[00:00:01]
OKAY, UH, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, BRING THIS BUDGET WORKSHOP TO ORDER AT 5 31.
WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND START WITH, UH, UH, OPENING PRAYER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE STATE OF TEXAS.
HEAVENLY FATHER, WE COME BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.
GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY.
AS WE GATHER TO DISCUSS THE CITY'S BUDGET AND THE USE OF THE RESOURCES ENTRUSTED TO US, WE ASK YOUR WISDOM AND GUIDANCE.
HELP US TO BE GOOD STEWARDS, RECOGNIZING THAT THE DISCUSSION THAT THE DISCUSSIONS WE MAKE INVOLVE RESOURCES PROVIDED BY THE HARDWORKING RESIDENTS AND THE BUSINESSES OF OUR COMMUNITY.
GIVE US THE WISDOM TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN OUR WANTS AND OUR NEEDS, WHILE NEVER LOSING SIGHT OF THE ESSENTIAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE OUR RESIDENTS DEPEND UP ON.
GUIDE US TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY RESPONSIBLE TODAY WHILE PREPARING WISELY FOR TOMORROW.
HELP US BALANCE THE NEEDS OF A GROWING CITY WITH OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPECT THOSE WHO ULTIMATELY BEAR THE COST.
MAY OUR DISCUSSIONS BE THOUGHTFUL, RESPECTFUL, AND PRODUCTIVE.
GIVE EACH MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL AND OUR CITY STAFF THE COURAGE TO ASK THE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, THE PATIENCE TO LISTEN TO ONE ANOTHER.
THE WISDOM TO SEEK COMMON, COMMON GROUND ABOVE ALL, REMIND US THAT THE NUMBERS WE DISCUSSED TONIGHT REPRESENT MORE THAN DOLLARS ON A SPREADSHEET.
THEY REPRESENT PEOPLE, FAMILIES, NEIGHBORHOODS, BUSINESSES, AND THE FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY.
MAY THE DECISIONS WE MAKE HONOR THE TRUST THAT HAS BEEN PLACED IN US AND STRENGTHEN OUR CITY FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.
WE ASK FOR YOUR GUIDANCE AND BLESSING UPON OUR COUNCIL, OUR CITY STAFF, OUR RESIDENTS, AND ALL THOSE WHO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY.
NOW THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES SENATOR AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE.
FOR HONOR, THAT TEXAS FLAG, OUR PLEASURE LEADS TO THESE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD ONE AN INDIVISIBLE RE MOVE ON HEARING SHOULD BE ADDRESS
[ Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program Workshop (S.Williams/Executive Team/J.Walters)]
THANK YOU MAYOR.SO I ACTUALLY PASSED, PASSED OUT A SUPPLEMENTAL PIECE OF PAPER TO Y'ALL.
THERE WAS A QUESTION ASKED BY COUNCILMAN MACALUSO THAT IF YOU, UH, CUT X AMOUNT OUT OF THE TAX RATE, WHAT WOULD WE REMOVE FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL LIST AND WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? SO I ACTUALLY DREW OUT THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO EXPLAIN THAT IN A LITTLE BIT.
BUT JUST TO LEAD OFF, THIS IS THE THIRD OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET AND THE, THE PROPOSED BUDGET AS WE DID ON THE, LEMME JUMP REAL QUICK.
THE BUDGET RETREAT ON AUGUST 11TH AND SINCE THEN WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY ON THE 18TH TO DISCUSS IT AGAIN.
AND NOW HERE WE ARE ON THE 25TH AND WE'LL HAVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY ON THE FIRST, UH, IF YOU NEED TO GO OVER THINGS
[00:05:01]
IN THE BUDGET AGAIN BEFORE WE ADOPT.BUT THAT IS THE OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE WOULD, WE WOULD TALK ABOUT IT ON THE FOURTH TIME AND THEN ADOPT THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
SO, OR THE CAPITAL BUDGET RATHER.
SO WE ARE APPROACHING THIS A LITTLE MORE FREE FLOWING AND WE'RE ARE KIND OF MORE INCLINED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAN TO GIVE YOU A PRESENTATION THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN THREE TIMES.
SO YOU'VE GOT, I SEE EVERYBODY'S GOT THEIR BUDGET BOOKS AND, AND THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION PRINTOUT FROM THE 11TH.
AND SO JAMES AND I ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
AND I GUESS I COULD START OFF WITH A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED EARLIER TODAY AND BY COUNCILMAN MACALUSO OF, IF YOU'VE GOT THIS SHEET OF PAPER IN FRONT OF YOU, HE ASKED, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE IF WE, IF WE KEPT THE CURRENT TAX RATE, WHAT WOULD WE NEED TO CUT? IS THAT A GOOD SUMMATION? CLOSE ENOUGH.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE TAX RATES AT THE TOP, WE HAVE THE CURRENT RATE, WHICH IS 51 18, AND THEN WE HAVE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WHICH IS WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET.
AND THE DELTA BETWEEN THOSE TWO IS 1.78 CENTS.
SO IN ORDER TO LOOK AT, IF WE WERE TO DO A REDUCTION, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? SO IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE IT SAYS TOTAL REVENUE REDUCTION AND YOU HAVE THE ONE, THE 1.78 CENTS REDUCTION, IT WOULD REDUCE GENERAL FUND REVENUES BY 997, 868.
AND IT ALL COMES OUT OF THE O AND M SIDE.
IT DOESN'T COME OUT OF THE INS SIDE OF THE TAX RATE.
AND JUST DOING A LITTLE MATH TO KIND OF SEE WHERE WE'D NEED TO END UP.
IF YOU LOOKED AT THE TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES OF 52 POINT, I MEAN 55.2 MILLION AND THEN THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF 82.7 MILLION, THAT'S KIND OF A BIG DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF ONE-TIME ITEMS IN THERE THAT REALLY WHEN WE EVALUATE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHEN WE WANNA EVALUATE WHAT ARE THE ONGOING REVENUES VERSUS THE ONGOING EXPENDITURES.
SO IF YOU LESS OUT CAPITAL ITEMS AND TRANSFERS AND, AND HONESTLY THERE ARE ACTUALLY A COUPLE OF MORE ONE-TIME ITEMS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY IN CAPITAL ITEMS AND TRANSFERS.
YOU COME UP WITH A NUMBER OF ROUGHLY $55 MILLION.
SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF OVERAGE BUILT IN ON THE REVENUES OVER THE EXPENDITURES OF $250,000.
SO IF YOU REDUCED BY A MILLION, YOU GOT THAT $250,000 BUFFER.
SO IT'S ABOUT 750 THAT YOU NEED TO COVER AT THAT POINT.
AND IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE BOTTOM AND YOU LOOK AT THE FOUR THINGS THAT ARE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS, IT'S FOUR POLICE OFFICERS AND THEN FOUR COMMUNICATION OFFICERS.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS IN YOUR BUDGET BOOK, IT SHOWS THE TOTAL AMOUNT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR.
SO YOU GOTTA NET OUT THE, THE ONE TIME STUFF THAT GOES WITH THAT, LIKE PATROL CARS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WHAT'S THE TRUE ONGOING COST? WHAT WOULD YOU SAVE BY ELIMINATING THOSE SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS? SO IN THE CASE OF THE COMMUNICATION OFFICERS, IT'S PRETTY CLOSE, $232,000 OF ONGOING EX UH EXPENDITURES.
AND THEN FOR THE POLICE OFFICERS, IT'S QUITE A BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE 900,000 YOU SEE IN THERE.
AND IT WOULD SAVE 392,000 ONGOING.
SO FOR A TOTAL SAVINGS IS 624 7 0 8.
NOW TAKING THE 9 97 ADD BACK, THE TWO 50 ADD BACK, THE 6 24, THERE'S A DELTA OF ABOUT $122,000 IN TERMS OF A $55 MILLION GENERAL FUND BUDGET.
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY BALANCED IN MY OPINION.
AND, AND THERE ARE THINGS IN THERE THAT WE COULD GO BACK AND EVALUATE FURTHER.
THERE ARE OTHER ONE-TIME COSTS THAT ARE BUILT INTO THINGS THAT AREN'T IN THE CAPITAL LINE ITEMS THAT TRULY SHOULDN'T BE CALCULATED IN THIS EQUATION.
BUT I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO SCOUR EVERY LINE ITEM OF THE BUDGET BOOK.
WE COULD ALSO AGREE, REEVALUATE THINGS LIKE OUR SALES TAX REVENUE AND SEE WITH THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS HAVE BEEN GOOD, WE'D NEED TO GO BACK AND NET OUT THE, THE BIG ONE-TIME PAYER AND REEVALUATE OUR TRAJECTORY.
I FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN A PRETTY GOOD SPOT THERE.
WE MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF GAIN THAT WE COULD TWEAK ON THE REVENUE SIDE TO, SO ESSENTIALLY 122,986 WOULD BE BALANCED.
THE OPTION TO THE RIGHT OF THAT IS, LET'S SAY YOU DIDN'T GO UP BY THE FULL 1 7 8, YOU JUST WENT UP BY 0.78.
FROM THE CURRENT RATE YOU WOULD REDUCE BY $560,000.
SO YOU HAVE THE CURRENT NET, NET ONGOING REVENUES OFFER, ONGOING EXPENDITURE TWO 50.
[00:10:01]
REDUCE TWO POLICE OFFICERS AND TWO COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS, YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH FLAT.IT'S UH, $2,000 IN THE POSITIVE.
AND THEN OUT TO THE RIGHT IF YOU, IF YOU CUT THAT 1.78 BACK TO, YOU KNOW, BUY A HALF A PENNY AND IT WAS 1.28 OVER THE CURRENT RATE, YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO CUT ANYTHING.
'CAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BUFFER BUILT IN TO THE GENERAL FUND.
I KNOW THAT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING, IT'S A LOT OF NUMBERS, BUT I TRIED MY BEST TO LAY IT OUT SO EVERYBODY COULD DIGEST IT.
BUT THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU THREE DIFFERENT LOOKS OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF YOU WERE TO SAY, NOT NECESSARILY GO ALL THE WAY UP TO THE, UH, NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
SO THAT'S QUESTION NUMBER ONE.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS CAN I ANSWER FOR YOU OR JAMES? I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER IUSO.
WELL, I GOT A LOT, A LOT TO, TO ADD HERE, WHICH I'M NOT EXPECTING YOU GUYS TO HAVE ANSWERS TO EVERYTHING, BUT I THINK IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK AT HOW CAN WE MAKE IT WORK AT THE CURRENT TAX RATE.
YOU KNOW, I'M A TRUE BELIEVER THAT WHEN OUR HOUSING VALUES GO UP AND DOWN, WE SHOULD BENEFIT FROM THAT.
I DON'T THINK THAT WHEN OUR HOUSING VALUE GOES DOWN, OUR TAX RATE WILL GO UP SO THAT WE'RE PAYING THE SAME AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX.
SO I ASKED YOU THAT QUESTION AND I APPRECIATE YOU GETTING THIS, THIS OUT FOR ME.
BUT I THINK THAT WHEN I EVALUATE THE LIST, AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, OBVIOUSLY I'M EDUCATED ENOUGH TO KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF ALL OF THESE, BUT I I'M NOT JUST GONNA SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE JUST THE FOUR POLICE OFFICERS AND COMMUNICATION OFFICERS.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE, I KNOW THAT THE COMMUNICATION OFFICERS ARE PRETTY NEEDED.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE THE INCLUSION OF LIKE THE VEHICLES THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO BE PURCHASED FOR THESE FOUR POLICE OFFICERS, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT EXPENSE.
I THINK THAT IF WE STARTED AT THAT POINT, WE COULD FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK AND NOT JUST PUT IT TOWARDS THE, THE, THE POLICE.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I ALSO WANNA REVIEW THE, THE EXCESS FUND BALANCE.
'CAUSE I DO THINK THAT WHILE I THINK YOU GUYS CAME OUT WITH A GOOD STRATEGY, UH, I DON'T, I THINK IT WAS, IT WAS PRETTY CONSERVATIVE.
I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO ADD SAVINGS TO THE HOMEOWNERS AS WELL.
AND JUST BY, UM, CHANGED THEM A LITTLE BIT.
AND INSTEAD OF ADDING MONEY TO US TO A, TO AN INVESTMENT FUND, IF WE WERE TO MOVE THAT OUT TO FUTURE DEBT, I, I THINK THE SAVINGS IS, IS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN IF WE JUST HAD A 2% INTEREST ON THAT MONEY.
SO THAT'S WHY I'D ASK FOR YOU GUYS TO COME UP WITH THOSE NUMBERS.
AND I THINK BETWEEN JAMES AND YOURSELF, UM, OFF OF A 20 YEAR TYPICAL NOTE, IF WE HAD THE 10 MILLION, YOU'RE LOOKING AT OVER A THOUSAND DOLLARS POTENTIALLY THAT HOMEOWNERS WILL BE ABLE TO SAVE OVER THAT TIME PERIOD.
TO ME, IF WE CAN MAKE IT WORK, I WOULD PREFER TO DO THAT FOR THE RESIDENTS THAN FIND AN ALTERNATIVE FOR IT.
AND SO I WOULD PREFER THAT WE START FROM WHAT OUR PREVIOUS RATE WAS AND IF WE CAN'T MAKE IT WORK, YOU CAN'T MAKE IT WORK.
