickly as possible, I think it
[42:31] would benefit everybody across the
[42:33] board.
[42:34] » I'm kind of curious what councelor
[42:35] Hubber says because I actually after you
[42:36] said that, I ran down a couple of the
[42:38] major developers out here and asked them
[42:40] their opinion on if it would be
[42:41] beneficial to them to have the SDC's uh
[42:44] at the very end of the project and
[42:45] they've said that it actually doesn't
[42:47] make a difference to them. So, I'd like
[42:48] to ask councelor Hubard if it actually
[42:51] makes a difference. Uh, in your opinion,
[42:53] » It makes a difference when you've got to
[42:55] come up with cash up front. If you can
[42:57] delay it, some are passing it on to in
[43:00] some cases to the homeowner that on
[43:04] their
[43:05] » Going to get it in the end no matter
[43:06] what.
[43:06] » Right.
[43:09] And when I've seen a lot of these big
[43:11] developers and some of them approaching
[43:13] us, u they'll come in and they'll have a
[43:17] large project, they're going to want to
[43:19] negotiate the SDC's. What are you going
[43:22] to do in that respect? They if they get
[43:25] discounted and me just building a couple
[43:27] little units or something, I don't get
[43:29] any break
[43:31] something to look at. But, you know,
[43:33] they're they're bringing in a lot of
[43:34] homes and a lot of work. But uh they're
[43:36] going to want that break to be
[43:38] advantageous. So there's there's a my
[43:42] problem with it.
[43:45] » Okay. Well, it's been a wonderful
[43:47] discussion. Um but anything else that we
[43:49] need to talk about before we move on to
[43:52] Oh, we have somebody online.
[43:53] » So Shelton's been online for a bit. I
[43:56] don't think she's here. Do you have
[43:57] anything she wants to add based upon
[43:59] what she's heard or I think about to
[44:02] close our discussion time on this
[44:05] budget?
[44:06] » Shilton, do you have anything to add to
[44:07] the URA meeting?
[44:09] » I do not. Thank you.
[44:12] » Okay. Well, we've bounced it around
[44:14] quite a bit. Um, does anybody want to
[44:17] make any motions concerning our
[44:20] post 2027
[44:23] uh city St. Herb and City St. Urban
[44:25] Renewal Agency. I think
[44:29] I'm looking for a motion to pass it
[44:32] unless somebody wants to make a motion
[44:34] to amend it. Pass it.
[44:39] » I approve it.
[44:41] » I will make a motion to approve the
[44:43] budget. It's presented.
[44:47] » So there's
[44:49] there's a script. Oh.
[44:57] Move to
[44:59] » In the yellow. Yes.
[45:01] » Motion made by
[45:03] » Oh,
[45:03] » I don't think
[45:04] » It's right here. This one.
[45:06] » Okay, here we go.
[45:07] » The top one.
[45:08] » I move to approve
[45:10] » The FY 202627 budget for the city of St.
[45:13] Helen's Urban Renewal Agency in the
[45:16] amount of $1,198,226
[45:21] and approve that the agency levy the
[45:24] maximum incremental tax revenues as
[45:26] proposed under state law.
[45:31] » Any discussion?
[45:34] » No discussion. All in favor?
[45:36] » I.
[45:38] And anybody opposed?
[45:41] No.
[45:42] » Okay, we have one. No. Then do we get
[45:44] Councelor Chilton's uh vote?
[45:48] » Yay.
[45:50] » What was your vote?
[45:53] » Yay.
[45:55] » Okay. So, it's approved.
[45:59] And then
[46:06] I would like to call for an ensurement
[46:08] of the
[46:10] um city of St. Helens urban renewal
[46:12] agency budget committee meeting.
[46:16] Hearing no objection, the meeting is
[46:17] adjourned.
[46:24] Thank you.
[46:33] » Right. This meeting of the city of St.
[46:36] Helens Budget Committee will now come to
[46:38] order. It is May 28th, 2026, and the
[46:41] time now is 6:37 p.m.
[46:53] Uh, are there any staff members who are
[46:56] excused or attending virtually today?
[46:59] Believe we have
[47:02] two members excused today.
[47:04] » Any members? Um,
[47:07] Mason and uh, councelor
[47:12] are absent.
[47:13] » Excuse.
[47:15] » Okay.
[47:16] » And we have, uh, councelor
[47:20] Chilton on the um,
[47:24] virtually.
[47:25] » Yes.
[47:27] » All right.
[47:30] Uh, so now I will turn it over to the
[47:32] budget officer.
[47:34] » Okay. Thank you. So, we already you've
[47:38] already heard the ground rules, so I
[47:39] won't go through those again. Um,
[47:44] let's see. Let's review of the agenda.
[47:48] Is there anything
[47:51] in on the agenda that had been requested
[47:55] at the last meeting?
[47:56] » No.
[47:57] » Okay.
[47:58] » No. Um, I want to make sure.
[47:59] » Don't we need to be able to confident?
[48:02] » We will.
[48:02] » Okay.
[48:03] » That's nice.
[48:04] So um so I want to add certain things to
[48:08] the agenda probably at the point where
[48:12] we're going to be deciding public after
[48:14] public comment.
[48:16] Uh one I want to discuss elimination of
[48:19] the phantom money identified as the
[48:21] police service fee from the budget
[48:23] » That's already been removed. So
[48:26] » Okay good. Um
[48:29] number two I want to balance the budget.
[48:31] discussed about that.
[48:34] » So that'll come along when we down to
[48:37] the discussion and staff revisions.
[48:40] » So
[48:40] » So it is on the agenda.
[48:42] » So is there a document that you sorry
[48:45] that you presented that has
[48:49] » Service fee?
[48:50] » Yes. So, um, can we skip to that at the
[48:54] later in the agenda that's on,
[48:57] um,
[49:00] it'll be down at staff revisions and
[49:02] opportunity for discussions. We did
[49:04] have, you've been provided copies of the
[49:07] sheets. You were emailed the sheets.
[49:10] Um, and if you don't have those, we'll
[49:13] make sure that you do,
[49:15] » But when we get down to that, that's all
[49:17] there. And I haven't had a chance to
[49:18] look at that in complete detail.
[49:20] » That's fine. We can we can go over it
[49:22] and review it.
[49:23] » I need a copy of it. I have it.
[49:25] » Okay.
[49:28] » It's on the packet that we put on the
[49:29] page.
[49:30] » So when we get Yeah.
[49:33] When we get down to that um item on the
[49:37] agenda. Yeah.
[49:44] So,
[49:49] » Any further review on the agenda?
[49:52] » Yes.
[49:53] Um, I don't know if this has already
[49:55] been done on the proposed, but discuss
[49:58] eliminating council stipens. So,
[50:00] » Um, we're not down to discussions on
[50:04] budget yet. We need to get through the
[50:06] agenda items.
[50:08] » Okay. Maybe here's a suggestion. I know
[50:11] you've got a number of topics you want
[50:12] to discuss. Maybe rattle them off and
[50:14] let's find out if they fit into that
[50:16] discussion category or if they need to
[50:18] be
[50:19] » I think they're premature.
[50:20] » Well, I know I don't want to delve into
[50:22] them. I just want to say let's say
[50:25] there's 10 items, right?
[50:26] » Do they all fit under the heading of
[50:28] discussing approving the budget? And if
[50:30] they do, fine. And if they don't, then
[50:32] we may need to debate whether they come
[50:34] to the agenda or not. That's my thought.
[50:36] Okay.
[50:36] » Yeah. So discuss eliminating council
[50:39] stipens. Discuss lowering administration
[50:42] budget. Discuss the Jennifer Meyer case,
[50:46] $1,000 in sanctions up to $55,000. Now
[50:49] what's the what's where what's our plan
[50:52] and what's the budget? Where's that
[50:53] going to come from? Discuss tourism
[50:55] budget, lowering expenses on the tourism
[50:57] budget.
[50:59] Uh discuss reopening the city and
[51:01] keeping it open and ensuring that we
[51:03] have a budget enough money to keep it
[51:05] open all year. discuss the $1 million
[51:08] for a proposed stage
[51:11] and to create cor uh to correct the
[51:14] budget document that has certain phrases
[51:17] in it about that we failed to do certain
[51:19] things when that we didn't fail to do
[51:21] anything we should be that should be
[51:23] corrected
[51:25] um last year we didn't fail to do
[51:27] something we've made choices informed
[51:29] choices we didn't that's how the
[51:31] decisions were made um future debt uh
[51:35] discuss discussion about the $25 million
[51:37] in future debt that is proposed.
[51:42] Uh and then after we adopt a balanced
[51:44] budget, then we can discuss whether to
[51:46] move this whether this separate fund is
[51:48] something that we want to discuss.
[51:51] That's kind of how I wanted to approach.
[51:53] I want to make sure that we're on the
[51:55] agenda. I think all of those would be in
[51:57] scope for discussion of approving this
[51:59] budget. So,
[52:01] don't believe we need to adjust the
[52:03] agenda at this time, but we can address
[52:05] those topics as we get to budget
[52:08] approvals. That's good.
[52:11] » Next. Um, so next would be
[52:18] uh the conflict of interest. Does anyone
[52:21] have a declaration of conflict of
[52:23] interest?
[52:24] » Um, I have a disclosure. So, uh, for the
[52:27] record, my spouse is employed by the
[52:28] city as a police officer because the
[52:30] budget includes compensation benefits
[52:31] for a city position. I'm announcing an
[52:34] actual conflict under OS244120
[52:39] as amended by Senate Bill 983, Oregon
[52:41] Laws 2025, chapter 466. I may
[52:45] participate in discussion and vote on
[52:46] adoption of the local budget after
[52:48] making this disclosure.
[52:52] » Anybody else? That is if the committee
[52:55] approves. So we approve of her sitting
[52:58] here discussing that something and we
[53:00] don't. If she has to use
[53:07] » You saying you want us to censure her is
[53:10] there a motion?
[53:11] » I would make a motion to censure the
[53:14] mayor for her known and admitted
[53:15] confidence of duties.
[53:18] » I second. Okay. Uh we take a vote. Do
[53:24] you um
[53:28] would would each uh member please
[53:32] uh say yay if they're in favor of this
[53:34] motion?
[53:36] » Yay.
[53:38] » Two. And any against?
[53:42] » Nay.
[53:43] » Nay.
[53:44] » We have four nays.
[53:48] » Five. There's council presentation.
[53:49] » Okay. So I believe it fails.
[53:52] » Motion fails.
[53:55] » Okay. So um my uh opening comments.
[53:59] First I would like to apologize for the
[54:01] tone and remark I included in the Q&A
[54:04] compilation presented at the May 14
[54:06] budget committee meeting. It was
[54:08] unprofessional and does not reflect the
[54:09] standard I hold to myself.
[54:12] Secondly, I and the council have been
[54:15] challenged by the choice of words that I
[54:17] used in the budget message and in
[54:20] presentation of the proposed budget. I
[54:23] would like to clarify to the budget
[54:25] committee and public that I
[54:27] misrepresented the city of St. Helens
[54:29] city council in my budget message when I
[54:32] stated the city council will will refer
[54:35] to the voters a police service fee on
[54:38] the November ballot. The fact is that
[54:40] the city council did not and has not
[54:42] indicated that they would refer a ballot
[54:44] measure in November, neither during nor
[54:47] outside of a public meeting of the
[54:49] council.
[54:51] Those are purely my words. I should have
[54:54] said if the budget committee approves of
[54:57] this option, the city council will need
[54:59] to refer a police service fee to the
[55:02] voters.
[55:05] Secondly, there can be no changes to the
[55:07] proposed budget document, including the
[55:10] budget message after release to the B
[55:12] committee and the public. I will present
[55:14] staff revisions ahead of the ahead of
[55:18] committee discussions later in the
[55:20] agenda.
[55:21] Okay. And I'll turn it back over to you.
[55:23] » Thank you, Brian.
[55:26] » All right.
[55:28] Thank you. At this time, pursuant to
[55:31] OS221.770,
[55:34] I will open the public hearing in order
[55:37] to give the citizens of St. Helens the
[55:39] opportunity to comment on the use of
[55:41] state shared revenue funds in the city's
[55:44] budget for fiscal year 2026 2027.
[55:51] » I I will now call on the budget officer
[55:54] to present the information regarding
[55:56] state shared revenues.
[55:59] City of St. Helen's budget resources
[56:01] includes receipt of Oregon state shared
[56:04] revenue. These revenues come from the
[56:07] bid share of liquer taxes, cigarette
[56:10] taxes, marijuana taxes, and gas tax. The
[56:13] city of St. Helens uses sh state shared
[56:16] revenues for maintenance of city-owned
[56:18] streets and sidewalks and for general
[56:21] services which include library, parks,
[56:23] recreation, and police.
[56:27] Thank you. I now invite the public to
[56:30] provide public comment about the
[56:31] proposed use of state revenue sharing.
[56:34] Please limit your testimony to three
[56:36] minutes or less and focus your testimony
[56:38] on the proposed use of state revenue
[56:41] sharing.
[56:44] We have any public comment
[56:52] » Brady perhaps. Yes. I'm glad that you're
[56:54] having this because you didn't do it
[56:56] properly last time and I'm glad you
[56:58] recognized that error and have corrected
[57:00] it. I do appreciate that. Um the uh I
[57:05] would say that we should not do it. We
[57:07] don't even have a real budget that been
[57:09] published. Gloria has said she's updated
[57:11] it. We've had a fake budget from the
[57:13] beginning. It's not on the website. It's
[57:16] not been made public. No one in the
[57:17] public can access that budget that
[57:19] supposedly is out there. I haven't seen
[57:22] it. I've looked for it and so how can I
[57:24] say that we should get revenue for this
[57:26] for a budget that we have not seen and
[57:28] this is a component of that budget
[57:30] without knowing how that's going how
[57:33] this money is going to affect our
[57:34] budget. I think that we can't accept it
[57:36] when we have fake numbers that have been
[57:38] on our budget since the very beginning
[57:40] of this budget process. Um I also been
[57:43] happy that um we have had uh multiple
[57:48] errors and admissions from our plan
[57:49] should I admitted that she's done that.
[57:51] I'm glad she's at least admitting her
[57:53] errors. That doesn't change with us if
[57:55] they were made and I don't know what the
[57:57] solution for that is. And I also
[57:59] disagree since we sent her vote. I think
[58:01] the matter should have been sent should
[58:03] not be participating.
[58:06] » Thank you.
[58:12] » Is this the only time for public
[58:14] comments?
[58:14] » No,
[58:17] » This is just for state shared revenue.
[58:19] And concerning that she will be
[58:22] following uh regular
[58:31] » It is on the agenda that that I have
[58:34] » What that we have public comment. Yes.
[58:36] » Yes. Another section of public comment
[58:39] for sure now
[58:42] » After the approval of minutes. That's
[58:44] what I'll be
[58:47] see.
[58:51] all the regularly scheduled public
[58:53] comments.
[58:55] » Okay. Are there any other public
[58:56] comments at this time on the state
[58:59] revenue share?
[59:03] Okay.
[59:07] Hearing none,
[59:10] we'll close the public uh comment and
[59:14] » Public hearing.
[59:16] close the hearing. If there are no
[59:18] further comments, I will close the
[59:19] public hearing. The time is 6:49 p.m.
[59:27] All right, we'll move on to approving
[59:29] the minutes. Do any of the me any of the
[59:32] members uh that have reviewed the
[59:34] minutes have any concern?
[59:37] I do.
[59:41] Uh we've uh
[59:51] wrap minutes.
[1:00:13] Let me say
[1:00:20] » By Miss
[1:00:23] um
[1:00:26] » About the questions that were raised
[1:00:28] concerning
[1:00:32] the police budget and how it was that
[1:00:34] the
[1:00:42] how it was that the
[1:00:45] late service fee
[1:00:51] page seven of eight I think this
[1:00:58] » Do you have a correction to the minutes?
[1:00:59] Yeah, I just want to I just like to add
[1:01:01] to the minutes that it was a question
[1:01:05] submitted and this answer given by Miss
[1:01:08] Bush question. Who submitted the
[1:01:10] suggestion of changing the police budget
[1:01:12] to a separate fund?
[1:01:14] » Which uh sorry, which page are you on?
[1:01:20] It's on page seven under budget
[1:01:23] presentation number two the second.
[1:01:30] » Okay. Go ahead.
[1:01:32] » Yes. I just like to propose that there
[1:01:35] there's an addition to the minutes
[1:01:39] that the question was asked question who
[1:01:42] submitted the suggestion of changing the
[1:01:45] police budgeting to a separate fund and
[1:01:48] the answer was the suggestion was made
[1:01:50] by mayor Massie during a meeting with
[1:01:52] the city administrator, finance
[1:01:54] director, police chief and police
[1:01:57] lieutenant
[1:01:58] like to have that question answer added
[1:02:00] to the minutes. See, for the record, the
[1:02:02] Q&A is attached to it, which spells it
[1:02:05] all out. So that statement
[1:02:07] » Q&A is attached to the
[1:02:09] » In the meeting packet from that Q&A is
[1:02:12] hidden is attached to it. It's part of
[1:02:15] the whole entire packet and your minutes
[1:02:17] are summary minutes.
[1:02:19] » But if you want it spelled out, you can
[1:02:21] » Yeah, I want I want it spelled out in
[1:02:22] the minutes.
[1:02:24] I made that motion.
[1:02:26] » So this is part of the minute.
[1:02:29] » Yeah. Well, that will become part of
[1:02:31] tonight's meeting, but the meeting from
[1:02:33] the Q&A that Gloria read verbatim is not
[1:02:36] sold out in the minutes because the Q&A
[1:02:40] attached to the online packet.
[1:02:43] » The Q&A for the May 14 meeting will be
[1:02:46] attached to the May 14 minutes.
[1:02:48] » Why is it on?
[1:02:51] » Because these are summary minutes.
[1:02:54] These are summary.
[1:02:55] » Yeah. And I and the reason why I said
[1:02:56] that is that in reading the summary, one
[1:02:59] gets the impression that
[1:03:02] this was an internal thing that was
[1:03:05] reviewed between the administrator and
[1:03:07] finance and a and somebody and a
[1:03:10] consultant when the answer really is
[1:03:14] it's the mayor who came forward, met
[1:03:16] with the administrator, the finance
[1:03:18] director, police chief, and police
[1:03:19] lieutenant. And so anybody reading the
[1:03:22] draft minutes would not get a true
[1:03:24] picture of how the suggestion is made
[1:03:27] and they would have to go to these this
[1:03:28] attachment. So I think that the minutes
[1:03:30] the draft minutes as they're drafted are
[1:03:32] not accurate.
[1:03:33] » I think it's a great idea. I think you
[1:03:35] should put it in there. Personally, I
[1:03:36] think you should just add it to the
[1:03:37] minutes. I agree.
[1:03:39] » So
[1:03:39] » Yeah, I I I think it's great. Yeah, I
[1:03:41] think you should put it in there.
[1:03:42] » Okay. So we'll make those corrections to
[1:03:44] the minutes.
[1:03:45] » Well, should we vote or should we
[1:03:48] » Yeah. Well, you still have to
[1:03:50] » Well, we need a motion to approve the
[1:03:51] minutes as amended.
[1:03:52] » We we agree that as staff that we can
[1:03:54] make those.
[1:03:58] » So, let's make a formal. Does someone
[1:03:59] have a motion with the
[1:04:01] » Corrections?
[1:04:02] » Yes, I make a motion we approve the
[1:04:04] minutes with the
[1:04:05] » Correction that
[1:04:08] question who submitted the suggestion of
[1:04:10] changing the police budgeting to a
[1:04:11] separate fund. Answer. The suggestion
[1:04:13] was made by Mayor Massie during a
[1:04:16] meeting with the city administrator,
[1:04:17] finance director, police chief, and
[1:04:19] police chief tenant
[1:04:21] be added to
[1:04:26] uh seven seven.
[1:04:29] » Yeah. And I'll second that.
[1:04:31] » Okay. Uh all in favor say I.
[1:04:36] I.
[1:04:37] » All opposing say nay. None opposing
[1:04:41] passes.
[1:04:50] All right. So now we will move on to the
[1:04:52] public comment section. Community
[1:04:55] members who wish to please state your
[1:04:58] name for the record and observe the time
[1:05:00] limit of three minutes and focus your
[1:05:02] comments specifically on the city's
[1:05:05] proposed budget for fiscal year 2627.
[1:05:09] We refra we request that you refrain
[1:05:12] from personal attacks and instead focus
[1:05:15] on the budget
[1:05:18] with that. Is there any public comment?
[1:05:23] » I guess I'll start. So I'm Janelle
[1:05:26] Adams. Um I am a sister aunt daughter
[1:05:30] survivor of sexual assault and domestic
[1:05:32] violence and a um recovering criminal
[1:05:35] and addict. So, I just wanted to bring
[1:05:39] some attention to some of the
[1:05:43] um importance of safety and just some
[1:05:47] statistics that are pretty realistic.
[1:05:49] Just so you guys can have the
[1:05:51] information when you're making decisions
[1:05:52] when it's based on our um
[1:05:56] you know, our citizens and their safety
[1:05:58] and their well-being. I know for a fact
[1:06:01] that law enforcement's helped me be here
[1:06:03] where I'm at today. They have saved my
[1:06:05] life. They made me accountable for my
[1:06:07] recovery and it's continuing ongoing.
[1:06:11] And so um so based on the average of
[1:06:14] Department of Justice, Office of Justice
[1:06:17] Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
[1:06:19] National Crime Exclamation Survey of
[1:06:23] 2020 to 20 24. Every one minute someone
[1:06:27] in the US is sexually assaulted. Every
[1:06:29] nine minutes that someone is a child.
[1:06:32] An estimated of 443,635
[1:06:37] people aged 12 plus experience sexual
[1:06:40] violence um each year in the US.
[1:06:44] Child protective services substained or
[1:06:46] found strong evidence that 63,000
[1:06:49] children a year were sexually assaulted.
[1:06:51] These are children or vulnerable. Um
[1:06:55] who's taking those reports? Who's
[1:06:57] helping them get to safety?
[1:06:59] our law enforcement.
[1:07:02] And so that's nationally. You want to
[1:07:05] talk about Columbia County, um they do a
[1:07:10] service delivery report and in their
[1:07:12] 2025 report, our local Columbia County
[1:07:16] child welfare
[1:07:19] had 883
[1:07:21] reports.
[1:07:22] 58 of them were founded and 26 were um
[1:07:27] entered into substitute care, removed
[1:07:29] from their family and put in safety. Um
[1:07:32] every last one of those included a uh
[1:07:35] law enforcement investigation and report
[1:07:39] and a money center interviews most
[1:07:42] likely. So in Columbia County, I checked
[1:07:46] it twice. I checked it back in on the
[1:07:48] 25th. you look at the jail log, um
[1:07:52] 24.61%
[1:07:55] on May 25th of the inmates that are um
[1:07:59] were incarcerated were there for
[1:08:02] domestic violence, sexual assaults,
[1:08:04] stalking, strangulation.
[1:08:07] Um that does not include the ones that
[1:08:09] are labeled as probation violations or
[1:08:12] holds or the ones the assaults that
[1:08:14] aren't labeled as DD.
[1:08:17] And on the 27th, I did the same check
[1:08:20] and it is 30.115%.
[1:08:24] So that's a I mean, when you're only
[1:08:25] talking 65 inmates, that's huge. And we
[1:08:30] are um there's some that are about to
[1:08:33] release that are that's just a snapshot
[1:08:36] of a small picture. You look at the
[1:08:38] court dockets on May 27th,
[1:08:42] there was seven cases that were either
[1:08:44] DV or sexual assault. May 28th, two
[1:08:48] cases. May 29th, two cases. That's not
[1:08:51] including the ones that are being um for
[1:08:55] uh initial court cases that are just
[1:08:59] being in for um pleading pleading and
[1:09:02] stuff. So, according to the federal
[1:09:04] bureau evidence investigation, the
[1:09:06] national incident based reporting,
[1:09:09] 98% of perpetrators walk free.
[1:09:13] I'm been doing this for almost 20 years.
[1:09:16] I'm telling you probably that's because
[1:09:17] the follow through and not having a um
[1:09:21] law enforcement that can completely make
[1:09:23] them feel comfortable and trustworthy to
[1:09:25] be able to do all this. You can see
[1:09:28] » And this is national those numbers are
[1:09:30] not ours. I don't really have that
[1:09:32] number for us. Um one in three victims
[1:09:36] report sexual assault to law
[1:09:37] enforcement. That's 310 out of every
[1:09:40] thousand survivors. It's very low. If we
[1:09:43] had access to more law enforcements and
[1:09:44] able to report more, we pro and do
[1:09:46] outreach with advocacy, we'd be getting
[1:09:49] more of those. Um,
[1:09:54] so I just
[1:09:57] I could tell you um three minutes has
[1:10:01] elapsed.
[1:10:02] » That's good. We're done.
[1:10:04] » Thank you very much.
[1:10:05] » Thank you.
[1:10:09] » That's the public comment. Please state
[1:10:10] your name.
[1:10:12] » I'm Jen Zukini, a citizens here in St.
[1:10:15] Helens.
[1:10:17] Okay. I'd like to talk about our
[1:10:19] library, my favorite topic, the St.
[1:10:21] Helens Public Library, our wonderful
[1:10:23] library. I sincerely hope you will make
[1:10:26] good on your promise to refund and uh
[1:10:31] the library and make it whole. As you
[1:10:34] indicated, made a motion on the 14th of
[1:10:37] May. Um, I realize though that you
[1:10:40] haven't worked with the numbers of the
[1:10:42] budget yet. So that's why I'm still
[1:10:44] speaking in support of the library, but
[1:10:48] I have faith that you are going to do
[1:10:50] what you said. So I would like to
[1:10:53] discuss specifically the library part-
[1:10:56] timerrs and their jobs and the
[1:10:59] retraction of the shin slip. So, it
[1:11:03] might behoove you all to remember that
[1:11:05] there's 26 combined years of amazing
[1:11:10] front desk service that these particular
[1:11:14] staff members, there's three of them at
[1:11:16] this time, provide. 26 combined years of
[1:11:20] skilled, knowledgeable, professional,
[1:11:23] dedicated, compassionate service that
[1:11:26] these individuals, not just three
[1:11:29] bodies, but three individuals provide to
[1:11:33] this community. And I'm wondering, do
[1:11:37] you want to lose
[1:11:39] all of that? Do you want to lose them?
[1:11:44] Could you lose all of that and them? All
[1:11:47] of that dedication, all those years of
[1:11:49] service, all that professionalism, could
[1:11:52] you lose that?
[1:11:54] Well, I don't know. What if one of them
[1:11:58] or some of them or all of them were to
[1:12:01] say,
[1:12:02] you make the offer of taking away the
[1:12:05] pink slips? No thanks. Could you blame
[1:12:09] them? And the reason I'm asking you that
[1:12:12] is because in my opinion, the city has
[1:12:15] jerked those three people around like
[1:12:18] puppets on steroids
[1:12:21] during this whole fiasco of a budgetary
[1:12:24] process.
[1:12:27] Don't you think that? Do any of you
[1:12:29] think that? What do you think? Do you
[1:12:33] think
[1:12:34] when you keep doing what you're doing,
[1:12:36] you keep getting what you're getting?
[1:12:38] And we've all heard that phrase before.
[1:12:42] So how about on the part of the city
[1:12:45] some deviation
[1:12:47] from the style that you have been using
[1:12:50] with your employees? How about some
[1:12:53] improvement in the workplace culture
[1:12:57] with your people? The culture that you
[1:13:00] all in the city heads of the city
[1:13:03] create.
[1:13:06] So, what about maybe an act of
[1:13:08] contrition?
[1:13:10] Uh, calling it an olive branch if that
[1:13:13] is more appropriate for you.
[1:13:15] » Three minutes has elapsed.
[1:13:17] » Ah, okay.
[1:13:21] » Thank you.
[1:13:22] » Next public comment.
[1:13:25] I'll just please jump on her for the
[1:13:27] » Sure. Please state your name for the
[1:13:28] record.
[1:13:29] » Perkins.
[1:13:33] We do rely on the police to assist like
[1:13:36] CPS medical visits. It does keep us safe
[1:13:40] as workers. I don't work for CPS. I work
[1:13:43] for self-sufficiency on that side. So we
[1:13:46] do
[1:13:47] to go out and check on the safety of
[1:13:50] kids and something like that. So keep
[1:13:51] that in mind. Um
[1:13:56] she was talking about domestic violence.
[1:13:58] She's only talking about the ones that
[1:13:59] report. On average, takes about seven
[1:14:03] times for somebody to feel comfortable
[1:14:05] enough to report uh any kind of domestic
[1:14:09] violence or sexual assault. So,
[1:14:13] you're not really getting a real
[1:14:14] statistic on how many people are
[1:14:15] assaulted or domestic violence has
[1:14:18] actually happened in the house. So,
[1:14:22] » That's
[1:14:24] Yeah.
[1:14:24] » Thank you.
[1:14:27] has
[1:14:29] next.
[1:14:32] » You guys will go real quick.
[1:14:35] » So, good afternoon, mayor, counselors,
[1:14:37] budget committee members, and members of
[1:14:38] the community. For the record, my name
[1:14:40] is Brian Pixley, and I'm the Columbia
[1:14:41] County Sheriff, and I'm here tonight to
[1:14:43] speak about the very serious public
[1:14:44] safety implications of of the proposed
[1:14:46] cuts to the police department.
[1:14:48] The proposal to eliminate roughly
[1:14:50] two-thirds of the police department is
[1:14:52] simply not is not simply a staffing
[1:14:54] reduction. It is a fundamental
[1:14:55] dismantling of the public safety, the
[1:14:57] largest city in Columbia County. The
[1:15:00] consequences of that decision will not
[1:15:01] stop at the city limits of St. Helens.
[1:15:04] They will ripple across the entire
[1:15:05] county and impact every law enforcement
[1:15:07] agency, every emergency responder, and
[1:15:09] most importantly, the citizens that we
[1:15:11] serve.
[1:15:12] The Sale Police Department is not an
[1:15:14] isolated agency operating independently
[1:15:16] from the rest of the county. Public
[1:15:18] safety in Columbia County functions as
[1:15:20] an interconnected system. St. Allen
[1:15:22] officers respond to violent crimes,
[1:15:23] domestic disturbances, mental health
[1:15:25] crisis, overdoses, traffic fatalities,
[1:15:28] and calls involving armed and dangerous
[1:15:30] individuals every single day. They have
[1:15:32] partners in regional investigations,
[1:15:34] emergency response operations, mutual
[1:15:36] aid requests, and major incident
[1:15:38] investigations. When you remove
[1:15:40] twothirds of that capability, the
[1:15:41] workload does not disappear. Crime does
[1:15:44] not disappear. Calls for service does
[1:15:46] not disappear, nor does the danger
[1:15:47] disappear. that simply shifts elsewhere
[1:15:50] onto the remaining officers, onto
[1:15:51] neighboring agencies, and ultimately
[1:15:53] onto the citizens themselves in the form
[1:15:55] of delayed response times, fewer
[1:15:57] investigations, and diminished public
[1:15:58] safety services.
[1:16:00] The Columbia County Sheriff's Office
[1:16:02] cannot absorb a collapse of police and
[1:16:04] services here in St. Helens without
[1:16:06] significant impacts to the rest of the
[1:16:08] county. We're already operating in an
[1:16:10] environment where law enforcement
[1:16:11] agencies across the state are struggling
[1:16:13] with staffing shortages, recruitment
[1:16:15] challenges,
[1:16:16] rising service demands, and complex
[1:16:18] criminal investigations and behavioral
[1:16:20] response. These cuts move forward. I'll
[1:16:22] skip that part for time sake.
[1:16:26] This is not fear mongering. It's
[1:16:28] unfortunately an operational reality. As
[1:16:30] sheriff, I have an obligation to speak
[1:16:31] honestly when I see a threat to the
[1:16:33] safety and stability of Columbia County.
[1:16:36] Public safety is not a luxury service
[1:16:37] that can simply be scaled back without
[1:16:39] consequence. It is a core responsibility
[1:16:41] of government. Citizens expect and
[1:16:44] deserve timely emergency responses,
[1:16:46] professional law enforcement services,
[1:16:47] and the ability to feel safe in their
[1:16:49] homes, business, schools, and public
[1:16:51] spaces. I want to acknowledge the men
[1:16:53] and women of Salem Police Department.
[1:16:55] These officers show up every day to
[1:16:57] serve the community they care about
[1:16:58] deeply. They work nights, days,
[1:17:00] holidays, and during moments of crisis
[1:17:02] that most people will never see. They
[1:17:05] carry tremendous responsibility on
[1:17:06] behalf of the city. Proposals of this
[1:17:08] magnitude affect not only operations but
[1:17:10] morale, retention, recruitment, and
[1:17:12] long-term viability.
[1:17:14] Budget decisions are never easy, and I
[1:17:16] recognize the difficult financial
[1:17:17] realities of local governments face
[1:17:19] because we're facing those same
[1:17:20] realities. But I would urge this council
[1:17:22] on budget committee to fully consider
[1:17:24] the long-term costs of dramatically
[1:17:25] reducing law enforcement services. Once
[1:17:27] experienced officers leaves,
[1:17:30] uh, once institutional knowledge
[1:17:32] disappears and once community trust
[1:17:33] erodess, rebuilding those capabilities
[1:17:35] is neither quick or in or inexpensive.
[1:17:38] Can I finish real quick or am I one
[1:17:40] citizens like Yeah, just the citizens of
[1:17:42] Sance deserve leadership that
[1:17:44] prioritizes stability, safety,
[1:17:45] responsibility, responsible planning. I
[1:17:47] strongly encourage you to pursue those
[1:17:49] solutions and preserve the core policing
[1:17:51] services and maintain the ability of the
[1:17:52] Sance Police Department to effectively
[1:17:54] serve this community. Thank you for your
[1:17:56] time.
[1:17:57] » Sure.
[1:18:03] » There next. Yes. Let's also have a
[1:18:05] public comments. Okay.
[1:18:07] » All right.
[1:18:08] » I'll try to do three minutes forward.
[1:18:10] » Yes. No problem at all.
[1:18:12] » And please remember to state your name.
[1:18:14] » Yes, I will. Uh, greetings, mayor, uh,
[1:18:16] city council, member of the single
[1:18:17] budget committee. My name is Chris
[1:18:19] Llewellyn and I am the I have the honor
[1:18:21] as serving the chief of police for the
[1:18:22] city of Scapus. And I want to thank you
[1:18:24] for allowing me the time to speak here
[1:18:25] tonight during your meeting. Today I'm
[1:18:28] here to discuss the important
[1:18:29] relationship that has developed between
[1:18:30] my department and my fellow officers
[1:18:32] that served at the St. Helens Police
[1:18:33] Department. Since my time here working
[1:18:36] here at Columbia County's law
[1:18:37] enforcement transferring from out of
[1:18:39] state started back in 2022, I've come to
[1:18:42] appreciate the inter agency cooperation
[1:18:44] partnerships and also his importance in
[1:18:46] helping support peace and justice not
[1:18:49] just in Scapus but also throughout
[1:18:51] Columbia County. The members of the St.
[1:18:54] Helens Police Department has proven to
[1:18:55] be truly inviable partners for us here
[1:18:57] at the Scapus Police Department. See how
[1:18:59] police officers have been there to back
[1:19:00] us up from simple traffic stops to
[1:19:03] having their detectives assist with
[1:19:04] investigating complex homicide cases
[1:19:06] within our jurisdiction
[1:19:08] and city since I have been employed here
[1:19:10] with our police department. Before my
[1:19:12] next statements, I want to first
[1:19:14] acknowledge that the citizens of St.
[1:19:16] Helen and entire nation are currently
[1:19:18] feeling the negative effects of
[1:19:19] inflation and rising prices from food to
[1:19:21] gasoline. But with that knowledge and
[1:19:23] understanding, I truly believe that is
[1:19:25] important to sustain and maintain a
[1:19:27] viable police force with appropriate
[1:19:29] staffing to meet the needs of amazing
[1:19:30] community members that call St. Helens
[1:19:32] and also Columbia County home. Having a
[1:19:34] well staff and well-trained police
[1:19:36] department is the foundation of any city
[1:19:38] or civilized society. Protect and
[1:19:40] provide service to needs of needs of its
[1:19:42] people. Without it, issues that are
[1:19:43] often not known or considered by the
[1:19:45] general public may begin to be more
[1:19:47] visible, transparent without any
[1:19:49] sufficient response and presence from
[1:19:51] law enforce these issues in a prompt
[1:19:54] manner.
[1:19:55] Many of these issues are dealt with
[1:19:57] daily by officers in department stemming
[1:19:59] from thefts to domestic violence calls
[1:20:01] to experience to people experienced
[1:20:03] mental health issues needing police
[1:20:04] assistance. Without a proper police
[1:20:06] department that is adequately staffed to
[1:20:08] handle these demands of the population
[1:20:09] of St. violence issue like this will
[1:20:11] more than likely not remain contained
[1:20:13] may spread throughout the rest of the
[1:20:14] county causing a potential a potential
[1:20:18] domino effect with other jurisdictions
[1:20:20] on and have an increased need for more
[1:20:22] resources and possible personal
[1:20:24] requirements. In closing, I have heard
[1:20:26] many I have heard during my career so
[1:20:28] many make comments some I feel safe here
[1:20:31] so why do they need more police? Great
[1:20:33] question. However, I will say that this
[1:20:36] is often an unknown testament to the to
[1:20:38] the unseen hard work of the members of
[1:20:40] the law enforce who are there to respond
[1:20:42] in moments notice or sometime working
[1:20:44] working for hours on and behind the
[1:20:46] scenes drafting a search warrant to help
[1:20:48] protect the most vulnerable members of
[1:20:49] our society. And to continue this and
[1:20:52] appropriately and reasonably staff
[1:20:54] police department is a foundation that
[1:20:56] provides stability for safety,
[1:20:58] prosperity, and also peace to flourish.
[1:21:01] Once again, thank you for your time and
[1:21:03] wish all of you may
[1:21:05] have
[1:21:07] » Impressive
[1:21:11] for city recorder.
[1:21:13] » Thank you for your time.
[1:21:14] » I appreciate it.
[1:21:18] » All right. Next up.
[1:21:19] » All right. Good evening. Um,
[1:21:22] uh, Madame Mayor and members of the
[1:21:24] budget committee and city staff, uh,
[1:21:26] Chief Smith, officers, community, my
[1:21:29] name is Dan Tel. I am the, uh,
[1:21:31] association attorney for the St. Helens
[1:21:34] Police Association. I have worked for
[1:21:38] the men and women of your department for
[1:21:40] approximately five years. Um, in
[1:21:44] interest to transparency, I um serve as
[1:21:48] um a bargaining attorney for about 75
[1:21:51] police agencies in the state of Oregon
[1:21:53] and about 75 as soon as the umbrella
[1:21:56] under which um I bargain for uh your
[1:21:59] police officers is through the Fraternal
[1:22:00] Order of Police, which is a national
[1:22:03] organization of about 400,000 police
[1:22:05] officers.
