AT THIS TIME, I'D JUST LIKE TO START BY THANKING EVERYBODY
[1. Call to Order]
[00:00:03]
FOR ATTENDING OUR LAST BUDGET WORKSHOP HERE TODAY.WE BELIEVE WE'LL HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS, RECONSIDER, CONSIDER, AND THEN PROPOSE.
WE'VE GOT A REGULAR SCHEDULE MEETING AT 3:00 RIGHT AFTER THIS, SO APPRECIATE EVERYONE FOR ATTENDING.
COUNCILMAN KRAFT, BACK IN THE BACK GOOD TO SEE YOU, SIR.
COUNCILMAN SHERLYN YOU AS WELL SO I'M GOING TO ASK.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND FORMALLY CALL OURSELVES TO ORDER.
I'M GOING TO ASK COUNCILMAN TIPS IF YOU'D PRAY US IN.
GOD, WE COME TO YOU THIS AFTERNOON, AND FATHER, WE JUST THANK YOU.
WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME, MEET TOGETHER.
LORD AS WE MOVE FORWARD AS WE GO THROUGH THIS BUDGET, I PRAY FOR CLEAR EYES, GOD THAT WE WOULD SEE THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO SEE.
LORD, I PRAY FOR UNITY, I PRAY FOR ONE VISION, GOD THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT WE NEED TO SEE AND GET TO THE POINTS THAT WE NEED TO GET TO.
FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THE RAIN, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR BLESSING ON OUR CITY, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROVISION, YOUR GRACE, YOUR MERCY, AND GOD ASK JUST FOR YOUR PRESENCE HERE IN THESE CHAMBERS.
GOD, DIRECT OUR SPEECH, DIRECT OUR WORDS.
HELP US TO BE PRODUCTIVE TODAY, LORD, AND IT'S IN JESUS NAME, WE PRAY. AMEN.
MR. CITY MANAGER, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND HAND IT OVER TO YOU
[2. City Council Budget Workshop]
AND LET YOU AND MISSES STORES WALK US THROUGH.WE'VE GOT ONE PRINT OUT HERE, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE WHERE YOU'RE READY TO START.
ABSOLUTELY, YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
WE'RE PLEASED TO BRING SOME IDEAS BACK TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION AS WE CONTINUE OUR BUDGET WORKSHOP WITH THIS.
I'M GOING TO TURN OVER TO LAURA AND OUR TEAM.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME THAT YOU ALLOWED US TO COME BACK THROUGH THE BUDGET AND GAVE US SOME DIRECTION ON SOME PRIORITIES THAT COUNCIL WAS WANTING TO TRY TO ACHIEVE ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE PRESENTED LAST TIME.
THERE IS A HANDOUT THAT IS ON A LEGAL SIZED PIECE OF PAPER, AND I KNOW STEPHANIE WILL BE PULLING IT UP HERE IN JUST A MINUTE ON THE SCREENS FOR EVERYONE AS WELL.
YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE MAJORITY OF THIS PAGE.
THIS IS WHAT WE WENT OVER LAST TIME WE MET THAT FRIDAY MORNING.
YOU'LL RECOGNIZE THE BLUE AND ORANGE COLORING UP AT THE TOP.
WE'VE ALREADY GONE OVER ALL THOSE SECTIONS AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON ANY OF THAT.
THE ONLY CHANGE ON THIS PAGE FROM WHAT YOU VIEWED LAST TIME WAS WE HAD, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, OVER TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, WE HAD POTENTIAL CHANGES AND WE HAD THREE COLUMNS.
WE HAD ONE WITH NO STREET MAINTENANCE FEE, AND THEN WE HAD LIKE A HALF AND A QUARTER STREET MAINTENANCE FEE, WE HAVE DROPPED THOSE COLUMNS BECAUSE COUNSEL GAVE US DIRECTION THAT WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT A STREET MAINTENANCE FEE THIS YEAR.
WHAT YOU SEE NOW IS THE SAME NO STREET MAINTENANCE FIRST COLUMN, AND YOU SEE A SECOND COLUMN NOW THAT SAYS NO STREET MAINTENANCE.
WE HAVE ADDED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THAT FAR RIGHT HAND COLUMN THERE SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER.
AS A REMINDER OR THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAD RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL AT THE END OF OUR LAST BUDGET REVIEW WAS COUNSEL WAS WANTING US TO SEE IF WE COULD FIND A WAY TO ACHIEVE ANOTHER 1% FOR POLICE, ANOTHER 1% FOR FIRE, SOME FUNDING TO HELP WITH THE CIVILIAN PAY STUDY TO MAYBE PARTIALLY START IMPLEMENTING THAT.
THEN I HAD HEARD POTENTIALLY SOME FUNDING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS.
WE HAD TALKED ABOUT AW OFFICERS AND A FEW OTHER THINGS.
BUT WHEN WE LEFT, WE HAD TOTALED UP THE POTENTIAL OF NEEDING IN THE RANGE OF ABOUT 2.1 MILLION DOLLAR MORE.
WHAT I'M GOING TO GO OVER WITH YOU ALL, AND I WILL TELL YOU WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOKING INTO THIS AND RERUNNING NUMBERS AND TRYING TO STRETCH EVERY LAST BIT OF THIS BUDGET THAT WE CAN.
THE CHANGES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE HERE COME IN JUST A LITTLE BELOW THAT.
2.1 MILLION DOLLAR AMOUNT, BUT I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT WE HAVE FOUND AND WHAT WE THINK WE CAN SQUEEZE IN THROUGH THIS BUDGET, AND THEN POTENTIALLY WHAT THAT COULD BE USED FOR.
NOW, WE WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO HEAR FROM COUNSEL ON IF YOU ALL WANT TO CHANGE SOME OF THE PRIORITIES THAT WE HAVE LISTED HERE, BUT THIS IS JUST A POTENTIAL WAY WE COULD LOOK AT ADDING THESE INTO THE BUDGET.
LET ME START AT THE TOP AND AGAIN, WE'RE AT THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE ON THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE AND I'M SORRY, ON THE NO STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.
THE FIRST THINGS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A CHANGE IN FROM A REVENUE STANDPOINT IS WHEN YOU COME DOWN AND YOU START LOOKING OVER AT THE SOLID WASTE REVENUE LINE ITEM.
[00:05:02]
WE'RE GOING TO STOP THERE FOR JUST A SECOND, I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WE THINK COULD BE ADDED THROUGH THE SOLID WASTE REVENUE FEE INCREASES.FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IN YOUR BUDGET IS A NEW DANGEROUS STRUCTURE REMOVAL TEAM THAT'S IN HOUSE.
WE HAD PROPOSED SOME NEW SOLID WASTE EMPLOYEES ALONG WITH SOME VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT, AND THEN SOME ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE CITY MARSHALS DEPARTMENT TO HELP FACILITATE THAT PROGRAM.
WE'RE HOPING TO GET A LOT MORE BANG FOR OUR BUCK WITH AN INTERNAL CREW, REALLY STAYING FOCUSED AND DEDICATED ON THOSE DANGEROUS STRUCTURES AROUND THE COMMUNITY.
ANOTHER PIECE THAT OUR CITY MARSHALL DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN FUNDING THAT'S BEEN COMING OUT OF THE TAX RATE IS $130,000 FOR JUST OVERALL DEMOLITION.
WE GET ABOUT 200,000 IN GRANT FUNDING, AND THAT'S GOING TO REMAIN, BUT WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THAT 130,000 THAT WE HAVE HAD PREVIOUSLY COME OUT OF THE SOLID WASTE RATE INCREASE INSTEAD.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE WOULD SEE THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DEMOLITION WOULD GO HAND IN HAND WITH WHAT THIS INTERNAL DANGEROUS STRUCTURE REMOVAL TEAM WOULD BE DOING, AND I WILL CERTAINLY LET ANDREW JUMP IN IF HE WOULD LIKE, BUT YOU KNOW, WE MAY NEED TO SPEND SOME DOLLARS TO GET SOME TEAMS OUT THERE TO SECURE A PROPERTY QUICKLY BEFORE WE CAN GET OUR INTERNAL TEAM OUT THERE.
IT COULD BE ACTUALLY CONTRACTING A LITTLE BIT WITH SOME OUTSIDE GROUPS TO WORK HAND IN HAND WITH OUR INTERNAL TEAM AS WELL, AND SO THAT WOULD GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY WITH THAT MONEY.
YEAH, AND IN PARTICULAR, THE PROGRAM THAT WE WOULD HAVE IN HOUSE WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL ONLY.
WE DO HAVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT ALSO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS SO THAT FUNDING SOURCE COULD HELP OFFSET SOME OF THOSE NEEDS.
THAT 130,000 IS PART OF THE INCREASE THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING ON YOUR SOLID WASTE FEES.
THE NEXT ITEM IS, WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THIS PRIOR YEAR AND WE HAD MADE SOME CHANGES OR FINALIZED.
IN THE YEAR WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, WE HAD FINALIZED THE RAISES FOR OUR CIVILIANS AND THE TRS COLA CHANGES.
WE GOT TO THAT AT THE END OF OUR PROCESS LAST YEAR, AND WE DID NOT ADJUST OUR SOLID WASTE FEES FOR THAT.
WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE RECAPTURE THOSE INCREASES.
WE REALLY FEEL LIKE THE SOLID WASTE FEE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THOSE OPERATIONS IN OUR SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENTS.
IN THE CURRENT YEAR, THEY GOT A 4% INCREASE, AND THEY DID HAVE WE DO HAVE TO PAY ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS INTO TMRS FOR THE COLA CHANGES.
THAT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT HALF $1,000,000 MORE THAT WOULD GO ON THAT RATE INCREASE.
THEN WE HAVE A COUPLE OF SMALL ITEMS. WE ARE PROPOSING SOME IT CHARGE INCREASES THIS YEAR.
WE FEEL LIKE SOLID WASTE RATE NEEDS TO PICK UP A PIECE OF THAT.
THEN WE DO HAVE AN OPTION TO BRING IN A LITTLE BIT OF THE CIVILIAN PAY STUDY, SOME FUNDING FOR THE CIVILIAN PAY STUDY, AND SO WE FEEL LIKE THE SOLID WASTE FEE SHOULD COVER THE PORTION THAT APPLIES TO SOLID WASTE.
ALL IN ALL ON YOUR SOLID WASTE FEE INCREASES, WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT $670,000.
I WANT TO PAUSE FOR JUST A SECOND BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST TIME TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
IF YOU'LL GO TO YOUR SECOND HANDOUT, ON YOUR SECOND HANDOUT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE OUR RATE INCREASE PROPOSAL AND SOME POTENTIAL SCENARIOS.
THIS WAS SOMETHING WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WITH COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY.
WE HAD SAID WE HAD HAD ABOUT 1.9 MILLION DOLLAR THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AS A 7% OVERALL INCREASE TO THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL FEES.
THAT IS THE SCENARIO YOU SEE AT THE VERY BOTTOM IN THE TOP SECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL AND THEM IN THE NEXT SECTION, THE COMMERCIAL COLLECTIONS.
IT'S LABELED AS LIKE THE 50% SCENARIO.
THAT'S IF YOUR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS HAD THE EXACT SAME RATE INCREASE, AND IT WINDS UP BEING ABOUT 10.5%.
AS YOU WALK ACROSS THIS PAGE, WHAT WE'RE SHOWING YOU ON THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE.
AGAIN, IF YOU'LL FOCUS ON THAT 50% SCENARIO, TOP IS RESIDENTIAL, BOTTOM IS COMMERCIAL, WE'D BE LOOKING AT FOR THE PROPOSED FEE INCREASES.
WE WOULD NEED ABOUT $2.54 MORE PER MONTH ON OUR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS AND THEN ON THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE.
THERE'S MULTIPLE OPTIONS FOR OUR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS.
[00:10:02]
BUT FOR A COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER THAT HAD A THREE CUBIC YARD CONTAINER THAT WAS PICKED UP TWICE A WEEK, THEY WOULD SEE $11.63 CENT INCREASE FOR THE MONTH, SO THOSE ARE MONTHLY CHARGES.WE DID RUN TWO OTHER SCENARIOS, AND WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FEEDBACK FROM COUNSEL.
I MEAN, WE CAN RUN ALL SORTS OF SCENARIOS ON THIS, BUT WE HAVE ONE WHERE 25% OF THE RATE INCREASE IS GOING ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT A 91% INCREASE, AND 75% GOES ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, AND THAT WOULD JUST BE SHY OF $29 A MONTH INCREASE AND THEN WE DID A 40 61.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THERE.
ON THE 40 60 SCENARIO, I 40% WENT ON THE RESIDENTIAL RATE, IT WOULD BE ABOUT $1.46 PER MONTH INCREASE, AND ON THE COMMERCIAL, IT WOULD BE ABOUT JUST A LITTLE OVER $23 INCREASE PER MONTH.
I WOULD LOVE, IF POSSIBLE, FOR COUNSEL TO GIVE SOME FEEDBACK ON THE CS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY OUR TERMS HERE, CAN YOU GIVE A A MORE IN DEPTH DESCRIPTION OF THE STATEMENT BALANCE GENERAL FUND WITH STREETS.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN DOWN AT THE BOTTOM FOR THE 995? THAT IS FOR US TO BRING THE STREET DEPARTMENT BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND, SO NO STREET MAINTENANCE FEE AND TO ACHIEVE THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES THAT COUNSEL WAS HOPING TO ACHIEVE.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE THAT 995 ONTO THE SOLID WASTE STREET.
IS THERE A REASON TO BREAK THAT OUT THAT I'M NOT CAPTURING OR CATCHING ONTO? LIKE, WHAT I'M SEEING IS SAY A 75 25 SCENARIO, IF COUNSEL LED YOU THAT DIRECTION, THERE WOULD BE A TOTAL REVENUE CHANGE OF THE 2.9 MILLION.
YES, SIR. WHAT THAT CORRESPONDS WITH, IF YOU GO BACK TO YOUR LONG PAGE, THE LEGAL SHEET PAGE, THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE REVENUES THAT YOU SEE ON THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN.
STEPHANIE, IF YOU GO UP TO THAT 3,017,000, IF YOU TAKE THAT MINUS THE 2,022,000 THAT'S IN THE BLUE, THAT'S YOUR 995.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR SOLID WASTE RATES TO PICK UP IN ORDER TO HAVE THE BUDGET BALANCED WITH NO STREET MAINTENANCE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT GETTING LOST AND HOW WE'RE GOING BACK AND ADDING AND SPLITTING IT.
WHY ARE WE SPLITTING THE 995 OUT AND APPLYING IT ONLY TO THAT LINE ITEM? WOULD ALL OF THIS 2.9 MILLION NOT BE APPLIED TO THE SOLID WASTE REVENUE? YES, IT ALL IS. I WAS JUST REFLECTING IN HERE ON YOUR SOLID WASTE SCENARIO PAGE.
THE FIRST TWO LINE ITEMS ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN YOUR PRINTED BUDGET, THIS BIG GIANT BUDGET BOOK THEY'RE ALREADY IN THERE.
THAT LAST ITEM, I'M SAYING, THESE ARE THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN OUR BUDGET REVIEW.
THE ADDED TOGETHER TOTAL ABOUT 2.9 MILLION DOLLAR.
WE WOULD RECOMMEND SPREADING THAT BETWEEN YOUR RESIDENTIAL AND YOUR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS.
WE JUST NEED DIRECTION ON HOW ALL WOULD LIKE US TO DO IT.
THEN WE WOULD TAKE THE 2.9 MILLION AND ADD IT TO THE ADDITIONAL INCREASES OF REVENUES, AND IT WOULD GO ON THE SOLID WASTE LINE.
YES, AND IT'S ALREADY INCLUDED IN THIS PAGE HERE.
YES, THAT 2.9 IS ALREADY ADDED IN IN THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN IN THAT 3,017,000 LINE ITEM THERE UNDER YOUR SOLID WASTE REVENUE.
YOU KNOW, CURRENT YEAR BUDGET, 326 PROPOSED BUDGET IS 345, WITH THE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE ALREADY HAD? YES.
FROM THE 345, YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE THAT 3 MILLION ON TOP OF THAT.
NO. WE ARE GOING UP 995,000 TO THE 3 MILLION.
YOU'RE BREAKING THAT APART BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY PUT THE SEVEN AND SEVEN IN OR THE 7% INCREASE READY IN THE 34.
YOUR TOTAL BUDGET WOULD BE WHAT? LET'S SEE HERE, IT WOULD GO UP TO.
YOU'RE ONLY REALIZING THE 995 AND AN INCREASE FROM WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY PROPOSED? FROM WHAT WAS ALREADY FILED IN THE BOOK, YES, SIR.
GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNSEL OR COMMENTS ON DISTRIBUTION OF THAT FEE, IF YOU WERE GOING TO INCREASE IT? PART OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS HERE IS, I KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COUNSEL HAS BEEN TALKING TO ME INDIVIDUALLY IS THE IDEA OF COST RECOVERY.
THIS IS A MEASURED HERE TO TRY TO HELP THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT BECOME MORE HAVING ITS COST RECOVERED VIA ITS OWN FEES, AND SO THAT BE CORRECT, LAURA.
YES, THAT'S CORRECT, AND I THINK YOU CAN MAKE A CASE ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF THAT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL IN A WIDE VARIETY OF WAYS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S NECESSARILY, I'M LOOKING DOWN AT DONNIE HERE TOO, BUT I DON'T KNOW THERE'S NECESSARILY A RIGHT OR WRONG WAY TO DO IT.
WE HAVE SHOWN A FEW SCENARIOS OF WAYS THAT IT COULD BE DONE.
[00:15:04]
IF COUNSEL FELT STRONGLY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WE WOULD APPRECIATE SOME FEEDBACK.ORIGINALLY, WHEN WE FILED THE BUDGET, WE SPLIT IT EVENLY ACROSS RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
BUT BASED ON SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE HAD GOTTEN THE EARLIER BUDGET REVIEW SESSIONS, I THINK COUNSEL WAS WANTING TO SEE THE SPLIT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON COMMERCIAL.
THAT'S WHAT THESE OTHER TWO SCENARIOS ON THIS PAGE SHOW YOU.
JUST TO CONFIRM, IT SAYS, ONE CONTAINER PICKED UP TWICE PER WEEK, BUT THAT 28 91 IS A PER MONTH INCREASE.
IT'S 28 91 PER MONTH TO ALL OUR COMMERCIAL USERS TO CAPTURE THE ADDITIONAL 2.9 MILLION, OF WHICH YOU'VE ALREADY GOT ROUGHLY 2 MILLION BUILT INTO THE PROPOSAL? YES, SO IT WOULD BE A $28.90 $0.01 INCREASE FOR THAT TYPE OF COMMERCIAL.
YES, AND THEN $0.91 ON OUR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL.
>> WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS BREAKDOWN BETWEEN PERCENTAGES THAT LAURA CAN WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT THIS GIVES YOU ON THE EXPENSE SIDE, AND THEN YOU CAN COME BACK AND VISIT THE 25 75, 40 60 SCENARIO, SEE IF YOU'D LIKE TO PROCEED.
>> COUNSEL-MAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE WE GO?
>> I DID. WE'RE USING THE 75% SCENARIO FOR COMMERCIAL AND THE 25% ON RESIDENTIAL. IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD?
IF COUNSEL WANTS, WE JUST GAVE YOU THREE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THERE, WHERE IT'S A 25 75 SPLIT, AS 40 60 SPLIT, OR A 50 50 SPLIT, AND SHOWED YOU WHAT THAT WOULD DO PER MONTH TO EACH OF THOSE TYPES OF CUSTOMERS.