BUT AT LEAST, AT LEAST START THERE.
SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT I WANTED TO SAY.
SO IN THE SIMPLEST TERMS, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE CURRENT RATE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO CUT ONGOING EXPENDITURES.
SO THINGS LIKE PATROL CARS, THOSE GET CUT AS WELL.
'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT ADDING OFFICERS, RIGHT? THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT SHOWN AS A SAVINGS PER SE.
IT WOULD JUST BE MORE REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES.
BUT IF YOU TRULY WANT TO EVALUATE A STRUCTURALLY BALANCED BUDGET, WHICH WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS ABOUT STRUCTURALLY BALANCED BUDGETS, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOUR ONGOING REVENUES SUPPORT YOUR ONGOING EXPENDITURES.
SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE IF YOU, IF YOU WANT TO CUT THE TAX RATE THAT'S GOING TO REDUCE AN ONGOING REVENUE, THAT'S FINE, THAT'S YOUR DECISION.
BUT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT YOU REDUCE ONGOING EXPENDITURES.
NOW THE DEBT POSSIBILITY OF THE DEBT, RIGHT? WE RAN TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.
FIVE, 5 MILLION AND 10 MILLION.
YOU COULD SAVE THE TAXPAYER MONEY BY EXCLUDING THOSE FROM THE BY CASH FUNDING PART OF A PROJECT.
DOWN THE ROAD, RIGHT? LIKE NEXT YEAR AND WHEN WE ISSUE DEBT, WE WON'T ACTUALLY ISSUE DEBT NEXT YEAR.
IT'LL BE THE NEXT YEAR AND THEN YOU WOULD MAKE THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT THE NEXT YEAR.
SO YES, YOU COULD SAVE THAT TAXPAYER IF YOU LOWERED IT DOWN.
I THINK WE CALCULATED THE 5 MILLION SAVES YOU ABOUT A HALF PENNY.
IS THAT RIGHT JAMES? I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
AND THEN THE 10 MILLION WAS A FULL PENNY.
[00:15:01]
OVER THE 20 YEARS AND IT'S, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SAVINGS IN SOME REGARDS.SO, BUT YOU WOULD REDUCE THAT TAX RATE DOWN AND KEEP IT THERE, RIGHT? SO IF YOU TOOK THE 5 MILLION THAT WE WERE SETTING ASIDE JUST AS AN ADDITIONAL RESERVE, OKAY, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE, THAT THAT'S USED, THAT'S FINDING A PURPOSE FOR MONEY THAT DOESN'T OTHERWISE HAVE A PURPOSE.
IF YOU WENT TO THE 10 MILLION, WE'D HAVE TO REDUCE ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS LIKE THE VER OR THE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND.
SO IF YOU WANTED TO PERFORM AT THE SAME LEVELS THAT IT'S BEING PROPOSED IN THOSE, YOU'D HAVE TO FIND THE MONEY SOMEWHERE AS AN ONGOING REVENUE RATHER THAN USING THAT ONE TIME MONEY TO, TO HELP FUND THOSE PROGRAMS FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD AND THEN FOR AN ONGOING PERIOD FOR THE
SO IF YOU WANTED TO GO THAT DIRECTION, I WOULD RECOMMEND $5 MILLION GOES TO A CIP PROJECT IN THE FUTURE AND THE TAXPAYER WILL START FEELING THE BENEFIT IN TWO YEARS.
AND WHAT, AND THEY'LL FEEL THAT BENEFIT FOR 20, RIGHT? SO IT'S, IT IS AN ONGOING SAVINGS, BUT IF WE'RE NOT, IF WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE O AND M TAX RATE, WHICH IS WHAT IS AFFECTED WHEN YOU REDUCE THE, IF WE WERE TO NOT DO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND WE DID SOME NUMBER LESS, YOU'RE ONLY AFFECTING THE O AND M SIDE OF THE TAX RATE.
SO IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU CUT ONGOING EXPENSE TO MATCH THAT REDUCTION AND ONGOING EXPENSE ARE THINGS LIKE SALARIES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND WHAT I'VE TOLD TO EACH OF YOU WHEN WE'VE MET INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THE MEETINGS IS IT'S BETTER JUST TO NOT ADD THAN TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND CUT.
SO WE'D BE PUTTING OURSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE WE JUST DON'T ADD THESE NEW OFFICERS OR DON'T ADD THESE NEW COMMUNICATION OFFICERS RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO BACK AND ENDURE PAIN SOMEWHERE ELSE.
SO THAT'S WHY MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THOSE SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS ARE LISTED IN PRIORITY ORDER AND THAT'S MY RECOMMENDED PRIORITY TO YOU GUYS.
AND MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO START WORKING YOUR WAY UP THE LIST.
AND THAT MEANS THE THINGS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST GO FIRST.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ONGOING THINGS IN THERE BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LIST, DO YOU HAVE THE PAGE JAMES, SOMEBODY SIX, YOU LOOK AT PAGE 61 OF YOUR, UH, GO TO THE ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PARTS FIRST TAB.
YEAH, I GUESS I CAN PULL UP THE BUDGET BOOK TOO.
SO PAGE 61 IS A LIST OF ALL THE SUPPLEMENTALS THAT ARE INCLUDED.
AND THEN BEHIND THAT IS THE EVERYTHING THAT GOT CUT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT TABLE, JAMES IS GONNA PULL IT UP ON THE SCREEN TOO.
THE COLUMN ON THE LEFT IS OKAY, THE COLUMN THAT SAYS INITIAL COST, THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET.
BUT A GOOD CHUNK OF THAT IS ONE TIME EXPENSE.
YOU GOTTA GO OUT TO THE, TO THE FAR RIGHT HAND COLUMN TO START SEEING ANNUAL RE ANNUALLY RECURRING ITEMS. ITEMS. SO EVERYTHING ABOVE THAT IS ALL ONE TIME.
AND THEN YOU GET WAY DOWN THE LIST TO YOUR ANNUALLY RECURRING STUFF.
MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE WHERE YOU START THE CUTTING START AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE LIST.
SO IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO DO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATING, WHICH UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT COMPLETELY ABOUT YES, YOU SHOULD BENEFIT WHEN IT GOES DOWN, BENEFIT WHEN IT GOES UP GO BY WITH HOW THE STATE DEFINES IT.
THE STATE DOES NOT DEFINE THAT AS A TAX RATE INC.
THEY SEE THAT AS THE TAX RATE STAYING THE SAME BECAUSE THAT RATE WHEN YOUR VALUES ARE GOING UP, UNFORTUNATELY OURS ARE GOING DOWN, BUT WHEN THE VALUES ARE GOING UP, THAT RATE IS GOING DOWN.
AND SO PEOPLE TEND TO ADOPT DOWN TO THAT.
NO NEW REVENUE RATE, SOME NUMBER LESS THAN THREE AND A HALF.
UM, BUT IF YOU WANTED TO LOOK AT A NUMBER THAT'S LESS, THAT'S WHY IT'S PROPOSED TO YOU THE WAY IT, AND REALLY WE WOULD NEED TO BE LOOKING AT
[00:20:01]
THINGS IN THE RIGHT HAND COULD GO BACK AND EVALUATE THE REST OF THE BUDGET.BUT I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND ELIMINATING ANY EXISTING POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE NOW.
I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO LAY ANYBODY OFF.
I'D RATHER NOT ADD A POSITION AND TO HIRE SOMEBODY NEW AND LAY SOMEBODY ELSE OFF.
I DON'T THINK, I MEAN, I KNOW I'M NOT PROPOSING LAYING OFF ANY CURRENT STAFF.
NO, I I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT.
AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT SALES TAX COULD BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT YOU ANTICIPATED, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? SO WE'VE GOTTEN THE LAST TWO MONTHS RECEIPTS FROM THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE.
IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD, BUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE CAN TAKE A DEEPER DIVE.
WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A COMPANY THAT WE UTILIZE WHERE WE CAN EVALUATE EVERY SINGLE TAXPAYER AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT BIG TAXPAYER THAT WAS GIVING US ALL THAT EXTRA MONEY IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT NUMBER.
AND TAKE, TAKE THE NET LIKE THE NORMAL RENT RECEIPTS THAT BE GETTING AND REEVALUATE THAT TREND LINE ON THE OUTSIDE.
IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD AND WE'VE UH, I WAS JUST TAKING, TAKING A LOOK AT AUGUST OR ALMOST NOT QUITE 20% GROWTH OVER OUR NORMAL FISCAL YEAR.
UM, SO THERE'S A CHANCE THERE'S STILL SOME RESIDENT OR RESIDUAL PAYMENTS FROM THAT COMPANY AND THAT SITUATION, UH, IN THERE AND I'LL, I SHOULD BE ABLE IN A COUPLE DAYS TO GET IN THERE AND SEE, MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THE CASE AND THAT'S NOT JUST HEB TO HAVE A STELLAR MONTH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR RDO SELLING A BUNCH OF STUFF.
UM, PREVIOUSLY WHEN I LOOKED AT IT AND EVALUATED THE TIMELINE TO REMOVE THAT, UM, THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE HIGH SALES TAXES, WE WERE STILL AVERAGING ABOUT OUR LONG-TERM AVERAGE 7%, WHICH IS WHAT I PUT IT TO THE BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR.
AND ACTUALLY I WAS GONNA ASK ABOUT THAT.
IF, IF YOU COULD, I SAW THAT THE PROJECTION WAS KIND OF IN LINE WITH WHAT THE PREVIOUS YEARS WERE.
IS THAT NOT INCLUDING HOME DEPOT OR, OR IS THAT NOT GIVEN THAT MUCH OF A CONSIDERATION? BECAUSE I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD MAYBE BE A HIGHER GROWTH RATE THAN WHAT, WHAT'S PROJECTED ON THERE? IT'S INCLUDED BECAUSE YOU GOTTA CONSIDER HOME DEPOT AS A PARTIAL YEAR, COME ONLINE IN THE SPRING, GET ABOUT HALF THE YEAR, AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR WILL BE A FULL, THAT'S, THAT'S PRIMARILY WHAT'LL DRIVE OUR 7% GROWTH.
BUT WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT AGAIN AND SEE IF IT'S ANY BETTER.
IN THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS WHEN I TAKE OUT THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAXES, WE WERE GROWING MORE AT JUST LIKE 1% TO 3% LEVEL BELOW OF OUR LONG TERM AVERAGE.
UH, AND SO THIS YEAR LOOKING GOOD AT THE SEVEN OR THE LONG TERM AVERAGE, SO BACK TO 7%.
UM, SO WE'LL JUST HAVE TO SEE WITH OVERALL ECONOMY AND EVERYTHING SHAKING UP, DO WE WANT TO, HOW, HOW LUCKY DO WE FEEL? YEAH.
UM, IT'S ALWAYS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.
WE'RE PROJECTING OUT, WE'RE TRYING TO, WE'RE GUESSING BASED ON EXPERT OPINIONS.
WE LOOK AT THIS, UH, FEDERAL RESERVE AND OTHER EXPERTS AND THEY KIND OF LOOK AT THE ECONOMY.
UM, IT'S ALWAYS, IF YOU LOOK BACK, IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT GUARANTEED.
IF YOU LOOK FORWARD, THERE'S ALWAYS A CHANCE THAT YOU'LL MISS THE MARK AND HAVE TO DO SOME KINDS MIDYEAR.
AND, AND UH, IT'S, UH, I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE IN A DIFFICULT POSITION 'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT DVHS IS MAKING IT MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT AND, AND THAT ENDS UP PUTTING MORE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE HOMEOWNERS.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK THAT TREND IS JUST GONNA CONTINUE.
WE'RE MM-HMM
WELL, WE AGREE ONE OF THE, WITHOUT HAVING TO JUST CONTINUE TO INCREASE THE PROPERTY TAX EVERY SINGLE YEAR, RIGHT.
WE'RE HOPING THAT WE WON'T SEE A CONTINUED DOWNWARD TREND AND THAT IT'LL AT LEAST LEVEL OFF.
UM, A AGAIN, IT BY THE STATE'S DEFINITION, THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS NOT A TAX RATE INCREASE.
I KNOW IT'S NOT SEEN THAT WAY.
IT IS A, IT IS A HIGHER RATE THAT'S APPLIED TO YOUR HOME VALUE FROM YEAR TO YEAR.
SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING DOWN, SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING UP.
IT'S, IT'S ACCORDING TO THE AVERAGE, RIGHT? UM, THERE'LL BE SOME THAT THEIR VALUES WENT DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA SEE ACTUALLY A REDUCTION BY DOING, IF YOU DID THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, I'M ONE, SORRY I PROTESTED, I WAS SUCCESSFUL IN MY PROTEST.
BUT I I, YOUR, YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN AND WE ARE VERY MINDFUL OF THE FUTURE.
THAT'S WHY WE DO THE FIVE-YEAR FORECAST THAT WE PRESENT TO Y'ALL THAT WE'VE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FLATNESS OF THE PROPERTY TAX GROWTH.
I DON'T EVEN THINK WE'RE PROJECTING ONE TO 2% IN TERMS OF GROWTH.
YEAH, I CUT IT FROM FIVE AND A HALF TO BIT OF INFLATION AND THEN THE HOMES
[00:25:01]
AND VALUES GO, UH, 4% ON NEW GROWTH.BUT IT IS TEMPERED WITH A LOSS ON PROPERTY SO LOW, THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
SO YOU GOTTA REMEMBER ALSO THAT THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUES DO NOT EXCLUSIVELY COME FROM HOMES AND HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES.