[1:22:07] Oregon is either 49th or 50th in the
[1:22:09] United States in staffing police
[1:22:11] officers uh per thousand residents. Four
[1:22:14] years ago, um about a year after I was
[1:22:16] hired to represent the St. Helms Police
[1:22:18] Association. I s stood in this room
[1:22:21] before the city council and I provided
[1:22:23] them a staffing study from 2012.
[1:22:26] And I I told the city council
[1:22:29] uh at that time, you were understaffed
[1:22:32] and you were going to have a staffing
[1:22:33] crisis because you were facing a glut of
[1:22:36] retirements and people leaving.
[1:22:40] Uh that was four years ago and the
[1:22:42] situation is worse. Um there are things
[1:22:45] that have been described in public uh
[1:22:48] about the association and their position
[1:22:51] with bargaining and their position with
[1:22:54] um their investment in in the trouble
[1:22:57] that the St. Helens uh budget faces. Um
[1:23:01] we actually hired our own person to look
[1:23:04] at the finances and agree with the city.
[1:23:06] They're not in good shape. Um we should
[1:23:08] be asking how we got to this point. Um,
[1:23:11] but there are some fundamental things
[1:23:12] that have been, in my opinion,
[1:23:15] intentionally and deceptively revealed
[1:23:17] to the city of St. Helens people about
[1:23:19] this budget process that are not true.
[1:23:21] And I'm going to address those this
[1:23:22] evening. Um, first of all, um, you
[1:23:26] cannot force the most senior people in
[1:23:29] your police department to retire because
[1:23:30] of Oregon labor laws. Whoever is, um,
[1:23:34] expressing that as an option to balance
[1:23:36] the budget doesn't know the law.
[1:23:39] Number two,
[1:23:41] um, police officers in the state of
[1:23:43] Oregon are prohibited by the Oregon Rey
[1:23:45] statute from striking. So, there have
[1:23:48] been statements publicly released and
[1:23:50] deceptively intentionally released that
[1:23:52] they've gone on strike. That is false.
[1:23:56] They are prohibited from statute to
[1:23:59] doing that. There has also been
[1:24:01] statements revealed that the St. Helens
[1:24:03] police officers have demanded 8% for a
[1:24:06] cost of living increase. That is not
[1:24:08] true because I'm the one in charge of
[1:24:09] that or the officers. What we have told
[1:24:12] the city repeatedly is that our priority
[1:24:15] is to work within the budget and
[1:24:17] preserve the the low staffing that we
[1:24:20] have right now and preserve
[1:24:22] » Minutes has expired.
[1:24:23] » Uh the the face it as is.
[1:24:25] » I yield by time to my attorney. What's
[1:24:28] your name?
[1:24:28] » Uh Colton Edwards.
[1:24:29] » May I have his time too? Thank you.
[1:24:32] » Mr. Fennel, can you address us please?
[1:24:34] You're looking that way. I'll address
[1:24:36] the public and the staff and so I've
[1:24:38] been turning the whole time and I will
[1:24:39] continue to do so. Okay.
[1:24:41] » Reset on the
[1:24:43] » So we have not requested 8%. We have
[1:24:46] requested to preserve our staff that we
[1:24:50] have now in our association. We have 15
[1:24:52] people and we have told the city that we
[1:24:56] are prepared to save that position. We
[1:25:00] will take
[1:25:02] potentially a 0% cost of living increase
[1:25:05] to save our current staffing and we are
[1:25:07] waiting for the city to confirm if they
[1:25:11] can do that so we can save one of our
[1:25:14] members.
[1:25:15] In the last 10 years um and this comes
[1:25:18] from our most senior officer. The city
[1:25:21] of St. Helens has been fully staffed for
[1:25:23] six weeks in that period of time. And
[1:25:26] finally, before this committee votes to
[1:25:29] gut its police department, I want you to
[1:25:32] consider this.
[1:25:34] Based on my bargaining experience and
[1:25:36] based on requests for information in
[1:25:39] bargaining police departments, the cost
[1:25:43] to hire, train, outfit, send to the
[1:25:48] academy, go through field training is
[1:25:51] $150,000
[1:25:53] per sworn officer.
[1:25:55] So, you need to think about the lost
[1:25:58] experience and you need to think about
[1:25:59] the future indebtedness that this city
[1:26:02] will not be able to afford to restaff
[1:26:04] its police department if it guts it. So,
[1:26:07] um don't believe what you read on the
[1:26:10] internet or on Facebook. I'm here to
[1:26:12] point out the facts and um please do not
[1:26:18] continue to dismantle this department on
[1:26:20] behalf of its employees. And I know one
[1:26:22] of our employees who is a city resident
[1:26:24] would like to speak to you personally
[1:26:25] because his job is on the chopping box
[1:26:27] and I think you should hear from him who
[1:26:30] he's here with his wife before you vote.
[1:26:34] » Thank you.
[1:26:41] All right. Um please please remember to
[1:26:44] state your name, but go ahead.
[1:26:46] » Good evening mayor and members of the
[1:26:47] city council. My name is Cecilia and I'm
[1:26:50] here today because I love
[1:26:55] me and my family's up there and brought
[1:26:57] back stuff
[1:27:00] and I used to
[1:27:02] do every single go to the library. You
[1:27:06] don't only visit the library because of
[1:27:08] books, but also because of the cool
[1:27:10] programs like maker space and petting
[1:27:13] suits and amazing librarians like Jan,
[1:27:15] Nicole, Dan, and Michelle. And there are
[1:27:19] so many other people. I can't possibly
[1:27:21] fit all of them on a couple of pages.
[1:27:26] We've been losing the programs and we've
[1:27:29] been losing the library and we've been
[1:27:31] losing the danger.
[1:27:34] The worst of all is it's the law. We're
[1:27:38] going to lose our full library. And
[1:27:41] losing a library
[1:27:43] doesn't make a happy booking community
[1:27:46] loving city. It meets a sad city with
[1:27:48] memories of a lovely library that was
[1:27:51] there but got slowly shut down. I don't
[1:27:54] think that's what you want or anyone
[1:27:55] wants for our city. Thank you for
[1:27:57] listening.
[1:27:59] » Yes.
[1:28:07] Thank you.
[1:28:10] » Um, I wrote something, but I just want
[1:28:12] to start off by saying
[1:28:15] » My name is Lindsay Price. That's what I
[1:28:17] want to start off by saying.
[1:28:19] » Um, and I'm a City of St. Helens
[1:28:22] resident and um, you guys, it is so
[1:28:26] asinine to think that we have a budget
[1:28:30] structured in a way that pits
[1:28:33] departments against each other. It's
[1:28:36] also so hard to imagine that we wouldn't
[1:28:40] get a library fully staffed back until
[1:28:43] 2031. I don't know about you, but um my
[1:28:46] kids are going to be teenagers by then.
[1:28:48] So, that's like a really large
[1:28:52] percentage of their childhood. Also, I
[1:28:56] live on a street in this town that has
[1:28:59] frequent police activity. Um,
[1:29:03] and it's usually not me. So,
[1:29:10] » I just want to say first and foremost
[1:29:13] that like I love every single library
[1:29:16] staff. They have been a community of
[1:29:20] generous, loving people who care handson
[1:29:24] in this community for these people that
[1:29:28] are lower income, medium income. People
[1:29:31] who like our family, homeschool, um
[1:29:34] people who need after a place to go
[1:29:36] after school, people who need a place to
[1:29:38] go when it's hot and they don't have air
[1:29:40] conditioning. This is a integral part of
[1:29:43] community as are police officers. So the
[1:29:47] idea that we could be losing an officer
[1:29:51] who has a family and we can be losing
[1:29:53] staff who I want to be very clear. It
[1:29:58] costs a lot of money to uh train and
[1:30:02] employ police staff. You're not going to
[1:30:05] get that money back by laying off three
[1:30:08] people who are part-time who paid for
[1:30:10] their own education. And that is not a
[1:30:13] slight. That is just facts. It's like if
[1:30:16] I said, "I am in major debt, so I'm
[1:30:20] going to try to adjust my Wi-Fi bill."
[1:30:24] That's what that's like. Um, I just
[1:30:27] think it's really scary to look at this
[1:30:30] budget, to look at, um,
[1:30:33] to hear the rumors, which could be
[1:30:36] misinformation or it could be very much
[1:30:38] fact. We have a history in this town of
[1:30:40] mismanaging funds. And that's a really
[1:30:43] nice way of putting it. $150,000 here,
[1:30:46] $87,000
[1:30:47] there, and where does it go, and what's
[1:30:50] happened to it? These are our tax
[1:30:52] dollars. My husband and I work
[1:30:53] tirelessly. He gets off work and goes to
[1:30:56] work. He gets off work and I go to work
[1:31:00] and we're barely paying the bills and
[1:31:02] we're feeding our kids and we're working
[1:31:04] hard and we're doing everything we can.
[1:31:06] So,
[1:31:08] I just think there has to be another
[1:31:10] way.
[1:31:11] Thank you.
[1:31:17] » Board say your name.
[1:31:18] » My name's Sefue Mike Mather.
[1:31:21] Um, I just want to address where I feel
[1:31:24] the budget's fallen short with most
[1:31:27] departments. I've been uh running a
[1:31:29] martial arts academy since 1992. I've
[1:31:32] worked with numerous agencies
[1:31:35] uh around the United States. I've worked
[1:31:36] with the government, military for many
[1:31:39] years. And one thing that I see a common
[1:31:44] um thing in the budget is they all lot
[1:31:46] for eight uh 8 hours a year of
[1:31:52] continuous head. Well, how that's
[1:31:54] written out, that can just be uh
[1:31:57] um
[1:31:59] uh shooting on the range, but it isn't
[1:32:01] self-defense tactics. It isn't it isn't
[1:32:04] uh working with um
[1:32:09] live situational training. It isn't
[1:32:11] working with hands-on. It isn't working
[1:32:13] with uh the whatif factor of dealing
[1:32:16] with multiple asalants. And so I feel if
[1:32:19] you guys are considering the budget, you
[1:32:21] guys need to uh put that in there so
[1:32:24] they get adequate training because it
[1:32:26] should be like brushing your teeth a
[1:32:28] habit. when you guys, you know, nobody
[1:32:31] in here is usually dealing with life or
[1:32:33] death situations. Every time they go out
[1:32:35] the door, they don't know if they're
[1:32:36] making it home. I mean, how many of you
[1:32:38] guys have your job to where you know
[1:32:40] you're going to go home in 8 hours? And
[1:32:42] how many of these guys don't?
[1:32:45] So, if you're only dealing with eight
[1:32:47] hours of training a year, what do you
[1:32:49] think they're going to remember six
[1:32:51] months from that training?
[1:32:54] So, I just want you guys to put that in
[1:32:56] perspective. When you're thinking about
[1:32:58] the budget, think about that as part of
[1:32:59] the budget because that's what's going
[1:33:02] to keep you safe. And that's all I got
[1:33:04] to say.
[1:33:06] » Thank you.
[1:33:10] » Come on up. There's your name.
[1:33:12] » Hello everyone. My name is Zaro Medina.
[1:33:15] I'm a husband uh and I'm soon to be
[1:33:19] father. My wife is here or you know
[1:33:22] she's pregnant a couple months pregnant.
[1:33:24] Um, so I am the employee within the
[1:33:29] police department that is facing layoff.
[1:33:30] I have my notice uh June 21st, but I
[1:33:34] want to talk about why Oh, and I'm the
[1:33:36] code enforcement officer for the for the
[1:33:38] police department. I want to talk about
[1:33:40] why uh my position being cut is really
[1:33:44] going to impact
[1:33:46] the city majorly and on top of that it's
[1:33:49] going to affect the police officers
[1:33:51] because they will have to be the ones
[1:33:52] responsible taking those calls. I want
[1:33:55] to say that I take about just just so
[1:33:58] far this year I've taken over 500 calls
[1:34:00] for service.
[1:34:02] you and if
[1:34:05] if I'm gone, then they're gonna have to
[1:34:07] take it. But they're already swamped.
[1:34:09] They have so many calls to take, you
[1:34:10] know, throughout the days and and I see
[1:34:12] it. I see it daily. Like they're
[1:34:14] swamped. They have too many reports and
[1:34:16] calls that come up. So, but I want to
[1:34:19] also talk about the duties that I do.
[1:34:20] So, I do the animal control for the
[1:34:22] city. I do I deal with like, you know,
[1:34:25] dogs at large that are abused,
[1:34:27] neglected,
[1:34:28] uh, and dog attacks. Dog attacks are one
[1:34:31] of the things that have been primarily
[1:34:33] occurring in the city a lot more often
[1:34:34] now. I don't know why, but dog attacks
[1:34:37] just keep happening. Maybe it's the
[1:34:38] water. I don't know. Um I deal with all
[1:34:41] the junk vehicles, you know, on, you
[1:34:44] know, city streets. So, like if if you
[1:34:47] let that accumulate, we're going to have
[1:34:49] a city that looks like a city that I
[1:34:51] don't want to name. Um and when you have
[1:34:55] that kind of stuff, nobody's want going
[1:34:57] to want to live here. when you see a
[1:34:58] street filled with junk uh and you start
[1:35:01] seeing like you know vermin, rats, other
[1:35:04] sorts of uh things nuisances that that
[1:35:08] is just going to create a public hazard.
[1:35:10] And another thing too is um my wife
[1:35:13] works for the public health department.
[1:35:14] I I work with them all the time. They
[1:35:16] send me emails about apartment complexes
[1:35:19] with like uh bed bugs, brats, and
[1:35:22] somebody's got to take those calls.
[1:35:24] That's me. the police officers don't
[1:35:26] have the time to take those calls.
[1:35:28] You're only going to be adding more
[1:35:30] calls for them. And you know, if if they
[1:35:33] can't take it, what are the people going
[1:35:34] to how are they going to react? They're
[1:35:35] going to be mad. I mean, I I think, you
[1:35:38] know, a lot of people have voiced their
[1:35:39] opinion recently about losing code
[1:35:41] enforcement. Um, and then, you know, I
[1:35:44] also deal with the homeless population.
[1:35:46] Um, I I guide them. I I send them to
[1:35:49] services if they can get some help um or
[1:35:52] direct them, you know, where they need
[1:35:54] to go. Um and then, you know, on top of
[1:35:57] that, uh I a lot of livability issues. I
[1:35:59] got homes currently dealing with rats, a
[1:36:03] lot of rats. Um if you if I'm gone,
[1:36:06] well, okay, good luck city. Like, you're
[1:36:08] going to have a rat problem. You're
[1:36:09] going to have the antivirus here
[1:36:11] probably. I mean, it's it's true. like
[1:36:15] you know just smelling inhaling the rat
[1:36:18] poop is enough to get the antivirus and
[1:36:21] if if you know uh the antivirus has an
[1:36:24] incubation period that's like between 3
[1:36:26] to 8 weeks so you won't even know right
[1:36:29] » Um that you you're going to be sick with
[1:36:31] a pretty deadly virus anyway so like I
[1:36:34] said a lot of my things liveability and
[1:36:35] you're just going to you know bring more
[1:36:37] crime too as well
[1:36:46] I think you're now.
[1:36:49] » I'm Reed. I'm a resident of the city of
[1:36:51] St. Helens. Um, I'm also elected to the
[1:36:53] St. Helens School Board. I'm here
[1:36:55] speaking as a citizen, not with the
[1:36:58] school board. Have nothing to do with
[1:36:59] that. Seeing my comments are a little
[1:37:01] bit about my background. I worked on the
[1:37:03] road as a police officer for 14 years in
[1:37:06] a in a town just a little bit smaller
[1:37:08] than this one. We had two deputies or
[1:37:10] two officers working at night and we had
[1:37:13] one detective. Um, that detective worked
[1:37:16] during the day. I worked the night
[1:37:17] shift. I handled all the stuff that a
[1:37:20] detective had to do. I wrote reports,
[1:37:22] passed along. I had to be interrupted
[1:37:24] and respond back out to calls. Um, the
[1:37:28] city here
[1:37:30] has uh our other offices, our front
[1:37:33] office was always staffed 24 hours a
[1:37:35] day. You victims could run race into the
[1:37:37] office. the doors could be locked and
[1:37:39] then they could be brought in and
[1:37:41] protected from what was going on that
[1:37:43] brought them there. Um, that's
[1:37:45] important. Code enforcement's important.
[1:37:47] Um, got code enforcement during the day.
[1:37:49] I had to take care of that at night
[1:37:50] myself. That took me away from doing all
[1:37:52] the other calls for service. Um,
[1:37:54] dropping calls and running. Uh, the city
[1:37:57] here, uh, we got to support the, we have
[1:38:01] to support the police. We need to have,
[1:38:03] uh, code enforcement. We need to have
[1:38:05] somebody at the front door of the new
[1:38:06] police station 24 hours a day. Um uh I
[1:38:10] think evidence texts, you know, we need
[1:38:12] we need full-time evidence texts. Um
[1:38:14] it's so important to keep the chain of
[1:38:16] custody for evidence so that the victims
[1:38:19] of crimes can be prosecuted or, you
[1:38:21] know, their cases can be prosecuted and
[1:38:23] people can be found guilty that
[1:38:24] assaulted them. Um it's really important
[1:38:28] that we do that. Um that's all I really
[1:38:30] had to say. Thank you.
[1:38:31] » Thank you.
[1:38:39] There another public comment this time.
[1:38:43] » I saw three people at the same time.
[1:38:52] » My name is Napole Woodruff and I'm here
[1:38:54] speaking as a representative of ASP
[1:38:56] level 1789
[1:38:58] that works at the city of St. Helens.
[1:39:00] Um, our statement is just a little bit
[1:39:02] over the three minutes. So, please, if
[1:39:05] you'll just I'll go as quick as I can.
[1:39:09] Um, a portion of our membership
[1:39:11] continues to be impacted by the proposed
[1:39:14] layoffs and furlows as part of the
[1:39:15] city's current budget proposal.
[1:39:18] We are concerned that the message we're
[1:39:19] hearing from the city is much different
[1:39:20] or contradicts what's being said during
[1:39:22] the budget meetings. Um it was stated at
[1:39:24] the last budget committee meeting that
[1:39:26] there was wiggle room in the budget to
[1:39:28] make changes, but we were told a week
[1:39:30] later by management and city labor
[1:39:31] attorney that the um city would be at a
[1:39:33] 1% rever reserve fund deficit with the
[1:39:37] budget as it was proposed. This was
[1:39:39] after we were previously told that the
[1:39:40] city would be able to maintain a 10 to
[1:39:42] 15% general fund reserves taking into
[1:39:44] account the general fund fee and the 911
[1:39:46] 911 levy not passing.
[1:39:50] You all were told the May 7th meeting
[1:39:52] that furls were a done deal. ASME has
[1:39:55] demanded to bargain over the impacts to
[1:39:57] furlows and an agreement has not yet
[1:39:58] been reached. We have been told that the
[1:40:01] city's financial uh situation is dire
[1:40:04] and the money that the city will save by
[1:40:05] furlowing ASME members is the difference
[1:40:08] between more layoffs or retaining the
[1:40:10] city staff. Meanwhile, the city has
[1:40:12] removed non-ASME members from the
[1:40:14] proposed furlow list and has proposed
[1:40:16] budgetary line items for many non-dire
[1:40:18] expenditures.
[1:40:20] You have been told that furlows will
[1:40:21] last five years when we uh proposed an
[1:40:24] agreement with the city that would last
[1:40:26] one fiscal year. We were simultaneously
[1:40:28] told that furloss were only meant to be
[1:40:30] temporary in nature while receiving a
[1:40:32] counter proposal that would potentially
[1:40:33] keep fur
[1:40:35] contract.
[1:40:37] We don't understand why what's being
[1:40:38] said at these meetings contrasts so so
[1:40:41] differently with what our membership is
[1:40:42] being told. Uh we are deeply concerned.
[1:40:45] The way these decisions are being
[1:40:47] handled has been extremely haphazard.
[1:40:49] The morale of our membership is at an
[1:40:51] all-time low. Um, we are all real
[1:40:54] people. We have rural workloads and
[1:40:56] lives that are deeply impacted by the
[1:40:58] decisions and everchanging story that
[1:41:00] we're being told from week to week.
[1:41:03] While people have talked about city
[1:41:05] departments having knife fights for
[1:41:06] funding each year, we have quietly
[1:41:08] watched as the decision makers proposed
[1:41:10] a budget that you or to you that
[1:41:12] effectively forces staff to plead their
[1:41:14] case as to why they deserve to exist.
[1:41:19] And I'm not sure if you guys are aware,
[1:41:21] but we're no longer open full-time to
[1:41:24] customers in the main lobby at city
[1:41:25] hall.
[1:41:27] They've had to close in order to address
[1:41:29] staffing shortages and functionality
[1:41:31] throughout the city. is rapidly
[1:41:32] deolving. Staffing margins are so thin
[1:41:36] that we had to close an entire building
[1:41:39] to the public because one person, one
[1:41:41] person took a position elsewhere after
[1:41:43] receiving a layoff notice from the city.
[1:41:47] We're finally at a breaking point. We've
[1:41:49] gone for years with people leaving and
[1:41:50] the city not replacing them in order to
[1:41:52] save money. We have faced multiple
[1:41:54] rounds of cuts and now as of June 21st,
[1:41:56] we are facing additional cuts. we will
[1:41:58] not be able to function and the
[1:42:00] community is going to be very upset with
[1:42:01] those impacts.
[1:42:03] The people who will feel the brunt of
[1:42:04] the community's very reasonable anger is
[1:42:06] going to be the staff that shows up each
[1:42:08] and every day to serve our customers
[1:42:11] with no support, no information, no
[1:42:14] resources for management to provide the
[1:42:16] services that our citizens need. Our
[1:42:18] membership feels like we are being used
[1:42:20] as pawns in a game. We are being used
[1:42:22] like play things and inadimate resources
[1:42:24] in a political funding war. We're tired
[1:42:26] of this.
[1:42:28] We are people. We are dedicated staff
[1:42:31] that quietly provides the day-to-day
[1:42:32] services this community relies on to
[1:42:34] function. We are the ones who make sure
[1:42:36] that the contractor gets the answers
[1:42:38] that he or she needs to keep a project
[1:42:39] moving forward. We are the ones that
[1:42:42] connect vulnerable citizens with the
[1:42:43] resources they need in order to stand on
[1:42:45] their own two feet. We are the ones who
[1:42:47] business owners reach out to when they
[1:42:49] need question answered and haven't been
[1:42:50] able to get a hold of anyone else.
[1:42:53] We are the ones who get yelled at when
[1:42:56] the decisions that are made in this room
[1:42:59] impact the daily lives of our community
[1:43:01] members.
[1:43:02] We're the ones who pick up the pieces,
[1:43:04] try to make things work with duct tape
[1:43:06] and a glue stick, sometimes literally
[1:43:09] to ensure that service disruptions are
[1:43:11] as minimal as possible when things go
[1:43:12] sideways.
[1:43:14] And we respectfully ask to be treated
[1:43:16] with the same dignity and respect that
[1:43:17] we try to bring to our jobs and to the
[1:43:19] residents and community that we serve
[1:43:20] each and every day.
[1:43:29] Jeremy
[1:43:34] » Ask me
[1:43:35] » What's that
[1:43:36] » Union
[1:43:36] » It's our union organization for the city
[1:43:39] employees
[1:43:41] » American federation of state
[1:43:44] » County municipal employees
[1:43:46] » All city employees
[1:43:48] » All city employees
[1:43:51] all represent
[1:43:58] Hey, uh there were at least a few people
[1:44:01] that I think were interested come
[1:44:03] forward and
[1:44:11] » Read my notes off my phone.
[1:44:13] » Just please give us your name. Don't
[1:44:15] forget.
[1:44:15] » Yep. My name is Michelle Kermit and I'm
[1:44:17] one of the part-time library assistants
[1:44:19] that was laid off in April. A lot of
[1:44:21] people are happy and optimistic about
[1:44:23] the budget committee's desire to see the
[1:44:25] library and wreck made whole. Some
[1:44:28] people express cautious optimism, but I
[1:44:30] am leaning very heavily into the caution
[1:44:32] and very little optimism. Why? Because
[1:44:36] while budget season is tense every year,
[1:44:39] this year the message and the goalposts
[1:44:41] have changed over and over again since
[1:44:43] January. In my 10 years with the city, I
[1:44:46] have never feared being laid off. Lean
[1:44:49] times, yes. cutting back. Yes, even when
[1:44:52] furloss were announced as a possibility,
[1:44:54] I thought yes, we'll get through this.
[1:44:56] Then when the city decided to lay off
[1:44:58] all part-time employees, I felt thrown
[1:45:00] under a bus. The reality is that we are
[1:45:02] just a drop in the bucket. Part-time, no
[1:45:05] benefits.
[1:45:07] It has been chaos for 5 months, not just
[1:45:10] for me personally, but for the library's
[1:45:12] patrons and the crucial services we
[1:45:14] offer them, but also for the citizens of
[1:45:16] St. Helens other city departments and
[1:45:18] the furled and laid-off staff in those
[1:45:20] departments. I was laid off and I felt
[1:45:23] all of the things a person who loves and
[1:45:25] is dedicated to their job. Anger,
[1:45:28] sadness, and worry for this community.
[1:45:30] And I got to work securing my future.
[1:45:33] I've applied for four jobs in other
[1:45:35] communities. I have interviewed for two.
[1:45:37] I have an another interview scheduled
[1:45:39] and I've been offered a position. I was
[1:45:41] beginning to see a different trae
[1:45:43] trajectory for my life. And now there's
[1:45:45] a potential to stay. And I have a few
[1:45:48] questions. What kind of stability does
[1:45:50] this budget plan offer? If I stay, will
[1:45:52] be I be laid off in December or next
[1:45:54] budget season? What are you going to do
[1:45:56] to stop this merrygoround? There's been
[1:45:59] so much chaos. Oh, I think I copied that
[1:46:03] sentence. Sorry. So, while I'm committed
[1:46:05] to this community, I've lost faith in
[1:46:07] the city as a reliable partner. I will
[1:46:10] stay if I can. So, what is the city
[1:46:12] going to be doing to make sure that I am
[1:46:13] making a wise decision for myself?
[1:46:22] » There any additional public comment?
[1:46:26] » Go ahead. Go ahead. Feel free.
[1:46:28] » Um,
[1:46:30] my name is Tony Morgan. I'm a St. Helens
[1:46:33] resident. Um, I'm just going to kind of
[1:46:36] off the cuff here. Um, there were some
[1:46:38] things that I thought were interesting
[1:46:39] that Cheryl Pixley said, um, about
[1:46:43] experience and how you can't regain
[1:46:45] those things. And I think that point
[1:46:47] needs to be made that those things don't
[1:46:49] just apply to the police office or the
[1:46:51] the police department. Those apply to
[1:46:53] the city planners office, um, parks and
[1:46:56] wreck, the library. Like
[1:47:00] if you start gutting departments,
[1:47:03] you're losing
[1:47:05] you're losing all the experience and
[1:47:10] you're you're basically eliminating the
[1:47:12] functionality of those departments. So
[1:47:15] there there's a lot of like this
[1:47:17] department versus this department. And I
[1:47:19] think what is important to look at is
[1:47:25] how much how do I say this? There are
[1:47:28] some departments that you can take some
[1:47:30] money from and they will still function
[1:47:33] and there are other departments that you
[1:47:34] can take that same amount from and they
[1:47:36] cease to exist. I think that really need
[1:47:39] to look at
[1:47:41] and this point has been made before. If
[1:47:43] you start doing things like cutting the
[1:47:46] library or city planning, it's like
[1:47:48] you're you're eliminating departments or
[1:47:50] you're you're basically rendering those
[1:47:52] non-functional. Um
[1:47:55] whereas there's other departments
[1:47:57] that can take the hit. And I think while
[1:48:00] we're talking about the whole point is
[1:48:03] budget, right?
[1:48:06] We're not magically bringing money from
[1:48:08] somewhere else. Like we have to work
[1:48:09] with the money that there is. And so I
[1:48:11] think you have to look at where you can
[1:48:13] take that money away and still function.
[1:48:15] And I know that everybody thinks that
[1:48:17] they need to function at maximum
[1:48:18] capacity, but that's just not possible,
[1:48:22] right? You can't you can't make money
[1:48:24] out of nothing. Um anyway, I don't know
[1:48:27] if I said that exactly as clear as I
[1:48:30] wanted to. The other point is we were
[1:48:32] all here at the other I'm not a holdist
[1:48:34] obviously. Um, a lot of us were here at
[1:48:36] the last budget meeting and um, I'm just
[1:48:39] saying that we'd like to hold you to the
[1:48:41] promises that were made there. So, thank
[1:48:43] you.
[1:48:44] » Thank you.
[1:48:48] » Candace Crawford, city halls resident.
[1:48:51] Um, I also hope you guys keep the
[1:48:54] promises to fund the library department.
[1:48:58] Um, I also don't like the pitting like
[1:49:01] the police department against all these
[1:49:03] other departments. It feels like
[1:49:08] you're saying that we don't care about
[1:49:10] police or safety or security and that's
[1:49:13] not true at all. Like I have family
[1:49:14] members that are also domestic abuse
[1:49:17] survivors. So, um I don't think that's
[1:49:20] the case. I think it's just like
[1:49:24] finding a budget that fits for
[1:49:25] everybody. So, I just want to say I hope
[1:49:28] you guys do that and and also like um
[1:49:32] try not to like you know because it's
[1:49:34] going to happen every single year. I
[1:49:36] hope that you guys keep it in mind not
[1:49:38] to send layoff notices ahead of time.
[1:49:43] Maybe you can
[1:49:46] keep a budget that works for every
[1:49:47] single year so that people don't have to
[1:49:49] worry about their jobs.
[1:49:53] » Thank you.
[1:49:59] Is there
[1:50:01] another public comment?
[1:50:04] » Um, Robin Husky, City of St. Helens. I
[1:50:07] have attended or listened to every
[1:50:08] budget meeting for the past four years.
[1:50:10] Issues we are having have been presented
[1:50:12] and caution provided by Gloria for as
[1:50:14] long as we she's been with us. We
[1:50:16] continue to overspend the money we do
[1:50:18] not have. For the last four years,
[1:50:19] administration has raised concerns about
[1:50:21] shortfalls and invited department heads
[1:50:23] to speak at their budget meeting. Um,
[1:50:25] and I've heard people talk about this
[1:50:27] and they come with proposed cuts and
[1:50:29] eliminating FTE and moving people to
[1:50:32] part-time. And every single year that
[1:50:34] I've been here, the police union comes
[1:50:35] in and wants more more money, more money
[1:50:38] for cars, more equipment, more officers,
[1:50:40] bigger stations. This year, more guns.
[1:50:43] So every year for the past 5 years, the
[1:50:44] police budget's gone up exponentially,
[1:50:47] way beyond the other departments, and
[1:50:49] we've only experienced 7% growth in the
[1:50:52] last 10 years. Keep that in mind. We
[1:50:55] have not exploded like we thought we
[1:50:56] were going to. I grew up in St. Helens.
[1:50:59] I've never seen our city offices closed.
[1:51:01] I'm here today to advocate for our
[1:51:03] planning department, Jacob Gretchen, and
[1:51:05] our building inspector, Mike Do. Royal,
[1:51:06] to be restored to the full budget they
[1:51:08] had last year. They have already been
[1:51:10] cut to way below industry norms as they
[1:51:11] pointed out at the last meeting. They
[1:51:13] spoke about how the lack of time would
[1:51:15] have impacts in planning and timely
[1:51:17] development. Frankly, we cannot risk
[1:51:19] losing them as some of you have spoken
[1:51:21] about and put out a job wreck to replace
[1:51:24] them that will probably cost more than
[1:51:25] they're making. They are seasoned,
[1:51:27] honest, hard-working professionals that
[1:51:29] hold a great deal of institutional
[1:51:30] knowledge in our city. I propose cutting
[1:51:32] the council stipens to add approximately
[1:51:35] $65,000 to the budget and restoring
[1:51:38] these departments. Additionally, we need
[1:51:40] to restore public works and Muhammad
[1:51:41] Zahir's department. Let them repair our
[1:51:43] roads, cut our grass, sweep our streets.
[1:51:45] I propose moving code enforcement out of
[1:51:47] the police and adding that position to
[1:51:49] public works. Get our streets, public
[1:51:51] ways cleaned up from broken down cars,
[1:51:52] trailers, RV trash that's being stored
[1:51:55] in our public rightway. Furthermore,
[1:51:57] we've added a substantial maintenance
[1:51:59] footprint with the waterfront project,
[1:52:01] and it makes no sense to cut back
[1:52:03] funding that to support it. If we built
[1:52:06] it, we have to maintain it. We made that
[1:52:08] commitment. Why would a developer want
[1:52:09] to invest in a city full of potholes and
[1:52:11] weeds? I suggest taking this $165,000
[1:52:15] that Gloria stated went directly into
[1:52:16] the general fund from our tourism
[1:52:18] program, put that back into public
[1:52:19] works. We were promises promised that if
[1:52:22] we decided to enact a service fee on
[1:52:24] every ticket from Halloween Town, this
[1:52:26] would go back into tourism. This co
[1:52:29] quote can be found at the 2hour and 19
[1:52:31] minute mark of the third budget meeting
[1:52:33] last year. Quote, if we did the impact
[1:52:35] fee, that would go directly into our
[1:52:37] general fund. End quote. She's referring
[1:52:39] to this additional $4.95
[1:52:42] ticket fee that was charged for the
[1:52:44] event. I think this money should be
[1:52:45] earmarked to make our city beautiful and
[1:52:47] give public works the tools it needs.
[1:52:49] Lastly, I'd like to draw attention to
[1:52:52] the city of St. Helens resolution 1509,
[1:52:55] the resolution adopting a code of eth
[1:52:58] ethics. This is found on the city's
[1:53:00] websites. Every meeting our attorney
[1:53:02] reads the state of Oregon ethics law.
[1:53:04] For some reason, Oregon decided last
[1:53:06] year to do away with their ethics laws,
[1:53:08] which allow a person with a conflict of
[1:53:10] interest to participate in voting and
[1:53:11] decision-making. Thank goodness our city
[1:53:13] holds higher standards than the state.
[1:53:15] In resolution 1509, it states, "The code
[1:53:18] of ethics shall apply to all city
[1:53:20] officials, including elected and
[1:53:22] appointed official, staff, and
[1:53:23] volunteers." From page four of the
[1:53:25] document, point number two, if an
[1:53:27] individual official, financial or
[1:53:29] personal interest will specifically be
[1:53:31] affected by a decision, the official is
[1:53:34] to withdraw from participating in that
[1:53:35] decision.
[1:53:37] » Thank you.
[1:53:38] » Thank you. Anyone
[1:53:45] else who'd like
[1:53:50] » First? I want to thank uh Jenny Gilbert
[1:53:52] for having assisting on public comment.
[1:53:55] Obviously, I think that this is very
[1:53:56] valuable. Even if I don't agree with
[1:53:58] people that stated, I think it's one of
[1:54:00] the most valuable part parts of what you
[1:54:02] do here. Um,
[1:54:05] the
[1:54:06] budget committee has known for years
[1:54:09] that we were getting this point. It was
[1:54:10] on the front page. I was on the budget
[1:54:12] committee four years ago. We knew it was
[1:54:13] coming. You've ignored it for for years
[1:54:15] and years and years, and now we're here.
[1:54:18] Nobody wants to see the police
[1:54:19] department decimated. But that's the
[1:54:21] only place that can be cut. Literally,
[1:54:23] the city hall is now closed. You cannot
[1:54:26] come into the city hall and make an
[1:54:28] appointment. You have to make an
[1:54:28] appointment and call. That's not
[1:54:30] acceptable. We cannot function our
[1:54:32] government that way. But yet you
[1:54:35] continue to want to build a police
[1:54:36] station that we can't afford. As I said
[1:54:38] for years, we couldn't afford the
[1:54:40] waterfront development. And you heard
[1:54:41] today them say, "Yeah, we really can't.
[1:54:43] We hope that we're going to be
[1:54:44] sustainable." Guess what? We can't
[1:54:46] afford the police station. Take the $10
[1:54:48] that we're charging already on our water
[1:54:50] bill and get and hire cops. Why are we
[1:54:53] going to have a police station with
[1:54:54] empty no police in it? It's ridiculous
[1:54:56] that we want to continue to build spend
[1:54:58] money on a station when we don't have
[1:55:00] cops. I think even the police, in fact,
[1:55:03] they said that they would rather have
[1:55:04] more police than a stupid station that
[1:55:06] we don't need.
[1:55:09] Also, I want to talk about um the
[1:55:12] tourism dollars. There's half a million
[1:55:14] dollars that shows that you've loan
[1:55:16] tourism hasn't been repaid. It should be
[1:55:18] plus 165 that Robin mentioned plus
[1:55:22] 300,000 that's in the budget. That's a
[1:55:24] million dollars right there that needs
[1:55:26] to come from tourism that you haven't
[1:55:28] asked for and you haven't even had a
[1:55:29] discussion on tourism. In addition to
[1:55:32] that, you also have the highest paid
[1:55:35] staff in almost any city. Rather than
[1:55:39] picking on those poor people of ASME who
[1:55:42] are frontline workers who who are barely
[1:55:44] making a living wage, you need to go
[1:55:47] after the top earners. The top 10 city
[1:55:50] employees that are overpaid. some of
[1:55:53] them four times what is a comparable
[1:55:56] salary in other cities. And the top 10
[1:55:58] police officers, some of whom are also
[1:56:00] making four four times what they're
[1:56:02] making. We have cops that are making
[1:56:04] $200,000 a year. City administrator
[1:56:06] who's making $245,000
[1:56:09] a year. That is way out of line for what
[1:56:13] should be paid for our city. You take
[1:56:15] those top 10 employees and the top 10
[1:56:18] cops and you cut their salaries and
[1:56:20] Gloria will tell you you can't do it.
[1:56:22] That's a lie. You can you can't target
[1:56:24] an individual staff person, but you can
[1:56:26] say what you want for administration.
[1:56:28] You take just those top 10, those 20
[1:56:30] employees, and you cut their salaries to
[1:56:32] a reasonable salary. That's $2 million
[1:56:35] over payment that we are making for just
[1:56:38] those 20 employees. That's where the
[1:56:40] cuts need to be rather than the
[1:56:42] frontline workers, as this woman who got
[1:56:43] up and said, who is barely making a
[1:56:45] living wage. That's where the cuts need
[1:56:47] to happen. You need to have selective
[1:56:49] cuts, not across the board cuts and
[1:56:52] affecting employees that don't make a
[1:56:55] living wage.
[1:56:56] » Yeah, good point.
[1:57:00] » Next, I'd like to make comment, Adam,
[1:57:01] St. Pierre. Yeah, it sounds really good.
[1:57:03] We have a couple people making a lot of
[1:57:05] money. That's very much the point. Did
[1:57:07] anybody ever think to do the math? All
[1:57:09] these ask me people, if you're working
[1:57:10] 60, 70, 80 hours a week, would you not
[1:57:12] want to be paid those 60, 70, 80 hours a
[1:57:14] week? I know how many hours the officers
[1:57:16] put in. I talk to him a lot. Um, so
[1:57:19] there's you have a problem here. They
[1:57:21] are getting a lot of money. They're
[1:57:22] putting in a million hours. So there is
[1:57:24] that, you know, ratio there. You have to
[1:57:27] think about that. Um, is everybody
[1:57:29] underpaid? Absolutely. Everybody's
[1:57:31] underpaid. We We all deserve more money,
[1:57:34] but there's only a limited amount of
[1:57:36] money in the budget. And if they would
[1:57:38] have done their job as council, budget
[1:57:40] meeting, whatever, years ago, as Brady
[1:57:42] said, he he's seen this coming, we
[1:57:44] wouldn't be in this situation. But there
[1:57:46] is a situation we have now. There's no
[1:57:49] money. And so something somewhere has to
[1:57:51] be cut.
