Aug 11, 2023 City Council Budget Workshop

[Call to Order]

[00:00:06]

>> LET ME TURN THIS ON. GOOD MORNING, IT IS 8:32 P.M.

I'M GOING TO CALL THIS BUDGETS/TAX RATE WORKSHOP TO ORDER. BEFORE WE BEGIN I WANT TO ASK MS. HAMMONDS TO BRING THE INVOA CAIG AND PLEDGES.

>> FATHER GOD WE LOVE YOU, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE YOU. I PRAY FOR OUR CONVERSATIONS TODAY THAT WE'RE ABILITY TO HAVE HEALTHY AND RESPECTFUL CONVERSATIONS AND COMMUNICATION, THAT WE ARE ABLE TO GAIN CONSENSUS LORD. I JUST PRAY BLESSINGS OF OUR STAFF AND OUR COMMUNITY AND I JUST THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU DO. WE PRAY ALL THESE THINGS IN YOUR

SON'S NAME AMEN. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE, UNDER GOD, ONE

AND INDIVISIBLE. >> ALL RIGHT COUNCIL.

[2023-317 Review and discuss draft FY 2023-2024 City of Midlothian General Fund, Utility Fund, Special Revenue Funds and Component Unit proposed annual operating budgets and related financial matters and direct staff as necessary]

THIS IS OUR FOURTH BUDGET WORKSHOP.

THIRD FRIDAY IN A ROW TO MEET SO I APPRECIATE THE TIME COMMITMENT AND THE EFFORT THAT THE COUNCIL AND THE STAFF HAVE PUT INTO BUILD CONSENSUS AROUND A BUDGET AND ULTIMATELY AROUND A TAX RATE. OUR GOAL FOR TODAY IS TO TRY TO BUILD SOME CONSENSUS AROUND THE NUMBER IN ORDER TO GIVE STAFF SOME DIRECTION ON WHAT TO PRESENT TO US FOR OUR TAX RATE HEARING WHICH I BELIEVE IS SEPTEMBER THE 5TH IF I'M CORRECT. AND SO TODAY WE WANT TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION, HAVE NEGOTIATIONS, HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS, AND ALL THINGS THAT SURROUND ULTIMATELY THE TAX RATE NUMBER.

BEFORE WE BEGIN THAT DISCUSSION, YOU'LL NOTICE ON YOUR DESK IN FRONT OF YOU I'VE ASKED CHRIS AND ANN TO PUT TOGETHER JUST A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE TAX RATE AND WHAT'S TAKEN PLACE OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS. I'M SURE IF YOU WOULD LIKE FURTHER HISTORY THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO GIVE THAT TO YOU.

AS YOU CAN SEE, OVER ABOUT THE PAST FIVE YEARS THERE'S BEEN A GRAGRADUAL APPROACH TO TAX RATE REDUCTION.

IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE IS ANOTHER SHEET THAT LINES OUT ALL THE EXEMPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ENACTED SINCE 1975.

AND NOTICEABLY OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS WE'VE BEEN ENACTING EVEN MORE EXEMPTIONS AND REDUCTIONS FOR HOMEOWNERS.

SO THAT IS JUST TO GIVE US A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WHERE WE'VE COME FROM. AND I'VE GOT SOME THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS BUT I'LL PROBABLY SAVE THOSE FOR THE DISCUSSION.

SO WITH THAT, COUNCIL, I WANT TO OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

ON TOPIC WOULD BE ANYTHING TAX RATE, ANYTHING THAT WOULD IMPACT THAT TAX RATE WHICH WOULD IMPACT THAT TAX NOTE AND THOSE PROJECTS AND THEN ANYTHING SURROUNDING WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO WRAP YOUR MIND AROUND A NUMBER. AND IF WE GET CONSENSUS OF FIVE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT SUPPORT A SPECIFIC NUMBER, THEN WE WILL PROBABLY PUSH FORWARD AT THAT POINT.