WE HAVE RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT HOMESTEADED.
WE ALSO HAVE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.
SO IN OUR COMMUNITY, A GOOD CHUNK IS THAT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, ABOUT 40% OF THE REVENUES ARE DERIVED FROM COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.
SO JUST BEAR THAT IN MIND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS SITUATION.
UH, I MEAN IF I, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF RECAP, I JUST WANTED US TO AT LEAST EVALUATE THE ABILITY TO MAYBE REMOVE UP TO A MILLION DOLLARS SO THAT WE REMAIN THE SAME, UH, PROPERTY TAX RATE, BUT ALSO HAVE A LONG TERM PLAN ON LOWERING THE INS WITH PUTTING SOME OF THAT MONEY TOWARDS FUTURE DEBT.
SO THAT WAS WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST CONSIDER AND EVALUATE.
AND LIKE I SAID, EVERYTHING'S ON THE TABLE.
YOU GUYS ARE THE POLICY MAKERS.
THE, I I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THIS ABOUT LOWERING THE INS RATE, FINDING A 5 MILLION A PURPOSE FOR THAT $5 MILLION.
I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND CHANGING THE STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM OR THE VER PROGRAM BECAUSE IF YOU SHORTCHANGE THOSE, I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME UP WITH A MONEY ANYWAY.
AND IT'S NOT A SAVINGS IF YOU SAVE OVER HERE, BUT THEN YOU GOTTA INCREASE OVER HERE OR SHORT IT, THE VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THAT ARTICLE OR WATCH THE NEWS STORY THAT I SENT TO YOU ABOUT ANOTHER CITY IN EAST TEXAS THAT'S HAVING TO REPLACE 12 TRUCKS.
THEY'RE DOING IT ALL WITH DEBT BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT 'EM ALL WITH DEBT.
SO THEY'RE CAUGHT IN THAT DEBT LOOP, THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO REPLACE THEIR TRUCKS.
AND SOME OF THE VIDEOS, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TORN UP SEATS AND ALL IN THE VIDEO
SO, UH, WE ARE TRYING TO NOT LET OUR FLEET GET IN THAT STATE AND KEEP IT IN AS, YOU KNOW, TOP WORKING CONDITION AND NOT GET CAUGHT INTO THE DEBT LOOP AND WHERE YOU'RE GONNA END UP PAYING SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.
THEY'RE USING COS SO COS FOR THE, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT WAS $12 MILLION, YOU'RE GONNA END UP PAYING 30 40% OF THAT IS GONNA BE INTEREST ON TOP OF THAT WHEN THEY GET DONE PAYING THE COS AFTER 20 YEARS.
SO I DON'T WANT OUR RESIDENTS TO HAVE TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT MORE THAN WIPES OUT ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD SAVE ON THE OTHER END.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU MAINTAIN THE VRF PROGRAM AS PROPOSED AND MAINTAIN THE STREET MAINTENANCE AS PROPOSED 5 MILLION.
SO MAYOR, UM, SO YOU'VE, YOU'VE ALREADY, YOU KEEP SAYING WE'RE THE, UH, POLICY MAKERS.
HOW MUCH OF THAT, OF THIS LIST RIGHT HERE ON PAGE 61, DO YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, FOR US TO CUT IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU DIRECTION, IN ORDER TO, FOR THE TAX RATE TO REMAIN THE SAME? WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? YOU SAID START AT THE BOTTOM.
SO ARE YOU LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM US ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CUT FROM HERE? WELL, I THINK, NO, I, I THINK THAT, FIRST OF ALL, I GUESS WHAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR, IS THERE A CONSENSUS ON A TAX RATE YOU'D LIKE TO TARGET? AND IS IT TO KEEP IT THE SAME OR IS IT AS PROPOSED IN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE OR IS IT SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT THAT I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO START AND MAYBE WORK OUR WAY BACKWARDS AT THIS POINT.
AND, AND I DON'T, I, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM ALL OF Y'ALL AND KIND OF WHAT YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS AND, AND WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE POLICY-WISE.
I'M KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE AS, UH, COUNCILMAN MACALUSO IS IN REGARDS TO TRYING TO KEEP THE RATE AT THE SAME, YOU KNOW, AND I, I SAW YOUR, THESE NUMBERS HERE AND IS, IS THERE ANOTHER ANALYSIS THAT WE CAN UTILIZE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE NEED OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, YOU KNOW, THESE CUTS.
IS, IS THERE, WAS THERE ANOTHER PICTURE THAT WE PAINTED OR CAN WE PAINT TO SHOW, YOU KNOW, I I MAYBE SOME REALLOCATION OF POSITIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I'M JUST THROWING SOME STUFF OUT THERE.
I'M NOT SAYING, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.
YOU'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT.
BUT YOU KNOW, THESE ARE, I THINK THEY'RE REQUIRED OR NEEDED, YOU KNOW, POSITIONS.
WELL THE, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN THE COMMUNICATION OFFICERS, THE POLICE AND THE EMSI, I THINK THESE ARE, ARE
[00:30:01]
DEFINITELY NEEDED POSITIONS.NOW I THINK THAT, UM, TRYING TO KEEP THE, THE TAX RATE AT THE SAME NUMBER, IS THERE ANOTHER WAY THAT WE CAN, THAT WE CAN DIVE IN, ANALYZE, LOOK FOR SOME EFFICIENCIES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENTS TO WHERE WE CAN STILL SUPPORT OUR SAME RATE AND STILL OBTAIN THESE POSITIONS? WELL, I, I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR, THESE ARE NOT POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY.
THESE ARE ADS, RIGHT? SO WE CAN GO BACK TO, IF WE WERE DOING WHAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING, WE WOULD GO BACK AND WE WOULD EVALUATE WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING NOW, WHICH ACTUALLY WE DO ON A DAILY BASIS, ANNUAL BASIS TO TRY AND BECOME MORE EFFICIENT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO, AND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS, IT'S NOT JUST BECOMING MORE EFFICIENT, IT IS CUTTING.
AND WITH 70% OF THE COST IN THE GENERAL FUND BEING SALARIES, IT'S LIKELY GOING TO HAVE TO BE SALARY RELATED.
NOW WE COULD, WE COULD CUT FUEL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE ADDING MONEY FOR FUEL 'CAUSE IT COST FUEL'S GOING UP, BUT THEN THAT MEANS THEY'RE GONNA NEED TO DRIVE LESS OR I MEAN THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE COULD CUT, BUT IT WILL AFFECT OPERATIONS AT, AT A MILLION DOLLARS.
SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS YOU JUST DON'T ADD NEW AND THEN WE JUST SUFFER THAT WORKLOAD AS IT IS NOW.
BUT I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA SUFFER THAT WORKLOAD.
YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, NEEDED POSITIONS FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS AND, AND OUR COMMUNITY.
SO I, I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT, I PERSONALLY DON'T WANNA SEE A CUT THERE OR I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE BODIES THERE.
YOU KNOW, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND THE DISCUSSIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH, UH, CHIEF AND YOU KNOW, CHIEF OF ALL DEPARTMENTS, I THINK THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE REALLY BEING TASKED AND, AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO DEFINITELY SUPPORT THOSE POSITIONS THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
I JUST, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT LONG TERM THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING OURSELVES IN DEBT, FURTHER DEBT, UH, I KNOW CEOS AND GEO, YOU KNOW, MY ANALYSIS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, ABOUT $250 MILLION, YOU KNOW, ALREADY IN DEBT SERVICE.
AND YOU KNOW, TO ME THAT NUMBER, YOU KNOW, I I GUESS IT IS WHAT IT IS, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN KIND OF CONTROL THAT IN A SENSE.
YEAH, BUT AGAIN, BACK TO, UH, WHAT, UH, ALOU WAS SAYING EARLIER, I THINK I, I WANT TO SEE THESE POSITIONS, YOU KNOW, FOR ME PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE POSITIONS, YOU KNOW, UM, NEW ADDED POSITIONS.
BUT AGAIN, SEE HOW WE CAN WORK THAT IN HOWEVER, MAINTAIN THE SAME RATE IF POSSIBLE.
THE NEW, THE NO NEW TAX RATE WOULD GENERATE MORE INCOME, BUT IT WOULD RAISE THE TAX RATE A LITTLE BIT AS OPPOSED TO JUST NOT RAISING THE TAX RATE AT ALL.
IS THAT SO THE NO NEW REVENUE, THE WAY YOU CALCULATE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS YOU TAKE THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE ON THE ROLL IN 25 AND YOU COMPARE IT TO THOSE SAME PROPERTIES IN 26.
AND SO IT'S, IT'S TAX BASED TIMES TAX RATE EQUALS YIELD OR THE REVENUE.
SO YOU GOTTA KEEP THE REVENUE NUMBER THE SAME.
SO IF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON BOTH YEARS, IF IT GOES UP, THEN YOUR RATE, YOUR NO NEW REVENUE RATE HAS TO GO DOWN TO CALCULATE THE SAME REVENUE NUMBER.
IF THEY GO DOWN LIKE OURS DID, YOUR RATE GOES UP TO GENERATE THAT SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE.
SO, SO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS TO, SINCE THOSE VALUES WENT DOWN, IS TO KEEP THAT RATE THE SAME, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THAT YIELD WOULD GO DOWN.
SO WE'RE FOCUSING ON NO NEW TAX RATE AND I, AND I GET IT AND I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S LEGITIMATE.
I THINK IT'S, THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
BUT AT WHAT POINT IN TIME DO YOU, HOW MANY YEARS DO YOU GO WITH NO NEW TAX RATE BEFORE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF CHURCH STARTS TO DIMINISH AT SOME POINT IN TIME? WE NEED NEW OFFICERS, WE NEED NEW VEHICLES, WE NEED, WE HALF THE STUFF ON THAT LIST.
SO SOONER OR LATER WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO RAISE A TAX RATE.
MAYBE NOT THIS YEAR, MAYBE NOT NEXT YEAR, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU, WE CAN CONTINUE INDEFINITELY JUST SORT OF SAYING, I DON'T WANNA RAISE TAXES.
I MEAN YOU CAN ADDRESS IT THROUGH GROWTH.
IF YOUR PROPERTY VALUES ARE GROWING, REMEMBER GENERAL FUND, IN THE GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX REVENUES, ABOUT 40% OF TOTAL REVENUES.
WHAT OUR EFFORTS ARE CON CONCENTRATING ON IS DIVERSIFYING ADDING MORE COMMERCIAL, ADDING MORE INDUSTRIAL AND RETAIL.
SO IF WE CAN GENERATE MORE SALES TAX THAT CAN HELP BOOST UP THAT REVENUE SOURCE KIND OF MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTE AND CONSIDER IT LIKE A STOOL, RIGHT? IDEALLY YOU'D WANT THREE BROAD BASED TAX REVENUES,
[00:35:01]
BUT WE ONLY HAVE TWO IN TEXAS GOT THE SALES TAX AND THE PROPERTY TAX.SO IF WE CAN BOOST UP THAT SALES TAX AND GET DO A LITTLE BETTER, THEN WE CAN HELP OFFSET SOME OF THAT LACK OF GROWTH IN THE PROPERTY TAX.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO ADD THINGS RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT OUTGROWING IT.
AND THE, LIKE WE WERE FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO WHERE VALUES WERE GROWING AND WE'RE ADDING VALUE EVERY YEAR, UNFORTUNATELY THE VALUE THAT WE'RE ADDING, A LOT OF THOSE ARE HOMESTEADS AND THEY'RE ABLE TO GO BACK AND GET THE D-V-H-S-A HUNDRED PERCENT.
SO WE ACTUALLY HAD OVER A MILLION DOLLARS IN REFUNDS OF PEOPLE WHO COUNTED ON THAT GROWTH REVENUE, BUT THEN THE NEXT YEAR THEY QUALIFIED SO RETROACTIVELY WE HAD TO PAY BACK FIVE YEARS WORTH.
SO IT IT, IT IS A NEW ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE LIVING IN AND THAT WE'RE HAVING TO ADJUST TO.
WE'VE ADJUSTED OUR LONG RANGE FORECAST, WE'VE ADJUSTED THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING TO MATCH THAT TREND LINE.
UM, I RECOMMENDED THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
WHY DON'T WE DO THIS JUST BASED UPON WHAT I'M HEARING, MAYBE, UH, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A HEAVY, UH, DESIRE FOR ANYBODY TO RAISE TAX RATES.
SO WHY DON'T WE JUST GO WITH YOUR PROPOSED NO NEW TAX RATE.
I'M HEARING ABOUT THREE OR FOUR OF US PROB JUST IN THIS ROOM, NOT ANYTHING.
PLEASE, UH, THERE'S NO NEW TAX RATE, SO I DON'T KNOW, UNLESS THERE IS ANY INTEREST ON THIS COUNCIL TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN NO NEW TAX RATE.
WHY DON'T WE START AT THAT POINT? SOUNDS GOOD.
SO I, I KNOW COUNCILMAN MACALUSO HAS ALREADY MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE WANTS TO DO THE CURRENT RATE, WHICH IS LOWER THAN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
AND COUNCILMAN SHERIDAN WANTS TO DO SOMETHING LOWER THAN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
SO MAYBE WE COULD HEAR FROM EVERYBODY ELSE.