[1:57:52] What is it? I don't know. I don't have
[1:57:54] the answer. We can all whine and cry as
[1:57:56] much as we want, but there's only so
[1:57:57] much money. There's only so much we
[1:57:59] could do. I'm actually personally happy.
[1:58:00] I'm a libertarian. I think we need a 30%
[1:58:02] smaller government, but the real deal is
[1:58:06] the 10 highest paid people. There's a
[1:58:08] number of hours put in. So, thank you.
[1:58:11] Thank you.
[1:58:17] We have any other
[1:58:20] negative St. Helens? Uh, I'd like you to
[1:58:23] jog your memory back to 2017 when
[1:58:25] Douglas County shut down their library
[1:58:27] system. It made the national news. It
[1:58:29] made international news. Uh, year and a
[1:58:32] half later when they reopened it, it
[1:58:34] made national news. It's a big deal to
[1:58:36] shut down a rec center. It's a big deal
[1:58:38] to shut down a library system.
[1:58:40] Currently, the largest city in Oregon
[1:58:42] with no library is King City. Uh less
[1:58:45] than 5,000 people, half of them over 65
[1:58:48] years old. The second largest city in
[1:58:50] Oregon with no library system is
[1:58:52] Cobbert, 1,400 people. Um this this will
[1:58:57] absolutely make national news if you
[1:58:59] close down the library.
[1:59:02] » Thank you.
[1:59:06] » Anyone else?
[1:59:08] We have any online?
[1:59:11] » No one is raised there.
[1:59:12] » Do I have a comment online?
[1:59:14] » Okay.
[1:59:15] » Yeah. So, I have to give my time to
[1:59:16] Brady Preham.
[1:59:20] » Way to Yeah. Is there a way to fix the
[1:59:22] audio by any chance?
[1:59:23] » That he wants to give his time to Brady.
[1:59:26] » Oh. Oh, is that what he said?
[1:59:29] » He said he wants to give his his time to
[1:59:30] Brady. Brian,
[1:59:31] » Maybe we can more Brady.
[1:59:34] » Okay. So, Brady, give some time. All
[1:59:36] right. I'm done. Have a good night.
[1:59:39] » Audio. I don't know. Yeah, there's a
[1:59:41] weird echo. Okay.
[1:59:43] » All right. Any any others?
[1:59:46] » If not.
[1:59:48] » All right.
[1:59:50] » Uh,
[1:59:58] I I need to officially close the public
[2:00:00] comments.
[2:00:01] » No,
[2:00:02] » No, we're just done.
[2:00:03] » Public comment.
[2:00:04] » Okay. So then we will take a break for
[2:00:08] 10 minutes. Come back at 8:00.
[2:00:11] » Perfect. That's 9 minutes. That's fine.
[2:00:13] » Oh, wow.
[2:10:15] back from break
[2:10:18] order.
[2:10:24] » Thank you.
[2:10:29] » All right. At this point, I will turn it
[2:10:32] over to the budget officer.
[2:10:36] » Okay. So, we want to open the um
[2:10:40] discussion and and start with the staff
[2:10:43] revisions. So, you have
[2:10:47] we have these sheets here that have the
[2:10:50] okay.
[2:10:53] So, we've started a draft and this is
[2:10:55] purely a draft. of the approved budget
[2:10:57] and it shows what you have already
[2:11:00] approved which was the return of the
[2:11:02] library and recreation to full staffing
[2:11:05] with no furloss.
[2:11:07] Additionally, we have removed the
[2:11:09] general service fee from the general
[2:11:11] fund revenues and the um
[2:11:16] and the city administrator chief and
[2:11:18] finance director have reduced the police
[2:11:20] department budget to balance the general
[2:11:22] fund with a 5% reserve balance.
[2:11:26] We are not presenting the alternative
[2:11:29] option of removing the police department
[2:11:31] from the general fund. The city
[2:11:34] administrator, finance director, and
[2:11:35] police chief have revised the police
[2:11:37] budget to sustain services for the first
[2:11:40] six months of the fiscal year. If the
[2:11:43] city council decides to refer a ballot
[2:11:45] measure on the November ballot and it is
[2:11:50] passed by the voters, there will need to
[2:11:52] be a supplemental budget at that time.
[2:11:55] If the council does not refer a public a
[2:11:59] police services fee to the November
[2:12:01] ballot or if the ballot measure fails,
[2:12:06] the police department will need to be
[2:12:07] reduced to minimum staffing, no patrol,
[2:12:10] no investigations, and pri prioritized
[2:12:13] call response. So that's where our
[2:12:16] starting point is for
[2:12:27] Okay, with with that I think we move
[2:12:29] into uh approval of the proposed budget.
[2:12:35] » Hold on. I
[2:12:36] » Miss the discussion with the section is
[2:12:39] titles approval.
[2:12:40] » So
[2:12:42] I have a question. Go ahead.
[2:12:46] So this budget of
[2:12:50] so this is not a one-year budget. This
[2:12:53] is I'm just trying to understand what
[2:12:54] you're saying with the $4,36,000
[2:12:59] for personnel
[2:13:02] which I'm looking at the first page
[2:13:06] under draft approved police.
[2:13:11] So if you go to the third page which is
[2:13:14] the police department um budget that
[2:13:17] might be more helpful.
[2:13:19] » Okay.
[2:13:20] » So the so the question is are you saying
[2:13:23] that this is not a one-year budget?
[2:13:27] » This for the police department is a
[2:13:32] bridge to get us to the next
[2:13:35] um decisions that the council will need
[2:13:37] to make. Um, this gets us to six months.
[2:13:42] The police department does. Um,
[2:13:46] if you if the budget committee wants to
[2:13:50] talk about completely gutting the police
[2:13:53] department and that that's your
[2:13:57] prerogative to talk about.
[2:13:58] » I I don't think anybody's talking about
[2:14:00] gutting the police department. I I do
[2:14:02] think that what we need to talk about is
[2:14:04] appropriate management of salaries and
[2:14:07] the expenses of the police that are
[2:14:09] commensurate with
[2:14:12] our budget that we actually set out. I
[2:14:14] mean, everybody is very supportive of
[2:14:18] the police. And
[2:14:22] we have
[2:14:23] in the past, we've had a situation where
[2:14:27] we have
[2:14:29] officers making officers and people
[2:14:32] making 185, 177,000,
[2:14:36] 172,000 a year. And you look back at
[2:14:42] you look at back at the past just go
[2:14:44] back at some of the past data points
[2:14:48] when we had 16 officers 16 sworn
[2:14:51] officers and these data points come from
[2:14:54] our public bud published budgets
[2:14:59] 2017 published budget 2019 published
[2:15:02] budget
[2:15:04] 2012 to 2017 we made 16,000 There were
[2:15:08] 16 officers
[2:15:11] they handled be the city population was
[2:15:13] 13,000 basically average out the whole
[2:15:15] time. So one officer per 1.21
[2:15:20] annual dispatch activity
[2:15:23] 15,000 low to 17,200 high annual
[2:15:29] activity per officer 1,000 reports or a
[2:15:32] thousand activities. annual case numbers
[2:15:35] 1,700500
[2:15:37] 1,800500600.
[2:15:42] You go to the 2019 budget
[2:15:45] and you see we had 16 officers and a day
[2:15:48] is about the same 15,000 17,000 16,000
[2:15:51] calls. Our population went up to 13,240.
[2:15:56] Our population now is just barely over
[2:15:58] 14,000.
[2:16:00] So for
[2:16:02] 8 10 year we handled 17,000 calls a year
[2:16:07] we handled
[2:16:10] annual case numbers per officer 100
[2:16:12] reports per year under case number per
[2:16:14] year
[2:16:16] and then you go back the last couple
[2:16:17] years we've had 22 sworn there's six
[2:16:21] more officers our population is
[2:16:24] essentially the same our sworn officers
[2:16:26] per thousands one week annual dispatch
[2:16:29] match activity 15,000 to 18,000
[2:16:33] essentially the same annual case numbers
[2:16:36] 982 to 1045
[2:16:39] annual case numbers have gone in half
[2:16:41] annual case numbers per officer by more
[2:16:44] than half we're paying twice as much
[2:16:47] money and we're getting half as much
[2:16:51] cases and so
[2:16:54] nobody's talking about what a that the
[2:16:57] police aren't doing a great job nobody's
[2:16:59] talking about quote gutting the police.
[2:17:00] We're talking about is having a very
[2:17:04] serious conversation with our union
[2:17:07] uh if we decide to do business with the
[2:17:10] union and saying look this is St.
[2:17:13] balance. This is what our officers are.
[2:17:16] And you know, what are we up to paying?
[2:17:19] I mean, but look, this proposed budget
[2:17:23] is 4,646,000.
[2:17:28] And you're saying that isn't a yearly
[2:17:30] budget. So, this still isn't a budget.
[2:17:31] This is like a six-month budget.
[2:17:35] This isn't the This isn't the yearly
[2:17:36] budget either. This this would be the
[2:17:38] budget for the year, and they would need
[2:17:40] to figure out a way to make it work.
[2:17:42] We've had two this year we had we had a
[2:17:45] $300,000 overtime budget and came in at
[2:17:48] half a million
[2:17:50] and it's really just a matter of saying
[2:17:53] this is the amount of money.
[2:17:56] » Steve, I like to point out the reduction
[2:17:57] on the overtime. Interestingly,
[2:18:01] take a look at the police budget. The
[2:18:02] highlighted yellow items, if I'm reading
[2:18:03] this correctly, the overtime budget has
[2:18:05] been reduced from 370 to 200,000.
[2:18:09] » But that's only the six-month budget.
[2:18:11] saying this budget is a six-month budget
[2:18:15] because it's only supposed to get us
[2:18:18] happens at the end of the year. We get
[2:18:19] no policing.
[2:18:20] » None.
[2:18:21] » It seems likely.
[2:18:23] » Well,
[2:18:27] so we're we're we're trying to set a
[2:18:28] balanced budget. So I think the question
[2:18:30] whether it's a half year or full year
[2:18:31] budget, it's a fullear budget. What
[2:18:34] we're hearing is the intention is to
[2:18:35] maintain staffing for six months and
[2:18:37] then have a cliff and fall off.
[2:18:40] Absolutely unacceptable. It's
[2:18:41] unacceptable. Unacceptable that the
[2:18:43] police would come to us and say that
[2:18:46] they would come to us and bring us a
[2:18:47] budget that we're going to pay them for
[2:18:49] six months and then we're not going to
[2:18:50] have police for 6 months. That's utterly
[2:18:53] unacceptable.
[2:18:55] » Chief Smith, can you weigh in at all?
[2:18:57] » I I I don't understand what Mr. Tossk is
[2:18:59] even saying at that moment.
[2:19:01] » No one no one from the agency is saying
[2:19:02] there's not going to be policing in the
[2:19:04] last six months. What are you saying
[2:19:05] what's going to happen if they don't if
[2:19:06] we don't pay another what is it $50 a
[2:19:09] month or something?
[2:19:09] » I'm I'm not saying anything like that,
[2:19:11] Mr. Tosski. What I'm trying to convey is
[2:19:12] I'd like to respond to a few comments
[2:19:14] that were made. I want to remind
[2:19:15] everyone that when we talk about case
[2:19:17] numbers, for instance, okay, there could
[2:19:20] be a single case number, but there's a
[2:19:21] case I investigated as your detective
[2:19:23] over the last few years that has 200
[2:19:25] supplemental reports, one case number.
[2:19:28] So, Mr. Tosski, that is a wildly
[2:19:30] inaccurate statement. I'm using our data
[2:19:32] that's in our providing context to the
[2:19:35] numbers. I just want to know but I want
[2:19:37] to respond to something else.
[2:19:38] » He can speak for himself.
[2:19:39] » Yeah. I just want to know whether
[2:19:41] » All right, let's let's keep over one one
[2:19:43] at a time and let's go back and forth.
[2:19:45] » Respond to one other comment. So we
[2:19:47] talked about the high earners. I want to
[2:19:49] respond to that because over the last
[2:19:51] several years I was one of those
[2:19:52] officers. But what isn't captured in the
[2:19:54] data when I was working six to seven
[2:19:56] days a week because I was your only
[2:19:57] detective. What was important to me is
[2:20:00] I've had to make a decision of whether I
[2:20:02] come in on my weekends and I cross
[2:20:04] overtime for the city or I investigate
[2:20:07] cases where children sexually assault.
[2:20:09] Janelle, who is here unsafe, can attest
[2:20:12] to the fact that many of her victims she
[2:20:14] advocated for victims in my criminal
[2:20:16] investigations. I didn't feel it was
[2:20:19] appropriate that a sexual assault
[2:20:20] survivor was going to have her case on
[2:20:22] two to three weeks when I could have
[2:20:23] been in the office working on it. Those
[2:20:25] are the hard decisions that we had to
[2:20:27] make. And I and I understand that it did
[2:20:29] cost overtime and we have multiple
[2:20:31] officers at our department who are
[2:20:32] working the overtime.
[2:20:33] » The overtime is scheduled overtime.
[2:20:34] Chief, I've reviewed all the overtime
[2:20:36] numbers. It's hundreds of thousands of
[2:20:37] dollars of scheduled overtime.
[2:20:39] » I worked the overtime. I was there.
[2:20:41] » I'm not talking
[2:20:43] about your department.
[2:20:44] » I I want to be very clear that for many
[2:20:47] of us, we have to make a decision of
[2:20:48] whether we respond in during incidents
[2:20:50] or emergencies and work for the citizens
[2:20:52] here. And if the direction from the
[2:20:54] council, the budget committee is that we
[2:20:56] don't respond in after hours to do that
[2:20:58] work. We can we can cut the overtime
[2:20:59] budget.
[2:21:00] » You didn't stay within your budget. You
[2:21:01] didn't do your job. And I'm I'm hold I'm
[2:21:03] letting you know that right now. And I
[2:21:05] don't want to hear about child
[2:21:06] molestation being an excuse.
[2:21:09] » Wow. Mr. Tosski. Mr. Tosski.
[2:21:13] » Um I'm not even going to respond to
[2:21:15] that.
[2:21:15] » Excuse me. You had your overtime budget.
[2:21:18] Just a sec.
[2:21:20] » Hold on. Let's let's maintain decorum
[2:21:23] here.
[2:21:24] » It's scheduled overtime. Scheduled
[2:21:26] overtime. These are these are hours that
[2:21:30] are scheduled and just people running
[2:21:32] over time. Madam Mayor, I'm not
[2:21:34] » I wouldn't respond to it either.
[2:21:36] » Well, okay. Political not running the
[2:21:38] meeting, Jeremy. It's mayor.
[2:21:40] » You know what? I just don't you know
[2:21:41] he's coming in here and he's trying to
[2:21:43] scare us is what he's doing.
[2:21:45] » So,
[2:21:45] » All right. Let's let's let's come back
[2:21:47] to our discussion.
[2:21:48] » The sixth month. I think that we were
[2:21:50] back we were back to the six month and
[2:21:51] that clarification because the chief
[2:21:53] worked on that budget.
[2:21:56] » He was trying to respond to that.
[2:21:57] » Can we just get a
[2:22:00] » So the amount of money that is is is
[2:22:03] itemized here represents a series of
[2:22:05] significant cuts to our operational
[2:22:07] budget. It included carving $100,000
[2:22:10] operable
[2:22:12] » Reducing our tactical budget down to
[2:22:14] $10,000 which
[2:22:15] » Understood. But can we keep this clear
[2:22:18] to the idea of if if this not yet a
[2:22:21] proposed fee for the November ballot is
[2:22:24] not put on the ballot or has and does
[2:22:26] not pass, do you or do you not expect to
[2:22:29] do drastic cuts to police staffing?
[2:22:31] » We would have to lay off 13 police
[2:22:32] officers.
[2:22:33] » 13 police officers starting in November.
[2:22:35] » Correct.
[2:22:35] » Okay. So, we are talking about a
[2:22:38] staggered cliff of a budget that today
[2:22:41] we have about a 99%
[2:22:44] probability of not having that money.
[2:22:47] » Well, I I I don't
[2:22:49] » I'm putting it out there because there's
[2:22:51] been nothing proposed. It's not on the
[2:22:52] ballot. It's it's it's it's very much
[2:22:57] » You manage this you just manage this
[2:22:59] money as your year-long money. That's
[2:23:01] what you do. You don't start with the
[2:23:03] assumption that you're going to have a
[2:23:05] increase in your budget. By the way,
[2:23:07] you're not cutting your budget. So, we
[2:23:09] have everybody talking about cutting
[2:23:10] their budget. You had a $6 million
[2:23:12] budget last year. This year, what you're
[2:23:15] proposing is a $10 million budget.
[2:23:20] » Well, Mr. Tossy, with the amount that's
[2:23:22] going to be appropriated by budget
[2:23:23] committee, I'll review the numbers and
[2:23:24] determine how many officers, if any,
[2:23:26] need to be laid off.
[2:23:28] Yes. Steve, would you refer us to the
[2:23:29] $10 million?
[2:23:32] » $4.6 million twice.
[2:23:35] » Where's that?
[2:23:35] » Where is it twice?
[2:23:37] » Because this is a six-month budget.
[2:23:39] » Well, I'm not sure you're reading that
[2:23:41] quite right because if he said 13
[2:23:43] officers been cut, that means today's
[2:23:46] level minus 13. That's funded entire
[2:23:49] year. And then there's a piece for these
[2:23:51] 13 officers in the first six months. I
[2:23:54] doubt you would double the budget to put
[2:23:57] those 13 back on for six months. I think
[2:23:59] it's maybe a third
[2:24:00] » Something. So you cut 13 officers.
[2:24:04] What do you do? That's your decision to
[2:24:06] cut our
[2:24:07] » Budget's 88% personnel, Mr. Tosski. We
[2:24:09] would have to cut officers in order to
[2:24:11] do that. And to make up the deficit that
[2:24:13] I've talked with with Gloria, it would
[2:24:14] require laying off 13 police officers.
[2:24:16] Have
[2:24:16] » You been told that you need to come up
[2:24:18] with a year budget with uh $4.6 million
[2:24:21] and how you would do it? No, I'd never
[2:24:24] been given a direct number of 4.6
[2:24:26] million. And
[2:24:26] » I'd make a motion that the chief should
[2:24:28] bring back to us at another budget
[2:24:30] meeting a his proposed budget of how he
[2:24:33] would implement a budget for a year at
[2:24:36] 4.683 million. So, I'd like to caution
[2:24:39] the budget committee to here that if you
[2:24:45] you really need to approve a budget
[2:24:47] tonight,
[2:24:49] we do not have time on the calendar to
[2:24:53] adopt a budget for the council to adopt
[2:24:56] the budget before the end of the fiscal
[2:24:59] year.
[2:24:59] » This is an unacceptable budget. I'm not
[2:25:01] gonna This is not a budget. What this is
[2:25:03] is uh this is not a budget. What? How
[2:25:06] much more money are we going to end up
[2:25:08] putting on your budget?
[2:25:10] If we get to six months, we don't get
[2:25:14] extra money. How much extra money is
[2:25:15] going to come? How much more money are
[2:25:18] we going to need?
[2:25:19] » It would mean a staff reduction, Mr.
[2:25:21] Tosski, over much more though. Is it
[2:25:23] going to be 2 million, 3 million? How
[2:25:25] many for all the cuts you want to make,
[2:25:27] Chief? I want to make sure it's you that
[2:25:29] are going to be making.
[2:25:30] » Clear Mr. Tasks. I don't want to make
[2:25:31] any cuts and I certainly don't want to
[2:25:33] lay off 13 police officers. But in order
[2:25:35] to make up like you do,
[2:25:36] » Don't you think that the voters should
[2:25:37] get a choice also to to voice their
[2:25:40] opinion on what they want for public
[2:25:41] safety?
[2:25:42] » He just voters did%
[2:25:45] the last time we had a a targeted fee
[2:25:48] for police. It went on the ballot last
[2:25:51] minute. It wasn't campaigned by council.
[2:25:53] It was it was just thrown on there and
[2:25:55] there was a 46% support base on that
[2:25:58] with no campaigning. That's what the
[2:26:00] general service
[2:26:01] » Is the idea. And also also when I know I
[2:26:04] spoke to so many different constituents,
[2:26:07] it was like the everything bagel. People
[2:26:09] when I asked how much is going to
[2:26:10] library, I couldn't give the answer. I
[2:26:12] don't know what was going to be
[2:26:13] appropriated. I didn't know what was
[2:26:14] going to be appropriated to rent or
[2:26:16] police. It the the I didn't promote it
[2:26:19] for those reasons. Structurally, it
[2:26:21] seemed like it was flawed. The last
[2:26:23] targeted approach I think that if we're
[2:26:25] talking about public safety within the
[2:26:26] city of St. Helens, our citizens have a
[2:26:29] right to vote. We created an ordinance
[2:26:31] to have voice. Do you not want citizens
[2:26:34] to vote, Steve, on something so
[2:26:35] important?
[2:26:35] » What is the amount of money?
[2:26:38] » I'm just It's a question. Do you not
[2:26:40] want citizens to be able to vote on
[2:26:42] » Voted and here and here's they voted
[2:26:44] twice.
[2:26:44] » They've not voted on a targeted
[2:26:46] » Wait. No. I want to make sure we
[2:26:47] understand what you're proposing.
[2:26:48] » You don't like to be interrupted. We're
[2:26:50] not going to, you know, we're playing
[2:26:51] nice in the sandbox. So, what I'm trying
[2:26:53] to say is that I think that it's
[2:26:56] important for citizens to vote. We have
[2:26:58] not had a targeted one. The last time
[2:27:00] that was an operational levy got thrown
[2:27:02] on the last minute. It was not campaign.
[2:27:04] There was no education. Right now, when
[2:27:06] I've like talked to citizens, they don't
[2:27:08] even know the gravity of this budget
[2:27:10] crisis in relation to public safety
[2:27:12] potentially in this city. They have a
[2:27:15] right to know if it's talking about the
[2:27:17] livability. If we have 17,000 calls for
[2:27:20] service and we have le like 15,000 just
[2:27:23] shy of 15,000 people, that's a lot of
[2:27:26] livability issues to the citizens here
[2:27:28] and I think that they have a right to to
[2:27:30] vote on it.
[2:27:30] » Well, how much money is it that you
[2:27:32] propose would be on the ballot?
[2:27:34] » Well, I think
[2:27:35] » $50 a month on the water.
[2:27:37] » No, I I don't I don't think that that
[2:27:38] would be the case at all, actually.
[2:27:39] » Yeah. How much? Um well I mean we had
[2:27:42] something originally but I don't think
[2:27:44] that's I mean I had broken it down um
[2:27:47] when I did some math to it and I don't
[2:27:50] necessarily want to give that number but
[2:27:51] I came up to uh the shortage uh
[2:27:54] depending on how things could pan out. I
[2:27:57] don't know $1110
[2:27:59] somewhere around there.
[2:28:00] » Yeah, that wouldn't do it because all
[2:28:02] that would do is just patch for that.
[2:28:04] That's not going to be
[2:28:05] » We need we need a we need a potential
[2:28:08] like say public safety stability fund
[2:28:10] and I for one don't have all the numbers
[2:28:13] but I think at least that should go out
[2:28:14] to the vote of the citizens the citizens
[2:28:16] should know if public safety is going to
[2:28:18] be impacted those domestic violence
[2:28:20] survivors they should know when those
[2:28:22] restraining orders may not be able to be
[2:28:24] upheld uh or people to respond we need
[2:28:27] people to respond to children I think
[2:28:29] the citizens need a right to vote on
[2:28:32] public
[2:28:32] » I like the idea what we're proposing for
[2:28:34] our citizens here. So, we're not going
[2:28:36] to do our job and tell our chief that he
[2:28:38] needs to manage his department. What
[2:28:40] we're going to do is say, "Here's your
[2:28:42] choice, citizens. We're going to give
[2:28:43] you a six-month lead, and then if you
[2:28:46] don't come up with the money, whatever
[2:28:47] money it is that we're going to shake
[2:28:48] you down for, you're going to lose 13
[2:28:50] officers." That's going to be their
[2:28:52] choice. That's how you want to present
[2:28:53] it to our people.
[2:28:54] » There's going to be cuts in the police
[2:28:55] department.
[2:28:55] » It's a threat. It's a threat. And I
[2:28:58] don't like our citizens. Our our public
[2:29:00] safety is being threatened.
[2:29:02] » We don't have enough money. You don't
[2:29:03] live here, do you? You live in Forest
[2:29:04] Grove, right? And Dan Chanel was your
[2:29:07] attorney, too, right? The guy was a
[2:29:09] union guy. He's your attorney, too,
[2:29:10] right?
[2:29:11] » Not really sure how that's relevant.
[2:29:12] » Well, because we have a bias. What's
[2:29:14] going on here? We've got we we are being
[2:29:16] » Mr. Tosski,
[2:29:17] » Instead of having a budget,
[2:29:19] » Mr. Tosski, to answer your question, I
[2:29:20] live in the city of Forest Grove and I
[2:29:22] absolutely love this community. It's the
[2:29:23] reason I applied here. I work here. It's
[2:29:26] the reason I spent so many countless
[2:29:27] hours investigating cases here. I care
[2:29:29] about this community deeply and but yes,
[2:29:31] I do reside in Forest Grove and I've
[2:29:33] known Mr. Dan Tanell when he was a
[2:29:35] misdemeanor district attorney at the
[2:29:36] Washington County District Attorney's
[2:29:37] Office when he was fighting for crime
[2:29:39] victims over there. I've had a 30-year
[2:29:41] friendship with that man and yes, he has
[2:29:43] served as my attorney in the past.
[2:29:45] » Thank you.
[2:29:46] » It's a good man.
[2:29:47] » Well,
[2:29:49] can I just ask?
[2:29:50] » I am sorry I was late. I um I work at
[2:29:55] home. Who does my children? Um I don't
[2:29:58] have all of my numbers and my cell phone
[2:30:01] in front of me because I've been using a
[2:30:02] computer that is not my own because I
[2:30:05] was recently threatened by
[2:30:09] me the mayor and her uh the Gastons and
[2:30:14] um Adam St. Pierre. Um they are uh
[2:30:18] trying to dig into my entire life. They
[2:30:21] want my cell phone, my computer, my
[2:30:24] social media accounts, and they have
[2:30:26] names of every single officer that
[2:30:28] supported Chief Pogue on there that they
[2:30:30] want information from them as well. They
[2:30:33] also want information from anybody that
[2:30:35] supported E2C. They want any
[2:30:37] communication I had with Detective
[2:30:40] Smith. Um, and oddly, the mayor wants
[2:30:43] any communication I had with her
[2:30:44] husband, which I feel like whatever.
[2:30:47] Anyways, I have been so intimidated. I
[2:30:49] have not wanted to come to these
[2:30:51] meetings.
[2:30:53] I am scared sit this tabled and I want
[2:30:56] that on public record. It is partly the
[2:30:58] police department that is doing this to
[2:30:59] me and then they're going to sit here
[2:31:01] and ask for funding. That is bold. Let
[2:31:05] me say that. I have some questions
[2:31:07] though.
[2:31:09] First of all, what were we talking about
[2:31:11] that I missed? Where where was the six
[2:31:13] month coming up with? Uh
[2:31:17] Gloria mentioned that this this revised
[2:31:21] budget.
[2:31:21] » Let's hear it again because I think
[2:31:22] » Actually
[2:31:24] maybe that's
[2:31:25] » We're gonna we're going to do it.
[2:31:27] » I'm just laugh I'm just laughing because
[2:31:28] of how like crazy this is like
[2:31:32] » Called a public record.
[2:31:35] » It's called a public record and it's my
[2:31:37] in my nonofficial capacity. It's the
[2:31:39] same
[2:31:40] » It's called intimidation harassment and
[2:31:41] brutality.
[2:31:42] » It's called public records. people know
[2:31:44] all about that.
[2:31:45] » Do you like the names of everybody on
[2:31:47] the list that you're after?
[2:31:48] » Uh, it's not after it's
[2:31:52] » Pixely.
[2:31:53] » Yeah.
[2:31:53] » Yeah. It's We could go down list.
[2:31:56] » If you have something to hide, then
[2:31:57] there's a the probably the issue.
[2:31:58] » You do not have the right to
[2:32:00] » You're on
[2:32:02] You are on a public committee, Miss
[2:32:05] Gilbert. Then your phone, your phone,
[2:32:07] your phone, your phone, which you were
[2:32:09] texting earlier, his phone
[2:32:12] produce those all the time. They're how
[2:32:14] many how many records
[2:32:16] » Put in public records for your request
[2:32:17] and you haven't responded. Why?
[2:32:28] » Everyone will have a chance to speak.
[2:32:30] » Why you guys don't get the community and
[2:32:33] your citizens here? This is ridiculous.
[2:32:37] » I agree to have my private life dug
[2:32:39] through.
[2:32:39] » This isn't something for the budget
[2:32:41] committee meeting because I am
[2:32:42] intimidated to
[2:32:43] » You put that on the record, Jennifer.
[2:32:45] » You put it on the record,
[2:32:48] but that's something to take to the
[2:32:50] courtroom or something else. That's not
[2:32:52] here.
[2:32:53] » That's not my paper.
[2:32:56] » All right. Can we
[2:32:57] » I would like to know what we were
[2:32:58] talking about when I went to go.
[2:33:00] » Let's address that. That's a great idea.
[2:33:02] That's a great idea. So, so I had an
[2:33:04] opening um just a review of what you so
[2:33:10] about these pages. Okay. Um we've
[2:33:14] started a draft of the approved budget
[2:33:16] to show you what you have already
[2:33:18] approved which was the return of the
[2:33:21] library and recreation to full staffing
[2:33:23] with no furloss. Additionally, we have
[2:33:26] removed the general service fee from
[2:33:29] general fund revenues and the city
[2:33:31] administrator, police chief, and finance
[2:33:33] director have reduced the police
[2:33:35] department budget to balance the general
[2:33:38] fund with a 5% reserve balance.
[2:33:41] We are not presenting the alternative
[2:33:43] option of removing the police department
[2:33:45] from the general fund. The city
[2:33:47] administrator, finance director, and
[2:33:49] police chief have revised the police
[2:33:51] budget to sustain services for the first
[2:33:54] six months of the fiscal year. If the
[2:33:57] city council decides to refer a ballot
[2:33:59] measure on the November ballot and it is
[2:34:02] passed by the voters, there would need
[2:34:04] to be a supplemental budget at that
[2:34:06] time.
[2:34:08] If the council does not refer a police
[2:34:11] services fee to the November ballot or
[2:34:15] if the ballot measure fails, the police
[2:34:17] department will need to be reduced to
[2:34:19] minimum staffing, no patrol, no
[2:34:22] investigations, and prioritize calls
[2:34:24] response. So that's what you missed.
[2:34:26] » Okay. So the six months, is that to
[2:34:29] bypass the law that we can't adopt a
[2:34:32] budget on phantom numbers and hopes and
[2:34:34] wishes? um that was to appease the um
[2:34:38] belief that that was an illegal um
[2:34:42] option presented.
[2:34:45] » I still
[2:34:45] » It was not il it was not illegal because
[2:34:48] it would have been illegal if that was a
[2:34:51] tax if we were proposing a tax as that
[2:34:56] had not been referred to the voters yet.
[2:34:59] » It was just a fee.
[2:35:01] » It's a fee. It's not a tax. And actually
[2:35:03] to be clear, I don't think council has
[2:35:04] had any discussion on the record of
[2:35:06] this. So in my mind, I put a zero
[2:35:08] probability right now. And so I like
[2:35:10] that it's been the revenues have been
[2:35:12] removed from this because now there's no
[2:35:14] concern of a phantom revenue in my mind.
[2:35:17] But now there's a concern of you can't
[2:35:19] sustain the funding. So
[2:35:22] » Well, I guess
[2:35:24] like So now we're not discussing a full
[2:35:26] here. We're discussing six months
[2:35:28] budget.
[2:35:28] » Yeah, we are.
[2:35:29] » Well, I I we are discussing an annual
[2:35:31] budget. Let's be clear. But what we're
[2:35:34] being told is they're going to spend at
[2:35:36] a high rate in the first 6 months and a
[2:35:38] low rate in the second six months unless
[2:35:41] there's a supplemental budget to bring
[2:35:42] the rate constant across the full year.
[2:35:46] » Yeah, that's what we've been told. And I
[2:35:49] I don't think that that's it's not
[2:35:52] clear.
[2:35:53] » It's not clearly illegal in my mind. I
[2:35:55] understand it's not clear. And I might
[2:35:56] want to open up debate and say, "Well,
[2:35:59] » Why why plan to get rid of 13 in
[2:36:02] November if you could take out six right
[2:36:04] now and level the whole year out?" Yes.
[2:36:06] » Or you could or you could ramp down. You
[2:36:08] could say, "We're going to we're going
[2:36:09] to start where we are. We're going to
[2:36:12] stair step it." I think there's a lot of
[2:36:13] ways to approach this,
[2:36:15] » But the total dollars here, I think
[2:36:18] maybe this isn't even cutting enough to
[2:36:19] get where we need to go. I think I had
[2:36:22] heard
[2:36:23] a mention of of trying to cut maybe
[2:36:27] another million beyond that. Uh what I
[2:36:29] gather from
[2:36:30] » Only has a% is it a 3% reserve?
[2:36:33] » Five.
[2:36:34] » Yeah.
[2:36:34] » Which I I would like to address that and
[2:36:36] say this city is one step away from a
[2:36:39] giant catastrophe from a small expense.
[2:36:43] » Absolutely.
[2:36:44] » Yeah. And that reserve I think is very
[2:36:47] much underappreciated today. And putting
[2:36:50] it at that level is irresponsible.
[2:36:54] So I would actually propose further cuts
[2:36:57] so that we could start to restore some
[2:36:59] of that reserve funding. In fact, I do
[2:37:01] think we may need to find another
[2:37:03] million dollars on top of this.
[2:37:06] » I I am along the research I've done. I'm
[2:37:08] along the lines thinking you are.
[2:37:10] » The money isn't there and that's an
[2:37:11] issue. the the revenues don't exist and
[2:37:15] so we must make cuts and
[2:37:18] wreck and library are off the table at
[2:37:20] this point according to what we all
[2:37:23] unanimously agreed to in the last
[2:37:25] meeting. So to be constructive, you
[2:37:28] know, we
[2:37:30] I I think we need to get down to a
[2:37:32] proposal. Do we have
[2:37:34] » Anyone who's proposing a change to this
[2:37:36] number rather than just a line of
[2:37:37] questioning?
[2:37:39] Do we have any proposals to adjust any
[2:37:41] of these numbers?
[2:37:43] » I want to go back over what you were
[2:37:44] thinking at six now and then we don't
[2:37:48] have to worry about
[2:37:49] » Well, I'm not splitting it in half.
[2:37:50] Maybe it's six and a half. Yeah. Because
[2:37:53] I don't like to see us set oursel up for
[2:37:55] failure, right?
[2:37:55] » And I purposely I I work in statistics.
[2:37:58] The probability of getting this fee in
[2:38:01] November right now is very near zero in
[2:38:03] my
[2:38:04] » It's essentially zero
[2:38:06] » And we can't we can't have
[2:38:08] » And so let's be eyes wide open and say
[2:38:10] would we rather live
[2:38:11] » No patrol no patrol
[2:38:13] » And that's not a place we want to be and
[2:38:15] so I would rather say we're not going to
[2:38:17] have night patrol or we're going to have
[2:38:18] lighter staff or we're going to say
[2:38:22] you know there's there's got to be some
[2:38:23] way to adjust the schedule because we
[2:38:27] don't want to get to the place where
[2:38:28] there's
[2:38:28] » I did
[2:38:29] » Twothirds of the force
[2:38:30] » Four chiefs before everybody blew up
[2:38:33] even though I like I want to be clear on
[2:38:35] record that I am intimidated to talk
[2:38:38] » Made that
[2:38:40] » Overnight you were going to answer that
[2:38:42] question I was unable to email the city
[2:38:44] because of what's going on you said that
[2:38:47] there was no overnight coverage for a
[2:38:49] certain period of time how many hours
[2:38:51] was that did the city operate okay what
[2:38:54] kind of crime went on you were you were
[2:38:56] going to bring that to us. So, I'm just
[2:38:58] curious what you found during that time.
[2:39:00] » When you say overnights, you're
[2:39:02] referring to night shift over the last
[2:39:03] » You said that there was no overnight
[2:39:05] coverage.
[2:39:06] » There were certain periods of time where
[2:39:07] there was not overnight coverage.
[2:39:11] I don't have the metrics for you. I
[2:39:12] don't have the raw numbers for you. Uh I
[2:39:15] view this is just want to preface this
[2:39:16] on overnight coverage.
[2:39:19] Imagine it as if it's an insurance
[2:39:21] policy that if something negative or
[2:39:23] adverse does happen during you want to
[2:39:26] have the availability for staff to
[2:39:28] either respond that are actively working
[2:39:30] or on an on call status. Now ne e either
[2:39:32] each one of those options comes with a
[2:39:34] cost and what we did is we're currently
[2:39:37] at 24 hours a day 7-day a week coverage
[2:39:39] right now. We're just running at minimum
[2:39:41] staffing every single day. uh this has
[2:39:44] significantly limited our overtime costs
[2:39:47] now that we actually have sufficient
[2:39:48] staffing on the road. We remove that. Um
[2:39:52] that is part of a broader question that
[2:39:54] I'll have to go back to council and the
[2:39:56] city administrator to go how are we
[2:39:58] going to address gaps in coverage that
[2:40:00] may exist if we reduce our staffing by
[2:40:02] six officers or 12 or 13 whatever that
[2:40:05] number has to be.
[2:40:06] » Correct. And that's why I'm asking this.
[2:40:08] So,
[2:40:10] was there I mean, was it catastrophic
[2:40:12] not having overnight coverage? Because I
[2:40:15] I know a little bit about poling. We've
[2:40:17] already discussed this. You and I have
[2:40:19] passed.
[2:40:19] » Would it help
[2:40:22] with that if we did not have overnight
[2:40:24] coverage in St. Helens for a period of
[2:40:26] time?
[2:40:27] Well, it's it's okay until that one time
[2:40:30] and and that's where that's where it's
[2:40:32] part of a broader policy discussion with
[2:40:36] cost of overnight coverage. Maybe that's
[2:40:38] way to put it in FTE. So, we've got, you
[2:40:40] know, is it two? Is it five?
[2:40:42] » You have to have two on duty personnel
[2:40:44] at a time.
[2:40:45] » Two.
[2:40:45] » So, there's two FTEEs that you have to
[2:40:47] have working
[2:40:48] » OT too. They want OT.
[2:40:50] » Well, I understand there's OT. I just
[2:40:51] want to get to the OT.
