2026-11-04 - Ad Hoc Budget Advisory Committee

00:00All

00:14right, I think we're ready.

00:19>> All right. Um,

00:21I'll call this

00:24uh meeting of the

00:27budget ad hoc committee

00:30to order. And if everybody would join me

00:32in a moment of silence and reflection.

00:45All right. Um, thanks for everybody

00:47being on.

00:51We got uh Stephen, William,

00:57Kevin,

00:59any other council members that I'm

01:00missing.

01:02>> No, sir. That's all for right now.

01:05>> Okay. Um

01:06>> Dale Alessandro was on on as a guest.

01:09>> Thank you. You're welcome.

01:11>> Good, good, good.

01:12>> Um All right. Well, u Amy, I'll turn it

01:16over to you and I'll chime in um as

01:19appropriate and glad to answer any

01:21questions as we go along that any of the

01:24committee members have. [snorts]

01:27>> Okay, we'll get right into the budget

01:29summary.

01:31We had talked about this last time a

01:33little bit in terms of why balancing is

01:35getting harder. And as you can see, our

01:37base budget has increased a lot over the

01:39last couple years. A lot of that is u

01:42due to unavoidable costs that we talk

01:44about health care debt service, rent,

01:46insurance and salaries also fuel prices

01:49and just the increase in products

01:53overall. Um,

01:55so as you can see,

01:57that is our base budget increase over

01:59the last couple of years. And um,

02:02>> so if I may, Amy, just for for council

02:05members,

02:07um, understanding,

02:09you know,

02:11base budget going up. Obviously, our

02:13revenues are going up, too. But right

02:16now, I mean, a kind of a simple way to

02:20look at it is revenues are going up

02:24really kind of on par with uh maybe a

02:27little bit here and there.

02:29um on par with what our expenses are

02:32going up that are that again we can't

02:34really control the the insurance health

02:37care um the the

02:41debt service that we have from the bonds

02:44that we're issuing to build the capital

02:45project. So we've had two kind of doozy

02:48years um and especially com considering

02:53comparing them to the last three. Uh, so

02:56hopefully this is something that will

02:59cycle back down in the future, but um,

03:02we just won't know.

03:05Okay, Andy, just keep going on that.

03:10>> Okay. Um, base budget changes, how we

03:14close the gap. If you remember last week

03:16when we when we met, we had a $4.5

03:19million projected shortfall in our base

03:21budget. What we did to address this, we

03:24looked at building permit revenue and

03:26increased our um projections based on

03:29current year trends.

03:31Plan re fee revenue, we've also looked

03:33at that and increased it just based on

03:35trends as well. The title and inland

03:37flood study, we're using general fund

03:38reserves to cover that in 2027. And then

03:42salary savings, we looked at that and we

03:44increased that to 7.5 million just based

03:46on our current um vacancy trends.

03:51Any questions on this one from anyone?

03:58Okay. I think Amy's been pretty pretty

04:01thoughtful about how to do this and ship

04:03things around. Um, you know, we don't

04:07have a lot of money to pull out of

04:09general fund reserves. I mean, that's

04:11basically taking money out of our

04:13savings for lack of a better way to

04:15describe and that can put pressure on

04:17our our bonding capacity and credit

04:20rating. So, because this is right now a

04:23one-time expense and we don't know what

04:24the needs will be with the Army Corps

04:27next year, I think it's appropriate that

04:30we we we do this versus it being a

04:33recurring expense. Uh, so just wanted to

04:36make that clear. And um the last point I

04:39wanted to make on salary savings,

04:42Amy and Andrew generally are pretty

04:44conservative on that which has resulted

04:47in savings in years past. Last year we

04:51had, you know, fourish four plus million

04:55dollars, I think. And what we did there

04:58is, if y'all will recall, we did a

05:01one-time performance-based bonus that

05:04was given out to city employees. So we

05:07took salary savings and then gave it

05:08back to the employees that was based on

05:12um uh

05:15um performance and that's kind of in

05:18keeping with what we're targeting

05:19through the compensation study as well.