UM, OBVIOUSLY NOBODY WANTS TO SIT THERE AND RAISE TAXES, BUT I AM INTERESTED MAYBE IN 0.5 2, 5 2, UM, AND THAT WILL RETAIN, UH, THE OFFICERS AND THEN DISPATCH AND THE POSITIONS.
SO ESSENTIALLY KIND OF I HAVE, IF WE HAVE TO, THAT'S WHERE I WOULD BE WITH AT THAT NUMBER.
SO, SO ON THIS SHEET, I'M, COULD YOU SAY THE NUMBER AGAIN? I APOLOGIZE.
UM, 0.5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 MM-HMM
AND THAT SECURES THE OFFICERS AND DISPATCH.
AND SO, SO THEY WOULD BE 40 44.
REDUCTION IN 0.44 OF A PENNY BACKED OFF FROM THE NOTED REVENUE RATE.
AND THAT, THAT ACTUALLY WOULD ADD ALL OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AND ALL OF YEAH.
SO WITH THE, UH, CURRENT TAX RATE, DO WE GET THOSE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? UH, THAT WOULD NOT BE MY, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO NOT ADD PEOPLE.
IT WOULD BE TO, TO KIND OF KEEP OUR OPERATING EXPENSES THE WAY THEY ARE.
'CAUSE YOU'RE ADDING OPERATING EXPENSE AND YOU'RE TAKING AWAY OPERATING REVENUE.
WHAT IS THE TOTAL REVENUE THAT, THAT WE'VE HAD FOR THE PAST YEAR? I'M SORRY? TOTAL REVENUE? THE TOTAL PROPOSED REVENUE, YEAH.
AND THAT INCLUDES IF WE USED THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
SO THEN IF YOU REDUCED BY, IF YOU REDUCED THE TAX RATE BY SOME AMOUNT, THEN WE WOULD TAKE THAT OUT OF THAT 55, 2 95 50.
AND WHAT IS THE TOTAL, UH, EXPENDITURES? WELL, THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES IS 82 MILLION 7 88, 180 5, BUT THERE'S 27 MILLION, 7 47, 8 0 9 AT THAT.
SO THAT'S TRANSFERS OUT, THAT'S CAPITAL ITEMS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO REALLY YOU WANT TO EVALUATE IT ON THE NET BASIS.
AND THAT'S 55 MILLION OH 4 0 3 7 6.
SO WHAT, WHAT WOULD YOU, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION OR WHAT IS THE CITY DOING TO MINIMIZE THE, THE DIFFERENCE? SO, SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO, TO ADOPT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WHICH WOULD BE 52 96.
IT IS HIGHER THAN THE CURRENT RATE BY 1.78 CENTS.
[00:40:01]
THE PROPOSED BUDGET.IF WE DO THAT, WE'RE ABLE TO ADD THE FOUR DISPATCH OFFICERS AND THE FOUR POLICE OFFICERS.
BUT IF YOU WERE TO ADOPT SOME RATE LOWER THAN THAT, MY RECOMMENDATION SINCE THOSE WERE ESSENTIALLY THE, THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST TO BE ADDED WOULD BE YOU START FROM THE BOTTOM AND YOU WORK YOUR WAY UP WITHOUT AFFECTING CURRENT OPERATIONS.
IF WE WERE TO GO BACK AND EVALUATE IF WE KEPT THOSE IN AND CUT SOMEWHERE ELSE, WE WOULD BE, WE WOULD BE AFFECTING CURRENT OPERATIONS IN OTHER AREAS.
WELL, I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF NOT LETTING ANYBODY GO, BUT I AM IN FAVOR OF IF WE NEED MORE OFFICERS, MORE FIRST RESPONDERS, I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT.
BUT I, I DON'T WANT TO PUT THE BURDEN SOLELY ON THE RESIDENTS, BUT WE GOTTA FIGURE OUT A WAY TO, TO SUPPORT OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AT THE SAME TIME, KEEP THE TAX RATE LOW FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND MINIMIZE THE DIFFERENCE OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES VERSUS TOTAL REVENUE.
SO, SO HERE'S A POSSIBILITY I CAN THROW THIS OUT THERE AND MAYBE GET, UH, FEEDBACK FROM THE COUNCIL.
IF WE, IF WE KEPT THE CURRENT RATE AND WE NEED TO REDUCE GENERAL FUND REVENUES BY A MILLION DOLLARS, WE DON'T ADD THE POLICE OFFICERS AND WE DON'T ADD THE DISPATCHERS AND WE EVALUATE, SAY, MIDWAY THROUGH THE YEAR TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR AND THEN WE COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND ADD THOSE POSITIONS AND THAT'S THE TOP OF THE LIST NEXT YEAR TO BE ADDED.
I, I PREFER THE CAUTIOUS APPROACH OF NOT ADDING THOSE NEW EXPENDITURES AND THEN SEEING HOW IT GOES.
AND IF WE DON'T ADD 'EM, HOW WOULD IT AFFECT OUR CITY IF YOU DON'T ADD THEM? RIGHT.
WE WOULD BE SHOULDERING THE CURRENT LOAD AS IT IS, BUT I'M NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO RECOMMEND TO YOU TO ADDRESS A NEED IN ONE DEPARTMENT, BUT THEN CREATE PROBLEMS IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'LL DO.
'CAUSE I'VE GOT OTHER DEPARTMENTS, LIKE THE STREETS DEPARTMENT THAT ARE UNDERSTAFFED.
I'VE GOT OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE A HARD TIME FILLING POSITIONS.
NOW I'VE GOT A LOT AND I DON'T WANNA HAVE TO GO ROB PETER TO PAY PAUL.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD POLICY.
I DON'T THINK WE GAIN ANYTHING BY THAT.
SO IF YOU, IF YOU, AGAIN, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE IF YOU WANNA KEEP A LOWER TAX RATE, IF YOU WANNA KEEP THE CURRENT TAX RATE FOR THAT MATTER, WE TAKE THE FOUR POSITIONS OUT AND THEN WE EVALUATE THIS YEAR, SEE HOW WE'RE GOING, AND THOSE ARE TOP OF THE LIST.
NEXT YEAR WE COULD EVEN, WE COULD EVEN DO A MID-YEAR EVALUATION IF YOU'D LIKE.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS BEFORE I COMMENT MORE.
I THINK I, SO RIGHT NOW, UH, WHAT I'M HEARING, SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEY'D LIKE TO SEE IF WHAT WE CAN DO TO KEEP, UH, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CURRENT TAX RATE, WHICH WOULD DROP IT TO 0.5118.
AND THEN IF WE GO TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WHICH IS THE 0.5296, THAT'S BRINGING BACK THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE BROUGHT IN THIS FISCAL YEAR.
ALTHOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S AN INCREASE, IT REALLY ISN'T, WHICH WOULD BE BRINGING THE SAME MONEY BACK BY DOING SO.
ARE YOU SAYING WE'RE STILL ABLE TO KEEP THE FOUR, UH, COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND FOUR POLICE OFFICERS? IF YES, IF YOU ACCEPT THE PROPOSED BUDGET AS IT IS, WE KEEP EVERYTHING THAT'S PROPOSED IN THERE, WHICH INCLUDES FOUR POLICE OFFICERS AND FOUR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS.
NOW TO BE CLEAR, WE ARE GONNA RECEIVE MORE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE THAN WE DID LAST YEAR.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF GROWTH NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS JUST ADDED THIS YEAR.
WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF THE GROWTH? 4.2%.
UH, PUT IT UP ON THERE AS, AS CONVERSATIONS.
THIS IS THE GENERAL FUND AND THE INS.
SO THE, THE BUDGET AT, AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE WOULD RAISE $1.2 MILLION OR 4.4% MORE IN TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES THAN THE YEAR PRIOR OF THAT AMOUNT.
1.2 MILLION, 4,000 DIFFERENCE.
UH, THE TAX REVENUES BE RAISED FROM NEW PROPERTY.
SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF WAYS THE, THE STATE HAS THIS CALCULATED.
THEY DON'T PUT IN NEW PROPERTY ADDED WHEN THEY'RE TELLING US LIKE, HEY, THIS IS THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
THIS IS HOW MUCH YOU BRING IN TO BRING OUT THE SAME AMOUNT THE THE NEW PROPERTY.
THESE ARE NEW HOMES, THESE ARE NEW
[00:45:01]
BUSINESSES THAT ALL NEED NEW SERVICES.SO THAT, THAT'S WHERE THAT NEED FOR NEW OFFICERS COME FROM OR MORE PARKS OR ADDITIONAL STREET MAINTENANCE.
IT'S FROM THESE PROPERTIES BEING ADDED, THAT $1.2 MILLION, UM, THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, ONE THING IT DOESN'T ADDRESS IS INFLATION.
IT COSTS MORE TO PROVIDE THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT IT DID IN THE YEARS PRIOR.
UH, THAT'S WHERE THAT, UH, NO, THAT VOTER APPROVAL RATE, THEY SAY, HEY, YOU CAN GET, YOU CAN GO UP TO 3.5%, WHICH IS OUR LIMITING INFLATION FACTOR, UM, TO PROVIDE FOR INFLATION ON EXISTING SERVICES.
UH, THAT'S WHERE THAT TOP RATE KIND OF COMES IN.
SO IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT IT THIS WAY, WE'RE BRINGING IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY, DOESN'T REALLY KIND OF ADDRESS A WHOLE LOT OF INFLATION.
AND THEN WE HAVE THESE NEW PROPERTIES THAT NEED NEW PEOPLE TO HELP SERVICE AND THAT'S WHERE THAT NEW OFFICERS COME FROM.
UM, AND, AND THE NEED FOR THE, THE NEW OFFICERS AND NEW DISPATCHERS, UM, COMES OUTTA THAT 1.2 MILLION, THAT NEW PROPERTY BEING ADDED, UM, TO KINDA GIVE ANOTHER, ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
SO QUESTION, WITH THAT NEW GROWTH THAT'S COMING, WHY COULDN'T WE JUST RELY ON THAT VERSUS RAISING THE TAX RATE WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING MORE MONEY, SOME MORE REVENUE THAN WE DID THIS PAST, THIS PREVIOUS YEAR? GENERALLY, CAN WE RELY ON THAT? YOU, YOU CAN ASKING RELY ON IT? NO.
YOU CAN RELY ON IT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME MM-HMM
UM, BUT AGAIN, WHAT IT DOESN'T ADDRESS IS INFLATION, RIGHT? UH, SO AS THE CITY KEEPS GROWING, MORE SERVICES ARE DEMANDED, HEY, WE GOT MORE, MORE POLICE OFFICERS NEEDED TO BE OUT THERE TO PATROL AND KEEP THOSE INCREASING POPULATIONS SAFE.
UM, BUT THEN WHERE'S THE MONEY THAT TO COVER THE EXTRA FUEL COSTS TO COVER THE, UH, HEALTH INSURANCE TO COVER, UM, JUST THE OVER THE, EVERY, ALL THE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE THAT GO UP FOUR TO 5% EVERY YEAR.
UM, THEN THAT MONEY WOULD NEVER ADDRESS THOSE THINGS.
SO YEAH, WE ARE GAINING A LITTLE BIT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE, BUT IT'S LIKE JAMES SAID, THAT ADDRESSES INFLATION.
IT ALSO ADDS, THAT WAS AN AD, RIGHT? THOSE ARE ADDED PROPERTIES, ADDED RESIDENTS, ADDED, ADDED SERVICE NEEDS.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S NOT GROWING THAT FAST AND WE'RE HAVING TO GIVE A GOOD CHUNK BACK AS PEOPLE ARE RECEIVING THEIR A HUNDRED PERCENT, UH, DISABLED VETERANS EXEMPTION.
WE END UP HAVING TO GIVE THE MONEY BACK THE NEXT YEAR.
SO WE'RE NOT REALLY, WE'RE TRYING TO NOT COUNT ON THAT MONEY SO MUCH, BUT ALSO OUR POPULATION IS GROWING.
WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE PER YEAR? I DON'T KNOW.
BRIAN, DO YOU KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD? IT'S TWO TO THREE, 2%.
IF YOU GIMME A SEC, LET ME LOOK BACK AND CALCULATE.
SO, AND I, AND I WOULD, I WOULD ADD THIS IN TERMS OF IF, IF WE WANTED TO KEEP THEM IN AND, AND KEEP THE CURRENT TAX RATE AND YOU ASKED ME TO GO BACK AND EVALUATE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE BUDGET TO CUT, IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT POLICE IS OFF THE TABLE TO CUT AND FIRES OFF THE TABLE TO CUT AND THE GENERAL FUND, THAT'S HALF OF THE MONEY RIGHT THERE.
SO THEN I GOTTA GO SPREAD A MILLION DOLLARS AMONG LESS THAN HALF OF THE GENERAL FUND.
AND IT NOT, IT'S NOT A 2% CUT THERE NOW IT'S A FOUR OR 5% CUT AND I'M HAVING TO DEAL WITH CUTTING PERSONNEL OR POSITIONS MORE LIKELY WITH, YOU KNOW, CUT SOMETHING SOMEWHERE IN TERMS OF A, A, A VACANT POSITION OR ATTRITION TYPE THING.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S HEALTHFUL FOR OUR ORGANIZATION.
I THINK THAT TAKES US IN THE WRONG DIRECTION AND I FEEL LIKE SERVICES WOULD SUFFER IN THOSE OTHER AREAS AND WE NEED TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.
