Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order, Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance]

[00:00:07]

>> GOOD MORNING. IT'S 8:30 A.M.

TUESDAY AUGUST 30TH. I CALL THIS WORKSHOP TO SESSION FOR THE MIDLOTHIAN CITY COUNCIL.

WAYNE SIBLEY WILL LEAVE US IN THE INVOCATION AND THE

PLEDGES. >> LET'S PRAY.

>> DEAR LORD LET'S TAKE THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY THANK YOU FOR THE RAIN YOU'VE BEGIN US LATELY AND THANK YOU FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME TOGETHER TO DO BUSINESS FOR THIS CITY IN THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY. TODAY IS CRITICAL TIME, EVERY DAY SEEMS LIKE A CRITICAL TIME WITH THE COUNCIL AND ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. WE ASK YOU LORD THAT YOU BE WITH US. WATCH OVER US, PROTECT US, AND FORGIVE US OF OUR SINS. IN JESUS NAME, AMEN.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UN-GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

[2022-372]

>> AGENDA ITEM 2022-372 CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

IF THERE ARE ANY CITIZENS TO BE HEARD, TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP?

NO ONE IS SIGN UNDER. >> LISA, IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

THE BUTTON AND -- THERE YOU GO.

>> HELLO. >> LISA HEALEY 418MULLIGAN DRIVE. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY.

I'M JUST GOING TO REITERATE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I SENT OVER IN MY E-MAIL. TODAY IF YOU COULD REALLY JUST BE SUPER DISCERNING ON THE INFORMATION YOU RECEIVE.

MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR, CONCISE, THAT HARD NUMBERS ARE ATTACHED TO EVERYTHING. PLEASE ASK FOR DIFFERENT OPTIONS WITH THE DIFFERENT TAX RATES, AND NOT JUST ALWAYS GOING TO RESTRUCTURING OUR DEBT.

BECAUSE HONESTLY I FEEL LIKE THERE ARE SOME PLACES WE COULD LOOK AT IF WE WENT THROUGH THE BUDGET ON THE MNO SIDE. I KNOW IT'S A VERY DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN PROVIDING THE SERVICES THAT EVERYONE IS ACCUSTOMED TO HERE IN MIDLOTHIAN AND TRYING TO GET TO THAT NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE.

I KNOW YOU FEEL LIKE A LOT OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE TO THIS POINT BUT I THINK THAT WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE DOESN'T HAVE THE PROPER FOUNDATION BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WASN'T ACCURATE.

AND IF WE COULD GO BACK AND ALMOST START AT THE BEGINNING, I THINK THERE WERE SOME REALLY GREAT QUESTIONS ASKED AT THE LAST WORKSHOP, ESPECIALLY SURROUNDING STAFF AND THE PROJECTS.

CAN WE PHASE PROJECTS. GOOD LUCK TODAY.

I HOPE IT'S A VERY SUCCESSFUL WORKSHOP.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[2022-373]

>> 2022-372. CITY OF MID MIRANDA GENERAL FUND UTILITY FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, AND COMPONENT UNIT PROPOSED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS AND RELATEDED FINANCIAL MATTERS AND DIRECT STAFF AS NECESSARY. COUNCIL, PLEASE NOTE I BELIEVE THAT THE SINGLER MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO DIRECT STAFF RELATIVE TO THE OVERALL TAX RATE AND RELATED TOPICS.

THIS IS TO SET THE STAGE FOR OUR SEPTEMBER 6TH PUBLIC HEARING. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO COUNCIL FOR COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND OR OTHER

[00:05:08]

THOUGHTS. >> I WILL START OFF BY THANKING CHRIS FOR THE TABLE YOU SENT OVER LAST THURSDAY OR FRIDAY. I FOUND THAT VERY HELPFUL IN MAKING SOME DETERMINATIONS. WITH THAT, I WILL JUST REVIEW THAT TABLE AND GIVE YOU MY PREFERENCE ON WHICH OPTION. I STILL WOULD LIKE TO SEE US FIND RATE TO LOWER A LITTLE BIT.

TO DO SO WHICH CHOOSING OPTION NUMBER FOUR, WHICH WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 660,000 OUT OF THE MNO SIDE.

WHETHER THAT BE TRUE THE ADDED STAFF POSITIONS THAT COUNCIL RECOMMENDED OR OTHERWISE.

THAT WOULD GIVE US A NO NEW REVENUE RATE ON THE MNO SIDE. ON THE DEBT SIDE OF THE TAX RATE I FEEL LIKE THE VOTERS, SPOKE WHENEVER THEY APPROVED THOSE BONDS. I'M GOOD WITH LEAVING THE DEBT SIDE WHERE IT SITS. BUT REVISITING THE IDEA OF DROPPING THE MNO SIDE, $660,000 TO HIT THAT NUMBER.

>> I WILL ADD THAT, THAT ACCORDING TO THE TABLE HE GAVE US THAT WOULDN'T DRASTICALLY IMPACT THE COMBINED PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF THE DEBT

SERVICE. >> MY QUESTIONS FOR CHRIS.

IF WE DID OPTION NUMBER FOUR, 660,000, I ASSUME WOULD COME OUT OF GENERAL FUND.

SORRY, WALTER, UNUSED FUND BALANCE?

>> YEAH. AND SO AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT WE'RE 2.4 MILLION OUT -- 2.5 SO ANOTHER $600,000 ON TOP OF THAT, THAT WE WOULD BE SHORT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. SHORT OF THE BUDGET THAT WE'RE TAKING OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. IF NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO EXPENDITURE SIDE AND YOU LOWERED THE TAX RATE, EQUAL TO THE 660, PROBABLY LOWER THE FUND BALANCE ABOUT

ANOTHER ROUGHLY FIVE DAYS. >> SO ON THE FIVE DAYS, WHAT

WOULD THAT LEAVE US AT? >> AS THE BUDGET IS PROPOSED TODAY. IT'S ABOUT 190 DAYS.

SO ABOUT 185. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT OTHER USES OF FUND BALANCE FOR PROJECTS, ET CETERA. THAT'S JUST BASED ON THE BUDGET THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.

>> OKAY. >> IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE

PROPOSING CLARK? >> NO.

>> I'M PROPOSING THAT WE STICK WITH THE RATE THAT WE'VE LOWERED TO FROM 605 TO 603 BECAUSE OF THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING TO REQUIRE USE OF FUND BALANCE.

I'M A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS TO KEEP TAKING FROM FUND BALANCE WHEN I KNOW WE HAVE OTHER PROJECTS COMING DOWN THE PIPE. COUNCIL?

>> WAYNE? >> I AGREE WITH WHAT CLARK JUST SAID. [INAUDIBLE] I TOO AGREE WITH WAYNE AND CLARK THAT WE SHOULD HOLD TO WHY WE SIT AT THE MAX TAX RATE OF 6.663 AND THAT'S THE TAX RATE WE SHOULD SET GOING FORWARD AND WITH THAT ALSO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE FOR MNO.

>> ANY COMMENT, MAYOR? >> THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS THEN TAKING IT OUT OF THE FUND BALANCE.

WE COULD PULL OUR PENCILS OUT AND SHARPEN THEM AND GO THROUGH THE BUDGET AGAIN OR WE COULD CONSIDER REMOVING THOSE POSITIONS THAT WE ADDED.

I'M JUST OFFERING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE 660K.

>> I'M NOT AGAINST GOING BACK THROUGH THE BUDGET.

I WILL ORDER MOVING THOSE POSITIONS.

BUT I'M STILL TORN ON THAT. BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH WALTER IN THE SENSE OF I HATE TO MOVE POSITIONS ON ALREADY UNDERSTAFFED STAFF. ON THAT ONE I'M SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE. I'M NOT AGAINST GOING BACK THROUGH THE BUDGET AND TRYING TO TRIM IF THERE'S

[00:10:07]

PLACES TO TRIM. >> WALTER?

>> I JUST SAY THERE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE MONEY WE WANT TO SPEND MONEY ON. AND NEVER SEEMS TO BE MONEY FOR THINGS WE DON'T. I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF MOVING THE 6 STAFF POSITIONS REGARDLESS OF HOW THE TAX

RATE IS SET. >> RELATIVE TO THIS -- I BELIEVE IT'S WE STARTED WITH 6, BUT WE LEFT FIVE NEW STAFF POSITIONS IN PLACE, NOT SIX.

WOULD YOU DELINEATE THE FIVE.

THE SIXTH AND THE SIXTH WASN'T IT THAT WE DIDN'T

MOVE FORWARD WITH. >> THE FIVE THAT I GOT WERE TO ADD BACK THE FINANCIAL ANALYST, ADD A NEW ZONING INSPECTOR POSITION, PUT BACK IN THE OPS MANAGER, ADD A REC COORDINATOR. AND ADD BACK THE IT STAFF TECH 1. AIN'T THE POSITION WE TALKED ABOUT BUT DIDN'T PUT IN WAS THE GRANT WRITER.

THAT'S THE SIXTH ONE THAT WE DIDN'T PUT IN.

>> IS THERE THE REC COORDINATAR PARKS REC ASSISTANCE OR IS THAT THE SAME?

>> IT'S KIND OF ONE IN THE SAME.

THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME CONFUSION.

I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY WE PUT IN THE REC COORDINATOR. THAT'S A NEW FROM --

>> I'M SORRY. THE REC COORDINATOR.

>> THEY DID REQUEST THE REC ASSISTANCE STAFF.

IT'S KIND OF GETTING WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR.

>> YEAH. THERE WAS KIND OF A COMBINED SPECIAL EVENTS AND REC ASSISTANT BUT THE REC COORDINATOR WAS TALKED ABOUT.

I DON'T KNOW THEY ARE ONE IN THE SAME.

I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY SOME OVERLAP.

ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION.

>> AND THAT WAS ROUGHLY 600,000.

>> YEAH. >> ACTUALLY 538,754 FOR

THOSE FIVE. >> COUNCIL, AND FOR CLARITY SAKE, THE FIVE POSITIONS THAT CITY MANAGER NAMED AT 538, HOW MANY WISH TO CONTINUE WITH THOSE? HOW MANY WISH TO CONTINUE WITH THOSE FIVE, WAYNE, WALTER, JUSTIN? [INAUDIBLE] I FEEL LIKE IT'S ODD WHEN STAFF IS ASKING FOR CERTAIN POSITIONS AND WE SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THESE POSITIONS BUT WE ARE GOING TO CREATE OUR OWN, IE THE ZONING COORDINATOR AND THE REC COORDINATOR.

I WOULD PROBABLY CUT THE LIST IN HALF.

AND BUT I'M ALSO -- I'M FOR ADDING STAFF AND MAYBE TAKING AWAY ELSEWHERE. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE ZONING COORDINATOR. I'M GOOD WITH THE OTHERS.

>> SAME WITH THE TOPIC OF THE FIVE POSITIONS, WE HAVE A SPLIT VOTE RIGHT NOW. AS TO WHETHER LEAVE THEM IN

ALL OR PART. >> I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE JUSTIN'S SECOND APPROACH AND SHARPEN THE PENCIL AND GO

BACK THROUGH THE BUDGET. >> I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP ALL FIVE AND FIND THE MONEY ELSEWHERE.

>> DAVID? >> WAYNE AND WALTER, I'M SORRY, CLARK. HOW DID YOU -- WHERE DO YOU

LEAD? >> I'M PRETTY DOWN THE MIDDLE ON THAT ONE. I'M PROBABLY LANDING TOWARD KEEPING THE STAFF. THE ONLY ONE I SUGGEST WAS THE ZONING COORDINATOR. ON ONE HALF, I REALLY THINK IT'S A NEED. BUT ON THE OTHER HALF FOR THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR. I'M PROBABLY 60% ON ALL THE

POSITIONS. >> I'M NOT A STICKLER ON THE ZONING COORDINATOR. IF THAT'S SPLITTING, I WOULD

GO FOR ADDING FIVE. >> RIGHT NOW, WE WILL -- COUNCIL IS STAYING WITH ADDING THE FIVE POSITIONS WE ADDED. AND NOW THE TOPIC OF CUTS ELSEWHERE IN THE BUDGET. COUNCIL?

[00:15:02]

>> I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY WHEN YOU SAY GO BACK THROUGH THE BUDGET AND FIND THE MONEY, YOU MEAN THE 660,000

OVER THE -- >> 538.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT 600,000 FOR TAX RATE OR 500

FOR THE STAFF. >> THAT'S THE LEAVER IN WHICH WE DECIDE THE FINAL SMALL PERCENTAGE OF OUR BUDGET EXPENDITURE, THEN I SAY WE KEEP THOSE POSITIONS

AND FIND IT ELSEWHERE. >> AS OPPOSED TO THE GENERAL

FUND. >> I WOULDN'T SAY AS OPPOSED TO. IF IT'S AN EITHER OR SITUATION, THEN WE GOT WORK TO DO.

BECAUSE STAFF SHOULD COME BEFORE SOME OF THE OTHER

SPENDING. >> THAT'S AN ORDER TO DO WHICH OPTION? WE'RE CUTTING 660 OR 530, WHICHEVER YOU CHOOSE OUT OF THE BUDGET INSTEAD OF GENERAL FUND. THAT'S AN ORDER SO WE CAN DO

WHAT? >> OPTION FOUR.

>> OPTION FOUR. >> OR OPTION ONE.

>> LET'S GO BACK THEN. HOW MANY COUNCIL IS IN FAVOR

OF OPTION 4? >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION TO SEE IF WE COULD GET THERE.

>> THAT'S MY PREFERENCE. >> WELL, THEN, AND SO IS -- IS ONE STRATEGY, CHRIS, IS ONE STRATEGY TO POTENTIALLY GET US TO OPTION FOUR BEING TIME SHIFTING SOME OF THAT ADDED POSITIONS OR SOME OF THE PAY INCREASES OR IS THERE SOMETHING IN STAFFING THAT MIGHT GET US CLOSE TO THAT 660,000? I KNOW WE CAN'T HIRE ALL NEW POSITIONS FROM DAY ONE. BUT TECHNICALLY WE'RE FUNDING THEM ALL FROM DAY ONE.

>> YOU CAN GENERATE SAVINGS THAT WAY BY DOING PARTIAL YEAR. THE ONLY CAUTION I PUT THERE YOU KNOW YOU ABSORB IT THE NEXT YEAR.

YOU WILL START WHATEVER THE GAP IS.

YOU HAVE TO ABSORB THOSE IMMEDIATELY NEXT YEAR.

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WILL BE ON -- WE'LL PUT THEM IN FOR A FULL YEAR. THAT'S A WAY TO GENERATE SOME SAVINGS FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

>> MAYOR, ARE THE RAISES GIVEN AT HIRE DATE?

>> TYPICALLY DONE IN OCTOBER IF THE PERSON IS NEW OR THEN PROMOTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE.

SOME WON'T BE ELIGIBLE. >> MOST OF IT IS IN OCTOBER.

>> HOW MUCH ON THE OUT OF WHAT WE'RE SHORT, HOW MUCH OF THAT ONE TIME EXPENSES AND HOW MUCH WILL BE

ROLLOVER FOR SALARIES? >> OF THE 2.5 MILLION? I WILL HAVE -- JUST KIND OF ROLLING THROUGH HERE PRETTY QUICK. 290,000 FOR THE FUEL SYSTEM.

THAT'S ONE TIME. 140,000 FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THAT'S ONCE.