05:22So, just wanted to make you aware that

05:25by doing this here this year, it's less

05:29likely we would have that amount of

05:32potential salary savings in 207

05:37uh that we did in 26,

05:40but we're still going to target

05:42hopefully some savings that we can

05:44allocate towards again performance-based

05:46bonuses. it was clear with staff if

05:49we're able to do this year-over-year, it

05:51really will be dependent on where our

05:54savings are. So, um, anyway, just wanted

05:58to make make everybody aware.

06:00>> I just want to make a couple of comments

06:02on on that. So, the the fund balance is

06:05not ever from our unassigned fund

06:06balance. So, our savings and that that

06:08goal that we have always stays st it

06:11stays the same so that we're not ever

06:13dipping into that savings. It's all um

06:15assigned fund balance that we're using.

06:18So, I don't want anybody to think that

06:19we're using our SLA savings because

06:20we're we're not necessarily doing that.

06:22And then for the the bonuses, that was

06:25all part of the year-end um surplus that

06:28we had, not necessarily just from from

06:30salary savings. It was just part of that

06:32total.

06:33>> That's true. But I mean that that that

06:34was where a large part of it came from,

06:36right? So,

06:38>> okay, moving on. So, our base budget

06:41summary um right now with everything

06:43that we looked at and the changes that

06:45we made, we have a surplus of 2.9

06:47million in our base budget.

06:50>> Any questions on that?

06:55>> That comes from the previous page,

06:56right? Yeah.

06:57>> So, go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't hear.

06:58>> That comes from the previous page.

07:01>> That's right.

07:03And then we looked at new program

07:05requests. um went through all of the

07:09requests from the departments. $28

07:11million was the total amount requested

07:13in new programs from all of the

07:15departments. We recommended 5.6 million.

07:19Um and 3.4 million of that came from

07:22one-time funding sources we were able to

07:24utilize. So the net impact to the

07:26general fund budget is 2.2 million.

07:32So the summary with new programs um we

07:35have a surplus of 1.5 million. We're

07:38using um surplus with new programs and

07:41dedicated funding and then the

07:43recommended general fund reserves for

07:44other onetime costs.

07:46So we have a surplus of 1.5.

07:51>> Amy,

07:52>> I'm sorry. Can you explain to the group

07:56if you could go back

08:00the

08:03you I called it savings on the earlier

08:07and you clarified that which I

08:09appreciate but I think maybe make go

08:12into that a little bit for the committee

08:15members when we're pulling from general

08:18fund reserves

08:22where that comes from.

08:24>> Sure. So at the usually every year we

08:28have been lucky that we've had a surplus

08:30at the end of the year when we're

08:31closing out our books. So same with 24

08:3425 we had a surplus. What we typically

08:37do with that is we always make sure that

08:38we keep that our unassigned fund

08:40balance. our goal is as our policy is

08:4320%. But because when we went through

08:45COVID and then knowing now um especially

08:48with the rating agency, they like the

08:50the percentage to be a little bit more.

08:51They're actually expecting 30%. So we've

08:53been slowly creeping up to that point.

08:55So we're at 29% right now and unassigned

08:58fund balance. So we always make that our

09:00first priority. And then anything left

09:02over after that we usually use towards

09:04um one-time expenses that we know were

09:08projects that we want to do or other

09:10one-time expenses. That is what those

09:13general fund reserves um are covering

09:17the assigned fund balance not

09:18unassigned. Does that make sense?

09:20>> So when I say you're taking it from

09:22savings, you're taking it from savings

09:25uh over and above the uh uh 29%.

09:30That's correct.

09:32>> Okay.

09:34>> Any other questions on this?

09:38All right. Just notable new programs

09:40that we funded for fire. They've been

09:42asking for a health and well health and

09:45wellness initiative. This is an onseene

09:47decontamination equipment that will

09:49allow them to clean their equipment um

09:52offsite right after a fire, whatever

09:54they're working on. So they do not have

09:56to bring the contaminated

09:58um equipment back to the station.