AT SOME POINT, MAYBE LATER TODAY, YOU COULD GIVE US A LITTLE FEEDBACK ON WHICH ONE YOU'RE MOST COMFORTABLE WITH.
>> NONE OF THESE ARE REFLECTED IN THE NO STREET MAINTENANCE OF THE THREE MILLION NUMBER?
>> NO, THEY'RE ALL REFLECTED IN THAT.
THESE ARE JUST VARIOUS WAYS YOU COULD APPLY THAT FEE INCREASE TO YOUR CUSTOMERS.
>> WHICH FEE WOULD GIVE US THAT NUMBER?
DO YOU WANT MORE ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE AND LESS ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, OR DO YOU WANT IT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN YOUR RESIDENTIAL AND YOUR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS? THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ASK COUNSEL FOR ON THIS PAGE.
>> THE 995 CAN COME THROUGH 25 75, 40 60 OR 50 50.
>> YES, ALL OF IT CAN. EVEN THE ORIGINAL 70%.
>> THOSE ARE THE THREE OPTIONS.
EACH ONE OF THOSE, THE 25 75 WILL GET US 995 ADDITIONAL, OR THE 40 60 OR THE 50 50.
>> YES. ANY OF THOSE WILL AND WE CAN RUN OTHER SCENARIOS IF YOU WANTED THOSE ARE JUST THREE EXAMPLES. YES.
>> I'M NOT SAYING YOU WOULD DO THIS, BUT WHAT IS THE 50 75 GAIN? SO $2.50 MORE RESIDENTIAL AND 28.91 MORE COMMERCIAL?
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO RE RUN REVENUE NUMBERS TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T ADD UP.
>> BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING HIGHER THAN THE RATE.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT CAPTURING MORE.
>> YEAH. BECAUSE I LIKE THE WAY YOU'VE BROKEN IT OUT TO BALANCE.
BUT YOU WORKED BACKWARDS FROM YOUR TOTAL, I GUESS, TO COST SHARE THAT?
>> WHAT I'M TRYING TO FACTOR IS, FOR A DOLLAR MORE ON RESIDENTIAL, WHAT DOES THAT CALCULATE TO? FIVE DOLLARS MORE ON COMMERCIAL, WHAT DOES THAT CALCULATE TO? I THINK WE'VE ESTABLISHED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS THAT COMMERCIAL RATES ARE ACTUALLY BELOW MARKET FOR THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE.
THE RESIDENTIAL, I THINK, PREVIOUS COUNSEL WAS PRETTY PROTECTIVE OVER, BUT $0.91 IS, AFFORDABLE MOST OF THE TIME.
>> CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME MAYOR WHEN YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS, WHAT IF WE USE THE 25% SCENARIO IN THE WHICH SCENARIO?
>> 50 AND 75, SO THAT WOULD BE 125% OF YOUR SCENARIO.
>> YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO JUST FACTOR AN EXTRA 25% ON THE 2.93.
>> THE 50% SCENARIO ON RESIDENTIAL AND THE 75% SCENARIO ON COMMERCIAL WOULD GIVE YOU JUST UNDER 4.3 MILLION DOLLARS, SO THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL.
>> YES, SIR. AND NONE OF THAT IS FACTORED INTO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
YOU MIGHT KEEP THAT HANDY, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AS WE START WALKING THROUGH POTENTIAL CHANGES.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNSEL, BEFORE THEY KEEP US MOVING?
>> IS THE NET INCREASE MONTHLY OR ANNUAL?
>> WHAT IS SHOWN THERE IN THE GRAY SECTIONS ARE MONTHLY INCREASES. YES, SIR.
>> ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WANT TO PULL BACK OUT YOUR PAGE WITH THE ORANGE AND THE BLUE ON IT.
[00:20:03]
LET'S KEEP WALKING DOWN THE PAGE THERE.AND THE NEXT ITEM WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT IS LANDFILL CHARGES DOWN IN THE WHITE SECTION BELOW THE ORANGE.
ON THE LANDFILL CHARGES, WE WENT BACK AND RE RAN NUMBERS THROUGH A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, JUST TO LOOK AT TRENDS.
NOW, WE DO REALIZE THAT WE HAVE HAD SOME SEVERE STORMS THIS YEAR AND SO THAT CAN FACTOR INTO LANDFILL USAGE.
BUT WHAT WE DID IS WE LOOKED AT THAT TREND COMPARED TO WHAT WE ACTUALLY COLLECTED LAST FISCAL YEAR AS WELL AND REDID THE TREND AND THINK THAT WE ACTUALLY CAN ACHIEVE ABOUT 383,000 MORE, AND THAT'S NOT WITH ANY A FEE INCREASE.
WE DO HAVE A CPI INCREASE BUILT INTO OUR LANDFILL CHARGES, AND IT'S 3%.
BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY TRUE LIKE USAGE OUT THERE AT THE LANDFILL.
WE THINK THAT TREND IS CONTINUING TO REMAIN POSITIVE BECAUSE LAST YEAR, AND I'M LOOKING AT DAWN BECAUSE MAYBE DAWN HAS BETTER MEMORY THAN I DO BECAUSE IT AFFECTS HIS BUSINESS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAD AS SEVERE OF STORMS LAST YEAR, BUT THIS YEAR WE HAVE.
BUT JUST WATCHING THE TREND FROM LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR, REALLY FOCUSING EVEN MORE ON LAST YEAR'S TREND, I THINK WE CAN SQUEEZE A LITTLE BIT MORE OUT OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH THAT LANDFILL.
THAT WOULD INCREASE YOUR AVAILABLE AMOUNT BY 383,000.
THEN YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME ON THESE NEXT FEW BECAUSE, WE LOOKED AT EVERY REVENUE LINE ITEM TRYING TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING, AND SOME OF THESE ARE GOING TO GET SMALL, BUT WE DO HAVE A LEASE WITH THE ICE RANCH THAT WE HAVE CONTINUED TO WORK WITH THEM ON AND THAT AMOUNT WE HAVE NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET PREVIOUSLY, AND SO THAT AMOUNT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR IS AT 110,000, SO WE'RE ADDING THAT TO HAVE ON THE REVENUE SIDE.
ON YOUR WEED COLLECTION AND MOWING SERVICES.
OUR COLLECTIONS GROUP HAS BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD ON THAT AND THIS YEAR, HONESTLY, WITH ALL THE RAIN, THE NUMBERS ARE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER.
BUT WE THINK THAT REVENUE COULD TREND CLOSER TO ABOUT $26,400 HIGHER THAN WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY PUT IN THE BUDGET.
WE HAVE SOME STATE COURT COSTS FEES THAT WE RECEIVE ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.
ALL OF THOSE HAVE COME IN NOW THIS YEAR, AND IT'S TRENDING A LITTLE HIGHER THAN WE HAD ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED.
THEN APPRECIATE MICHAEL KASHUBA AND GEORGE PRIOLO BECAUSE WE MADE A CALL TO THEM TO SEE IF THERE WOULD BE ANY WAY THEY'D BE OPEN TO A $2 GREEN FEE INCREASE INSTEAD OF A $1 GREEN FEE INCREASE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT DURING BUDGET REVIEW PREVIOUSLY.
WHAT THEY THOUGHT THAT WOULD DO TO OUR ROUNDS THAT ARE PLAYED OUT AT THE GOLF COURSES, AND THEY SAID, ABSOLUTELY, WE THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.
I THINK OUR COMMUNITY CAN HANDLE A $2 INCREASE ALMOST AS EASILY AS A $1 INCREASE, AND SO WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS BRING IN AN ADDITIONAL JUST UNDER $82,000.
THEN WE WENT IN AND LOOKED AND I BELIEVE IT WAS ON GOLF ART SALES AND DRIVING RANGE SALES, WHERE THE REVENUE ITEMS THAT I LOOKED AT AND I TRENDED OUT FOR THIS YEAR AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR.
I THINK WE CAN BRING A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO THAT FOR NEXT YEAR AT $90,000.
THEN THE LAST ITEM THERE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, AND WE JUST PUT IT BACK ON HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
A VECTOR CONTROL FEE OF $0.50 PER MONTH WOULD BRING IN AN ADDITIONAL $312,000 TO YOUR GENERAL FUND TO WORK WITH.
>> THE VECTOR CONTROL FEE IS WHAT DEPARTMENT?
>> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. THAT IS GETTING THEM.
>> I'M LOOKING FOR ANYTHING ELSE.
>> THAT'S GETTING THEM TO FULL COST RECOVERY OR AS CLOSE AS THEY CAN GET AT THIS POINT WITH THE ANTICIPATED STATE LAW CHANGES THAT ARE COMING THROUGH RELATED TO A LOT OF THEIR PERMITS.
I WANTED TO GO BACK AND STATE THAT ON GOLF COURSE AND ON THE VECTOR CONTROL FEE.
WE HEARD A LOT FROM YOU ALL ABOUT FULL COST RECOVERY, AND SO WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO LOOK CLOSER AND CLOSER AT ALL THESE DEPARTMENTS THAT COULD ACHIEVE IT.
THIS WILL GET ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ESSENTIALLY TO FULL COST RECOVERY.
THE GOLF GREEN FEE, THE ADDITIONAL GREEN FEE INCREASE, AND THOSE REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT ABOUT A $288,000 SUPPLEMENT LAST TIME FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
THIS WOULD BRING IT CLOSER TO ABOUT 150,000.
WE'RE NOT THERE, BUT MAYBE WITH A FEW MORE GOLF BALL CELLS, WE'LL GET THERE.
[00:25:01]
WE HAVE MADE TREMENDOUS STRIDES.THOSE ARE TWO THAT WE PUT IN THERE BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU ALL GAVE RELATED TO FULL COST RECOVERY.
THOSE ARE THE REVENUE CHANGES THAT WE LOCATED AND SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES WE HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD TO HELP ACHIEVE THESE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT COUNSEL IS WANTING TO PUT IN THE BUDGET.
AS WE GO DOWN TO THE EXPENDITURE SIDE.
>> MISS LAURA, LET'S RECAP THAT REAL QUICK BEFORE WE GET INTO EXPENSES.
ON THE BUILDING SAFETY DEPARTMENT BUILDING PERMITS, HOW DID YOU CAPTURE THE ADDITIONAL 300 K? WHAT ARE YOU INCREASING OVER THERE?
>> ON THE BUILDING PERMIT SIDE, THAT'S TRULY BASED ON TREND.
>> THAT JUST LOOKS AT WHAT'S COMING IN, AND THAT'S HOW MUCH MORE WE'D REVENUE WITHOUT CHANGING ANYTHING?
>> THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE IS THEIR ANNUAL CPI ADJUSTMENT, WHICH WOULD BE 3%.
>> ALL BUILDING PERMITS COST AN EXTRA 3% NEXT YEAR FROM THIS BUDGET.
>> YES, AND ALL BUILDING SAFETY PERMITS, ESSENTIALLY, YES.
>> WE'RE KEEPING THE TECHNOLOGY FEE IN THERE FOR 10 BUCKS?
>> OKAY. RUN THE MATH WITH ME REAL QUICK, AND LET ME MAKE SURE IF I GO FROM YOUR EXISTING VARIANCE, IN THE FAR RIGHT BLUE COLUMN RIGHT THERE, THE 6.7 AT THE BOTTOM, THAT'S ALREADY BUILT INTO THE BUDGET AS PROPOSED.
THEN WHAT YOU'RE DOING OVER HERE IS YOU'RE KICKING OUT THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS THAT IT GROSSES, BUT YOU HAVE TO SUBTRACT THAT FROM WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY BUDGETED, RIGHT? AS AN EXAMPLE ON BUILDING PERMITS, WE WERE GOING TO INCREASE 984.
NOW WE'RE INCREASING 1.234, SO A NET OF 300 K.
>> LET'S RUN THIS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.
>> IT'S A LITTLE OVER THREE MILLION DOLLARS.
IT'S $3,008,186 A CHANGE BETWEEN THAT 12,000,001 82 NUMBER ON THE FAR RIGHT AND THE 900000174113 NUMBER.
>> THAT ACCOUNTS FOR $670,000 IN ADDITIONAL SOLID WASTE REVENUE.
NO, IT DOESN'T. IT ACCOUNTS FOR 995,000
>> OKAY. 995. THAT CHECKS OUT.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO DIFFERENT IS WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD A 50% CHARGE TO A WATER BILL.
>> NO AT 50 CENT PER PER MONTH.
>> A 50 CENT CHARGE TO THE WATER BILL FOR A NEW VECTOR FEE.
>> IF WE CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE WANT TO PROTECT THAT WATER BILL, YOU WOULD TAKE $300,000 OFF YOUR THREE MILLION?
>> YOU GUYS HAVE GONE BACK AND YOU'VE REALIZED AN ADDITIONAL 2.71 MILLION OF POTENTIALS HERE THE COUNSEL COULD ACT ON WITHOUT TOUCHING THE WATER BILL?
>> YES. WE WOULD HAVE TO ADJUST 300,000 OUT OF WHAT'S DOWN BELOW THEN. YES, SIR.
>> COUNSEL, YOU FOLLOW ALL THAT, EVERYBODY UP TO SPEED ON IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ADDITIONAL REVENUES?
>> BUT OF THAT AMOUNT OF REVENUE.
THE 3.8 MILLION, HOW MUCH OF THAT? A BILLION OF IT WOULD COME OUT OF RATE INCREASE.
>> THE VECTOR FEE, IF IT'S IN THERE WOULD BE ADDED.
THE BALANCE OF THAT WAS JUST RECALCULATING TRENDS TO DETERMINE A MORE ACCURATE NUMBER?
>> YES, FOR THE MOST PART, YES, SIR.
>> WE'RE JUST PROJECTING MORE OPTIMISTICALLY TO REALIZE 1.5, 1.6 MILLION IN YOUR BUDGET?
>> YES, AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT WAY TO WORD IT.
I WOULD SAY LESS CONSERVATIVELY, BUT MORE OPTIMISTICALLY, IT'S PROBABLY A GREAT WAY TO PUT THAT.
>> NOW, KEEP IN MIND, THE OTHER THINGS WE'RE STILL NOT LOOKING AT, WE PULLED OUT THE DRAINAGE INTEREST INCOME OF 1.3 MILLION, AND WE PULLED OUT THE WATER AND SEWER INTEREST INCOME OF 2.8 MILLION.
>> YOU'RE KEEPING THOSE AMOUNTS OF MONEY IN THOSE INDIVIDUAL FUNDS?
>> WE'RE STILL REALIZING ALL THAT INTEREST INCOME?
>> NO, WE ARE. WE'RE JUST KEEPING IT IN THOSE FUNDS, RIGHT?
WE'RE NOT ACHIEVING THAT INTEREST INCOME AT THOSE LEVELS IN THOSE FUNDS.
YES, WE'RE KEEPING ALL INTEREST INCOME IN THOSE FUNDS, BUT WE'RE NOT SEEING AS MUCH AS WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY BUDGETED FROM THE WATER AND SEWER INTEREST AND FROM THE DRAINAGE INTEREST COMING BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND.
>> ON THE VECTOR CONTROL FEE, IS THERE ANY REGULATORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE VECTOR FEE FROM A HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDPOINT.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THE STATE REQUIRES US TO DO IN TERMS OF I'M ASSUMING THAT'S MOSQUITO.
>> ALL THINGS LIKE THAT, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE TO DO?
[00:30:02]
IS THAT A REQUIREMENT BY STATE LAW IN ANY FASHION FORM OR ANYTHING?>> THEY'RE ALREADY PERFORMING ALL OF THOSE SERVICES, AND YOUR CITIZENS ARE PAYING FOR IT THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS.
I'LL JUST LET ANTHONY EXPLAIN IT.
>> SURE. IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR A MUNICIPALITY PERFORM MOSQUITO CONTROL, BUT VERY COMMON.
>> THAT IS AN AREA WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CALLS ON THIS YEAR, ESPECIALLY WITH THE LARGE AMOUNTS OF RAINFALL.
I THINK THEY'VE DONE SOME GREAT MEASURES TO GET THAT UNDER CONTROL.
BUT IT IS AN AREA WE RECEIVE COMPLAINTS FROM OUR CITIZENS FROM.
>> I WOULD SAY IT'S GETTING VERY DIFFICULT TO MANAGE WITH OUR CURRENT OPERATIONAL LIMITS.
WE DEFINITELY NEED TO INCREASE PERSONNEL.
WE NEED TO INCREASE EQUIPMENT.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO MANAGE WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.
>> THAT 311 IS IT MOVING FROM ONE SPOT TO THIS SPOT OR IS THAT JUST AN INCREASE IN THAT SERVICE LINE.
>> IT IS BRINGING A NEW REVENUE SOURCE INTO YOUR GENERAL FUND THAT'S JUST BEEN PAID FOR HISTORICALLY OUT OF EITHER PROPERTY TAXES OR SALES TAX.
>> THE THOUGHT HERE IS COST RECOVERY FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
RIGHT NOW IT'S SUPPLEMENTED THROUGH TAXES.
BUT RIGHT NOW, THIS IDEA WILL BE MAKING THIS ONE OF OUR COST RECOVERY TARGETS FOR OUR DEPARTMENTS.
>> UNDERSTAND. FANTASTIC JOB ON THE COST RECOVERY ACROSS THE BOARD.`
>> I THINK THAT'S JUST A LOT OF THOUGHT. THANK YOU.
>> DOWN BELOW. LET'S LOOK AT THE LARGE EXPENDITURES, AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT ARE FACTORING IN.
AGAIN, YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN THAT MIDDLE COLUMN.
THEN THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN IS THE NEW COLUMN WITH SOME CHANGES FROM WHAT WE ORIGINALLY LOOKED AT.
THE FIRST ITEM THERE THAT HAS CHANGED IS THE PAY STUDY.
WITH WHAT WE'VE FACTORED IN, AND WE'VE WORKED ON THIS LITTLE OVER A WEEK, WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO PUT ABOUT 600,000 TOWARDS A $2.2 MILLION PAY STUDY FOR OUR CIVILIANS.
IT WOULD JUST BE USED TO TARGET SOME OF THE HARDEST TO FILL AREAS.
THOSE POSITIONS THAT ARE PROBABLY THE FURTHEST FROM MARKET AT THIS POINT TO REALLY BRING SOME RELIEF INTO JUST SPECIFIC AREAS.
IT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED ACROSS THE BOARD IN OUR GENERAL FUND FOR OUR CIVILIANS.
THIS WOULD JUST BE A SMALL AMOUNT TO HELP US START ADDRESSING THOSE HARD TO FILL AREAS.
THE NEXT CHANGE AS YOU COME ON DOWN THIS PAGE, YOU WILL SEE NOW THERE'S AN AMOUNT OF 01,820,000 IN THE POLICE SWORN 4% LINE ITEMS. YOU'LL SEE ON THE MIDDLE COLUMN, IT WAS IN THE 3%, SO WE ORIGINALLY BROUGHT THIS BACK TO YOU ALL WITH 3% FOR POLICE.
THIS OPTION THAT WE HAVE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU WOULD BRING THE POLICE SWORN RAISES UP TO THE 4% AMOUNT.
AS YOU KEEP COMING DOWN, YOU'LL NOW SEE THAT THERE'S 1,215,000 IN THE FIRE SWORN 3% LINE WHERE IN THE MIDDLE COLUMN, THAT WAS ON THE 2% LINE BEFORE.