50,000 VEHICLE. THE -- LET'S SEE, BODY CAMERAS, TRAFFIC UNIT, THAT'S ABOUT 63,000.

STREET REHAB IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST 4.1.

ALTHOUGH YOU NEED WORK GOING TO DO OTHER STREETS.

THERE'S 1.1 RIGHT THERE. >> HOW MUCH OF THAT STREET.

IS THAT THE -- BECAUSE LAST YEAR WHAT WAS OUR NORMAL BUDGET EXPENSE? I GUESS NOT LAST YEAR.

THE YEAR BEFORE FOR STREET REHAB.

I KNOW WE UPPED IT LAST YEAR.

ARE WE NORMALLY AROUND A MILLION.

>> WE BEEN HIGHER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

I THINK AROUND 2 AND A HALF. THIS YEAR IS LOWER.

>> THIS THE DECREASE TO WHAT WE NORMALLY DO?

>> WE ENTITY UP THE LAST FEW YEARS.

WE'RE KIND OF BACK CLOSER TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE.

WE DID RAMP IT UP OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

>> BACK TO ABSORBING THE COST OF THE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS DAY ONE OF NEXT YEAR, IT'S PRETTY FAIR ASSESSMENT THAT OUR OPERATING BUDGET AND OUR INCOME WILL INCREASE NEXT YEAR AS THEY HAVE LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR BEFORE; RIGHT? AS LONG AS THAT ADDED COST IS UNDERSTOOD ON A SLIDING SCALE, WOULD THAT BE A FAIR

STATEMENT? >> YES, IF OUR GROWTH IT WILL JUST ABSORB THAT -- WILL I USE 500,000.

[00:20:01]

WE DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER.

AS LONG AS HAVE THAT. THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT

GETS ABSORBED. >> I WILL ASK THE QUESTION.

I GUESS WHERE I'M HELD UP AT AND THE THING I WANT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND FROM OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS IS WE 6.75 RATE. WE AGREED TO 6.63.

THERE'S A TALK ABOUT LOWERING IT AGAIN.

I AGREE WITH LOWERING TAXES. I LOWERED EVERY YEAR I'VE BEEN ELECTED ACCEPT FOR ONE. WHAT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS BUDGET CYCLE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER.

NORMALLY WE START OFF BEGINNING AND WE STUCK WITH IT. ARE WE NOW LOWERING IT JUST TO LOWER IT. IF THE ARGUMENT WE SHOULD LOWER TAXES BECAUSE WE COLLECTED I AGREE WITH THAT.

HOWEVER, IF WE'RE SHORT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING SHORTER, AND MY CONCERN ISN'T SO MUCH OF OKAY WE CAN JUST TAKE OUT OF THE FUND BALANCE THIS YEAR.

IF WE KEEP TAKING OUT OF THE FUND BALANCE AND NOT REPLACING IT. SOME DAY THAT BILL WILL CALL. I KNOW.

I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY.

MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE MOTIVE FROM 6.3 TO 6.5.

I DON'T GET IT. IF IT'S OVERCOLLECTION.

WHERE? >> MAKING THE STATEMENT THAT WE'RE SHORT THIS YEAR, SO WE WILL COVER WITH THE FUND BALANCE AND THEN WE HAVE TO COVER IT GREATER NEXT YEAR AND BE AN EXPONENTIAL ISSUE IS INCORRECT WAY TO CARRY THE MATH FORWARD BECAUSE OF T THE INFLUX OF PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THE DIVERSIFICATION OF THE TAXING ENTITIES. THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE IN THE CURRENT CLIMATE WE HAVE IN OUR CITY THIS YEAR WE'RE TALKING A SUBSTANTIAL -- ATTEMPTING TO TAKE A SUBSTANTIAL STEP TOWARD CORRECTING YOUR TERMINOLOGY OF OVER COLLECTING TAXES, WHICH I CAN SUPPORT. I JUST SAY THAT THE -- TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF ARE WE LOWERING JUST TO LOWER IT. SOMEONE SAID WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A BIGGER CORRECTION WITH LOWERING

ADDITIONALLY. >> I AGREE WITH THAT.

ACCEPT WHEN YOU SAY OUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT.

WE ALL BEEN TALKING ABOUT CURRENT ENVIRONMENT OF SESSION. THAT MEANS DECREASE IN VALUATIONS. THAT WON'T BE NEXT YEAR.

IT WILL BE YEAR THREE. WE'RE ALWAYS A YEAR BEHIND.

WE'VE SEEN DEVELOPMENTS GO DOWN.

THE REASON THAT IT'S ONLY GOING RIGHT NOW IS BECAUSE THE ONES ON THE GROUND THEY'VE BORROWED THE MONEY; RIGHT? THEY HAVE TO FINISH WHAT THEY GOT ON THE GROUND. THEY'VE BORROWED THE DEBT.

WE SEEN A DECREASE IN NEW DEVELOPMENT END ZONING CASES COMING TO US. TO SAY THAT WE WILL HAVE A

GOOD YEAR NEXT YEAR IS -- >> JUST A DECREASE FROM THE HIGHEST POINT. WE SAW DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS. IT'S NOT A DECREASE OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS OR NINE YEARS.

>> MY STANDPOINT ALL ALONG -- TO REMOVE THE FIVE POSITIONS. WE'LL MOVE ON BUT I SEE THIS PROCESS AS POSSIBLY HAVING AN ALTERNATIVE TO REACHING THAT NUMBER JUST TO FLESH IT OUT MORE OR LESS.

AND I'M NOT A BIG ADVOCATE OR BIG FAN OF REDUCING OUR FUND BALANCE FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE TAX RATE.

BUT IF WE'RE ABLE TO FIND EITHER THROUGH DELAYS IN THE HIRING PROCESS OR REDUCTIONS WITHIN THE ACTUAL BUDGET PRESENTED, THEN IT WOULD BE AN ADVOCATE FOR LOWERING IT.

IF WE CAN'T FIND IT, I THINK IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS.

IF YOU CAN'T FIND IT, I WILL CONCEDE.

I WOULD LIKE TO FLUSH IT OUT FULLY.

>> MY CURIOUSITY WOULD BE FOR WALTER AND JUSTIN.

WHAT CHANGED IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS FROM WHEN WE WENT TO THE GROUP DECIDING ON THE 66.3 WE GOT NEW NUMBERS, BUT WHAT IN YOU ALLS MIND CHANGED.

IS IT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OR DID SOMETHING CHANGE?

>> NOTHING CHANGED IN MY MIND.

OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT I'M IN THE MINORITY ON THOSE FIVE POSITIONS. THOSE FIVE POSITIONS WOULD HAVE GIVEN US THAT NUMBER. THIS IS A WORK AROUND FOR ME TO SEE ABOUT LOWERING THE TAX RATE OVERALL.

EVEN THOUGH THE FIVE POSITIONS WILL STAY.

>> I DON'T KNOW. I WILL PROBABLY COUNTERDICT WHAT WE SAID EARLIER. I FEEL LIKE WHAT THEY HAVE

[00:25:05]

ASKED FOR AND WHAT HE'S CUT AND KEPT IN THE BALANCED BUDGET IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FIVE POSITIONS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING. IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A CUT, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN GO THROUGH IT AS THE GROUP. JUST FROM LOOKING I'M GOING, I DON'T KNOW, WHAT I WOULD CUT OUT OF THIS LIST.

I WOULD ALMOST CUT SOMETHING WE ADDED.

THESE SEEM LIKE MORE IMPORTANT ITEM THAN THE FIVE

POSITIONS. >> I THINK THAT WE IN REALITY ARE CUTTING JUST TO BE CUTTING.

WE'RE IN A PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY.

AS TO HOW THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO YEAR OR EVEN THREE YEARS GOING TO UNFOLD, I THINK THE STRATEGY, THE ECONOMIC POLICY THAT GOT US HERE IS THE ONE WE SHOULD GO FORWARD. THE IDEA THAT WE HOLD AT 66.3 AND WE MEET THE DEFICIT FROM THE FUND BALANCE THAT WE KEEP OUR POLICIES IN PLACE BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY WE HAVE AND WE DON'T WANT TO CUT THE SERVICES WE HAVE AND WE WANT TO FUND THE PROJECTS WE HAVE. I DON'T KNOW TO GO BACK THROUGH THE BUDGET AND START OVER I JUST DON'T THINK THAT

WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE TIME. >> ARE WE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THE INS SIDE OF THE TAX RATE? BASICALLY, VIRTUALLY RULING OUT OPTION TWO AND THREE BE

LOWERING? >> I'M IN AGREEMENT THERE.

COUNCIL? >> CAN YOU RESPOND TO

JUSTIN'S QUESTION? >> THAT WOULD NARROW US DOWN TO OPTION ONE OR FOUR. OPTION ONE BEING TO LEAVE AT 66.3 AND OPTION FOUR TO DO WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TO TRY TO FIND SPACE AND LOWER IT.

WAYNE, DO YOU AGREE WITH OPTION ONE OR FOUR?

>> THE ONE KEEPING 66.3. [INAUDIBLE] I WILL GO TO 66.3. THAT'S THE MOST WE CAN DO IS

WHERE WE ARE AT. >>.65.

I WILL SWING THAT. >> I WILL COME BACK.

>> IF WE COULD FIND 660K I WOULD LIKE TO BE AT .65.

>> LET'S SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP.

WE CAN FIND IT. >> WE'RE ALREADY HERE.

>> I WILL PULL THE DEPARTMENTS BACK OPEN.

>> LET'S PULL IT OPEN. >> LET'S DO IT.

>> I DO FEEL LIKE I FEEL LIKE WE'VE GONE LINE BY LINE. AND I HAVE MY LITTLE TABS.

I'VE BEEN MAKING NOTES ANYWHERE IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WERE EXCESSIVE SPENDING FROM THE YEAR BEFORE. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOU ALL

SUGGESTION. >> I HAVE A GOOD ONE.

>> THERE'S FIVE STAFF MEMBERS.

. >> STAFF MEMBERS YOU WON'T

BRING UP. >> OH, THANK YOU.

>> I BELIEVE THAT THE COUNCIL AND COUNCIL SPEAK UP IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS. WE'RE HOLDING TO THE FIVE POSITIONS. IF WE CAN GET THIS POINT

SETTLED. >> IF WE'RE GOING -- THIS IS JUST MY SUGGESTION. WE CAN DO THIS HOWEVER YOU WANT. WE CAN GO LINE BY LINE AGAIN. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO FIND THE SAVING IN EACH DEPARTMENT.

I THINK IT HAS TO COME OUT OF SUPPLEMENTAL.

BUT IF YOU ALL ARE GOING TO FIND 600,000 I THINK THAT'S

[00:30:01]

WHERE IT WILL HAVOME OUT OF IT.

I DON'T THINK WE WILL FIND IT.

MOST OF THEM IS JUST -- IT'S JUST STANDARD POSTAGE.

WE'RE GOING TO ARGUE HOW MANY POSTAGE STAMPS WE CAN GET. SALARIES, LIFE INSURANCE.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN ARGUE THOSE ITEMS. I THINK THEY HAVE TO COME OUT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL

PACKAGE. >> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.

I CAN'T REMEMBER. THERE'S A FUEL TANK THEATER ROUTE? IS THAT A POTENTIAL CUT?

[INAUDIBLE] >> IF WE THIS THE MOSTLY A QUESTION OR A STATEMENT. MOSTLY A QUESTION.

IF WE TAKE OUT OF RESERVE FUNDS, WE'RE BRINGING OURSELVES BACK TO 185 WHICH IS BASICALLY -- IT'S FIVE ABOVE WHERE WE WANT TO BE. TO GO BACK THROUGH THE BUDGET, LINE BY LINE, I JUST DON'T THINK WE WILL FIND IT.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SAY OTHERWISE, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN CUT IT BY THE DEPARTMENT. IF YOU JUST LOOK OVER DEPARTMENT. IT'S JUST OFFICE SUPPLIES, POSTAGE, SALARY. THE SAVINGS WILL COME OUT OF SUPPLEMENTAL. AND IF YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE INCREASES, THEY ARE MINIMAL ON DEPARTMENTS.

LIKE I SAID, IF YOU WILL FIND THE $600,000 SAVING, I THINK IT HAS TO COME OUT OF SUPPLEMENTAL.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE TRANSFERS OF FUNDS BETWEEN GENERAL

FUND TO THE OTHER BUDGETS? >> IS THERE A POTENTIAL

THERE? >> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND

YOUR QUESTION? >> I KNOW.

I'M STILL FORMULATING. WE HAVE THE OTHER -- ALL THE OTHER NONGENERAL FUND BUDGETS.

ARE WE AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE TO WHERE GENERAL FUND MAY BE GOING OUT TO THOSE OTHER ONES?

>> IS THERE ANY -- OR IS THAT NOT HAPPENING? [INAUDIBLE] THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES

GOING OVER THERE? >> YEAH.

THE OTHER ONES, LIKE THE UTILITY FUND MONEY IS COMING

INTO THE GENERAL FUND. >> THAT AND THE LIBRARY ARE PROBABLY ANOTHER ONE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A

LOT THERE. >> YOU MEAN UNDER THE SENIOR CENTER? IS THAT THE ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. TURNING MONEY OVER TO THE

SENIOR CENTER? >> I KNOW THAT'S AN EXAMPLE.

I WONDER IF THERE'S OTHERS THAT IS AN AREA TO ADJUST.

>> I THINK THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY THREE.

THE CONFERENCE CENTER, SENIOR CENTER AND THE LIBRARY. THE LIBRARY BEING THE

SMALLER AMOUNT. >> THE LIBRARY WAS A

DECREASE OF 4%. >> HOW MUCH MONEY DOES IT TAKE TO OPERATE THE SENIOR CENTER? WHERE DO THEY GET THEIR OTHER FUNDS FROM?

>> THEIR PRIMARY SOURCES ARE THE DONATION FROM UNITED WAY. 4-B AND THE CITY.

THE CITY BEING THE BIGGEST. IT'S 15,000 GIVE OR TAKE.

PRIMARILY IT'S THE CITY AND THE 4-B.

>> THEY ARE NOT FULLY FUNDED.

I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THE SENIOR CENTERS FULLY FUNDED BY US OR A THIRD OR THE HALF.

>> WE'RE THE VAST MAJORITY OF IT.

>> WHERE IS SENIOR CENTER? >> IT'S IN THE COUNSELL

[00:35:15]

TOWN. I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN STAFF.

WE CAN GET DOWN THERE AND MOVE A DECK CHAIR OR TWO.

TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO BUDGET IS NOT IN MY MIND FEASIBLE. AGAIN WITH THE CLIMATE WE'RE IN, GIVEN THE POLICIES THAT GOT US THIS FAR, I THINK WE SHOULD OLD THE 663 AND MOVE THROUGH THE YEAR.

MINDFUL OF THE THINGS AND AS WE GO THROUGH THE YEAR WE CAN HAVE WORKSHOPS AND DELVE DOWN DEEPER FOR NEXT YEAR IN PREPARATION. THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT.

WE HAVE BONDS. WE HAVE PROJECTS TO FUND.

AND WE HAVE CITY TO RUN. AND I DON'T THINK OUR CITY IS WASTEFUL. I THINK THAT ANYTHING WE DO WILL BE MORE HARMFUL TO THE COMMUNITY THAN ANY BENEFIT OF TAX -- ANOTHER PENNY WILL GIVE INDIVIDUALS.