10:02They have also been asking for a

10:04response squad which we're we are

10:06funding that that will be a unit that is

10:09in a a smaller truck, not a big fire

10:12truck that goes around and responds to

10:14accidents and things like that where

10:16they don't necessarily need to bring out

10:18a a fire truck to do so. and then a

10:20mobile training program that'll allow

10:22them to go to the stations to provide

10:24training to firefighters rather than

10:26them always trying to come downtown to

10:29do training. For police, we are funding

10:34a traffic unit, initial traffic unit,

10:37which will consist of one sergeant and

10:39two police officers and then also

10:41additional school resource officer

10:43staffing which will include one sergeant

10:45and two police officers. For parks,

10:48we're in adding an urban forestry clue

10:50crew. Sorry, not clue, but a crew. Um,

10:53public service, a pothole repair crew,

10:55and then we are including pedestrian

10:58safety improvements as well in this bud

11:01in 2027 budget.

11:06Any questions on any of that?

11:12Okay.

11:14So, with all of that, we have a $1.5

11:17million surplus, which we would have

11:20available for employee compensation

11:22because we have not addressed employee

11:24compensation yet. That would only

11:27provide about a $600 increase per

11:29employee for our approximate two 2,000

11:31employees. That's after benefit costs.

11:34And that's using nonsworn, not sworn. it

11:37would be a little bit less for swarm

11:38because their force's retirement

11:40percentage is higher. So we would need

11:43additional revenue in order to provide

11:45meaningful compensation increases for

11:48our employees.

11:51So one potential potential

11:53>> source we consider is increasing parking

11:57rates. Right now our garages and on

12:00street parking rates are $1 for every 20

12:03minutes which equals $3 an hour.

12:06We could increase the rates to $1 every

12:0815 minutes, which would be $4 an hour,

12:11which would pro project about a $4.55

12:15million increase in parking revenue. And

12:18it's broken up in between garages and on

12:20street parking. This projection already

12:23accounts for a parking discount for

12:25residents that's being comp contemplated

12:28and worked on right now. and then um

12:31increasing to $4 an hour. We would we

12:34remain competitive with nearby private

12:36garages.

12:40Any questions on that

12:44or comments?

12:47>> I've got a question about the um

12:51do we have we we're working on the

12:53discount for residents. Do we have a a

12:57general idea what that discount will be?

13:01>> Basically that like it would stay the

13:04same for residents. Um, we're trying to

13:07do a uh uh an analysis on what that

13:11might mean to the projected revenue

13:14because it's

13:17now we have the license plate readers

13:20that can uh determine

13:24um you know where a car is from, but we

13:30don't want to get it we can't get into

13:31like personal data. So, in order to to

13:35do this, you would need to in all

13:37likelihood register as a resident. And

13:39so, this wouldn't just be for downtown

13:42residents. It would be for any city

13:44resident. Um, so we're we're working on

13:49that detail, William. We excuse me,

13:51Councilman Tingler. Um,

13:53um

13:55uh but we don't have that fully flushed

13:58out yet.

14:00>> Thank you.

14:03Mayor, Council Member Sheileley has his

14:05hand up.

14:06>> Council member Sheileely.

14:08>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, Morton, wanted

14:11to check the when you were talking about

14:13um staff compensation. Is a COLA already

14:17factored into the budget or that would

14:19be for a cola?

14:21>> That would be Go ahead.

14:22>> No, go ahead, Mayor.

14:24>> That would be for a COLA and

14:26compensation. So

14:29um you know we have a comp study that

14:34tells us we need to

14:37pay more towards um our employees. I

14:42mean not

14:44the range can be anywhere from you know

14:47a million to seven million and that is

14:52excluding a cola. So, we're trying to

14:56differentiate between,

14:58you know, what additional revenues there

15:00might be, how we could get there, and

15:04how that breakdown between just cost of

15:07living, which would be spread across

15:09everyone, or um more specific to the

15:14compensation study. uh because that gets

15:18people in their right pay grades and

15:21wouldn't be that component of it

15:23wouldn't be necessarily given to every

15:26employee. So,

15:28we're working on different scenarios on

15:30how to break that up based on the third

15:33party consultants recommendations.

15:36Um and then, you know, figuring out how

15:38much money we have to deal with. um

15:40which kind of comes back to

15:44um I if we want to raise additional

15:47revenues through things like uh this

15:51parking increase.

15:54>> Okay, thank you.