BUT IT DOES REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE WHICH WE WON'T TAKE TODAY. WE'LL TAKE ON SEPTEMBER 5TH THAT IS SORT OF THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY.

SO OPEN HEALTHY BRAINSTORMING DIALOGUE IS ENCOURAGED AND SO WITH THAT TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON AND LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.

>> I GUESS I'M GIVE SOME THOUGHTS.

SO SINCE LAST FRIDAY, I SPENT A LOT OF TIME, YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED TUESDAY I SPENT A WHOLE LOT OF TIME AS I'M SURE EVERYBODY HAS, CONSIDERING EVERYTHING WE'VE REVIEWED, CONSIDERING THE BUDGET, CONSIDERING THE FUTURE.

AND ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS. ONE THING I THINK WE ALL KIND OF NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE IS THAT WE'RE IN A VERY PROSPEROUS, BLESSED CITY. I REACHED OUT TO A LOT OF OTHER CITY MUNICIPALITIES, AND FOLKS ON OTHER GOVERNING BODIES, TO GO, YOU KNOW, ASK THEIR APPROACH, YOU KNOW, IN THEIR PARTICULAR CITIES. AND A LOT OF THE CONVERSATIONS THEY'RE HAVING TO HAVE ARE VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE CONVERSATIONS WE GET TO HAVE. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, WHAT PROJECTS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO TACKLE WITH SOME OF THIS ROOM WE HAVE OR SOME OF THESE FUNDS WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS, IT'S, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE AREN'T -- THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE RAISES AND PAY FOLKS.

[00:05:04]

I'M REALLY PLEASED WITH IT. I THINK CHRIS ON THE STAFF'S DONE A GREAT JOB. I THINK WE'VE MET A LOT OF THE NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.

I THINK WE'VE GOT A LOT OF -- A LOT OF GOOD THINGS GOING HERE.

AND I FEEL LIKE WE'VE GONE A GREATLY DIRECTION THIS WHOLE TIME. BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE -- WHEN I LOOK AT WHERE WE'RE AT WITHOUT GETTING IN ALL THE WEEDS I FEEL LIKE MY COMFORT LEVEL AND THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING IS -- IT'S ALMOST THERE. BUT I FEEL LIKE FOR ME TO FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD I FEEL LIKE WE CAN TAKE JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A STEP TOWARD HELPING THE FOLKS THAT ARE STRUGGLING ON THESE RISING APPRAISALS AND RISING TAX BILLS.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE WAY OFF. I DON'T THINK WE'RE -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE'RE, YOU KNOW, AND FOR ME JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF I DON'T THINK WE'RE AT A PLACE WHERE WE'RE -- WE'VE GOT ANYTHING CRAZY HERE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

BUT I DO THINK WE COULD DO JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE.

AND THAT'S WHAT MY GOAL TODAY IS, TO FIND SOME AREAS THAT WE CAN DO JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE. AND THAT I CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE

SUPPORTING WHERE WE'RE AT. >> JUST TO CLARIFY.

FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, THE M AND O SIDE OF THE BUDGET IS GO TO THE M AND O SIDE OF THE TAX RATE IS GOOD BUT YOU WANT TO FIND A WAY TO DO MORE. SO THAT WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE ON THE I AND S SIDE YOU'RE INTERESTED IN LOOKING --

>> CORRECT. I DON'T HAVE AN INTEREST IN CUTTING THE M AND O BUDGET TRARCHGLY BECAUSE I DON'T -- FRANKLY BECAUSE I DON'T SEE AN EXTRAVAGANT AREA IN WHICH TO CUT. IF WE WERE GOING TO CUT, WHICH THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, THE GO-TO ON THE RATE, IT WOULD BE ON THE I AND S SIDE. I DO HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE COULD START WITH THAT OR WE CAN LET

EVERYBODY -- >> LET'S LET EVERYBODY SHARE AND MAKE SOME OPENING STATEMENTS AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO SOME CREATIVE THOUGHTS. OR NO ONE SHARE, EITHER WAY.