>> EARLIER IN BUDGET PROCESS I ASKED YOU TO GET INFORMATION ON LINE 792 THE BUDGET TAB, WHICH IS MIDWAY REGIONAL AIRPORT. 12,000 CONTRIBUTION TOWARD THAT OPERATING BUDGET. DID YOU CONFIRM THAT

ACTUALLY MOVES FORWARD? >> I DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD.

>> THERE'S 12,000 RIGHT THERE.

>> AND THEN THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE COUNCIL, GOOD WILL ITEM 741, INCREASE 70%.

AND IS NOW SHOWING 10,650, WHAT ARE WE GOOD WILLING

UNDER A GOOD WILL ITEM? >> THAT'S LIKELY THE

OUTGOING COUNCILMEMBERS. >> IT WOULD BE CAREFUL ON THAT ONE. THAT'S 10,650.

>> THANK YOU. >> 53, 660, IT'S PRETTY EASY WHEN YOU START LOOKING LINE FOR I'M.

YOU JUST TO GET THE INFORMATION BEHIND THE LINE.

WE CAN KEEP SAYING WE WANT TO LOOK FOR IT AND WE CAN'T.

AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH IT LINE FOR LINE.

I JUST PICKED TWO LINES THAT ONE OF THEM WE KNOW IS NOT

WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE. >>

>> I AGREE WITH YOU. I WAS JUST GOING FOR BIG CHUNKS SUPPLEMENTAL INSTEAD OF CHASING 1,000 HERE AND

1,000 THERE. >> IS THERE A TIMING THING THAT WE COULD DO SOME OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL.

I'M GOING THROUGH IT RIGHT NOW.

I'M NOT SEEING A LOT THAT WE CAN JUST COMPLETELY CUT.

BUT IS THERE POTENTIALLY AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE DO THIS. I'M ASKING THE QUESTION.

MAYBE WE CONSIDER THE REWRITE OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT WE PUSH THAT YEAR.

>> THAT WAS ALREADY CUT. >> WHAT WAS CUT?

>> 250,000 FOR REW REWRIGHT -- REWRITING OF THE SUBDIVISIONAL ORDINANCE. WE PULLED THAT.

>> IT IS NOT REFLECTED IN THESE NUMBERS.

>> YES. IT'S PULLED OUT OF THE NUMBERS. I'M OPERATING OFF MY

ORIGINAL BOOK. >> CAN YOU PUT UP ON THE SCREEN A WORD DOCUMENT OR SPREADSHEET DOCUMENT WHERE WE IDENTIFY THE LINE ITEMS, TALLY SHEET ON THE

SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS. >> WE PUT ABOUT 30,000 ON

THE TABLE. >> WE HAVE 12 FOR SURE.

>> GIVE US THE BUDGET LINE ITEM.

>> 792 WAS THE 12,000. 741 IS THE OTHER.

THERE'S A GOAL 538 AND 700? >> WOULD YOU LIKE THE DETAIL

ON THE COUNCIL GOOD WILL? >> ITS HALLOWEEN CANDY

[00:40:02]

ACCORDING TO DOLLARS. THERE'S HALLOWEEN DECORATIONS OF 500. THERE'S COUNCIL RECEPTION FOLLOWING ELECTION AWARDS ARETIREMENT GIFTS OF 1800.

SERVICE OF AWARDS, 2400. AND THAT'S THE SPRING EVENT THAT WE HAVE FOR THE EMPLOYEES.

TABLE AT THE NAVARRO BRILLIANCE EVENT 1,000.

CHAMBER LUNCHEON TABLE. 1400.

ANNUAL ADMINISTERIAL LUNCHEON, 300.

CHAMBER AWARDS, BANQUET, 850.

AND BOARD APPRECIATION DINNER, 2000.

THE TWO ADDS ARE 2000 FOR THE BOARD APPRECIATION DINNER. THAT WAS ADDED BECAUSE IT WAS COMBINED I BELIEVE FOR ANOTHER AREA AND THEN ADD THE CHAMBER AWARDS BANQUET, 800.

>> YOU WANT TO CUT THE HALLOWEEN CANDY TO THE KIDS.

>> YES. >> BECAUSE WE CAN FIND IT IN ALL THE CANDY THAT'S IN THAT BACK ROOM.

>> AND -- >> DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING

ABOUT THE AIRPORT OUT THERE? >> THAT'S ALREADY BEEN

FIGURED OUT. >> HERE'S THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE. WHY ARE WE PAYING THESE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS BUT EVERY TIME IT COMES TIME FOR US TO, THE CITY TO COLLECT ON FEES, DUES, RENTALS, ET CETERA; WE DON'T COLLECT? [INAUDIBLE]

THE CHAMBER DOES. >> WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THEM? AS A COUNCILMAN I'VE WAIVED LOTS OF FEES FOR DIFFERENT THINGS HERE AND THERE.

>> I THINK THE ONLY ONE I HEARD NAVARRO, I DON'T KNOW WE WAIVE FEES FOR THEM. [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER.

[INAUDIBLE] WHAT ARE OUR DUES AND

SUBSCRIPTIONS COVERING? >> NORTH CENTRAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OF 4250. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DUES, 750, MAYORS ROTARY DUES, 600.

STEERING COMMITTEE, 1850 THAT'S THE ONE WHERE WE HAVE A GROUP WHERE WE -- THEY REPRESENT US ALSO IN ENCORE STEERING COMMITTEE. THEY REPRESENT US WITH ALL OF THOSE RATE INCREASES THAT THOSE UTILITY ARE TRYING --

>> PULL THE ROTARY FEE. I WILL PAY MY OWN.

>> THE COG ANNUAL DUES ITSELF IN ADDITION TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS. THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE SERVICE FEE THAT'S 4750. THE NORTH TEXAS COMMISSION DUES ARE $3200. MIDLOTHIAN DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION ARE $200 AND TECH-FUY ANOTHER UTILITY GROUP CONNECTED WITH THE ENCORE IS $1500.

THAT'S ONE OF OVER TIME SOMETIMES WE HAVE BEEN NUMBERS AND SOMETIMES WE HAVE NOT.

I'M THE ONE THAT RECEIVES ALL THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE I DEAL WITH THAT MOST IN ENCORE.

IF YOU WANT TO CUT THAT WHEN YOU CAN IT'S JUST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ME ON THOSE UTILITY ISSUES.

>> WHAT'S THE TOTAL LINE NUMBER?

>> IT'S 23,650. >> NOW WE'RE GOING TO SAY, HEY, OTHER COMMUNITY PARTNERS WE DON'T UNDERSTAND. ALSO KIDS DON'T COME DOWNTOWN. WE DON'T HAVE CANDY.

>> I DON'T LIKE THIS AT ALL. >> IT'S RIDICULOUS.

>> I HAVE MY BOOK. I CAN READ THEM.

>> THE STAFF IS ALL SITTING BACK THERE.

THEY EACH HAVE THEIR OWN AREA.

I MEAN, DO WE HAVE -- DO WE FEEL LIKE.

I KNOW EVERYTHING FUNNELS THROUGH, CHRIS.

I JUST FEEL ODD CUTTING THESE -- SOME OF THESE AREAS AND NOT REALLY KNOWING -- THEY ALL MAY BE LIKE. THE FIRE CHIEF MAY LIKE TAKE HALF MY SALARY, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

I DON'T LIKE MAKING DECISIONS ON THESE -- THE

[00:45:01]

POSITION THAT THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR.

AND OTHER THINGS THEY MAYBE RATHER GIVE AND TAKE.

IS THERE MORE THAT WE ARE NOT.

>> IMWILL KEEP SAYING. IF WE CUT SOMETHING, LOOK AT THE ON THE SALARY AND WAGES. WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT.

AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS OUR YOU KEEP HITTING THE THINGS THAT GROW ANNUALLY JUST AUTOMATICALLY.

HIT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS.

>> WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT YOU

CUT. >> 79% LINE 716 OF TAB 11.

ADVERTISING AND LEGAL NOTICES.

79% INCREASE. >> HOLD, HOLD, HOLD.

WHERE ARE YOU? >> GENERAL FUND 11 ADMINISTRATION. 79% INCREASE.

LINE 716. >> WE CAN KEEP LOOKING AT UNIFORMS IF YOU WANT. BUT LIKE I'M ONLY LITERALLY

HITTING -- >> THERE MAY WELL BE.

THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED.

79% INCREASE YEAR OVER YEAR. THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW

ABOUT. >> I DO.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THE DAY YOU LEFT I SAT HERE AND WENT

THROUGH THIS. >> WE STILL HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND A DOLLAR IN THE NEXT MEETING IN THE NEXT CONVERSATION YOU WILL ASK FOR MY VOTE TO SPEND MORE MONEY. YOU CAN'T SIT HERE AND TELL ME WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY AND THEN THE VERY NEXT MEETING ASK ME TO SPEND MORE MONEY.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.

>> IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. >> WALTER, THAT'S NOT WHAT

WE ARE SAYING. >> IT'S WHAT IS HAPPENING.

>> NO IT'S NOT. >> MY WHOLE POINT AND YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS. WE CAN EITHER CUT IT AND NOT DO THE PROJECTS. OR WE KEEP IT WHERE IT IS AND DO THE PROJECTS. WHEN YOU SAY HAVE THIS OTHER MONEY. SURE THAT'S THE REASON I WON'T GO TO 65 I KNOW WE NEED MONEY FOR OTHER PROJECTS. WE CAN HOLD PROJECTS OFF 12 MONTHS WHAT EVER. THAT'S WHERE IT ALL COMES DOWN. DO WE WANT THE DO THE OTHER PROJECTS. SOME OF THEM I DO.

SOME OF THEM I DON'T. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.

THAT'S WHERE MY WHOLE POINT IS COMING.

>> NOW WE SAY WE DON'T LIKE YOUR DECISION.

WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT. >> I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T

LIKE THEIR DECISION. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.

>> THEY VOTED FOR THE PROJECTS.

WE'RE GOING TO PROJECT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN LEAN OUT HOW WE DO THINGS. IF OUR ENTIRE 46 BILLION PROJECT COMES FROM SALARIES AND UNIFORMS, WE CAN'T CUT

ANY OF IT. >> WE INCREASE THE COST OUR SALARY BY 10% AND 4% FOR 15%.

OVER HALF OF THE BUDGET WHICH MEANS THE REST OF THE BUDGET 11% ONLY WENT UP 5 OR 6% WHICH IS LESS THAN INFLATION. WE'RE JUST STAYING WITH INFLATION. WE SHOULD GO IN THERE LINE ITEM BY LINE ITEM AND QUESTION STAFF IT'S HOLISTIC PICTURE. WE'RE DOWN AT -- WE'RE DOWN IN THE MARGINAL LOW OF DOLLARS.

>> IF WE EVER CAN GET CONSENSUS.

IF FIVE OF US CAN AGREE -- >> I WILL STICK WITH YOU GOING THROUGH BUDGET. BUT I'M NOT CUTTING HALLOWEEN CANDY. THAT'S 500 FROM A 40 MILLION BUDGET. [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR JOB IS. I THINK WE'RE OUT OF LINE.

>> I DID WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

THE MAJOR INCREASE THERE IS ALL ADDITIONAL ADVERTISING AND INCLUDES THE RESIDENCE RESOURCE GUIDE.

IT INCLUDES FLIP BOOK. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT ONE IS. AND THEN THE NEW BRANDING CAMPAIGN. THE BASIC ORDINANCES AND NOTICES IN THE NEWSPAPER HAVE STAYED FAIRLY FLAT.

IT'S ADDITIONAL MARKETING FOR THE CITY.

[00:50:13]

>> OUR BRANDING CAMPAIGN IS 5,000.

IT'S ABOUT A THIRD OF THE TOTAL BUDGET THIS YEAR.

>> I DO AGREE WITH CLARK. IT HAS TO BE DONE WITH SUPPLEMENTAL. I'VE RAKED THROUGH THE SUPPLEMENTAL. I DON'T SEE IT UNLESS THERE'S A TIME SHIFTING SITUATION WITH STAFFING AND AGAIN TO CHRIS'S POINT EARLIER.

WE WOULD HAVE TO EAT THAT NEXT YEAR.

I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW THAT THE JUICE IS WORTH THE SQUEEZE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT I SEE 250,000 FOR THE REWRITING OF THE ZONING. AND YOU ARE SAYING THE NUMBERS YOU GAVE US THAT'S ALREADY TAKEN OUT?

>> YEAH. >> THAT WAS ONE OF THE ADJUSTMENTS WITH WE MADE EARLY.

YEAH. IT WAS ORIGINALLY INCLUDED AND THEN AS WE GOT FURTHER BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE PULLED THAT OUT. THAT SHOULD BE IN THAT ADJUSTMENT -- THE ADJUSTMENT SHEET HANDED OUT FOR THE GENERAL FUND. AND IT SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT

OF THERE. >> IS THERE A STRATEGY COUNCIL WHERE WE DID APPROVE THE CONVERSATION STUDY.

WE HAVE THE GOAL TO USE ROUND NUMBERS AS A RESULT OF THAT. 5% THIS YEAR AND 5% NEXT

YEAR. >> HAVE WE APPROVED THAT ALREADY? [INAUDIBLE]

>> THE COMPENSATION STUDY THAT WE'VE JUST RECENTLY APPROVED, IS THERE -- COULD THERE WITH ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY IN UPPING THE PAY AMOUNTS TO MAYBE WHERE IT WAS SPLIT OR RETENTION SORT OF SITUATION WHERE WE SPLIT IT OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS. GRADUATED STAIR STEP SORT OF THING IN ORDER TO RETAIN EMPLOYEES IF THEY KNEW A CERTAIN AMOUNT WAS COMING. OR DO WE WANT TO WRITE THE

MANDATE OFF. >> EVERY YEAR WE'RE EFFECTED BY THAT NEXT YEAR'S ECONOMIC CLIMATE.

IF YOU'RE DOING A COMPENSATION STUDY AND THEN MAKING A DRASTIC CHANGE OR A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO CORRECT WHAT IS DEFICIENCY IN MAYBE OUR PAY SCALES AS COMPARED OTHER CITIES OR JUST MAYBE A LAG, NOT EVEN A DEFICIENCY. WE LOSE THE BENEFIT OF THE CORRECTION IF WE SPACE IT OUT OVER TWO YEARS.

>> ARE YOU DONE WITH THOUGHT?

>> WE HAVEN'T TALKED ARPA FUNDS.

ONE OF THE CATEGORIES IS PUBLIC SAFETY.

I'M WONDERING POLICE SUPPLEMENTAL.

RIGHT NOW THREE OF THE ITEMS ARE NONSTAFF.

BODY CAMERA REPLACEMENT. TRAFFIC UNIT EQUIPMENT.

MAYBE NOT THAT LAST ONE. CAN THAT BE A PUBLIC SAFETY ARPA. I THINK THAT WITH STANDARD ALLOWANCE THEY'VE DONE IN THE FINAL RULE YOU CAN USE IT ON ANYTHING THAT'S A GOVERNMENT SOURCE.

YOU COULD FUND ANYTHING ALMOST IN THE GENERAL FUND.

>> BECAUSE IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A GOVERNMENTAL

SERVICE >> CAN WE MAKE 538,754 THAT

COULD BE ONE TIME. >> THAT WAS -- REMEMBER WE HAD THAT MATRIX OF DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES.