15:56Which brings me to the next slide that

15:58if we did increase the parking rates

16:00that would provide a surplus of $6,85,54

16:05that we could use to fund compensation

16:07increases.

16:09That's just the summary there.

16:11[clears throat]

16:12>> And and just for full perspective, Amy,

16:15if you could go back four slides.

16:18So there's a compensation component.

16:22One more back.

16:27Um,

16:29well, hang on. Where was the We're

16:31talking about the police, fire,

16:33pedestrian safety, urban forestry.

16:37There we go. So, all total, Amy, this is

16:43remind me the the new programs that's on

16:46the slide previous

16:50>> 5.5 million, but we had 3 almost 3.4 4

16:53million dedicated. So 679 total.

16:57>> Yeah. So we have another way of looking

17:00at it is we have

17:04you know five plus million dollars in I

17:07think important new programming things

17:09that we've talked about the potholes

17:11crew the urban forestry crew and the

17:15pedestrian safety that you know a lot of

17:17people uh have a you know understandable

17:20concerns for. Um and then these two

17:23things with police and fire which are

17:25are pretty essential I would say and

17:27argue.

17:29Um so you know we've got that five and a

17:32half and then that really doesn't leave

17:34us anything for employee compensation

17:36except for that million five unless we

17:39figure out additional revenues. So

17:42Councilman Were you had a question?

17:45>> Uh yeah thank you Mr. Mayor. Uh I mean I

17:48I agree with the parking you know

17:50suggestions or recommendations here. Um

17:53I'm just wondering have in the

17:56discussions on generating different

17:58revenues in this case parking have we

18:03discussed uh you and staff discussed I

18:06don't know maybe a parking permit for

18:09example people west Ashley I don't know

18:11when we go downtown which there are many

18:14of us uh we always struggle to find

18:18parking on the street I was just

18:21wondering does it make any sense to They

18:22have a permit such that um I've got one

18:26on my truck. I go and I park and it's

18:28good for I don't know two hours or

18:29whatever. But when our people come and

18:32mark the you know mark the uh tires or

18:34whatever. So, we talked a little bit

18:36about that right before you got on, I

18:38think. Okay. And and what we're what

18:40we're studying and we don't know the

18:42financial

18:44impacts on this because it's hard to

18:46hard to assess because you don't know

18:49how many people like you what you're

18:51talking about are coming downtown or it

18:53is doing a discount, not a free parking,

18:56but a discount for residents. Um they

18:59could either be, you know, at minimum it

19:01would not be any increase like what

19:03we're talking about, but maybe there's

19:05opportunities for

19:07um some level of free parking. Um

19:10>> well, I'm not really saying I'm not

19:12suggesting a discount. It's more

19:14convenient. You know, as as we age, uh

19:17sometimes you don't feel like fooling up

19:19with paying with something on your cell

19:21phone. So,

19:23>> you know, number one, it gives the city

19:25money up front. So, if I pay for annual

19:28parking pass, um, and then if I come,

19:32fine. I get to use it. If I don't come,

19:34the city has the revenue. Um, but I know

19:37I have to

19:38>> I see what you're saying. I see what

19:39you're saying. Yeah. Interesting. Um,

19:42that that's a that's another alternative

19:43that I think would be worth looking

19:47into. Um, again, trying to figure out

19:50ways to generate more revenue off of

19:53parking, but really put the burden more

19:56on visitors than uh our residents. And

19:59and that's broadly speaking, all

20:02residents, not just peninsula residents.

20:06>> And um we'll probably end up just if we

20:09want to go this route, there'll be some

20:12risk associated with it. We'll have to

20:14track it. we have the op the the

20:16capacity now with the um the uh plate

20:21readers to do that. Um and I think you

20:25know hopefully this is something that we

20:28can explore different ideas and concepts

20:31like this that make it more convenient

20:33for residents but you know put more a

20:36little a little bit more of the burden

20:37on on the visitors because a lot of

20:39these costs associated are you know

20:42driven by visitors.

20:44>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're right.

20:48Okay.

20:51All righty.