[2:40:53] » No, it again, Mr. Oski, we spent 240
[2:40:57] hours a month on overtime to cover
[2:41:00] 24-hour shifts because we did not have
[2:41:03] the personnel to stay at 24 hours. So,
[2:41:06] we spent 14 to 16 months spending 240
[2:41:11] hours a month in overtime just to cover
[2:41:14] shifts. That's where the overtime
[2:41:16] expense came from. That's why it's so
[2:41:19] blown out and skewed. It was council's
[2:41:21] direction to have 24-hour coverage.
[2:41:24] That's what it cost.
[2:41:26] » Well, sounds like we can reduce
[2:41:27] » That. Is that right? I don't know.
[2:41:29] » That is true. Council directed,
[2:41:31] » But you know, but right now we we don't
[2:41:33] have that with shift coverage. What we
[2:41:36] have right now is we have issues with
[2:41:39] anybody because we're at minimums every
[2:41:41] day but Wednesday. If somebody calls in
[2:41:44] sick, that's overtime that has to fill
[2:41:46] in. If somebody has scheduled training,
[2:41:48] that's overtime that has to fill in. So
[2:41:51] getting if they have court, that's over
[2:41:53] time. If they have training, that's
[2:41:55] overtime. If they're doing background,
[2:41:58] » I already
[2:42:01] ask
[2:42:02] » Six officers gets you. Everybody's
[2:42:04] working 5'8. You get coverage from 8 to
[2:42:07] 4, 4 to midnight. No coverage at all
[2:42:11] from midnight.
[2:42:14] budget and I'm asking you
[2:42:17] » That jobs if we did that
[2:42:20] » And how much fallout was there was there
[2:42:23] a lot of crimes during the night
[2:42:25] » We we average between those hours and
[2:42:27] Doug jumped in here I think it was
[2:42:28] between five and 10 calls for service a
[2:42:31] week but you're I also want to tell you
[2:42:33] from experience I have been that
[2:42:35] graveyard officer that responded on an
[2:42:37] active shooter at a residence before and
[2:42:39] you're right the issue we've why I say
[2:42:42] this is a policy
[2:42:43] decision is if we make the decision that
[2:42:45] we are not going to have officers on
[2:42:47] duty for eight hours at a time on night
[2:42:49] shift, seven days at Wim, we're making
[2:42:52] the decision we're not going to pay
[2:42:53] overtime. We're not going to have
[2:42:54] officers on call. So when we do have an
[2:42:56] adverse event, there may be no sworn
[2:42:59] officer working in the county to
[2:43:00] respond. There may be nobody working
[2:43:02] with the state police, no county
[2:43:04] deputies that are on duty, and no St.
[2:43:06] Helens officers on duty.
[2:43:07] » There may be, but is it likely? Are you
[2:43:09] telling me the county doesn't have
[2:43:10] cover?
[2:43:12] » To have I I just met with Sheriff Pixley
[2:43:13] this morning. There is the potential
[2:43:15] that there will be periods of time in
[2:43:16] the near future where there may not be a
[2:43:18] guarantee of tw of 24-hour 7-day a week
[2:43:21] coverage by the sheriff's office. It is
[2:43:23] a it is a a risk. The question is the
[2:43:26] reason why
[2:43:27] » Have you explaining coverage by chance?
[2:43:30] That's going to require a lot of
[2:43:33] discussions, high level discussions with
[2:43:35] the sheriff's office and the Scapoo
[2:43:36] Police Department because it would
[2:43:38] probably require an incredibly close
[2:43:40] integration of all three departments.
[2:43:42] » I I hear that you're quite integrated uh
[2:43:44] today supporting each other in various
[2:43:47] ways. So, it seems like maybe a
[2:43:49] potential option.
[2:43:50] » Well, there there's a difference between
[2:43:52] supporting each other and taking over
[2:43:55] our responsibilities.
[2:43:55] » Talking about that's going to be the
[2:43:58] ultimate.
[2:43:59] » Okay, hold on. We got a few different
[2:44:00] conversations going here. Let's let's
[2:44:02] bring it together.
[2:44:03] » The numbers.
[2:44:04] » That's what we're asking.
[2:44:05] » Mayor, will you repeat?
[2:44:06] » Yeah. I'm just what I'm getting lost on
[2:44:08] is the the budget that was given the the
[2:44:11] chief obviously worked with Florian on
[2:44:12] is 1 million 369.
[2:44:15] » That's what it budget is. He's got to
[2:44:16] figure out how to make that work. Why
[2:44:18] are we discussing? I guess the
[2:44:19] » For six months.
[2:44:20] » Well, wait. Yeah, we're we're not there
[2:44:22] yet.
[2:44:22] » I tend to agree that we need to set the
[2:44:24] number and that's the primary objective
[2:44:26] here is to get the the budget set. I
[2:44:28] think with secondary piece we're getting
[2:44:30] caught up in is trying to understand
[2:44:33] » How those funds will be utilized
[2:44:35] relative to staffing and time. Now
[2:44:38] » We're not making any progress on the
[2:44:40] dollars if I I don't know where this
[2:44:42] line of question is going to lead us to
[2:44:44] find more this point. So I think we need
[2:44:46] to come back to this and and actually
[2:44:48] » Just trying to because I thought you
[2:44:50] when I came back I thought you said
[2:44:51] that's what you had for six months.
[2:44:53] » This is the year.
[2:44:54] » No, it's for the year.
[2:44:57] This is a it's an annual budget.
[2:44:59] » Okay. So So there Okay, I get it. Yeah.
[2:45:01] » So So actually Steve, I for instance,
[2:45:03] and I I I think you were targeting a
[2:45:06] lower number for the police budget in
[2:45:08] your mind from uh what I understood and
[2:45:11] so
[2:45:13] 5% but you're not comfortable with it.
[2:45:15] That's the
[2:45:15] » I am not comfortable with the 5%.
[2:45:18] » And I I think we're well below the
[2:45:21] target of 20% in the fund. We've been
[2:45:23] below it and we have a history of
[2:45:25] robbing the fund. So, it's empty. We got
[2:45:28] to start filling it back up.
[2:45:30] » Um,
[2:45:31] » What's your comfort level?
[2:45:32] » I'd like to see it at 20.
[2:45:34] » Well, let's let that's that's gonna be
[2:45:36] » It's not, but I'm saying I would like to
[2:45:39] see it at 20. I work as an actuary who
[2:45:41] reserves for insurance companies and
[2:45:43] insurance policies. This is taking on a
[2:45:46] lot of risk for the city.
[2:45:47] » 6% last year, I believe. Yeah, last
[2:45:49] year.
[2:45:50] » Yeah. And we just got furlows and didn't
[2:45:52] make it through this year essentially.
[2:45:54] So six was not enough.
[2:45:57] » Well, I mean, we got to weigh out what
[2:45:59] the the possibility, right, of
[2:46:01] » The office
[2:46:03] is closed right now and people people
[2:46:06] were laid off and
[2:46:08] » We can't staff the front desk full-time
[2:46:11] for normal business hours.
[2:46:13] » I mean, the doors are closed tomorrow.
[2:46:15] » That's just a fact.
[2:46:16] » They will be closed.
[2:46:19] So,
[2:46:21] » And and so you can give me a strange
[2:46:23] look and act like I'm a bad guy because
[2:46:24] I want 20% reserve. I
[2:46:26] » Think we all want that, but it's just
[2:46:27] not there's not enough money. This is
[2:46:29] years and years making of
[2:46:31] » I understand and it's but it it you have
[2:46:33] to draw a line somewhere and say,
[2:46:35] » But I also look at the potential draw
[2:46:38] somewhere.
[2:46:38] » How about let's just go we go to page
[2:46:40] one of this.
[2:46:42] » That's fine.
[2:46:43] » Let's do it.
[2:46:44] » Do what we can or find what we can. Um,
[2:46:50] admin 100.
[2:46:52] » What are you gonna cut? There's two
[2:46:53] FTEEs.
[2:46:55] » John, maybe
[2:46:56] » It's almost
[2:46:59] I I looked at it. I looked at the admin
[2:47:02] line to see if there was something
[2:47:03] because as a government shrinks, if the
[2:47:05] admin doesn't, the overhead is growing
[2:47:08] as a percentage, but I I don't see what
[2:47:10] you would cut there.
[2:47:13] » Stipen 675. I think that's a possibility
[2:47:16] of an adjustment. Um it's a very small
[2:47:19] number relative to the gap in the
[2:47:20] budget. However,
[2:47:23] uh would you find anything since you've
[2:47:25] been through this? I mean you I mean I I
[2:47:28] think that if we
[2:47:30] if we look at you know that we you know
[2:47:34] one one of the public comments was we
[2:47:35] have some heavy salaries top up top.
[2:47:39] Maybe that's something we should look
[2:47:40] at. I don't know how much that would
[2:47:41] save us. What
[2:47:44] Well,
[2:47:47] » I don't know how how we're going to look
[2:47:48] at it here and and make any action. We
[2:47:51] can give a lower budget number. Uh,
[2:47:54] » But are are you asking us to direct to
[2:47:56] fire certain people or
[2:47:57] » Certainly not. I'm not talking about
[2:47:59] individuals at all. I'm just talking
[2:48:01] about how we can
[2:48:02] » I don't say are we practically take any
[2:48:04] action on that as a budget committee.
[2:48:06] » How about I honestly
[2:48:09] I think I think a 20% reserve sounds
[2:48:14] appropriately conservative and actuarial
[2:48:17] uh actuarily
[2:48:19] uh
[2:48:20] » We call it a a a provision for adverse
[2:48:22] deviation or a pad. You need to have
[2:48:25] some pad, right? We're living
[2:48:27] month-to-month, so to speak, at
[2:48:28] expenses. You know, just as the revenues
[2:48:30] come in, even if these revenues get
[2:48:32] lumpy, I'm not sure what happens if the
[2:48:34] bank account goes a chance if then
[2:48:37] there, you know, then then there's
[2:48:40] others that may take risk. And why don't
[2:48:41] we take a chance at 10%.
[2:48:44] 10% reserves.
[2:48:45] » I am more comfortable with 10 than five.
[2:48:48] I
[2:48:48] » Well, we did exceed and I'm thinking I
[2:48:51] just think 20% is going to be very
[2:48:54] challenging
[2:48:56] for us to
[2:49:00] you what we went over this year and I'm
[2:49:02] thinking maybe through some of these
[2:49:04] discussions
[2:49:05] the emphasis of staying on budget is
[2:49:09] going to be something that will keep
[2:49:11] people awake at night
[2:49:14] um because what happened is this year we
[2:49:16] went over budget and there were
[2:49:18] consequences. Well, you know, with that
[2:49:21] sort of line of thinking, we could aim
[2:49:23] for a 0% and say if the fiscal
[2:49:26] recklessness emerges, it will certainly
[2:49:28] hurt.
[2:49:30] » Well, I think that the test is this
[2:49:31] that, you know, we've had two votes of
[2:49:34] no on appropriations.
[2:49:36] And I think the concern from the public
[2:49:38] is is management. We want to see people
[2:49:42] tighten belts. So, we want to see people
[2:49:45] stay in their budgets. Sure. Then come
[2:49:47] to us after you've done what after
[2:49:50] you've shown us that you can manage the
[2:49:52] money
[2:49:54] then come to us and say we need more
[2:49:57] people will probably be more willing to
[2:50:00] part with some of their hardearned
[2:50:01] dollars. I mean there are a lot of
[2:50:03] people in this town that just can't
[2:50:05] afford anymore. And then there are some
[2:50:06] people that I don't know why people vote
[2:50:08] the way they do but certainly if we say
[2:50:11] hey look every single department came
[2:50:14] within its budget. This is what it
[2:50:16] looked like. Can we have more? They say
[2:50:19] yes.
[2:50:21] » Right. Well, on that line of thinking,
[2:50:23] why don't we talk about some budgets
[2:50:25] that are not uh staying in budget? One
[2:50:29] of them being tourism. I I think tourism
[2:50:31] is a drag to the general fun
[2:50:35] » And I would propose that we should not
[2:50:37] we should not allow oursel to be taking
[2:50:39] losses. And uh I I I find it confusing
[2:50:42] that the tourism is paying $100,000 to
[2:50:45] the general fund while the general fund
[2:50:47] is taking off on tourism if I understand
[2:50:51] it correct.
[2:50:52] » No, German general fund is separate of
[2:50:54] the tourism fund
[2:50:56] » But it made a loan of 500,000 that
[2:50:58] hasn't been repaid.
[2:50:59] » General fund did not make a loan to
[2:51:01] tourism.
[2:51:01] » I think that's misinformation. It's
[2:51:02] sometimes a problem that we have that it
[2:51:05] was misinformation. So, what I do know
[2:51:07] there's there's a hundred there's a
[2:51:08] $100,000 that comes out of tourism and
[2:51:11] goes to the general fund. That much is
[2:51:12] true, right?
[2:51:13] » That's true.
[2:51:13] » That's true. Okay. And the tourism
[2:51:16] operation alone had a net loss in the
[2:51:20] last year. Is that also true?
[2:51:22] » Okay.
[2:51:23] » Yes.
[2:51:24] » So, they can't afford to pay the city
[2:51:27] that that general service charge unless
[2:51:30] they have reserves which are
[2:51:32] » Our contract
[2:51:33] » Depleted or going to be depleted. That's
[2:51:34] right. Yeah, our contract with the
[2:51:36] tourism vendor is we will essentially
[2:51:41] pay your losses. We're going to cover
[2:51:43] them so they can spend money. We have no
[2:51:45] budget from them and they can spend
[2:51:47] money as they
[2:51:49] » I I don't think we should tolerate any
[2:51:51] loss of any sort on on a tourism.
[2:51:55] » I think we need to re in their expenses
[2:51:57] big time because I am very concerned
[2:51:59] that if we don't I uh there's two
[2:52:01] things. If we're going to shift the
[2:52:02] focus to tourism a little bit, I think
[2:52:04] that we should reduce
[2:52:07] their budget on what they can spend. And
[2:52:11] number two, I think we should in without
[2:52:14] them in say we want a bigger pick on
[2:52:16] your ticket sales because
[2:52:19] it make about $165,000
[2:52:22] on the $5 per. And so maybe we should we
[2:52:27] shouldn't raise the price of the
[2:52:28] tickets, but we should get a bigger
[2:52:29] piece of it.
[2:52:31] because then we can look 300,000.
[2:52:33] » It's a fine idea, but we're here to set
[2:52:35] a budget and and my concern my concern
[2:52:38] is the loss here is probably worth half
[2:52:40] an officer or more.
[2:52:42] » What is the what is the contract? Is
[2:52:45] there any is a contract? I don't recall
[2:52:47] what
[2:52:48] » I don't
[2:52:49] » That we
[2:52:51] are they specific requirement?
[2:52:54] » Um John can answer those contract
[2:52:57] questions.
[2:53:00] right now.
[2:53:01] » No.
[2:53:01] » Well, I mean it's it's coming it's
[2:53:03] coming up and is what are we obligated
[2:53:06] contractually?
[2:53:07] » Oh,
[2:53:08] » Yeah. The contractor is required to
[2:53:10] provide a budget to the city. They have
[2:53:12] and we've talked and talked about
[2:53:14] reducing expenses and they have
[2:53:17] » Where's the budgets? I haven't seen
[2:53:26] » If it's in our fund. I I just want to
[2:53:27] reduce I just want honestly I've seen
[2:53:29] their I've seen their P&Ls two years
[2:53:31] over
[2:53:32] » I've seen the way they spend our money.
[2:53:34] » Why don't we say this? This year we need
[2:53:36] to claw back the loss from last year.
[2:53:40] » Period. So we're looking for $180,000
[2:53:42] from the best.
[2:53:44] » Well, that's not it.
[2:53:46] » If that sinks the program, it's a losing
[2:53:48] endeavor. So either we're deciding to
[2:53:50] invest in a losing endeavor
[2:53:52] » Or we're putting our foot down and
[2:53:53] drawing a line. I don't want to risk I
[2:53:55] don't want to risk us taking a half a
[2:53:56] million hit. I think that we should tell
[2:53:58] them this is your limit on your
[2:54:00] expenditures and you need to stay.
[2:54:02] » We already took a half million hit. The
[2:54:03] the loan was made from somewhere but
[2:54:05] very unlikely to ever be received.
[2:54:07] » Right. But this year this year we have a
[2:54:10] $1.6
[2:54:12] million budget that that they can spend.
[2:54:16] We're telling the shorter people they
[2:54:17] can spend 1.6
[2:54:20] million bucks or more. Um, and I'm
[2:54:24] saying we shouldn't tell them you can
[2:54:25] spend that much. You we should tell them
[2:54:27] you can spend
[2:54:29] way less, like 900,000, 800,000, get the
[2:54:32] program done for less because in the
[2:54:34] event we don't have the kind of revenues
[2:54:36] that we hope we do, then we aren't
[2:54:39] taking a big loss. Well, but most of the
[2:54:41] revenues are driven by this this person
[2:54:44] running the the contractor because the
[2:54:46] only revenues that I saw that seem
[2:54:49] material and unattached directly to this
[2:54:51] contract are the lodging tax fees, the
[2:54:55] 170k. And to me, it's just a shame that
[2:54:58] we're we're getting that money as a tax
[2:55:00] and then we're taking that amount in
[2:55:01] loss, too. I mean, if we just had no
[2:55:04] Halloween Town, we'd have plus 170K to
[2:55:07] do something. Now, if we want to just
[2:55:09] just bury the 170K into it and say it's
[2:55:12] a net zero. It needs to always net zero,
[2:55:16] fine.
[2:55:16] » But but the thing is this.
[2:55:18] » But I don't I don't like taking a loss.
[2:55:20] » If they go over, we will pay. That's our
[2:55:23] contract with them. That's that's the
[2:55:25] risk. If you're saying what is our risk
[2:55:27] if we have let's just say we let's just
[2:55:29] say they spend a million dollars and we
[2:55:31] have 600,000 the tickets.
[2:55:33] » So we have a bad contract is what you're
[2:55:35] saying.
[2:55:35] » We have the contract we have. How long
[2:55:37] is the contract? Is it multi-year?
[2:55:39] » It it should it's going to end this year
[2:55:42] and they will be eventually renewed.
[2:55:45] » So,
[2:55:48] » Yes. Yes.
[2:55:50] » Anyone else here? Counselor budget be
[2:55:53] able to make a comment to whether
[2:55:55] » It got extended through this year as I
[2:55:57] request. Am I correct on that John?
[2:55:58] » It goes to
[2:55:59] » It was extended.
[2:56:00] » Yes.
[2:56:01] » With no change in terms
[2:56:03] » Correct.
[2:56:06] Yeah. I mean another
[2:56:08] » Just like a just auto relief.
[2:56:10] » I think they should all give us some
[2:56:12] money. Let's do it again.
[2:56:13] » Yeah. Exactly.
[2:56:14] » So the the challenge there is it came
[2:56:16] before my based on my recollection it
[2:56:18] came before council as a conditional
[2:56:21] that approach. You know
[2:56:23] » Council has has to wait a year before
[2:56:25] you can take.
[2:56:26] » I think we were also supposed to get the
[2:56:28] final numbers at that time for Halloween
[2:56:31] Town.
[2:56:31] » So are we in track?
[2:56:33] » Yes. Okay. And let's cancel the
[2:56:36] contract.
[2:56:36] » That's
[2:56:38] I just want to jump in real quick and I
[2:56:40] believe that this budget committee does
[2:56:42] not have the authority to discuss
[2:56:44] current contracts. That is within the
[2:56:46] city council scope. So I think we should
[2:56:49] get back on track.
[2:56:51] » We're making recommendations.
[2:56:52] » Who is that?
[2:56:53] » That's
[2:56:55] barely absolutely can make
[2:56:57] recommendations.
[2:56:58] » Yeah. I I I don't think that we should
[2:57:00] be talking about
[2:57:02] » I think that it would be my opinion is
[2:57:05] » If we want to review the contract with
[2:57:07] the tourism contractor that could be
[2:57:09] done by the council this year and decide
[2:57:12] I think earlier to do an RFP this year
[2:57:16] our contractor is in full swing and is
[2:57:19] preparing for our events this year
[2:57:23] and just we can cancel the contract but
[2:57:25] I don't think that we should
[2:57:26] » I hear you but I what I'm also hearing
[2:57:28] is We have no mechanism to control this
[2:57:30] expense.
[2:57:30] » We do.
[2:57:31] » Well, we don't not this year.
[2:57:33] » We can tell them what. Put it this way.
[2:57:35] There's two ways to go. We either say as
[2:57:38] a budget committee,
[2:57:40] you got a $1.6 million budget, you can
[2:57:43] spend that or we say you got a $900,000
[2:57:46] budget or a $700,000 budget. I'd much
[2:57:49] rather tell them they have a $700,000
[2:57:51] budget and they have to stay within it
[2:57:53] than to take a risk that if we have a
[2:57:56] giant drop in revenues, we are going to
[2:57:58] be end up beating half a million,
[2:58:00] $600,000.
[2:58:02] I don't want to tell them that they can
[2:58:04] spend literally
[2:58:05] » What are you proposing as a cost control
[2:58:07] here?
[2:58:08] » That we tell them what their budget is
[2:58:10] and that's what they they stay within
[2:58:11] it.
[2:58:12] » I think that has no teeth. I'm not sure
[2:58:14] what you're saying.
[2:58:15] » Yeah.
[2:58:17] either tell them how much we think they
[2:58:20] should spend or we can tell them to
[2:58:22] spend 1.5 million
[2:58:24] » Or we can defund it and they won't have
[2:58:26] anything to spend.
[2:58:27] » Well, hold on one second. Um I, you
[2:58:31] know, honestly, I'm not for cancelling
[2:58:34] the tourism contract. I think that would
[2:58:35] be a disaster. First of all, they're six
[2:58:37] months into the contract.
[2:58:38] » So, you're comfortable with an outcome
[2:58:39] that's either a loss of 200,000 or as
[2:58:41] you say, maybe a loss of 500,000 when
[2:58:44] you're thinking about it? No, I'm
[2:58:46] thinking that it's probable that we're
[2:58:49] going to probably have
[2:58:52] at least 600,000 in.
[2:58:55] So, I think that I I mean that would be
[2:58:58] the amount of last year. So, if we had
[2:59:01] 800,000 in income for ticket sales, I
[2:59:05] don't think it's going to be as robust
[2:59:06] of an event as previous, which is why I
[2:59:09] think we need to guard against it by
[2:59:12] letting them know we want them to
[2:59:14] control the cost in some way and have
[2:59:15] them do it. And you're right, it doesn't
[2:59:18] have any teeth, but come the end of the
[2:59:20] year, if they end up going way over
[2:59:22] budget, we say we asked you to not spend
[2:59:24] it, but you did. At least we can at
[2:59:28] least we didn't tell them they could
[2:59:29] spend one and a half million because
[2:59:32] when when we put this number out there,
[2:59:34] that's the number we put in our budget
[2:59:37] for them.
[2:59:39] And so that's that's the I anticipate
[2:59:44] revenues are going to be down. How much?
[2:59:45] I don't know.
[2:59:46] » Why not just
[2:59:49] wouldn't we save that money? I mean, I'm
[2:59:53] I'm confused why
[2:59:54] » I'm not I'm just saying we should not
[2:59:55] allow them a budget of one and a half
[2:59:57] million. That's the point.
[3:00:00] » Yeah, the money but the money is not
[3:00:02] coming from the general fund. Like I
[3:00:04] like I mentioned, there's the tax, so
[3:00:06] that that's valid. The rest of it are
[3:00:10] » Charges at and around the event that are
[3:00:12] generating the revenue. So, it's not
[3:00:14] we're not handing a million dollars.
[3:00:15] They're going to go collect it on our
[3:00:18] behalf and remit
[3:00:20] » The profit or loss, right? without the
[3:00:22] money and the revenues we owe it under
[3:00:24] the contract.
[3:00:26] That is for sure. If I'm sitting here
[3:00:28] and so the contract says nothing about
[3:00:30] turning a profit or or
[3:00:33] » There are there are
[3:00:36] incentives for turning a profit, but
[3:00:38] there's nothing in there saying to the
[3:00:40] contractor that you are responsible for
[3:00:44] overages of your budget.
[3:00:48] we are responsible,
[3:00:50] » Right?
[3:00:51] » So then that only makes me believe we
[3:00:53] need more of a uh more of a reserve
[3:00:55] essentially. I think is what you're
[3:00:57] arguing is that we have uncertainty. The
[3:00:59] costs could get worse and so we need a
[3:01:02] reserve.
[3:01:04] » I just say we tell them to spend less
[3:01:06] and hope that they they come out even
[3:01:09] somewhere, but we don't we are not
[3:01:11] risking a big loss.
[3:01:12] » The range of expected outcomes here is
[3:01:14] all in the loss side, right? And what
[3:01:16] you're telling me is it may get worse.
[3:01:18] You're not giving me any upside. You're
[3:01:20] saying it's actually likely.
[3:01:21] » Let's just say if we have a million
[3:01:22] dollars in income, not not 600,000, that
[3:01:25] would be 400,000 plus.
[3:01:27] » So now we're at a half million plus
[3:01:29] loss. No,
[3:01:31] » We'd be making money then.
[3:01:35] » I'm not convinced, but maybe I'm not
[3:01:37] following anything. But yeah,
[3:01:39] » The point is this. I do. We want to say
[3:01:41] you have $ 1.5 million budget. Do you
[3:01:43] want to say we have an you have a
[3:01:45] $800,000 or $600,000 budget?
[3:01:48] » That's really what we're talking about.
[3:01:51] » It's I don't think that we're really
[3:01:53] profiting from them much. Why can't we
[3:01:55] just let them take that money? I mean,
[3:01:56] obviously the police are having to work
[3:01:58] the events, too. Is there overtime
[3:01:59] involved? I mean, why why don't if we're
[3:02:01] talking about cutting things, why don't
[3:02:02] we get rid of that's how you do your
[3:02:04] bills at get rid of the the least
[3:02:07] important right now type of thing. I I
[3:02:10] don't see why we can't cut them. It's
[3:02:12] something if we're growing and stuff we
[3:02:14] start.
[3:02:15] » So I I hear you and I agree. However,
[3:02:17] that revenue number is basically
[3:02:19] somebody pulling it out of the air and
[3:02:20] saying this is what I think is going to
[3:02:23] come in for ticket sales. Basically
[3:02:26] » Out of the air. It's based on prior
[3:02:28] performances.
[3:02:28] » It's not a high probability estimate. It
[3:02:31] may be based on past performance, but
[3:02:33] past performance is not a guarantee.
[3:02:34] » You're not pulling it out of the air.
[3:02:36] » I'm saying there's there is estimation
[3:02:38] occurring here. Well, it's
[3:02:40] » High level of estimation
[3:02:42] » Based upon four years of data, five
[3:02:44] years of data.
[3:02:45] » Which year in the last five years did
[3:02:46] they turn a profit?
[3:02:48] » This company? None.
[3:02:51] » And so if the past they haven't, why
[3:02:54] would I expect they would in the future?
[3:02:56] » Well, that's why I'm trying to guard
[3:02:57] against it by not not saying you have
[3:03:00] $1.5 million to spend. That's the point.
[3:03:03] » Steve,
[3:03:04] » Do you know where those $ 1.5 million
[3:03:06] are coming from?
[3:03:07] » Um the community development. Well, put
[3:03:09] it this way. We haven't had to dig in
[3:03:11] because what's happened in the past is
[3:03:14] revenues have come in to cover expenses.
[3:03:17] That is what has occurred. The revenues
[3:03:20] start coming in at about July, August,
[3:03:22] September, October. That's when the real
[3:03:24] expenses hit too. And so what occurs is
[3:03:29] that the contractor
[3:03:31] plans, implements, makes expenditures
[3:03:36] and then hopes that the party withdrew,
[3:03:40] people will come,
[3:03:41] » Right?
[3:03:42] » Do we know why they don't have a budget?
[3:03:46] » And so
[3:03:47] » And so right now they're in the process
[3:03:49] of making plans. And so if we say to
[3:03:52] them, look, we want less expenditure,
[3:03:54] maybe they'll figure out a way to manage
[3:03:56] their budget.
[3:03:57] » Well, let's think about it this way.
[3:03:58] What's the loss we're willing to take
[3:03:59] annually on on this tourism budget?
[3:04:03] » Zero.
[3:04:04] » So, so if we're willing to take zero, we
[3:04:07] don't have a mechanism to get there
[3:04:08] right now
[3:04:10] » Because you would be phantom changing a
[3:04:11] number because really it's in the hands
[3:04:13] of a contractor. So, I I guess at this
[3:04:16] point I would argue we're sitting here
[3:04:19] bickering about something we can't
[3:04:21] really affect. And I think maybe we just
[3:04:24] set this aside and move on.
[3:04:26] » Well, I disagree with that because I
[3:04:29] think it's different if we have a number
[3:04:30] on a piece of paper and somebody says
[3:04:32] you got a budget of one and a half
[3:04:33] million versus going to them saying
[3:04:35] Steve.
[3:04:36] » What I'm not hearing is a proposal from
[3:04:38] you and I propose that we
[3:04:41] uh we cut
[3:04:45] the expenses
[3:04:49] that are estimated
[3:04:51] materials and services to the in tourism
[3:04:53] fund this year
[3:04:56] that will cut the expenses
[3:04:59] for materials and services from 1.8
[3:05:02] million to $800,000
[3:05:07] a cut of
[3:05:08] » $1 million.
[3:05:11] So, President Shelton, can you hear us?
[3:05:17] Unmuted.
[3:05:22] » Jason, she's not responding. She can
[3:05:24] unmute herself.
[3:05:27] » And that'll leave us with plenty of
[3:05:28] money to pay them and pay their
[3:05:30] » She's the council liaison. I think that
[3:05:32] she should weigh in.
[3:05:35] » I don't I don't understand why we
[3:05:36] wouldn't just cut terrorism. We have
[3:05:38] We're looking at having to cut police.
[3:05:41] We're looking at the city offices are
[3:05:44] closed. Like if we're gonna go through
[3:05:45] and try to figure out how to save some
[3:05:47] of the money, why are we not getting rid
[3:05:49] of something instead of our employees?
[3:05:52] » I tell you why. Cutting tourism is just
[3:05:54] as bad of a suggestion as saying that
[3:05:58] we're not going to patrol during the day
[3:05:59] because there are a lot of folks that
[3:06:02] right now are consider to be a very
[3:06:04] important part of their business
[3:06:06] operations.
[3:06:07] » That's not what I think. Well, you know,
[3:06:10] depends on who you talk to.
[3:06:12] » And this is a this I just I think it'd
[3:06:15] be something definitely for the council
[3:06:17] to hear and hear what people say. I
[3:06:18] don't think we should just gut the
[3:06:20] program.
[3:06:21] » That that'd be quite a dramatic thing to
[3:06:23] do and we're six months into the
[3:06:25] contract. We probably
[3:06:26] » But I mean, aren't you gutting the
[3:06:27] program to fill a million out
[3:06:29] effectively?
[3:06:29] » They probably send us a huge stack of
[3:06:31] bills and we'd probably end up losing
[3:06:32] three or $400,000 for canceling the
[3:06:34] contract right now.
[3:06:36] » That sounds like a good deal.
[3:06:37] » Jeremy, I have a question. like how how
[3:06:38] much like cutting that down to 800 um
[3:06:42] what does that effect also have on the
[3:06:43] general fund if any?
[3:06:47] » Uh it could affect how much um of the
[3:06:51] actual general fund service
[3:06:54] um support
[3:06:56] » The GFS.
[3:06:57] » Yeah.
[3:06:57] » So 100,000 $100,000
[3:07:00] » Right it could decrease that.
[3:07:04] » Okay. So overall, like that is the
[3:07:07] potential that could be a cost benefit
[3:07:10] to the general fund is $100,000.
[3:07:12] » Is there going to depend on the revenue?
[3:07:14] » Is there important context to the
[3:07:16] previous year being at budgeted at
[3:07:19] 300,000 then coming in at 200 and now
[3:07:21] we're being 100 and the general fund
[3:07:24] service fee charged. Um so the the
[3:07:28] budget committee last year
[3:07:31] um
[3:07:33] proposed that um the events the
[3:07:38] contracted events would um support a
[3:07:42] $300,000
[3:07:44] um
[3:07:47] GFSS to the general fund.
[3:07:49] » Okay. Um we because of
[3:07:56] because it's um
[3:08:00] that it didn't perform like it was
[3:08:04] » Budgeted
[3:08:05] » Because they overspent. Um we had to
[3:08:08] reduce that.
[3:08:09] » But the
[3:08:11] » But the ending fund balance is positive.
[3:08:14] » It has to be. It was the adopted budget
[3:08:18] had it at zero.
[3:08:20] » Um
[3:08:20] » Well, I should say it had a $106,000
[3:08:23] contingency, right?
[3:08:24] » It came in better.
[3:08:25] » There was more
[3:08:27] there's 155,000 at the end of the year.
[3:08:31] So, they could have sent about 50,000
[3:08:34] more over to the city. So, how if if the
[3:08:37] budget was for 300, why did 200 come
[3:08:39] over when there's still another 50
[3:08:41] getting over there and
[3:08:44] positive cash flow?
[3:08:46] One question would I would want
[3:08:48] » I I mean like actually how does that
[3:08:50] happen? Does someone say not remitting
[3:08:52] or I'm not charging or how do we get
[3:08:54] that? Um, so
[3:09:00] administratively
[3:09:02] we made the decision and in our estimate
[3:09:06] that we'd only do 200,000 because
[3:09:10] even at 155,000
[3:09:13] that's not a very good reserve or ending
[3:09:16] funded balance,
[3:09:17] » Right? But then effectively we're taking
[3:09:19] it out of the general fund which has its
[3:09:21] own
[3:09:22] » It's not covered.
[3:09:23] » Well, it is. Let me explain. Because if
[3:09:25] you're not sending a charge over to the
[3:09:27] general fund, you're in effect shorting
[3:09:29] the general fund.
[3:09:30] » That is true.
[3:09:31] » And then I got a thought here. If what
[3:09:32] we really need is the general fund to be
[3:09:35] made whole here, we need to increase
[3:09:37] this charge going forward. Let's put it
[3:09:39] back to 300,000 then
[3:09:42] » For the next year. And we need to find a
[3:09:44] way to ensure we hit that. Whether
[3:09:46] that's talking to the contractor,
[3:09:48] whatever you got to do, but I think the
[3:09:49] bottom line is more dollars need to be
[3:09:52] coming to the general fund than being
[3:09:53] taken away from the general fund.
[3:09:57] » Well, that was our objective last year.
[3:09:59] And what the words that came out of my
[3:10:01] mouth last year were, I want the
[3:10:03] contractor to know we want $300,000 for
[3:10:05] our event and they didn't make it. So
[3:10:08] now we're having another discussion this
[3:10:09] year and we're right back to where we
[3:10:12] were and that is how do we get $300,000
[3:10:15] out for the contractor for this event
[3:10:18] and I'm more concerned about not how
[3:10:21] much we are going to get is protecting
[3:10:24] against loss where I think it will come
[3:10:26] out of community development is where
[3:10:28] the we have if there's losses
[3:10:31] come out of community development.
[3:10:33] That's true.
[3:10:35] So I'm I'm more sure
[3:10:37] » It's kind of running out of funds
[3:10:38] itself.
[3:10:39] » A lot of tourism programs operate
[3:10:40] honestly a lot of cities pay money for
[3:10:43] their tourism programs because there is
[3:10:45] a business booing of the tourism
[3:10:48] programs,
[3:10:49] » Right? And so thus far the council has
[3:10:54] decided to have a tourism program and
[3:10:57] they have weighed in
[3:11:01] very long hard discussions about
[3:11:05] delivery of the tourism program and have
[3:11:08] decided a tourism program exists in St.
[3:11:11] Allen. It is on our objectives of
[3:11:15] financial objections to have tourism be
[3:11:18] one of our main financial goals and the
[3:11:21] council has has supported that. Now, I
[3:11:25] just think that it's very dramatic to be
[3:11:28] saying we're going to eliminate this
[3:11:30] program in the context of a budget
[3:11:32] committee meeting. I think what we
[3:11:34] should be doing in my opinion is to
[3:11:36] simply guard against losses,
[3:11:39] put 300,000 in the general fund, fine,
[3:11:42] see how they do, and have Johnson.
[3:11:44] » So, let's come back to your motion to do
[3:11:45] that. That's to take $1 million out of
[3:11:48] the material services line.
[3:11:49] » Correct.
[3:11:50] » Okay. I don't see how that's going to
[3:11:52] solve the problem.
[3:11:55] It means they can't spend. Let's just
[3:11:57] say this. Let's say they spend 1.8
[3:12:03] and they only get in 800,000. We just
[3:12:05] lost a million dollars.
[3:12:06] » Well, I mean, look at last year. It says
[3:12:08] they were supposed to spend 700,000.
[3:12:09] They spent 1.2 million. That shows me
[3:12:11] there's no cost control at
[3:12:13] » Well, that's what we're talking about.
[3:12:15] » I That's why I'm proposing something
[3:12:17] more drastic because I'm seeing evidence
[3:12:19] of mismanagement and lack of cost
[3:12:22] control.
[3:12:23] We don't allow any loss and we build up
[3:12:26] a reserve. I think we should charge back
[3:12:28] more to the general fund.
[3:12:31] » Okay, great. Make your proposals here.
[3:12:34] » I propose that we change the GFSS in the
[3:12:38] expense line to 300,000
[3:12:41] as it was uh
[3:12:44] discussed at some length by by council
[3:12:47] as I understand.
[3:12:48] » Yes. I unless there's some argument that
[3:12:51] it shouldn't be bringing
[3:12:52] » I don't think tourism should lose any
[3:12:54] money period like that is my opinion if
[3:12:57] we have it that's great but we should
[3:12:58] not be losing any money on it
[3:13:00] » And it's great if the community
[3:13:01] businesses are making money but we
[3:13:03] shouldn't have to take a loss
[3:13:05] » To do that break even though how do we
[3:13:08] guard against the look I've looked at
[3:13:11] their financials two years in a row they
[3:13:14] spend money like crazy and so and I feel
[3:13:17] like as a budget committee member, the
[3:13:19] only thing I can do today is say you get
[3:13:21] less money to spend and then have our
[3:13:23] city administrator sit down with them
[3:13:24] and say you need to keep your costs
[3:13:27] under control because this is your
[3:13:28] budget.
[3:13:29] » I agree. We just can't really affect
[3:13:30] that here is what I'm saying. We have no
[3:13:32] effective way.
[3:13:34] » I'm just saying can we just put that
[3:13:35] number on the page because then that
[3:13:37] delivers the message versus a $1.5
[3:13:39] million budget. I don't want to give
[3:13:42] them that.
[3:13:42] » I don't think it delivers any message
[3:13:44] because the budget isn't being followed.
[3:13:47] But the thing is, if we don't put we
[3:13:48] don't at least put if we don't put the
[3:13:50] line down, then we don't have a line.
[3:13:52] They can just do whatever they want to
[3:13:54] do. I mean, really, what we're
[3:13:56] » Already do whatever they want to do.
[3:13:58] » We're trying to say to our city
[3:13:59] administrator here as a budget
[3:14:01] committee, this is your budget, city
[3:14:04] administrator. Go manage our tourism
[3:14:07] program such that we don't lose money.