>> HEY CHRIS. IF THERE WAS A CUT TO THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE, IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE THE LEFT -- THE REMAINING BONDS, THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH WE WERE GOING TO ISSUE THAT DEBT? BECAUSE WHEN WE STRUCTURED THAT DEBT IT WAS WITH THE I. AND S BEING AT A CERTAIN RATE.

SO HOW WOULD TAKING A HIT ON THAT SIDE CHANGE THE TIME LINE?

>> WELL, I THINK A LOT OF THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT VALUES CONTINUE TO DO. I MEAN I STILL -- I MEAN OF COURSE IT DEPENDS ON WHAT KIND OF HITS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IF IT'S ONE OR TWO CENTS THEN WE CAN PROBABLY EITHER LINK THEM OUT AT THE TIME, YOU KNOW, THE PAYMENT RESCHEDULE.

WE MIGHT HAVE TO PUSH IT OUT, MAYBE ONE YEAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I MEAN WE CAN GET THERE WITH STRUCTURES BUT A LOT OF IT IS GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON THE VALUATION ROUTE. I MEAN IF IT REMAINS STRONG LIKE IT HAS BEEN THEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET

THERE. >> SO FROM A STRUCTURE STANDPOINT WHAT DO WE TYPICALLY ISSUE ON A BOND YEAR WISE?

>> WE'RE TYPICALLY 20 ON THE GO BONDS.

WE ARE ACTUALLY EYEING BECAUSE OF THE MARKET, AND THE INVERTED YIELD CURVE ACTUALLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING THIS TIME ON THE $12 MILLION DEBT IS ACTUALLY A 17 YEAR.

I MEAN IT'S NOT THAT VASTLY DIFFERENT BUT IT IS A LITTLE BIT SHORTER BASED ON SOME OF THE -- WE WERE TALKING TO OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR YESTERDAY AND IT'S JUST SOMETHING WITH THE YIELD CURVE.

>> HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN THE 20 -- KNOWING I ASKED HERE IN COMMUNITY PARK WE AT ONE POINT AND I COULD BE TOTALLY WRONG,

[00:10:04]

>> IT'S TYPICALLY 20. ON SOME OF THE REFUNDINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT YOU MIRROR WHAT'S LEFT ON THE MATURITY.

SOMETIMES THOSE ARE SHORTER. WE TYPICALLY WENT 20.

THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE YEARS AGO THAT WAS AT 25 BUT MOST OF

THEM ARE 20. >> OKAY.

SO IF WE HAD TO RESTRUCTURE SOME DEBT YOU'RE THINKING JUST ONE YEAR? I KNOW THAT'S A LOADED QUESTION.

>> YES IT'S A LOADED QUESTION. BUT I MEAN YEAH, PROBABLY MAX WE MIGHT HAVE TO PUSH IT OUT A YEAR.

SOME OF THAT MAY HAPPEN NATURALLY BASED ON THE PROJECT.

I MEAN WE LOOK AT -- I MEAN YOU GUYS KNOW WHEN YOU GO TO DO STREETS SOMETIMES THE RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUISITION SOME OF IT COULD GET PUSHED OUT JUST NATURALLY BECAUSE OF THAT.

WE WERE LOOKING AT ISSUING THE REMAINING BALANCE NEXT YEAR.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IF REALITY SETS IN, IT'S NOT THE TIMING'S NOT RIGHT THAT COULD GET PUSHED BECAUSE OF THAT.

>> WHAT'S THE REMAINING BALANCE, THE REC CENTER AND A COUPLE OF

ROADS PROJECTS? >> IT'S ABOUT $40 MILLION ONCE WE DO THE 12 THIS YEAR IT'S ABOUT 40 MILLION.