20:52Um so in just talking about employee

20:55compensation um compensation study is

20:57still being finalized like we discussed

21:00with the parking rate increase we would

21:01have six approximately 6.1 million

21:03available for compensation adjustments

21:06and just so you know what we've

21:07accomplished already in 2026 with a

21:11compensation study was phase one where

21:14we established new paygrades and put

21:17employees into those new pay payrades

21:19and made sure that all of them were at

21:22least at their grade minimums and that

21:24cost us around $440,000

21:27and then also we um allocated bonuses

21:30that were paid in October based on

21:32performance in the amount of $5 million

21:36>> plus we did a cola y call last year

21:38which again is important

21:40>> um but it's you know

21:43>> cost us money too. [laughter]

21:45>> Yeah.

21:53So,

21:53>> so go ahead.

21:56>> Oh, go ahead.

21:57>> Well, just things to consider uh for

22:00this for our November 9th meeting with

22:05the full council is,

22:09you know,

22:11kind of are we good with the Well, one,

22:16we we have a tight budget this year.

22:18again, two years in a row where we have

22:21that seven plus percent uh growth in in

22:25uncontrollable expenses is

22:28um

22:30kind of a a sock in the gut, right?

22:32Especially when we're trying to

22:34implement this compensation study um or

22:38plan. And we have other needs that are

22:42pretty critical as like the public

22:43safety, the pedestrian safety that I

22:46think you know residents not just on the

22:48peninsula but all over the city are are

22:51clamoring for. And even that's still not

22:53a ton of money. It's the it's the

22:55million dollars that has been requested.

22:59And then the the pothole um crew and

23:04then the urban forestry. I mean, those

23:06are two things that um

23:09residents seem to really want and

23:12frankly we need um just given how far

23:16behind DOT is and the fact that our

23:18urban forestry manages 70,000 trees

23:21which is kind of unheard of

23:23um in an urban uh uh

23:27in any other city frankly.

23:30So,

23:32um, you know, really it boils down to

23:35the compensation, which I'm a big

23:37believer in just in terms of retention

23:40and affordability and keeping good

23:42staff. Um,

23:45we got to zero in on some of the

23:47details. Uh, and I'm hoping to have a

23:50little bit more to report to you all on

23:53how that exactly might be broken down

23:55between COLA versus compensation. again

23:59cola would be given to employees kind of

24:02across the board and we would have

24:04absolutely a component of that but then

24:08what's the balance that could be left

24:10over for um the compensation and again

24:13it's not going to get us all the way

24:15there to the what's what's recommended

24:18but it'll you know put a decent dent in

24:20it and it'll because of extenduating

24:23circumstances we may need to we would

24:26need to implement it over a a to um a

24:30two-year parazen versus at one um in one

24:35given year.

24:38>> Mr. Mayor,

24:40>> Mr. Mayor, um I I hear you on how far

24:43out of budget I mean, how far out of

24:45balance

24:46are we at this phase? I know we still

24:49got some more elbow work to put into it,

24:51but I mean

24:51>> without without um without

24:55increasing that revenue, uh we're $6

24:58million off.

25:00>> Okay. And

25:01>> um

25:02>> can I just jump in? I'm sorry for a

25:04second. So, right now we have the $6

25:06million that would be allocated toward

25:07the compensation study. If we don't do

25:09the parking revenue, then we would only

25:11have about $1 million to utilize towards

25:14employee compensation. So right now

25:17we're we're balanced council member

25:18wearing.

25:19>> Okay. But I mean

25:20>> but with the parking increase, right?

25:22>> With the parking or even without it,

25:24right? I mean, but then the the

25:27incensation would be very very nominal.

25:31>> Yes. Yeah. But I mean hopefully keeping

25:33our people current. Um

25:37um what's the number that we need to do

25:40that? You know, the compensation, cost

25:42of living, all that kind of stuff. What

25:44what do we need to go with the cola, but

25:47I mean it would be, you know, if we have

25:49a million dollars right now without

25:51raising, we probably I think last year

25:53we did $3 million cola.

25:56>> Um so, you know, we could do

26:02so in that scenario, council member

26:04Wearing, we would be able to without

26:07raising revenue, we would be able to

26:08deliver onethird of that cost of living.

26:12We need another two million to do what

26:14we did last year and no money towards

26:16the compensation study.

26:18>> Well, see, again, I I just and I think

26:21you agree. Um

26:24um not addressing those items.