[3:14:10] And tell them that they they can't spend
[3:14:12] more than 800,000 bucks. And make sure
[3:14:14] they hold to it. And then he can come
[3:14:16] back later and say, "Hey, you guys told
[3:14:19] me to hold it 800 grand. I told them to
[3:14:21] do it. I've got emails. Look at all this
[3:14:22] stuff. They either did or they didn't."
[3:14:24] At which point we decide what to do with
[3:14:27] that contractor.
[3:14:28] » How much if we get rid of tourism? How
[3:14:31] much are we going to save?
[3:14:34] » We're not going to kill that program
[3:14:35] here.
[3:14:36] » I want to know.
[3:14:37] » Okay. I'm going to make a motion that we
[3:14:38] do not discuss eliminating
[3:14:40] » Talking for a second. She asked the
[3:14:41] question.
[3:14:42] I I think I think we could look at the
[3:14:44] last four or five years here and average
[3:14:47] out what the loss per year is and think
[3:14:49] about that as a run rate
[3:14:51] » And not lose before
[3:14:53] » I'm I'm just talking about let's not
[3:14:55] talk right now because they are spending
[3:14:57] how much if you were to cut the tourism
[3:14:59] program is that going to save a position
[3:15:02] for somebody?
[3:15:04] Uh
[3:15:06] well, I would put it this way. If we can
[3:15:09] contain the loss to zero dollars right
[3:15:12] now, that's
[3:15:14] probably half of an FTE at the police
[3:15:16] force and probably a lot more part-time
[3:15:18] librarians.
[3:15:19] » So, does the TFT or the the transate
[3:15:22] lodging tax does that have to stay in
[3:15:24] tourism legally?
[3:15:25] » I believe it does.
[3:15:26] » Not 100% of it.
[3:15:27] » Right. So, what percentage can actually
[3:15:29] be allocated to the general fund?
[3:15:33] There's a new law they passed.
[3:15:36] » Yeah. Well, there's now, but our he was
[3:15:39] they um but it's more.
[3:15:43] » It was in a before that law. So before
[3:15:47] that law that you're talking about
[3:15:49] became in effect, the city does not have
[3:15:54] to um
[3:15:57] uh is not
[3:15:59] controlled by that particular law. So
[3:16:03] what is it now?
[3:16:05] » St. St. Allen is one of those
[3:16:06] communities that was pre202 when the
[3:16:09] state laws changed it required a 7030
[3:16:12] split where the you could take 30% put
[3:16:15] it in the general fund and 70% had to go
[3:16:17] into pretty much marketing it was there
[3:16:19] a pretty narrow channels there when we
[3:16:22] increased the the transient lodging tax
[3:16:25] rate from 7% to 10%
[3:16:28] recent recently
[3:16:31] um that that 3% increment is subject to
[3:16:35] through the split. Um
[3:16:38] » It's a little more complic I see the
[3:16:40] next 3% that was added.
[3:16:42] » Yeah, they could split.
[3:16:44] » So safe though it's still the law would
[3:16:46] apply for 30%.
[3:16:47] » Yeah.
[3:16:48] » So it's never been an issue on that
[3:16:51] marketing
[3:16:51] » 30% of the 7% can be allocated to
[3:16:55] general fund. doesn't apply to the city
[3:16:57] that that first 7% does is we can use
[3:16:59] unrestricted.
[3:17:00] » Oh, only seven
[3:17:02] » 70%.
[3:17:03] » 70% of the first seven% that was
[3:17:06] enacted,
[3:17:06] » Right?
[3:17:07] » Because we're pre-adoption.
[3:17:08] » Yeah. Okay.
[3:17:11] » Like roughly half the money here.
[3:17:14] » AI says half.
[3:17:16] » Did AI say?
[3:17:18] » I'm trying to get as smart as AI right
[3:17:21] there.
[3:17:21] » So, is it worth it? Is my question.
[3:17:24] is well worth it.
[3:17:28] » I think I I think avoiding a loss is
[3:17:33] worth it
[3:17:35] » And I'm not seeing a proposal to get the
[3:17:38] loss under control. And so at this point
[3:17:40] I I kind of have two ways to think about
[3:17:41] it. One is
[3:17:43] we try to get out of it and the other
[3:17:45] one is we start reserving for it.
[3:17:49] My my thinking with the tourism is
[3:17:52] and I said it before back when we
[3:17:55] switched touris the tourism over. I
[3:17:57] don't understand why we even have it if
[3:17:59] it's not bringing in money. I understand
[3:18:00] like concept of tourism but St. Helens
[3:18:03] is not some place that anybody is really
[3:18:05] to visit right now especially with us
[3:18:07] being used the way they are we are and
[3:18:08] stuff. I'm not this up here. Um and I
[3:18:12] live on a budget. I'm a single mom.
[3:18:14] Okay. We don't. It's I feel like keeping
[3:18:16] certain things like this is akin to I
[3:18:19] can't afford food and clothes for my
[3:18:20] kids, but I'm going to go buy
[3:18:21] cigarettes, booze, and tattoos. Okay,
[3:18:24] you cut the stuff that
[3:18:26] » True. This is the Starbucks coffee for
[3:18:27] St. Helens.
[3:18:28] » Oh, there you go. But you cut that
[3:18:30] stuff. Okay, if we're talking about
[3:18:31] losing employees, we're losing officers.
[3:18:33] I'm not anti police, first of all. I
[3:18:35] hate that people are saying that about
[3:18:36] me. I am the number one pro police
[3:18:38] officer and I've helped this police
[3:18:39] department. I am not anti police. I I
[3:18:41] hate that rhetoric.
[3:18:43] They have helped me. I am survivor. I
[3:18:47] don't like to be called out like that. I
[3:18:49] would like to save their physicians, but
[3:18:51] I would like to save our employees that
[3:18:54] make the city run. You know what I'm
[3:18:57] saying? Like we need to find areas that
[3:18:58] we can cut that are and we can go
[3:19:01] revisit in the future when we're doing
[3:19:02] better.
[3:19:03] » John, how much are we in so far this
[3:19:05] year to uh
[3:19:06] » What I'm trying to way on this thing? Do
[3:19:08] we is it like a half a million if we
[3:19:10] cancel this contract
[3:19:13] and then we're going to have a I don't
[3:19:14] know how many lawsuits are going to come
[3:19:15] out of the
[3:19:16] » Problem though is we can't cancel the
[3:19:18] contract here right so that's not
[3:19:20] something that has to go in front of
[3:19:21] council I mean I'm in agreement we
[3:19:23] shouldn't lose money period on tourism
[3:19:25] but I we can't talk about the contract
[3:19:28] necessarily here
[3:19:29] » But I mean I think that's something that
[3:19:31] definitely needs to come up in front of
[3:19:33] council and have a discussion
[3:19:35] I'm seeing some heads nodding over
[3:19:37] there. Uh but for this I'm trying to
[3:19:40] also figure out so let's say your train
[3:19:43] of thought Jennifer is you extinguish
[3:19:45] all or dis defund the entire tourism
[3:19:47] fund. What actually are we going to gain
[3:19:51] from that is what I'd like to get out of
[3:19:52] this conversation. What are we getting
[3:19:53] out of there? What can we take and put
[3:19:55] into the general fund to actually Right.
[3:19:57] So that's
[3:19:58] » An officer job. Can we get one of these
[3:19:59] ladies jobs? Can we part?
[3:20:01] » Can we put part 70% of a transit loss
[3:20:04] tax? Not that you have
[3:20:06] » Half of it.
[3:20:07] » Half of it. Yeah.
[3:20:09] » So we have $85,000
[3:20:14] for cutting our entire tourism.
[3:20:15] » I mean that's also I mean you could look
[3:20:17] at it please but it's also
[3:20:20] » Well positions.
[3:20:21] » I don't know how many contracts have
[3:20:23] been signed because most of them are
[3:20:24] signed by now. I mean, and so we would
[3:20:27] end up with potentially
[3:20:31] a lot of a lot of exposure
[3:20:34] and that's I'm just I don't know what
[3:20:36] the all the consequences are. And the
[3:20:38] idea is to protect against losses. I had
[3:20:41] an idea, but I don't think getting sued
[3:20:43] is one of them.
[3:20:44] » I think we're a breach of contract
[3:20:45] anyway, though. We could technically
[3:20:47] cancel their contract, right? We also
[3:20:48] have all I think what Steve's saying is
[3:20:50] all the other vendors that have
[3:20:52] contracts that are already signed. That
[3:20:54] is where we're going to have copious
[3:20:55] amounts of potential lawsuits by
[3:20:57] counseling at this point when that money
[3:20:59] has already been allocated through
[3:21:02] contractual agreements.
[3:21:03] » I I have a proposal here. Let's let's go
[3:21:07] back to the 2526 adopted budget. The
[3:21:11] total expenses there before contingency
[3:21:13] is 1.475
[3:21:15] million.
[3:21:17] This year the proposal is 1.81 cent. So
[3:21:21] I would suggest we revert to the 1475
[3:21:26] and we then increase the GFSS charge
[3:21:31] back to 300,000 and the balance will
[3:21:35] fall into contingency.
[3:21:38] » I second.
[3:21:39] » I do.
[3:21:40] » Let's do it.
[3:21:42] » All right. We have a second. Is there uh
[3:21:46] everyone in favor
[3:21:48] » Say I
[3:21:50] » Can Can you repeat this one more time?
[3:21:52] I'm sorry. Can you repeat what the plan
[3:21:54] is?
[3:21:55] » Yes. So the motion is to take the uh
[3:21:59] total material and services
[3:22:03] uh budget from 2526 which is 1.475 475
[3:22:07] million and to use that as the material
[3:22:10] and budget service total for 2026 27.
[3:22:15] And so that should be a difference of
[3:22:20] 3
[3:22:22] 58,000.
[3:22:24] And so then uh
[3:22:28] we would increase the GFSS line charge
[3:22:33] from 100,000 to 300,000.
[3:22:36] which is part of that 1.475.
[3:22:39] » Yes.
[3:22:39] » But they did work last year.
[3:22:41] » And so then uh if we had
[3:22:46] a difference of 300, what did I say?
[3:22:48] 358,000.
[3:22:50] The 200,000 gets added to GFSS, that
[3:22:52] leaves you 158,000 to come down to the
[3:22:55] contingency line and put you at about
[3:23:00] 170,000 in contingency. Then we've got a
[3:23:03] backup of some money and we're trying to
[3:23:06] control expense and we're not getting
[3:23:07] too aggressive. We're saying let's go
[3:23:09] back to what we thought was workable
[3:23:11] just last year and let's do this over
[3:23:14] because you didn't stay in budget.
[3:23:15] » How are we going to
[3:23:16] » I have a quick question for council. Um
[3:23:19] » I mean I'm just asking council president
[3:23:20] Chilton on yet?
[3:23:22] » She's having technical difficulties but
[3:23:24] she's back on. She can try.
[3:23:25] » Council President Shelton, can you hear?
[3:23:28] » Yes, I can. Uh man, that is just audio
[3:23:31] is horri. I'm sorry for all the
[3:23:32] listeners here. The audio is really
[3:23:34] rough in here. So you're the leaison for
[3:23:37] tourism. I'm curious if you have any
[3:23:39] knowledge or could speak to uh any of
[3:23:42] the overage in the budget uh from last
[3:23:45] year with tourism. We're trying to
[3:23:47] » Specifically the $500,000
[3:23:49] variance in the projects and programs.
[3:23:55] I can't speak to the budget, but our
[3:23:57] city administrator should be able to
[3:23:58] because he directly oversees tourism
[3:24:05] » Some of that.
[3:24:06] » Is that you directly?
[3:24:07] » So, you can tell us why the overage is
[3:24:09] close to 100%.
[3:24:10] » I'll start by saying that the goal of
[3:24:12] the tourism program has always been for
[3:24:14] revenues to cover the expenses including
[3:24:17] their fee. Right. So, and that's been
[3:24:20] been that targets kind of been been over
[3:24:23] and under a little bit as some you know
[3:24:24] it's really difficult when your expense
[3:24:26] forward in a lot of this investment in
[3:24:28] contracts and the revenue kind of
[3:24:30] follows that. So, we don't really know
[3:24:32] where we're at. The trains are
[3:24:34] » Timing mismatch. Yeah.
[3:24:36] And then you know when
[3:24:38] the contract we've set up to be
[3:24:42] new at towards the end of the year and
[3:24:44] then we those financial numbers came in
[3:24:46] pretty late. Uh there was some
[3:24:49] investments in like the store. It has no
[3:24:52] nowhere near 500,000 but the facade
[3:24:54] inside that they built out to have a
[3:24:56] stock a store. The weather last year was
[3:24:58] pretty iffy and some were some pretty
[3:25:00] rainy weekends. They did one last
[3:25:02] weekend
[3:25:04] » And they spent a ton of money.
[3:25:05] » Wait, wait, wait. How does that drive
[3:25:06] the expense line? I get how that reduces
[3:25:08] the revenue.
[3:25:09] » The same expenses. They just don't have
[3:25:10] the revenue to cover it.
[3:25:11] » No, no, the No, the expenses were
[3:25:13] 500,000 higher than budgeted. That's
[3:25:15] what I'm not understanding.
[3:25:17] » So,
[3:25:17] » We went from 700,000 to 1.2 million and
[3:25:20] we have no explanation of the variance.
[3:25:22] » I don't even spent.
[3:25:25] » I hear what you're saying.
[3:25:26] » Yeah. I mean, that's a glaring problem,
[3:25:29] right? So I think was there not a
[3:25:31] misusation with that also
[3:25:34] » On the transit tax.
[3:25:35] » So I feel like I recall that there was
[3:25:38] confusion on their budget that they
[3:25:40] thought that they got the transient
[3:25:42] lodging tax as part of their budget
[3:25:45] » And
[3:25:45] » That's 160,000 that's not 500.
[3:25:48] » I'm just saying what I heard like I'm
[3:25:50] all I'm in agreement with a lot of
[3:25:52] discussion.
[3:25:53] » So there was a discussion. I'm just
[3:25:54] saying that as well as the I guess the
[3:25:58] dark market
[3:25:59] um what we call it uh was also
[3:26:02] remodeled. I don't know what the
[3:26:03] expenses were to that. I don't I don't
[3:26:06] have the answers either. Um
[3:26:08] » Right. And so so if we had an
[3:26:09] explanation of the expense, we could get
[3:26:11] into this, but we don't. So back to my
[3:26:13] proposal that had a second was to revert
[3:26:16] back to the total material and services
[3:26:18] spending that was a dollar last year.
[3:26:21] » But wait, how do we control it? That's
[3:26:23] the issue. You cannot like when you are
[3:26:25] in a budget crisis, you can't have
[3:26:27] something
[3:26:27] » I just I just heard the city
[3:26:29] administrator overseas this. So, do we
[3:26:31] have your word you'll be looking into
[3:26:32] controlling this expense?
[3:26:34] » I will uh do a better job.
[3:26:36] » Sure.
[3:26:38] » We have no mechanism to ensure it.
[3:26:41] » Let's cut them.
[3:26:41] » We have no me I
[3:26:43] » Get rid of them.
[3:26:45] » They're con artists. We did the same
[3:26:47] thing in Hang on. Hold on. We We had a
[3:26:50] motion. It was seconded. We took more
[3:26:52] discussion.
[3:26:54] and we take it to a vote.
[3:27:00] » I'm ready to move forward.
[3:27:01] » All in favor of the proposed adjustment
[3:27:04] to the tourism fund, please say I.
[3:27:08] » I.
[3:27:10] And those two eyes's oppos. Oh,
[3:27:14] » I'm I'm my I as well.
[3:27:16] » Three, four,
[3:27:18] » I
[3:27:19] » Five.
[3:27:22] All opposed say nay.
[3:27:24] » Nay.
[3:27:25] » Two nays. I believe it passes.
[3:27:30] » Okay. Net effect move pass.
[3:27:32] » Net effect we put 200,000 into the
[3:27:35] general.
[3:27:37] » Well,
[3:27:38] » I just saying for the business we're
[3:27:39] doing so
[3:27:40] » Remember this discussion if we have huge
[3:27:41] loss in revenues and everything else you
[3:27:43] end up. I understand and that will be a
[3:27:46] good discussion to have with the
[3:27:48] individuals responsible for managing the
[3:27:51] the use of this money.
[3:27:53] » We we provided 1 something million
[3:27:56] budget
[3:27:57] » 1.4 million.
[3:27:58] » No, we didn't. We provided we provided
[3:28:01] $400,000
[3:28:03] almost $400,000 less than the last
[3:28:06] year's fund.
[3:28:07] » What's the uh what's the line item?
[3:28:09] Let's make sure it was done that. Uh the
[3:28:11] line item was called out clearly. So the
[3:28:14] the line item is the total materials and
[3:28:17] services total.
[3:28:18] » Okay, great.
[3:28:20] » Okay, ready to move forward.
[3:28:23] » And and it's so that's going to go down
[3:28:25] as well as the the
[3:28:28] I suppose it has to flow through the
[3:28:30] projects and program subline.
[3:28:35] Okay.
[3:28:37] So
[3:28:39] tourist fund, tourism fund set aside.
[3:28:41] We've we've accomplished that business.
[3:28:43] Do we have a next topic anyone would
[3:28:45] like to to
[3:28:46] » Yes, I want to move to
[3:28:49] I'd like to move to um
[3:28:53] you honestly with our with our
[3:28:55] businesses closing last year, I was the
[3:28:57] biggest advocate for keeping at least
[3:28:59] for the council their stipens.
[3:29:03] But I mean, when we're talking about
[3:29:06] closing the doors and things like that,
[3:29:09] I just I mean, I was hugely an advocate
[3:29:12] last year when it came up the opposite,
[3:29:14] but this year I feel like situation that
[3:29:17] we're in
[3:29:19] » Probably.
[3:29:21] » So, we're talking about about
[3:29:22] $65,000,500.
[3:29:25] Oh,
[3:29:25] » We're going to be talking about the the
[3:29:28] city's stipen then they need to read a
[3:29:30] disclosure for that conflict at that
[3:29:33] time. They need to
[3:29:35] » Because it has to deal with their
[3:29:36] salaries.
[3:29:38] » Well, it's their stip.
[3:29:39] » Okay. I think I think my comment doesn't
[3:29:41] go quite there.
[3:29:42] » I'm just saying before we discuss it, we
[3:29:43] need to make sure so they don't get any
[3:29:45] » I actually wanted to suggest we don't go
[3:29:46] there because it's only 65,000 and I
[3:29:49] think we've got to fry bigger fish right
[3:29:51] now. We can maybe hold this for later
[3:29:53] discussion in the meeting, but I think
[3:29:55] it's
[3:29:55] » Time.
[3:29:57] » I I understand. Um, but we're talking
[3:30:01] about million-dollar level problems. I
[3:30:04] mean, start with the smallest ones.
[3:30:06] That's fine.
[3:30:07] » Rebuild your budget when you are this
[3:30:09] messed up is $5 at a time in a houseful.
[3:30:13] I'm sorry. So, something like this,
[3:30:15] that's a couple libraries that that goes
[3:30:16] towards somebody else's salary.
[3:30:18] » I don't mind. We've already we've
[3:30:19] already funded the library at this
[3:30:20] point.
[3:30:21] » I understand that. But we don't have
[3:30:22] there's nowhere we're going to have a
[3:30:24] million dollars just come out. It's not
[3:30:26] come from.
[3:30:26] » Sure. So, let's let's talk about let's
[3:30:29] talk about a 10% reserve.
[3:30:32] » And what would that what would that mean
[3:30:34] to cut the police for a 10%. What would
[3:30:37] that where would that be? So, we're at
[3:30:39] 5% now.
[3:30:44] » Would the audience please
[3:30:46] uh refrain from interacting with the
[3:30:49] council unless called upon?
[3:30:56] » So,
[3:30:57] why don't we get a 10%. Uh,
[3:31:00] » So, so to your question, Steve, so
[3:31:03] » I just want to know what the number
[3:31:04] » Five
[3:31:04] » 5% is what we're being shown in these
[3:31:07] numbers. Correct.
[3:31:10] » Equates to
[3:31:14] how many dollars? I think that's roughly
[3:31:17] $500,000.
[3:31:20] » I think it's closer to a million, isn't
[3:31:22] it?
[3:31:22] » Well, I'm seeing 20 20% reserve at two.
[3:31:27] » That would be a two.
[3:31:29] » So, cut that in four to five. Oh, yeah.
[3:31:31] » You'd have 500k, right?
[3:31:33] » And then we already just moved that
[3:31:34] over.
[3:31:34] » Okay. So, then we just
[3:31:35] » Yep. We just
[3:31:36] » And we just put 200k in there. So, you
[3:31:40] know, maybe we're at between six and
[3:31:42] seven right now.
[3:31:43] » So, just just say 650,000.
[3:31:45] » We maybe need to find another 400,000.
[3:31:49] » Wow.
[3:31:49] » To get to a 10%.
[3:31:51] » Yeah, that's what it's what the number
[3:31:53] we need.
[3:31:53] » So, one 1%
[3:31:55] or
[3:31:57] it's it's roughly $100,000 per percent.
[3:32:03] » Okay,
[3:32:03] » That's what it is. So another 5% would
[3:32:06] be half a million,
[3:32:07] » Right? But we just found 200
[3:32:12] » From the tourism. We're bringing
[3:32:13] » The tourism. We just brought a charge in
[3:32:15] » Additional 200
[3:32:16] » That the revenue into the city.
[3:32:18] » This is budget illusion is uh I mean if
[3:32:20] you want to use it that's fine.
[3:32:23] » I don't understand how they're going to
[3:32:24] stay. They haven't stayed within budget.
[3:32:26] Where are the where are the rails that
[3:32:27] they're
[3:32:28] » You expect they won't stay in budget
[3:32:29] then let them cancel the program. I I
[3:32:31] mean you're saying that I didn't we
[3:32:34] didn't get
[3:32:34] » You have zero comp just keep going
[3:32:37] » They over by how much that's that's
[3:32:39] » I'm not arguing on their behalf that
[3:32:41] they're going to do great management but
[3:32:42] I'm saying they said they would stay in
[3:32:44] budget we have his word he's going to
[3:32:46] look at it
[3:32:47] » They heard what we had to say what more
[3:32:48] can we do that
[3:32:49] » So then you have so rather than five so
[3:32:51] to get to a 10% reserve we need another
[3:32:54] 500,000
[3:32:56] » Cut
[3:32:57] uh but since we're adding 300,000 back
[3:33:01] in.
[3:33:02] » That's 200,000 back in
[3:33:04] » For another
[3:33:04] » We need another cut another 300,000.
[3:33:07] Okay.
[3:33:07] » And so
[3:33:08] » So my I'm going to I'm going to propose
[3:33:10] that we make up that $300,000
[3:33:14] by
[3:33:16] cutting
[3:33:22] 100,000 from the police personal
[3:33:27] budget. personnel
[3:33:29] » Personnel
[3:33:30] and
[3:33:33] 200,000 from the lease materials and
[3:33:36] services
[3:33:39] and then
[3:33:42] that would then get us to a 10% reserve
[3:33:48] PFSS
[3:33:50] of 300,000 which we're going to be
[3:33:53] having very serious discussions with our
[3:33:54] tourism contractor
[3:33:58] So,
[3:33:59] so I'm going to make a motion
[3:34:02] that we and this will be a yearly
[3:34:05] budget, not a six-month budget. This
[3:34:07] will be a yearly budget
[3:34:10] of uh that would that's going to reduce
[3:34:13] the police personnel services
[3:34:17] to
[3:34:21] 3,936,9
[3:34:27] and
[3:34:30] lease materials and services to
[3:34:35] 446,00
[3:34:38] 500.
[3:34:46] » That's the motion.
[3:34:50] » We have a second.
[3:34:54] » I'll second it.
[3:34:55] » Great. Okay. I mean, we're either going
[3:34:58] to cut or we're going to we're going to
[3:35:00] go with a 5% reserve. We're going to do
[3:35:03] I mean, that's where that's kind of
[3:35:04] almost where we're down to.
[3:35:07] and we, you know, with the risks of
[3:35:09] that. So,
[3:35:09] » Why are we wearing something and we
[3:35:11] don't know what it looks like? What does
[3:35:11] that look like?
[3:35:13] » Uh, you want to repeat that?
[3:35:14] » No, I want to know what it looks like if
[3:35:16] we're cutting that out. What does that
[3:35:17] look like?
[3:35:18] » It looks like the tire.
[3:35:19] » Are you asking the line items or you're
[3:35:21] asking a different question?
[3:35:22] » Officers, like, etc.
[3:35:24] » Let the chief figure it out. That's his
[3:35:27] job. I don't want to sit here and be be
[3:35:29] trying to micromanage and figure it out.
[3:35:32] » There's no part of the budget process
[3:35:33] where we specify the number of officers.
[3:35:35] Correct.
[3:35:36] » Our job is to set abundant numbers and
[3:35:39] then management of these various
[3:35:42] departments will make the decisions
[3:35:43] they'll make.
[3:35:44] » Correct. And I hope the chief will do
[3:35:46] the best he can to protect us as best he
[3:35:48] can with what he's given what we have.
[3:35:50] » Absolutely. He will.
[3:35:57] » So there's a motion and a second. There
[3:35:59] » Any other discussion? Many other members
[3:36:02] could be repeated one more time.
[3:36:03] » Yes.
[3:36:05] The the motion is on the
[3:36:08] 2026
[3:36:10] 2027 draft approved budget provided by
[3:36:14] staff today
[3:36:16] that
[3:36:18] we reduce
[3:36:20] the expenditures in personnel services
[3:36:24] to the police by $100,000
[3:36:28] to a total of 9 million or excuse me to
[3:36:31] a total of 3,936,9
[3:36:34] $900
[3:36:36] and
[3:36:38] reduce the materials and services line
[3:36:41] item
[3:36:42] by $200,000 to $446,500.
[3:36:50] » Still having discussion.
[3:36:53] So
[3:36:54] » Yeah,
[3:36:54] » I think that the
[3:36:57] personnel is when we look at how much it
[3:37:00] costs to try to bring somebody back,
[3:37:02] right? We're looking at a 150,000 per
[3:37:05] officer, right? So, I think that maybe
[3:37:09] it'd be more reasonable to, you know, if
[3:37:12] we're talking about materials and
[3:37:13] services, maybe we address that, but
[3:37:16] maybe going to 9% of the reserve and
[3:37:20] keeping that 100,000 in for staffing.
[3:37:24] » Sorry, repeat that last part again.
[3:37:26] » Sorry, you're saying shift shift it to
[3:37:28] materials services. No, I'm saying 9%
[3:37:30] eight or 9%. Like like 9% and leaving
[3:37:35] like and not go to the personnel
[3:37:37] services.
[3:37:39] » I'll withdraw mine. Can I withdraw mine?
[3:37:42] » I don't know what the Robert's rule.
[3:37:44] » I think we have to vote. I think we have
[3:37:46] to vote on it and then it'll be dead and
[3:37:48] then a new motion can be made. Should we
[3:37:50] do it appropriately? Right.
[3:37:51] » To me, it's been it's already been
[3:37:52] second. Okay. All right. All those in
[3:37:55] favor, please say yay. I
[3:38:00] » On the first motion sorry on the first
[3:38:02] motion. Yes.
[3:38:03] » On the first motion Steve presented to
[3:38:05] » You be clear for the record.
[3:38:07] » So the motion is to reduce the personnel
[3:38:10] services for the police department by
[3:38:13] $100,000 from 4,36,900
[3:38:18] to 3 million
[3:38:20] 900,36900.
[3:38:24] And then to also reduce the materials
[3:38:26] and services by 200,000 from 4683400
[3:38:31] to 4483
[3:38:34] » No 646500
[3:38:37] » To 446,000.
[3:38:39] » Thank you. I read the the next line
[3:38:41] down. I apologize. Gloria stated that
[3:38:44] correctly. It will be
[3:38:46] 646500 less 200,000 to 446500.
[3:38:55] And that's two eyes now.
[3:38:58] » Two eyes now.
[3:39:01] » Any other eyes?
[3:39:03] » Okay. Nays.
[3:39:07] » Five.
[3:39:09] » Okay. The motion prevails.
[3:39:11] » Make a motion that we
[3:39:13] » That we retain the personnel services uh
[3:39:18] of the police at 4,36,900.
[3:39:22] use materials and services to
[3:39:26] $446,500
[3:39:30] and that would leave a 9% reserve.
[3:39:34] » Discussion.
[3:39:35] » Wait, second.
[3:39:37] » We have a motion.
[3:39:38] » Second. Is there discussion?
[3:39:40] » Can we also look at the transient tax
[3:39:43] fee, the 70% and move that over into the
[3:39:46] materials and services
[3:39:49] » From the tourism fund? Uh
[3:39:54] that's uh
[3:39:56] » Let's do this motion and then let's do
[3:39:58] this motion and if we want to add more
[3:40:00] money and plug more money we can.
[3:40:04] » Well, so we have a second. So we're
[3:40:06] going to end up at a vote on this first
[3:40:07] on this motion.
[3:40:08] » That too.
[3:40:10] » So we can have this discussion or we and
[3:40:13] then move to that vote or we can move to
[3:40:15] that vote now. And
[3:40:17] » I'm sorry if I complicated it.
[3:40:18] » That's that's where we're at. Jennifer
[3:40:20] does have a good point, though.
[3:40:23] » So,
[3:40:26] all right. Why don't we vote on this
[3:40:28] motion and then maybe ensure we're ready
[3:40:30] for a motion before we throw another one
[3:40:32] in, get more discussion in. That's what
[3:40:34] I would suggest.
[3:40:35] » Okay. Uh, all those in favor of the
[3:40:38] motion, please say I.
[3:40:40] » I.
[3:40:40] » I.
[3:40:41] » I.
[3:40:44] » Um,
[3:40:47] I'm still not fairly thrilled with this.
[3:40:53] » We have
[3:40:55] » He's not on
[3:40:57] » Okay.
[3:40:58] » So, we have four in favor.
[3:41:01] » Four. Thought I heard four.
[3:41:04] » Say your names on the y, please.
[3:41:07] » I
[3:41:08] » Jen,
[3:41:09] » Brandon,
[3:41:11] » Did you get hovered? That was like
[3:41:15] » And are
[3:41:18] you and Jenny are nays?
[3:41:21] » I am a nay.
[3:41:26] » Are there any other nays?
[3:41:30] » That passes.
[3:41:31] » Passes.
[3:41:33] » Okay.
[3:41:34] » Okay. So now so the topic you raised
[3:41:38] maybe we need a motion to adjust this
[3:41:40] further.
[3:41:41] » The Yeah. The spending lodged into tax
[3:41:44] is 70%. To put that also into personnel
[3:41:48] by police.
[3:41:49] » Okay. So there's $170,000
[3:41:52] in lodging tax. Correct. My
[3:41:54] understanding is roughly half of that is
[3:41:57] union. So just to be clear, the 70% is
[3:42:01] not applied to the 1070.
[3:42:03] » Right. But just legally what we can
[3:42:04] spend.
[3:42:05] » So we're talking about $85,000
[3:42:07] » Going to personnel.
[3:42:09] » Okay. So we in order to do that, we'd
[3:42:11] have to go back to the tourism fund and
[3:42:14] make that um adjustment as well.
[3:42:18] » True. So we're taking revenue away from
[3:42:20] the tourism fund. There is a contingency
[3:42:24] fund uh could be reduced
[3:42:28] » Right now.
[3:42:30] » I'd rather refund our We're going to
[3:42:32] have discussions. We're going to start
[3:42:34] I'd rather refund our planning
[3:42:36] department which is down to 0.9. got a
[3:42:38] whole development coming with no
[3:42:39] planning. We're down to 0.9 planners.
[3:42:42] We're down to one building guy. I mean,
[3:42:44] if we're gonna I mean, I think the
[3:42:45] police plenty of money to work with and
[3:42:49] they're going to do just fine.
[3:42:50] » And uh that's, you know, and I don't
[3:42:52] think we should be
[3:42:53] » And they may be going out for a fee
[3:42:55] anyways.
[3:42:56] » So,
[3:42:56] » Right, they might be going out for a fee
[3:42:57] and people go, "Hey, we, you know, might
[3:43:00] go out for a fee anyway."
[3:43:01] I agree about planning a building, but
[3:43:03] when I asked Mike, you know, when he was
[3:43:06] sitting back here, when we had our
[3:43:07] directors, the thing is is that there's
[3:43:08] not a lot of activity going on right
[3:43:10] now. So, right, when they start getting
[3:43:12] more fees, then they actually get more
[3:43:15] money in their accounts. Right now, it's
[3:43:17] dry. Oregon is dry right now generally
[3:43:20] for construction. So, I mean, if they
[3:43:23] started getting more revenue, we had
[3:43:25] more building, then we could also hire
[3:43:26] more people. So, we're kind of building
[3:43:29] that because I obviously I we we need to
[3:43:32] make sure that when that does happen,
[3:43:34] we're ready. But at this time, you heard
[3:43:36] him say that they don't have anything
[3:43:40] really going on right now. I'd rather I
[3:43:42] mean I I hear you and what I I really
[3:43:47] think Jacob does a huge role at our city
[3:43:49] as far as planning
[3:43:51] » And
[3:43:53] think that there is a lot of work that
[3:43:55] he does as far as customer service
[3:43:59] » And
[3:44:01] people who have questions about whether
[3:44:02] they're going to buy property come to
[3:44:03] him and they get answers. So, I just
[3:44:05] » But I also I agree with what you're
[3:44:07] saying, Steve, but I also look at how
[3:44:08] much money it costs when taxpayers are
[3:44:11] paying put these officers in place,
[3:44:13] we're looking at $150,000,
[3:44:15] right? So that's basically
[3:44:18] » So that's where I come on the the fact
[3:44:21] that if we can save individuals that are
[3:44:24] actually you know what I mean that it's
[3:44:26] very expensive to hire them and we've
[3:44:28] the citizens here have already paid for
[3:44:30] them then seems like money should be
[3:44:34] allocated there and I would feel the
[3:44:36] same way if it was planning or public
[3:44:38] works or whatever the case is if it was
[3:44:40] the same scenario. I I get you. And I'm
[3:44:43] going to come back to Dan Tanel from the
[3:44:47] union showed up and he says the union's
[3:44:49] going to make concessions
[3:44:52] and I say we drive a hard bargain. And
[3:44:55] one of the things that officers have
[3:44:57] going for them is St. Ellens. It's very
[3:45:01] relaxed place. It's a very nice place to
[3:45:04] work. There are a lot of benefits to
[3:45:06] working here versus anywhere else in the
[3:45:08] world. I can say for me I could live
[3:45:12] anywhere in the world. Anywhere in the
[3:45:14] world right now. I choose to live here
[3:45:16] because of the place this is. And I
[3:45:18] think that goes for most everybody in
[3:45:21] this room. And that to me pays
[3:45:24] dividends. And so I think that uh St.
[3:45:29] Ellens is an exception. And I think we
[3:45:31] should drive a hard bargain with the
[3:45:33] union and and
[3:45:37] make you know have them H lower the pays
[3:45:40] to the point where you this isn't a town
[3:45:43] necessarily where
[3:45:45] somebody's going to come and say I'm
[3:45:46] gonna get rich because I got to get paid
[3:45:48] the most of the police. You maybe
[3:45:49] Portland's that place. I don't know how
[3:45:52] that's going to be negotiated. But I say
[3:45:54] we have a hard bargain, keep our
[3:45:57] planner, and we keep our police, too. I
[3:46:01] think a lot of these guys are going to
[3:46:02] say, "I'd rather take a bake up than
[3:46:03] move."
[3:46:04] » My turn.
[3:46:05] » Yeah. Go ahead.
[3:46:07] Um,
[3:46:09] I know for a fact, I'm not outing
[3:46:11] anyone. There's lots of them. They will
[3:46:14] not go anywhere else because they cannot
[3:46:16] get any better than St. Helens. I'm not
[3:46:19] too worried about that part.
[3:46:20] » Um, and I respect them. I understand. I
[3:46:23] appreciate them. I think they're all
[3:46:25] decent
[3:46:26] guys. Um, me too. What I would like to
[3:46:30] stop talking about is funding the
[3:46:31] police. We have people our It's not
[3:46:34] open. The city is not open now. We have
[3:46:36] people that are terrified for their
[3:46:37] jobs. We have, you know,
[3:46:41] » Let's if we're going to take something
[3:46:43] from tourism, let's put on there. And I
[3:46:44] really, really would like to get rid of
[3:46:46] the site. I I just, you can't sit here
[3:46:50] in a broke city and continue to bring in
[3:46:54] money and then actually pretend like you
[3:46:55] care about the public.
[3:46:56] » So, I'm not sure how far we can go
[3:46:58] without this statement.
[3:46:59] » I understand.
[3:47:00] » So, I I I want to say I'm not
[3:47:01] discounting the discussion or the habit.
[3:47:04] We're making recommendations. I am
[3:47:06] making a recommendation that council
[3:47:07] bring their site.
[3:47:09] » Make a motion
[3:47:11] » And make sure we get the disclosure.
[3:47:12] Yes.
[3:47:13] » Let's let's get the disclosure because
[3:47:14] we can't see.
[3:47:15] » So, I'm going to disclose that I have an
[3:47:17] actual conflict of interest because I do
[3:47:20] receive a stipen for the city of S.
[3:47:23] » Who was
[3:47:26] » For the same reasons?
[3:47:27] » Yeah.
[3:47:28] » Council uh President Chilman.
[3:47:31] » No.
[3:47:32] make a motion to get it done.
[3:47:35] » Quick quick question. Well, we'll talk
[3:47:36] about this one, but you started one on
[3:47:38] the table that I think we need to also
[3:47:39] talk about after this one, which is
[3:47:42] front office being closed.
[3:47:43] » I would like to discuss that as well.
[3:47:45] Actually, I would be happy to
[3:47:47] » Go there.
[3:47:48] » I would like to make a motion that
[3:47:51] council for council that they forgo
[3:47:54] their statements. Second.
[3:47:59] Uh
[3:48:00] so if you make that motion but we are
[3:48:04] looking to pass a budget today. What's
[3:48:06] the ramification here? We have to wait
[3:48:07] for city council to meet before we
[3:48:10] » This recommendation.
[3:48:11] » Oh okay.
[3:48:12] » We vote on the totality of it and then
[3:48:14] all of this they could completely toss
[3:48:16] out.
[3:48:17] » They can override it.
[3:48:18] » This whole last three days we've met
[3:48:20] just so they've declared their their
[3:48:23] conflict of interest. However, they can
[3:48:26] still vote on it
[3:48:28] » Because they've declared
[3:48:29] » It's under Senate Bill 9.
[3:48:31] » Sure. Sure. Sure.
[3:48:31] » The same thing we talked about.
[3:48:32] » Yeah. I was just checking.
[3:48:34] » I should have said that as well, but
[3:48:35] that is how we are able to talk about it
[3:48:37] is the Senate Bill 983 that allows us to
[3:48:40] talk about any finances, have
[3:48:42] discussions, and vote on it. It's the
[3:48:44] law.
[3:48:44] » Gotcha.
[3:48:45] » As long as rest committee
[3:48:48] allows.