EITHER TAX RATE IS THE STEP RATE, THE STEP INCLUDED? YES.
THE STEP AND THE MERIT ARE INCLUDED? YES.
INCLUDED, NO MATTER WHAT TAX RATE WE HAVE.
NO MATTER WHAT, WHETHER WE HAVE THE 0.51 OR THE 0.52, THE STEP IS INCLUDED.
SO WE GREW 9.1% IN TERMS OF POPULATION BETWEEN UH, 2020 AND 2025 ESSENTIALLY.
SO WE'RE GROWING JUST UNDER 2% A YEAR.
SO WITH UM, EITHER THE TAX, THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE OR THE CURRENT TAX RATE, OUR FIRST RESPONDERS ARE GETTING THEIR MERIT PAY.
OUR STAFF IS OR UH, STEP THEIR STEP PAY AND OUR STAFF IS GETTING THEIR MERIT PAY.
SO WHAT WOULD IT PUT THE TAX RATE? YOU HAVE THAT CENTER COLUMN RIGHT THERE
[00:50:01]
WHERE IT SAYS THAT YOU WOULD, UH, YOU COULD BRING ON HALF NOW, UH, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT, LIKE RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE EIGHT POSITIONS, UH, THAT YOU'D LIKE TO BRING ON.FOUR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS, FOUR POLICE OFFICERS.
UH, IF YOU, WHAT WOULD THE TAX RATE BE AT IF YOU DO THAT MIDDLE COLUMN? SO YOU WOULD REDUCE THE 1.78 BY A PENNY.
SO IT WOULD BE 0.78 ON TOP OF THE 51 18.
SO QUICK MATH, WHAT IS THAT, JAMES? OKAY.
IT'D BE, SO 5 1 8 51 18 PLUS 0.78.
AND SO THAT'S, UM, NO, NO, IT WOULD, IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD CONSIDER WITH ALSO LIKE A MIDTERM REVIEW TO SEE IF WE COULD BRING ON THE OTHER FOUR, UH, TWO COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND TWO POLICE OFFICERS IF, UH, IF WE'RE DOING WELL AND, AND OUR SALES TAX WAS UP AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
SO IT WOULD, UH, YOU, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CHANGE YOUR TAX RATE MIDYEAR.
'CAUSE ONCE YOU SET IT, IT'S FOR THE WHOLE RIGHT.
BUT WE COULD DO A REVIEW AND SEE HOW OTHER REVENUE SOURCES ARE PERFORMING.
AND, UH, SALES TAX AND SOME OTHERS AND SEE ABOUT BRINGING 'EM ON MIDYEAR AND THAT, AND THAT'S A VIABLE OPTION AS WELL.
SO I'M, I'M WITH UH, COUNCILMAN ALOU.
SO I, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS AND OUR COUNCIL MEMBER DIETZ.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE IN A STALEMATE HERE AND WE SORT OF NEED SOME DIFFERENT OPINIONS, UH, WITHOUT GOING INTO SPECIFICS.
'CAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH IT AT THIS POINT.
UM, WE'RE ON A DOWNHILL SLIDE BETWEEN THE REVENUE THAT WE LOSE FROM THE VETERANS EXEMPTION AND THE LACK OF SUPPORT FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS.
UH, I CAN'T SEE, JUST KEEP ON RAISING THE TAX RATE.
UH, I UNDERSTAND WE NEED CERTAIN POSITIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OR IN THE, UH, IN THE CITY.
UH, BUT I THINK THERE ARE COST SAVINGS TO HAVE ACROSS THE CITY AND I'M JUST NOT CONVINCED THAT WE'RE LOOKING ACROSS THE CITY THOROUGHLY TO LOOK AT WHERE WE CAN SAVE MONEY.
SO I DON'T THINK RAISING THE TAX RATE, IT'S A BANDAID.
YOU RAISE IT BY, YOU RAISE IT BY A PENNY, IT'S GONNA BE A BANDAID.
AND, AND IF WE'RE NOT GONNA LOOK AT THIS SERIOUSLY FOR THE LONG TERM, WE DO A FIVE YEAR BUDGET, BUT AT THE RATE WE'RE GOING, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE IMPACT OF THE VETERAN'S EXEMPTION.
UH, AND YOU, YOU DID A GREAT JOB OF SHOWING THE IMPACT OF THAT OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS.
UH, THE IMPACT ON LOST REVENUE TO THE CITY OF CERTS IS GOING UP SIGNIFICANTLY EVERY YEAR.
AND THE REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS IS GOING DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY EVERY YEAR.
UM, SO YOU'VE GOT, TO ME, YOU'VE GOT TWO OPTIONS.
YOU EITHER JUST GO AHEAD AND SLAP MORE MONEY ON THE, WHATEVER THE MAX WE CAN RAISE IT TO.
'CAUSE IF YOU, IF WE PUT IT BEFORE THE VOTERS, I CAN TELL YOU HOW THAT'S GONNA WORK.
IF, IF WE GO ABOVE THE, THE, THE LEVEL AND, AND IT GOES OUT TO THE VOTERS, IT'S GONNA FAIL.
IF IT DIDN'T FAIL, I'D BE UTTERLY AMAZED.
UM, BUT I WOULD BET THAT IT WOULD FAIL.
SO IF YOU TURN AROUND AND GO UP TO THE MAX THAT WE COULD DO WITHOUT DOING A VOTER REFERENDUM, WELL THEN THE PATH THAT WE'RE ON, WE MIGHT AS WELL START DOING THAT EVERY YEAR.
JUST GO TO THE MAX RATE EVERY YEAR AND JUST KEEP ON ADDING MONEY BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IN THE CITY OF URS.
AND, AND I I, WE'VE HAD SOME GREAT CONVERSATIONS HERE, BUT IT AIN'T FIXING IT.
ADDING A PENNY THIS YEAR, ADDING A PENNY AND A HALF THIS YEAR IS NOT FIXING THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE.
AND I THINK, I THINK WE ALL NEED TO MAYBE SERIOUSLY LOOK AT A LOT OF THINGS IN THE CITY AND LOOK AT WHERE WE CAN SAVE MONEY AND I'LL LET IT GO WITH THAT.
BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF JUST GOING AHEAD AND, AND INCREASING THE TAX RATE.
SO TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, YOU'RE NOT IN FAVOR.
UM, I TEND TO ECHO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS SHERIDAN AND DAVIS AND WHAT THEY WERE SAYING, AND MAYBE WE
[00:55:01]
CAN TAKE A DEEP DIVE INTO SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY.UM, BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I AGREE.
I'M NOT WILLING TO GIVE UP THE FOUR COMMUNICATION OFFICERS IN THE FOUR POLICE OFFICERS.
I THINK THAT COULD BE A DETRIMENT TO OUR CITY, UM, AND CONTINUE TO LOWER HOUSING RATES IF, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DEEM IT UNSAFE.
UM, SO I THINK DEFINITELY MAKING, MAYBE TAKING A LITTLE LOOK, LOOK AROUND, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS QUITE A PICKLE THAT WE'RE IN AND CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, RAISING RATES IS NOT GREAT IN THIS ECONOMY RIGHT NOW.
UM, BUT MAYBE IF WE COULD, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO LOOK AT, BUT IF WE COULD LOOK AT SOMETHING ELSE.
'CAUSE I'M NOT WILLING TO GIVE UP THE POLICE AND COMMUNICATIONS.
UM, OTHER OPTIONS ARE WE COULD ELIMINATE THE STEP AND THE MERIT.
THAT'S KIND OF NEXT UP ON THE LIST, BUT I DON'T RECOMMEND THAT BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS EVERY POSITION IN, IN THE ORGANIZATION.
UM, BUT IT ONLY GETS YOU ABOUT 600,000 OF THE WAY THERE.
UH, AGAIN, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO NOT ADD NEW POSITIONS TO ONE DEPARTMENT AND THEN TAKE AWAY STEPPING MERIT FROM THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION BECAUSE WE WOULD GO BACK AND WE REMOVE IT FROM THE WATER AND SEWER FUND, THE DRAINAGE FUND, SO IT AFFECTS ALL 500 EMPLOYEES.
SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING I'D RECOMMEND.
UM, I, THERE IS ALWAYS, THERE ARE ALWAYS WAYS TO GO AND FIND MONEY IN THE BUDGET.
WE CAN CUT THINGS LIKE TRAINING AND THE, JUST THE THINGS THAT ARE EASY, OBVIOUS THINGS TO NOT INVEST IN AS AN ORGANIZATION.
BUT THAT WOULD NEED TO COME FROM THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION.
SO YOU'VE GOT POLICE DEPARTMENT AND A FIRE DEPARTMENT.
HOPEFULLY YOU WOULDN'T TELL ME THAT THAT'S OFF LIMITS TO CUT FROM AS WELL, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD SHOULDER ALL THAT WITHOUT ELIMINATING PEOPLE IN PARKS AND LIBRARY AND ALL THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
I WOULD HAVE TO ELIMINATE PEOPLE OR POSITIONS BECAUSE AGAIN, 70% OF WHAT MAKES UP THE GENERAL FUND IS SALARIES.
SO WHY DON'T WE CONCENTRATE ON INCREASING OUR REVENUE INSTEAD OF, IF WE CUT HERE, WE'RE GONNA, OR IF WE BOOST UP HERE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO CUT HERE.
HOW ABOUT RAISING OUR REVENUE, INCREASING IT, INCREASING PROFIT.
THAT WAY WE CAN MAKE SURE EVERYBODY GETS PAID, WHETHER IT'S STAFF, FIRST RESPONDERS, THEY'RE ALL GETTING THEIR, THEIR, THEIR STEPS, THEIR MERITS.
AND WE KEEP THE TAX RATE LOW FOR THE RESIDENTS, INCREASE OUR PROFITS, INCREASE OUR, OUR OUR REVENUE.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE, YOU WERE REFERRING TO, RIGHT? THERE'S TWO BUCKETS.
THERE'S THE, UH, 40% FROM THE HOUSING BUCKET, RIGHT? MORE OR LESS THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.
WELL, BUT FROM PROPERTY TAX, FROM PROPERTY TAXES FROM REVENUE.
AND SO WE ONLY HAVE TWO BUCKETS HERE.
AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS NOBODY WANTS TO RAISE IT ABOVE THE 0.51.
SO NOW IT GOES BACK TO THE, UH, COMMERCIAL SIDE OR THE EDC SIDE.
HOW DO WE INCREASE REVENUE TO HERE TO THAT POINT? UM, AND WE ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO DO BOTH OF DO THAT.
IT JUST TAKES TIME AND YOU GOTTA BUILD.
YEAH, IT TAKES, WELL I I I THINK MAYBE AS A FAIR COMPROMISE, KIND OF MAYBE WHAT THE MAYOR HAD SAID, IF YOU REDUCED IT BY A PENNY AND YOU DIDN'T NECESSARILY GO UP TO THE 51 96, YOU WENT TO 50, I MEAN TO 52 96, YOU GO TO 51 96 AND YOU ADD TWO POSITIONS.
YOU, OR IF YOU REALLY WANTED THE DISPATCHERS, YOU COULD PROBABLY ADD THREE DISPATCHERS OR ALL FOUR DISPATCHERS AND NO OFFICERS.
LET'S, MAYBE WE CAN HEAR FROM THE CHIEF JIM LAR, YOUR POLICE CHIEF.
IF IT'S UP TO ME, I WOULD RATHER HAVE FOUR DISPATCHERS AND FOUR GO.
MY DISPATCHES THE AREA THAT I NEED MORE ASSISTANCE IN RIGHT NOW THAN PATROL IS THERE.
SO I'M, I'M IN FAVOR IF, IF YOU WANNA SPLIT THE BABY, I'M FINE WITH THAT ONE.
I THINK LAST YEAR WE SPLIT THE BABY, DIDN'T WE? I THINK THERE WAS LIKE A A BACK AND FORWARD SOMEWHAT YEAH.
SO I'M WILLING TO GO DOWN IF SOMEBODY'S WILLING TO GO UP AND YOU'LL SORT OF HAVE GENERAL DIRECTION AND IF, IF THE COMMITMENT IS TO THE CURRENT TAX RATE AND WE DON'T WANT TO GO UP TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND SAY THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE, WE'LL WORK TOWARDS THAT.
I'LL BUILD THE BUDGET THAT WAY.
IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION Y'ALL ARE GONNA GIVE ME, I'LL DO THAT AND WE'LL, I'LL FIGURE OUT WAYS TO CUT IT.
IT'S, IT'S, UM, IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO, BUT IT, YOU KNOW, IT COMES WITH A LITTLE BIT OF PAIN HERE AND THERE.
I THOUGHT I RECALL US GOING ABOVE THE NO NEW RE NO NEW REVENUE, UH, REVENUE RATE
[01:00:01]
LAST YEAR.SO I KNOW THAT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE EVERY YEAR WE'VE GONE UP AND UP.
UM, I, I HAVE, UM, POLICE CHIEF HAS BEEN VERY, VERY VOCAL ABOUT THE NEED FOR DISPATCHERS AND I, I WOULDN'T DISAGREE THAT THEY'RE NEEDED.
SO I THINK IF THERE WAS ANYTHING NOT TO, TO GET RID OF IT WOULD PROBABLY BE THAT.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT THEIR PAY INCREASES ARE INCLUDED IN HERE AS WELL, WHICH I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S INTERESTED IN REMOVING THAT.