WE HAD ORIGINALLY BROUGHT IT BACK TO ALL AT A 2% AMOUNT.
THIS WOULD GROW THAT UP TO A 3% AMOUNT.
>> HEY, LAURA, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION WHILE WE'RE HERE.
JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS ANYWHERE.
WHY IS THERE A PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIRE AND POLICE? DID WE COME UP WITH THAT? WAS THAT THE ASK? WHERE DID THAT COME FROM?
>> WE CAME UP WITH THAT BASED ON THE NEEDS OF FILLING THOSE VACANCIES.
FIRES BEEN ABLE TO STAY AHEAD OF IT COMPARED TO POLICE.
IT'S STILL STRUGGLING TO FILL THOSE VACANCIES.
>> IT'S JUST TO MAKE THOSE POSITIONS MORE ATTRACTIVE, BASICALLY, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> HERE IN A LITTLE BIT, WHEN WE GET DOWN TO IT, THERE'S A SPOT AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE THAT I'M GOING TO LET ANDREW GO OVER WITH YOU GUYS THAT HE'S PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO POLICE AND FIRE TO HELP GIVE YOU ALL SOME COMPARISONS BASED ON HOW THIS IS BUILT NOW.
AS YOU COME DOWN ON THAT FAR RIGHT COLUMN, YOU'LL SEE IN THE IT CHARGES, WE HAD ORIGINALLY, WE'RE NEEDING TO INCREASE THAT ABOUT 1.8 MILLION.
WE BROUGHT THAT DOWN TO JUST 800,000 IN THE MIDDLE COLUMN, AND WE'RE LOOKING TO TRY TO PUT THAT CLOSER TO 900,000.
I THINK RICH COULD GIVE YOU ALL REASONS THAT AS MUCH AS WE CAN AFFORD TO PUT TOWARDS IT IS ONLY GOING TO HELP THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION.
SOFTWARE COSTS JUST CONTINUE TO GO UP AND OUR SECURITY MEASURES ARE VERY NECESSARY.
WE TRIED TO PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO THAT AREA TO HELP SUPPORT OUR IT TEAM.
THE NEXT CHANGE WILL GO DOWN TO THE LINE ITEM POLICE AND FIRE ADDITIONAL OVERTIME.
WE HAD ORIGINALLY PUT THAT IN THE BUDGET.
WE WERE ADDING A MILLION INTO POLICE AND FIRE OVERTIME.
[00:35:01]
THEY'RE SPENDING IT ALREADY, AND ALL OF YOUR OTHER GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS ARE HELPING TO OFFSET THAT.WE HAD CUT IT OUT IN THE MIDDLE COLUMN, AND THEN WE'VE ADDED ABOUT 505,000 BACK IN TO SPLIT BETWEEN POLICE AND FIRE.
AS A REMINDER, IN THE CURRENT YEAR, THEY DID GET SIGNIFICANT RAISES, AND WE DID NOT ADD ANY ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS INTO OVERTIME, BUT THEY'RE WORKING OVERTIME, AND NOW IT'S AT AN INCREASED PAY AMOUNT, TOO.
WE FELT IT WOULD BE WISE TO PUT AS MUCH AS WE COULD BACK IN TO HELP THEM WITH THOSE OVERTIME ACCOUNTS.
THEN THE GOAL WILL BE OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS, AS HOPEFULLY WE CONTINUE TO FILL UP THOSE VACANT POSITIONS, WE WILL AT SOME POINT SEE OVERTIME COSTS START TO COME DOWN AND GET CLOSER TO TRULY OUR BUDGETED AMOUNTS.
>> CAN I PAUSE JUST REAL QUICK TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TRACKING ON THE OVERALL? THEY ARE GOING OVER THE BUDGETED OVERTIME, PLUS WE HAVE PAY RAISES OVER THERE.
THERE'S A CONSIDERATION THERE THAT'S NOT FACTORING.
>> BUT OVERALL, AM I STILL READING THE BUDGET CORRECT.
YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL BUDGET OF 24 /25 TOTAL EXPENDITURES, 277.9 MILLION.
THEN YOU HAVE THE REVISED ESTIMATE, SO OUR ACTUALS WOULD BE 2755.
ARE WE UNDER BUDGET ROUGHLY 2.4 MILLION ON THE TOTAL ORGANIZATION IN THE GENERAL FUND?
>> YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CASH FLOW, THE OTHER PAGE THAT I HAD HERE.
>> YES, I'M LOOKING AT THE REVISED ESTIMATE, WHICH WOULD BE YOUR BEST PROJECTION CONSERVATIVELY.
>> THAT WOULD BE OUR BEST GUESS.
WE'RE HOPING WHAT THAT MEANS THEN IS IF WE COME IN A LITTLE BIT UNDER BUDGET THIS YEAR, OUR HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE COULD BRING THAT BACK TO YOU ALL THIS NEXT YEAR TO PUT INTO ONE TIME CAPITAL SPENDING.
AS THESE BUDGETS GET TIGHTER, IT'S GOING TO BE LESS FUNDING THAT WE CAN BRING BACK AT BUDGET TIME FOR ALL TO PUT IN ONE TIME CAPITAL.
>> I THINK WHAT I'M REALLY TRYING TO MAKE SURE OF IS THAT WE DIDN'T GIVE RAISES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR THAT PUT US OVER BUDGET.
YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB OF HOLDING TO YOUR BUDGET.
ACTUALLY, YOU'RE PROBABLY ABOUT 2.5 MILLION UNDER THAT BUDGET OVERALL BEST GUESTS.
>> THE NEXT LINE ITEM DOWN THAT CHANGED IS, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LINE CALLED HOT AUDIT FEES.
THIS IS OUR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX AUDIT.
THAT AUDITS THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
THOSE HAVE BEEN RUNNING US ABOUT 70,000 PER YEAR, AND UNIL AND HIS INTERNAL AUDIT TEAM HAVE DECIDED THEY CAN BRING THAT WE'VE BEEN PAYING A THIRD PARTY TO DO THAT, AND THEY HAVE DECIDED THEY CAN TAKE THAT WORK IN HOUSE, AND SO THEY'RE WORKING TO TERMINATE THAT CONTRACT, WHICH WOULD BRING ABOUT A $70,000 BENEFIT TO THE CITY THAT WE WOULD ABSORB THROUGH COSTS THAT WE'RE ALREADY INCURRING THROUGH UNIL AND HIS TEAM.
THE NEXT ITEM DOWN IS WE HAVE THE SPECIAL ADVISOR POSITION THAT IS LOOKING TO RETIRE AND GO AWAY NEXT YEAR, AND SO WE WILL RECAPTURE PARTS OF THAT SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR THAT POSITION FOR WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR.
WE'RE LOOKING TO RECAPTURE SOME OF THE SAVINGS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUDGETED FOR.
DOWN BELOW THAT, IN THE HOT FUNDING TO THE CIVIC CENTER IMPROVEMENT, THAT'S YOUR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FUNDING.
EVERY TIME WE MAKE A CHANGE TO LIKE SALARIES AND BENEFITS OR RAISES OR TMRS, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WE HAVE TO GO RERUN ESSENTIALLY THE NET OPERATING LOSS OVER AT THE CIVIC CENTER, AND THAT'S LESS MONEY THAT WE TRANSFER OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND TO DO IMPROVEMENTS AT THE CIVIC CENTER.
ONCE WE RE RAN THAT AFTER WE HAD CHANGED SOME ASSUMPTIONS, WE WOULD KEEP ABOUT 52,000 THAN MORE IN THE GENERAL FUND TO HELP COVER THAT OPERATING LOSS AT THE CIVIC CENTER, AND THAT'S ALL FROM HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES.
THOSE ARE THE LAST OF THE CHANGES THAT DIFFER FROM WHAT WE SHOWED YOU ALL A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO THAT FRIDAY MORNING.
THE MAYOR ALREADY WALKED US FORWARD TO THAT, BUT YOU'LL SEE IT THERE RIGHT BELOW THAT BOX WHERE STEPHANIE'S AT.
YOU'LL SEE OUR ESTIMATED RESERVES WITH THOSE CHANGES FACTORED IN.
OR ESTIMATED TARGET RESERVES WOULD BE 50,695,659.
OUR TARGET RESERVES ARE STILL AT THAT 52,000,764, AND SO WE WOULD JUST BE SLIGHTLY OFF OF OUR RESERVES BY ABOUT $2,068,000.
WE WOULD CONSIDER A FULLY BALANCED BUDGET THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IN THIS MANNER.
BUT WE'RE ALL OPEN TO CHANGES.
[00:40:01]
THAT'S WHAT WE HAD COME UP WITH AS A GAME PLAN.WE WOULD APPRECIATE SOME FEEDBACK IF COUNCIL WANTS TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO WHAT WE'VE RECOMMENDED HERE.
THIS OTHER PAGE WHERE THE MAYOR WAS AT EARLIER, THIS LAST PAGE THAT IN YOUR HANDOUTS, IT SAYS, CITY OF AMARILLO GENERAL FUND, ESTIMATED RECEIPTS, EXPENDITURES AND AVAILABLE CASH.
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOUR CASH FLOW WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THE CHANGES WE JUST WENT OVER AND THAT AMOUNT AT THE VERY BOTTOM IS WE WOULD BE JUST SLIGHTLY UNDER OUR TARGET RESERVES BY THE 2,068,955.I HAD THE WRONG ONE.
>> LET'S START WITH THE TOTAL.
ON THIS ONE IN OUR LAST MEETING.
>> WE HAD DISCUSSED A FEW THINGS AND I HAD WRITTEN DOWN TOTAL REVENUES, 2711.
NOW YOU'RE STILL AT 2711, BUT WE'VE CAPTURED AN ADDITIONAL 2.7 MILLION WITHOUT THE VECTOR FEE, THREE MILLION WITH THE VECTOR FEE.
HOW DOES THAT 271 NOT GO TO 274?
>> YOU'RE SAYING YOU WROTE DOWN 271 MILLION FOR THE LAST TIME, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE WERE AT 270, AND WE HAD ROUGHLY ADJUSTED 1.2 MILLION.
>> WELL, AND IT WOULD HELP IF I HANDED YOU ALL THE RIGHT PAGE, AND I APOLOGIZE.
THE 271 YOU'RE LOOKING AT, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL ONE. YES, SIR.
>> YOU HAVE GOT AN UPDATED ONE.
>> NO. IT SAYS 272,918,000 ON THE RECORD.
>> THIS IS ME TRYING TO BE ORGANIZED.
LET ME KEEP. YOU'LL HAVE THE BEFORE AND AFTER.
>> IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MISPRINT, CAN WE GET A FEW MORE WITH AN EXTRA COUPLE MILLION ON?
>> SURE. ABSOLUTELY. WE'LL DO OUR BEST THERE.
>> YES. THE ONE YOU'RE LOOKING AT WAS THE ORIGINAL CASH FLOW WITH THAT SECOND TO LAST COLUMN CHANGES ON THE BLUE AND ORANGE PAGE.
THE ONE THAT JUSTIN IS SO GRACIOUSLY HANDING OUT FOR US IS WITH THE LAST COLUMN ON THAT PAGE WITH THE BLUE AND ORANGE FACTORED IN.
YOU'RE NOW AT JUST UNDER 273 MILLION, AND YOUR EXPENDITURES WOULD BE AT THAT 275.7 MILLION, WITH YOUR ONGOING AT THAT 269.2 MILLION.
I'M GLAD WE'RE TRACKING ALONG.
I'D LIKE TO START WITH THOSE REVENUES AND JUST FOR ME TO KEEP IT RIGHT IN MY HEAD, WATER AND SEWER TOTAL INTEREST REVENUES FOR LAST YEAR WERE ROUGHLY HOW MANY MILLION.
SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS LIKE 20 MILLION OR NO, I WAS LIKE $14,000,000. AM I WRONG?
BECAUSE THE MOST OF THEM ARE COMING FROM BOND PROCEEDS.
>> WELL, AND THEN THOSE BONDS ARE STILL SITTING IN THERE TO BE PAID DOWN OR DOWN, BUT WE SHOULD BE PROJECTING LIKE THREE YEARS.
>> LAST YEAR'S ACTUALS AND INTEREST INCOME FOR WATER AND SEWER.
LET ME MAKE SURE I'M ON THE TRACK. THIS IS ON DO YOU HAVE YOUR GIANT BUDGET BOOKS IN FRONT OF YOU?
I WILL SAY I'M VERY PROUD OF FOR FOR DRAGGING THOSE GIANT BUDGET BOOKS AROUND.
I BET STEPHANIE WILL PULL IT UP.
IT'S OUT ON THE WEBSITE, TOO, IF NEEDED.
ON PAGE 32, YOU'LL SEE A LINE ITEM 3711O INTEREST INCOME.
LAST YEAR, WE RECEIVED ABOUT 2.6 MILLION.
THIS YEAR, WE BUDGETED 10 MILLION, SO WE WERE A LITTLE AGGRESSIVE ON OUR PROJECTIONS.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BE CLOSER TO ABOUT 5.3 MILLION DOLLARS.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M SEEING THAT.
WE'VE GOT 120 PLUS MILLION DOLLAR IN WATER AND SEWER DEBT THAT'S STILL SITTING IN THAT ACCOUNT.
>> WE HAVE SPENT DOWN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT BECAUSE YOUR NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR PROJECT IS ALMOST COMPLETE.
THAT WAS THE BULK OF YOUR BOND PROCEEDS THAT WE'RE SITTING OUT THERE RELATED TO WATER AND SEWER.
WE SPENT THOSE WITHIN THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF THE YEAR THIS YEAR, AND SO WE'RE NOT RECEIVING INTEREST INCOME ON THAT ANYMORE.
>> WHERE IT IS IN MY HEAD, AND WE CAN MOVE ON, BUT YOU'RE RUNNING $120,000,000 A YEAR COMPANY.
YOU'VE GOT $100,000,000 WORTH OF CONTINUAL IN THERE.
WE'RE PAYING ALL OUR BILLS, PLUS WE'VE GOT 120 AND BORROWED MONIES.
[00:45:03]
I JUST THOUGHT WHEN COUNCILMAN KRAFT HAD COME UP WITH THE IDEA TO PULL SOME OF THAT INTEREST EARNINGS, THAT WAS EXCESS INTEREST.ONLY ON THOSE BONDABLES THAT WE REALLY THOUGHT WE'RE GOING TO BE THERE FOR ABOUT THE NEXT THREE, FOUR YEARS.
>> NO, NOT RELATED TO ANY OF THE BOND PROCEEDS, BUT IT WAS ONLY RELATED TO NON-RESTRICTED INTEREST INCOME.
WE HAD THAT BUDGETED TO COME INTO THE GENERAL FUND AT 2.6 FOR THIS YEAR, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A REVISED ASIATE ON.
LET ME PULL THAT UP REAL QUICK.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT. I SAID THAT WRONG.
THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BOND AMOUNTS.
THAT REQUIRES THE MONEY TO STAY IN THE ACCOUNT.
WE'RE KEEPING THAT MONEY THERE, BUT WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL UNRESTRICTED MONIES THAT WE COULD MOVE OVER COMFORTABLY.
>> WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT.
>> THAT WOULD BE MONEY THAT'S BASED ON THEIR RESERVES AND BACKLOG CIP, WOULDN'T IT?
>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. ANY CASH FUNDED CIP THAT'S NOT BEEN SPENT YET AND ANY OF THEIR RESERVES.
LET ME GET TO THAT PAGE IN OUR BUDGET REAL QUICK.
>> WE ARE ANTICIPATING THE WAY WE HAVE THEM SHOWN ON PAGE 30 IN YOUR BUDGET BOOK IS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HIT TARGET RESERVES BY ABOUT 1.6 MILLION, AND THAT'S WITH KEEPING ALL THEIR INTEREST INCOME IN THERE AND WITH THE SIGNIFICANT WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS.
>> WE CERTAINLY WOULD RECOMMEND KEEPING IT IN THERE SO WE CAN KNOCK OUT ANY KIND OF CAPITAL PROJECTS IN THE MEANTIME.
>> OKAY. SO JUST CLEARING THAT OUT AND TAKING THAT OFF THE TABLE.
SO WE'VE LOST $4 MILLION IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S BUDGET THAT WE WERE SOMEWHAT DEPENDING ON THIS YEAR BUT WE'VE TAKEN THAT OUT.
>> SO EVEN TAKING THAT 4 MILLION OUT, WE'RE STILL 2.73 MILLION IN GROSS REVENUES.
>> SO YOU'RE SAYING [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M LOOKING AT THE LAST LINE ON TOTAL REVENUES ON THAT REVISED PIECE OF PAPER THAT YOU JUST HANDED OUT.
ONE TIME OR TRANSFERS IS 10 MILLION.
I MEAN, YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT OPERATING INCOME OF 256 THAT'S REOCCURRING AS DEPENDABLE AS WE CAN MAKE IT.
I STILL HAVE THE CURIOSITY OF OF THE 273, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS CONSIDERED ONE TIME MONIES? JUST THE 5,100 OR 5.1 MILLION DOWN AT THE BOTTOM FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION?
>> ON THE REVENUES, YOU'RE ASKING WHICH REVENUES ARE ONE TIME OR WHICH ONES ARE RECURRING? OR ARE YOU ASKING EXPENDITURES?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WE CAN DEPEND ON THAT AS MUCH AS ANY OF OUR REVENUES EVERY YEAR.
THE TRANSFERS FROM THE OTHER FUNDS, THOSE ARE MORE ONE TIME TYPE FUNDING COMING IN.
>> AS WE REMEMBER, WE HAD SOME EXCESS RESERVES FROM FLEET AND FROM HEALTH PLAN AND FROM OUR RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING TO BRING THOSE EXCESS RESERVES BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND AND THEN TO SPEND SOME OF THAT ON SOME ONE TIME CAPITAL.
THAT'S WHAT THAT JUST UNDER $11 MILLION IS.
SO WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND NECESSARILY BUILDING THAT INTO RECURRING EXPENSES.
>> IF YOU TAKE THE 11 MILLION OFF, THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, 262 IN ANNUALIZED REVENUES, MOVING FORWARD, COMFORTABLE, CONSERVATIVE?
>> OKAY. OF THE 262, WE CAN GET ALL OF OUR REQUESTS DONE AS PROPOSED PERCENTAGES, AND WE'RE STILL 2 MILLION UPSIDE DOWN?
>> YES. YEAH. WE WOULD ANTICIPATE MISSING OUR TARGET RESERVE BY ABOUT 2 MILLION.
THAT'S JUST IF EVERYTHING PLAYS OUT EXACTLY AS WE'RE SHOWING IN THE BUDGET THERE.
>> COULD WE DO THE SAME ON THE MIDDLE COLUMN, CAN YOU TAKE THE 106 OUT AS ONE TIME EXPENDITURES UNDER TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS? SO IF YOU LOOK THERE, YOUR TOTAL REVENUES WERE 263 IN CURRENT YEAR, RIGHT? BEST GUESS?
>> BUT YOU'D TAKE ANOTHER 106 OFF OF THAT?
>> SO JUST TO RUN THE SIMPLE SPREADSHEET, REAL SIMPLE MATH.
THIS CURRENT YEAR WE'VE LIVED ON 251, AND WE'VE PAID ALL OF OUR BILLS AND TAKEN CARE OF ALL OF OUR PEOPLE.
[00:50:01]
THIS YEAR WE'RE GOING TO LIVE ON 263, IS THAT RIGHT? I THINK IT'S 263. SORRY, 262.>> NO, 26, ARE YOU TALKING FROM A REVENUE STANDPOINT?