[3:48:49] » Okay. Is there any additional discussion
[3:48:52] before we move to vote on this motion?
[3:48:57] » I just appreciate all their hard work
[3:48:58] and I know how much time they put in.
[3:49:00] » Yeah, it's
[3:49:01] » And uh and I can tell you uh
[3:49:04] it's hard for me. I I know it seems like
[3:49:07] a small number, but it is a big number.
[3:49:09] It's going to help. And we're we are
[3:49:11] down to it. But I want to say that I
[3:49:14] know which way I'm going on this, but I
[3:49:17] see the council people at a lot of
[3:49:18] meetings
[3:49:20] and I know how hard they work.
[3:49:22] » So I'd like to have a little bit of
[3:49:24] discussion about that. Like I donate my
[3:49:26] entire stipen. So I I can go either way,
[3:49:30] but I will point out that um for on
[3:49:33] behalf of the other council members that
[3:49:35] they sit up here on the dasis, they are
[3:49:37] cussed at, they are cursed at, they
[3:49:39] incur uh I mean I have incurred at least
[3:49:42] $40,000 in my own personal legal fees
[3:49:45] based on misinformation and accusations.
[3:49:47] And the thing is is that if we're
[3:49:49] expecting people to go to all these
[3:49:51] different meetings and sit up here and
[3:49:53] be verbally abused by citizens on most
[3:49:55] cases, it's really uh probably a hard
[3:49:57] pill to swallow for a lot of my fellow
[3:50:00] council members. Me, I, you know, I I
[3:50:04] donate mine anyway, but I I know that
[3:50:06] it's really impactful. And maybe if we
[3:50:08] had a more harmonious and uh nice
[3:50:12] decorum that made it a little easier, I
[3:50:14] can't see that most people would want to
[3:50:16] sit up here and and take that for no
[3:50:18] flitory amount.
[3:50:20] » You know, I think if you're in politics,
[3:50:21] you shouldn't get paid.
[3:50:23] » I don't I don't I mean, I don't disagree
[3:50:25] with that. I But it does make a
[3:50:28] difference.
[3:50:28] » Love your community, you want to show
[3:50:29] up,
[3:50:30] » But
[3:50:31] there's a a lot of people and it's a lot
[3:50:35] a lot of time. like there is that piece
[3:50:37] of it that there is a lot of meetings
[3:50:39] that people go to and
[3:50:43] » More the phone
[3:50:46] » She was not check
[3:50:48] » I I'm I mean I'm not on behalf of my
[3:50:51] fellow council members I'm not going to
[3:50:53] be in me personally I'm not going to be
[3:50:56] in favor just because I see what they go
[3:50:59] through and um I think that
[3:51:03] I think that the amount of work and time
[3:51:05] they put into it. If you look at
[3:51:06] councelor Huard, how much time he has
[3:51:08] put into saving this this city money on
[3:51:12] the value engineering for the police
[3:51:16] department. If you look at how much he
[3:51:18] time he's spending with the Romano
[3:51:20] properties, bringing his skill set down,
[3:51:23] if you look at Gunnerson and what he's
[3:51:25] doing, all the work that councelor Sun's
[3:51:27] doing. Um,
[3:51:30] I mean, I just think that
[3:51:34] so I that's my job is to to advocate for
[3:51:37] my fellow council members. So, I will
[3:51:39] not be in favor, but I think
[3:51:41] » Was the motion to recommend a reduction
[3:51:44] or to remove the state
[3:51:47] because we're broke right now. Something
[3:51:49] that a different council could always,
[3:51:52] but we're just referring to them.
[3:51:55] Yeah. Is it not actually cutting them at
[3:51:57] this point?
[3:51:59] » I suppose it puts it on the agenda
[3:52:01] almost.
[3:52:02] » I think it I think it is it should be a
[3:52:04] discussion. I mean, I think I brought it
[3:52:06] up like a few months ago council. I
[3:52:08] think it should be discussed, but I
[3:52:09] think that the different dynamic. So,
[3:52:12] I'd have to advocate for my council
[3:52:14] members. I get nothing out of it. So,
[3:52:16] » I will advocate for them.
[3:52:18] » I agree. It it should be discussed. I
[3:52:20] think um I would love to be in a
[3:52:22] position where I could donate my whole
[3:52:24] stipend. I'm not currently in that
[3:52:25] position. I'd love to be someone that
[3:52:27] could live anywhere in the world. I'm
[3:52:29] not I live here because I can afford to
[3:52:31] live here barely. Um I have a job. This
[3:52:34] is not my job. So I have a full-time job
[3:52:36] that pays the bills. I didn't do this
[3:52:38] because of the money. Um but I take time
[3:52:41] off of my work so that I can come here
[3:52:43] and fulfill council duties and attend
[3:52:45] meetings. And so, um,
[3:52:48] just something to keep in mind. There is
[3:52:50] a lot that goes into this, a lot that
[3:52:52] that people don't see and understand and
[3:52:56] and that's fine. But again, I'd love to
[3:52:58] be in a position where this wasn't a
[3:53:00] part of my income, but it is. And it's
[3:53:03] not a decision that this council made.
[3:53:04] It's a decision that was made long ago,
[3:53:07] many councils ago. So again, I'm not
[3:53:09] here for the money, but
[3:53:12] it's not much, but it does it does help
[3:53:14] me.
[3:53:16] » Councelor Hubard, do you have anything
[3:53:17] to say?
[3:53:19] » Well, I'm sort of in the same as as uh
[3:53:22] Brandon. Um
[3:53:25] when I'm working for the city doing what
[3:53:28] I'm asked, um I'm not working for my
[3:53:30] company. And uh this one's job is taken
[3:53:35] much more today. Let's see. right now
[3:53:38] about 13 hours I've been working on city
[3:53:40] things of today only.
[3:53:42] » Thank you for that.
[3:53:44] » Uh I would say you know if you want to
[3:53:47] pay me 1% of what I'm saving the city
[3:53:50] what I've figured I'm doing that's fine.
[3:53:52] I'll do that
[3:53:56] then then I'll be doing pretty good. I
[3:53:58] won't have to have my own job. So I
[3:54:01] don't I think it's it's it's a give and
[3:54:02] take and if people don't feel we're
[3:54:06] worth it then
[3:54:08] » It's not a matter of worth it's that we
[3:54:10] are broke our city is broke and you have
[3:54:13] to find money somewhere we have
[3:54:15] employees that are coming to us saying
[3:54:16] we don't know if we have a job or not
[3:54:18] and I personally think it's in good
[3:54:19] faith that people that are being elected
[3:54:22] let go money right now until we get on
[3:54:25] our feet that's my opinion
[3:54:27] » Election coming
[3:54:28] » I think at a minimum I would send a very
[3:54:29] positive uh message to the voters,
[3:54:32] especially if if another fee is proposed
[3:54:36] on the ballot to at least see sort of
[3:54:38] this token of city council saying,
[3:54:41] "Yeah, we got a hard job. We got this
[3:54:43] stipen. We understand it's meaningful,
[3:54:45] but as a sort of a token of we're going
[3:54:47] to take a cut while the city takes a
[3:54:49] cut." I I think there's room for
[3:54:51] discussion there, whether it's reduction
[3:54:53] to a dollar or some percentage. Um, but
[3:54:56] I'm not generally opposed to stipens. I
[3:54:58] think it's a it's a it's a particular
[3:55:00] circumstance of hard times right now.
[3:55:02] » This does include a 10% reduction in
[3:55:04] their stipen in this budget already
[3:55:08] clarification that is already
[3:55:09] » Yeah. What's that?
[3:55:10] » That they the stipens have been reduced
[3:55:12] by 10% year over year.
[3:55:14] » Yeah. Here,
[3:55:15] » Right?
[3:55:15] » Is this how about this? I'm not trying
[3:55:18] to kill this, but we are in discussion.
[3:55:20] » Yeah.
[3:55:21] » Um we cut it to half and we say that
[3:55:25] it's going to be front-loaded. It'll be
[3:55:27] gone January 1. That way, those people
[3:55:29] that are sitting will make it through.
[3:55:31] And nobody says you have to keep you
[3:55:33] don't you don't have to run again. You
[3:55:34] can you can bail out
[3:55:38] an election in November.
[3:55:43] » Yeah. It's not worth it to me.
[3:55:45] » That's an that's an interesting idea.
[3:55:47] » Then you can just say I'm not going to
[3:55:49] do it anymore. And you know, you know,
[3:55:53] Russ, I appreciate the time. And I can
[3:55:54] tell you my time is equal to yours today
[3:55:56] and yesterday and the amount of time
[3:55:58] I've spent on this with this pile of
[3:56:00] work.
[3:56:00] » Well, just the budget alone, I can I can
[3:56:02] vouch for the amount of hours I've put
[3:56:04] in. I can only imagine the time you're
[3:56:06] putting in the amount of hours,
[3:56:08] » But that way the people who are
[3:56:10] dependent on it same as the employees
[3:56:13] here, right? that you could you could be
[3:56:16] saying six months is going away and that
[3:56:19] way people who are
[3:56:21] » We could do a stipen furlow
[3:56:25] » It comes back and break my brain right
[3:56:27] now I'm having a really hard time with
[3:56:28] basically
[3:56:31] » Actually
[3:56:33] I don't know I'm just I'm just saying if
[3:56:34] what we're looking for is a temporary
[3:56:37] » Adjustment it could be reviewed again in
[3:56:39] the future but we could say we're taking
[3:56:40] a a break
[3:56:41] » That is legally in the setting council
[3:56:43] members cannot vote CSL.
[3:56:45] » Yes. Yes, we can.
[3:56:47] » They can vote.
[3:56:47] » Senate bill 983 that allows us to is the
[3:56:50] purpose of that whole entire law is that
[3:56:52] they that's why it went in effect is
[3:56:54] because of those pre precise reasons and
[3:56:56] municipalities having somebody in a
[3:56:58] family member. It's such a small minutia
[3:57:00] of the budget. But yeah, that's exactly
[3:57:03] why as you had people like
[3:57:04] » They can vote to increase their pay.
[3:57:07] » They can.
[3:57:08] » Gloria, can we can we earmark money for
[3:57:10] six?
[3:57:10] » Yeah, it's it's crazy. Like literally
[3:57:13] like
[3:57:14] » For six months
[3:57:15] » Because it was obviously something we
[3:57:16] looked into
[3:57:17] » The line item
[3:57:18] » Reduce this by half and basically that's
[3:57:22] » And you say that's your recommendation
[3:57:24] and yeah you can do it that way.
[3:57:26] » Could could we say that if if the budget
[3:57:29] comes in too high basically hold the
[3:57:32] stipens back for the whole year and if
[3:57:34] the budget doesn't pan out we run over
[3:57:36] budget
[3:57:38] we don't pay stipens. It's make it a
[3:57:40] contingent contingent payout on
[3:57:42] performance.
[3:57:46] » Let's align some incentives here.
[3:57:49] » You know, the budget is the budget and
[3:57:51] then and it's either there to to to
[3:57:54] work.
[3:57:54] » But if you knew
[3:57:55] » Determination, it's May. We're going to
[3:57:57] say you don't get next month's stipen
[3:57:59] next year if the budget goes over.
[3:58:02] » No. Would the stipen would be paid at a
[3:58:04] lump sum annually then?
[3:58:07] Well, that doesn't get us where we need
[3:58:08] to go because we've got other people
[3:58:10] that are saying, "Am I should I should I
[3:58:12] take this job?"
[3:58:13] » I'm just presenting another another
[3:58:15] option that may get an incentive
[3:58:17] alignment.
[3:58:17] » See what you're saying? I look at it
[3:58:19] from a political lens and that's that's
[3:58:22] bad thing that could happen. I wouldn't
[3:58:24] I wouldn't do that. Um, and honestly, I
[3:58:28] think we're hashing something out that's
[3:58:29] going to go to them anyway. So, I think
[3:58:32] we just move on the motion and let them
[3:58:34] decide because they're going to decide
[3:58:35] to do what they want to do. Always out.
[3:58:38] » Okay. Right in discussion.
[3:58:41] » Right. Let's move to a vote. All in
[3:58:44] favor?
[3:58:46] » I
[3:58:46] » I
[3:58:48] » I.
[3:58:51] » That was Tusky Gilbert Evans. Who else
[3:58:55] said yes?
[3:58:58] Uh, all oppose, please say nay.
[3:59:02] » Jeremy, real quick. It was 50%, right?
[3:59:04] Or it was that they were adopted.
[3:59:06] » It was just that they review.
[3:59:07] » Oh, yeah.
[3:59:08] » Yeah, absolutely. It's just for review.
[3:59:11] » Yeah, for review.
[3:59:12] » Okay. So, is that Are you now
[3:59:14] » The motion was to review getting rid of
[3:59:16] the statement,
[3:59:18] » Right? But it's not
[3:59:19] » Take it out. That's coming out of the
[3:59:21] budget. That's not an
[3:59:22] » We're asking them to remove there's no
[3:59:25] » Oh, are you saying 100% remove all of
[3:59:27] it?
[3:59:28] » That's what my motion was for and then
[3:59:30] they can decide. It's just it's just
[3:59:32] » Well, no, we're making I make
[3:59:35] recommendation, but they're the ones
[3:59:36] that make
[3:59:38] » What's the motion on the table?
[3:59:39] » Let's repeat the motion. We'll repeat
[3:59:41] the
[3:59:42] » I move to remove the siphon
[3:59:47] council.
[3:59:48] » Okay. I think that's a different motion
[3:59:50] than I heard before. Before it was a
[3:59:52] recommendation for city council.
[3:59:53] » I just meant that it goes what we're
[3:59:55] doing right now. All of this is a
[3:59:57] recommendation that that goes off.
[3:59:58] » Okay.
[3:59:59] » That's what I meant by that.
[4:00:00] » We had a motion on the table.
[4:00:01] » True.
[4:00:02] » We did. We got to close that. We've got
[4:00:03] to close that. I agree. We've got to
[4:00:05] close that one. We'll have to make
[4:00:06] another motion because the way it was
[4:00:08] understood before was a recommendation
[4:00:10] for city council to review,
[4:00:12] » Not not to change a line item.
[4:00:15] » That's fine. But what I I said it was
[4:00:18] for me. That was my talking.
[4:00:20] » So that was the motion.
[4:00:22] » Yes.
[4:00:23] » Okay. And it was seconded, right?
[4:00:25] » Well, I'm not sure it was clearly
[4:00:27] understood.
[4:00:27] » It was not. It came across as review.
[4:00:30] Maybe we just need to finish that.
[4:00:31] » Just let's just go through the procedure
[4:00:33] here. So, we've got the motion which is
[4:00:35] to set the
[4:00:37] uh the side bends to zero.
[4:00:42] That's
[4:00:43] » Your motion. Is that your motion? That's
[4:00:44] my motion. Second. Second. Uh, all those
[4:00:47] in favor, please say yay.
[4:00:49] » I
[4:00:51] » I
[4:00:55] say I
[4:00:55] » I
[4:00:56] » Okay, all opposed. We've
[4:01:01] » Passes.
[4:01:03] » Okay, there we go. 62 grand. We uh
[4:01:06] » We have now found
[4:01:08] » $265,000
[4:01:11] for the general fund. Well, now we need
[4:01:13] to talk about Right.
[4:01:15] » Well, what I got some more line items I
[4:01:17] want to go.
[4:01:18] » Well, I I'm not sure what you're
[4:01:20] referring to, but were you referring to
[4:01:21] uh the hours of operation? Going back to
[4:01:23] that topic. Okay.
[4:01:24] » Yeah, I did have on my thing that
[4:01:26] discussed with reopening the city and
[4:01:28] keeping it open, ensuring that we have
[4:01:29] budgeted enough money to keep it open
[4:01:31] all year. What is budget going to allow
[4:01:34] us to do that?
[4:01:36] » No, we I think we know that, right? So I
[4:01:39] think the question is how much it cost
[4:01:42] to keep the
[4:01:45] normal business hours at the city
[4:01:48] offices uh open to the
[4:01:52] citizens to come. I think that's the
[4:01:53] concern right Steve is that the hours
[4:01:55] have been
[4:01:56] » One of my points discuss reopening the
[4:01:58] city and keeping it open and ensuring
[4:02:00] that we have budgeted enough money to
[4:02:02] keep it open all year
[4:02:04] » By keeping it open.
[4:02:05] » Mayor had suggested moving over some of
[4:02:07] the tax a lobbying pack
[4:02:09] » That's already done.
[4:02:10] » Yeah. So, hold that thought for a
[4:02:11] second. I think let's define what it is.
[4:02:13] Are we talking about 9 to5 Monday
[4:02:14] through Friday?
[4:02:16] » Well, it's Yes.
[4:02:18] » Yeah.
[4:02:18] » I think that that this is more of a
[4:02:20] diverse question, right? Because then is
[4:02:22] it just keeping the doors open? Is it
[4:02:24] one person in front of like what is
[4:02:25] actually that mean? Is it just having
[4:02:27] open doors? We might not have the staff
[4:02:29] to facilitate any of the needs for the
[4:02:31] people that comes through the doors, but
[4:02:32] it's the goal to have somebody stationed
[4:02:34] there 9 to5. Do you see what I'm saying?
[4:02:35] Am I saying that we needed two
[4:02:37] employees, right? Because the handling
[4:02:39] of money and we could get into some
[4:02:41] risk.
[4:02:42] » Well, there's there's more to that than
[4:02:46] budget. Looking at the budget, there's
[4:02:48] more to that. We this budget includes
[4:02:54] laying off two of the front staff. So,
[4:02:58] one in utility billing and one in um
[4:03:02] administrative assistant here. So, Those
[4:03:05] those are two reductions. And then
[4:03:07] everybody else is on furlows. So a
[4:03:11] reduced week
[4:03:13] at 36 hours a week.
[4:03:16] » We've restored the library. We restored
[4:03:18] the wreck.
[4:03:18] » You did.
[4:03:19] » But everybody else in city hall is on
[4:03:22] furlows.
[4:03:22] » We have $265,000
[4:03:24] now.
[4:03:26] » That's not going to
[4:03:28] that's not going to go far enough to um
[4:03:33] keep
[4:03:35] Keep the doors open.
[4:03:36] » What? What?
[4:03:39] » Level seven. What are the hours today?
[4:03:41] What doors are open? What hours?
[4:03:44] » The annex is open.
[4:03:46] » Just the annex and it's open
[4:03:49] um which days and times. I'm just trying
[4:03:51] to
[4:03:51] » Well, it's not open now. I'm thinking
[4:03:54] last week
[4:03:55] » Door open is 8:30 to 5.
[4:03:58] » 8:30 to 5 with an hour left.
[4:03:59] » 8 to 12, 1 to 5 Monday through Friday.
[4:04:01] » Okay. Pretty typical. And that's Monday
[4:04:04] through Friday.
[4:04:06] » Yes,
[4:04:06] » It is until the furlows go into effect.
[4:04:09] Yeah.
[4:04:11] » We
[4:04:11] » Okay. Post furls it will be
[4:04:15] hours
[4:04:18] only. Right.
[4:04:19] » Haven't fully vetted that out. But the
[4:04:21] the the challenge is is that we're
[4:04:24] reduced staff and reduced
[4:04:29] we lost staff and reduced hours. So, we
[4:04:31] still have some critical work to be to
[4:04:33] get done and
[4:04:36] » Definely have an impact on our hours to
[4:04:37] the public,
[4:04:38] » Right? It's going to impact our public
[4:04:40] hours.
[4:04:41] » Okay. So, we're we're not settled on
[4:04:44] exactly what the reduction is going to
[4:04:46] look like. We just know it's less hours,
[4:04:48] less availability to the public,
[4:04:50] » Right?
[4:04:51] » What department is in what department if
[4:04:54] we funded it able there to be more open
[4:04:58] hours?
[4:05:00] uh
[4:05:02] finance and administration
[4:05:05] » Using the community development
[4:05:06] assistant was a big loss because it
[4:05:08] supports Jacob supports Mike Jacob's
[4:05:12] having to do very administrative intense
[4:05:13] things rather than working on planning
[4:05:15] for the city and we're just one big
[4:05:17] project
[4:05:18] » Coming through the door away from big
[4:05:20] number because we have 265,000 that mean
[4:05:23] you know another 100 grand we should
[4:05:24] start looking through here to find
[4:05:25] another 100 another 100 from the police
[4:05:27] I don't know but how do we keep the
[4:05:29] doors is open.
[4:05:32] » That position would go a long ways.
[4:05:34] » Is that the admin assistant?
[4:05:36] » Yeah, the planning.
[4:05:37] » I'll tell you how much
[4:05:38] » To add those two positions.
[4:05:52] » While she's getting those, there's still
[4:05:54] the furlows to 36 hours a week. Does any
[4:05:57] of that affect staffing or that's just I
[4:06:01] cannot know. It does.
[4:06:02] » Are we staggering those days?
[4:06:06] » Administr was to not stagger the days so
[4:06:08] that would
[4:06:09] » Oh, to so the one like,
[4:06:12] you know, if we're going to be closed to
[4:06:13] the public, we'd like it to be
[4:06:15] consistent.
[4:06:17] » Develop an expectation of when we're
[4:06:18] open and closed.
[4:06:20] » Sounds like they're leaving
[4:06:23] because they're new jobs. So then what
[4:06:24] are we going to do? That's what it
[4:06:26] sounded like to me. They were trying to
[4:06:27] find jobs.
[4:06:28] » Oh, that Well, they were notified they
[4:06:29] were going to lose their position.
[4:06:31] You looking too? Yeah.
[4:06:33] » Well, but then we What are we going to
[4:06:34] do?
[4:06:36] » Well, what we do is we put a job out
[4:06:38] there and we say, "This is how much it
[4:06:40] pays and we hope somebody lands the ad
[4:06:42] and we train them and we have them come
[4:06:44] work for us." Hopefully,
[4:06:46] » That's that's what you do.
[4:06:51] » I don't know. I'm just trying to put a
[4:06:53] number in so we can have the doors.
[4:06:55] » I am curious to see what
[4:06:58] » And Gloria Gloria is gonna
[4:07:00] » Yeah, it's
[4:07:02] » Right. Can we can we shove that?
[4:07:05] » Yeah, let's do that.
[4:07:06] » So, can we talk about million dollars
[4:07:08] for a stage? Um, I don't know where that
[4:07:10] money is coming from, but I want to
[4:07:13] » Did you come up with that?
[4:07:15] I saw it as well
[4:07:17] » And and I think it's being financed
[4:07:18] through
[4:07:20] » It's a a placeholder
[4:07:24] » In the community development fund
[4:07:25] onetime revenue funds.
[4:07:27] » Yeah.
[4:07:29] » Says it be augmented by a grant
[4:07:35] » Grant. Yeah. There is placeholder.
[4:07:37] » Okay. So we Okay. I move that there's
[4:07:41] also $1 million in funding of a stage.
[4:07:43] » Before we get too far, I just want to
[4:07:45] clarify.
[4:07:46] We make an adjustment of this. So, you
[4:07:48] cut it. There's no impact on the general
[4:07:50] fund.
[4:07:51] » No impact on any fund. There's no money
[4:07:53] there already.
[4:07:54] » There is.
[4:07:55] » There there is some money. There's a
[4:07:57] balance in that fund.
[4:07:58] » You know what? Honestly, I'd rather tax
[4:08:00] the community development.
[4:08:01] » Not arguing for it. I'm just stating a
[4:08:03] fact. If there is money in the fund, it
[4:08:05] won't affect the job. Just
[4:08:07] » Yeah. I don't want to spend a million
[4:08:09] dollars on stage. And
[4:08:11] » I mean, on that topic, thinking about a
[4:08:13] stage, I heard the number. I don't know
[4:08:14] if it's right or not. $40,000 to rent a
[4:08:17] stage, which in my mind, you could rent
[4:08:21] one for 50 years or something, you know,
[4:08:23] a very long 20 years at least for the
[4:08:26] million-dollar cost. So, I don't know,
[4:08:29] you know, I don't know enough detail
[4:08:30] about the project itself, but it seems
[4:08:32] like in the financial condition we're
[4:08:34] in, we tend towards lower costs than a
[4:08:38] one-time investment.
[4:08:41] » I was saying it may have a grant.
[4:08:42] » Well, and that's great, too, but then if
[4:08:44] the grant hasn't been secured, maybe we
[4:08:48] shouldn't be put pushing it through
[4:08:49] here.
[4:08:49] » It's in a fund that doesn't exist.
[4:08:52] » I I agree with one time revenue fund.
[4:08:53] It's not There's no recurring things
[4:08:56] happening there.
[4:08:57] » Yeah. Yeah, but at the same time then
[4:08:59] that's spending a million dollars of
[4:09:01] non-recurring revenue and we'd want to
[4:09:03] make sure we're spending it very wisely
[4:09:06] » And that we don't
[4:09:07] » And I think a grant's a great idea. I
[4:09:09] just think we should secure the grant
[4:09:11] before we spend the money. In fact, I
[4:09:13] think I mean if necessary, let's say
[4:09:15] let's say the grant is secured mid year
[4:09:17] or something, could a supplemental
[4:09:19] budget be done to pull it in?
[4:09:23] there's a grant then I'm sure they can
[4:09:25] discuss it but
[4:09:26] » So so okay so on that on that basis I'm
[4:09:31] I'm good with this discussion understand
[4:09:33] » Okay I'm going to make a motion that we
[4:09:35] remove the Columbia View Park stage of
[4:09:39] $1 million from the proposed budget at
[4:09:43] page $119 of 147
[4:09:46] » Okay we've got a second
[4:09:48] » I need to catch up on that where is that
[4:09:51] » That's at page 119 of There's a $1
[4:09:54] million line item.
[4:09:56] We'll see clearly.
[4:10:02] » That's that's actually budgeted in the
[4:10:04] community development fund
[4:10:06] » Capital improvement project.
[4:10:08] » It's Yeah, but that's not the fund where
[4:10:09] it's budgeting at.
[4:10:10] » Yeah, that's my understanding. It's
[4:10:11] coming out through
[4:10:13] » That community development under uh
[4:10:18] liberty
[4:10:20] for a million dollar.
[4:10:22] » Yeah. So, right. And and this is really
[4:10:25] where it shows up and becomes obvious
[4:10:27] because I think you're right. It's
[4:10:28] actually inside of a lineup.
[4:10:30] » Yeah. So, that's page 85,
[4:10:33] » Which actually it made it kind of tricky
[4:10:35] to understand what was going on.
[4:10:38] » Okay. I make a motion. I've already had
[4:10:40] a motion. It's the same motion. Just
[4:10:42] want to get the page right. that the
[4:10:44] expenditure
[4:10:46] capital outlay
[4:10:49] budgeted in the community development
[4:10:51] fund of $1 million
[4:10:53] riverfront
[4:10:55] which was part for Columbia Bart stage
[4:11:00] moved from the proposed budget.
[4:11:08] All right. Any further discussion before
[4:11:10] we move to a vote?
[4:11:14] » I don't know how a stage is a million
[4:11:16] dollars. So, I've a little bit,
[4:11:18] » You know,
[4:11:19] » I I don't know the details of it, but I
[4:11:20] don't know how it's a million.
[4:11:22] » I'm kind of on the same page. It um I
[4:11:24] mean, I believe you could spend a
[4:11:25] million dollars on one, but I also
[4:11:27] wondered has any planning or or work
[4:11:30] been done around this? I mean there's a
[4:11:31] full design for his new stance floor and
[4:11:35] like a dressing room kind of thing on
[4:11:36] the side.
[4:11:37] » It's very beautiful architectural
[4:11:41] front project. It was a cut in
[4:11:43] riverfront project.
[4:11:45] It was very expensive.
[4:11:47] » That makes more sense.
[4:11:48] » It's not like why we cut it.
[4:11:49] » That's not how it comes across though,
[4:11:51] John. It comes across as like you in a
[4:11:54] stage and
[4:11:57] » Engineering on it and the design. But
[4:11:59] » Yeah, that makes sense. No
[4:12:00] » Question them. Have you done any audio?
[4:12:02] And they did not and can pour money on
[4:12:05] that. Okay. I don't have a lot of faith
[4:12:07] in that.
[4:12:08] » Okay.
[4:12:09] » It's good to know because I think up
[4:12:10] here like it's nice to understand more.
[4:12:12] » Well, maybe it's worth some further
[4:12:15] council discussion or or something later
[4:12:17] and we can postpone it.
[4:12:19] » See, the city's open.
[4:12:20] » Yeah.
[4:12:21] » Yeah.
[4:12:22] » We start spending a million dollars on
[4:12:23] the stage. I mean, I I I do have to say
[4:12:25] I think if if we build a stage and then
[4:12:27] we end up having fewer police officers,
[4:12:29] » Yeah.
[4:12:30] » It's not going to be a good look.
[4:12:31] » We have no cops. City stores aren't
[4:12:33] open, but man, do we have a stage?
[4:12:35] » Yeah.
[4:12:38] » Right.
[4:12:39] » Okay. So, we had a motion. We had a
[4:12:42] second. Any other discussion before we
[4:12:44] move to a vote? Hearing none. All those
[4:12:47] in favor, please say I.
[4:12:49] » I.
[4:12:52] Everybody was back there.
[4:12:54] » Yeah, that was an easy one. Thanks,
[4:12:55] guys.
[4:12:56] » Okay. And then while we're on community
[4:12:58] development fund, the industrial
[4:13:00] business park, the proposed $15,146,000
[4:13:06] expenditure. Is that for the
[4:13:10] Is that for the Is that for the power
[4:13:13] substation?
[4:13:14] » It is. And there's a um It's a pass
[4:13:17] through revenue that pays for that.
[4:13:19] » I was just checking on that. Thank you.
[4:13:22] Um and then
[4:13:23] » Can can I actually um
[4:13:27] before we start digging into other
[4:13:28] stuff, did we have a an answer on the
[4:13:31] previous item we
[4:13:33] » So to replace the two front office
[4:13:37] positions that are being laid off, it
[4:13:41] would be $170,000.
[4:13:44] » We we have recovered enough to do that
[4:13:46] to fund that. And that would go to which
[4:13:48] department?
[4:13:50] Um
[4:13:51] roughly half would go to uh finance
[4:13:56] and a quarter would go to planning and a
[4:14:00] quarter would go to building.
[4:14:02] » Does that put Jacob back to full-time?
[4:14:06] » No,
[4:14:07] » This doesn't affect the furlow hours.
[4:14:08] » No, this is just the front office hours,
[4:14:11] » But the assistant worked with him. So,
[4:14:13] he would have
[4:14:14] » Yeah, this is just the front office,
[4:14:17] those two positions. So one more time.
[4:14:19] » It doesn't it doesn't contemplate
[4:14:21] furlows for those
[4:14:22] » More time on the numbers right which
[4:14:24] department I'm sorry just want to jot
[4:14:26] them down.
[4:14:28] » I heard quarter to planning
[4:14:30] » A quarter to planning a quarter to
[4:14:32] building and a half to finance.
[4:14:35] » Can I ask you a question? That's for two
[4:14:38] people right for front is what we just
[4:14:40] decided right you need two people
[4:14:42] » Or can you close for lunch?
[4:14:43] » It's each side. We do close for lunch.
[4:14:45] » Okay. We do need two people.
[4:14:49] because
[4:14:51] » Right so one's utility billing on on the
[4:14:54] annex side and one is the administrative
[4:14:57] system on this side
[4:14:58] » So that takes care of the risks
[4:15:00] that we you were talking about
[4:15:02] » Right
[4:15:04] » 25
[4:15:07] so
[4:15:23] So half goes to which one again?
[4:15:28] » Finance
[4:15:30] to building quarter to planning.
[4:15:32] » Yeah, I'm going to move that. Well, can
[4:15:34] we I want to So we've got our 265,000,
[4:15:38] right?
[4:15:40] From 67,500
[4:15:42] from the council's tip,
[4:15:44] » Right? We were going to put that in the
[4:15:45] reserve. So now you're looking at taking
[4:15:46] that
[4:15:49] » No, no, no. Because we're still we're
[4:15:51] sticking with a 9% reserve.
[4:15:56] » You want to put in reserves, but
[4:15:57] » No, no. I mean, I thought you were you
[4:16:00] were spending from what we just found,
[4:16:01] which was going to go into the reserve.
[4:16:03] That's my point,
[4:16:03] » Right? I And I was taking what we found
[4:16:07] and and plugging it into
[4:16:09] 50% into finance, 25% into building, and
[4:16:13] then what was the other one?
[4:16:16] planning building.
[4:16:17] » Yeah. So,
[4:16:17] » But then but then you're taking out of
[4:16:18] the reserve effectively.
[4:16:21] » No. Oh, no. We We have a 9% reserve
[4:16:24] after we finished the police discussion.
[4:16:27] Found $265,000.
[4:16:30] » We had five and then we found $200,000
[4:16:34] more dollars which got us to about
[4:16:36] seven. And now you're proposing we pull
[4:16:39] 100. No, no. We've got 300,000 from
[4:16:44] 300,000 from GIF.
[4:16:46] » We can plug all of that into the
[4:16:48] worksheet and where we're at.
[4:16:49] » That'd be great. I But just to clarify,
[4:16:51] Steve, the uh the the line item went
[4:16:54] from 100,000 to 300,000 on the GFSS
[4:16:57] charge. Correct.
[4:16:57] » Which is a plus 200,000.
[4:16:59] » Correct. 200.
[4:17:01] » And then that's so that goes into the
[4:17:03] general fund and then would be added to
[4:17:05] the reserve to take it from five to 7%.
[4:17:09] » Correct. Correct.
[4:17:10] » Okay.
[4:17:10] » And then and then we took 200,000 from
[4:17:13] the police materials and services that
[4:17:15] brought us to 9%.
[4:17:17] » Yes.
[4:17:17] » Right. So Okay. And so then but then if
[4:17:19] you go and take this 170 now you're
[4:17:22] backing back down to about seven.
[4:17:24] » No. No. No. Because
[4:17:26] » Should be
[4:17:27] » Well that 9% was made before we made any
[4:17:29] other cuts. So what we did is we cut the
[4:17:31] 675. So that gave us some extra money.
[4:17:35] And
[4:17:36] and I don't know where the other where
[4:17:39] did the other mystery money come from.
[4:17:41] » What's that?
[4:17:42] » We haven't we actually we actually had
[4:17:44] » On my list. Yeah. No, that's
[4:17:45] » That's in a minute after we get done
[4:17:47] with this.
[4:17:47] » I just want to make sure we're all Okay.
[4:17:48] So, we we had plus 100k to the general
[4:17:52] fund from uh
[4:17:57] » Okay. Plus 65k
[4:17:59] from stipens.
[4:18:02] Then plus 300. Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
[4:18:06] » Right.
[4:18:07] » If you want,
[4:18:08] » Please.
[4:18:09] » If you want to. Yeah, we already
[4:18:11] » I'm just collecting up just numbers. We
[4:18:13] we we
[4:18:15] took action on here. Okay. So, we freed
[4:18:18] up concept
[4:18:21] 565,000.
[4:18:26] » I thought it was 200 from the base,
[4:18:30] » Wasn't it? Uh
[4:18:32] » Oh. We
[4:18:33] » Into the professional
[4:18:37] » Then 200 was still sitting out there for
[4:18:39] materials and services. We put in for
[4:18:42] personnel, excuse me, 100,000.
[4:18:46] » We we we kept 4,36,900
[4:18:51] personnel.
[4:18:53] We reduced materials and services by
[4:18:55] 200. We added 200 for GFSs.
[4:19:01] Uh,
[4:19:03] and that's that gets us to a 9% reserve.
[4:19:12] Okay. So then the 675 is on top of that.
[4:19:15] » I'm not I'm not sure this math is is
[4:19:17] completely mathing. I think I'd like to
[4:19:19] see Gloria plugging in some numbers and
[4:19:20] she'll validate those.
[4:19:22] » It's 100 It's 1% per 100,000.
[4:19:25] » No, no. I understand that. Leave that
[4:19:27] aside. Just not sure I'm agreeing with
[4:19:29] the even the totals and the way you're
[4:19:31] thinking about debits and credits here
[4:19:34] because
[4:19:34] » We added to 200,000. We added 200,000
[4:19:36] for two GFSs.
[4:19:39] » Agreed. So, we're agreed on that one.
[4:19:41] That's
[4:19:42] » And then we and then we took 200,000
[4:19:44] from police materials and services.
[4:19:47] » You need to look at that as what you did
[4:19:49] is you put money in the general fund by
[4:19:52] taking it out of the
[4:19:53] » That's correct. That's why it added to
[4:19:54] our reserves.
[4:19:55] » 200K,
[4:19:58] » Correct?
[4:20:01] » And you have 65.
[4:20:03] » 675.
[4:20:05] » 675.
[4:20:07] » So five. So
[4:20:10] » I'm trying to figure out where the other
[4:20:12] 200.
[4:20:13] » See, that's that's where I'm
[4:20:15] » Oh, I see. That was confusing.
[4:20:18] » See, I was wondering where the other
[4:20:19] money came from. We don't have the
[4:20:21] 200,000 that we wanted to. All right.
[4:20:23] So, we're at 675 then.
[4:20:31] » We cut tourism's budget back.
[4:20:34] » We did.
[4:20:35] » I wanted to get rid of them.
[4:20:37] » Did I just cut it back?
[4:20:39] » Or did we give it We cut We cut their
[4:20:42] expenses back to
[4:20:44] » They're not in the general fund. They're
[4:20:46] not in
[4:20:46] » 158,000. I think was we sent 200 of that
[4:20:50] to the general fund and the rest went
[4:20:51] down the contingency line.
[4:20:53] » Right. Right. So the confusing part for
[4:20:55] me was you said 265,000 and using 65 it
[4:20:59] says 675 but I had already committed the
[4:21:04] 200,000 from
[4:21:06] tourism
[4:21:08] money to GFSS
[4:21:11] 200,000
[4:21:13] from police materials and services to
[4:21:16] build our reserves to 9%.
[4:21:19] Because the idea was to get the reserves
[4:21:21] to 9%. And then so now by cutting
[4:21:24] council stipens.
[4:21:26] » So if you take the 200 and 200 I agree
[4:21:28] we're at 9%. Set that aside. Okay. So
[4:21:30] now we got the 65 and the stipen
[4:21:34] » 6075
[4:21:35] and 1 cent. I don't know.
[4:21:38] » 675.
[4:21:39] » Yeah it's it's fine.
[4:21:41] » Okay.
[4:21:42] » 675
[4:21:44] which you're saying we haven't decided
[4:21:46] where that's
[4:21:48] » Correct
[4:21:48] » Used. Okay. Are there any other for
[4:21:51] » One? We could fund one position
[4:21:54] » Either
[4:21:56] » And and then
[4:21:56] » The quarter 66 66250
[4:22:00] » 60 What's your number again? 67.5,000
[4:22:05] » 675 is the
[4:22:09] » Then we're looking for 170.
[4:22:12] » We're looking at for 26 uh 265,000.
[4:22:17] Isn't that right, Gloria? Is that the
[4:22:19] total for the
[4:22:22] » For the what?
[4:22:22] » I didn't hear that. I heard one.
[4:22:24] » You said 170,000 to fill the two front
[4:22:26] office.
[4:22:28] » The GFS fees from they're the transit
[4:22:31] lodging tax for
[4:22:32] » That's exactly where I was going to go.