I KNOW FOR ONE, I'M HAVE ZERO INTEREST IN, UH, MESSING WITH CURRENT STAFF OR EVEN THEIR MERIT OR, OR STEP INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES.
UM, I JUST, I DON'T LIKE THE TRAJECTORY THAT WE'RE ON SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL BECAUSE EVERY YEAR IT'S AN INCREASE AND I DON'T SEE WHY THAT WOULD CHANGE.
AND, UH, UNLESS WE ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING FROM OUR SIDE.
AND SO, UM, MAYBE THERE'S, MAYBE THERE'S A, A, A BALANCE HERE.
TO ME, THE BALANCE COULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE WITH LOWERING THE INS CAN MAYBE OFFSET SOME OF THAT.
BUT, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I STAND NOW TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU JUST DID THE FOUR DISPATCHERS AND LOW AND ONLY INCREASED BY 0.78, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY FLUSH.
YOU COULD ADD THE DISPATCHERS, YOU COULD, YOU'RE RAISING, YOU'RE GONNA BE A PENNY LOWER THAN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE SOMEWHAT IN THE MIDDLE, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN IN THE MIDDLE, RIGHT? YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY SPLITTING THE BABY OR CUTTING TWO THIRDS OF THE BABY.
QUICK QUESTION, UH, CHIEF, WHAT'S YOUR STAFFING LEVEL FOR DISPATCHERS CURRENTLY? SO I HAVE AUTHORIZED 75 COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, A TOTAL 129.
AGAIN, WE ARE, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OVER SEVEN YEARS, I AM AT A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR COMMISSION PERSONNEL.
BUT WITH THAT SAID, NINE OF 'EM ARE IN TRAINING OR JUST HIRED.
SO IT CAN BE ANYWHERE BASED OFF OF THEIR EXPERIENCE.
AND SOME JUST GOING TO THE ACADEMY, IT COULD BE SIX TO NINE MONTHS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY HAVE THEM BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
BUT AT THAT POINT, THAT DOES GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD MORE PATROL OFFICERS.
THAT'S MY INTENT IS TO FILL PATROL FIRST WITH THOSE THAT ARE COMING ONLINE, BUT NOT, I'M I'M SAYING EXCLUDING THESE FOUR OFFICERS WITH, WITH YOUR OFFICERS IN TRAINING.
UH, ESSENTIALLY THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY OUT ON THE BEAT ON THEIR OWN? NO, I'M CARRYING VACANCIES LIKE IN CID AND TRAFFIC.
SO THAT I CAN KEEP PATROL FIELD RIGHT NOW.
I JUST DON'T WANT THE PERCEPTION THAT LIKE, YOU KNOW, HEY, WE'RE REMOVING THIS, SO WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE IN THE NEED OF HAVING FOUR MORE OFFICERS ON THE STREET RIGHT NOW AND BECAUSE WE DON'T DO THIS, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING OUR CITY LESS SAFE.
I THINK THAT'S A, NOT A, A VALID VIEW OF IT.
AND I WOULD ALSO, UH, FALL BACK ON SOME EARLIER COMMENTS THAT SAID THAT WE MAY NEED TO REEVALUATE THIS.
AND EVEN AS I'M HIRING PEOPLE, AGAIN, I WAS TELLING YOU, SIX TO NINE MONTHS BEFORE I EVEN, I COME TO FULL STAFFING.
SO IF YOU TOLD ME FOUR OFFICERS, IT WOULD STILL BE NINE TO 12 MONTHS BEFORE I GO THROUGH THE HIRING PROCESS TO FILL THEM.
IT MAY JUST BE A LITTLE DELAY IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THAT DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT I DO HAVE PLANS IN PLACE AND I CAN CARRY VACANCIES TO KEEP THE PATROL OFFICERS ON THE STREET.
SO REMOVING THESE FOUR OFFICERS IS NOT GONNA MAKE THE STREETS MORE UNSAFE? NO, SIR.
UH, SECOND TO THAT, ON THE, THE DISPATCHERS, I KNOW THAT YOU'VE HAD AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE PAY.
UM, WHAT ARE, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE STAFFING LEVEL THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO BE AT AND WHAT'S THE CURRENT STAFFING LEVEL? SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A MINIMUM STAFFING OF TWO PER SHIFT.
AND REMEMBER, DISPATCH FALLS UNDER PD.
HOWEVER, I AM WORKING ACROSS ALL THREE DISCIPLINES, WHICH INCLUDES FIRE AND EMS AND EMS, WHERE THERE ARE 11 ENTITIES IN 235 SQUARE MILES.
AND WE ALSO DISPATCH FOR CILO.
SO REALLY WE'RE DISPATCHING FOR A CITY OF ABOUT 85,000.
SO I'M WORKING TO THE POINT WHERE I CAN HAVE THREE TO FOUR DISPATCHERS THERE BECAUSE WHEN YOU DISPATCH A FIRE CALL AND YOU DISPATCH A HOT POLICE CALL, YOU NEED TO HAVE A DEDICATED DISPATCHER.
AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT CAPABILITY RIGHT NOW.
OR WE'RE GONNA LOSE, UH, SOME SAFETY ISSUES THAT ARE MANDATED.
IT'S LIKE YOU SAID, YOU'RE MORE IN NEED OF THE COMMUNICATION OFFICERS, YOUR HONOR, IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, YES SIR.
AND FOUR IS WHAT YOU NEED, CHIEF? YES, SIR.
DO YOU GET THE FOUR DISPATCHERS AT 0.5? ONE ONE STATING AGAIN AT 51 18 AT THE CURRENT RATE AT THE 0.5118? YES.
DO YOU GET THE FOUR DISPATCHERS THAT ARE NEEDED? UH, NO SIR.
[01:05:02]
WE WOULD BE, WE'D BE A LITTLE BIT SHORT.PROBABLY ABOUT ANOTHER, LIKE A HALF PENNY, LIKE 5 1, 7 5.
I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE REVENUE WOULD GENERATE THAT WOULD BE ABOUT WHAT WOULD NEED FOR STEVE'S CALCULATION ON THE SHEET.
WHAT'S THE MINIMUM WE NEED TO RAISE IT TO, TO GET TO THE FOUR DISPATCHERS? I KNOW YOU JUST SAID IT.
IT'D BE LIKE JUST OVER HALF A PENNY.
WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY LOWER TAX BILLS BY 2.3%.
YEAH, I WAS JUST ROUNDING IT TO THE 0.78 'CAUSE THAT'S EASY MATH FOR YOU.
SO AT LEAST A STARTING POINT IN ORDER TO GET THE FOUR DISPATCHERS NEEDED FOR SAFETY AND COMMUNICATION AT A MINIMUM, WE'RE AT THE 1 1 7 5 OR 1 7 5, RIGHT? 5 1 7, 5, 5 1 7, 5, 5, 5, 7 5 AT A MINIMUM WE'RE AT FIVE.
QUESTION AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I WANNA GO BACK TO THE NEW GROWTH, UM, WITH THE NEW GROWTH REVENUE THAT WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE.
NOW, MAYBE YOU ANSWERED THIS EARLIER, BUT HOW CAN WE NOT UTILIZE THAT TO SUPPORT THE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE ADDITIONS OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE COMMUNICATIONS.
SO WHY, WHY COULDN'T WE UTILIZE THAT $1.2 MILLION WORTH OF NEW GROWTH TO SUPPORT THIS VERSUS RAISING THE RATE? SO IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 68, JAMES, OR IS IT ON HERE? IS IT 68 IN THE BUDGET BOOK? THE SUPPLEMENTAL LIST? 61.
SO THAT GROWTH, THE DOLLARS THAT ARE ADDING TO, THAT ARE ADDED FROM THE GROWTH ARE GOING TO INCREASE IN FUEL COSTS, INCREASE IN IT, THE STEP PROGRAM, THE MERIT PROGRAM.
SO THAT'S GETTING USED ALONG WITH THE INCREASES IN THE SALES TAX.
SO WE ARE EXPERIENCING SOME REVENUE GROWTH, BUT IT'S BEING USED FOR THOSE OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE HIGHER UP ON THE LIST THAN THAT.
SO WE COULD LOOK AT THAT LIST AND SEE ABOUT CUTTING THOSE ITEMS. BUT THAT JUST MEANS YOU CAN DRIVE LESS OR IT JUST MEANS THAT WE CAN, BUT, BUT AGAIN, USING THE RATIONALE THAT YOU GUYS JUST POINTED TO ME HERE, YOU HAVE THE FOUR COMMUNICATION DISPATCHERS AND THE FOUR POLICE OFFICERS STAFFING HERE AS PART OF THAT.
SO THIS, THIS PROPOSED BUDGET INCLUDES THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS BACKING THAT OFF.
SO WE'RE GONNA LOSE X AMOUNT OF MONEY IF WE BACK IT OFF BY, SAY THAT PENNY, IT'S ABOUT 650 GRAND, SO WE GOTTA FIND 650 GRAND SOMEWHERE.
SO WE REMOVE THE FOUR POLICE OFFICERS.
THAT GETS US TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN ESSENTIALLY ADD THE, IF WE, IF WE INCREASE THE, THE TAX RATE FROM THE CURRENT RATE FROM 51 18 TO 51 75, THEN WE CAN ADD THE FOUR DISPATCHERS.
BUT WE CAN'T ADD THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THAT, LIKE CHIEF SAID, HE MUCH RATHER WOULD HAVE THE DISPATCHERS THAN THE POLICE OFFICERS.
AND JAMES, COULD YOU, HOW MUCH IS THAT, UH, INCREASE ON THE AVERAGE HOME? CAN YOU CALCULATE THAT REAL QUICK? IF WE WENT UP 5, 7 5, YEAH.
IS IT 51 75 OR 51 96? UH, I THINK JAMES SAID 51 90, 51 75.
WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADD THE DISPATCHERS, THE FOUR DISPATCHERS BUT NO POLICE OFFICERS.
YEAH, IT'S UH, EFFECTIVELY A 2.3% DECREASE IN THE TAXES.
IT WOULD DROP THE TAX BILL ABOUT, UH, $39 AND 44 CENTS ANNUALLY, ABOUT $3 AND 29 CENTS PER MONTH.
SO A SAVINGS OF 3 29 PER MONTH.
AND HOW MUCH TOTAL PER YEAR? UH, 39 44.
SO YEAH, IT EATS INTO THE SAVINGS A LITTLE BIT.
SO ON PAGE 51 OVER HERE, UH, IN 2020 OUR TAX RATE WAS 0.5121.
UH, ON THE SLIDESHOW SLIDE PRESENTATION? UH, YEAH IT WAS ON PAGE 51.
[01:10:09]
NO, IT'S ON THE, THIS ONE SIR.IT WAS ON THE POWER, IT WAS ON THE POWERPOINT.
IT WAS ON THE VERY FRONT OF THE, THIS ONE UP ON THE SCREEN.
IS THAT THE ONE THE HISTORICAL RATES? OH YES, YES.
THAT'S, UH, UM, AND SO IN 2020 IT WAS 0.5 1, 2, 1, AND THEN IN 21 IT, IT REMAINED THE SAME, IT DROPPED IN 2022, DROPPED AGAIN IN 2023, WENT BACK UP 2024, WENT UP AGAIN IN 2025 AND THEN AGAIN IN, UH, 2026.
SO, UM, I MEAN, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT EVERYBODY'S SAYING, BUT BEING UP ON THE DAAS AND ALSO HEARING, UH, HEARING, UH, THE RESIDENTS TO BE HEARD WHEN THEY COME UP TO SPEAK ABOUT WANTING TO SEE, UH, MORE POLICE TRAFFIC, UH, WANTING, UH, YOU KNOW, FIXED ROADWAYS WANTING SIDEWALKS.
WE CAN'T DO THAT IF WE JUST KEEP EVERYTHING.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S GROWTH, BUT UH, WE DO HAVE, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS THAT MOVE IN THAT DO NOT PAY BECAUSE OF UNFUNDED MANDATES.
YOU KNOW, SO, UH, JUST 'CAUSE THERE'S GROWTH DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S THAT MONEY COMING IN.
UM, AND I, I MEAN IF WE, IF WE GO TO THE UH, 0.5175, I MEAN I FEEL LIKE THAT'S TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BOTH WORLDS.
WE'RE UH, WE'RE STILL TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, OUR PERSONNEL STILL ALLOWING OUR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO GET THEIR RAISES, THEIR MERIT RAISES AND SUCH, AS WELL AS TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE GOTTA DO.
SO, UH, AND THAT'S JUST TRYING TO, I MEAN THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.
IT WOULDN'T BE TO, UH, ADOPT THE LOWEST RATE AND THEN KIND OF START GOING BACKWARDS BECAUSE, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA BE CLIMBING A MOUNTAIN AGAIN AS WE CONTINUE DOWN THE ROAD.
SO I THINK IF YOU, IF YOU COMPOUNDED THAT WITH THE, IF YOU TOOK $5 MILLION AND CASH FUNDED A GENERAL GOVERNMENT CIP PROJECT, THE SAVINGS THAT YOU MIGHT SEE THERE WOULD BE ROUGHLY THE EQUIVALENT OF NOT GOING UP TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
BUT THEY WOULDN'T REALIZE THAT FOR A COUPLE YEARS, BUT YOU WOULD REALIZE IT FOREVER.