26:28Um I think it's just unintelligent on

26:31behalf of the city if we were to if

26:33council were to do that, all 13 of us

26:35were to do that. Uh we got a growing

26:38city. We got a professional staff that

26:41one of the best benefits we have is some

26:44of the things that's never shown in the

26:46budget things that they save us

26:48throughout the year through this

26:49process. Uh you you see that effort. Uh

26:53that said

26:55>> um you know this city for over 20 years

26:57has given that u 100% back on local

27:01option sales tax. So, hypothetically, if

27:04we needed a a millage increase and we

27:07give back, we continue to give back the

27:10100%

27:11um local option sales tax,

27:15the growth in that will eventually

27:18mitigate maybe not in the first year,

27:21but mitigate uh the millage increase if

27:24if there is one. So I just don't

27:25understand how uh if a member of the

27:28public feels that inflation isffect

27:30affecting families, what makes you think

27:32inflation doesn't affect your

27:34government,

27:36>> right?

27:37>> Inflation affects us too. And how do you

27:39come? That's why I think instead of a

27:41millage increase, I'd be much more

27:43inclined to do the parking increase with

27:45the resident discount because that's

27:49where you're going to have mostly

27:50visitors paying for it or targeted

27:52visitors versus millage increases is

27:54going to be 100% on the the uh

27:56>> yeah the property tax property tax on

27:58but so as I understand it and correct me

28:01if I'm wrong because I I I don't have

28:03shity on what I'm saying about to say um

28:08uh the parking revenue venue. Does

28:09>> it

28:11we able to do the cost of living and the

28:13compensation study with the park?

28:16>> Well, not fully the compensation study,

28:18but a a good dent to it and then we

28:21could implement the balance of it next

28:23year.

28:23>> Okay. And what would be

28:26uh you wasn't ready for this question. I

28:28didn't know I was going to ask what I'm

28:29getting ready to ask. What part of the

28:31study can be deferred into a second

28:34year? It basically would be, you know,

28:37the compensation studies targeting

28:39somewhere between,

28:43you know, it depends on what there's

28:46some some nuances and I don't need to

28:49get into the weeds on this, but happy to

28:51talk with you offline about it, but

28:53>> it could be anywhere from six to$10

28:55million is what the recommendation is,

28:57depending on

28:59>> how much we want to ship to people in

29:01their grade,

29:02>> right? Um, and they're, you know, it

29:04starts to get a little bit confusing to

29:06me if I'm very honest with you, but I

29:09mean that's kind of the range of numbers

29:11based on the consultant's

29:12recommendation. So, let's just say it's

29:15$7 million, right?

29:17>> Right. Um, if we have $6 million that

29:22with the parking increase,

29:25three of it could go, and I'm just

29:26speaking hypothetically, three of it

29:28could go to general cost of living

29:29across the entire employee base, which

29:32is what we did last year, and then three

29:35and a half of it could go um uh towards

29:39the compensation study, leaving another

29:42four million that we would target to do

29:44next year.

29:46>> Okay. All right. Is there a cost to the

29:48city

29:51if we defer in this example, I know it's

29:55hypothetic, $4 million into next year.

29:57In other words, if we had it this year,

29:59are they increase efficiencies that

30:01actually uh would result in savings to

30:04the city? I no, I mean, it's really just

30:07getting people more in line with what

30:10they're

30:12um

30:15a little bit higher up in their existing

30:17pay grade. I mean, there they're there

30:18with we we did move every get everybody

30:20into the pay grade so that we're not

30:23>> we're not no employees below the pay

30:26grade, right? that [clears throat] was

30:28what we did last year as well as give a

30:31pretty big, as Annie mentioned, $5

30:33million performance-based bonus. Um,

30:37>> so we've been honoring the commitment to

30:41pay our employees.

30:43Uh, and it has been very much a priority

30:46of this council and this administration

30:48and BFRC.

30:50So, I don't think it's the end of the

30:52world that we can't do the full

30:55implementation and it doesn't really

30:57cost us anything. And the only reason,

31:00candidly, we're not doing it is because

31:02we got that 7%

31:06uh 7.2%

31:09um uh uncontrollable expenses that was

31:13for a second year in a row. I mean, she

31:15was just hopefully unusual, but you

31:19know, you never know.