>> WE WENT 251-262, SO THAT $11 MILLION INCREASE GIVES US HOW MUCH IN INCREASED PAY, PAY STUDY, ADDITIONAL SERVICES.
WHAT'S THE TOTAL OF THE LIST OVER HERE? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT IT NETS IT OUT. DOES IT TOTAL IT? I MEAN, I SEE THE 12.1.
THOSE ARE YOUR REVENUE CHANGES.
WHERE'S THE EXPENDITURE NET OVER ON THE FAR RIGHT SIDE?
>> SEE, WE TOOK THE ONE TIME BUDGET OUT ON THE COUNCIL ONCE.
SO IT'S REALLY YOUR ONGOING STUFF IS UP THERE AT THE TOP AND IT'S TOTALING 6.5, WELL, AND THEN THE OVERTIME.
>> UP TOP I'M LOOKING AT REVENUES AND THEN LARGE EXPENDITURE CHANGES RIGHT HERE IN THE MIDDLE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO TAKE THIS RIGHT HAND COLUMN.
SO IF YOU FACTOR IN THE TMRS AND ALL THE PAY STUDIES AND THE RAISES, WHAT DOES THAT NET OUT TO SINCE YOU'RE CAPTURING 3 MILLION OF COUNCIL WORKING BUDGET THAT'S APPLYING TO THAT.
>> ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THAT 1.9 MILLION? I DON'T THINK I'M FOLLOWING.
>> SOMEHOW I'M LOSING IT HERE.
WHAT'S OUR TOTAL INCREASE IN PAY AND SERVICES AND TMRS FOR THE YEAR AS THIS PROPOSED BUDGET WOULD HAVE IT IN THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE.
>> THAT AMOUNT FOR PAY INCREASES AND PAY STUDY AND TMRS COMES TO JUST UNDER $7 MILLION.
>> PERFECT. SO WE HAVE, LET'S JUST CALL THEM ADDITIONS.
WE HAVE ADDITIONS THAT COUNCIL COULD ACT ON OF 7 MILLION.
BUT IF WE GO BACK TO CURRENT YEAR BUDGET, WE SERVICED EVERYTHING AT 251, PROPOSED BUDGET WOULD REVENUE 262, AND I'M GOING TO ADD 7 MILLION OF ADDITIONS.
SHOULD I EXPECT TO BE AT 258 PLUS THE ONE TIME MONIES?
>> I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T THINK I'M FOLLOWING YOU.
>> OKAY. SO WHEN YOU LOOK DOWN, LET'S GO TO THE EXPENDITURES.
THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE I'M GETTING LOST.
YOU HAVE 275 TOTAL EXPENDITURES AS PROPOSED FOR CURRENT YEAR.
>> OKAY. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CASH FLOW PAGE.
>> RIGHT. WHAT I'M DOING IS, I'M TREATING YOUR CENTER LINE ON YOUR CASH FLOW PAGE AS ACTUALS ON THE REVENUES UP TOP BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING WE DIDN'T GO OVER BUDGET FOR THE YEAR.
>> BUT WE HAVE SOME SPENDING DOWN OF EXCESS RESERVES FROM PRIOR YEARS IN THAT 275.
>> RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO SEPARATE IT OUT TO ANNUALIZED REVENUES.
SO THE ONE TIME SPENDS WILL THROW ME OFF.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE MUNICIPAL COURT OVER HERE, THE 4.3 MILLION, YOU CAN'T FACTOR THAT IN AS A DEDUCT FROM THE EXTRAS IN MY WORLD, BECAUSE WE JUST ARE CHOOSING NOT TO SPEND IT.
SO YOU SEE HOW IT'S ON YOUR SHEET ON THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE AS A DEDUCT?
>> I'M JUST SHOWING THAT IS A CHANGE FROM WHAT IS IN YOUR FILED BUDGET.
IT IS A DEDUCT FROM WHAT WE FILED IN YOUR ORIGINAL BUDGET.
THAT'S WHAT THAT NEGATIVE 4.3 MILLION IS.
THAT IS STRICTLY JUST SHOWING YOU CHANGES BETWEEN YOUR CURRENT FILED BUDGET AND WHAT'S NOW ON THESE PROPOSED CHANGE LISTS.
>> OKAY. SO BALANCED BUDGET IN YOUR TOTAL EXPENDITURES, CURRENT YEAR 2755? BEST YES. PROJECTED YEAR 275, BEST GUESS.
SO LOOK AT YOUR CASH FLOW SHEET?
>> OKAY. SO HELP ME WITH THE MATH THERE.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE GENERAL FUND.
OVERALL WE NEED TO PROVIDE ALL THE SAME SERVICES PLUS WE HAVE 7 MILLION WORTH OF ADS ADDITIONS.
SO I HAD TO RUN IT UNDER BUDGET ON MY TOTALS.
IF I ONLY COLLECTED 2,629 IN MY ONGOING.
SO WHERE DO WE ISOLATE THE ONE TIME SPINS OUT OF THE CENTER LINE UNDER YOUR EXPENDITURES?
[00:55:03]
>> SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM, WE'RE SHOWING ONE TIME EXPENDITURES OF ABOUT 15 MILLION.
SO YOUR ONGOING THIS PAST YEAR WITH OUR REVISED BEST ESTIMATE IS 260 MILLION AND THAT'S GOING UP TO 269 MILLION NEXT YEAR.
>> OKAY. SO WE REALLY HAVE ANNUALIZED REVENUES OF 251 ON THIS SHEET PLUS OUR ONE TIME REVENUES.
BUT WE THINK WE'RE SPENDING 260 IN ACTUALS WITHOUT THE ONE TIME SPEND.
SO WE'RE 9 MILLION OVER BUDGET IN CURRENT YEAR.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN 9, WE'RE NOT OVER BUDGET? WHAT ARE YOU?
>> SO IF YOU HAVE 251 MILLION COMING IN, YOU PAY ALL YOUR BILLS.
>> BUT PART OF IT REMEMBER THE TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS, THAT MIDDLE COLUMN.
WE WE WERE DIRECTED TO BRING THAT INTEREST INCOME OVER AND TO TREAT IT AS ONGOING IN THE PRIOR YEAR.
SO THAT 4 MILLION IS PART OF THAT $10 MILLION NUMBER AS WELL.
>> RIGHT. I SEE IT THERE BECAUSE IT WAS 143 AND NOW IT'S 106.
>> BUT THAT'S NOT ALL JUST THAT FORMULA.
PART OF THE REVENUE FROM THOSE TWO FUNDS IS STILL IN THAT 106.
>> RIGHT. I THINK I'M FOLLOWING YOU.
I'M JUST SAYING WE'RE LOOKING AT REVENUES AS THEY CAME IN AND THEN EXPENDITURES AS THEY GO OUT, JUST FOR ONGOING ANNUALIZED EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES, SO YOU GOT TO GET YOUR ONE TIME SPENDS OFF OF THAT PAGE.
>> SO IS THERE A CHANGE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR US TO MAKE OR I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M FOLLOWING YOU.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M LEADING YOU ANYWHERE OTHER THAN WHERE WE HAVE TOTAL REVENUES OF 251 MILLION THAT ARE COMING IN IN THE CURRENT YEAR, CORRECT?
>> IN THE REVISED ESTIMATE COLUMN, WE HAVE $263 MILLION COMING IN.
PART OF THAT IS COMING IN AS ONE TIME REVENUES.
>> WHICH IS IN THE AMOUNT OF 10 MILLION REVENUE?
>> NO. IT WOULD BE 6, 7 MILLION.
I'D HAVE TO RUN THOSE NUMBERS TO SEE WHICH ONES WERE THE ONE TIME BECAUSE WE WERE ANTICIPATING THAT THOSE INTEREST INCOME AMOUNTS, THAT'S WHAT WAS BUILT IN AS ONGOING IN THE CURRENT YEAR.
WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING NEXT YEAR IS NOT TO PUT THEM AS ONGOING BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE MOST SUSTAINABLE ONGOING REVENUE SOURCES.
THEY DO FLUCTUATE A LOT AND THOSE OTHER FUNDS ARE NEEDING THOSE DOLLARS TO STAY IN THERE TO HELP THEM ACHIEVE THEIR OPERATIONS AS WELL.
>> SO OUT OF THE 10 MILLION, 6 MILLION OF IT IS NOT ONE TIME.
IT COULD BE CALCULATED TOWARDS ONGOING EXPENDITURES.
>> I'LL HAVE TO LOOK THOSE NUMBERS UP.
I DON'T HAVE THOSE IN FRONT OF ME.
>> SO I'LL ASK THE WHOLE THING A DIFFERENT WAY BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO LEARN IT AND UNDERSTAND IT.
BUT IF I CAN'T LEARN IT AND UNDERSTAND IT, ALL I NEED TO HAVE IS THE NUMBER.
HOW MUCH IN CURRENT YEAR AND PROPOSED YEAR SHOULD WE HAVE IN ANNUALIZED REVENUES? SO IF IT IS 265 IN ANNUALIZED REVENUES AND WE'RE INCREASING ROUGHLY WHATEVER ALL OF THESE ADDITIONAL COSTS COME TO OVER HERE THAT YOU'RE FINDING, THE 12 MILLION.
I'M LOOKING TO SEE THAT ON THE BOTTOM LINE OF WHY MY RESERVE IS NOT GOING UP, BECAUSE IN MY HEAD, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE REVENUING MORE MONEY THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING 12 LESS SEVEN.
SO THERE'S $5 MILLION IN MY SIMPLE MATH THAT'S MISSING ON THE PAGE.
>> ALL OF YOUR LINE ITEMS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TO SPEND ARE OVER ON YOUR CASH FLOW PAGE.
SO YOUR OPERATING BUDGET REQUESTS HAVE GONE FROM 251 MILLION UP TO $260 MILLION.
THEN AS YOU COME DOWN THE PAGE, YES, WE'RE ANTICIPATING TO SPEND LESS ONE TIME CAPITAL.
BUT WE HAVE MORE ONGOING COSTS BUILT INTO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, WHICH MATCHES THE ADDITIONAL ONGOING REVENUES THAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING TO GET.
>> SO DOES THIS 275 ON THE CASH FLOW PAGE EQUAL UP WITH WHAT YOU'VE PROPOSED OVER HERE ON THIS OTHER SPREADSHEET WITH 7 MILLIONS OR THE 7 MILLION ADDITIONS?
>> SO YOU'RE BRINGING IN 2729 AND YOU'RE SPENDING OUT 2756?
>> COUNSEL, YOU GUYS GOT ANY QUESTIONS? Y'ALL FOLLOWING ALL THIS? SO MRS. LAURA, MY OTHER QUESTION.
>> WHERE'S THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT WE
[01:00:01]
BILL OURSELVES AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT WE DEDUCT OURSELVES? I KNOW IT'S IN THE BOOK SOMEWHERE.>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INTERFUND TRANSFERS.
>> YEAH, SO AM I SAYING THAT WRONG? INTERNAL SERVICES [OVERLAPPING].
>> INTERFUND TRANSFERS ARE DIFFERENT.
YOUR INTERNAL SERVICES ARE PART OF YOUR INTERFUND TRANSFERS.
SO IF YOU TURN TO THE BACK OF THE SECOND PAGE IN YOUR BUDGET BOOK, IT DOESN'T HAVE A PAGE NUMBER ON IT.
YOU'LL SEE THE INTERFUND TRANSFERS AMOUNT OF $125 MILLION.
I HAD GIVEN YOU ALL IN YOUR PACKETS THE LAST TIME WE MET A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT ACCOUNTED FOR ALL OF THAT.
IT WAS IN ANOTHER VERY COLORFUL PAGE TO TRY TO MAKE IT A LITTLE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND, BUT IT WAS ON A PAGE LIKE THIS WITH A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT COLORS ON IT.
THAT SHOWS YOU THE BREAKDOWN OF THE $125.5 MILLION.
>> CAN WE GET THAT PRINTED WHEN SHE GETS THAT PULLED UP?
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. SO THIS YEAR, WE'RE BILLING OURSELVES, RIGHT? CAN I SAY IT THAT WAY? IT'S INTERDEPARTMENTAL TRANSFERS, BUT IT'S IT BILLING OUT A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT FOR WHATEVER IT'S DOING, RIGHT?
>> I'M SORRY. GIVE ME JUST SECOND.
>> WE'RE TAKING TO. CAN YOU PRINT COPIES OF THAT? OKAY. 15, MAYBE.
>> ASK YOUR QUESTION AGAIN, MAYOR. I'M SORRY.
>> SORRY. CAN I SAY IT THAT WAY? THESE ARE BILLABLES INTERNALLY.
WE'RE BILLING OURSELVES FOR SERVICES THAT WE CAN PROVIDE WITHIN OUR OWN DEPARTMENTS.
>> ESSENTIALLY. THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT WE DO WHEN WE CONSOLIDATE THE WHOLE CITY OF AMARILLO INTO ONE BUDGET.
WE BUDGET FOR EACH FUND SEPARATELY.
THEN WHEN WE GET READY TO CONSOLIDATE IT INTO ONE TOTAL CITY BUDGET, WE HAVE TO ELIMINATE ANY OF THE CHARGES BETWEEN FUNDS OR ANY OF THE TRANSFERRING OF MONEY BETWEEN FUNDS.
>> THE SIMPLE QUESTION, THAT 125 MATCHES BOTH THE INCOME AND THE EXPENDITURE SIDE OF ALL THE TRANSFERS.
>> ANY OF THESE INTERNAL SERVICES, DO THEY HAVE RESERVES?
>> HOW DO THEY GET RESERVES? DO THEY HAVE OTHER INCOMES THAT COME IN TO THOSE DEPARTMENTS?
>> NO, IT'S PART THEY HAVE MINIMUM RESERVE POLICIES AS WELL OF 90 DAYS PLUS ONE YEAR'S CASH FUNDED CAPITAL, IF THAT APPLIES ON YOUR HEALTH PLAN.
IT HAS A MINIMUM RESERVE POLICY OF THREE MONTHS AVERAGE CLAIMS PAID OUT.
YOUR RISK MANAGEMENT FUND, I BELIEVE ITS RESERVE POLICY STATES A TARGET $5-6 MILLION.
AS WE ARE CALCULATING THE CHARGES BACK TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS FOR THE SERVICES THESE INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS ARE PROVIDING EACH YEAR, WE ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE MINIMUM RESERVE CALCULATIONS, IF NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT THEIR RESERVES ARE FUNDED [INAUDIBLE]
>> THANK. YOU, MISS CITY SECRETARY.
PERFECT. THERE'S NO WAY TO SPLIT THIS APART GENERAL FUND VERSUS ENTERPRISE BECAUSE THEY BILL EACH OTHER.
YOU HAVE TO NET THE WHOLE ORGANIZATION IN ORDER FOR THIS TO WORK.
>> HERE'S MY REAL QUESTION THAT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN ANSWER, BUT I'D LOVE IT IF YOU COULD, LIKE, DIRECTLY.
YOU'RE ADJUSTING WHAT YOU BILL WHAT WE BILL OURSELVES BASED ON EXCESS REVENUES, MAYBE, JUST TO MEET POLICY MINIMUMS. MY QUESTION IS, CAN WE BILL OURSELVES LESS?.
THOSE ENTITIES IN THE GENERAL FUND WOULD HAVE MORE MONEY TO PUT TOWARDS PAY INCREASES AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
IF WE HAPPEN TO BE BILLING OURSELVES MORE THAN WE NEED TO BECAUSE IT'S ENDING UP OVER IN RESERVES.
>> WE ALREADY, IF YOU WILL TURN IN YOUR BUDGET BOOKS, WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS.
FOR INSTANCE, YOUR IT FUND IS NOT HITTING THEIR MINIMUM RESERVE CALCULATIONS, AND WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT WE UP THE FEES ENOUGH TO RECAPTURE ALL OF THOSE IN ONE YEAR.
IF YOU TURN TO PAGE 66 IN YOUR BUDGET BOOK, YOU WILL SEE THE CASH FLOW FOR YOUR IT FUND, AND THEY'RE ANTICIPATING TO BE UNDER THEIR TARGET RESERVE BY 2.4 MILLION.
WE ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
WE ARE NOT INCREASING THE AMOUNTS BILLED TO ALL THE OTHER FUNDS, WHICH IS GOING TO PUT THEM BELOW THEIR TARGETED RESERVES.
AS YOU GO TO LIKE YOUR INSURANCE FUNDS OR YOUR FLEET FUND, YOUR FLEET FUND ON PAGE 60 IS GOING TO BE SLIGHTLY UNDER THEIR TARGET RESERVE.
AND WE'RE ACTUALLY RECOMMENDING EXCESS RESERVES FROM PRIOR YEARS
[01:05:03]
TO COME BACK TO YOUR GENERAL FUND TO HELP FUND CAPITAL.IT WOULD JUST BE ONE TIME FUNDING.
ON PAGE 74, WE'VE GOT YOUR EMPLOYEE INSURANCE FUND.
THEY'RE ANTICIPATED TO BE JUST A COUPLE THOUSAND BELOW THEIR TARGET RESERVES.
WE HAVE BUILT THOSE RATES BASED ON WHAT OUR INSURANCE CONSULTANTS HAVE SAID THEY ANTICIPATE THE CLAIMS TO BE THIS NEXT YEAR.
ON PAGE 71, WE'VE GOT OUR RISK MANAGEMENT FUND.
THOSE ARE BUILT OUT BASED ON CLAIMS HISTORY PLUS INSURANCE PREMIUMS THAT WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR OUR COVERAGE, AND SO WE'RE CHARGING THOSE BACK AND WE'RE NOT CHARGING ANYTHING IN ADDITION THIS YEAR TO ADJUST RESERVES IN ANY WAY.
ACTUALLY, IN RISK MANAGEMENT HEALTH PLAN, THEY'RE SENDING MONEY BACK TO GENERAL.
>> THAT'S GREAT. SO ONCE RESERVES ARE ESTABLISHED,.
>> WE JUST MAINTAIN THOSE RESERVES.
>> THE FLEET AND SOME OF THE OTHERS THAT HAD EXCESS RESERVES WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING THEM BACK INTO THIS BUDGET, YOU'RE PUTTING THEM BACK AS ONE TIME SPINS BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY REDUCED THE AMOUNT TO ONLY BILL FOR WHAT WOULD MAINTAIN THAT RESERVE?
>> OR COSTS HAVE GROWN, AND, WE'VE NOT INCREASED RATES EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT THAT THEIR COSTS HAVE GROWN TO KEEP IT AS AFFORDABLE AS POSSIBLE OUT TO YOUR OTHER FUNDS, KNOWING THAT THEIR COSTS ARE STILL RISING.
>> THE BASIC QUESTION THAT WE'RE UNDERSTANDING HERE, THE 1255 TOTAL AMOUNT INCLUDED TO OFFSET AND ZERO OUT ALL OF THE INTERNAL SERVICES.
JUST MAINTAINS THE RESERVES AS YOU'VE BUDGETED IN THIS BOOK.
>> NO. THIS PAGE SHOWS ALL OF THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN YOUR FUNDS FOR THE YEAR, REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, AND THEN IT ZEROS IT OUT.
IT JUST NETS IT OUT. IT'S JUST CONSOLIDATION, RIGHT?.
WE'VE ALREADY COUNTED REVENUES IN GENERAL FUND FROM SALES TAX AND PROPERTY TAX.