SO THERE MAY BE ONE OR TWO AND SO I'M NOT, WHO COULD NOT LIVE WITH 5 1 7 5 5 1 7 5.
IT SEEMS TO BE THE MINIMUM FOR SAFETY ISSUE IN ORDER TO GET THE FOUR DISPATCHERS.
WELL IT, IT REQUIRES FIVE VOTES, CORRECT.
JAMES? NO, ANY OF THE AMOUNTS BELOW THE 5 2 9 6 IS JUST SIMPLE MAJORITY.
SO ONLY IF YOU GO OVER THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE WOULD YOU NEED A SUPER MAJORITY.
SO I, I GUESS MAYBE THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO PULL THE COUNCIL AND SEE IF, IF THE COUNCIL IS AGREEABLE TO 5 1 7 5.
WELL, LAST YEAR IT TOOK US SEVERAL VOTES, DIDN'T IT? IF I RECALL RIGHT.
IT TOOK US SEVERAL VOTES ONE OF THE YEARS.
SO I DON'T, WELL I THINK THE HOPE IS MAYBE WE COULD COME TO A CONSENSUS TONIGHT, BUT IF THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE THEN I GUESS IT WOULD BE DOWN TO NEXT WEEK.
SO I WOULD ASK THE MAYOR TO PULL THE COUNCIL AND SORT OF SEE WHERE WE'RE AT.
BECAUSE THAT'LL GIVE US SOME DIRECTION 'CAUSE WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH.
I DEFINITELY WANT TO GIVE THE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHAT THEY NEED.
BUT, UH, ALSO US AS COUNCIL, WE'RE, WE'RE RELYING ON ON YOU AND, UH, MR. JAMES AND SARAH JAMES TO UH, INCREASE OUR REVENUE, INCREASE OUR PROFIT.
I WANT US TO INCREASE THAT REVENUE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO RAISE THE TAX RATE AND OUR FIRST RESPONDERS COULD BE FULLY EQUIPPED TO PROVIDE QUALITY SERVICE TO OUR CITY.
WE WERE THE SAFEST CITY LAST YEAR.
WE, THERE'S A LOT RIGHT THERE.
SO WE'RE RELYING ON YOU, MR. WILLIAMS AND YOUR STAFF COME UP WITH SOME WAY TO INCREASE OUR PROFITS AND MAKE THE CITY PROSPEROUS.
SO, UH, WELL YOU, YOU HEARD VERY LOUDLY AND CLEAR SIR.
ONE THING THAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS CRYSTAL AND I WILL BE AT THE MUNICIPAL POLICY SUMMIT AT TML THIS WEEK AND WE'LL BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE TML PLATFORM AND WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING WE
[01:15:01]
CAN, WHICH INCLUDES TRYING TO GET IN LEGISLATION INTRODUCED TO FULLY FUND THE DBHS PROGRAM.AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GAIN SOME GROUND THERE.
WE'RE PUTTING A LOT OF EFFORT INTO DOING THAT.
WE ARE GONNA DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT PANS OUT.
ASIDE FROM THAT, WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE WITH OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS, AMY AND HER TEAM, AND AS WELL AS ATTRACTING NEW RETAIL.
I THINK WE'LL SEE SOME GOOD BENEFIT FROM SHIRT STATION.
RETAIL TENDS TO BUILD A SYNERGY WHERE YOU GAIN MORE RETAIL.
SO HOPEFULLY WE'RE GONNA GAIN SOME MOMENTUM THERE, BUT WE'RE GONNA KEEP WORKING HARD.
WE'RE WORKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE AS WELL BECAUSE 10 AND 15, 18 IS FERTILE GROUND AS WELL AS 1604 AND 10.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING TO SEE SOME EXPANSION THERE AS WELL.
IT JUST TAKES TIME AND YOU GOTTA STAY AT IT AND YOU GOTTA STAY DILIGENT ON BUILDING THAT UP.
SO I'M GOOD WITH THE ADDITIONS.
COUNCIL MEMBER MIA, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY ELSE MENTION THE EXCESS FUND BALANCE.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS ARE ON THAT 'CAUSE THAT COULD MAKE ME MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT IF I KNEW THAT OTHERS WERE MORE INTERESTED IN PUTTING IT TOWARDS FUTURE DEATH AND JUST PUTTING IT IN THE BANK WITH VERY LITTLE AND NO INTEREST.
WELL, UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, IT WILL BE SPENT, IT'S GONNA BE SPENT ON VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS AND, AND REPAIRING? NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, WELL YOU HAD PROPOSED 5 MILLION FOR THE RESERVE INSTEAD.
AND FIVE MILLION'S DISCRETIONARY.
THERES, IT DOESN'T HAVE A HOME, SO YEAH, YEAH, I'M JUST, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
I, I'M, I HAVE AN INTEREST IN USING SOME OF THAT SO THAT WE LOWER THAT FUTURE DEBT SO THAT ACTUAL HOMEOWNERS SEE A BENEFIT TO IT.
SO TO CLARIFY YOU MEAN THE 5 MILLION, NOT NECESSARILY ALL 32 MILLION? YEAH, NO, NO, NOT ALL.
SO WHAT WOULD YOU PREFER TO SEE THE CURRENT TAX RATE MAYOR APPROACH? TIM'S WHAT? I ANSWERED IT EARLIER SO, UM, I'M FINE WITH 51 75 BECAUSE I SAID 52.
COUNCIL MEMBER DEETS, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT WHAT MACALUSO WAS SPEAKING ABOUT USING THAT 5 MILLION.
AND I UNDERSTAND THEY WON'T SEE IT FOR A COUPLE YEARS NOW, BUT I THINK, UM, IT'S SOMETHING TO LOOK INTO.
SO JUST JUST TO CLARIFY, IF WE USE EXCESS FUND BALANCE FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS, IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE 26 27 TAX YEAR OR FISCAL YEAR.
SO IT DOESN'T AFFECT THIS TAX RATE AT ALL.
IT WOULD AFFECT FUTURE TAX RATES.
SO AS WE ADOPT NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, WE COULD TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION.
SO THEN IF WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO STAY AT THE 5 1 1 AND GET THE DISPATCHERS IF WE DID THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT IT.
SO IF YOU LOWER THE TAX RATE FROM WHERE IT IS NOW, SO THE DEBT RATE YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO ADOPT A DEBT RATE TO SUPPORT YOUR EXISTING DEBT SERVICE.
SO WHAT COUNCILMAN MACALUSO IS SUGGESTING THAT IN THE FUTURE, INSTEAD OF ISSUING AS MUCH DEBT AND KEEPING IT AT 1681, IT GOES DOWN TO SAY 1631 AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT SAVINGS OUT FOR 20 YEARS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T, YOU ISSUE THAT HALF PENNY WORTH OF DEBT.
BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT UNTIL FU UNTIL NEXT YEAR.
BECAUSE YOU'LL SUPPORT THE EXISTING DEBT THEN.
SO THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET THOSE FOUR DISPATCH OFFICERS FOR THIS BUDGET YEAR IS TO GO UP TO 51 75.
WELL, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE COULD CUT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
I MEAN THAT, BUT I DON'T RECOMMEND DOING THAT.
THEN I WOULD UH, GO WITH THE 51 75 SO WE CAN GET THE DISPATCH OFFICERS AND NOT CUT ANY OTHER POSITIONS.
COUNCIL MEMBER SHERIDAN, I AM A PROPONENT OF HAVING, GIVING THE CHIEF THE OTHER RESOURCES HE NEEDS TO INCLUDE THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE COMMUNICATION OFFICERS.
I, I'VE BEEN THERE, I'VE SEEN, I I'VE SEEN WHAT THE DISPATCHERS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LACK OF RESOURCE THAT THEY HAVE AND THEY'RE DOING A TOUGH JOB OVER THERE AND, AND I'VE SEEN IT.
I I THINK THERE'S AGAIN, WAYS THAT WE CAN WORK EFFICIENCIES TO KEEP THE RATE
[01:20:01]
AT THE SAME LEVEL AND STILL OFFER THESE AND STILL INCREASE THE, YOU KNOW, THE MANPOWER THAT WE NEED.SO AT THIS TIME, UM, I'M GONNA SAY NO, I, I'M, I'M, I WANT TO KEEP THE RATE AT 5 1 1 8.
SO RIGHT NOW, RIGHT, SO IT'S FIVE TWO, IT'S FOUR TO, YEAH, FIVE TO TWO.
IF, IF, IF IT'S WORTH THE EXERCISE OVER THE NEXT WEEK, I WILL GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHERE WE NEED TO CUT.
BUT BEAR IN MIND, IF YOU'RE TELLING ME POLICE AND FIRE ARE HANDS OFF, THAT MEANS IT'S ENGINEERING, LIBRARY, PARKS, STREETS.
SO THOSE ARE THE DEPARTMENTS I'M GONNA GO LOOK TO MAKE CUTS IN.
SO, UH, YEAH AND IF WE'RE, IF, IF, AND IF THE FEEDBACK IS PERSONNEL IN THOSE DEPARTMENTS, 'CAUSE IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO GO CUT PERSONNEL IN THOSE DEPARTMENTS TO ADD PERSONNEL IN THOSE DEPARTMENTS.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO CUT TRAINING DOLLARS, I'M GONNA HAVE TO CUT SUPPLIES MATERIALS AGGRESSIVELY TO GET TO A MILLION DOLLARS.
STEVE MAYOR, I DON'T, I WOULDN'T SAY HANDS OFF, BUT IN OUR STRATEGIC PLAN IT WAS CLEAR I THINK IN THAT, UM, THAT SURVEY WE GOT FROM, UM, FROM OUR RESIDENTS, IT WAS CLEAR WE WANTED TO CONCENTRATE ON SAP ON SHIRTS, POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO CONCENTRATE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THAT WAS OUR GOAL IN QUALITY OF LIFE.
AND SO NOW TO SORT OF SAY, WELL, WE'RE GONNA SORT OF BACKTRACK AND SORT OF MAYBE START MESSING WITH THEIR BUDGET SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE TO WHAT OUR STRATEGIC PLAN AND WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANTED US TO HAVE.
SO IT MAY NOT BE HANDS OFF, BUT THEY, IT VERY WELL SHOULD BE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM IF WE DO HAVE TO AFFECT THEM.
UM, I MEAN IT'S COUNTERINTUITIVE.
WE ALREADY HAVE OUR MARCHING PLANS WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE'VE ALL VOTED ON.
AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S REFERENCING Y'ALL, HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN WHERE, WELL, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RESIDENT SURVEY, I BELIEVE SO THE RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY IDENTIFIED, UH, POLICE SERVICES AS THE TOP PRIORITY.
BUT I'LL REMIND YOU SECOND BELOW THAT WAS PARKS MM-HMM
AND SO FYI I'M WITH, UH, I'M WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN CUT ANY POSITIONS ALL THE WAY AROUND THE, ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BOARD BECAUSE I MEAN PARKS IS NEEDED JUST AS MUCH AS ANY OTHER POSITION THAT WE HAVE.
SO, UM, I WOULD JUST TRY TO, I WOULD RUN THE NUMBERS AND TO SEE WHAT THINGS WOULD LOOK LIKE AND HOW THE CARDS FALL IF WE DID, UH, IF WE JUST KEPT THE NO NEW, UH, REVENUE RATE, UH, WELL THE 0.5118, UH, IS WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING.
AND THEN ALSO, UH, THE 0.575 TO SEE WHAT, WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE.
I MEAN THE 0.0 0.5175 STEVE? YES.
CAN YOU CLARIFY AGAIN ON THE TOTAL ONGOING REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES? YOU, YOU HAD THE 250,000 ON THERE ON THE SHEET THAT YOU HANDED US.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SHEET, IT'S GOT 55,000 295 50 AS THE TOTAL REVENUES, RIGHT? THAT INCLUDES PROPERTY TAX REVENUES AT THE 52 96.
SO THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES ARE 82.7 MILLION.
BUT YOU REALLY GOTTA TAKE OUT TO DO A FAIR EVALUATION, YOU TAKE OUT THE ONES TIME STUFF THAT'S THE 27.7.
IT'S ACTUALLY PROBABLY A LITTLE LOWER THAN THAT 'CAUSE THERE'S SOME OTHER ONE TIMES THAT I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO SCOUR THE BUDGET TO GO OUT BUT OUT.
THAT DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T OFFSET IT ENOUGH TO ADD THE DISPATCHERS.
BUT IF WE CUT OUT FIVE 60, RIGHT? SO IF YOU CUT OUT FIVE 60 IN REVENUE, YOU REDUCE IT BY THE TWO 50.
AND SO IF YOU GOT THE DISPATCHERS, SO I GOTTA COME UP WITH 310 MORE TO CUT.
SO IF I CUT WELL YEAH, I GUESS WAIT A MINUTE, RIGHT? FIVE 60, ADD BACK THAT 2 32.
YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD GET US THERE, WOULDN'T IT? THAT'S WHY WE'RE AT THE 51 75 DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE AT 51 78.
NO, I, I'M JUST, THE WAY I'M READING IT IS THAT IF IT WAS AT THE 51 18,
[01:25:03]
THE REVENUE'S OVER EXPENDITURES WOULD OFFSET THE COST OF THE COMMUNICATION OFFICERS.THE 55 MILLION 2 9550 OR YEAH, 55,000,002 90.
THAT IS AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, THE 5 2 9 6.