[4:22:33] I was like we got 6075 here. I think we
[4:22:37] could maybe make up most of the gap with
[4:22:39] the
[4:22:42] » But it's only 85.
[4:22:44] » That's right. So we're at
[4:22:47] 150 250
[4:22:49] » Got 175 to go.
[4:22:51] » They can't figure that.
[4:22:52] » I want I want to insert a little bit
[4:22:55] more information. But once we get it to
[4:22:57] this point
[4:22:59] » But I think conceptually we're kind of
[4:23:02] on the same page.
[4:23:04] » 525 with 6.75
[4:23:07] in the stipens and half of the tourism
[4:23:10] lodging taxes.
[4:23:13] » Okay. Okay. So half of the lodging taxes
[4:23:16] to the general fund.
[4:23:19] » Yeah.
[4:23:21] » So I'll say the same thing
[4:23:22] » Was another 85.
[4:23:24] » So effectively that's going to be
[4:23:26] reducing the contingency in the tourism
[4:23:28] fund by 85.
[4:23:32] » Just stating it to make it clear.
[4:23:36] » So I think that
[4:23:37] » Okay. So I want to make sure that I've
[4:23:39] got everything first. Okay.
[4:23:40] » Okay. before we do anything else. So,
[4:23:43] we've reduced
[4:23:46] council stipens.
[4:23:48] » Yes. Here's here's a question.
[4:23:50] » So, no, no, no. Let me finish part make
[4:23:53] sure that I've got I've captured
[4:23:55] everything. Um, we've reduced lease
[4:23:59] materials and services by 200,000.
[4:24:03] We've added
[4:24:06] another 200,000 from the tourism plus
[4:24:10] another 85,000. So 285,000 from tourism
[4:24:14] fund is a plus
[4:24:16] » To the general fund.
[4:24:23] » Okay. So is that everything that's
[4:24:25] general fund related?
[4:24:27] » Is this stipen paid from the general
[4:24:30] fund? Yes.
[4:24:32] Did you say that? Did I miss it? I think
[4:24:34] there's another 67
[4:24:36] » 67,000.
[4:24:37] » Maybe I just
[4:24:38] » $500 for the stipens that is removed.
[4:24:42] That's reduced, right?
[4:24:45] » Yep.
[4:24:46] » Okay. So, I've got
[4:24:47] » So, so we've got a a 200,000 plus in the
[4:24:51] general fund, an 85,000
[4:24:54] 200, and then a reduction in expense of
[4:24:58] 675.
[4:25:01] Okay.
[4:25:04] » Plus the reduction from the police.
[4:25:07] » 200,000 from
[4:25:08] » Yep. 200. So Okay. There's a 200,000
[4:25:10] police, 85,000
[4:25:13] tourism.
[4:25:15] Uh a $200,000 tourism item and then 675
[4:25:22] tax reduction.
[4:25:25] » See where we're at?
[4:25:27] » Five.
[4:25:31] No, we
[4:25:33] » That was the first motion and then it
[4:25:35] got
[4:25:35] » So that puts us at a 9% reserve.
[4:25:38] » Yeah, I I
[4:25:40] » Okay, so I want to do a little more
[4:25:42] clarification as far as the layoffs and
[4:25:44] furlows. So we've with this
[4:25:48] um we've replaced
[4:25:51] not laying off
[4:25:53] uh two of the
[4:25:55] front office people. Okay, we still
[4:25:58] haven't
[4:26:00] um addressed furls. Those furls are
[4:26:03] still going to happen. So um
[4:26:08] this is um
[4:26:11] furls would still happen. Okay. So
[4:26:14] you've you've not we've not laid off
[4:26:16] these two people, these two positions,
[4:26:20] but we still have the furlows to
[4:26:22] » What are starting? 4 hours
[4:26:24] » 4 hours a week for all city hall staff.
[4:26:29] » So any% reduction effectively
[4:26:32] effectively
[4:26:34] » That management too like
[4:26:36] » And so that will still
[4:26:39] » Yes.
[4:26:40] » And but that will still
[4:26:43] um affect open times.
[4:26:47] It'll
[4:26:49] help with the work and certainly keep
[4:26:54] people employed, but um it's still we'll
[4:26:57] still have that.
[4:27:00] » Well, certainly there's a day that's
[4:27:03] probably your known but fast busy day.
[4:27:06] Um I'm not buried. We have to get to
[4:27:08] that point. I mean, broke um I'd like to
[4:27:12] find it somewhere, but
[4:27:17] Well, we can't staff we
[4:27:22] think
[4:27:24] » I don't know the union the last year
[4:27:25] what they came to us and said
[4:27:28] we don't want furlows we want to I
[4:27:30] forget what it was they was something
[4:27:32] that they want to keep their
[4:27:37] » Their
[4:27:38] cola or something I'm trying to
[4:27:41] » Right it was a no so what you had um
[4:27:46] approved and what was adopted last year
[4:27:50] was no colas, no furlows,
[4:27:55] » Everybody.
[4:27:57] Um
[4:27:57] » Right for for for the staff.
[4:28:00] » That was for the for the that was for
[4:28:04] the union employees. So it would be
[4:28:07] police and ask me
[4:28:13] it was
[4:28:16] got a couple more line items with what
[4:28:17] the mayor said she had something she's
[4:28:18] chomping on. So I don't want
[4:28:20] » No, we actually got it had it on the
[4:28:22] queue about the trans we got it. We got
[4:28:24] that done.
[4:28:25] » If you've got a a next one, go for it.
[4:28:27] » Well, um I am concerned about the Mrick
[4:28:30] litigation $55,000 that we owe now for
[4:28:35] ord
[4:28:37] sanctions. And my understanding is
[4:28:40] $1,000 a day
[4:28:43] uh that we are going to have to pay
[4:28:44] under court order that we don't have the
[4:28:47] opportunity to appeal.
[4:28:49] I'm just wondering are we planning to
[4:28:52] are we just budgeting for, you know,
[4:28:55] another couple hundred,000 and $1,000 a
[4:28:58] day or what are we doing with that?
[4:29:00] » Stop for one second. You guys didn't
[4:29:02] actually motion that whole conversation.
[4:29:04] » Oh,
[4:29:05] » Theund emotion after all of it. I mean,
[4:29:07] there was no actual motion.
[4:29:08] » There's actually a point. We need to
[4:29:10] make it.
[4:29:10] » What was the motion?
[4:29:11] » The one we just went through all the
[4:29:13] different changes with the the
[4:29:15] » Half of the
[4:29:15] » The quarter quarter half all of that. We
[4:29:18] need to roll it up into a motion.
[4:29:22] » I have to finance.
[4:29:25] » All right. Well, somebody didn't need to
[4:29:26] say it.
[4:29:27] » I I think
[4:29:28] » I was gonna ask you.
[4:29:30] » Well, I I I got to I've been thinking
[4:29:32] about it in a different way.
[4:29:34] Um you did motions for all of
[4:29:38] » Th those prior what we haven't done the
[4:29:40] um
[4:29:41] » Motion for the
[4:29:43] » Redirecting the half of the 170k. We
[4:29:47] certainly did not motion on that.
[4:29:48] » Okay.
[4:29:52] » We talked about funding these positions
[4:29:53] but I'm not sure we actually had a
[4:29:55] motion on it.
[4:29:57] » So we we we got to 675 cut. We're at
[4:30:01] transient lodging, taking half of that,
[4:30:05] a total of 1525, putting it somewhere.
[4:30:09] That's where we are right now. So I I
[4:30:11] think what what we're intending here
[4:30:13] then is to have a motion to increase the
[4:30:19] well first to fund the two positions
[4:30:22] utility billing and admin assistant
[4:30:24] which is done by
[4:30:27] increasing
[4:30:30] the finance budget by 85,000 on the
[4:30:33] personnel side, the building budget by
[4:30:36] 42 and a half thousand
[4:30:39] on the building side and we'll do two
[4:30:42] and a half on the planning.
[4:30:45] » Um
[4:30:47] » If it's a quarter or a half I'm just
[4:30:49] » Right. So yeah, it's about that.
[4:30:52] » I don't think we have enough money. We
[4:30:54] have 67585.
[4:30:56] That's 152, right?
[4:30:58] » 152.
[4:30:59] » Wait, hold on.
[4:31:01] » Yeah, you're you're right. We haven't
[4:31:02] found enough money to fully fund those.
[4:31:05] So
[4:31:07] what we're doing is adding an expense at
[4:31:10] 170,000 and then we are saying we have
[4:31:16] 67 12,000 plus
[4:31:22] 85,000.
[4:31:23] » Yeah.
[4:31:25] » Which leaves what is that? 77,000.
[4:31:31] » Double check the math of it. 17,500
[4:31:34] remain
[4:31:37] » Or maybe I should say it this way the
[4:31:39] net effect on on the general fund would
[4:31:41] be
[4:31:44] to reduce the contingency
[4:31:47] I think 17.5 thousand
[4:31:52] » We pull that from the police
[4:31:55] » Right now we talking rounding error on
[4:31:57] percentage of of reserves so maybe we
[4:32:00] just let that be for now
[4:32:02] » I'm just trying to get the dollars,
[4:32:03] right? Oh, yeah. So, you want to reduce
[4:32:05] reserves. That's fine with me.
[4:32:06] » It's a It's a
[4:32:08] » Not going to change the reserves.
[4:32:10] » It's not going to change the whole
[4:32:11] » Let's um I I can give you the number
[4:32:13] that is um finance,
[4:32:18] planning, and
[4:32:22] » Okay,
[4:32:22] » Building would that help?
[4:32:24] » And then we'll make the motion number.
[4:32:26] Okay. Yeah.
[4:32:27] » So,
[4:32:28] » Do we need to put a pin back in this?
[4:32:30] » So, we add back
[4:32:32] In finance, we add back 83,400.
[4:32:37] » Okay.
[4:32:44] » In planning,
[4:32:48] we add back 33,700.
[4:32:53] It's
[4:32:53] » Coming in light so far.
[4:32:57] and in
[4:32:59] building
[4:33:03] add back 32,000.
[4:33:08] » So
[4:33:10] we're missing here is there's 17,000
[4:33:14] that will have to be added to
[4:33:16] engineering.
[4:33:18] » Oh, there's an engineering piece too.
[4:33:19] » Yeah, but that's a whole different fund.
[4:33:20] It's not the general fund.
[4:33:24] » Oh, that Okay.
[4:33:25] » Right. Because the salary is partially
[4:33:27] funded.
[4:33:28] » Yes. Yes.
[4:33:30] » Which sorry?
[4:33:32] » Tell me again which fund that one
[4:33:33] impacts the pardon me.
[4:33:35] » Which fund um does the 17,000 end up
[4:33:38] coming out of?
[4:33:39] » It's the public works fund.
[4:33:42] » The public works fund.
[4:33:46] » And that's page 111.
[4:33:48] » I'm just checking what's the balance
[4:33:54] » And What was she?
[4:33:57] » 111
[4:33:58] » And it will be actually it'll be page
[4:34:01] 112.
[4:34:06] » So we would add
[4:34:08] to the public works operations fund.
[4:34:20] » Engineering. Correct.
[4:34:21] » Engineering.
[4:34:24] Yeah.
[4:34:24] » And then what's the mechanism to add
[4:34:26] that? It's got to come out of
[4:34:30] » Is it transfer from the from the general
[4:34:32] fund then cover that?
[4:34:35] » Um
[4:34:36] no they have enough um contingency that
[4:34:40] that would be adjusted in that
[4:34:42] » I'm looking that's the problem. It
[4:34:43] doesn't show the contingency. Thank you.
[4:34:45] » So we would we would reduce the by the
[4:34:48] same amount.
[4:34:48] » Got it. Okay. Okay. So there's 983 485
[4:34:51] in contingency and that will be reduced
[4:34:53] by 17,000,
[4:34:55] » Right?
[4:35:02] » Then you want to do the the we already
[4:35:05] got 675 we've already agreed upon and I
[4:35:08] don't think why don't we do this? Why
[4:35:09] don't we say I make a motion that we
[4:35:14] half of the St. Lodging taxes of 85,000
[4:35:19] and add to the general fund.
[4:35:23] » Second that.
[4:35:26] » All right. All in favor say I.
[4:35:29] » I.
[4:35:30] » I. That's unanimous.
[4:35:31] » Let me just make sure I get that really
[4:35:32] quick. So motion made byki to reallocate
[4:35:35] 85,000 from the transit tax and the
[4:35:38] tourism fund to the general fund and
[4:35:40] that was seconded by Evans and I on
[4:35:42] everybody.
[4:35:45] » Nice work.
[4:35:45] » Let's do the money part now.
[4:35:48] » Okay. So now now uh the next motion then
[4:35:53] would be to fund these two positions
[4:35:55] which means increase changing four
[4:35:59] different items budget items.
[4:36:02] » Thank motion.
[4:36:03] » Okay.
[4:36:05] The motion is to uh fund the position of
[4:36:08] utility billing and admin assistant. Uh
[4:36:11] this will be done in four pieces. First,
[4:36:15] the finance budget will have an increase
[4:36:17] to personnel of 83.4,000.
[4:36:21] The building budget will have an
[4:36:22] increase to personnel of 33.7,000.
[4:36:25] The planning budget will have an
[4:36:27] increase to personnel of 32,000.
[4:36:29] And the engineering budget will have an
[4:36:32] increase to personnel of 17,000.
[4:36:35] » I had that backwards. I had planning 337
[4:36:38] and building 32.
[4:36:40] » Yes, I had three. I had 33 for planning.
[4:36:43] Is that right? 33 planning 337 building
[4:36:46] 32. Let me
[4:36:47] » Make sure. Is that right?
[4:36:48] » That's what I have.
[4:36:48] » Yes,
[4:36:49] » That's what I have when she was speaking
[4:36:51] it.
[4:36:51] » That's what I have too. So, planning
[4:36:52] 337.
[4:36:55] » Yep.
[4:36:56] » Okay. Planning 337
[4:36:59] building
[4:37:00] » And then what was the fourth one?
[4:37:02] » The fourth one was 17,000 for
[4:37:04] engineering.
[4:37:06] coming from the contingency out of the
[4:37:08] » That will be funded by the contingency
[4:37:10] from the public works fund
[4:37:12] » To so the 17,000 will be added to
[4:37:17] personnel services and engineering which
[4:37:19] is in the public works fund on page 112
[4:37:22] and that will reduce contingency by the
[4:37:26] same set.
[4:37:26] » All right. So, I'm going to make a
[4:37:27] motion that we add $17,000
[4:37:33] public works fund from the contingency
[4:37:35] fund.
[4:37:39] » No, no. Well,
[4:37:40] » I don't think you have to motion because
[4:37:41] it it balances out. It just reduces it.
[4:37:44] We're still in balance. We just have
[4:37:46] less.
[4:37:46] » Right. So, I'm making Okay, I'll make
[4:37:48] another one. I'm making a motion that we
[4:37:51] add se What are we adding it to?
[4:37:54] » Personnel. public works personaliz so I
[4:37:57] I I made a motion
[4:37:58] » Right now that covers that
[4:38:01] » Make the motion again you didn't state
[4:38:03] the numbers but go ahead try again
[4:38:09] » All right the motion is to fully fund
[4:38:11] the utility billing and admin assistant
[4:38:12] positions this amounts to $170,000
[4:38:17] will be reflected in an adjustment to
[4:38:20] the finance budget of 83.400 4,000
[4:38:25] increased to personnel.
[4:38:27] The planning budget increased to
[4:38:29] personnel of 33.7,000.
[4:38:32] The building budget personnel by 32,000
[4:38:36] and then the engineering by personnel by
[4:38:40] 17,000.
[4:38:43] » Second.
[4:38:44] » Okay. Any further discussion before
[4:38:47] » Just a point that you said fully fund
[4:38:49] and so that would create a situation
[4:38:51] where you have some people being
[4:38:52] furoughed and some people not in the
[4:38:54] same
[4:38:55] » So we're just we're just adding yeah
[4:38:58] right
[4:38:59] » That's an interesting point
[4:39:01] » Is there more more to elaborate on
[4:39:04] » Draw my second then
[4:39:07] » Is
[4:39:07] » I don't you I don't believe you can do
[4:39:09] that we'll vote on it
[4:39:11] » Finish the discussion we'll vote um is
[4:39:14] that being raised as a an optics issue
[4:39:17] or is there some other ramification we
[4:39:20] should be aware of?
[4:39:23] » One, yeah, with everybody else
[4:39:27] furoughed
[4:39:29] in city hall, that would leave two
[4:39:32] people that aren't furoughed and there
[4:39:34] would be no management, no um
[4:39:37] » That occurred to me as you started to
[4:39:38] say it. Yeah, they're sort of these four
[4:39:40] two people on four wild hours with no
[4:39:43] » Right. Right. Okay. So, it's the
[4:39:46] implication to fund them at
[4:39:48] » Fur
[4:39:49] » At the furled level. So, at 90% instead
[4:39:52] of fully funded. Okay. Well, then let's
[4:39:55] move this to a vote and knock it down
[4:39:57] and we'll make the next motion to get it
[4:39:59] right.
[4:39:59] » Yeah.
[4:40:00] » We're doing a great job with this today.
[4:40:02] » All right. All in favor, please say I.
[4:40:08] » All oppose, please say nay.
[4:40:13] We're gonna redo it. Hey, the motion
[4:40:16] fails. Do we have a new motion?
[4:40:20] » I was thinking maybe this time I'd give
[4:40:21] you a chance to
[4:40:22] » I
[4:40:24] The motion is I I make the motion to
[4:40:28] fund the utility billing admin assistant
[4:40:30] positions at 90%
[4:40:33] which is equivalent to the furled level
[4:40:36] of uh 36 hours a week. Right.
[4:40:42] in order to do this.
[4:40:44] » Let's just go and add
[4:40:45] » Why do we need to say what percentage?
[4:40:47] Let's just put money in. And
[4:40:49] » Yeah, let's just put the money in. And
[4:40:51] then
[4:40:51] » Well, now now each of these is reduced
[4:40:53] by 10%. So So now instead of 170, we're
[4:40:57] talking actually we just found the
[4:40:58] 17,000
[4:41:02] » By 10%. It's 17,000. Right.
[4:41:05] » So the 170 would go down to 160 or 153
[4:41:11] » Because we're only funding them to 90%.
[4:41:14] » Already discounted.
[4:41:16] » Um, no, they're not discounted.
[4:41:19] » That's a good question.
[4:41:20] » I could find those discounted numbers
[4:41:22] though.
[4:41:23] » I think that's what we're going to need
[4:41:24] unless we can
[4:41:26] » Make the motion that what we want to do
[4:41:27] is fund them at 90%.
[4:41:30] » Without the specific, I don't care.
[4:41:32] » So we don't have a finished motion,
[4:41:33] right?
[4:41:33] » No. like we just we had a discussion.
[4:41:36] » I don't want to I don't want to tie the
[4:41:38] budget to a a percentage. I just want to
[4:41:42] tie the budget to numbers.
[4:41:44] » Uh should we set this aside for a minute
[4:41:46] and we'll wait for some
[4:41:49] » 90% numbers?
[4:41:51] » Okay. Sure.
[4:41:52] » Steve, your uh wife gave public
[4:41:54] statement today about code enforcement
[4:41:57] and the name in in itself is indicative
[4:41:59] to municipal code, right? Code
[4:42:01] enforcement. So, I'm wondering um we
[4:42:04] should maybe have a conversation about
[4:42:06] that. She has an idea of where that
[4:42:08] could be funded. But we if anybody would
[4:42:10] like to pull public records, they should
[4:42:11] see how many citizens are complaining
[4:42:13] about vermin and rats and issues that we
[4:42:16] have for code enforcement in this city
[4:42:19] and probably a conversation we should
[4:42:20] have.
[4:42:21] » It was actually a good idea she had.
[4:42:23] » I was just on the phone with somebody
[4:42:24] today about that.
[4:42:26] » Yeah.
[4:42:27] » Code enforcement goes just so far on the
[4:42:30] side. Unless the city is going to take
[4:42:34] the next step in saying you've got three
[4:42:38] RA code enforcement, you have not
[4:42:40] abaded. We're going to declare your
[4:42:41] property a nuisance.
[4:42:42] » Yeah, we have. The council has done
[4:42:44] that.
[4:42:44] » Well, maybe because she's calling saying
[4:42:47] she's gotten to the end of her rope
[4:42:49] » With code enforcement and the guy is not
[4:42:52] doing anything.
[4:42:53] » Yeah, I don't know about that.
[4:42:54] » And so now she's calling me saying,
[4:42:56] "Hey,
[4:42:58] » You do something for me." And so it's
[4:43:00] going to the next point where people are
[4:43:01] then moving.
[4:43:02] » You're having one conversation. There
[4:43:03] are multiple and many conversations that
[4:43:06] occur in this city from bunny issues to
[4:43:09] the homeless issues to people crapping
[4:43:12] in the flower beds to like it. It's
[4:43:14] honestly I did not
[4:43:17] » Trying to get people to do a better job.
[4:43:19] » But she did have a good idea and so I
[4:43:22] think that that should be something that
[4:43:23] we discuss as well.
[4:43:25] » We knocked out this
[4:43:27] she's working. So I brought this
[4:43:28] conversation.
[4:43:29] » Jen, are you referring to
[4:43:31] » Tell me where the money
[4:43:32] » Funds from tourism to public works
[4:43:34] » Talking about looking in public works or
[4:43:36] code enforcement money is very much in
[4:43:38] that.
[4:43:39] » Well, I I was just looking at my notes
[4:43:40] from the public comment and I thought I
[4:43:42] had heard the suggestion was to put the
[4:43:45] transient tax money effectively.
[4:43:47] » I think there was a lot of things that
[4:43:48] were talked about but I think that was
[4:43:50] » So mentioned.
[4:43:51] » Let's get some public works. I just saw
[4:43:54] posting for ad for our public works uh
[4:43:57] engineer number one and they go out for
[4:44:00] over $6,000.
[4:44:05] » That's a budgeted position that
[4:44:07] » The budget delicious
[4:44:08] » It's much needed with all the capital
[4:44:10] improvement projects we have going on
[4:44:11] right now after Bashar left us.
[4:44:16] » So
[4:44:17] Gloria for that too find out how much
[4:44:20] the code in partial. Yes. So, I think we
[4:44:21] should have that conversation because
[4:44:23] there is a lot. We've had people come
[4:44:25] and do testimony and there are a lot of
[4:44:28] individuals that do email us.
[4:44:31] Surprisingly, some of the issues.
[4:44:34] » I got problems in my neighborhood. I f I
[4:44:35] fought with rats, but that's because of
[4:44:37] the chicken ep epidemic and and people
[4:44:39] with roosters. It's it's a
[4:44:41] » I think council heard roosters a couple
[4:44:43] years ago with geese.
[4:44:44] » I personally think the rise of of people
[4:44:47] having chickens has has increased the
[4:44:49] rat problem.
[4:44:50] » Yeah. Really?
[4:44:50] » I I like the idea of
[4:44:52] » You're not talking about this as
[4:44:53] council.
[4:44:55] » I dealt with the problem myself. I
[4:44:56] didn't call the city.
[4:44:57] » Oh,
[4:44:58] » That's probably what Let me ask you this
[4:45:00] question. What do you do,
[4:45:03] This is just a This isn't a budget
[4:45:05] question, but what do you do when
[4:45:08] the person has this complete wreck of a
[4:45:11] house and doesn't do anything?
[4:45:15] Then it needs to come, I believe it
[4:45:16] needs to come in front of council and we
[4:45:17] need to deem it nuisance just like we
[4:45:19] have in the past.
[4:45:20] » We need to tighten that up and make sure
[4:45:22] that happens much faster.
[4:45:23] » There has been like where walls are
[4:45:25] moving that rats are like
[4:45:27] » Oh I'm I don't think it has to get
[4:45:30] » People you know at their wit.
[4:45:32] » I think if you trashed your property and
[4:45:34] it's causing problem to your neighbors.
[4:45:35] I think that
[4:45:36] » That's exactly how the problem arises.
[4:45:37] » Yes. You know get on it and tell people
[4:45:40] that
[4:45:40] » But that's to the extreme side. So on
[4:45:42] the code enforcement side, he's actually
[4:45:44] out there, you know, trying to get these
[4:45:46] things. We're talking about the screen
[4:45:47] piece and then they need the Y
[4:45:49] » And the guy and the guy says, "Forget
[4:45:50] it."
[4:45:51] » Yeah. And then and then it has to be
[4:45:53] elevated. But in a lot of cases that
[4:45:54] corrective behavior, people don't like
[4:45:56] the tickets and it's more of a
[4:45:57] behavioral change and they do rectify
[4:45:59] the situation. So
[4:46:02] » Yeah, I'm with you.
[4:46:03] » I don't think there's any debate that we
[4:46:05] need code enforcement. We're probably
[4:46:06] all in agreement. You need some
[4:46:09] » But I other municipalities actually have
[4:46:11] it out of like 27.
[4:46:12] » I think that's interesting.
[4:46:13] » They did they do they have it in
[4:46:15] » What we decide we're doing on the myri
[4:46:17] we can
[4:46:17] » We talk about to that yet we want to
[4:46:20] finalize the
[4:46:22] » Numbers for this.
[4:46:23] » Yes. So,
[4:46:25] » So the revised numbers for the two
[4:46:27] positions,
[4:46:28] finance
[4:46:30] um is 67,200,
[4:46:34] planning is 27,300,
[4:46:40] building is 26,200,
[4:46:44] and engineering would be 13,700.
[4:46:50] Okay? And I've put those into
[4:46:55] sheet
[4:46:57] and
[4:47:00] like we're still at 9%.
[4:47:03] » So the total will come to 134400
[4:47:08] four pieces.
[4:47:08] » Yeah.
[4:47:10] » All right. Think we're ready for a
[4:47:12] motion.
[4:47:14] Third time's a charm.
[4:47:16] » All right. I motion to fund the utility
[4:47:19] billing and admin assistant positions at
[4:47:22] 90% consistent with the current furlows
[4:47:26] of 36 to 36 hours a week and the total
[4:47:31] funding will be 134,400
[4:47:35] which is realized through four budgets.
[4:47:39] The finance budget
[4:47:41] and the amount to personnel added will
[4:47:43] be $67,200.
[4:47:46] The planning budget will have 27,300
[4:47:50] added to personnel. The building budget
[4:47:53] will have 26,200
[4:47:55] added to personnel. And the engineering
[4:47:57] budget will have 13,700
[4:48:00] added to personnel.
[4:48:02] » I say
[4:48:03] » All right, we have a second.
[4:48:06] All in favor? Hi.
[4:48:08] » Hi.
[4:48:10] » Any voting?
[4:48:12] » Do we have uh president on vacation?
[4:48:16] » So, she's having technical difficulties
[4:48:18] and
[4:48:18] » I'm just just checking it to make sure.
[4:48:21] Thank you.
[4:48:22] » Okay. So, the motion passes.
[4:48:24] » How much is
[4:48:26] » Okay. How much is
[4:48:29] we going to find that money?
[4:48:31] » Well, I we need to find out first how
[4:48:33] much it is.
[4:48:35] » Okay. While we're looking for code
[4:48:36] enforcement, maybe we could go to this.
[4:48:39] » I wanted to talk about the $25 million
[4:48:41] in debt that we're thinking about that's
[4:48:43] in this fight that we're taking on.
[4:48:46] » Let's uh before we open up another
[4:48:48] topic, let's try to close this one out
[4:48:50] here. Uh
[4:48:57] » Enforcement
[4:49:00] on F on the Furlow schedule
[4:49:03] is
[4:49:06] Round it up at 83,000.
[4:49:09] » Add back to the police budget and tell
[4:49:11] the chief to make it work.
[4:49:12] » Can we find that? It's Can we find that
[4:49:14] in uh community development or public
[4:49:17] works?
[4:49:19] » No. Well,
[4:49:24] » There's a there is some there is some
[4:49:26] theory that would support having code
[4:49:30] enforcement in public works
[4:49:34] or um building building would put it
[4:49:39] back keep it in the general fund. Um
[4:49:44] but it could be um partially funded
[4:49:50] in a allocation from
[4:49:54] uh the utility funds. So that's
[4:49:57] basically
[4:49:58] » What
[4:50:00] you're asking about community
[4:50:01] development
[4:50:02] » That no
[4:50:05] I think it was the utility funds,
[4:50:08] » Right?
[4:50:09] So other municipalities do not have
[4:50:11] their code enforcement in because
[4:50:13] they're enforcing the code.
[4:50:15] » That's the
[4:50:16] » We have to take supports utilities as
[4:50:21] » Which utility fund are we talking about?
[4:50:23] » It would be an allocation from all of
[4:50:26] the utility funds and streets.
[4:50:28] » I just sewer, water, storm, street.
[4:50:31] » So could we pull enough from those to
[4:50:34] fund this position?
[4:50:36] Are we allowed to cut the pay?
[4:50:39] » Pardon me.
[4:50:39] » Are we allowed to cut the pay? That's a
[4:50:41] lot. No, that's a crazy amount of money
[4:50:43] for
[4:50:45] » Well, that's fully loaded staff, right?
[4:50:48] » Already we're already
[4:50:49] » That's on furlow.
[4:50:50] » That's fully loaded. Yeah.
[4:50:52] » Fully loaded, but on furlow. Yes.
[4:50:53] » So, can what could it look like if we
[4:50:55] were pulling from all of those different
[4:50:56] funds
[4:50:58] » For the utilities? Um
[4:51:03] » Because if you're separating those
[4:51:05] » Well, we what we could do is reduce GFSS
[4:51:08] to public works by that amount and then
[4:51:11] put put that employee in public works,
[4:51:15] » Right?
[4:51:16] » We would reduce GFSS.
[4:51:17] » That's why I went to public works.
[4:51:19] » That's a le but then that means we would
[4:51:21] be reducing our general fund by that
[4:51:23] amount of money
[4:51:24] » Or we can pull the utilities.
[4:51:28] Well, now back to the general fund.
[4:51:29] Since the last item, we funded those two
[4:51:32] positions at the furled level. I haven't
[4:51:35] done the math, but I think
[4:51:37] » Did we come out neutral or did we
[4:51:39] actually get a few more dollars into the
[4:51:41] general fund?
[4:51:42] » Yeah, we had a few more dollars.
[4:51:44] » I think we had a few more dollars.
[4:51:45] Couple of it still kept the the um the
[4:51:50] percent of um reserve at 9%. Yeah, but
[4:51:54] we still
[4:51:56] checking where we're at.
[4:51:59] » I mean, we're really
[4:52:01] tapped out in the utility funds that
[4:52:04] were already
[4:52:05] » We are
[4:52:06] » Getting them to support the general fund
[4:52:07] by the amount of money,
[4:52:09] » The water fund especially,
[4:52:11] » Right?
[4:52:11] » Can we go back public works thing? If we
[4:52:13] move code enforcement, public works,
[4:52:14] that's what we're talking about, right?
[4:52:16] » What if said code enforcement doesn't
[4:52:18] want to do that? Wants to stay at police
[4:52:20] department. Can we then hire back at a
[4:52:22] lower rate?
[4:52:24] » Um, you might have some
[4:52:28] uh arbitration with uh the police union.
[4:52:32] » Why would it still be
[4:52:33] » Because that's a that's that position
[4:52:35] currently is in the collective
[4:52:37] department.
[4:52:37] » So, we might not even be able to move
[4:52:38] public works.
[4:52:39] » Correct.
[4:52:40] » I I don't want to speak for the
[4:52:42] employee, but I don't think he would
[4:52:43] object to that.
[4:52:44] » Okay.
[4:52:45] » To moving public works.
[4:52:46] » That's one one hurdle out of the way. I
[4:52:48] think that
[4:52:49] » It benefits a city and he has a job,
[4:52:51] then what difference does it make where
[4:52:52] he's at?
[4:52:53] » You wouldn't have to have both unions
[4:52:54] agree to that.
[4:52:55] » Okay. Okay. Good to know.
[4:52:58] » And if we add a pos if we if we add a
[4:53:00] position to public works and we're going
[4:53:03] to be funding it.
[4:53:05] » It's got to come out at GFSS. I don't
[4:53:07] know how else you're going to fund that
[4:53:08] position.
[4:53:09] » So that means we will be reducing the
[4:53:11] general fund by that amount of money,
[4:53:13] » Right? Except that that's counter
[4:53:15] counterproductive, isn't it?
[4:53:18] » Well, just trying to make the money
[4:53:19] work. That's all.
[4:53:20] » So, could we also
[4:53:21] » So, if we're reducing the the general
[4:53:24] fund support services by this by the
[4:53:27] 83,000
[4:53:29] » And
[4:53:31] putting the position
[4:53:33] in
[4:53:36] » What he's looking for is an increase in
[4:53:38] expense and a reduction in expense.
[4:53:40] Well, we if we put if we public works is
[4:53:43] where
[4:53:43] » Public works budget. See what he's
[4:53:45] doing. He's not adding revenue. He's
[4:53:46] just subtracting
[4:53:48] » Not be that he would be
[4:53:49] » And adding it.
[4:53:50] » He's already almost like you take the
[4:53:53] charge back.
[4:53:54] » He's gone already. He's already been
[4:53:56] laid off.
[4:53:57] » So the um
[4:53:59] » Add a position.
[4:54:01] » You would be adding a position to public
[4:54:03] works.
[4:54:04] » So his position is not included in this
[4:54:05] right now.
[4:54:06] » No, but he's already been laid off.
[4:54:08] That's that's the point. Correct. In the
[4:54:11] in the
[4:54:13] » Canire every
[4:54:18] if we can just stop.
[4:54:21] » If we
[4:54:23] didn't do anything with that position in
[4:54:25] the general fund, we just leave it alone
[4:54:27] because it's laid off, right?
[4:54:29] » Currently,
[4:54:30] » And ask that that position be added to
[4:54:34] public works. Then there's no effect on
[4:54:37] the general fund.
[4:54:39] There would be none because there's
[4:54:41] currently
[4:54:43] no
[4:54:44] » They have enough
[4:54:45] » No allocation to for for that position
[4:54:48] that's going to the general fund.
[4:54:52] » So there's there's
[4:54:53] » Well want to do anything with that.
[4:54:56] » Well the police are Oh because it's not
[4:54:59] in the code.
[4:55:00] » Oh
[4:55:01] » So the only
[4:55:03] » Yeah. We're not shuffling an adding
[4:55:06] » Right. I have a question. So if there's
[4:55:08] consideration also that um when the
[4:55:11] union president mentioned and there has
[4:55:13] to be an agreement is there any way to
[4:55:16] and I know that your thought on the
[4:55:18] reserves but is there any way to reduce
[4:55:20] the reserves to the 8% for that position
[4:55:24] and then you know down the road if they
[4:55:26] decide that there's an agreement to move
[4:55:28] it over we could do it at that because
[4:55:30] it sounds like there's a collective
[4:55:31] farming issue back there that we need to
[4:55:33] be mindful of. We just presume that you
[4:55:37] all would
[4:55:39] do your collective bargain.
[4:55:41] » Yeah, the union would have to agree with
[4:55:43] » No, could we do that to put our reserve
[4:55:46] down to 8% from that position in the
[4:55:49] general fund for right now and then we
[4:55:51] can council can look at that like
[4:55:53] » Later. You mean the position itself
[4:55:55] moving it from the police to public
[4:55:57] works is what they because he's gone.
[4:55:59] They but that's what they have to agree
[4:56:00] on. Yeah, but what they're trying to say
[4:56:01] is there's still there's ongoing
[4:56:03] collective bargaining agreements going
[4:56:05] on that makes it challenging for us
[4:56:07] because they they have they would have
[4:56:09] to negotiate because they're bargain
[4:56:11] employees and so we're not able to do
[4:56:12] that here. Like even council doesn't get
[4:56:14] involved in
[4:56:15] » Even though he's laid off that position
[4:56:18] within the city is still
[4:56:21] » Right.
[4:56:24] So even though even though he's not
[4:56:25] here,
[4:56:26] » They would have to agree to move that
[4:56:27] out to Yes. that position is still part
[4:56:29] of the police union whether it there's
[4:56:32] somebody filling it or not. It's still
[4:56:34] » And and
[4:56:37] in doing that it would come out of the
[4:56:39] police union and go into that.
[4:56:41] » So what about red reducing our reserves
[4:56:45] to the 8% and funding that uh code
[4:56:48] enforcement position
[4:56:50] » Where
[4:56:52] in public works or in police? I mean,
[4:56:54] right now it would be police. They could
[4:56:55] decide later down that could be a
[4:56:57] decision later down the road, right?
[4:56:59] Whether there's the agreement to move
[4:57:00] over, but we can't overstep collective
[4:57:02] volume.
[4:57:03] » What's what's the timeline? Is it
[4:57:06] » Good question?
[4:57:09] » Good question.
[4:57:10] » Oh, it's it's coming. It's coming. Okay.
[4:57:12] » Is that for both? That's both of the
[4:57:14] bargain units.
[4:57:16] » You don't have to sign that contract.
[4:57:18] And that's one thing we need to
[4:57:19] remember.
[4:57:19] » Okay. So, what about that? like going
[4:57:22] down to the 8% refund or um funding the
[4:57:26] code enforcement. I think we need code
[4:57:29] enforcement.
[4:57:30] » Can I ask a question real quick? This is
[4:57:31] maybe semi unrelated and a stupid
[4:57:33] question. I saw a dog in here tonight.
[4:57:35] Did you guys get a dog?
[4:57:37] » No, we did not. That was a service dog
[4:57:38] from the union attorney.
[4:57:41] » Oh,
[4:57:42] » Interesting. Good question, though. Uh
[4:57:46] » So yeah
[4:57:47] » Go down to the eight 8% for right now
[4:57:50] because right that could change
[4:57:52] depending on but then we save code
[4:57:54] enforcement we go down to 8% when the
[4:57:57] negotiations are done that can also be
[4:57:59] because it's going to come before
[4:58:00] council's consideration anyway at that
[4:58:02] point
[4:58:03] » 83 grand and put it into to Jacob's
[4:58:06] position and some other decisions. I
[4:58:08] mean, you know, right now the police are
[4:58:10] in negotiations. I'm not full plugging
[4:58:12] more money into the police and going
[4:58:15] down on reserve. We have this huge
[4:58:17] discussion 5% 4% whatever. We're going
[4:58:20] to start plugging positions. We should
[4:58:21] be plugging positions
[4:58:24] open that help us plan, help the
[4:58:26] library, whatever we need to do to keep
[4:58:28] our operations.
[4:58:29] » Fully funded the library, fully funded
[4:58:31] direct. We've just now opened up the the
[4:58:34] front the front office. I think we need
[4:58:36] code enforcement. There are a lot of
[4:58:40] livability issues that code enforcement
[4:58:42] that is my personal opinion and whether
[4:58:44] that person down the road I hate see
[4:58:46] heads shaking out in the gallery.
[4:58:48] Whether down the road after the
[4:58:50] collective bargaining agreement is done
[4:58:51] and they can choose to whether whether
[4:58:54] this person lies or lives I should say.
[4:58:57] » Percentage should we go over our
[4:58:58] reserves this year that caused this to
[4:59:01] close down?