31:22>> Okay.

31:23All right. And then just one other point

31:26to your you know I'm not trying to pour

31:30salt on the wound but you know I just do

31:33want the committee to fully understand

31:35that you know we're we're funding I

31:38think Amy you said on the new programs

31:40which is the ped safety and the um the

31:44police and fire and the urban forestry

31:46and the pothole group. You know, that's

31:50roughly five and a half million dollars

31:52in expenditures,

31:54but the request from staff was 25

31:57>> 28

31:59>> 28. So, I mean it's it's they're not

32:03getting a lot for Christmas this year, I

32:05guess, is a

32:08>> that's just, you know, so that we can

32:10give more on compensation

32:13um and do these basics, but it's also

32:15because of just our the macro economic

32:18pressures that we just don't have a lot

32:21of control over.

32:24>> Okay,

32:26>> any other questions from any of the

32:28other committee members?

32:33Okay. So, go ahead.

32:36>> Um, so on Monday, we're having a full

32:39council workshop and if everybody is

32:43okay with this plan with the parking

32:45rate increases, this is what we will

32:47present on Monday as draft budget to

32:49full counsel.

32:52>> So, do we need to take a vote on that?

32:54>> No, you don't have to. I just I'm just

32:56saying that this is that's the next

32:57steps um would be that this would be the

33:00budget that we present on Monday in the

33:03full council budget workshop and then we

33:06have to have the advertisement to the

33:07paper on the 10th and you'll receive the

33:10draft budget. We have to have that to

33:11city council on November 17th.

33:16>> Okay. Any other questions from committee

33:20members on that timeline? And um or any

33:25other thoughts on

33:27the

33:28you know Amy's point on just keeping the

33:32parking in there with the assumption we

33:34will flush out um a resident

33:38discount if you will to to try and

33:40target more visitors.

33:45>> I'm good.

33:47>> Okay. Um

33:49>> I Mr. I mean, I have something

33:51uh and it's something we need to deal

33:53with, I think, before the end of the

33:55year. And I don't think it affects this

33:58this budget, but you know, we that storm

34:01water fee um discount, I guess, call it

34:06discount when people reach 65. Not uh

34:09>> homestead.

34:10>> No, no, something like a homestead, but

34:12when you reach 65 in the city of

34:14Charleston, if you want to opt out, uh

34:18you could. And obviously people 65 and

34:21older, they want their dishes clean.

34:23They want their u pipes cleaned and

34:26things like that. So, um I know we want

34:31to work on a discount. We need to modify

34:33that and I and the county treasur has

34:37reached out because right now people

34:40come up when they reach 65 and you know,

34:42hey, I want my discount and obviously

34:44they do get it. We we afford it. But

34:47that's something that was put in place,

34:49I don't know, 25 years ago, and the city

34:52wasn't flooding 25 years ago the way it

34:55does today. I mean, we weren't having,

34:58you know, 80 80 between 80 and 90, you

35:01know, uh, uh, sunny sunny flooding days.

35:06So as the as the earth frankly has

35:08changed uh and as the aging of America

35:12takes place uh baby baby baby boomer I

35:15forget how many every day turn 65

35:18um

35:20we got rising costs on storm water uh

35:23solutions and we put a funding form in

35:27place that actually reduces the income

35:30to pay for it as people age. Um, now

35:34last year we kind of kicked the can down

35:36the road on that and kind of kept it in

35:38place, but we definitely need to kind of

35:41come what the discount's going to be. Is

35:43it going to be zero? Is it going to be a

35:4720% deduction? uh but uh uh keeping it

35:51at zero eventually uh

35:54uh we we're just not going to have

35:56enough cash to continue to pay for storm

35:59water maintenance for one thing and

36:01solutions on the other hand.

36:05So, I mean, how would we do

36:08is there a way to

36:11determine how much what that would mean

36:15>> that wouldn't affect this budget at all,

36:17mayor, that our budget and I know Mr.