SO WE WOULD'VE TO TAKE YOU TAKE A MILLION OFF OF THAT, TAKE A MILLION OFF OF THAT TO BE 54, 2 90 AND THEN THAT POSITIVE TWO 50 BECOMES A NEGATIVE SEVEN 50.
SO NOW YOU'RE, YOU'RE UNDERWATER SEVEN FOLLOW 50, YOU GOTTA MAKE BACK THAT SEVEN 50.
SO YOU TAKE 400 AWAY, YOU'RE STILL 300 OR SO SHORT.
SORRY, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE ASKING ME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, MAYOR, I WAS GONNA OFFER SOME PERSPECTIVE ON, ON WHERE THE, THE MONEY IS, RIGHT? FOR THE GENERAL FUND MM-HMM
SO IT'S A LITTLE DISTORTED BECAUSE THE HIGH LEVEL OF TRANSFERS THIS YEAR, BUT IT SAYS 34%, IT'S USUALLY CLOSER TO 47, 50%.
UM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT PERSONNEL, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S 39.7 MILLION OF THE 55 MILLION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO IT, IT'S THE LARGEST, IT'S THE LION'S SHARE OF WHAT MAKES UP YOUR GENERAL FUND.
SO IF WE WERE TO GO BACK AND CUT OTHER THINGS LIKE OPERATING, THERE'S 15 MILLION IN THERE, RIGHT? SO IF I GOTTA FIND A MILLION THERE, IT, IT'S, IT'S SOMEWHAT SIGNIFICANT AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE CAPITAL OUTLAY AND TRANSFERS, IT DOESN'T REALLY HELP YOU.
'CAUSE THOSE ARE ONE TIME AND WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF FUND BALANCE TO COVER THOSE.
SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN ISSUE.
IT NEEDS TO COME OUT OF THIS $15 MILLION, OH THIS 15 MILLION.
SO OF THAT 15 MILLION CALL HALF OF THAT POLICE AND FIRE.
SO UNLESS I'M CUTTING IT OUT OF POLICE AND FIRES OPERATING MONEY AS WELL, THEN I GOTTA CUT, I GOTTA CUT SEVEN DOWN TO SIX.
AND THAT'S PAINFUL FOR THE REST OF THE GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS.
IT'S, IT BECOMES SIGNIFICANT CUTS.
SO, UH, WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN COME BACK AND CAN EVALUATE SOME OF THOSE CUTS.
MIGHT BE WHAT THEY MIGHT BE, I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN DO IT WITHOUT CUTTING INTO THE PERSONNEL.
SO IT MIGHT BE SOME COMBINATION OF FROM OPERATING AND FROM PERSONNEL FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, I GUESS TO ADD THE OTHER PERSONNEL.
WELL WHAT KIND OF ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL AT THAT POINT? I, THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY PERSPECTIVE.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO SEE FROM THE CITY MANAGER AND THE STAFF GOING FORWARD? I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, SOME OPTIONS HERE, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST GIVE US A GOOD PICTURE, SOME OPTIONS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AND IF, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN'T KEEP THE RATE AT 5 1 1 8, WE HAVE TO GO UP TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, THEN I, I THINK FOR ME, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE REASON WHY, YOU KNOW, YOU GOTTA GIMME THE GOOD WHY OF WHY WE, YOU KNOW, WHY WE CAN'T DO, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS RATE AND WE HAVE TO GO UP THIS RATE, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST MY CONCERN, YOU KNOW, JUST ALL THE WAY AROUND US, YOU KNOW, THE ECONOMY IS JUST, EVERYTHING IS GOING UP, OUR GAS PRICE IS GOING UP, GROSS BILLS GOING UP.
AND TO ME, YOU KNOW, I HATE TO SEE THAT OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR RATE, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING ELSE THIS GOES UP AS WELL.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE'S THAT BALANCE, YOU KNOW? BUT, UH, YEAH, JUST GIVE US, YOU KNOW, I WANNA SEE THE PICTURES, THE OPTIONS THAT WE WILL HAVE, THAT WAY WE CAN MAKE A GOOD INFORMED DECISION.
AND IF I HAVE TO GO, IF WE HAVE, IF I, IF THE THE POINT IS WHERE WE HAVE TO GO UP TO TO GET OUR FIREFIGHTER, I MEAN GET OUR, UH, POLICE OFFICERS AND THE, UH, COMMUNICATION OFFICERS, THEN IT IS WHAT IT IS, RIGHT? BUT WE, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GIVEN THE, THE INFORMATION
[01:30:01]
TO MAKE THAT GOOD INFORMED DECISION.SO GIVE ME THE OPTIONS AND THE WHY.
THANK YOU MR. WILLIAMS. I WANNA ADD TO THAT, UM, GIVE, GIVE US OPTIONS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO LAY ANYBODY OFF.
I I DON'T WANT TO CUT ANYBODY.
WE NEED EVERY, WE NEED PEOPLE IN ALL DEPARTMENTS AND IT'S NOT FAIR TO CUT SOMEBODY OFF, BUT IF YOU CAN GIVE US OPTIONS WHERE WE CAN CUT WITHOUT LAYING PEOPLE OFF, NOW WE'RE TALKING.
SO MY ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS TO NOT ADD PERSONNEL IF WE WANTED TO STAY AT THE 51 18.
SO IF WE STAY AT THE 51 18, WE JUST SIMPLY DON'T ADD NEW POSITIONS.
BUT IF WE'RE, IF THE DECISION IS THAT WE WANT TO ADD NEW POSITIONS AND WE WANNA STAY AT THE 51 18, I JUST NEED TO MAKE ROOM SOMEWHERE ELSE AND I JUST LAYING IT OUT THERE FOR YOU, WE CAN LAY, WE CAN LAY IT OUT A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT WAYS AND WE CAN BRING A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS BACK.
BUT FAIR WARNING, I I'M, I'M GONNA NEED TO CONSIDER ALL DEPARTMENTS IN THE GENERAL FUND TO MAKE THOSE CUTS.
IT CAN'T JUST BE LIMITED TO EVERYBODY EXCEPT POLICE AND FIRE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONEY LEFT TO DO THAT WITHOUT LAYING PEOPLE OFF.
I GUESS YOU KIND OF LOOK AT IT THIS WAY, YOU GOT A PIE, TAKE AWAY HALF THE PIE, YOU'RE LEFT WITH THAT AND IF YOU TAKE A PERSONNEL OFF THE TABLE, I'M LEFT WITH THIS MUCH TO TRY AND FIND A MILLION DOLLARS AND AS A PERCENTAGE IT BECOMES REALLY DIFFICULT TO FIND A MILLION DOLLARS.
I COULD SEE MYSELF SUPPORTING THE FIVE POINT OR THE 51 75 JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DISPATCHERS ARE ENDED.
UH, BUT LIKE I SAID, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT WE COMMIT TO TAKING DOWN THE FUTURE DEBT SO THAT WE CAN SEE THE BENEFIT HERE IN A COUPLE YEARS AND KIND OF WOULD OFFSET THAT CURRENT INCREASE.
AND IF THE CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL IS, IS THAT WE DON'T RAISE FROM THE CURRENT TAX RATE WHERE IT IS, WE'LL GO INTO NEXT BUDGET SEASON WITH THAT FRAME OF REFERENCE AND SAY REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS, WE WILL STICK TO WHAT THE CURRENT RATE IS.
I I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE AT THE BEGINNING THAT THAT SHOULD BE ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS.
OH, I I I, THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES INTO PUTTING IN THAT 600 PAGE BOOK IN FRONT OF YOU.
SO WE WOULD NEED TO START IN THE SPRING WITH THAT MENTALITY AND BUILD IT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT WAY AND WE CAN DO THAT.
AND THAT IS, IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE.
ANY OTHER GUIDANCE FROM ANY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS? CAN YOU, CAN STEVE JUST SUMMARIZE WHAT WE'RE YES.
SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND MY MARCHING ORDERS ARE BRING BACK WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE WITH FOUR DISPATCHERS INCLUDED AT 51 75 AND THEN WHAT ARE SOME OTHER AREAS THAT WE COULD CUT RATHER THAN RAISING IT BY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 51 18 AND 51 75? IS THAT FAIR? WELL I THINK SOMEONE WANTED YOU TO SHOW HOW YOU CAN KEEP THE RATE THE SAME BUT ADD THE FOUR OFFICERS AND THE COMMUNICATION OFFICERS, WHICH IS 624,000, WHICH I THINK YOU SAID AT THAT POINT YOU'D HAVE TO FIND CUTS IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS, BUT WOULD BE, I KNOW I DON'T, I DON'T SUPPORT THAT, BUT I THINK THAT'S, IT WOULD BE A MILLION TOTAL.
I'D HAVE TO CUT A MILLION TOTAL TO ADD THE FOUR POLICE OFFICERS AND THE FOUR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS TO KEEP IT AT 51 18.
YEAH, I WOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST TO KIND OF CLEAR UP THE WATERS A LITTLE BIT, UH, I WOULD DO THE 0.5118 WITH TRYING TO BRING ON THE PERSONNEL BUT ALSO, UH, SHOWING US WHAT WE'RE GONNA ALSO LIKE MISS OUT ON OR, OR AS FAR AS LIKE WHAT SERVICES YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO CUT BACK OR, OR POSITIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO DO AWAY WITH IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT WORK.
AND THEN WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WITH THE UH, 0.5175.
SO LEMME MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
WITHOUT ADDING PERSONNEL NO, WITH, WITH THE PERSONNEL, WITH, WITH ADDING THE PERSONNEL.
TAKING A DEEPER DIVE INTO THE BUDGET TO SEE HOW WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN IF, IF, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
AND IF SO, UH, WHAT ARE WE GONNA
[01:35:01]
HAVE TO GIVE UP IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN? UH, TO KEEP THAT RATE OR TO GO TO THE OTHER RATE, UH, AND BRING IT ON THE FOUR DISPATCHERS AND, AND ALL AND IF, IF WE CAN OFFICERS BUT AND MINIMUM THE, THE FOUR DISPATCHERS.OKAY, SO IF, ALL RIGHT, SO THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
ONE IS 51 18 AND BRING ON ALL EIGHT POSITIONS.
SO FINDING A MILLION DOLLARS IN CUTS MM-HMM
WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? AND THEN 51 18 AND BRINGING ON THE FOUR DISPATCHERS AND MAKING CUTS OR RAISING TO 51 75 AND ADDING THE FOUR DISPATCHERS.
RAISING IT TO THE 51 75 AND ADDING THE FOUR DISPATCHERS.
AT THAT POINT I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT THE FOUR POLICE OFFICERS WOULDN'T BE ADDED, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD JUST STAY THE SAME.
EVERYTHING, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO YOU, YES, YOU WOULD ESSENTIALLY ADD THE FOUR DISPATCHERS, THE RATE WOULD GO TO 51 75 AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME.
AND WE CAN LINE THAT ON ON A PIECE OF PAPER SO YOU CAN, ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
I'D LIKE TO SEE HOW WE CAN INCREASE OUR REVENUE.
WELL I, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE ONLY WAY TO INCREASE REVENUE WOULD BE TO INCREASE THE TAX RATE AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE'S AN APPETITE FOR THAT.
UM, OR SOME APPETITE MAYBE TO RAISE IT A LITTLE BIT.
WE'RE WE, TO BE QUITE FRANK, I MEAN WE COULD, WE COULD RAISE OTHER FEES BUT IN THE POSITION WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW WHERE OUR FEES ARE, I THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLY IN THE MARKET.
WE JUST HAD A DISCUSSION LAST WEEK ABOUT IMPACT FEES AND WHERE THOSE ARE, I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND SHIFTING IT AWAY FROM THE TAX RATE OVER TO YEAH, I KNOW ANOTHER WAY KINDA LIKE LEADING TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER GUERRERO SAYING IS, IS IF WE CAN SEE WHAT WE COULD DO TO BRING MORE RETAIL IN, THAT DEFINITELY HELPS OFFSET, UH, TAKES, UH, THE BURDEN OFF OUR TAXPAYERS.
BUT IF WE'RE GONNA BE DOING THAT AND THEN WE ALSO NEED TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO KIND OF, UM, HELP THOSE BUSINESSES GET GOING.
BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF BUSINESSES THAT HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME THAT HAVE STATED THAT IT'S VERY HARD TO GET THINGS MOVING AND GOING FORWARD, UH, AS THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD INSURANCES.
SO WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO STREAMLINE THAT, UH, NOT, NOT SO MUCH TO CUT BACK OR GIVE, GIVE UP, UH, MAKING SURE THAT THEY BUILD, UH, GOOD BUILDINGS BUT UH, JUST MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING THROUGH A VERY DIFFICULT PAINSTAKING PROCESS TRYING TO GET THINGS DONE.
SO WAS THAT A SUFFICIENT RECAP OF WHAT WE NEED TO BRING BACK TO YOU GUYS? YES SIR.
DOES IF NO OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND END THE WORKSHOP UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MAY I HAVE ONE? UH, SO WHEN WE BRING BACK THE AGENDA ITEM MM-HMM
SINCE THERE SEEM TO BE A MAJORITY IN FAVOR OF 51 75, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PLUG IT INTO THE ITEMS LIKE THAT.
IF IT CHANGES FROM THERE, IT CHANGES IN THE MEETING.
YOU CAN DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN THE MEETING.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL AURN THE MEETING AT SEVEN 11.