WHEN THEY PAY IT FOR THEIR SERVICES, IT CAN'T COUNT THAT AS REVENUE AGAIN.
THIS IS JUST ELIMINATING THOSE INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATING PURPOSES.
>> COUNCILMAN SIMPSON, I SEE YOU GOT YOUR LID ON.
>> I GUESS THE QUESTION WE'RE TRYING TO IS THERE SOME RESERVES WE DON'T NEED TO BE RESERVING FOR?
>> I MEAN, THERE'S NO EXTRA MONEY THAT I MEAN, WE'VE LOOKED AT ALL THAT, WE BALANCE THAT OUT, WE PUT IT BACK IN THERE, SO WE FEEL THAT WE RESERVE WELL, ACTUALLY, WE'RE GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT LOW, BUT STILL BUT THERE'S NOT ANY MONEY OUT THERE THAT IS EXCESS AND THE AMOUNT OF WE SHOULD RESERVE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. AS A REMINDER TO COUNSEL, AND WE WILL BE BRINGING BACK A RESOLUTION TO COUNSEL AT YOUR SEPTEMBER MEETINGS TO CONSIDER MAKING CHANGES TO YOUR MINIMUM RESERVE POLICIES TO ACTUALLY ACCOUNT FOR WHAT'S IN YOUR PROPOSED BUDGET.
THAT IS A REDUCTION TO YOUR MINIMUM RESERVE POLICY.
NOW GENERAL FUND IS NO LONGER KEEPING A 90 DAY RESERVE FOR POTENTIAL IT CHARGES BACK TO THEM, FLEET CHARGES BACK TO THEM.
WE HAD DONE THAT HISTORICALLY, AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, AND THAT'S HOW YOUR BUDGET IS BUILT.
WE HAVE ALREADY REDUCED YOUR RESERVES, AND WE HAVE STRETCHED YOUR RESERVES AS FAR AS WE CAN, AND SEVERAL OF THESE FUNDS ARE ANTICIPATING TO COME JUST SLIGHTLY BELOW TARTER RESERVES.
WE'RE NOT KEEPING ANY EXCESS MONEY ANYWHERE BEYOND WHAT IS NOW A REDUCED MINIMUM RESERVE POLICY.
>> RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO GO BACK JUST FOR A SECOND BACK TO THE OVERTIME.
>> I'M LOOKING IN THE BUDGET BOOK, AND THIS IS ON PAGE 15 OF THE BUDGET BOOK.
BUT OUR LAST REAL NUMBER THAT WE HAVE IN THE BUDGET, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE BUDGET BOOK ONLY HAS THE 24 25 BUDGET, AND I'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND.
BUT HAD OUR OVERTIME PAY, AT TWO AT 10.2 MILLION DOLLAR ACTUAL IN 2023 24, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES THAT IS CORRECT. WE HAD BUDGETED FOR THE CURRENT YEAR $5 MILLION, BUT LAST YEAR, WE SPENT 10.2 MILLION.
>> WHICH WAS ALSO UP CONSIDERABLY I MEAN, THE TWO YEARS BEFORE, WE WERE ABOUT 7.6, 7.7.
>> DO WE KNOW WHERE WE ARE OR WHERE WE THINK WE'LL FINISH THIS YEAR?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE THAT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I CAN LOOK THAT UP.
>> WELL, I JUST ASK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT JUST IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT WENT UP CONSIDERABLY IN 23 24, AND THEN WE BUDGETED BACK DOWN.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, AND I'VE LEARNED I KNOW ON THE LAW ENFORCEMENT SIDE, THERE'S CERTAIN OVERTIME THAT WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE.
BUT THAT'S PROBABLY NOT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW MUCH THEIR OVERTIME IS,
[01:10:03]
BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE NEAR 50% OF OUR TOTAL OVERTIME BUDGET.>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS BECAUSE TO ME, OVERTIME IS I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF IT THAT'S NOT MANAGEABLE, IN OTHER WORDS, TO COVER ALL THE SHIFTS AND THE VACANCIES.
BUT I'M JUST WONDERING ACROSS THE BOARD, BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT SPENDING $10 MILLION, IF YOU COULD JUST REDUCE OVERTIME 10%, THAT'S ANOTHER MILLION DOLLAR FREED UP ELSEWHERE.
I'M JUST WONDERING HOW ACROSS THE BOARD, DO WE MANAGE THE MANAGEABLE PART OF OVERTIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BECAUSE I DO THINK OUTSIDE OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, OVERTIME IS A MANAGEABLE EXPENSE.
IF IT'S NOT MANAGED, IT CAN REALLY GET OUT OF HAND IF SOMEBODY'S NOT ON IT OR NOT DOING THAT.
I JUST WONDER HOW WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT RUNNING UP OVERTIME THAT'S NOT NEEDED.
>> I'M JUST THINKING FROM THE POLICE AND FIRE STANDPOINT.
>> A LOT OF IT WILL COME WITH WE FILL VACANCIES AS WELL.
THAT'LL BE THE BIG DRIVER THERE, STILL THE VACANCIES.
>> THAT GOES DEPARTMENT BY DEPARTMENT.
IF ANIMAL MANAGEMENT IS SHORT, PEOPLE ARE WORKING OVERTIME AND THEN JUST FILLING CERTAIN NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.
IT REALLY BECOMES A SERVICE ISSUE IF YOU DON'T PAY FOR THE OVERTIME, THE CITIZENS STILL EXPECT THE SERVICE, SO IT'S BALANCING THAT ASPECT OF IT.
THE EXAMPLE FROM OPERATION THE OPERATIONAL SIDE WOULD BE LIKE SNOW EVENTS.
WE NEVER KNOW HOW MANY OF THOSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PER YEAR.
THERE ARE SOME YEARS WHERE OVERTIME IS REALLY, REALLY HIGH FROM RESPONSES TO THOSE EVENTS, WORKING 24 HOUR SHIFTS.
A LOT OF US DISASTER RESPONSE, WE HAVE SOME TIME WHEN WE HAVE LIKE AN ICE STORM, WE HAVE TREE LAMBS ALL OVER TOWN.
ON THE OPERATIONAL SIDE, IT'S VERY UNPREDICTABLE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EVERY YEAR.
>> THIS WILL BE ONCE WE ESTABLISH A FULL TIME POLICE CHIEF, WHEN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT ANDREW AND I HAVE PLANNED TO HAVE WITH THAT CHIEF ABOUT METHODS ON MANAGING OVERTIME.
>> THEN THE OTHER THING IS, JUST, ON THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE'VE MADE, A PRETTY GOOD CHUNK OF IT'S COME OUT OF THE REVENUE SIDE.
SOME OF THEM ARE FIXED COSTS, BUT THE OTHER PARTS OF REVENUE ARE NOT AS PREDICTABLE.
I MEAN, WE'RE COUNTING ALL LANDFILL CHARGES GOING UP, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE REALLY DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TREND, BUT WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I GUESS AND WHEN YOU APPLY A RATE INCREASE, WELL, THAT'S GOING TO STICK.
I MEAN, MY ONLY THING IS I JUST HATE MAKING THE PUZZLE WORK OUT OF REVENUE THAT REALLY CAN'T BE DEPENDED ON, WHEREAS EXPENSES ARE SOMETHING YOU KNOW WHEN YOU CUT THE EXPENSE, IT'S GOING TO BE CUT.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, I GUESS WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS LIST, I GUESS THE ONLY THING THAT I SEE THAT ON THE EXPENDITURE CHANGES THAT WERE NOT AN AREA THAT WE LOOKED AT BEFORE OR MAYBE THERE IS THE SPECIAL ADVISOR POSITION WAS NOT THERE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WAS ON THE PREVIOUS LIST.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS OR DID WE LOOK AT ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR POTENTIAL EXPENSE CUTS? WELL, ON HERE.
>> WE HAD GONE THROUGH A LOT OF THAT PRIOR TO THE BUDGET THAT WAS ACTUALLY FILED.
WE HAD REALLY SQUEEZED THE EXPENSE FROM THAT STANDPOINT PRIOR TO EVEN FILING THE BUDGET.
>> THE DEPARTMENT HEADS, AS WELL AS THE CMO STAFF, AND THEN FINANCE.
AS YOU LOOK AT YOUR BOOK THERE, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE LOTS OF PLUSES AND MINUSES ALL THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET.
THEY DID A THOROUGH SCRUB OF THE BUDGET PRIOR TO EVEN HAVING FIRST WORKSHOP.
THEN THE LAST TWO WEEKS, I ALSO WENT THROUGH AND LOOKED AT AND LOOKED AT THINGS, AND THERE'S A FEW PENNIES HERE AND THERE, BUT OTHERWISE, THEY'VE DONE A VERY THOROUGH JOB OF SCRUBBING EXPENSES ACROSS THE BOARD.
EVEN TO THE POINT WHERE I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ON A FEW AREAS THAT WE MAY HAVE SCRUBBED TOO MUCH OUT OF IT.
>> THEN WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT POSITIONS THAT WE'LL HAVE, I MEAN, ARE WE LOOKING AT THE SAME NUMBER OF POSITIONS? I MEAN, SO WE TOOK ALL THE SUPPLEMENTAL THAT WERE OUT THAT WERE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH REVENUE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS TAKING ALL THE POSITIONS OUT THAT WERE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH REVENUE.
FOR THE GENERAL FUND, WE HAD GONE FROM 16 PROPOSED NEW POSITIONS DOWN TO SIX PROPOSED NEW POSITIONS.
THOSE ARE THE NEW DANGEROUS STRUCTURE REMOVAL CREW THAT IS SUPPORTED BY SOLID WASTE REVENUES.
IT IS ALSO FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECH TWO THAT IS BEING COVERED BY A REDUCTION IN THAT DEPARTMENT.
THAT'S FOR ONE NEW FIREFIGHTER POSITION THAT IS NEEDED TO MEET THE MINIMUM STAFF. FOR YES.
IT IS RELATED TO THE CALCULATIONS THAT WERE AGREED UPON IN THE MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT.
THEN THE OTHER ONE IS ON POLICE,
[01:15:06]
WE PUT ONE NEW POLICE OFFICER IN, WHICH IS FUNDED 75% BY CYAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.THERE'S ONLY SIX NEW POSITIONS IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET AS WE HAVE IT LISTED HERE, AND THEY'RE ALL SUPPORTED EITHER BY A REDUCTION IN THE DEPARTMENT OR BY OFFSETTING REVENUE COMING IN.
>> WELL, I JUST THINK IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE I MEAN, I'D RATHER COUNT ON THE EXPENSE THAN THE REVENUE OF SOMETHING TO MAKE THE BUDGET WORK, JUST BECAUSE THE REVENUE YOU MAY NOT HAVE AS MUCH CONTROL OVER WHERE THE EXPENSE YOU DO.
BUT I'M JUST WONDERING, EVEN GOING FORWARD, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE FACED WITH IN THE COMING YEARS WITH BUDGETS, WITH NOW, THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS PROPOSING THAT WE CAN'T RAISE OUR PROPERTY TAX, THE MONEY WE RECEIVE 3.5%, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NOW THEY WANT TO CUT IT DOWN TO 1%.
THEN YOU LOOK AT SALES TAX, WHICH I THINK WE'RE AT 2.2% THIS YEAR YEAR OVER YEAR.
I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CHALLENGES, WHEN OUR TWO MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES, ONE IS GOING TO BE WE'RE GOING TO BE HANDICAPPED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE ON HOW MUCH WE CAN RAISE ADDITIONAL REVENUE OUT OF IT.
YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER PART, SALES TAX, WHICH IS UNPREDICTABLE.
DO WE KNOW IF YOU LOOK AT ONE OR TWO OR 3%, DO YOU KNOW WHAT AREAS OF EXPENSES THIS YEAR WE'VE HAD THAT HAVE RISEN MORE THAN 3.5%? I MEAN, ARE THERE CERTAIN CATEGORIES THAT STAND OUT?
>> NO. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE NOT SEEN AS TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GROWTH.
WE'RE STILL CATCHING UP FROM PRIOR YEAR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT, AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE THESE, BUT I'M SURE THERE'S LOTS OF COSTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH FUEL WITH, I MEAN, WE WENT THROUGH THE IT PART OF IT THAT ARE GOING UP FAR MORE THAN 3.5% THAT WE'RE HAVING TO PAY IN CATEGORIES.
>> SO ON SOME OF THOSE, WE HAD BUILT IN ADDITIONAL BUDGET RELATED TO ANTICIPATING THE GROWTH THAT WE DID NOT SEE THE FULL AMOUNT CAPTURED IN THIS YEAR, BUT WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT FULL BUDGET BUILT IN FOR NEXT YEAR.
ON OUR FUEL INCREASE, WE WERE ABLE TO LEAVE IT ALMOST FLAT FOR THIS NEXT YEAR BASED ON WHAT WE HAD BUDGETED THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE'RE COMING IN A LITTLE BIT BELOW THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE THOUGHT FUEL WAS GOING TO GO UP EVEN MORE.
SO THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ACTUALLY WORKED TO OUR ADVANTAGE IN THE CURRENT YEAR BUDGET THAT WE HAD GROWN, BECAUSE WE HAD SEEN SUCH TREMENDOUS GROWTH SINCE COVID, THAT IT SLOWED DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN THE CURRENT YEAR, BUT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE GROWTH NEXT YEAR, AND SO WE'RE CAPTURING ALL THAT THROUGH THE BUDGET.
>> BUT IF IT NOT GONE OUR WAY, [OVERLAPPING] WE'D HAVE A BIG CHALLENGE RIGHT NOW.
I MEAN, I GUESS MY POINT IS, AS WE LOOK AT THE CHALLENGES ON FUNDING, WE CAN PIECE THIS BUDGET TOGETHER, BUT IN THE FUTURE, I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO GET TIGHTER AND TIGHTER.
AND IF WE DON'T HAVE REVENUE SOURCES, THEN WE HAVE TO LOOK ON THE EXPENSE SIDE.
BUT I THINK ON THE PERSONNEL SIDE IS SOMETHING WE JUST NEED TO CONTINUE TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS WE CAN GOING FORWARD SINCE IT'S OUR LARGEST EXPENSE.
>> WELL, WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT, I THINK WE ARE STARTING TO SEE MORE NORMALCY IN OUR BUDGET.
TO WHAT WE HAD SEEN PRIOR TO COVID.
AND PRIOR TO COVID, WE WERE DOING GOOD TO SEE EVEN A 2% INCREASE FOR SALARIES FOR ANY EMPLOYEE.
THAT WAS A PHENOMENAL YEAR FOR US.
AND SO I DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE, UNLESS SOMETHING DRASTICALLY CHANGES, AND I THINK TO YOUR POINT, COSTS ARE GOING TO KEEP RISING REVENUES, MAY OR MAY NOT KEEP PACE, AND ESPECIALLY IF THE STATE LEGISLATOR MAKES CHANGES TO OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUES, I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO A WHOLE LOT OF EXTRA IN OUR BUDGETS GOING FORWARD.
SO WE'LL BE DOING GOOD TO GET A ONE OR 2% RAISE FOR EMPLOYEES IN THERE.
AND SO THIS YEAR, I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE ALMOST HAD TO GET CREATIVE ON HOW TO FUND UP TO A 4% FOR POLICE, A 3% FOR FIRE AND LEAVE A CIVILIAN RAISE AT 2%.
SO I DON'T ANTICIPATE WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THIS GOING INTO THE FUTURE UNLESS WE SEE SOMETHING DRASTICALLY CHANGE ON THE REVENUE SIDE TO THE GOOD.
>> YEAH. WELL, AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE ALREADY PUT IT TO THE SIDELINE, BUT WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
I MEAN, IF PROPERTY TAX AND SALES TAX ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE OUR PRIMARY ALONG WITH FEES AND FRANCHISE FEES AND THOSE THINGS THAT WE CHARGE, FRANCHISE FEES, WE'RE ALREADY MAXED OUT AT ALL THOSE.
AND IF WE'RE SAYING WE'RE NOT OPEN TO ANY OTHER FEES, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT CUTTING THE EXPENSES, WHICH IS GOING TO MEAN CUTTING SERVICES.
[01:20:01]
UNLESS WE FIND OTHER REVENUE TO COME OUT OF THIS.BECAUSE THE WAY I SEE THE TREND, IT'S ONLY GOING TO GET TIGHTER AND TIGHTER TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS SINCE PROPERTY TAX IS GOING TO BE RESTRICTED AND SALES TAXES, AGAIN, JUST LIKE OTHERS, UNPREDICTABLE.
>> BUT I DO WANT TO ADD, AND THEN WE'LL JUMP ON YOURS, COUNCILMAN.
THAT SYSTEMS IN PLACE SO THAT YOU GO BACK AND YOU ASK YOUR BOSS FOR THE INCREASE.
AND THEY TELL YOU IF YOU CUT SERVICES, THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT, THEN WE DO IT, OR THEY'RE WILLING TO PAY FOR THOSE SERVICES.
SO I JUST DON'T WANT TO LAY THAT OUT THERE THAT, IT'S A ZERO OPTION.
YOU DON'T HAVE AN OPTION, IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT, YOU JUST CUT THE SERVICE.
NO. I MEAN, THE OPTION IS ALWAYS TO COME TO YOU, THE TAXPAYER AND SAY, IS THIS SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE OR NOT? AND IF YOU SAY NO, THEN WE'LL GLADLY REDUCE THE SERVICE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET.
AND WITH THE STATE CONTINUING TO RESTRICT, I MEAN, IS THE STATE PUSHING TOWARDS NO PROPERTY TAXES? POSSIBLY. ARE THEY LOOKING AT A CONSUMPTION TAX INCREASE ACROSS THE BOARD, AND THEN WE'RE TOTALLY SALES TAX DRIVEN? I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IN ORDER TO BALANCE THAT THE WAY THEY ARE, I MEAN, THE STATE LOOKS TO HAVE WAY MORE MONEY THAN MUNICIPALITIES.
SO IN LINE WITH THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL OPTIONS.
THE OPTION IS TO GO TO THE TAXPAYER AND ASK FOR THE INCREASE ALWAYS. YES, SIR.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, I FEEL LIKE WHAT THE STATE IS DOING IS ELIMINATING CITY COUNCILS.
THEY ARE PUTTING EVERYTHING CENTRALIZED IN AUSTIN.
SO THEY'RE MAKING THE RULES FOR ALL OF US.
AND SO IT'S GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE YOU AS A GOVERNING BODY ARE BECOMING LESS AND LESS LOCAL CONTROL HERE AND MORE AND MORE BIG CONTROL IN AUSTIN.
SO I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THEY'RE REMOVING AUTHORITY FROM THE COUNCIL HERE LOCALLY.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. YOU GOT ANYTHING, COUNCILMAN?
>> EXCUSE ME. ON THE INNER FUND TRANSFERS, AND WE HAVE THE RESERVES, AND WE'RE ALREADY BELOW OUR MINIMUMS, DOES THAT AFFECT OUR CREDIT RATINGS AT ALL WHEN WE GO THROUGH AUDIT OR GAAP STANDARDS, IF WE'RE NOT HAVING ENOUGH RESERVES, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO OUR FINANCIAL STRENGTH?
>> IT CAN ON OUR MINIMUM RESERVES.
IF WE'RE DRASTICALLY MISSING OUR MINIMUM RESERVES, THAT COULD BE FROWNED UPON FROM A RATING STANDPOINT? THE INNER FUND TRANSFERS DON'T PLAY INTO THAT AT ALL.