[4:59:03] » What was that? What percentage to C that
[4:59:06] did we go over our reserves? I made
[4:59:08] talking about
[4:59:10] we made a decision to fund the police
[4:59:12] and now we're talking we're we're now
[4:59:14] going to go back and revisit that
[4:59:16] decision and and add less reserves and
[4:59:19] we
[4:59:20] » Already made a decision on the funding
[4:59:21] for the police.
[4:59:22] » I'm interested in code enforcement the
[4:59:24] 9%.
[4:59:25] » I am interested in code enforcement. I
[4:59:28] am not very interested in taking down
[4:59:29] the reserve because I think there's at
[4:59:31] least one other item to discuss which
[4:59:33] may be the reason to hold more reserve
[4:59:35] appending some clarification and that's
[4:59:37] the legal matter and and the fees
[4:59:39] acrewing and I'm just wondering
[4:59:42] » Do we have any sort of legal uh
[4:59:45] » Estimation of what the cost will be so
[4:59:48] in a business context we get lawsuits
[4:59:51] and so we estimate how much we're going
[4:59:53] to pay and we hold a reserve sometimes
[4:59:54] we do better than that but It seems to
[4:59:57] me like there might be a legal overhang
[4:59:59] right now that's that's unaccounted for.
[5:00:01] » So I think that that is a and this goes
[5:00:04] back to Steve's conversation because we
[5:00:05] have had about what $750,000 in legal
[5:00:08] fees.
[5:00:08] » So that's part of the reason I would
[5:00:09] like
[5:00:10] » But those are those those are unknown
[5:00:12] and it just depends on what comes up,
[5:00:15] right? So it's really hard. We've had
[5:00:16] that.
[5:00:16] » But if they're 50% chance of a million
[5:00:19] and 50% chance of zero, I'd like to hold
[5:00:21] 500,000 and get that
[5:00:24] » In a great world. I think that'd be
[5:00:26] great. I mean, but here's the thing that
[5:00:27] we're what we're
[5:00:28] » We're being charged $1,000 a day.
[5:00:30] » No, you're hearing that. But actually,
[5:00:31] that's not what council said, though.
[5:00:33] » I mean, worked 57.
[5:00:36] » All I'm saying, we have three council
[5:00:37] members here. The information that has
[5:00:39] given to us by our attorney from the
[5:00:41] last time, correct me if I'm wrong, is
[5:00:42] that we had one day of contingency
[5:00:45] unless my council members say something
[5:00:47] different. We as a council have not been
[5:00:50] given any other information.
[5:00:51] » I called to verify it. $57,000.
[5:00:55] All right.
[5:00:55] » We have no knowledge of any of that as
[5:00:57] » Administration or finance. Is there
[5:00:59] anything you can add for color around
[5:01:02] » Legal
[5:01:04] in particular? I I don't know that to be
[5:01:06] true that u there I mean we have insured
[5:01:09] and uninsured kinds of things.
[5:01:12] » CIS handles
[5:01:14] » Some of the thing is right now
[5:01:17] » Oh,
[5:01:18] thousands a day and we owe 55,000. But
[5:01:20] you're saying the administration's not
[5:01:22] aware of that and that's what the
[5:01:23] council is saying too.
[5:01:26] » Yeah.
[5:01:26] » Because I'm just talking about budget.
[5:01:27] » I'm saying as I sit here today I
[5:01:30] understand one day. That is all that I
[5:01:33] can speak to. That is all that I have
[5:01:34] been told. So I have not seen anything
[5:01:36] that that you you either one of you are
[5:01:40] are like
[5:01:40] » And to be clear it's not been paid. It's
[5:01:43] being charged has not been paid. And
[5:01:44] there's 30,000
[5:01:46] » I don't have firstand city attorney. I'm
[5:01:48] looking for
[5:01:50] position.
[5:01:51] » We're not talking about attorneys fees.
[5:01:52] We're just talking about I just wanted
[5:01:54] to know
[5:01:56] » With the idea that we have a somebody's
[5:01:59] saying we owe $1,000 a day in sanctions,
[5:02:02] lawyer sanctions or or or for sanctions
[5:02:05] on a court order and I wanted to simply
[5:02:09] have a discussion.
[5:02:11] We need a budget for that. What is the
[5:02:13] plan for that? And it sounds to me like
[5:02:15] what I'm hearing from the
[5:02:16] administration, the council is we don't
[5:02:19] have that information.
[5:02:20] » And so why would we don't need to have
[5:02:22] the budget discussion, but we brought it
[5:02:25] up,
[5:02:26] » Take a look at it, figure out what's
[5:02:28] going to go on.
[5:02:28] » Sure. But as a budget committee, we can
[5:02:30] sit here and say, gosh, there's been
[5:02:32] some legal activity more than
[5:02:34] historically usually.
[5:02:35] » I don't think we really want to head
[5:02:36] down that path. Maybe I got the source
[5:02:40] about it, but I think they
[5:02:41] » Well, from a fiscal responsibility
[5:02:43] standpoint, I just want to make sure
[5:02:44] we've covered
[5:02:47] » Because because
[5:02:49] the costs could come in and be
[5:02:51] unbudgeted.
[5:02:52] » 365,00 I can't tell. I think that's the
[5:02:55] problem. I can't tell if we've got any
[5:02:56] provision to deal with pending
[5:02:59] litigation.
[5:03:00] » Well,
[5:03:00] » That's a good point.
[5:03:02] » That's what I just can't tell from this
[5:03:03] budget. So if anyone could help direct
[5:03:05] me to it or otherwise I start to think
[5:03:08] may have a potential liability that's
[5:03:10] unaccounted for.
[5:03:12] » Where I think it comes into
[5:03:15] » I think the line item is professional
[5:03:18] services. Yeah.
[5:03:19] » On page 79.
[5:03:21] » Yeah.
[5:03:23] » Professional services
[5:03:26] budget right now is only 100,000.
[5:03:31] » Okay. So that's where it would give if
[5:03:35] this
[5:03:38] purported $1,000 a day penalty which the
[5:03:40] mayor's aware of one one day applicable.
[5:03:42] » Well, one day applicable council is
[5:03:44] aware applicable.
[5:03:47] » What day was that? That that's
[5:03:49] » 79,
[5:03:50] » You know.
[5:03:51] » What day did it start?
[5:03:52] » Yeah. Like no,
[5:03:53] » That was a day in March that
[5:03:55] » March 25th to today.
[5:03:56] » Okay. So, we're lacking information.
[5:03:58] There's a possibility it's been acrewing
[5:03:59] every day until now. Unless someone can
[5:04:02] » I know for a fact
[5:04:03] » It at that point it feels like what
[5:04:05] we're talking about is these term
[5:04:07] phantom numbers because we don't know
[5:04:09] what that is and we don't know if this
[5:04:12] is
[5:04:13] » Except it's a liability which you have
[5:04:15] to you have to account for what is a
[5:04:18] » Probable expense.
[5:04:19] » We also don't know
[5:04:20] » The language. I don't have and so it's
[5:04:23] not reasonable in my mind. We know a
[5:04:27] $1,000 a day charge at least for one day
[5:04:29] was wagered and 50 days have passed.
[5:04:34] There could be enough to almost pay for
[5:04:37] code enforcement. I'm just trying to get
[5:04:39] to the bottom and this seems difficult
[5:04:40] to understand.
[5:04:41] » We need more information because for I
[5:04:44] mean it's very difficult when we have
[5:04:45] people coming in saying one thing but
[5:04:47] then council's on it. So I don't want to
[5:04:50] cut positions on information that we
[5:04:52] don't have at this time when we're
[5:04:54] trying to say
[5:04:54] » I don't want to cut the reserve when
[5:04:56] there's this issue.
[5:04:57] » So that that's the crux of it right
[5:04:59] there is that we need to we don't know
[5:05:02] what we don't know and and that
[5:05:05] contingency
[5:05:06] that reserve
[5:05:08] » There's a court order that literally
[5:05:10] says you are ordered to pay. Okay. But
[5:05:13] still our our
[5:05:16] contingency balance, our reserve balance
[5:05:19] needs to be able to cover things
[5:05:21] » Sufficient to cover that. Yes. Exactly.
[5:05:24] And so that takes me back to I don't
[5:05:25] want to go down a percent to fund code
[5:05:27] enforcement, but I do like code
[5:05:28] enforcement existing. So I'm just not
[5:05:31] willing to budge on the reserve because
[5:05:33] there's also this other bhang top of the
[5:05:36] fact that we're running even if we get
[5:05:38] to nine, we're below half of the target
[5:05:40] reserve. So, I will say this having
[5:05:43] having done a foyer request on and I
[5:05:47] don't have I mean I could look it up and
[5:05:48] try and find it. It's many many pages
[5:05:50] long on the professional services line
[5:05:55] item which is you'll see it in every
[5:05:58] single
[5:06:00] professional services line.
[5:06:03] That is that covers lawyers. It covers
[5:06:07] street sweepers. It covers painters. It
[5:06:11] covers a lot of different vendors.
[5:06:12] » They audit.
[5:06:13] » So if we So if you want more
[5:06:16] granularity, which I think is reasonable
[5:06:19] because
[5:06:20] we do have significant expenses, legal
[5:06:24] expenses that are incurring
[5:06:28] occurring significantly.
[5:06:31] So I think it is reasonable and we had
[5:06:34] this discussion last year of more
[5:06:36] granularity.
[5:06:37] you would need be breaking down
[5:06:39] professional services into legal and
[5:06:43] then we could say, "Oh, well, we're
[5:06:45] paying half a million dollars a year in
[5:06:48] lawyer fees." And I just pull that
[5:06:49] number out of the air as you say, but
[5:06:52] don't be surprised. It's it's certainly
[5:06:54] more than a quarter million. Okay. It's
[5:06:56] more than that.
[5:06:56] » Wouldn't be surprised.
[5:06:57] » It's it's a big it's a it's a large
[5:06:59] number. It's six figure number. I don't
[5:07:02] know. But
[5:07:03] we we don't have the granularity
[5:07:06] in this document to be talking. I think
[5:07:09] it's a good idea to have.
[5:07:11] » Yeah.
[5:07:12] » I think so because it is something that
[5:07:15] is
[5:07:17] we went back and compared as marketing.
[5:07:20] » It has gone up. Absolutely.
[5:07:22] » Yeah. There's other things like he's
[5:07:23] talking about though when you start
[5:07:24] looking at when you are purchasing or
[5:07:27] doing negotiations for industry, you're
[5:07:29] going to have more contractual attorney
[5:07:32] fees as you go through that process. So
[5:07:35] there's
[5:07:36] » There's a lot of things. So when people
[5:07:37] try to portray that it's all like a
[5:07:39] lawsuit, that's not actually factual.
[5:07:42] » So that's that's why I want
[5:07:45] » I just I just want us to not to not go
[5:07:47] insolvent as a city because of something
[5:07:49] we couldn't foresee. And so my argument
[5:07:52] is well if it could be a six-f figure
[5:07:55] number I don't know exactly where in
[5:07:57] there but we're only talking about a 9%
[5:08:00] reserve which is in the six figure range
[5:08:03] it's not in you know it's not the seven
[5:08:05] figures yet right
[5:08:06] » I will say
[5:08:08] » But we do have proposals in every single
[5:08:10] fund
[5:08:12] » Sure
[5:08:13] » Pulling numbers out here
[5:08:15] » Uh
[5:08:16] » But they may be insufficient is the
[5:08:19] point you're because a lot of that is
[5:08:21] business's usual professional lawyer
[5:08:24] services. Well, this is sort of this
[5:08:26] oneoff lumpy thing that happens. We
[5:08:28] don't I don't always have all the there
[5:08:30] are there are legal physicians being
[5:08:32] taken by the city that are costing
[5:08:35] and then there are also things that we
[5:08:37] are doing.
[5:08:38] » I don't let me just finish. There are
[5:08:40] other things that we are doing like
[5:08:43] negotiating contracts, complex contracts
[5:08:47] regarding real estate purchases with you
[5:08:51] know companies that are coming in to do
[5:08:53] significant amount of work or we're also
[5:08:55] negotiating water deals that also is
[5:09:01] you know so we can't say yeah it cost us
[5:09:05] a lot to do business
[5:09:07] state and then We have a litigation
[5:09:10] profile. We are prepared to discuss that
[5:09:14] because we don't have the granularity.
[5:09:16] But I will say that litigation
[5:09:19] litigation is is costing the city money
[5:09:22] significantly.
[5:09:25] » Does it increase our insurance?
[5:09:28] » Well, the insurance numbers sure have
[5:09:30] run up rapidly. We haven't gotten into
[5:09:31] that and I don't know that we can do
[5:09:33] anything about it, but the CIS lines are
[5:09:34] all growing.
[5:09:36] » What is that? And what did we lose it?
[5:09:38] » I I didn't do the percentage. I don't
[5:09:39] know if Gloria happens to have it, but
[5:09:43] » Year over year it's rising.
[5:09:46] » It's also causing us to dip into our,
[5:09:49] you know, it's a profile we're talking
[5:09:50] about and how what are the risks that
[5:09:52] the city is ameliating? What are the
[5:09:54] risks the city is willing to take? What
[5:09:57] is our tolerance of risk? What is our
[5:10:00] tolerance of of litigation?
[5:10:04] Um these are things that I would suggest
[5:10:07] need to be carefully considered
[5:10:10] uh because being aggressive in
[5:10:12] litigation
[5:10:13] has not necessarily paid for us
[5:10:17] and that's something that we need to be
[5:10:19] talking about. What is our risk profile?
[5:10:23] » Those are those are just topics in
[5:10:24] general. My understanding from you,
[5:10:27] Steve, was that the $1,000 a day is
[5:10:30] related to delay of public records
[5:10:33] requests.
[5:10:34] » Correct.
[5:10:34] » Okay. So, that's not even a legal
[5:10:36] overhang. That's an operational
[5:10:38] challenge, maybe.
[5:10:39] » Yeah, we've had two of those.
[5:10:41] » So, could that cost us $100,000 in a
[5:10:44] year because we can't produce documents
[5:10:47] fast enough? I think that this is more
[5:10:48] complex than what it I think the minutia
[5:10:51] of the legal uh specifics we're talking
[5:10:55] about is probably more complex than
[5:10:57] probably what needs to be hashed out in
[5:10:59] a budget committee.
[5:11:00] » Okay. So, all of that makes me want to
[5:11:02] increase the all of this ambiguity and
[5:11:05] cloudiness just makes me want to have a
[5:11:06] higher reserve.
[5:11:08] » I think that's
[5:11:09] » That's where I'm at and that's and I'm
[5:11:11] going to work with the information I
[5:11:12] have available.
[5:11:14] it gets written and probably the
[5:11:17] percentages you're talking about here
[5:11:19] are thin
[5:11:21] » And if the if this these claims don't
[5:11:24] materialize great we've got the reserve
[5:11:27] it'll go towards the reserve next year
[5:11:29] it'll be less of a burden to refund that
[5:11:30] reserve
[5:11:33] » There amount I I get it
[5:11:38] » Honestly I'd like to see us at a full
[5:11:39] 20% next year
[5:11:42] » We need revit we Yeah. I don't know how
[5:11:44] we're Oh, speaking of revenues, what
[5:11:46] about
[5:11:46] » Well, you do need gas in your car, but
[5:11:48] you also need brakes.
[5:11:50] » Yes, that's true. What about the u we
[5:11:54] get on the tourism thing, Gloria, last
[5:11:56] year did a $5 charge per ticket,
[5:11:59] » Right?
[5:11:59] » Can we make that $10 this year and try
[5:12:01] and get another
[5:12:03] » Can we get more of that? And I don't
[5:12:05] want necessarily want the tickets price
[5:12:06] raised.
[5:12:09] Um,
[5:12:11] » We could put a fee on the ballot to
[5:12:12] cover legal expenses.
[5:12:16] » But really, you could
[5:12:17] » I'm just looking.
[5:12:18] » Okay. So, I don't think we're making any
[5:12:20] headway here other than if we want to if
[5:12:23] we want to move back to how to fund a
[5:12:27] code enforcement.
[5:12:28] » I I'll just say I'm I'm not comfortable
[5:12:30] pulling it out of reserve.
[5:12:32] » So, I'd like to talk about that in the
[5:12:33] pulling from the utilities and
[5:12:35] » Okay. So, I'd like to
[5:12:43] » Lori had the I think she was the
[5:12:47] » I'm trying to put this together so that
[5:12:49] we we get down. We've got a motion
[5:12:53] » To that.
[5:12:54] » Oh, we're Okay. So, we're pending the
[5:12:56] cost of code enforcement.
[5:12:58] » Yeah, we know what that is. It was like
[5:12:59] 83 and some change.
[5:13:00] » Put them into public works. They were
[5:13:02] leasing
[5:13:02] » Using the utility funds to
[5:13:05] » What's the proposal
[5:13:07] » Was to have
[5:13:10] uh funded out of public works using
[5:13:12] pulling from the storm water
[5:13:16] » Storm water sewer street would all split
[5:13:19] the funding of the
[5:13:23] » We would have to create
[5:13:26] we would what we're doing then is we're
[5:13:28] creating we're funding a single position
[5:13:31] by taxing funds. I don't know how we
[5:13:34] justify that.
[5:13:35] » Well, that's how much of the positions
[5:13:37] are funded today. Frankly,
[5:13:39] » They're in a department. What we're
[5:13:41] going to do is put a standalone person
[5:13:43] called code enforcement person. Then
[5:13:45] we're going to tax the funds for code
[5:13:47] enforcement position.
[5:13:50] » I mean, it seems a bit halfbaked with
[5:13:52] with a union hurdle and who would
[5:13:55] disperse or institute structural change,
[5:13:58] etc.
[5:14:01] I I I
[5:14:02] » I'm I'm just putting it out there
[5:14:04] because there has been a massive amount
[5:14:06] of constituents have come in front of
[5:14:07] the public uh the council and and
[5:14:10] express the concerns for it. Uh I know
[5:14:13] John and I get a vast amount of emails
[5:14:15] for it. It's a livability issue. So
[5:14:19] » I think
[5:14:19] » I have to stand up and be a voice for
[5:14:21] those that have communicated very um
[5:14:24] passionately about the issues that are
[5:14:27] going on in the city. So, and if police
[5:14:30] are not going to be able to respond to
[5:14:31] them, then who's going to be dealing to
[5:14:33] these issues?
[5:14:34] » Chief at most million3 $36,900
[5:14:38] to
[5:14:38] » Code enforcement is not going to
[5:14:39] » Most of the calls that I've received
[5:14:41] since I've been on council have been
[5:14:42] code enforcement related issues.
[5:14:45] » He should put that position on and
[5:14:47] manage it the way he can and then decide
[5:14:50] does he need a lieutenant, does he need
[5:14:52] another sergeant? These are the things
[5:14:54] that he prioritizes. So, you know, we
[5:14:58] we've allotted $4,36,900
[5:15:02] for the police to evolve the next thing
[5:15:05] » And he is now hearing that code
[5:15:09] enforcement is an important piece of
[5:15:11] that and he can make a decision. That's
[5:15:13] his job.
[5:15:13] » Or perhaps I mean the voters can vote on
[5:15:15] that too in November. If that's part of
[5:15:17] a ballot that the council decides to put
[5:15:19] out there, maybe they can those that
[5:15:21] find it um very valuable, then maybe
[5:15:23] their voices could be heard then too.
[5:15:26] That's that would be something that
[5:15:28] would that's not before us and if the
[5:15:30] future brings that then so be it.
[5:15:36] » Are we ready to make final budget?
[5:15:38] » We are. We're there.
[5:15:41] » Numbers in just a second.
[5:15:43] » This is going to be right. We're not
[5:15:45] going to make a motion.
[5:15:47] This is the budget to last the police a
[5:15:49] year. There's no authorization to spend
[5:15:52] beyond the budget. Uh there's no
[5:15:54] authorization to spend at a six-month
[5:15:57] pace. Um we had
[5:16:00] » You can control that. I think this
[5:16:01] » You know what I absolutely can do it
[5:16:03] because let me tell you something.
[5:16:05] Spending beyond your budget is not
[5:16:08] lawful under Oregon law and it subjects
[5:16:10] people to liability.
[5:16:12] And uh they already had we already had
[5:16:16] somebody expend double their budget and
[5:16:19] said I was never told to stay in the
[5:16:21] budget. So, we're we're not going to
[5:16:23] have a situation occur. This is going to
[5:16:26] be a motion for a year budget. It's not
[5:16:28] going to be one department gets a
[5:16:30] six-month budget.
[5:16:31] » Yeah.
[5:16:31] » Can you finish your motion that you
[5:16:33] started? There's a motion.
[5:16:34] » I did make a motion. I was just having
[5:16:36] did not start a motion. I was having a
[5:16:38] discussion.
[5:16:39] » Yeah, there's no motion.
[5:16:40] » Yeah, I didn't make a motion. Thank you,
[5:16:41] though.
[5:16:41] » Appreciate that. Thank you.
[5:16:43] » Yeah, there's no authorization. I want
[5:16:45] to make sure very very clear. There's no
[5:16:47] authorization for police to exceed their
[5:16:49] budget or to to spend at a pace that
[5:16:52] will result in exceeding their budget.
[5:16:58] » Nobody needs to be exceeding their
[5:17:00] » Nobody not to ple nobody. Nobody
[5:17:04] have to be told.
[5:17:08] » So Gloria, you you're putting together
[5:17:10] the 26 27 draft approved budget.
[5:17:13] » Yes. I'll give you a number in just a
[5:17:15] moment. Bet you.
[5:17:55] We want to say it because I should we
[5:17:58] say oh never mind finish what you're
[5:18:00] doing
[5:18:01] still haven't talked about she's adding
[5:18:03] that up what about this future debt this
[5:18:05] 25 million
[5:18:07] » This uh
[5:18:08] » That's 12500 for
[5:18:10] » Speaking about the um
[5:18:12] » Capital improvements
[5:18:13] » Our improvements a substation. Is that
[5:18:16] the one?
[5:18:17] » No, no, no, no. Talking about the
[5:18:20] » Res talking about the capital
[5:18:23] improvement projects. We have a sewer
[5:18:25] project.
[5:18:28] » Yeah, we're looking for
[5:18:31] 500 and funding for this year. And then
[5:18:34] » Yeah, those are both projects that are
[5:18:36] kind of tied to our ability to building
[5:18:39] permits.
[5:18:40] » I'm I'm with you there on that, John.
[5:18:42] I'm just trying to figure out what's the
[5:18:44] are we
[5:18:45] » Well, they've been funded through
[5:18:46] through charge of service charges
[5:18:50] the the bond there's a bond drawn and
[5:18:52] the bond can't be drawn unless there's a
[5:18:54] revenue.
[5:18:55] » We're approving the funding in this
[5:18:57] meeting.
[5:18:58] » That's police station.
[5:19:00] » Oh, that doesn't I believe that police
[5:19:02] station. the the sewer capacity project
[5:19:04] is going to
[5:19:06] grade basins and six and it's over $20
[5:19:10] million estimated cost and that's going
[5:19:13] to fall on it'll be we're looking to be
[5:19:16] a loan through the state low interest
[5:19:20] loans
[5:19:22] more money from them at 6%
[5:19:26] » It's very big yes
[5:19:28] » Yeah sure is
[5:19:31] » Wait let Let's finish before we do final
[5:19:33] budget because I want to talk about
[5:19:35] these loans.
[5:19:36] » So I think we should talk about it
[5:19:37] before we authorize the bar.
[5:19:39] » Can I ask a question on that? So if you
[5:19:41] draw those fronts to the state um
[5:19:44] » Not it's not contingent on having a
[5:19:47] source of revenue to pay it back.
[5:19:49] » Oh absolutely
[5:19:50] » They do. Yeah.
[5:19:51] » Okay.
[5:19:52] » They assess all of that.
[5:19:53] » Okay.
[5:19:54] » Yeah. Bond ratings, all of it.
[5:19:56] » Yeah.
[5:19:56] » That's what I thought. So this is sort
[5:19:57] of tied to future increases in
[5:20:00] » Utility rates effectively, right?
[5:20:02] » Tied to our rate schedules, adopted rate
[5:20:04] schedules. Yeah.
[5:20:05] » So there there there's where that's how
[5:20:07] the debt is going to be serviced.
[5:20:09] » You're making an assumption.
[5:20:11] » No, these are correct. That's not an
[5:20:13] assumption. That is correct statement.
[5:20:15] » So our increase in our utility rates
[5:20:17] that we've already agreed upon is going
[5:20:18] to fund these loans is what you're
[5:20:20] saying.
[5:20:20] » Correct.
[5:20:20] » And the continued increases that are
[5:20:22] scheduled, right?
[5:20:23] » Yes.
[5:20:23] » All right. How much
[5:20:25] » There's quite a schedule of increases I'
[5:20:27] Yeah, there's a projection to the end of
[5:20:30] the loan term.
[5:20:32] » Yeah.
[5:20:34] » Well, I think we got to borrow the money
[5:20:37] because otherwise
[5:20:40] my understanding is if we have a
[5:20:41] five-year event for a storm, we might
[5:20:44] have sewage running down the road. I
[5:20:47] it's it's a huge expense, but I I think
[5:20:51] you know having a reservoir for water
[5:20:53] and and being able to move sewage
[5:20:56] especially I mean if you you dig in a
[5:20:58] little more and read about it sounds
[5:20:59] like we already have some problems with
[5:21:00] flow of Andy from talking a private
[5:21:03] conversation private I was in his office
[5:21:06] but Mohammed said the rest is absolutely
[5:21:10] critical to continuation of delivering
[5:21:12] water to our to our people that that
[5:21:16] These are critical infrastructure
[5:21:17] projects that had done.
[5:21:19] » Yeah, actually that's that's almost
[5:21:22] exactly where where I stand on it. And
[5:21:24] in fact, my my bigger concern is well,
[5:21:26] we haven't gotten it kicked off and
[5:21:28] going already, but that's a that's not
[5:21:30] necessarily budget issue. We're just
[5:21:31] behind on getting roll.
[5:21:33] » There are a lot of reasons for that in
[5:21:35] budget issues, but we don't have to talk
[5:21:37] about them right now.
[5:21:38] » Yeah, we don't need to go there, but the
[5:21:39] sooner the better to get these upgrades.
[5:21:42] » I think that's this year we're going to
[5:21:43] be moving forward, right? I mean that
[5:21:45] this this is things are things are
[5:21:47] already moving. Projects are moving the
[5:21:49] full financing.
[5:21:50] » I guess I'm poking at the basin one
[5:21:51] because I think it was supposed to get
[5:21:53] started in the last year and it's
[5:21:54] carrying over.
[5:21:55] » Yeah.
[5:21:57] » Okay. So, Gloria, we're I
[5:22:00] » I should also clarify part of the reason
[5:22:01] I want to hurry up and do it is costs
[5:22:03] rise.
[5:22:07] » Okay. So for whoever wants to do the the
[5:22:11] motion to approve the amount is
[5:22:15] 99 million472,232.
[5:22:23] » Okay. I make a motion that we
[5:22:26] adopt.
[5:22:28] » No approve.
[5:22:29] » Thank you. Thank you very much. I make a
[5:22:31] mo Thank you. If I trip up along the
[5:22:33] way, catch me before we get a second.
[5:22:35] Actually, before we get a second, I make
[5:22:38] a motion that we approve the 26-27
[5:22:48] CD St.
[5:22:49] draft budget
[5:22:51] as we discussed and amended today during
[5:22:54] this budget committee meeting
[5:22:59] with total
[5:23:01] budget of 99,472,232
[5:23:07] as we discussed and amended during this
[5:23:10] meeting tonight.
[5:23:14] » Okay.
[5:23:18] Oh. Oh, yes. And that this is a
[5:23:20] year-long budget for all departments.
[5:23:26] » Yeah.
[5:23:30] » Second.
[5:23:33] » Nobody wants a second. We better second
[5:23:36] it.
[5:23:37] » Second.
[5:23:38] » Seconded that.
[5:23:40] » No, councelor. I didn't hear you over
[5:23:42] there.
[5:23:43] » I I'll I'll say for discussion, I'm a
[5:23:45] little hesitant. I'm I'm just turning
[5:23:46] over in my mind code enforcement and
[5:23:48] whether there's something else we could
[5:23:50] take away from all that.
[5:23:53] That's where my hesitation was to not
[5:23:55] second.
[5:23:57] » Okay.
[5:24:01] » But is there any other discussion?
[5:24:14] The only idea I have, which is not a
[5:24:16] fantastic one, is if you do move the
[5:24:18] position to public works,
[5:24:21] you could draw the salary out of the
[5:24:22] contingency there.
[5:24:26] They have nearly a million dollars in
[5:24:28] contingency, which is more than what
[5:24:29] we're talking about in the general fund.
[5:24:32] » Yeah. We're about to do a $20 million
[5:24:34] sewage project and you're saying that we
[5:24:36] don't need contingency money there. I'm
[5:24:38] » Not saying we don't need contingency.
[5:24:39] I'm saying if you're going to take
[5:24:40] $85,000
[5:24:43] out of somewhere, I wouldn't take it out
[5:24:44] of the general fund when the general
[5:24:46] fund has less contingency than public
[5:24:48] works.
[5:24:50] » I'm for
[5:24:52] I'm for that she's doing his job.
[5:24:54] » Councelor Suning, how do you feel about
[5:24:56] it? You've been quiet.
[5:24:57] » I think code enforcement is one of those
[5:24:59] things that's not important to you until
[5:25:00] you need it. until somebody parks a
[5:25:02] motor home in front of your house or
[5:25:03] until your neighbors get rats and
[5:25:05] they're all over your yard. Um, I've
[5:25:07] been on ride alongs with Edardo. I think
[5:25:09] what he does is very important. And
[5:25:12] Steve, you've talked a lot about blight
[5:25:14] since I've known you. And
[5:25:16] » Blightes,
[5:25:17] » Huh?
[5:25:17] » Blight.
[5:25:18] » Blight. Oh, yeah. That's true.
[5:25:19] » You said blight a few times.
[5:25:21] » Yeah. Blight.
[5:25:21] » Um, I think code enforcement is a big
[5:25:23] part of that. So I I agree there's only
[5:25:25] so much that he can do, but I think the
[5:25:28] work that he does do is important and
[5:25:31] plays into the livability of this city.
[5:25:33] So
[5:25:34] » So we want to add one headcount to
[5:25:35] Muhammad's department with called quote
[5:25:38] code quote enforcement. End quote. And
[5:25:39] what's that going to
[5:25:41] » Take it out of contingency?
[5:25:42] » Take it out of contingency.
[5:25:44] » So that changes this number,
[5:25:47] » Right?
[5:25:50] This is adding up all the funds to get
[5:25:53] to the grand total.
[5:25:55] » We should we conclude this motion? I
[5:25:57] mean,
[5:25:58] » Yeah, I guess we do have this motion.
[5:25:59] So, we need to we need to go through
[5:26:00] with this idea, though.
[5:26:02] » Well, we're not adding we're not really
[5:26:03] adding anything to the budget because
[5:26:05] we're subtracting from to contingency
[5:26:07] and adding to expense.
[5:26:09] » So, it's two different funds.
[5:26:10] » It's different. So go to page 111 to the
[5:26:14] uh public works operations fund
[5:26:18] and
[5:26:19] » And if you still change the total
[5:26:21] because that physician is laid off
[5:26:24] still changes the total
[5:26:26] » Total spend by
[5:26:28] it goes up.
[5:26:30] » Well
[5:26:31] » So this would be taking
[5:26:34] hire code for the entire second one.
[5:26:36] » So she's recalculating that. Yeah, it'll
[5:26:39] be roughly a a 10% reduction, a little
[5:26:43] less than 10% reduction in the
[5:26:45] contingency at the public works.
[5:26:52] » We're adding a position.
[5:26:54] » That's that's effectively what we're
[5:26:56] doing. Yeah.
[5:26:58] » I mean, we don't have a motion yet.
[5:27:03] » I I am concerned about not having any
[5:27:05] code enforcement. You know, I would I
[5:27:07] would love it if
[5:27:10] » I would love it if the police chief
[5:27:12] would make it a priority, but what I'm
[5:27:14] hearing is it won't be a priority. And I
[5:27:16] think if we put it here,
[5:27:18] » We have maybe a better chance of of
[5:27:20] keeping it around despite the other
[5:27:23] noise and funding difficulties.
[5:27:24] » I think it's a real problem putting a
[5:27:26] law enforcement officer public.
[5:27:30] » It wouldn't be a law enforcement officer
[5:27:32] » Really.
[5:27:33] » They would switch unions, right? Isn't
[5:27:35] he armed?
[5:27:36] » No.
[5:27:36] » No. I don't think so.
[5:27:39] » He's not a ticket. They're not.
[5:27:41] » Yeah.
[5:27:42] » He's not law enforcement.
[5:27:44] » He's not a sworn police.
[5:27:45] » I don't believe so.
[5:27:46] » Yeah.
[5:27:47] » Happens to be with the I think this is
[5:27:49] one of these positions where it doesn't
[5:27:51] exactly fit. It kind of some go.
[5:27:54] » Yeah, that's true though. Some are
[5:27:56] » They could be do bail and stuff like
[5:27:58] that.
[5:27:58] » I was going to say we're going to try
[5:27:59] and run head now to to public works.
[5:28:04] still
[5:28:05] » And we're going to
[5:28:10] budget that. Let me see personnel. What
[5:28:13] are we going to add? 83,000.
[5:28:16] » Yes.
[5:28:16] » Add include everything and everything,
[5:28:20] » Right? So 83,000.
[5:28:21] » Is that at a furoughed level? I got
[5:28:24] » And we're going to take 83,000 six hour
[5:28:26] week.
[5:28:27] » Take 83,000 out of uh
[5:28:29] » No, that's full level. Oh, you're right.
[5:28:32] You're right. You already said it was
[5:28:33] furoughed.
[5:28:34] » It is in the general fund. It is, but
[5:28:38] » Positions aren't furoughed.
[5:28:40] » Oh, they're not. Okay.
[5:28:45] » Deal with that later. As far as minute.
[5:28:49] » It's going to be minute,
[5:28:51] » Right? First, why are they not for
[5:28:54] » They have the funds. They have all the
[5:28:57] gods because we can't legally do that.
[5:28:59] » Let's Yeah, we can't save our streets,
[5:29:01] shall we? And let's let's
[5:29:03] » The difference between all the funds.
[5:29:06] » We've already gutted our public works.
[5:29:08] » It's like all these
[5:29:08] » You want to know why we can sit down and
[5:29:10] talk about why
[5:29:12] » Works but not enough.
[5:29:19] » I need the motion exactly this.
[5:29:23] » Okay. So that's the new number and I
[5:29:26] needed proposed budget appropriations
[5:29:31] » And so I needed
[5:29:33] » And and before that we need a make a
[5:29:36] motion that we add one headcount to the
[5:29:38] public works operations fund of
[5:29:41] personnel services to $83,000
[5:29:45] and we reduce contingency.
[5:29:49] » I'm sorry. We have a previous motion we
[5:29:51] need to clear up. Thank you. Uh there
[5:29:53] was a motion seconded to approve the
[5:29:56] budget. So let's go ahead and vote on
[5:29:59] it. And if we vote it down, then we can
[5:30:01] make this motion. Okay. So all in favor
[5:30:04] say I.
[5:30:06] All
[5:30:06] » Oppose say n.
[5:30:08] » All right. Motion fails.
[5:30:09] » I make a motion that we
[5:30:13] add one headcount to
[5:30:17] works for a code enforcement personnel.
[5:30:22] We add
[5:30:24] $83,000
[5:30:26] to personnel services for the public
[5:30:29] works operations fund and we reduce
[5:30:33] contingency
[5:30:36] fund by
[5:30:38] 83,000 in the public works operations
[5:30:41] fund.
[5:30:42] » Reduce the contingency that's within the
[5:30:44] public works operations fund.
[5:30:46] » Thought I said but
[5:30:47] » Reduce reduce the contingency.
[5:30:49] » Reduce the contingency. All right, I'll
[5:30:51] make another motion. One more. Try it
[5:30:53] again. One more time. Here we go.
[5:30:55] » You're going to get it.
[5:30:56] » That we add a personnel to the public
[5:30:59] works
[5:31:01] operations fund. So, they're going to
[5:31:02] gain one headcount for a code
[5:31:04] enforcement personnel.
[5:31:06] Going to add
[5:31:09] $83,000 to personnel services
[5:31:14] to the public works operations fund. And
[5:31:17] we are going to reduce
[5:31:20] the contingency in the public works
[5:31:22] operations fund $83,000 such that the
[5:31:26] contingency in the public works
[5:31:29] operations fund will be $900,485.
[5:31:36] » Second the motion.
[5:31:39] » Great. Any other discussion?
[5:31:42] » Include payroll burden on that number.
[5:31:44] » Yes. Right.
[5:31:50] All in favor say I.
[5:31:52] » I.
[5:31:53] » Opposed.
[5:31:57] Post. Passes.
[5:31:58] » All right. I make a motion to
[5:32:01] move the budget. I move to approve the
[5:32:04] city of St. Helen's
[5:32:07] proposed budget appropriations
[5:32:10] for fiscal year 2026
[5:32:14] 2027
[5:32:16] in the amount of 99510,232
[5:32:26] for the budget resolutions and adopt
[5:32:30] adoptions as we discussed this evening.
[5:32:33] And this is the year-long budget for all
[5:32:36] departments.
[5:32:40] » Okay, next motion. Oh, yeah. Go ahead.
[5:32:42] » I second the motion.
[5:32:46] » Any discussion?
[5:32:48] » All right. All in favor say I.
[5:32:51] » I.
[5:32:51] » I.
[5:32:53] » All opposed.
[5:32:54] » Me. I'm opposed.
[5:32:59] » Motion passes. I move to approve taxes.
[5:33:04] I move to approve the levy of the city
[5:33:07] of St. Helens full property tax rate of
[5:33:12] $1.90
[5:33:18] per $1,000 of assessed value
[5:33:22] school year 2026-2027.
[5:33:28] » Okay.
[5:33:29] Motion was made by
[5:33:32] Mosski. Uh is there a second?
[5:33:36] » Second.
[5:33:37] » Right. Any discussion?
[5:33:40] All in favor of those say I.
[5:33:43] » I.
[5:33:44] » All oppose say nay.
[5:33:47] » I was I sorry I was sleeping at the
[5:33:49] well. I've been I
[5:33:51] » I'm
[5:33:52] hear the name.
[5:33:53] » There was one day.
[5:33:57] Okay, the motion passes.
[5:34:02] » Thank you.
[5:34:04] » I think we're ready to adjourn unless I
[5:34:06] missed anything.
[5:34:08] » No, I just want to thank all of the
[5:34:09] people that are sitting out here in the
[5:34:10] gallery till 11:25 at night.
[5:34:14] » Thank you.
[5:34:14] » And everybody that has sent emails and
[5:34:17] vocalized our opinion. Also, I think we
[5:34:19] need to mention our staff here, Gloria
[5:34:21] and you know how hard she's worked on it
[5:34:24] and and Jamie and Jennifer and everybody
[5:34:26] that has worked so hard on the budget.
[5:34:28] So,
[5:34:30] » Thank you
[5:34:32] » And thank you for all the public
[5:34:33] comment.
[5:34:35] All right, with that we are adjourned.