UNDER THE GENERAL FUND ON RESERVE THE ARPA WAS ONE OF THOSE USES. THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANTED

[00:55:02]

TO USE. YOU CAN FUND GENERAL FUND

ACTIVITY WITH THAT. >> WHICH I RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED THE FUNDS FOR OTHER THINGS.

HOPEFULLY THE 500,000 >> DO YOU HAVE THIS LIST?

>> I'M LOOKING FOR IT RIGHT NOW.

AVENUE H REBUILD AT 300. FIRE STATION, CITY HALL7

MILLION. >> THAT WAS HANDED TO US.

>> I THINK SO. >> IT WAS ALSO SENT OUT

ELECTRONICALLY. >> IS THAT AVENUE H THE REBUILD OF THE ROAD IN FRONT OF THE GYM THAT THEY HAVE

USE TO USE. >> THEY JUST SIGNED A CONTRACT LAST WEEK TO LET THE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION OPEN -- I THINK OCTOBER. THEY DID FINALLY AGREE ON A

CONTRACT. >> WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE ON THE FUNDING SOURCES FOR THESE ITEMS IN THIS

WORKSHOP; CORRECT? >> NO.

>> THIS IS JUST PROBABLY A FUTURE WORKSHOP OR FUTURE MEETING DECISIONS THAT WE'LL HAVE.

>> 8.3 IS SITTING IN ARPA. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 538,000.

WHY DON'T WE USE THAT MEMBER TO GET US TO OPTION FOUR?

>> I AM AS LONG AS IT'S ONE TIME EXPENDITURE.

>> I THINK WE CAN FIND ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES IN THE

SUPPLEMENTAL. >> SO THERE'S --

>> 4.6 MILLION-ISH. I DON'T HAVE THE UPDATED

NUMBER. >> WE COULD FUND SUPPLEMENTAL FOR TWO YEARS OFF OF ARPA FUNDS.

>> REOCCURRING FUNDS IN THERE.

>> WELL, WE 7.9 THAT CREEP IN.

300,000 ON AVENUE H. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO AVENUE H. 24 MILLION TOWN WATER EXPANSION. AND THEN 2.6 FOR THE ALREADY DIFFERENT STEPS ON THE BUDGET.

THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY OF THE OTHER --

>> THE WATER THING HAS BEEN SITUATED; RIGHT?

>> THAT'S GOOD TO GO. >> WE CAN DELETE THAT FROM

THE LIST. >> 24 MILLION.

>> AND THE BUDGET DEFICIT IF THAT WERE TO COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND BALANCE, THAT WOULD BRING IT DOWN TO ROUGHLY 180 THAT WE'RE ALREADY AT?

>> YEAH. THE 2.6, WHICH WAS ROUGHLY WHERE WE WERE AT. GOT US DOWN TO 190.

IF WE TOOK THE ADDITIONAL LOWERING OF THE TAX RATE, I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD COME DOWN SOME MORE.

THE 2.6 ALREADY HAS THE FIVE POSITIONS.

IT'S REALLY JUST THE TAX RATE DIFFERENTIAL THAT YOU TALK ABOUT THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT NUMBER.

>> SAME QUESTION IN FRONT OF US.

THE OVERALL TAX RATE. WHAT ARE WE DIRECTING STAFF

TO DO? >> I GUESS WE HAVE TWO NUMBERS RIGHT NOW. 663 AND 669.

>> IT'S 2.6 SHORT, PLUS THE 538,000; CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> OR 2.6 ALL RIGHT SHOW

THAT. >> THE 2.6 HAS THE POSITIONS IN IT. THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE IF THE TAX -- IF THE EMINENT TAX RATE WENT LOWER.

THAT WOULD TAKE THAT 660,000 GIVE OR TAKE AND ADD IT TO IT. YOU ARE CLOSER TO 3.2 WITH

THE EXPENDITURES IN THERE. >> WITH ALL OF OUR AVAILABLE FUNDS, BALANCES WE'RE NOT SHORT.

WE JUST HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH POCKETS --

>> YOU TALK ABOUT THE ARPA FUND.

IT DOESN'T ALL HAVE TO COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND,

FUND BALANCE. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

[01:00:04]

>> WHICH PROJECTS AND THEN WHAT IS THE OVERALL TAX RATE GOING FORWARD? THERE'S TWO COMPONENTS IN

THE DEBT MANAGEMENT SERVICE. >> I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THE ARGUMENT OF GOING BACK TO -- WE HAVE THE MONEY TO DO YOUR DRAINAGE BUT WE DECIDED TO COVER THE DEFICIT BECAUSE WE DECIDED TO LOWER TAXES ANOTHER 600,000. ARE YOU PRO CORRECT --

>> I THINK THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION.

THAT'S THE PART I WAS LAUGHING ABOUT.

WE TALK ABOUT ADDING THE STORM SEWER FEE.

THAT WOULD BE EQUIVALENT. >> THE OVERALL REVENUE OF THE CITY WE DECREASE OUT OF THIS POCKET.

WE ADDED ANOTHER FEE ON A DIFFERENT BUCKET.

>> WE HAVE FOUR OTHER OPTIONS TO FUND THAT.

>> WHICH WOULD BE? >> ACCORDING TO CHART --

[INAUDIBLE] >> GENERAL FUND, UTILITY

FEES, OR THE TAX ARPA. >> A TAX NOTE IS SHOWING

DEBT WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. >> ARE YOU AGAINST THAT IN

ALL CASES? >> I THINK I VOTED AGAINST IT. [INAUDIBLE] IN SOME PLACES TO BREAK THIS CIRCULAR DISCUSSION, WE NEED TO SIT WITH SOMETHING TO WORK FROM.

I CONTEND BUSINESS THIS WEEK OUR STANDARD PHYSICAL POLICY AND WAY FORWARD. IF WE STAY WITH THE 665 THE NEXT THING WE WILL TACKLE IS HOW WE FUND THESE DIFFERENT BIG TICKET ITEMS. WE NEED TO START WITH THE TAX RATE AND AGAIN THE COST BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY.

IN MY OPINION IT'S BEST TO HOLD THE 663.

>> TO ANSWER ANNA QUESTIONS. THE ONLY ISSUE I SEE DO YOU WANT TO TAKE FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

WE HIT THAT AT 185 DAYS. THERE'S OTHER PROJECTS, OTHER ACQUISITIONS THAT WE KNOW WE MAY HAVE TO DO.

THE DRAINAGE FEE IS ADDING ANOTHER FEE.

TO ME, MIGHT AS WELL LEAVE THE TAX RATE THE PLACE IT IS. BECAUSE YOU MAKE UP FOR IT IN A DIFFERENT FEE. AND IF YOU TAKE IT FROM 4-B WE LEAN ON THAT FOR ANYTHING WE DO PARKWISE.

WE DON'T BUDGET FOR PARK EXPANSION OR PROJECTS, NOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY MOOR MOORPARKS -- MORE PARKS. WE HIT 4-B FOR FOUR OR FIVE MILLION. WE ASK THEM TO CHIP IN -- WE HAVEN'T ASKED. I KNOW WE WILL ASK THEM TO

CHIP IN ON CITY HALL. >> THEY ALSO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO CONTINUE TO REINVEST INTO THE COMMUNITY.

>> THEY DO. >> IT GETS DEEPER EVERY YEAR. EVERY CONVERSATION GOES -- EVERY TIME HOW HEAVY WILL WE LEAN ON 4-B FOR WHAT

WE DON'T BUDGET FOR. >> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD USE THEM AS OUR PERSONAL SLUDGE FUND.

>> THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE BEING USED FOR.

>> I DISAGREE. WE'RE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT WE UTILIZE THE FUNDS FOR. I CONTEND WHEN WE CONTINUALLY INVEST INTO THE SAME PRIVATE DEVELOPER OVER AND OVER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS YOU COULD MAKE THAT CLAIM THAT 4-B BEING USED AS PERSONAL FINANCE OR SLUDGE FUND. WE AS A CITY COUNCIL TRY TO DIVERSIFY THEIR IMPACT AND FUNDS.

>> WHAT ARE YOU RECOMMENDING CLARK?

>> I WANT TO SAY AT 663. WE'RE ALL INDIVIDUALS.

WE CAN'T GO BACK TO 675, WE ALREADY LOWERED IT.

>> I JUST THINK THERE'S TOO MANY PROJECTS TO DO THIS

[01:05:04]

YEAR. AND WE ALWAYS ARGUE THAT THE TAX RATE AND WE CAN DO IT. I'M NOT SAYING WE -- MY FIRST YEAR ELECTED WE DID TWO DECREASE.

THE YEAR AFTER THAT WE DID A PENNY.

THERE'S CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE LOWERED TAXES.

THAT'S UNTRUE STATEMENT. WE WENT FROM 605 TO 663.

WITH LOWERED THE OVERALL TAX RATE.

MY WHOLE QUESTION WHAT IS DIFFERENCE FROM GOING TO 663 TO 65 IS IT JUST BECAUSE WE OVER COLLECTED AND IF SO WHERE. I CAN'T SEE IT IN THE

BUDGET. >> ARPA FUNDS WILL RUN OUT

ONE DAY. >> I WOULD SAY WE OVERCOLLECTED BECAUSE HISTORICALLY, LATELY, OUR FUND BALANCES ARE GROWING EVERYWHERE.

THEY ARE GROWING. YOU ARE THE ONES THAT GAVE THE IMPACT FEES AND ALL THE DIFFERENT AREAS.

YES, OUR FUND BALANCE OUR GENERAL FUND BALANCE OR THE UNRESERVED BALANCE OF OUR GENERAL FUND IN THIS BUDGET IS HYPOTHETICALLY SET AT 185 DAYS.

IT'S NOT WHERE IT IS TODAY. IT'S NOT WHERE IT WILL BE IN FOUR MONTHS. SIX MONTHS, EIGHT MONTHS, 10 MONTHS OR 12 MONTHS. THAT'S A FLUID NUMBER.

TO TAKE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE BALANCE AND AND EXPENDITURE AND PUT THEM IN VACUUM AND USE THAT'S AS THE PLATFORM TO MAKE EVERY DECISION AS IF IT'S NOT FLUID AND CHANGEABLE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR IS IMPROPER APPLICATION OF THE BUDGET.

ARE SAYING. TO ME THE GENERAL FUND IS MORE THAN THAT. WE SPENT 200,000 ON DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN THAT WE HAVE NO WAY TO FUND.

WE DON'T BUDGET FOR THOSE ITEMS. LET'S SAY WE WANT TO PUT IN THE EIGHT-FOOT SIDEWALKS.

WE GO BACK TO 4-B. LOVE TO HIT THEM UP.

OR HEY THAT'S NOT THAT MUCH MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. IT'S A SAVINGS ACCOUNT FOR SPECIAL PROJECT. WE CAN START BUDGETING FOR

THEM. >> BY CITY POLICY THAT SAVING ACCOUNT IS 90 DAYS. AND WE ARE ALWAYS WELL AND ABOVE THAT. YOU'RE CORRECT.

IT'S A SAVINGS ACCOUNT -- >> WE TAKEN IT TO 150 THE LOWEST I SAID I WOULD EVER TAKE IT.

I BELIEVE IN HAVING THAT MONEY FOR AN EMERGENCY.

BECAUSE WE FOUND -- >> DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE

POLICY TO MAKE IT 150 MILL. >> THAT'S A PERSONAL POLICY.

[INAUDIBLE] DID YOU WANT TO MAKE IT A CITY POLICY? [INAUDIBLE] IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS?

BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS? >> I THINK EARLIER WE ALL

AGREE --. >> THEN WE TOOK OPTION TWO AND THREE. THEY ARE NOT ALL -- THAT'S WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND. WHAT I'M ASKING IS CAN WE EVEN DO OPTION FOUR AND KEEP THE DEBT THE SAME? RIGHT NOW IT'S SHOWING THE DECREASE.

THE DIFFERENCE THERE IS THAT THE 65 WAS -- THAT'S A 1.3 DECREASE. NMO RATE I WAS USING VOTER APPROVAL RATE AND THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE 1.2 CENT DIFFERENCE. THAT EXTRA.001 IS WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DEBT CAME OUT TO BE.

>> IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH TO WHERE WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE NOT

ADJUSTING IT. >> IT'S CLOSE.

>> LET ME SEE HOW WE WANT TO FRAME THIS QUESTION.

IS THIS BUDGET AND OUR EXPECTED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES SO TIGHT THAT FOR THE NEXT 12 MONTHS IF IT IS NOT IN THIS BUDGET, WE SHOULD NOT DO IT? AND IF IT RETURNED TO THIS BUDGET, WE SHOULD SAVE IT INSTEAD OF SPEND IT ELSEWHERE?

[01:10:01]

>> IS THIS BUDGET SO TIGHT THAT IF IT IS NOT IN THIS BUDGET, THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM SPENDING? IE, REFUSE TO LOWER THE UNRESERVED FUND OF THE GENERAL FUND OR UNRESERVED BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND BALANCE DOWN ADDITIONALLY.

AND IF WE DO NOT SPEND THE MONEY THAT THE ALLOCATED IN THE DEPARTMENTS FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER THAT WE SHOULD HOLD EVERY PENNY AND RETURN BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND. BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT IS THE PICTURE THAT WE'RE GETTING OR WE ARE UNDERSTANDING, WHICH IS WHY 600,000 SEEMS TO BE OR .00 # OR 1.2. WHICHEVER WAY YOU SLICE THE PIE SEEMS TO BE A MONUMENTAL TASK.

>> IT'S ONLY MONUMENTAL IF WHAT I'M ASKING THE ANSWER

TO THAT IS YES. >> THEY TAKE SERIOUS DOWNTURN. YOU DON'T MEET REVENUE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE. CAN YOU WANT TO SPEND THEM

ON SOMETHING. >> THOSE NUMBERS ARE FLUID.

KIND OF LIKE HOLDING TO 180. MR. SIBLEY SAID 180 IS MY NUMBER. THERE'S 30 DAYS RIGHT THERE.

I THINK WHERE THE COUNCIL FEELS COMFORTABLE IN THE EBBS AND FLOWS OF THE OVERALL DAYS OF FUND BALANCE. I EXACTLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THAT'S THE ANSWER I EXPECTED. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

GIVEN YOUR EXPERT AND THE EBB AND FLOW OF OUR FINANCIAL SITUATION THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WOULD YOU SAY IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION AS OUR CITY MANAGER AND LIFELONG ACCOUNTANT THAT EITHER TAX RATE THROUGH OPTION ONE OR OPTION FOUR WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY DETRIMENTAL OR OVER EXTENDING OF THE CITY TO

ACHIEVE? >> I THINK WE WILL MAKE WHATEVER TAX RATE THE COUNCIL ADOPT.

>> WHATEVER TAX RATE THE COUNCIL DOES, WE WILL BE ABLE TO FIT A BUDGET INTO THAT.

WE WILL MAKE THAT WORK. >> I LOOK AT THIS DIFFERENTLY. I LOOK AT THIS MORE AS POSITION AND GOING FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE.

IN THE NEAR TERM WE CAN MAKE LIKE CHRIS SAID WE CAN MAKE WHATEVER COUNCIL DIRECTS WORK.

BUT THE QUESTION BECOMES IN 2 FUTURE AND HOW MUCH LATITUDE WE HAVE. AND I AGAIN, THE POLICY THAT IS BROUGHT HERE GIVES US THE MOST FLEXIBILITY INTO THE FUTURE. AND BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF UNCERTAINTY WE HAVE. AND THE FUND BALANCE IS WHERE IT IS FOR A SERIES THAT GOT OUT HERE.