SO THE ONLY TIME THAT WE HEAR FEEDBACK IS SOMETIMES AND I WOULDN'T EVEN SAY, I MEAN, IT MIGHT BE FROM A RATING AGENCY, BUT IT MIGHT BE MORE FROM REGULATORY AGENCIES.
IF OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS ARE SENDING TOO MUCH MONEY BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND, WE HAVE GOTTEN SOME COMMENTS RELATED TO THAT IN THE PAST FROM SOME OF OUR REGULATORY AGENCIES BECAUSE THE GOAL IS THAT THAT WE ARE TO SET THOSE REVENUES AS WHAT IS NEEDED TO FUND THOSE OPERATIONS AND HELP MAINTAIN THEIR CAPITAL.
AND IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE SET AT A RATE TO ALSO THEN FUND ACCESS TO GENERAL FUND.
SO I THINK THE WAY THIS BUDGET IS PROPOSED AT THIS POINT, WE'RE CUTTING IT VERY TIGHT, BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT WOULD HAVE ANY KIND OF A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON OUR RATINGS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR ANY COMMENTS FROM OUR REGULATORY GROUPS.
HOWEVER, IF WE CONTINUE TO PUSH IT FURTHER THAN THIS, I DO THINK IT COULD START IMPACTING US.
>> AND WHAT HAPPENS IF WE'RE UNDERFUNDED IN GOING BACK TO IT OR ANY OF THE INNER DEPARTMENTS? WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM IF WE DO HAVE A RANGE OF [OVERLAPPING] A SHORTFALL IN THOSE AREAS?
>> WE WOULD LOOK TO THE OTHER FUNDS LIKE GENERAL FUND TO HELP SUPPORT THEM.
>> SO GENERAL FUND WATER AND SEWER AIRPORT WOULD HAVE TO HELP PAY IN FOR THOSE EXCESS AMOUNTS IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE RESERVES TO COVER IT.
>> JUST TO CONFIRM, ALL OF THOSE INTERNAL SERVICES ARE REPRESENTED IN THIS BUDGET.
>> NO, NOT IN THE BUDGET ON THE SCREEN.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BUDGET? YES, SIR. THE FOLLOWING BUDGET. YES, SIR.
>> RIGHT. YOU'RE LOOKING AT GENERAL FUND RIGHT HERE.
YES. BUT AS YOU APPROVE THE OVERALL BUDGET, THEY'RE ALL BUILT IN MAINTAIN THAT.
SO YOUR OVERALL TAX RATE, REVENUES, CALCULATIONS, INTERDEPARTMENTAL TRANSFERS THAT NET OUT.
SO IS THERE A RISK CAUSE I UNDERSTAND WHERE HE MAY BE GOING IS LIKE, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE SPEND MORE IN THESE AREAS? WELL, THEY'RE BUILT INTO YOUR BUDGET, RIGHT? AND YOU HAVE AN ASSURANCE OF COST ON THOSE MORE SO THAN IN SOME THAN OTHERS.
SO LIKE, HEALTH, YOU HAVE A LARGE VARIABILITY, RIGHT?
>> YES. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PAY CLAIMS AS THEY COME IN BECAUSE WE'VE PROVIDED INSURANCE.
WE'RE SELF INSURED, AND WE'VE PROVIDED INSURANCE. WE HAVE TO PAY THE CLAIMS. SO IN THE CURRENT YEAR, WE WERE RESERVING OUR GENERAL FUND RESERVES, INCLUDED THOSE INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS CALCULATION.
>> IT INCLUDED 90 DAYS OF WHAT
[01:25:02]
THE GENERAL FUND WAS PLANNING TO PAY TO EACH OF THOSE FUNDS FOR THE YEAR. YES.>> SO IF I SAID THAT OUR CURRENT YEAR BUDGET HAD 60 MILLION IN TARGET RESERVES FOR GENERAL FUND, IT INCLUDED SOME OF THOSE INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL FUND IN THAT CALCULATION, WHEN YOU RECALCULATE THAT, IT COMES DOWN TO THE 52 MILLION?
>> OKAY. SO WE FREED UP ROUGHLY $8,000,000 THAT WENT OVER TO ONE TIME EXPENDITURES?
>> SO NO, WE WERE NOT HITTING THOSE RESERVES.
AND SO WE BY REDUCING OUR MINIMUM RESERVES, WE WERE GETTING CLOSER TO WHERE WE COULD ACTUALLY MEET THOSE MINIMUM RESERVES.
WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT DECISIONS TO TALK ABOUT, HAD WE NOT CHANGED OUR MINIMUM RESERVE POLICY.
>> OKAY. AND THEN, LIKE COUNCILMAN SIMPSON SAID, THIS IS ALL OF THE MONIES THAT THE COA HAS, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER MONIES ANYWHERE THAT WE CAN LOOK AT.
THERE'S NO OTHER ADDITIONAL RESERVES SITTING ANYWHERE.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S BEEN STACKED AND SET ASIDE THAT WE CAN UTILIZE MOVING FORWARD.
>> SO IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING, LIKE A 119 MILLION OF CIP, THAT IS MONIES THAT ARE EARMARKED, ALLOCATED, SOME ARE CONTRACTED, SOME ARE NOT, THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTED IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.
>> NO, BECAUSE THEY WERE APPROVED IN PRIOR YEARS BUDGET.
>> SO THERE ARE STILL MONIES THAT ARE THERE.
>> THEY COULD BE REALLOCATED. YES, SIR.
>> BUT AT THIS POINT, THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN EARMARKED AND PROMISED BY PRIOR COUNCILS TO BE USED FOR CERTAIN THINGS.
>> AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS COUNCIL TO HEAR THIS.
SO THIS FINE BUILDING THAT YOU'RE SITTING IN THAT MR. DANFORTH DID A GREAT JOB IN REALLY MANAGING BUDGETS ON THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL AND MYSELF, WE SAT DOWN AND WE LOOKED AT A FULL GYMNASIUM THAT WAS DRAWN IN.
I'M NOT SURE IT WAS FULLY FUNDED DOWN IN THE BASEMENT, AND THEN ALSO A DAYCARE, AND THEN THE DRIVE THROUGH DRIVE UP AWNING.
AND SO BY CUTTING THOSE ITEMS, WE'RE SITTING HERE LOOKING AT 1.5 TO $2,000,000 WORTH OF MONIES THAT WE CAN DIRECT OVER TO THE OLD CITY HALL.
SO EVERY COUNCIL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REDIRECT AND TO ALWAYS UPDATE AND BRING INTO CURRENT STANDARDS, WHAT IS THE ALIGNMENT WITH THE VISION? SO I DEFINITELY WANT YOU TO HEAR THE 119 MILLION THAT'S EARMARKED IN CIP.
IT'S CONTRACTED, IT'S BEING PUT INTO THE ROADS AND THE SEWERS AND ELSEWHERE.
SOME OF IT'S RESTRICTED, RIGHT? SOME OF THAT IS RESTRICTED MONEY, OR IS THAT ALL UNRESTRICTED?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME. [OVERLAPPING]
>> LET'S ASSUME SOME OF THEM IT'S RESTRICTED.
>> WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY SOME OF YOUR OUTSTANDING CAPITAL IS RESTRICTED TO BOND PROCEEDS.
AND THEN SOME IS MORE UNRESTRICTED.
IT'S RELATED TO CASH FUNDING, BUT IT'S BEEN EARMARKED FOR PROJECTS, TO YOUR POINT OR ARE YOU UNDER CONTRACT.
>> THIS IS A POOR EXAMPLE, AND I ONLY PICK ON KASHUBA BECAUSE HE KNOWS HOW MUCH WE LIKE HIM AND HOW IMPRESSED WE ARE WITH EVERYTHING IN PARKS AND REC.
BUT IN THAT 119 MILLION, WE DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S $1,000,000 EARMARKED FOR A PLAYGROUND THAT WE'VE DECIDED THAT ISN'T NEEDED BECAUSE THAT PLAYGROUND ISN'T IN A VITAL PARK, AND WE'RE NOT UPDATING THAT.
SO ALL OF THOSE MONIES NEED TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL SO THAT WE CAN DIRECT THOSE MONIES INTO ONE TIME EXPENDITURES THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CURRENT CITY.
AND THAT'S WHY YOU WERE ELECTED, AND THE STATE DOESN'T GET TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
AND SO, I MEAN, YOU HAVE AN ENORMOUS OPPORTUNITY IN FRONT OF YOU $120,000,000 THAT WE REALLY WANT TO DIG INTO AND MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING THE BIGGEST ROI.
SOME OF THOSE MONIES WILL GO OUT INTO A DEVELOPMENT OR INTO AN AREA THAT ARE GOING TO PRODUCE AN ROI.
IT'S GOING TO INCREASE SALES TAX, IT'S GOING TO INCREASE GROWTH.
THERE'S ALL SORTS OF THINGS THERE.
SO I THINK WE'RE SAYING IT VERY WELL.
I GUESS I DO HAVE A FEW THINGS THAT I WANT TO PROPOSE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO TALK THROUGH THE CONVERSATION.
IT'S 2:30. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAY THE BUDGET IS PRESENTED THAT WE NEED TO GET? YES, SIR.
>> JUST GOING BACK TO THE MINIMUM RESERVES, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE REALIZE THAT WE CONTINUE TO ERODE THAT TO MAKE THE CITY FUNCTION, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT DEPENDS. WE STRETCH THEM AS FAR AS WE CAN.
>> TO CONTINUE TO DO AS MUCH AS WE CAN OUT IN THE COMMUNITY FOR OUR CITIZENS. YES, SIR.
>> WHAT HAPPENS? WHAT'S THE REALITY THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SOMETIME? LET'S SAY WE HAVE A $20,000,000 ISSUE, AND WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF THE RESERVES. WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM?
>> WE WOULD BE MOST LIKELY LOOKING TO ISSUE DEBT TO COVER SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> YEAH. SO LUCKILY, WE DO HAVE A GOOD CREDIT RATING, AND SO WE COULD LOOK AT THAT, BUT THEN WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR THAT DEBT.
>> YEAH. BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE AFTER THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCIL?
[01:30:02]
COUPLE OF FINAL QUESTIONS ON MY END.ON THIS CASH FLOW PAGE THAT'S UPDATED, YOU LOOK AT THE 6.4 MILLION, SAYS LESS ONE TIME EXPENDITURES.
CAN YOU SUMMARIZE WHAT THOSE ARE? BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE, I SEE WE'VE DEDUCTED LIKE THE MUNICIPAL COURT CIP, SO THAT 4.3 IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS 6.4?
>> YES, EXACTLY. SO IT'S THE 5.1 MILLION IN YOUR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION FUND.
AND IT HAS ONE TIME FUNDING FOR YOUR DISCRETIONARY RETENTION PAY FOR YOUR CIVILIANS AND THE HOLIDAY VOUCHERS THAT GO OUT FOR ALL OF YOUR EMPLOYEES.
AND I'M TRYING TO PULL THAT SPREADSHEET UP, BUT THE BULK OF IT IS THAT 5.1 MILLION IN ONE TIME CIP FUNDING.
AND THEN IF YOU GO RIGHT BELOW THAT, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, INCLUDING THOSE OR, I'M SORRY, REMOVING THOSE ONE TIME FUNDS, 2692 PROPOSED, 260.5 BEST GUESS.
SO WE HAVE AN INCREASE THERE OF 8.7 MILLION.
AND THEN IF WE LOOK AT THE LIST OF WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO SPEND.
>> 7 MILLION OF IT IS RELATED TO TMRS, PAY STUDY, AND RAISES FOR ALL OF YOUR EMPLOYEES.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE POINT WHATEVER MILLION IS JUST VARIOUS THINGS THROUGHOUT YOUR BUDGET, YES.
>> SO WHERE I'M LOST IS THE 3 MILLION IN COUNCIL ONE TIME WORKING BUDGET VERSUS COUNCIL ONGOING BUDGET.
IT STILL SHOWS UP OVER HERE AS COUNCIL ONE TIME WORKING BUDGET 3 MILLION DEDUCT.
THAT DOESN'T FACTOR ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE ONE TIME SPEND, RIGHT?
>> YES. IT WAS ON THE ONE TIME SPEND.
IT WAS IN LAST YEAR AND IT'S NOT IN THIS YEAR.
THE ONLY REASON WE'RE SHOWING IS A DEDUCT IS BECAUSE IT WAS IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET, IT'S NO LONGER IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.
>> SO IF ANYBODY'S FOLLOWING ALONG ON THIS, THESE ARE JUST LARGE EXPENDITURE CHANGES.
THEY'RE NOT MEANT TO BE, LIKE, AN ITEMIZED LIST THAT NET AN ACTUAL VALUE.
>> THESE ARE JUST [OVERLAPPING] LARGE ITEM TOTALS THAT KEEP US SUMMARIZED ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
>> AND HELP US FOCUS ON THE BIG AREAS OF CHANGES IN THE BUDGET, AND I SHOULD HAVE NOT PUT SUBTOTALS ON IT BECAUSE THOSE REALLY DON'T TRANSLATE TO ANYTHING.
>> AND THEN ON THIS PIECE OF PAPER, THE INTERFUND TRANSFERS TO PUT A PIN IN IT.
IF YOU LOOK AT MY AMARILLO 2.1 MILLION, RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT IT COSTS TO RUN THAT INSIDE OF THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOU WOULD NET THAT 2.1 OUT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE SPEND TO RUN THAT CURRENT SERVICE.
>> SO WHAT WAS ON THE INTERFUND TRANSFER PAGE WAS HOW WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IT.
AND SINCE COUNCIL DECIDED THAT WAS NOT THE DIRECTION THEY WANTED TO GO, THAT 2.1 IS NO LONGER CHARGED OUT.
AND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY FROM THAT BUDGET, AND IT WASN'T 2.1, BUT WE'LL STAY INSIDE WATER AND SEWER IN GENERAL FUND, HAD HALF $1 MILLION WORTH OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MY AMARILLO, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, AND WE'VE PULLED THAT OUT.
IF YOU GO BACK TO YOUR MULTI COLORED BLUE AND ORANGE PAGE, YOUR MY AMARILLO WAS ADDED INTO GENERAL FUND AT 568,730, AND WE'RE PROPOSING IT TO BE ZERO.
STEPHEN, WE'LL GO TO YOUR BLUE AND ORANGE PAGE FOR A SECOND AND GO DOWN TO THE MIDDLE OF THE EXPENDITURES TO MY AMARILLO.
SO WE'RE SAYING THAT DOES NOT SAY AND THERE WERE SEVERAL NEW POSITIONS PROPOSED, AND WE'RE ELIMINATING ALL THOSE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO LEAVE THOSE IN THE WATER, SIR.
>> SO KENNY, THAT 2.1 WOULD HAVE INCLUDED ALL THE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS?
>> BUT LET'S TAKE A DIFFERENT ONE.
WHAT COMPRISES ALL OF THAT? MISCELLANEOUS OR.
AND I'M BACK ON THE MULTICOLOR SHEET.
>> ON THE INTERFUND TRANSFERS?
>> INTERFUND TRANSFERS. AND SO THAT NUMBER WILL ACTUALLY CHANGE.
>> YES. IT'LL GO DOWN WITH MY AMARILLO COMING OUT.
THIS IS BEFORE WE'RE MAKING ANY PROPOSED CHANGES.
>> MY HOPE WAS IS THAT AS YOU REDUCE THAT INTERFUND TRANSFER TOTAL, IT WOULD ACTUALLY FREE UP MONIES THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE REVENUES AS PROPOSED AND THEN WE COULD PUSH FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL STAFF INCREASES.
>> THOSE ALREADY BEEN RUN THROUGH YOUR CASH FLOWS.
IT'S ALL ALREADY BEEN RUN THROUGH ON THIS PAGE HERE ON YOUR UPDATED CASH FLOW.
ALL OF THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PUSHED THROUGH.
ANY REVENUE CHANGES THAT WE RECOMMENDED OR ANY ADDITIONAL SPEND FOR SALARIES FOR RAISES HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUSHED THROUGH THIS.
YOU DON'T HAVE ADDITIONAL MONEY TO WORK WITH.
THAT'S ALREADY PULLING OUT MY AMARILLO.
THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN HERE.
[01:35:02]
>> COUNSEL, QUESTIONS ON THAT? YES, SIR.
>> I WAS GOING TO GO TO ANOTHER TOPIC IF YOU'RE IF YOU.
>> WELL, I GUESS THE FEEDBACK YOU NEED TODAY FROM US IS ON THE SOLID WASTE.
>> I THINK WHAT WE NEED FEEDBACK ON IS YES, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE US TO STRUCTURE THOSE SOLID WASTE RATE INCREASES? ARE YOU ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? ALSO, ARE YOU OKAY WITH POLICE BEING AT 4%, FIRE BEING AT 3%, 600,000 GOING TO PAY STUDY? DOES THAT ALL SEEM REASONABLE TO YOU GUYS?
>> WHAT WE'RE LOOKING HERE WOULD BE AN EXTRA $1 MILLION THAT IS SHOWN IN THIS NUMBER THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, CORRECT?
>> VERSUS WHAT WE LOOKED AT TWO FRIDAYS AGO. YES, SIR.
>> THAT'S ALLOWING US TO GET UP TO THE FOUR AND THREE.
>> IF WE DO NOT DO A RATE INCREASE, IF COUNSEL DECIDES WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS RATE INCREASE ON SOLID WASTE, WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND OR WHAT WOULD WE HAVE TO GIVE UP?
>> ARE YOU SAYING THE $1 MILLION RATE INCREASE OR THE FULL $3 MILLION?
>> THE ONE THAT WE ADDED HERE.
>> WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK CLOSER TO THAT MIDDLE COLUMN, WHICH WOULD HAVE NO FUNDING FOR PAY STUDY, POLICE GOING DOWN TO 3%, FIRE GOING DOWN TO 2%, ET CETERA.
>> THAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
BECAUSE REALLY, THOSE ARE THE BIGGEST I MEAN, $1 MILLION, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT SAY OTHER PLACES, SO IT'D HAVE TO BE THE RAISES [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO SCRUB IT OUT ANYWHERE ELSE.
AGAIN, THE IDEA WITH SO WASTE WAS TO GET BACK TO MORE COST RECOVERY.
>> I THINK AS WE FOCUS ON COST RECOVERY, I THINK WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT EVERY DEPARTMENT.
WHERE WERE WE ON THE VECTOR FEE? I THINK THAT [OVERLAPPING] WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED.
THE VECTOR FEE, THE INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE, I THINK ARE TWO THAT WE'VE GOT TO MAYBE GIVE YOU GUYS DIRECTION ON.
>> ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO THROW OUT THERE.
I'M JUST GOING TO SAY PURDUE AND COMPANY BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MANY NAMES WITH IT.
THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING HERE.
THEY REPRESENT A LOCAL FIRM THAT USED TO BE CONTRACTED WITH THE CITY.
I THINK WE VISITED THIS SUBJECT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
WE IDENTIFIED $6 MILLION IN OUR CURRENT BUDGET THAT COUNSEL COULD DO AND DIRECT WITH.
THE TONE OF THE CONVERSATION HERE TODAY IS, WE'RE WORKING REALLY HARD TO FIND $100,000 AND WE MAY GO TO THE TROUBLE OF ADDING $0.50 ON A WATER BILL AND WE'RE NOT EVEN UTILIZING A COMPANY THAT'S LOCAL THAT THEY WILL TAKE THE UNCOLLECTABLES, THAT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN RAN THROUGH THE INTERNAL, THEY'VE SAT ON THE SHELF, THEY'RE OLD.