>> I KIND OF PUT MY CARDS ON THE TABLE.

I THINK WE HAVE DONE SOME REALLY GOOD THINGS REGARDING TAX RATE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS AND WE HAVE TAKEN WHAT I FEEL IS A VERY BALANCED APPROACH TO TAX RATE RELIEF.

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND FOR LONGEVITY, LONGEVITY OF BEING ABLE TO HOLD THE STRATEGY FOR CONTINUED TAX RATE RELIEF WE HAVE TO TAKE A VERY BALANCED APPROACH. SO AS I SAY OFTEN I DON'T LIKE TO OPERATE IN EXTREMES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

AND I LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS ON THAT HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE THAT CHRIS HAS GIVEN US.

IN ADDITION TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 10% HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, IS MY BELIEF THAT CONTINUING THAT APPROACH EVENTUALLY, HOPEFULLY SOONER THAN LATER MAXING OUT THIS HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION TO GIVE TAX RATE RELIEF, TO GIVE TAX RELIEF IMMEDIATELY TO THE HOMESTEADS, TO THE HOMEOWNERS IS THE BEST APPROACH TO TAKE FORWARD GOING FORWARD. AND SO IT'S MY BELIEF BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT I'VE GOTTEN FROM CITY STAFF THAT I BELIEVE WE HAVE A GOOD BUDGET. AND I BELIEVE THAT WE'VE INSTITUTED SOME TAX RELIEF AND THAT WE HAVE A STRATEGY GOING FORWARD TO CONTINUE THAT TREND AND I WOULD ADVOCATE TO KEEP THE RATE THE SAME. AND CONTINUE TO REVIEW AND -- OF THAT HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION GOING FORWARD.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT. >> SO THERE HAS BEEN STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO DECREASE THE TAX RATE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.

AND I THINK IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

THE ONLY ISSUE I HAVE WITH THE STATEMENT YOU JUST MADE IS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS EVER RELIEF.

BECAUSE VALUATIONS WERE ALWAYS IN EXCESS OF THE REDUCTIONS THAT WERE MADE. SO THE ACTUAL TAXABLE DOLLARS THAT CAME OUT OF PEOPLE'S POCKETS WERE MORE EVERY YEAR.

AND WHEN YOU'RE TAXING A PERSON MORE EVERY YEAR IT'S HARD TO SAY THAT YOU'RE GIVING THEM ANY TYPE OF A BREAK.

SO, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AND WHAT THAT DID IS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS ON THEIR PROPERTY. WE'VE SAID YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY MORE THAN YOU DID LAST YEAR ESSENTIALLY.

WE DIDN'T GIVE THEM ANY TAX BREAKS THOUGH.

THAT ISN'T A BREAK. THAT'S JUST A LIMIT ON ADDITIONAL TAXATION AT THIS POINT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME ACTUAL RELIEF COME OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION. LET'S FIND A WAY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CHART OF COLLECTIONS AND LEVIES, YOU CAN SEE THAT OUR COLLECTIONS ARE CONSISTENTLY GOING BACK TO TWEA2013IS GROWTH, WE GET AN ECF SCALE OUT OF ALL THIS GROWTH.

AND THE PROBLEM -- GROWTH. AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE RESIDENTS AREN'T TRULY BENEFITING FROM IT YET AND THEY CAN'T. WE CAN FULLY FUND OUR M AND O BUDGET THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED. WITH ALL THE GROWTH BUILT INTO IT IN THE FORM OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, EVERY ITEM THAT WE NEEDED IS FUNDED.

[00:15:02]

NOW I'VE HEARD SOME OF YOU SAY WELL WHY DON'T WE GO FURTHER AND DO SOME SPECIAL PROJECTS, AND DO MORE YEARS, YOU KNOW, COUPLE OF YEARS IN ADVANCE ON ROADS. MY ISSUE WITH THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THE DISRUPTIONS THAT JUST DOING ONE PROJECT HERE DOWNTOWN DOES TO THE CITY.