BUT THE OVERALL POLICY BEING THE 150-180 RANGE IS IN MY OPINION GOOD TO HAVE THE MNO AT THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE ALLOWS US TO DELIVER SERVICES.

I DOESN'T GIVE BUDGETARY PROBLEMS IN YEAR TWO AND THREE THAT I THINK WE WILL HAVE IF WE TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH. IT'S THE FUTURE IMPACT, NOT THIS COMING YEAR. THIS COMING YEAR WE WORK

THROUGH. >> IN 2020, DID WE DO A

HIRING FREEZE? >> DURING COVID?

>> I FEEL LIKE WE DID. >> WE JUST DID NOT.

WE DIDN'T ADD IN POSITIONS IN THE BUDGET.

WE JUST TOOK A VERY FLAT APPROACH TO THE BUDGET.

>> I DON'T THINK WE EVER FROZE POSITIONS THAT WERE AUTHORIZED. THAT'S SOMETHING MORE THAN WE DID BACK IN THE LAST RECESSION THAT WE JUST -- IF A POSITION CAN'T MAKE IT, WE DIDN'T HIRE IT.

>> WOULD YOU SAY THAT OUR HIRED FUND BALANCE IN '21 DUE TO RUNNING FLAT BUDGET IN 2020?

>> YEAH. WE DEFINITELY -- WE WERE -- BECAUSE WE WERE UNCERTAIN OF WHERE WE WERE GOING. TOOK A FLAT APPROACH.

[01:15:02]

ESPECIALLY LIKE REVENUE SALES TAX.

WE KEPT IT FLAT. IT OUT PERFORMED THE BUDGET BECAUSE SALES TAX NEVER -- WE DIDN'T GET THE FINANCIAL HIT THAT WE THOUGHT.

>> DIDN'T WE ALSO EXPECT TO GET VERY LITTLE BACK OUT OF THE LAWSUIT. WE GOT MORE OUT OF THE

LAWSUIT THAN WE ANTICIPATED. >> WE STILL GOT 2.5 MORE THAN WE THOUGHT. AND THAT GAVE US A BUMP.

WE'RE AIMING FOR MAINTAINING OUR FUND BALANCE AND EXPECTING NOT TO GET MUCH BACK OUT OF THE LAWSUIT.

>> IT'S A SERIES OF EVENTS THAT LED GOING OVER 200 IN

MY OPINION. >> IN UR -- IN YOUR OPINION IT WAS A GOOD MOVE OR MAYBE NOT THE BEST MOVE?

>> WELL IT WAS A GOOD MOVE. WHAT WE WERE PREPARED TO STEP UP AND NOT GET ANY OF OUR MONEY BACK.

THE MOTIVATION WAS WE HAD TWO BUILDINGS THAT WERE EMPTY FOR OVER 15 YEARS. THE CLAMMER WAS GETTING THE BUILDINGS BACK INTO USE. THAT'S THE SOLE MOTIVATION.

WE WERE WILLING TO AS I RECALL.

WE WERE WILLING TO FORGO. WE DIDN'T EXPECT TO GET

ANYTHING BACK FOR IT. >> PLUGS THE LONG-TERM

FINANCIAL BENEFIT. >> THE WHOLE THING.

WE GET THE BUILDINGS BACK IN PLAY.

AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN UNLESS THE CITY STEPS FORWARD AND DOES SOMETHING AND WE DID.

WE WENT FORWARD. WE GOT IT.

BUT WE DID HAVE, AGAIN WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A HIT ON THIS. IT'S FOR THE BEST FOR THE

COMMUNITY. >> I WOULD AGREE.

WASN'T ON COUNCIL. I WOULD AGREE PURCHASING THE BUILDINGS DID EXACTLY THAT. GOT THE BUILDINGS BACK INTO PLAY AND I THINK IT HAS -- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MAYOR. DO YOU FEEL THAT HAS STARTED THE SNOWBALL IN TURNING OVER SOME OF VACANT REAL ESTATE

DOWNTOWN? >> WE DID WHAT WE SET OUT TO DO THERE. HAVING THAT EXTRA MONEY WAS BENEFICIAL AND WE PUT IT TO GOOD USE.

>> THINGS HAVE STARTED DOWNTOWN THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO BE INVOLVEDED IN ANYMORE. IT'S STARTING AND ROLLING

IF. >> IN THE MASTER PLAN WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN '19, I BELIEVE, HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN? YOU HAVE THE CITY HALL.

YOU HAVE SEVERAL THINGS THAT COME INTO PLAY.

AND HOW THAT SNOWBALL THE STARTING.

I THINK OVERALL I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS

THERE. >> IT WAS A SERIES OF THINGS. IT WASN'T JUST ONE MOVE.

IT'S A SERIES OF MOVES AND WITH THE COMMITMENT TO MAKE THAT MASTER PLAN THAT WE GOT AND WE'RE STILL TRYING TO EXECUTE TO THAT PLAN. IT'S NOT COMPLETELY DONE

YET. >> MAYOR.

>> YES, SIR. >> TALKING ABOUT THE FUND BALANCE, WE JUST KEEP IT LIKE IT.

IF SOMETHING COMES UP WE DON'T DO ANYTHING.

THAT'S WHAT THE FUND BALANCE IS FOR.

IF SOMETHING COMES UP, WE'RE ABLE TO SPEND IT AND THEN COME BACK. THAT'S WHAT A SAVING ACCOUNT. DO YOU HAVE A SAVING ACCOUNT AT HOME. DO YOU WAIT FOR SOMETHING SPECIAL TO SPEND IT FOR. THEN YOU START REBUILDING IT. THAT'S WHAT I SEE US DOING IN THIS COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE SAVING ACCOUNT AND WE HAVE -- WE HAVE CONTINUATION WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO GET THEM. THAT'S WHAT I SEE HAPPENING TO MAKE US OPERATIONAL. THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT.

>> THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS. THIS IS MY INTERPRETATION.

THE FUND BALANCE GROWS. IT'S -- THERE'S SEVERAL REASONS FOR THAT. BUT GOING FORWARD, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT ON HOW MUCH IT WILL GROW, HOW MUCH IT WILL BE HIT AND WHAT WE WILL DO.

WE'RE IN A SIGNIFICANT FLUX PERIOD AS A COMMUNITY BUT WE'RE ALSO ECONOMICALLY WE'RE UNCERTAINTY.

AGAIN TO HOLD TO THE -- THOSE BROUGHT UP LAST TIME AND WE GET OUT IN THE FUTURE AND AS OUR REVENUE

[01:20:01]

POCKETS CHANGE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CHANGE OUR APPROACH TO FUNDING THE CITY. BUT I CONTEND THAT, THAT POINT IS FIVE YEARS IN THE FUTURE.

AND FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS, THREE TO FIVE YEARS, OVER THE COURSE THAT GOT US THERE.

THEN WE COME BACK TO THE BEATING THE DEAD HORSE.

663. >> THAT FUND BALANCE WAS A LIFESAVER. LIKE YOU SAID, WE DIDN'T FILL POSITIONS. WE DIDN'T LAY ANYBODY OFF.

[INAUDIBLE] WE LOOKED AT IT EARLIER AND BROUGHT IT UP TO THIS. WE WERE ABLE TO CONTINUE WITHOUT CHANGE IN OUR OPERATION.

HAD WE NOT HAD THAT. >> I THINK WE CARRIED A LOT

LESS DEBT BACK THEN. >> I'M SURE WE DID.

>> WE HAVE DEBT PACKAGES THAT ARE DROPPING OFF BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE FUND DEBT.

IT'S COMPARABLE DEBT, PROPORTIONAL.

>> CORRECT ME HERE. I'M GETTING OFF OUT OF MY FIELD. IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRIVATE PERSON FUNDING A MORTGAGE FOR 15 YEARS OR 30 YEARS. AND I THINK WE HAVE TAKEN OUR APPROACH MORE OF A 15-YEAR MORTGAGE APPROACH PHILOSOPHY THAN A 30-YEAR. AND THAT OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME GIVES US MORE FLEXIBILITY AND MORE STRENGTHS. AGAIN, THIS IS MY OPINION.

WE FRONT-END LOAD. WE GET THE DEBT OFF QUICKLY.

AND THEN THAT LEAVES US MORE OPTIONS IN THE FUTURE.

MY POINT I'M ARGUING FOR FLEXIBILITY IN THE FUTURE.

AND THE MNO, INFLATION -- WHAT'S INFLATION GOING TO DO. WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS.

A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY HERE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO

BALANCE. >> I THINK THE QUESTION IS 663 OR 650. WE NEED FOR SEPTEMBER 6TH TO GIVE -- WE HAVE A LOT OF GOOD QUESTIONS HERE.

AND IF YOU WANT TO GO DOWN DEEP, WE CAN.

BUT IT COMES DOWN IT FOR SEPTEMBER 6TH AND GOING FORWARD, DO WE WANT STAFF TO WORK TO 663 OR 650?

>> WERE WE SUPPOSED TO ISSUE BONDS THE LAST MEETING?

THE SALE OF THE BONDS? >> YES, WE WERE ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 23RD. WE PUSHED IT BACK --

>> THAT'S BECAUSE WE COULDN'T COME TO TERMS ON

THE TAX RATE. >> WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT -- NEED TO HAVE STRUCTURE.

>> THE ONLY REASON I BRING THIS UP WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SINCE JULY. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE DECISION IS. WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY. WE COMPLAIN THAT WE FEEL LIKE THINGS ARE NEVER GETTING DONE.

THE THINGS -- THE REASON CITY HALL ARE NOT TURNING WE

ARE DELAY. >> THAT'S NOT EVEN TREE.

>> CITY HALL NOT STARTING UNTIL JANUARY.

>> IT'S STARTING FEBRUARY NOW.

>> I TRIED TO GET THEM DOWN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

>> THE POINT IS, WE NEED TO ISSUE THE DEBT NOW.

AND ISSUE DEBT NOW. WE NEED TO SET A TAX RATE.

AND WE NEED TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 6TH OF SEPTEMBER. AND THAT --

>> DID WE DELAY THAT 6TH OF SEPTEMBER DATE THROUGH THE

PROCESS? >> IT'S ALWAYS BEEN 6TH OF

SEPTEMBER. >> HOW DID WE CREATE A DELAY IN BOND ISSUANCE DECISIONS IF THE 6TH OF SEPTEMBER WAS

ALWAYS THE DATE? >> WE WERE -- WE JUST SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 23RD. SEPTEMBER 6TH WAS ALWAYS THE DAY FOR APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET.

WE WERE GOING TO ISSUE DEBT PRIOR TO SOLIDIFYING OUR TAX

RATE? >> TYPICALLY WE HAVE MORE CLARITY EARLIER IN THE PROCESS ABOUT WHAT THE TOTAL WILL BE. HISTORICALLY WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO TELL WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE BUT BUT YOU'RE FAULTING US AS THE BODY FOR TAKING THE FULL A LOTMENT OF TIME

[01:25:05]

WE HAVE ON THE SCHEDULE TO DO THE WORK WE NEED TO DO AND OUR WORK IS CAUSING WHAT IS RIGHTLY SO IN THE ISSUANCE BECAUSE THE RATE IS NOT SET.

. >> WOULD SAY THAT THE BODY WAS IN AGREEMENT UNTIL 663 AND WOULD HAVE STAYED THERE UNTIL POLITICAL MOTIVATORS CAME ACROSS FACEBOOK.

THEN WAS THE CONVERSATION DRIVEN TO LOWER THE TAX RATE

AGAIN. >> THAT'S NOT TRUE.

>> I'M NOT SAYING. I'M NOT CALLING OUT ANYONE INDIVIDUAL. THE CONVERSATION WAS OVER AND DONE AND THEN WE HAD A MISTAKE.

STAFF FOUND OUT ABOUT THE MISTAKE.

>> THE CONVERSATION WAS THAT WE WERE BRINGING IT TO A NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND WE WERE TAKING THE DEDUCTION OFF THE DEBT SIDE. THAT'S EXACTLY HOW IT WAS PRESENTED. AND THEN SOLD OUT.

AND THAT'S THE STORY THAT RAN IN THE NEWSPAPERS.

THAT'S WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE THING.

NOT THAT ANYONE CHANGED THEIR MIND.

IT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE ACTION.

THE INTENTION IS STILL THERE.

[INAUDIBLE] >> I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING.

KNOWING THAT WE NEED TO GET TO FIVE.

MAYBE THIS WILL HELP -- FIVE VOTES, SORRY.

HOPEFULLY THIS WILL GET US CLOSE.

MY PREFERENCE IS THE .65 WITH NO NEW REVENUE.

BUT I WILL NOT VOTE AGAINST THE 663 AND I WILL ADD THAT I REALLY HOPE THAT WE STRICTLY ADHERE TO OUR NEW WORKSHOP PROPOSAL SCHEDULE AND THAT A HIGH PRIORITY GOING FORWARD VERY QUICKLY IS GOING TO BE WORKING OUT THIS LITTLE CHART HERE WITH ALL OF OUR PROJECTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN MY OPINION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE FIRST.

I KNOW THE TIMING DIDN'T ALLOW THAT.

I'M GOING TO STATE THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

>> I WILL NOT HOLD IT UP. >> I WILL BACK ANNA AND SAY .65. I WANT THE POSITIONS AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE DELTA OUT OF THE ARPA FUNDS FOR THE ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES INSTEAD OF THE UNRESERVED

BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND. >> I'M GOING TO GO WITH 663 THAT WE AGREED ON TWO WEEKS AGO.

>> I PREFER THE 65. YOU UTILIZE MULTISTRATEGY.

ONE-TIME EXPENDITURE OUT OF ARPA FUND BUT WILL STAND WITH ANNA AND WON'T STAND IN THE WAY OF GETTING FIVE

VOTES EITHER WAY. >> CLARK?

>> SORRY. GOING DOWN THE SUPPLEMENTAL LIST. I LIKE THE 663.

I AGREE WITH ANNA. I FEEL LIKE THIS INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT EASIER TO HAVE IF WE TALKED ABOUT THE SPECIAL PROJECTS EARLIER ON.

I THINK THAT'S THE HOLD UP. AT LEAST FOR ME IT IS.

-- >> CAN I SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICK. IN MY OPINION, IF WE CAME BACK AND SAID, HEY WE WANT THE GO WITH OPTION FOUR AND WE NEED 538,000 TAKEN OUT STAFF IF YOU CAN FIND THAT WITH ITEMS LIKE THE AIRPORT, 12,000 OR WHATEVER.

GREAT. TAKE IT OUT OF THERE OR THE REST COULD COME OUT OF ARPA. IS THAT A FAIR STRATEGY?

>> YEAH. PRETTY MUCH LIKE THAT.

I WOULD ADD SUPPLEMENTAL. I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH SAVING LINE ITEM BY LINE ITEM.

>> YEAH. >> WHAT ARE YOU SAYING YOUR

PREFERENCE IS? >> OR YOU GOING LINE ITEM BEFORE YOU DECIDE THAT? [INAUDIBLE] WE CAN SET THE TAX RATE AND KEEP THE BUDGET DISCUSSION OR REVIEW OPEN. WE CAN ALWAYS TAKE MONEY OUT OF THE BUDGET. I'M HOLDING TO 663 BECAUSE THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE GIVES US A 3 AND A HALF PERCENT WHEN WE HAVE 15% INCREASE IN THE LABOR AND WE HAVE A ARGUABLY 8 OR 9% INFLATION RATE.