OVER THIS NEXT YEAR, KNOWING THAT I'M JUST LOOKING AHEAD FOR NEXT BUDGET, I WOULDN'T TRY TO BRING ANY OF THAT AS AN ANTICIPATION INTO THIS.
I THINK WE MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THIS HERE TODAY.
MY RECOMMENDATION, OBVIOUSLY, WOULD BE TO CONTINUE WITH THE VECTOR PROGRAM, NOT PUT THE $0.50 ON THE BILL AND JUST WORK THE 300,000 OFF TO AVOID THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE OF GETTING THINGS ON THAT WATER BILL THAT JUST NEVER STOPPED.
BUT WHY NOT CONTRACT WITH PURDUE AND COMPANY AND TURN THEM LOOSE AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY MILLION WE HAVE, BUT I THINK IT CAN GO BACK 10 YEARS.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IT'S ON US TO MAKE HARD DECISIONS AND TO PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY SERVICES.
IT'S ALSO ON US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COLLECTING ON THOSE FEES THAT WHEN WE DO GO AND WE SPIN UP THIS CONDEMNATION DEMOLITION REMOVAL.
HOW MUCH HAS SAT ON THAT PROPERTY THAT COULD BE COLLECTED.
IS THERE ANY REASON THAT COUNSEL COULDN'T DIRECT MAYBE THESE GENTLEMEN TO GET BACK IN THE SYSTEM BECAUSE WHO KNOWS? MAYBE THAT'S YOUR $300,000 THIS NEXT YEAR.
>> I WOULD CERTAINLY IN CAUTION ON ANYTHING WE'RE COLLECTING, THAT WOULD BE ONE TIME FUNDING AND NOT RECURRING FUNDING.
I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND PUTTING THAT INTO RAISES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> I HAD ANTICIPATED THIS ITEM HERE.
I KNOW YOU HAD BROUGHT TO ME DURING OUR REGULAR MEETING AND THEN MR. SCHROD EMAILED ME AS WELL, SHORTLY AFTER THAT.
I HAVE TASKED STAFF WITH GETTING ME SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE HISTORY, THE BEFORE AND THE AFTER, THE INTERNAL OPERATIONS WE HAVE, THAT THEY'RE DOING MUCH OF THIS WORK HERE.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN THAT THEY FORESEE.
JUST PUTTING SOME INFORMATION TO ME, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO BRING THAT BACK TO COUNSEL AT A FUTURE DATE.
>> I THINK THAT'S GREAT. I JUST THINK COUNSEL AS WE GET, COUNCILMAN TIPS AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT A RUNWAY.
LIKE, WE CAN SEE WHAT THE LEDGE IS DOING.
WE CAN SEE HOW TIGHT THINGS ARE GETTING.
CONGRATULATIONS, COUNCILMAN PRESCOTT AND REID FOR GETTING ELECTED IN MAYBE ONE OF THE TOUGHEST TIMES TO EVER GOVERN EFFICIENTLY, EFFECTIVELY IN MODERN DAY FACEBOOK WITH ONE OF THE TIGHTEST BUDGETS AND THE ALL TIME INCREASES OF ALL THINGS INFLATIONARY.
WELCOME. BUT YOU GOT A TOUGH TASK.
[01:40:01]
I WANT TO PUT EVERY TOOL WE HAVE TO WORK.I'M JUST ADVERTISING FOR THAT IN A LOOK AHEAD.
BUT THEN WITH THIS BUDGET RIGHT HERE, MY ONLY ASK, COUNSEL, IS THAT WE WOULD WORK WITHIN THE 2.7 MILLION IN INCREASES, NOT THE 3 MILLION AND NOT TAKE ON THAT VECTOR CONTROL FEE.
AT THIS TIME, I'M NOT SAYING WE COULDN'T PUT IT IN MID YEAR.
WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO IT.
BUT MID YEAR OR NEXT YEAR, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WITH SOME RUNWAY YOU COULD RUN ON.
I THINK ONCE AGAIN, IT'S TOUGH TO JUST THROW UP.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S $0.50, IT'S ONLY $0.50.
I'LL NEVER ONLY BE $0.50. COUNCILMAN.
>> A COUPLE OF THINGS ON COST RECOVERY AND THEN ALSO ON THE PURDUE GROUP.
I'M ALL FOR GETTING THE RECOVERY, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD GO OUT IN A BID PROCESS THAT WE SHOULD GET THE BEST AND FINAL.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD JUST AWARD A BID TO ANY INDIVIDUAL GROUP.
I THINK WE NEED TO GET THE BEST RATES AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE RATES ARE.
>> TO THAT POINT THERE, YES, PART OF MY EMAIL TO THE STAFF WOULD BE IF WE WERE PURSUE WITH THIS, WE'D BE LOOKING AT AN RFQ PROCESS.
>> EXCELLENT, BECAUSE WE WANT THE BEST VALUE.
I GET THAT IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT WE WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
IF WE'RE GOING TO GO COST RECOVERY, THERE'S DOLLARS TO BE MADE ON TENNIS, THERE'S DOLLARS TO BE MADE ON THE POOLS.
CLEARLY, THERE'S DOLLARS TO BE MADE ON MOWING AISD PARKS THAT WE DON'T EVEN CONTROL.
THE ZOO, THE SHOOTING RANGE, THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON.
IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RECOVER, I WANT MY GYM MEMBERSHIP SUBSIDIZED BY THE CITY, IF WE'RE GOING TO SUBSIDIZE ACTIVITIES.
I HEAR THAT OUT THERE IN PUBLIC.
EVERYBODY, IF WE'RE SUBSIDIZING CERTAIN FUNCTIONS OF RESOURCE AND PARKS, IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY.
IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE EROSION IN PROFITS, WE HAVE TO RECOVER.
I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE PAY STUDY TO GO TO 600,000.
WE SHOULD BE GETTING EVERYTHING WE CAN IN COST RECOVERY TO GET THE LOWEST PAID PEOPLE IN THIS CITY BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY AS STRONG AS OUR WEAKEST LINKS IN PAY.
IF WE DON'T TAKE CARE OF THOSE FOLKS IN A 2.6% ENVIRONMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE, AND IT'S CONTINUALLY ERODE OUR MISSION.
I THINK THAT COST RECOVERY SHOULD BE CONTINUALLY LOOKED AT IN ALL OF THESE THINGS.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE NEED TO GET THAT PAY STUDY HIGHER.
I DIDN'T EVEN SEE ANYTHING FOR SENIORS IN HERE.
>> YES. I WOULD AGREE ON TWO THINGS REAL QUICK.
I KNOW I'VE TASKED THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT WITH LOOKING AT THIS COST RECOVERY TOPIC FURTHER.
WE PROPOSED TO YOU SEVERAL THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT, THE SALWTE DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS GETTING CLOSER TO GOLF DEPARTMENT.
THOSE ARE GOOD FIRST STEPS TOWARDS THAT VERY EFFORT THERE.
I HAVE A MEETING PLAN WITH LAURA AND HER TEAM HERE IN ABOUT A MONTH OR SO GETTING PAST THIS PROCESS HERE.
START LOOKING AT OPTIONS FOR LOOKING AT OTHER COST RECOVERY METHODS BRINGING BACK TO YOU ALL FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
SECONDLY, YES, AS YOUR CITY MANAGER, MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU FOCUS ON THE PAY STUDY. OTHER THINGS HERE.
AND SO WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE BELOW MARKET.
AS MUCH AS WE CAN PUT TOWARDS THAT, THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNSEL.
>> IT ALREADY LOOKS LIKE 25/26 IS GOING TO BE A 2.6 COST OF LIVING ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL FOLKS.
WE'RE JUST CONSTANTLY FALLING BEHIND THE FAIR MARKET PRICE, AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
BUT I DO APPLAUD THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE TO GET US TO THIS POINT, SO THANK YOU.
>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD ALSO, AS LONG AS COUNSEL IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS, I NOTICED WITH THE CIVILIANS INCREASE, WE STILL HAVE CA/MERIT.
I WOULD SUGGEST WE JUST GO TO MERIT SO THAT WE CAN SEE MAYBE SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES SEEING A GREATER THAN 2% TO PRESCOTT'S POINT TO GET ABOVE THAT 2.6, THE HIGHER PERFORMING EMPLOYEES, I THINK DESERVE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
IF REST OF COUNSEL IS OKAY WITH THAT, I WOULD DIRECT THAT WE MOVE TOWARDS 100% MERIT.
>> MAN, I'LL BACK YOU UP ON THAT.
I THINK WHEN COUNCILMAN PRESCOTT SAYS, EVERYBODY DESERVES A RAISE.
EVERY PERSON THAT WORKS HARD TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY AND PUTS THEMSELVES OUT THERE, AND WE'VE SPOKEN FOR TWO YEARS ON OUR LOCAL HEROES, AND THAT'S NOT JUST THE GUYS WEARING A BADGE.
THAT'S THE GUY WHO SHOWS UP AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING TO FIX THAT BROKEN PIPE SO THAT YOU CAN SHOWER.
I THINK IF WE SAW THOSE 2, 3, 4%, THEN I UNDERSTAND THE OFFSET ON THAT IS THAT IN ANY ORGANIZATION WHERE YOU HAVE 2,500 PLUS EMPLOYEES, YOU HAVE SOME LOW PERFORMING EMPLOYEES.
WE'RE ONLY AS GOOD AS OUR WEAKEST LINK, AND WE OUGHT TO BE BUILDING THE STRONGEST TEAM WE HAVE.
[01:45:02]
IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL INTEREST, MERIT DRIVES THAT.I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO GET AWAY FROM THAT SOMEHOW, WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS A COMMUNITY SURVEY.
LET'S GIVE OURSELVES A RUNWAY HERE. LET'S EARN IT.
WE KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH RESTRICTED INCOMES AND REVENUES.
WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO ASK THEM.
LET'S PUT A COMMUNITY SURVEY OUT OVER THIS NEXT YEAR.
LET'S MAKE IT EASY FOR OUR CUSTOMERS TO BRAG ON THOSE PEOPLE THAT, MAN, YOU COULD BE THE GUY, TIM, THAT EMPTIES THE TRASH FOR THAT NICE OLDER LADY, THAT SHE CAN'T LIFT THE LID.
BUT HE STOPS, AND HE GETS OUT TO HELP HIM DO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THAT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE GUYS.
BUT IT ALSO GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME OF THE CRITICISM OF WHERE WE NEED TO IMPROVE THAT NEVER ARISES TO THE SURFACE.
IF WE DRIVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND WE DRIVE MORE OF THE MERIT BASE, I THINK WE'RE GETTING MORE TO RUN IT LIKE A BUSINESS, AND WE MEAN BUSINESS PRINCIPLES.
WE UNDERSTAND IT'S GOVERNMENT.
WE CAN'T RUN IT LIKE A BUSINESS, BUT WE CAN RUN IT ON GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICES.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY?
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, AGAIN, I THINK I'VE ANTICIPATED THAT AS WELL.
I'VE ACTUALLY DRAFTED AN INITIAL SURVEY.
I'VE SHARED WITH MY CMO STAFF, AND SO TOUCHING ON NOT ALL OF THOSE IDEAS.
BUT OTHERS AS WELL, AND WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THAT.
OEI IS LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW, SO I WAS ANTICIPATING BRINGING SOME TO YOU ON NEXT FEW MONTHS HERE IN PREPARATION FOR NEXT BUDGET CYCLE.
>> WELL, I LOVE THAT. THANK YOU FOR BEING AHEAD OF IT, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING THAT BACK. COUNCILMAN PRESCOTT.
I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE VECTOR CONTROL FEE.
I THINK THAT WHEN WE GO THROUGH PERIODS OF EXCESSIVE RAIN THAT WE'VE HAD THIS YEAR, WHAT IS A WEST NILE? FOR ME PERSONALLY AND MY FAMILY, IS IT WORTH $0.50 TO NOT GET WEST NILE? IT IS, AND THERE'S A LOT OF AIRBORNE AND THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE OCCURRING.
IF YOU JUST FOLLOW, WORLD HEALTH AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER LOOK AT THAT.
WHAT IS THAT LONG TERM REMEDY FOR ALL OF US? I THINK THAT IF WE EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON THAT, THAT THE $0.50 IS WELL WITHIN LOGIC.
>> THIS POINT HERE, I'D SAY STAFF, I'D REQUEST HEADS DOWN ON THE VECTOR FEE SO THAT WE CAN PUT THIS THING BEST AND MOVE ON.
I KNOW I'VE HEARD SOME PROS, SOME NEGATIVE, AND SO I THINK WE NEED SOME DIRECTION OF WHAT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNSEL LOOKING AT WHEN IT COMES TO THE VECTOR FEE?
>> COUNCILMAN PRESCOTT, I AGREE WITH YOU.
I'M DEFINITELY NOT RECOMMENDING NOT TO FUND IT.
I WOULD SAY WE'RE GETTING INTO THE LATTER PART OF THE SEASON, AND IF WE IMPLEMENT SOMETHING NOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE GOT TO PUT IN PLACE THIS EARLY, I'D LOVE TO GIVE US A LITTLE MORE RUNWAY AND LOOK AT ALL OTHER OPTIONS FOR COST RECOVERY.
MAYBE TAKE SOME OF OUR PROJECTIONS AND SEE HOW THEY WORK OUT FOR THE YEAR.
MAKE THAT A HIGH PRIORITY AS WE COME INTO THE NEXT BUDGET YEAR.
THAT'S SOLELY BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN PROTECTING THE WATER BILL.
I JUST THINK THAT THAT ONE STEP IN THAT DIRECTION WITH THE DRAINAGE FEE, OPENS THAT DOOR, AND WE'VE GOT TO KEEP IT CLOSED.
OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A STREET TAX AND A VECTOR FEE, AND THERE'LL BE ANOTHER ONE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A UTILITY MONOPOLIZING THE STREETS THAT EVERYBODY IN THE CITY'S PAID FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIFETIME OF LIVING HERE.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO INCREASE THOSE COSTS AND A FEE JUST TO MAINTAIN THEM.
WE HAVEN'T DONE OUR BEST WORK YET TO EVEN TRY BRING ABOUT A FAILURE FIRST.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ADVOCATE ONE FINAL TIME, AND THEN IT ONLY TAKES THREE.
BUT MY ADVOCATION IS TO PRIORITIZE THE PROTECTION OF THAT WATER BILL FOR YOUR CITIZENS.
>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? WHERE WOULD THE 311 COME OUT OF?
>> I WOULD PROBABLY JUST REDUCE IT ON THE TOTAL OVERALL.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT 2.0, I'D BE 2.3 NET BOTTOM, BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS IS PROJECTIONS, AND IT'S A WORKING DOCUMENT.
I SAW SOME OF YOUR OTHER REPORTS THAT WERE COMING IN STRONGER, FOR THIS YEAR, SO MAYBE SOME OF THE HOT TAX AND THE OTHER THINGS.
PLUS, I THINK YOU DO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF GROWTH AROUND THE COMMUNITY, AND I'M SURE MRS. STORES HAS FACTORED THAT IN, BUT I'D JUST LEAVE IT ON THE BOTTOM LINE TOTAL.
I'D BE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD THERE.
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO REDUCE 300,000 ON EITHER THE PAY STUDY?
>> IF WE WEREN'T COMFORTABLE, IF IT'S NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH AND WE WANT TO REMOVE THAT 300, THEN I WOULD TRANSFER IT OVER TO MY ACTUAL RATE PAY, AND I WOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT THE 50, 75%, WHICH THAT WOULD GIVE YOU AN EXTRA $1 MILLION DOLLAR.
[01:50:01]
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT GOING THAT MUCH, BUT IF YOU LOOKED AT THAT EXAMPLE BACK ON FLIP TWO THAT SECOND PAGE, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU ARE ENTERTAINING INCREASING COMMERCIAL FEES FOR SOLID WASTE, KNOWING THAT YOU'RE BELOW MARKET, AND YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB ON SERVICE WHERE WE NEEDED VAST IMPROVEMENT.IF YOU SAID, LET'S KEEP IT AT THE 2 MILLION, NOT STRETCHED TO THE 2.3 IN THE AVAILABLE CASH FLOW, THEN I WOULD TELL YOU TO WORK THAT OUT OVER HERE ON THE SCENARIO.
>> ISN'T THAT THE SAME THING THOUGH? IF WE'RE PUTTING IT ON THE SOLID WASTE, IF WE'RE PUTTING IT ON THE WATER BILL OR WE'RE PUTTING IT ON THE SOLID WASTE BILL, WE'RE STILL PUTTING IT SOMEWHERE.
I THINK IN A BILL THAT I'M PAYING FOR, YOU'RE ALREADY INCREASING MY BILL 7% FOR MY SOLID WASTE FEE.
THAT IS AN OPT IN AND AN OPT OUT, CORRECT?
>> JUST ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE.
>> ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, I CHOOSE TO HIRE DIVERSIFIED WASTE OR ANYBODY ELSE LIKE THAT.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE VECTOR FEE, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WHERE IT'S NOT TIED TO THAT SERVICE AS MUCH.
YES, I AGREE THAT THERE'S COLOR IN THIS BLACK AND WHITE, NOT AT ALL, LIKE A 50 CENT VECTOR FEE, THOUGH.
I CHALLENGE YOU TO HEAR FROM YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND HOW THEY WILL SEE IT.
IT WILL BE FULL OF COLOR FOR THEM. COUNCILMAN.
I WAS FOR, YOU MAY BE DOING A 75% INCREASE ON THE COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE FEE AND MAYBE A 50% INCREASE ON THE RESIDENTIAL.
IT WAS A NET INCREASE OF $2.54.
>> I HAVE TO GO PRESCOTT ON THIS OF GOING, WELL, WE GO WE'D GO AT 2:54 WITHOUT BLINKING AN EYE, OR MAYBE A LITTLE BIT VERSUS DOING A 50 CENT FOR THE VECTOR FEE, AND WOULD THAT $0.50 BE ONLY USED FOR THAT? WOULD IT BE STRICTLY ALLOCATED? I'LL LOOK AT THAT AND THINK IT CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THAT.
WE CAN'T PULL THAT AND USE IT FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
IT WOULD SIMPLY BE ONLY USED FOR THE VECTOR.
>> FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL AND PREVENTION.
>> I GUESS, THE LOGIC DOESN'T WORK FOR ME.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A 254 INCREASE ON THE WATER BILL, VERSUS PUTTING A 50 CENT FEE ON THE WATER BILL.
I SEE YOUR POINT OF SAYING, WELL, IT'S A WHOLE NEW FEE.
NOW I GET WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS PROTECT IT, SAY, WELL, WE CAN'T KEEP ADDING TO THAT.
BUT I THINK WE'RE TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF OUR MOUTH. WE CAN'T DO THAT.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE IS ALREADY THERE, AND WE'RE SAYING, HEY, THIS FEE IS ALREADY THERE.
LET'S JUST INCREASE IT BY 254. IT'S ALREADY THERE.
I'M A CUSTOMER. ONCE AGAIN, I'M GOING TO PAY MY BUILDING SAFETY DEPARTMENT FOR MY PERMITS.
YET I CONSIDER IT AN IRRITANT WHEN I SEE A $10 TECHNOLOGY FEE ON MY BILL.
YOU JUST RAISED MY ENTIRE PERMIT FEE, WHICH I USED TO PAY LIKE $1,100 FOR THE ANNOUNCED 2,500 IS MY PERMIT FEE.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE RAISED IT THAT MUCH, BUT FROM PROJECT TO PROJECT AND FROM BUSINESS.