36:20Fton and I have talked about this um

36:22council member Wearing in terms of

36:23coming up with a policy. I don't know

36:25that we could do it by the end of the

36:27year that it would affect these tax

36:28bills because the tax bills are already

36:30out. Um, so it might be something that

36:33we work on early in place for ne for

36:35next year. But

36:37>> if we if we did do something um and so

36:41then the decrease or the the credits

36:43weren't as high. That would just be

36:45additional revenue that went to the

36:46storm water fund, right? We I don't know

36:48that we would necessarily have to worry

36:49about the budget itself, if that makes

36:52sense.

36:53>> Yeah. Yeah. I know it's a different

36:54bucket. Yeah. I didn't mean when I mean

36:57I didn't mean implement something by the

36:59end. and then come up with a what's the

37:01what is it going to be by the end of the

37:03year because we were at the same point

37:05last year and we thought well in the

37:08next 12 months we'll figure out what the

37:10what's the solution and uh you know some

37:14you know how many balls we got juggling

37:16so I mean got so many things going on

37:18>> right

37:18>> so I just kind of want to get a process

37:21in place and you know home state

37:23exemption you turn 65 you you get what

37:26the first 50,000 of your house

37:28>> discount I don't know if we can find

37:31some kind of way similar but a discount

37:34but zero um shouldn't be the answer.

37:37>> I know that Mr. Done has we've been

37:40talking about the council wearing so

37:42I'll circle back with him and then we'll

37:44get back to you.

37:45>> All right. Thank you. [clears throat]

37:48>> Okay. Any other questions or comments

37:51from committee members

37:54before we break up? All right. So unless

37:58I hear differently from anyone, this is

38:01this general breakdown uh is what we'll

38:04propose

38:06to the larger council on

38:10um Monday and we'll give a more detailed

38:13breakdown on how that specifically that

38:17$6 million

38:19roughly would be broken up between

38:22general cost of living and um the

38:26compensation. study.

38:29>> All right, Amy, what else you got?

38:31>> Just a couple of announcements. You know

38:33that we were procuring bonds and I met

38:36with we met with the rating agencies

38:38last week. So, we did get our ratings

38:40Moody's AAA

38:43maintaining AA1 for our installment

38:45purchase revenue bonds and those are

38:46some of the quotes that they had in the

38:48report.

38:51>> Wow, that's great. I mean, that's great.

38:53>> Yeah,

38:54>> that's great. I I can't stress enough

38:56how important I think that is to tell

38:59your constituents just because Amy does

39:01and her team do a hell of a job. You all

39:04have done a hell of a job. Council

39:05members that have been um around for a

39:08while. Not all not a lot of cities can

39:12can uh can you know

39:17have this kind of blue ribbon rating.

39:20So, it's something to be proud of. And

39:23that's S&P the next one. So I'm sorry

39:26whoever was talking. I didn't

39:28>> it's seeking I was just say and mayor as

39:29a practical matter it saves us money and

39:31a lot of it as we continue to do it

39:33every year. Every time we borrow money

39:34we borrow at a much lower rate than most

39:36other cities, counties, jurisdictions

39:38around the country. So really great

39:40work. Well, it has a rippling. It has a

39:43rippling effect also because with the

39:45city having a AAA credit rating, uh the

39:49biggest utility re regional utility

39:52anyway, water and sewer, it helps CPW

39:56maintain a triple uh credit rating when

40:00they come to borrow money, which we know

40:02we back their bonds. So, uh, if CPW has

40:06to borrow at a higher rate, uh, it it

40:09affects our constituents

40:11and their water and sewer bills. They

40:13have a AAA credit rating. They do a

40:15great job. We have a AAA credit rating.

40:18So, it's a it's a compounding effect of

40:20savings.

40:23It really is.

40:25>> Agreed.

40:26>> That's all I have unless anybody has um

40:29any questions.

40:31>> It's a good note to end on. I like the

40:35>> I was trying to do the Thanksgiving

40:37colors. Council worries. We're not

40:38really meeting. [laughter]

40:42>> Is that a turkey?

40:45>> I was going to put a turkey in, but I

40:47decided not to.

40:50>> Um, all right guys, if there are no

40:52further questions, appreciate everybody

40:53joining. We'll see everybody on Monday

40:55for the larger workshop

```*