WE DON'T NEED TO BE TIGHTENING OUR BELT ON MNO

[01:30:05]

AT THIS POINT. WANT MONEY OUT OF THE PU BUDGET, WE SHOULD DO THAT.

I THINK STRATEGICALLY THIS TAX RATE IS -- THIS IS A STRATEGIC QUESTION NOT JUST A MOMENT QUESTION.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE BASED ON A POLITICAL FRONT. IT NEEDS TO BE BASED ON A

PRACTICAL FRONT. >> I AGREE WITH THAT.

I ALSO WANT TO APOLOGIZE. I WASN'T CALLING COUNCILMEMBERS OUT. I WAS SAYING AT THE LAST WORKSHOP PRIOR WE SEEMED LIKE WE WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT THEN THE NEWS ARTICLE RAN ON FACEBOOK POST RAN BECAUSE OF MISCALCULATION AND THAT

REUNITED THE CONVERSATION. >> I APOLOGIZE FOR MY EARLIER COMMENT. I WASN'T CALLING ANYONE OUT.

>> WE NEVER CALL EACH OTHER OUT.

WE JUST DISCUSS THE POINTS, WHICH ARE RATHER --

>> I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT COMMENT.

THAT'S NOW HOW IT WAS INTENDED.

>> WE'RE SPLIT, 3-3. >> RECESS?

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY IF IT'S COMING DOWN TO ME.

I DON'T KNOW IF 3-3. >> THE ONES THAT ARE HERE CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR WHO IS HERE.

I AGREE WITH THAT. MY THING IS PROJECT FUNDS AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE FUND.

I THINK THAT'S MY BIGGEST HOLD UP.

IF SOMEONE -- >> YOU CAN'T LET PROJECTS YOU DON'T KNOW. BUT WE DO KNOW PROJECTS.

THERE ARE OTHER PROJECTS. I SAY WE DON'T KNOW.

WE SAID WE WANT TO MAKE SIDEWALKS IN DOWNTOWN.

WHY HAVE WE NOT? >> THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AND THE MASTER PLAN FOR PARKS ARE NOT ON HERE.

I WILL SAY, THEY ARE NOT ON THE LINE ITEM.

>> WHETHER OR NOT WE KNOW SPECIFICALLY PROJECTS FROM THE FUTURE. WE'RE A GROWING CITY.

NOW AT 38,000; WE WON'T DOUBLE IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS, PROBABLY. BUT WE TRY TO.

OUR BUILD OUT WILL BE 100,000.

AND SO OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS, WE HAVE A LOT OF PROJECTS IN THIS -- AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE'RE DECIDED WHAT KIND OF CITY WE'RE GOING TO BE IN TEN OR 15 YEARS. THAT'S WHY I CALL IT STRATEGIC. WE NEED TO GIVE OURSELVES THE NEXT COUNCIL LATITUDE AND THE COST BENEFIT TO THE CITIZENS, I SAY THAT WE ARE DOING THE BEST FOR THE CITIZENS AT 663. GIVING OURSELVES FLEXIBILITY

GOING FORWARD. >>> I GUESS IT'S A TRUE POLICY QUESTION. IS THAT OUR POLICY TO HOLD A HIGHER RESERVE FUND TO DO THESE PROJECTS THAT WE DON'T TYPICALLY BUDGET FOR, OR IS THAT BAD POLICY AND WE NEED TO START NOT CARRYING A HIGH FUND PROJECT AND PLAN IN PROJECTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.

I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHERE I'M HELD UP AT.

>> WE NEED TO BE PROACTIVE AND NOT REACTIVE.

>> MY QUESTION ON THE MAYOR'S COMMENT ABOUT HOW QUICKLY WE'RE GROWING, AND WHAT NOT.

I DO WONDER HOW MANY NEW PEOPLE ARE COMING TO THE AREA. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THIS OF OUR GROWTH OVER THE REDRAW OF OUR CITY BOUNDARIES SINCE THE EARLY 2000S WITH EVERY AND ANNEXATION THE CITY GREW. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE GREW PERSON FOR PERSON IN THE AREA.

WE JUST REDREW HOW WE WERE CALCULATING A LOT OF THESE.

>> THERE'S A BUMP THERE ON THE ANNEXATION WHICH IS TRUE. BUT MY STATEMENT IS BASED UPON WHAT I'M TOLD THE CURRENT COMP PLAN IF WE DO THE CURRENT COMP PLAN, TO THE LETTER THAT'S 100,000 PEOPLE. IT SEEMS TO ME HISTORICALLY IF WE DO ANYTHING, WE PUT MORE DENSITY OUT THERE THAN THE COMP PLAN CALLS FOR. THE 100,000 IS LOWER NOT AN UPPER BOUND AND JUST A MATTER OF WHEN WE WILL GET THERE, NOT IF. THE GROWTH IS COMING FROM

[01:35:04]

THE WELL SET MIDLOTHIAN CITY LIMITS WITH OUT ANY FURTHER ANNEXATION AND BASED UPON THE LAND THIS YEAR AND THE COMP PLAN. AND THAT'S THE -- FOR A LOT OF US IS SAD TRUTH. I REMEMBER MIDLOTHIAN IN 1996. AND I MOVED HERE FOR A REASON. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE COMP

PLAN SAYS. >> CAN I ASK.

THE AVERAGE HOME VALUE FOR MIDLOTHIAN ON THE TAX ROLES? GIVE OR TAKE? ESTIMATE?

>> 3 TO 400,000. >>MAYOR: THE HOMESTEAD

WAS -- >> WE CAN LOOK THAT UP.

>>MAYOR: YOU HAVE THE NOW HOUSE VALUE WHICH IS 450 OR 500. THE HOMESTEAD IS AROUND 300

TO 350. >>> CAN WE TAKE A MEDIAN.

AROUND 400,000. I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE IMPACT OF 400,000 BASED ON ONE PENNY DEDUCTION IN TAX RATE.

>> REALLY ROUGH MAT. >> $40?

>> A DOLLAR A WEEK. I AGREE WITH WALTER.

CAN WE TAKE A FIVE OR TEN-MINUTE RECESS.

>> I'M SORRY. IT'S 10:06.

WE

>> IT'S NOW 10:20. THE WORKSHOP IS BACK IN SESSION. CHRIS?

>> I WANTED TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION THAT JUSTIN ASKED FOR SO THE AVERAGE TAXABLE VALUE OF A HOME IS CURRENTLY AT $258.341. I'M JUST BASING THIS OFF OF THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT APPROXIMATE VALUE.

THAT'S NOT NEW HOMES. THAT'S JUST AN AVERAGE OF ALL THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY HOMESTEADS ACROSS THE CITY.

THAT'S OLD, NEW. >> WE'RE JUST WORRYING ABOUT

TAXABLE. >> SO ROUGHLY A PENNY IS 25 OR 26 DOLLARS ON THE AVERAGE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT INFO. [INAUDIBLE] AND YOU COULD DOUBLE THAT IF YOU 500,000.

THEN YOU COULD DOUBLE THAT. IT'S PROPORTIONAL.

WHAT SIZE HOME DO YOU WANT TO IMAGINE? WITH THE AVERAGE AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

IS THAT -- THAT'S HOMESTEAD HOMES.

RESIDENTS. BUT IS ISN'T IT JUST THE HOMES THAT WERE ON THE TAX ROLE LAST YEAR?

>> THIS IS ALL -- THIS SHOULD BE ALL THE HOMES -- ALL THE HOMES. THEN YOU CAN TELL WITH THE CAPS AND THE MARKET THE AVERAGE MARKETS A LITTLE BIT OVER 332. BUT THE AVERAGE TAXABLE WAS

258. >>> WHEN YOU SAY NEW, YOU MEAN NEW AS COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

MY HOUSE IS COMPLETED THE FIRST OF THE YEAR I DON'T PAY TAXES UNTIL THE NEXT YEAR.

>> THIS SHOULD BE ALL THE HOME, HOMESTEADED AS OF

JANUARY 1. >> THAT COMES FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. WHATEVER THEY APPRAISE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNCIL'S WISHES IS.

IDEALLY WE NEED TO GIVE STAFF THE COMBINED TAX RATE TO GO FORWARD BEFORE SEPTEMBER 6TH.

IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IF WE SET THE DEBT SIDE OF THE DEBT SIDE OF THE TAX RATE THEN STAFF CAN DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO PREPARE FOR 6 AND NOW WE'RE ARGUING BETWEEN -- WE'LL DEBATE AND DISCUSS IN BETWEEN THE TWO MNO RATES, OPTION ONE AND OPTION FOUR.

AND THEN GO FORWARD WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE DIFFERENCE, $600,000 WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT WILL COME FROM ARPA IF IT EXISTS.

IF I DOESN'T EXIST. THAT DECISION IS STILL IN THE FUTURE. FOR US TO GO FORWARD, AND PREPARE FOR THE 6, THEN WE -- IT WOULD BE NICE.

DESIRABLE FOR SET THE MAX TAX RATE, 665 OR 663 OR 665,

[01:40:06]

BUT AT THE MINIMUM, WE NEED TO SET THE DEBT TAX RATE SIDE. IF WE -- WE CAN WORK WITH OPTION FOUR IF THAT BREAKS THE LOGGERHEAD OF COUNCIL.

DO PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTS? >> OPTION FOUR WOULD BE WHAT I PREFER. I AGREE THAT THE I'M PREPARED TO SET THAT NOW, PERSONALLY.

IS >> YEAH.

AND MY COMMENTS IS LIMITED TO THE DEBT PORTION.

LEAVING MNO, WE CAN STILL DO THAT FORMALLY ON THE 6TH.

AND ON THE 6TH, WE WILL BE TAKING A VOTE AND THAT'S AT 6:00 P.M. ON THE 6TH. A SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING.

DID I SAY ALL THAT CORRECTLY? DOES ANYBODY WANT TO VOICE A COMMENT TO MY COMMENTS?

>> I AGREE WITH LEAVING THE DEBT SIDE WHERE IT IS.

[INAUDIBLE] >>MAYOR: THE GO -- GO TO HAND OUT OPTION ONE AND FOUR.

I DON'T HAVE MY SHEET IN FRONT OF ME.

DO YOU HAVE A SHEET? ON OPTION FOUR, THE DEBT RATE IS.0940 TO BE EXACT. AND OPTION ONE IS.31637.

IF YOU CAN SAY THE.34940. CAN WE GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF THEN WE CAN GO FORWARD.

AND EVERYTHING ELSE WE DISCUSSED IS STILL OPEN FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION. WE CAN CONTINUE TODAY IF YOU WANT. BUT TO MOVE FORWARD, AND MOVE FORWARD HAVE US PREPARED FOR THE 6 # -- 6TH OF SEPTEMBER. CAN WE AGREE TO A TOTAL TAX RATE.663 OR.650. BUT WE'RE SPLIT, 3-3 FOR THOSE HERE. WE CAN'T AGREE TO THAT; THEN I GUESS WE AAGREE TO DEBT RATE OF OPTION FOUR.

AM I CLEAR IN MY COMMENTS? >> I'M TRYING TO FIND A WAY FORWARD. IS THAT CLEAR?

>> CAN WE GET A STRONG POLE ON OPTION ONE OR FOUR.

>> FOR THE TOTAL TAX RATE. >> FOR THE TOTAL TAX RATE OPTION ONE GO FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.

WAYNE? >> WALTER?

>> FOUR. >> ANNA, FOUR.

>> I'M, ONE. >> CLARK? [INAUDIBLE] JUSTIN?

>> FOUR. >> CLARK?

>> I'M WITH ONE. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE

ARGUMENT ON FOUR. >> BUT THE ONE --

>> MY ONLY QUESTION ON OPTION FOUR.

WHAT IS THE ISSUE. WE HAVE TO GO ASK FOR REVERSE AND THE TAX RATE; CORRECT?

>> WHAT DOES -- HOW QUICKLY DOES THAT SPEED UP THAT TIME LINE? [INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS GOING FORWARD.

WE MAKE THEM ON OUR BEST ANALYSIS THAT WE HAVE TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT CAMPS ON HOW YOU ANALYZE THE VOTE.

I JUST THINK -- >> OBVIOUSLY THE HIGHER THE NUMBER MORE CAPACITY YOU HAVE TO DO THE FLIP.

I DON'T KNOW IT CHANGES THE TIMING OF IT NECESSARILY OR SPEEDS IT UP OR SLOWS IT DOWN.

I THINK YOU TALK ABOUT THE CAPACITY ISSUE.

THAT'S PROBABLY THE BIGGER PUSH.

>> I ARGUE WE'VE BEGIN UPPING ON THE TOTAL TAX

[01:45:03]

RATE. I WOULD AGREE THIS IS FACEBOOK MOTIVATED BY A VERY WILD FEW.

THE TAX PAYERS APPROVED A BOND ISSUANCE COMMITMENT TO HOLD THE TAX RATE AT .675. WE COMMITTED TO DO THOSE PROJECTS. THE VOTERS APPROVED THE FUNDS. AND WE ALSO COMMITTED TO HOLD THE TAX RATE. WE'VE HELD THE TAX RATE.

IN FACT WE'VE LOWERED IT. AND TO LOWER IT AGAIN IS STRICTCALLY NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY.

THAT'S MY ARGUMENT. AND THE BENEFIT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IS PHENOMENAL. THAT'S OPINION.

WHAT'S NOMINAL IS FOR THE BEHOLDER.

>> IS IT NOMINAL ON BOTH SIDES?

>> NO. I THINK THE DOWNSIDE OF LOWERING THE TAX RATE IS DOWNSIDE IS DISPROPORTIONATE. THAT'S PART OF MY ARGUMENT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE COST BENEFIT.

THE BENEFIT MAINTAINING TAX RATES FAR OUTWEIGHS OF LOWERING THE TAX RATE. AND THAT'S MY PERSONAL VIEW ON THAT. AND THE LIFE OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE CITY, THE CONDITION WE ARE, AND IN THE COUNTRY, ECONOMICALLY, THE UNCERTAINTY; AND I WEIGH THE TWO SIDES, THE BENEFIT OF HOLDING THE 663 FAR OUTWEIGHS THE BENEFITTING OF LOWERING THE TAX RATE TO 65.

THAT'S JUST MY -- >> FOR THOSE ON THE 65 AND 500,000. I ALREADY AGREE THERE'S NOT 500,000 ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL. YOU WILL HAVE STAFF GO IN LINE ITEM BY LINE ITEM TO GET TO 500,000?

>> I'M JUST ASKING. THE PROPOSAL WAS THESE ARPA

FUNDS. >> THEY HAVE TO IDENTIFY

WHERE THEY SPEND THEM. >> YES.

>> I WOULD SAY IF STAFF CAN FIND WHERE TO PULL THE 500 FROM THE BUDGET, GREAT. BUT THE REST WOULD BE ARPA

FUNDS IN MY OPINION. >> THIS IS MY NEXT QUESTION.

MY QUESTION IS, WHEN WE'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO GO UP 3% ON MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS SIDE WITH 8% INFLATION, AND WE ALREADY ARE SHORT. AND WE WILL TAKE 500,000 OUT OF ARPA. AND ARPA WILL NOT BE THERE FOREVER. I DOUBT IT WILL BE THERE IN THE NEXT 24 HOUR MONTHS. HOW ARE WE GOING -- HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO COME UP WITH THAT DEFICIT AND GET US BACK

TO FLAT LINE BUDGET? >> AND --

>> ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE SHOULD HIT THIS OFF AT THE HEAD AND GET A FLAT LINE BUDGET THIS YEAR? I WILL GO BACK THROUGH THE BUDGET WITH YOU AND CORRECT THAT 2 MILLION DEFICIT THIS YEAR.