IN ADDING A FEE TO A BILL, WHY DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT ONE ON WHEN YOU'RE ALREADY RAISING THIS 7%? REALLY, WHATEVER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHETHER IT'S 7%, 8%, ALL YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THIS IS CALCULATED INTO YOUR OVERALL TO UP TO THREE MILLION.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO RAISE IT TO 3.3 MILLION, YES, EVERY TIME I WOULD MUCH RATHER JUSTIFY TO MY CUSTOMER THAT I INCREASED THEIR LANDFILL FEE OR THEIR SOLID WASTE CHARGE, THAN TO HAVE TO DEFEND THE FACT THAT I CREATED A BRAND NEW PLACE FOR US TO CONTINUE TO REVENUE MONEY FROM YOU.
I AGREE WITH YOU, IT'LL BE AN IRRITATE.
>> BUT I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO, AND I JUST WE'RE TALKING THIS THING OUT.
I AGREE THAT AS WE'RE GOING TO LOSE AT LEAST 2.5% LOOKING AT 1%.
BECAUSE OF THE STATE, AND EVENTUALLY, MAYBE WE GET RID OF PROPERTY TAX.
YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE IN REVENUES, YOU BRING MORE PROPERTY ON, YOU CONTINUE TO GROW.
YOU'RE LOSING THE ABILITY TO RAISE ADDITIONAL REVENUES WITHOUT ASKING YOUR BOSS.
>> I'M NOT ARGUING THAT POINT, BUT I'M SAYING AS WE GROW AND OUR SERVICES GROW, SO TO YOUR POINT, YOU'RE CORRECT.
THE NEW BUILDS AND THE MORE THAT WE GROW, THAT'S MORE STREETS, MORE DRAINAGE, MORE STAGE.
>> GROWTH IS GROWTH. GROWTH HAS GOT TO PAY FOR THE GROWTH,
[01:55:04]
THAT MEANS A NET ZERO.BUT AS FEES INCREASE, AND AS WE DO THAT, BUT REVENUE ON THE EXISTING THE CORPORATE CITY AS THOSE INCREASE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO RE TO CAPTURE THAT.
AGAIN, NO NO DIFFERENT WITH THE SOLID WASTE.
>> NO, AND I'M GETTING OFF TOPIC A LITTLE BIT, BUT YOU ARE, AND YOU'VE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN CREATING NEW MECHANISMS THAT ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUES TO COME INTO THE CITY.
IF WE CAN GO AND CREATE 3,000 NEW USERS OVER THE NEXT 5, 6, 7 YEARS, OVER ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN, HAVE THE DEVELOPER PUT IN ALL OF THE COSTS.
IT'S NOT COMING OUT OF YOUR BUDGET.
THEN YOU TIE ON TO HIS LINE THAT HE PAID FOR, THAT HIS MUD IS REIMBURSING HIM FOR.
YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO CHARGE THAT USER 150% FROM WHAT YOU'RE CHARGING THE INSIDE SO THAT THEY CAN REMAIN OUTSIDE OF THE CITY AND NOT PAY TAX.
WHAT A GREAT JOB IN IMPLEMENTING A MUD.
IT WILL GO IN. LONG-TERM PLANNING, I THINK YOU'VE GOT SOME MECHANISMS FOR GROWTH.
>> I AGREE, BUT NOBODY'S UTILIZING THAT MUD YET.
>> BUT NOT ALL GROWTH IS GOING TO BE INSIDE A MUD.
THAT'S GREAT, AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT TOOL, VOTED FOR IT.
WE HASHED IT OUT AND THINK IT'S A GREAT TOOL.
BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE EVERY BIT OF GROWTH.
THERE'S GOING TO BE BUILDERS THAT ARE BUILDING OUTSIDE OF A MUD AND THE MUD IS NOT GOING TO BE IN THE CITY GENERATING ANY PROPERTY TAX UNTIL THE MUD IS PAID OFF.
THEN THERE'S NO GUARANTEE, THAT THEY WOULD COME INSIDE THE CITY EVEN, AT THAT POINT.
>> NO, AND YOU'RE JUST CREATING USERS.
YOU GOT TRASH USERS, YOU GOT WATER AND SEWER USERS.
EVEN WHY THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS.
YOU'RE CHARGING THEM 1.5 TIMES.
IT'S A REALLY GOOD BUSINESS MODEL.
HERE'S THE OTHER BUSINESS MODEL THAT PREVIOUS COUNCIL IMPLEMENTED.
WE'VE GROWN YOUR TAX RATE FROM $0.38-$0.43.
IN ONE YEAR, HOW DID WE DO THAT? WE TOOK FIRE APPARATUS THAT NOW COST $1.8 MILLION, WHEN I DON'T KNOW, 6, 7 YEARS AGO IT COST $700,000 FOR THAT SAME FIRE TRUCK.
NOT ONLY ARE WE BEING SQUEEZED WITH, WE CAN'T RAISE ADDITIONAL REVENUES AT WM, BUT WE'RE ALSO BEING SQUEEZED ON 3X COST ALMOST, FOR THAT SAME FIRE TRUCK, KNOWING GROWTH IS COMING.
SO HOW DID WE DO THAT? WE PUT IT ON A DEBT, WE PUT IT OVER ON THE INS SIDE, AND NOBODY'S BATTING AN EYE ABOUT THE EXTRA THREE PENNIES.
SO YOU ARE WORKING IN A VERY MATURE BALANCED WAY, BUT IT'S CONSERVATIVE.
NOW, WE ALSO SOLVED ANOTHER PROBLEM OF NOT TRYING TO KEEP THOSE FIRE TRUCKS ALIVE FOR 10, 20 YEARS.
WE ROLL THAT SUCKER OFF IN SEVEN YEARS, AND WE GET THAT NEXT ONE ON BECAUSE IT'S BUILT INTO THAT TAX RATE.
I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE 300,000, BUT PROMISE YOU, NO ONE WILL REMEMBER THE MUD, NOR WILL THEY THE INS DEBT SERVICE AND ALL OF THE GOOD THAT WE'VE DONE BECAUSE OF $0.50.
I PROMISE THAT VECTOR FEE $0.50 IS GOING TO GO WILDFIRE ACROSS.
IT JUST IS, IT'S THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE.
I THINK THAT'S WISE FOR COUNCIL TO AVOID THAT.
ALL YOU GOT TO DO, TO ALLEVIATE A $300,000 CASH FLOW ISSUE, IS LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT, WHICH IS AN INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE.
WHICH I THINK WE'RE ALL ENTERTAINING.
>> I JUST FEEL YOU'RE ON THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE.
YOU'D LIKE TO STAY OFF THE SLIPPERY SLOPE, BUT I'M ON IT, AND I'M JUST GOING TO THROW MORE TO THE SOLID WASTE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> IT DOES, BUT ADDING A FEE IS ANOTHER STEP DOWN THAT SLIPPERY HILL.
>> BUT YOU'RE ALSO INCREASING A FEE THAT'S ON THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE.
I'M PUTTING IT OVER HERE INSTEAD OF DOING A NEW ONE, BUT ME IT'S AS.
>> I'M GOING TO DISAGREE ON THAT, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T ON THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE WHEN WE WENT THROUGH OUR BUDGET, AND SOLID WASTE JUSTIFIED ALL THE ADDITIONAL TRASH CANS AND REPLACEMENTS, AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF LIKE.
WE'VE BUILT UP THAT WITHOUT FEELING WE WERE GOING TOWARDS A STREET TAX.
>> SO STREETS, ARE SOLID WASTE, ARE WE A COST RECOVERY?
>> I MADE THE PHONE CALLS THAT YOU ASKED ME TO MAKE. I GOT THE SAME ANSWERS.
>> YEAH, BUT I GOT THE SAME ANSWERS I GOT BEFORE.
IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO FIND THOSE MAGIC NUMBERS.
IT REALLY IS. I DID MAKE THE PHONE CALLS.
YOU'VE MADE ANOTHER ONE THIS MORNING.
I FEEL LIKE AND LAURA AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS EARLIER TODAY, I THINK THAT THE RATE INCREASE WE'RE PROBABLY COMFORTABLE WITH IS AROUND THAT 60% MARK, BECAUSE THE 60/40 SCENARIO, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S UP TO YOU GUYS TO DECIDE WHERE WE GO WITH THAT.
BUT I THINK WE'RE NOT THAT FAR OFF WHAT I DID HEAR FROM ONE OF THEM WAS THEY FELT WE WERE PROBABLY 10-15% LESS THAN WHAT THEY WERE.
>> MAYBE WE'RE NOT AT COST RECOVERY THERE.
IF WE TAKE THE INCREASE WE'RE CLOSER, BUT WE'RE DEFINITELY NOT A COST RECOVERY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
[02:00:01]
BECAUSE THE STATE JUST TOLD US WE CAN'T CHARGE THE FEES FOR THE OUT OF TOWN SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE.AGAIN, WE'RE BEING DICTATED BY THE STATE.
WE'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO REVENUE.
THAT I THINK OUR FOCUS THIS YEAR, WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT IS COST RECOVERY.
WELL, HOW DO WE DO THAT? WE'RE WILLING TO CHARGE MORE FOR SOLID WASTE, BUT WE CAN'T TAKE THOSE SOLID WASTE DOLLARS AND GO PAY FOR THE VECTOR SERVICE.
NOW, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IS STILL BELOW.
WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THEIR FEES TO HELP US COST RECOVER.
WE'RE SPENDING MORE THAN WE'RE CHARGING.
THAT'S THE BUSINESS MODEL, LIKE YOU TALKED ABOUT, WE'RE ALL ABOUT AS MUCH AS WE CAN RUN IT LIKE A BUSINESS.
WELL, THAT'S A FAILING BUSINESS.
>> YOU ARE RUNNING AN OVERALL BALANCED BUDGET.
WE ARE PROJECTING TO LOSE 1.8 MILLION IN GRANT FUNDING; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WELL, IF YOU WANT TO CHARGE A FEE, CHARGE A FEE THERE.
THAT'S IN THIS OVERALL BALANCED BUDGET.
YOU'RE NOW OVERCOMING 1.8 MILLION, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT CUTTING SERVICES.
YOU COULD GO CUT SERVICES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CUT IT TO YOU.
THAT WOULD FREE UP $1.8 MILLION, AND YOU COULD GO PAY MORE TO STAFF, BUT WE'RE CHOOSING NOT TO DO THAT.
SO DO WE NEED TO CHARGE A NICKEL MORE ON THE FORM OF REVENUE THAT TRANSIT GENERATES? THAT'S A CONVERSATION THAT IS NOT BEING HAD, BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY FOCUSED VERY MYOPICALLY ON THIS ONE $300,000 LINE.
I'M JUST SAYING, DON'T GET HUNG UP ON THIS.
THIS IS THE WORLD'S WORST $300,000 YOU'RE GOING TO EARN.
BOTH SIDES OF MY MOUTH ARE SAYING THE SAME THING. DON'T DO IT.
I DON'T CARE IF YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, IT'S NOT THIS, BUT I GET WHAT WE'RE DOING.
IT'S AS MUCH AS I WANT TO HAVE BALANCED ACCOUNTING, AND YET I'M HELD TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.
>> WELL, WE GOT TO MAKE A DECISION HERE.
I'M FINE WITH TAKING THE VECTOR FEE OFF OF THE WATER BILL OPTION AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING BIGGER TO TALK ABOUT HERE IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, WHICH IS, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? NUMBER 1, I THINK GOING LOOKING AT COST RECOVERY IS THE FIRST THING THAT WE NEED TO DO TO SEE WHERE CAN WE RECOVER COSTS.
WE HAVE A MISSION THE CIVIC CENTER, WHICH IS THE BIGGEST GAP OF PROBABLY ANYTHING WE FACE, AND THE GAP THERE THAT HAS TO BE FILLED BY HOT TAX.
BUT I THINK WHERE I STAND IS, IF WE TAKE THE VECTOR FEE OFF THE TABLE FOR THE WATER BILL THIS TIME, SEE IF THERE'S SOME PLACE IN THE BUDGET THAT WE CAN ABSORB IT AND THEN KEEP THE 995 UNDER I'M FINE WITH THE 75, 25 TO MINIMIZE IT ON RESIDENTIAL AND THEN, BRING US BACK MORE TO LINE ON COMMERCIAL.
>> I DO HAVE A PROBLEM AS WE KEEP ADDING THINGS TO THAT BILL.
I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT MAYOR.
BUT WE'RE AT THAT POINT THAT WE'RE FORCED TO DO THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.
I DON'T LIKE ADDING THOSE THINGS WITHOUT GETTING SOMEBODY SPEAKING TO OUR THE PEOPLE WE WORK FOR AND FEELING HOW THEY SEE IT AS WE ADD THOSE FEES, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T AN END TO IT.
BECAUSE ONCE YOU DO ADD, THE TENDENCY IS WE CAN GO BACK AND DO THAT.
IT MAKES IT EASY. WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE IT OUT FOR A VOTE.
WE JUST ADD IT. SO IT'S A DILEMMA WE'RE IN.
I AGREE WITH WHAT LES IS SAYING HERE THAT, RIGHT NOW, WE TABLE THAT.
ONE IS THE CITIZENS ALREADY EXPECT THEIR SOLID WASTE TO BE HANDLED.
ADDING A FEE TO A PERCENTAGE TO THAT IN INCREASE, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT THE COSTS ARE.
I DON'T THINK WE GET AS MUCH OF A PUSHBACK ON IT, ALTHOUGH WE'LL HEAR ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT STILL IS AN INCREASE IN THEIR TAX.
BUT AT THIS POINT, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE AN OPTION.
WE HAVE TO DO THAT TO KEEP THINGS RUNNING HERE IN THE CITY.
OTHERWISE, WE DON'T COLLECT GARBAGE.
OR DO WE CUT GARBAGE BACK TO ONE DAY A WEEK? WE CAN'T DO THAT. YOU GOT TO MOVE YOUR GARBAGE.
I REALLY THINK THAT WE TABLE THE VECTOR FEE RIGHT NOW, KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE HITTING THE TAXPAYER WITH THAT 7% INCREASE ON THE ON THAT UTILITY.
>> I'LL JUST WEIGH IN AND SAY, I AGREE.
I JUST WANTED TO HAVE JUST FOR GOOD DISCUSSION.
>> I WOULD AGREE THAT WE CAN WE SHOULD TABLE IT, LOOK TO SEE WHAT OTHER AREAS THERE ARE.
[02:05:03]
IF WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAY, IF WE'RE THAT TIGHT, THAT THEN WE DON'T DO THE VECTOR PROGRAM.I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S WORTH THE RISK.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING WE'RE AT THAT POINT, LIKE TIM SAYING, WE'RE AT THE POINT.
WE GOT TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.
BUT I WOULD AGREE. I JUST WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU.
>> I ALWAYS LIKE THE CONVERSATION. I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HEAR.
YOU MAKE GOOD POINTS. I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE NOT VALID.
>> SO, COUNCIL, IF I MAY JUMP IN REAL QUICK.
IF I'M HEARING OVERALL CONSENSUS AND WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT WOULD BE TO DROP THE VECTOR FEE, $311,000, BUT KEEP THE EXPENSES AND JUST HAVE THE OVER UNDER AROUND THE 2.32 0.4 MILLION RANGE THERE.
IF THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT, I THINK WE HAVE A WAY FORWARD.
WE CAN GET THIS THING WRAPPED UP AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU ALL FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
>> 25,75, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE HEARING, 25 RESIDENTIAL 75 COMMERCIAL.
>> FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T SUPPORT DROPPING THE VECTOR FEE.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT, I DON'T SUPPORT THAT.
>> IN THAT OVERALL, COUNCILMAN SIMPSON, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? COUNCILMAN PRESCOTT, I'M GLAD TO LET STAFF CONTINUE IN THAT CONVERSATION.
AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS NEXT YEAR, I THINK IT'LL PROBABLY BE A TOPIC THAT THEY'LL WANT TO REVISIT.
WELL STATED, AND WE'VE GOT IT ON THE RECORD.
>> NOW, WHERE ARE WE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE RATE INCREASE? DID YOU SAY 75/25?
>> THE 25% RESIDENTIAL, 75% COMMERCIAL.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT?
>> I WASN'T OPPOSED TO YOUR SUGGESTION GOING LIKE, I KNOW YOU SAID 75/50 I THINK 75/40, IF WE CAN CAPTURE SOME OF THAT.
>> I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DO SOME INTERNAL STUDY REAL QUICKLY.
>> I THINK THIS 100% IS JUST BASED ON OUR NUMBER ANYWAY.
I DON'T MEAN THAT IN A BAD WAY, BUT THIS 100% IS A NUMBER THAT WE CAME UP WITH.
>> NO, IT'S BASED OFF OF NOT HAVING CAPTURED THE GROWTH AND EXPENSES OF THE LAST FEW YEARS.
SO THE TMRS RATE INCREASE, THE PAY RAISE INCREASE, AND SO AND THEN A FEW OTHER THINGS.
THIS IS GOING BACK AND CAPTURING THAT SO THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS MORE COST RECOVERY.
>> THAT'S HOW THE NUMBER WORKED OUT THAT DIRECTION.
>> THAT'S WHAT I MEAN, GOING ABOVE 100%, YOUR 100% WAS OUR 100%.
WE WE COULD CHANGE THAT. MAKE SENSE?
>> YEAH. THAT'S WHY I WANT TO GO BACK AND STUDY.
I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE ARE WE AT REVENUE OR EXPENSE FOR SOLID WASTE.
>> BRING IT BACK. WE'VE GOT A LITTLE TIME.
WE CAN SET THE RATE, WHICH WE KNOW ON THE TAX RATE.
>> I WOULD SAY, I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD 25/75.
WE CAN MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT MID-YEAR, IF WE NEED TO.
I THINK WE CAN MOVE THE BUDGET WITH 25/75, DROP THE VECTOR FEE, CHANGE OVER AND UNDER BY ANOTHER $311,000, MOVE THAT TOWARDS PUBLIC HEARING.
THEN AS TIME GOES ALONG, WE CAN THEN BRING BACK SOME ANALYSIS ON SOLID PREPARATION MADE FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
>> YES, SIR. I THINK THAT'S GREAT.
I THINK THIS IS A IMMENSE PROGRESS FROM WHERE WE WERE.
WE'VE REALLY WORKED THROUGH THE BUDGET TO GET HERE.
I STILL FEEL A LITTLE DISAPPOINTMENT IN MAYBE THE INTEREST L, THAT WE THOUGHT WE HAD CAPTURED THAT $4,000,000, JUST BECAUSE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO DEPEND ON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.
BUT REGARDLESS, I THINK THAT THE DISAPPOINTMENT, ON OUR END, IS JUST IN NOT BEING ABLE TO PAY MORE KNOWING THAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND CITIES AND DEMAND IS THERE, AND I KNOW HOW GOOD IT IS TO LIVE IN AMARILLO AND COST OF LIVING THAT'S GOOD, BUT NOT EVERYBODY SEES THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PAYCHECK.
SO DO YOU HAVE EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED TO MOVE US FORWARD?
>> I TAKE IT OUT OF RESERVES 311.
>> COUNCIL, ANY OTHER REMARKS HERE BEFORE WE GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS ONE OUT? WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN OUR WORK SESSION, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A 15 MINUTE RECESS.
WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND START OUR REGULAR SCHEDULE MEETING A LITTLE LATE.
THANK YOU, GUYS. YOU'RE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.