>> HOW LONG AT 3% INCREASE ON MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE UP THAT DIFFERENCE?

>> >> YOU WON'T MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. IF ANYTHING LIT GROW.

>> THE DEFICIT WILL ONLY GROW NEXT YEAR AND THE NEXT YEAR. IF YOU TALK ABOUT THE

BUCKETS. >> AGREED.

I GO BACK, ARE WE OVEREXTENDED IN THIS CURRENT BUDGET? AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT UNIFORMS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PENCILS AND PAPER CLIPS. I'M TALKING ABOUT ACTUAL MUNICIPAL SPENDING. ARE WE SPENDING TOO MUCH.

WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW QUICKLY WE CAN ISSUE DEBT AND HOW QUICKLY WE CAN PAY IT BACK.

IF YOU ARE ILLUSTRATING THAT CATASTROPHE THAT HAS STARTED AND WE HAVE CRESTED THE TIPPING POINT, WE CANNOT REVERSE IT THEN WE'RE IN THE WRONG CONVERSATION.

>> THE CONVERSATION IS WE'RE GOOD THIS YEAR.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THE NEXT YEAR OR THE NEXT.

>> ARE YOU PUNTING THE PROBLEM TO NEXT YEAR?

>> I THINK WE'RE RESOLVING THE PROBLEM BY NO LOWERING

IT. >> THE DIFFERENCE OF 1.2 IS THE DELTA CATASTROPHE TO SAVIOR?

>> THE DELTA IS 8% INFLATION WITH 3% CAP.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT EXTREMES.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT EXTREME POINTS.

WE'RE NOT GOING FOR DOOM OR GLOOM OR CATASTROPHE, OR WHATEVER. BUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING

[01:50:02]

ABOUT IS THE SERVICES GOING FORWARD, INFLATION RATE AND THE POSITION ON THE CITY. I AM QUITE COMFORTABLE AND I'VE BEEN THROUGH THE BUDGET.

I'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL THE WORKSHOPS AND EVERYTHING.

AND I AM AS SATISFIED AS I CAN BE THIS IS A GOOD BUDGET. YES, CAN WE GO IN THERE -- WELL, I WENT THROUGH TWO BANKRUPTCIES.

I DON'T LIKE TO COMPARE PRIVATE SECTOR AND PUBLIC SECTOR. BUT I WENT THROUGH TWO BANKRUPTCIES AND TWO MERGERS.

AND ONE LESSON I LEARNED YOU CAN'T CUT YOURSELF TO PROFITABILITY. WE HAVE SERVICES TO PROVIDE.

THIS BUDGET PROVIDES THE SERVICES WE NEED TO AS WE LOWER THE TAX RATE AS WE DO OTHER THINGS, WE'RE GOING TO START IMPACTING OUR SERVICES, AND, AGAIN, I ARGUE THAT THE BENEFIT -- THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO GAIN FROM THE TAX DECREASE, IS NOT LESS WE FAR LESS THAN THE DOWNSIDE THE BENEFIT OF MAINTAINING OUR SERVICES AND ALSO WE HAVE THESE PROJECTS WE IMMEDIATE TO GO FORWARD WITH. THESE PROJECTS.

THE TIMING IS NOT GREAT. BUT WE HAVE A CITY HALL THAT -- WE HAVE A NEW PERSON HIRED -- WE WILL HAVE TO DIVIDE ROOMS TO PUT THEM THERE.

WE HAVE A PLACE STATION THAT CANNOT WITHSTAND A TORNADO.

IF IT GOT HIT, IT'S A FACILITY NOT BUILT FOR THAT.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT UNFORTUNATELY WE NEED TO DO NOW. AND IF WE -- IF WE ARE RECESSION. AND I LOOK TO THE LAST ONE, WE ARE WELL POSITIONED TO WORK OUR WAY THROUGH IT.

>> WALTER, FUNNY THE POLICE STATION IS NOT IN QUESTION.

AND THE POLICE STATION IS ON BUDGET FOR THEIR BOND

ALLOWANCE. >> WE'VE CONFIRMED THE INS RATE ALL RIGHT WITH THE COUNCIL AND IN THE STRAW POLE. WE'RE GOOD ON THE DEBT SIDE.

IT COMES DOWN TO MNO SIDE. >> BUT THE DEBT SIDE IS AGAIN, ARE WE DOING 15-YEAR OR 30-YEAR MORTGAGE? IT DEPENDS ON YOUR PHILOSOPHY OF DEBT.

FOR THE CITY, IF YOU ARE OUT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IF YOU TAKE ON THE DEBT AND RISK THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE MONEY.

THAT'S PART OF BEING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, I DON'T BRING THAT SAME DEBT PHILOSOPHY TO BARE. THIS IS MY PERSONAL -- I LEAN TO A MORE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO DEBT MANAGEMENT.

AND THAT'S -- THAT'S MAINTAIN THE PHILOSOPHY THAT THE CITY HAS USED NOW FOR YEAR.

WE CAN SPREAD THE DEBT OUT. BUT, AGAIN, WE'RE LIMITING OUR OPTIONS IN THE FUTURE. AND WITH A POINT OF UNCERTAINTY. I LIKE TO KEEP MY OPTIONS

OPEN. >> MAYOR, I GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID A WHILE AGO. WE ARE WE GOING TO BE PROACTIVE OR REACTIVE? IF WE REACTIVE WE WAIT AND SEE WHAT AN. PROACTIVE WE PREPARE FOR IT.

OTHER THAN THAT -- >> WAYNE, I'M SORRY.

>> ANNA? >> WHAT DID WE TAKE CARE OF

ON THE DEBT SIDE? >> WE TOOK A STRAWPOLL AND EVERYONE WAS GOOD WITH THE NUMBER.

>> WHICH NUMBER? >>.309.

>> WITH THE OPTION ONE.31 AND OPTION FOUR IS.309.

THERE'S NOT -- I'M WORKING TO GET MY OWN CASE.

THERE'S NOT ENOUGH DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE TWO NUMBERS TO GO FORWARD? WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH THIS ASSUMPTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT THE OPTION FOUR DEBT RATE. I'M TRYING TO DIG IN AND HOLD THE MNO RATE OF OPTION ONE.

THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING --. >> THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED.

TO ANSWER CLARK'S QUESTION BEFORE.

WORRIED ABOUT COMPOUNDING YEAR AFTER YEAR ON TOP OF THE DEBT. I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS STUFF THAT HASN'T COME ONLINE YET.

EXPIRING ABATEMENT. NEW GROWTH.

THAT SORT OF THING. WE HAVE A TON OF.

WEST SIDE PRESERVE. BRIDGEWATER.

A LOT OF THINGS ARE COMING ONLINE.

[01:55:05]

>> THIS MAY BE AN OPTION. IS IT WORTH A CONVERSATION TO TAKE THE DEBT RATE OF OPTION FOUR AND MNO RATE OF OPTION ONE AND HAVE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE

OF.661? >> IF WE SETTLE ON THE DEBT SO WE CAN GO TO THE MARKET; WE WOULD STRUCTURE IT BASED ON THE LOWER OF THE TWO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COVER.

THAT WOULD STILL LEAVE THE COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO YES, COME UP WITH A NUMBER BETWEEN.

IF YOU LOOK AT IT IF YOU TOOK OPTION FOUR AND WE STRUCTURED THE DEBT TO BE 3094.

EVEN IF YOU ADOPTED THE MNO RATE IT WOULD BE LESS.

661 OR 661. WHATEVER THAT SMALL DIFFERENTIAL IS. YOU COULD DO THAT.

>> AND MY MOTIVATION IS SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND STAFF CAN DO WHAT THEY NEED TO IN ISSUANCE OF THE DEBT.

THAT'S THE MOTIVATION FOR MY LAST COMMENTS.

>> THEY ARE SO CLOSE. THEY ARE SO CLOSE.

IF WE JUST PICK THE LOWER OF THEM.

IT'S.001 DIFFERENCE. >> WHAT DO WE NEED TO FOR SURE DECIDE IN THIS WORKSHOP?

>> ARE WE ON THE SAME PAGE? >> I THINK THAT'S BIG PIECE RIGHT THERE. AT LEAST WE IF WE WALK OUT OF HERE TODAY AND WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO STRUCTURE THE DEBT TO THIS 30.94, WE CAN GO TO THE MARKET ON THE 6TH AND BRING THAT FORWARD. AND SO WE SELL THE DEBT ISSUANCE. AND WE KNOW THIS IS WHERE WE ARE LOCKED INTO THIS RATE. THEN IT'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT

WHAT IS THE OPERATIONS RATE? >> WHAT'S THE TOTAL?

>> THAT'S THE OPERATIONS RATE.

IS IT GOING TO BE ROUGHLY 35 OR 34?

>> WILL THE MNO RATES. DO YOU SAY THE MNO RATE OPTIONS WILL CHANGE AND YOU WILL PUT NEW NUMBERS IN

FRONT OF US? >> THOSE WILL DAY.

>> WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE. YOU STILL HAVE THOSE TWO.

WE'RE LOCKING IN THE DEBT. WE DEBATE AND DISCUSS WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THE MNO RATE BETWEEN FOUR AND ONE AND THEN ANYTHING BETWEEN.

ALSO ALLOWS STAFF TO GO FORWARD.

>> ANYTHING UNDER 663 YOU CAN ADOPT.

WHATEVER NUMBER YOU WANT, NOW, I WOULD SAY THIS.

IF WE WALK OUT OF HERE TODAY, AND WE LOCK IN 30.94 FOR THE DEBT RATE. THAT'S STILL -- ONCE WE LOCK THAT PIECE IN. THAT WILL BE LOCKED IN.

THEN IF YOU LET'S SAY GO DOWN TO 59, THAT MEANS YOU'RE MNO RATE JUST DROPPED TO 29.

IT'S SIGNIFICANT DROP AT THAT POINT.

ONCE WE LOCK THIS NUMBER WE WILL BE HELD TO THAT.

AND THEN YOU JUST DEAL WITH THE OPERATIONS PIECE.

>> >> I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR.

THE.093 DOES NOT MET UP OUR SCHEDULE FOR THE BOND ISSUANCES. AS FAR AS THE POLICE STATION, CITY HALL, REC CENTER.

LIBRARY. >> WE'RE JUST MODIFYING THE STRUCTURE OF THE DEBT. WE'RE STILL ISSUING IT ALL FOR THE FULL 71,125 WHATEVER THE EXACT NUMBER IS.

WE HAVE TO STRUCTURE IT DIFFERENT.

THAT'S WHY IT COST A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE INTEREST

PIECE OVER TIME. >> WAS IT A HOW WOULD YOU STRUCTURE IT.31 AND.309. J JUST PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE UP IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS.

SO YOU JUST HAVE THAT LITTLE BIT OF LOWER INTEREST TOWN BACKSIDE. YOU PAY OFF MORE PRINCIPAL

IN FRONT. >> WE TYPICALLY PUT MORE UP FRONT. LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR.

EVEN AT 30.94 THERE'S MORE IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS. THAT WILL START TAPERING DOWN. WE'RE STILL DOING THAT.

WE'RE JUST NOT BUYING AS MUCH NOW.

IT'S PRETTY CLOSE WE'RE WITHIN 300,000 GIVE OR TAKE ON THE LONG-TERM INTEREST COSTS.

>> ON YOUR COMBINED PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST COST, THAT'S OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME?

>> THESE ARE ALL STRUCTURE AT 20 YEARS?

. >> OVER 20 YEARS, WE WILL SPEND 320,000 MORE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST THAN OVER A

TWENLT -- 20-YEAR PERIOD. >> WE TYPICALLY HAVE A 10-YEAR CALL. TEN YEARS, YOU COULD REFINANCE IF THE INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT WAS BETTER

[02:00:02]

AT THAT POINT. >> AGAIN, WE HAVE A PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY. THERE'S ALWAYS UNCERTAINTY.

WE JUST A BIT MORE NOW THAN USUAL.

[INAUDIBLE] I'M DOING SO STAFF CAN GO FORWARD. IS COUNCIL IS FAVOR OF DEBT RACE FOR OPTION FOUR, YES OR NO, AND WAYNE?

>> NO. >> WALTER?

>> YES. >> ANNA?

>> YES. >> NO.

[INAUDIBLE] JUSTIN, SO THE COUNCIL DIRECTION IS A DEBT RATE OF.309410.

THE STAFF WISH US TO CONTINUE AND DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANYTHING TO CONTINUE WITH.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE -- >> I KNOW WE HAVE FOUR VOTES. WE WILL NEED FIVE COME

TUESDAY. >> WE'LL HAVE FIVE.

>> FOR DIRECTION THIS IS GOOD.

YOU WILL HAVE FIVE. YOU WILL HAVE FIVE VOTES.

I'M CONFIDENT. I CAN'T PROMISE ANYTHING.

>> WE'RE SAYING AT THE WORKSHOP.

>> IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.

IT'S A COUNCIL MEETING AND WE WILL BE VOTING.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. WE WILL BE VOTING NEXT

TUESDAY ON THE 6TH. >> IS THAT THE ONLY AGENDA

ITEM THAT NIGHT? >> TYPICALLY WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE AND THEN WE HAVE ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET AND TAX RATE.

ALL OF THE VOTES THAT GO WITH THE BUDGET APPROVAL THEN IN ADDITION BEFORE THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE BOND SEGMENT. BUT IT'S NOT A FULL NORMAL

COUNCIL. >> JUST A SPECIAL CALLED

PETING. >> SINCE YOU WILL BE HERE.

IF THERE'S WORKSHOP TOPICS WE CAN DO THAT.

IT WILL BE THE PRIMARY THING.

>> DO YOU WANT -- WE HAVE ITEMS FROM ANNA AND WALTER.

AND I HAVE ONE ITEM. DO WE WANT TO AND EVERYBODY HAS SAID WE WANT TO DO THESE COUNCIL WORKSHOPS.

DO YOU WANT TO DO MORE THAN THAT? OR IS THAT -- IS THAT SUFFICIENT FOR US FOR THE

6TH? >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT TODAY. WE HAVE UNTIL THURSDAY.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION TO THAT, THOUGH, CAN WE ADD LIKE A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN ON OUR PLANS AND IF WE DON'T GET TO THEM, WE DON'T GET TO THEM?

>> CAN WE JUST GET THROUGH KIND OF THE WE CAN.

>> WE WOULD HAVE TO TABLE THEM.

BUT, YES, WE CAN DO THAT. THERE WILL BE A POSTED

AGENDA. >> I WOULD IMAGINE WE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE RUNNING ITEMS ON THERE.

>> WE UNTIL THURSDAY TO SET THE FULL AGENDA.

[INAUDIBLE] WHAT WE ARE DOING ON THE MNO, CHRIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STATE WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING? RIGHT NOW I HEARD WE CAN LOOK THROUGH THE MNO BUDGET TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE COME UP. THEN THE DIFFERENCE IS ARPA.

I TELL YOU, WE CAN BRING BACK -- WE CAN GET 500,000.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE AREAS THAT YOU ALL WANT US TO CUT. WHETHER THAT'S ROAD REHAB PROJECTS, ET CETERA. I DON'T KNOW THAT, THAT'S THE AREA YOU WANT US TO GO DOWN.

>> BUT THE WAY I HEARD WAYNE'S QUESTION, COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED FOR THE DEBT RATE TO USE OPTION FOUR.

.309410. WE HAVE IMPLY -- IMPLY CISSE

[02:05:06]

SISTER AGREED SOMEWHERE BETWEEN OPTION 4 AND OPTION 1. WE HAVE THAT 1.2 CENTS.

WE HAVE NOT SET THAT. AND WE WILL SET THAT THIS COMING TUESDAY. AND ANY DIFFERENCE OR FALLOUT WILL BE HANDLED BY ITEMS THAT COUNCIL OR STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED TO PULLOUT, IF NOT ARPA.

>> WITH THAT BEING SAID, I HATE THAT ROADS ARE ALWAYS LIKE SACRIFICIAL. THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE TALKING POINT AND EVERYONES CONCERN.

GREAT WE HAVE A NICE PARK BUT IF YOU NEVER GO TO PARK

HOW DO YOU BENEFIT FROM IT? >> EVERYONE DRIVES ON THE ROADS. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ANY CUT IN ROAD. WE SHOULD BE FUNDING THOSE FIRST BEFORE ALL THE REST OF THE BONDS.

BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. >> THERE'S ALWAYS THINGS TO

CUT. >> HE SAID WE HAVE TO CUT SOMETHING LIKE ROADS. AND I WILL SAY NO, WE'RE NOT

CUTTING ROADS. >> IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE.

>> IT'S NOT A CUT; RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE THIS PART AND

FUND WITH ARPA. >> HE SAID YOU COULD MAKE.

>> I WILL CLARIFY, IF THERE ARE AREAS LIKE THE AIRPORT OR $12,000 OR WHATEVER, THAT CAN COME OUT, OBVIOUSLY, I THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF.

IF IT'S POSSIBLE, TO COME BACK TO OUR LAST WORKSHOP.

WITH THESE STAFF CAN FIND X AMOUNT.

WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT.

WE KNOW IF ALL OF IT CAME FROM ARPA,IT WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT TOO. THE $500,000.

>> I AGREE. BUT INSTEAD OF -- THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE. INSTEAD OF FINDING A COST THAT'S RECURRING. WE WILL DO THE 12,000 EVERY YEAR. CAN YOU FIND 500,000 IN ONE TIME EXPENSE. SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT

RECURRING FOR EVERY YEAR. >> I AGREE WITH THAT.

>> AND THERE MAY NOT BE 500,000.

>> IT COULD HAVE -- >> IT'S A 46 MILLION BUDGET.

60% IS SALARY. >> YOU TELL ME YOU CAN'T

500,000? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION TO ADD TO THAT. SHE USED 12,000 FOR THE AIRPORT. I'M FINE WITH THAT.

ALTHOUGH I'M SURE THE AIRPORT WOULD BE FINE WITH THE 12,000. HERE'S THE NEXT QUESTION, HOW LONG IS THE AIRPORT BUDGET CONTRIBUTION BEEN IN THE BUDGET AND NOT ACTUALLY BEEN GIVEN TO THE AIRPORT? I KNOW FOR A FEW YEARS THEY'VE BEEN SELF-SUFFICIENT. CAN WE GET INFORMATION FOR

THE NEXT? >> I THINK IT'S JUST ONE YEAR. THEY KIND OF GOT THEMSELVES SUFFICIENCY. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WILL NOT COME AND ASK FOR OTHER STUFF.

WE MIGHT CUT THE 12 AND THEN COME AFTER 100.

>> THE CITY MIDLOTHIAN CITY CENTER PORTION.

>> THE PROBLEM IS WE DIDN'T CALL OUT PROJECTS AT THE

AIRPORT? >> WE COULD DO TOURISM AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR PROJECTS AND SPENDING OF FUNDS FOR THE AIRPORT.

>> IF YOU CAN GET THE COUNTY, THE SCHOOL, CITY

COUNCIL. >> COUNCIL, WE ARE AT POSSIBLE STOPPING POINT FOR THE MOMENT.

NOT FOR THE PROCESS. TO STOP WE'VE GIVEN STAFF DIRECTION ON THE DEBT RATE. WE HAVE PUT BOUNDS AROUND THE MNO RATE. BUT WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE FINAL CONCLUSION ON THAT, THE 6TH, THIS ALLOWS STAFF TO GO FORWARD THE ISSUANCE OF DEBT.

ALL OF THE OTHER POINTS ARE STILL OPEN.

IF POSSIBLE STAFF COULD PROPOSE CUTS.

COUNCIL CAN PROPOSE CUTS. LET OUR DEFAULT FROM WHAT

[02:10:04]

I'VE HEARD IS, IF WE DON'T HAVE CUTS, THE SHORTFALL WOULD BE COVERED BY ARPA. THAT ALLOWS US TO CONTINUE TO STOP FOR THE MOMENT IF COUNCIL WISHES TO CONTINUE.

CAN WE AGREE ON WHAT MY SUMMARY AND IT'S WHAT I HEARD. IF WE CAN AGREE WITH THAT.

THEN YOU CAN EITHER ADJOURN FOR ANOTHER DAY.

OR WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSION.

BUT CAN WE AT LEAST AGREE, COUNCIL, AND I WILL GO DOWN THE ROAD, CAN YOU AGREE WITH MY SUMMARY? AND I GUESS IF IT NEEDS CLARIFICATIONS, IF I WASN'T

CLEAR, BUT WAYNE? >> HE SAID CLARIFICATION.

>> I HAVE CLARIFICATION. >> MAKE IT SIMPLE.

>> I KNOW, I THOUGHT WE WEREN'T GOING TO CUT ANYTHING. WE WERE ONLY LOOKING TOWARD

ARPA. >> THAT'S OUR DEFAULT.

IF WE LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN FOR CUTS.

FROM STAFF OR COUNCIL. WE LEFT THAT DOOR OPEN.

IF WE DON'T DO CUTS, WE ARE GOING WITH ARPA.

>> YEAH. >> I DON'T WANT THEM TO

WASTE STAFF HOURS. >> I WOULD LOVE TO SAY NO MORE CUTS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN

AGREE. >> CAN WE AGREE TO THAT AND

COVER WITH ARPA? >> I THOUGHT THAT WAS HELPING YOUR ARGUMENT OF MAYBE NOT WANTING TO USE ARPA. YOU WERE SAYING IT'S NOT GOING THE BE FOREVER THERE. WE HAVE OTHER PROJECT.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE MIDDLE GROUND OF SAYING CAN WE FIND 500,000 OR HALF OF THAT FROM THE CURRENT BUDGET. YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY CUTS. FIVE VOTES ON NO CUTS AND

USING ARPA. >> HOW CAN WE BE DONE WITH

IT? >> DONE WITH IT UNTIL WE MAKE IT OFFICIAL ON SEPTEMBER 6TH.

>> WOULDN'T THAT ALSO MEAN THAT WE NEED TO EITHER AGREE ON MNO RATE. BASICALLY IF --

>> NO NO. THOSE ARE INDEPENDENT

DISCUSSIONS. >> WHY GRANT IT NOW?

IS WHAT I'M ASKING. >> IT WOULD BE OPTION FOUR.

THAT UTILIZE ARPA FUNDS TO COVER THE DELTA.

>> THAT'S WHAT I SUGGESTED AN HOUR AGO.

>> BUT I'M NOT GOOD WITH THAT.

>> WAYNE? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING -- [INAUDIBLE]

>> WHAT IS TAX RATE GOING TO BE?

>> IF HE DOES OPTION FOUR IT'S 65.

>> IF WE'RE SAYING WE'RE TAKING OUT

>> EVEN THOUGH WE'RE BRINGING THE MNO RATE UP OR

DOWN. >> MNO RAID WOULD COME DOWN.

THE OPTION FOUR IF YOU TAKE --

>> IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS, OKAY.

DO YOU AGREE TO OPTION FOUR? >> I'M NOT.

>> IF FOUR OF US. COME OUT OF WORKSHOP WITH DIRECTION ISN'T THAT ENOUGH TO MOVE FORWARD?

>> YES. >> I'M TRYING SO FAR WE

HAVEN'T HAD FOUR PEOPLE. >> I'M SORRY.

>> I THOUGHT CLARK. >> PROVE THE POINT.

DON'T MAKE CUTS. SHOW ME WHERE YOU SPEND THE

500,000. >> ARPA.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> WE DON'T NEED TO DO.

THAT'S A STAFF FUNCTION OF UTILIZATION OF FUNDS.

WE DON'T HAVE TO SIT HERE AND DO THAT.

WE WOULD DIRECT STAFF TO DO THAT.

>> ACCEPT FOR THE COMMENT THAT I SAID.

I DON'T WANT IT TO COME OUT OF ARPA BUDGET THAT'S RECURRING. THE ONLY PLACE WE CAN DO

THAT SUPPLEMENTAL. >> THAT'S NOT TRUE.

>> YOU'RE TELLING ME IN THE ENTIRE BUDGET, WE HAVE LESS

THAN 500,000. >> THE SIMPLE THING TO AGREE IS TO COVER THE DIFFERENCE WITH ARPA.

AND NOT TAKING ANYTHING. IF WE CAN AGREE TO THAT, THAT'S THE FIRST STEP OF ABOUT TWO OR THREE-STEP QUESTIONS. COUNCIL, DO WE AGREE, ARE THERE FOUR OF US THAT AGREE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO

[02:15:01]

ANY MORE CUTS AND THE DIFFERENCE WILL BE MADE UP

WITH ARPA? >> WAYNE?

>> YES. >> WALTER?

>> YES. >> ANNA?

>> YES. >> YES.

>> WE HAVE FOUR. NOW, WE CAN SPLIT THIS AS FAR AS THE TAX RATE DO WE WANT TO TACKLE THE TOTAL TAX RATE DISCUSSION AND DECIDE NOW OR ARE WE WILLING TO SAY WE WILL SET DEBT RATE PORTION AND THAT ALLOWS US

TO GO FORWARD. >> I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE

EFFECTIVELY JUST DID. >> NO.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DID. WE AGREED THAT IF WHATEVER COMES UP SHORT, WE'RE GOING TO COVER WITH ARPA.

WE DIDN'T SAY HOW THAT WILL HAPPEN.

>> YOU DON'T PUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT TO THAT.

>> WE'RE NOT PUTTING DOLLAR AMOUNT TO THAT.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR. THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO EFFECT 2.6 DELTA THAT WE HAVE.

>> WE'RE AGREEING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PURSUE ANY MORE

CUTS. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE WILLING TO AGREE. WE WILL QUIT PURSUING CUTS.

>> I'M WILLING TO, YES. >> THAT'S WHAT THE LAST VOTE

WAS; CORRECT. >> ZERO CUTS.

AND WE'RE GOING TO COVER THE DELTA WITH ARPA.

WALTER? >> AS LONG AS THAT PRODUCES

THE.65 RATE. >> I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S THE CONDITION OF MY PREVIOUS VOTE AND EVERYTHING PRIOR.

>> FINE. WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THAT YET. WE WILL VOTE ON THAT.

SO I WILL NOT SAY ZERO CUTS. BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

>> IF WE WENT.663, THAT -- WE DON'T NEED IT;

RIGHT? >> WE'RE NOT THERE YET.

WE'RE SAYING AT THE MAX. OR MINIMUM.

AT THE MOST, WE'RE SAYING POSSIBLY TAKE UP TO 600,000

OR SOMETHING. >> IF WE --

>> OKAY. LET'S TRY THIS.

HUMOR ME. OPTION FOUR STRAIGHT ACROSS.65. WAYNE?

>> YES OR NO? >> NO.

>> WALTER? >> YES.

>> ANNA, YES. >> NO.

>> CLARK? [INAUDIBLE]

I THOUGHT YOU WOULD SAY YES. >> I SAID YES.

>> THERE'S GOT TO BE A CHANGE IN THE 650 IF WE CHANGE TO THREE-VOTE INTO MNO.

BECAUSE IF WE HAVE TO GO TO 352.

AND THAT'S COMING FROM ARPA. MNO WOULD GO -- IF WE DO 65, ACCORDING TO OPTION FOUR THE NMO WILL BE 3.4.

AND THE DEBT WILL BE.309. >> OKAY.

WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING THE SPEND .350.

BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING MONEY OUT OF ARPA AND CHANGE FROM 340 TO 352. THE DIFFERENCE WILL BE MADE UP BY ARPA IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING.

>> I AGREE. MY HEAD IS NOT WRAPPING

AROUND IT. >> IT'S UTILIZING ARPA TO BENEFIT THE ENTIRE CITY. WITH A LITTLE BIT ON THEIR TAX RATE. THAT'S THE MENTALITY.

TO GET IT TO THAT MNO RATE. >> YOU WILL ACCEPT OPTION

FOUR? >> STRAIGHT ACROSS?

>> YES. >> WALTER?

>> YES. >> ANNA?

>> YES. >> JUSTIN.

>> YES. >> FOUR VOTES FOR OPTION

FOUR. >> YOU WILL HAVE A FIFTH.

I HOPE WE HAVE A FIFTH. I HOPE COUNCIL -- I WILL GO TO OPTION FOUR. THERE'S FIVE.

>> WALTER? >> I'M JUST SAYING IT'S KIND OF YOU CAN'T REALLY ASK THAT QUESTION.

BECAUSE -- I JUST WANT TO MAKE -- WE'RE BRINGING FORTH THE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE UTILIZING ARPA.

WE WILL HAVE A TAX RATE -- I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT ELSE IF ANYTHING YOU ALL ARE ASKING US TO BRING FORWARD. WE WILL GO THROUGH THE DEBT.

[02:20:01]

WE WILL BRING THAT BACK AND OPTION FOUR RATE.

WE'LL LOOK OBVIOUSLY AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH THE BUDGET QUITE A BIT.

WE HAVEN'T HEARD THE EXACT CUTS.

I HAD A FEELING WE WOULDN'T STEP ON SOMEONE ON COUNCIL USE EXAMPLE OF ROADS. YOU SAID NO.

I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE WILL BE STEPPING ON SOMEONE'S TOWS IF WE START PROPOSING A BUNCH OF CUTS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE BUDGET. [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S WHY I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE COME BACK ZERO CUTS.

ARPA COVERS THE DIFFERENCE. PREFER LIVEDLY USING ONE-TIME EXPENDITURE. IF WE CAN IDENTIFY THOSE.

THAT WOULD BE FINE. >> CLARK, DO YOU WANT THE LIST OF THOSE THINGS THAT QUALIFY TOWARD ARPA?

>> WE'LL IDENTIFY THOSE. IN WORKING WITH THE ATTORNEY THAT WE DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LEGAL.

WHEN WE REPORT THE USE OF THE FUNDS.

>> MY WHOLE QUESTION FOR THAT LIST I DON'T WANT TO USE IT FOR SOMETHING THAT'S RECURRING THEN IN YEAR THREE GO, OH, CRAP IS MONEY IS GONE.

>> GO TEAM. >> COUNCIL, DOES EVERYBODY FEEL COMFORTABLE, THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'VE

DIRECTED STAFF TO DO? >> DOES ANYONE -- DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY -- I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?

>> MOVE TO ADJOURN. >> SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY "AYE." ANY OPPOSED LIKE SI

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.