I MEAN WE'VE GOT BUSINESSES THAT ARE STRUGGLING.

WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, THAT -- IT'S DEFINITELY PUT A BURDEN ON PEOPLE TRYING TO MANEUVER THROUGH THIS TOWN.

AND IF WE TACKLE ALL OF THESE PROJECTS SIMULTANEOUSLY ACROSS TOWN IT'S GOING TO BE A MESS. IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE A MESS.

NOT ONLY THAT BUT WE ARTIFICIALLY DRIVE UP PRICING BECAUSE THE POOL OF CONTRACTORS THAT ARE OUT THERE TO DO THAT ROAD WORK ARE DECREASED. SO THE MORE PROJECTS YOU RUN SIMULTANEOUSLY THE HIGHER THE PRICE ARE GOING TO BE.

AND YOU HAVE LESS COMPETITION FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK.

SO, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THAT, I THINK THAT WE'VE GOT A REALLY GOOD PLAN. I THINK AS EVERYONE HAS SAID, I THINK THAT STAFF HAS PUT TOGETHER A REALLY GOOD BUDGET.

AND I'M WILLING TO BACK FUNDING THE BUDGET AS IT IS.

BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO LOOK FOR MORE WAYS TO SPEND MONEY AND TO REACH OUT THERE AND TO TRY TO FIND ADDITIONAL PROJECTS IN ORDER TO -- JUST TO KEEP THE TAX RATE WHERE IT'S AT.

I MEAN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS PUT IN STATEWIDE FOR A REASON. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A CHECK ON OUR SPENDING. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE HOLDING MUNICIPALITIES TO A STANDARD WHERE THEY'RE ABLE TO OPERATE.

WE'RE WAY IN COMP EXCESS OF THAH OUR M AND O BUDGET.

WE CAN COMPROMISE. WE CAN MEET IN THE MIDDLE, FULLY FUND THIS BUDGET AND STILL SHAVE OFF THE REMAINING CENTS OFF OF THE TAX RATE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EVEN IF WE -- EVEN IF WE HAVE NOTHING BUT OUR CURRENT GROWTH, WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE FULLY FUNDED NEXT YEAR AND THE YEAR BEYOND THAT. THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO FUNCTION. AND SO I SEE GOING FORWARD WITH -- OR MAINTAINING THE TAX RATE AS BEING GREEDY AND I DON'T THINK IT'S WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TAXPAYERS.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME QUESTION I ASKED ALLEN ON THE M AND O SIDE YOU'RE OKAY WITH THINGS, YOU WROTE LIKE TO EVALUATE THE I AND S SIDE, THAT WOULD INVOLVE THE

TAX NOTE DISCUSSION? >> CORRECT.

THE ONLY ISSUE I HAVE WITH THE CURRENT BUDGET AND YOU ALL KNOW THIS, IS THE SECTION UNDER COUNCIL FORGIVINGS OURSELVES A PAY RAISE. I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE BUDGET.

AS IT IS I CANNOT APPROVE A BUDGET THAT HAS THAT IN IT PERSONALLY BUT THE TAX RATE TO FUND IT, I CAN.

>> OKAY, THANKS. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT US LOOKING FOR PROJECTS TO HOLD THE TAX RATE ISN'T A FAIR ASSESSMENT. I MEAN THESE ARE WANTS AND NEEDS THAT ARE -- NEED TO BE DONE IN THE COMMUNITY.

I MEAN WE CAN DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT CREEK VEN IS AN ISSUE OR NOT BUT THERE'S MORE THAN JUST CREEK VEN.

THERE IS ITEMS WE'VE BEEN ASKED FOR EVERY YEAR SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL THAT WE'VE DELAYED FUNDING THOSE PROJECTS EITHER BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE CASH OR DIDN'T WANT TO ISSUE THE EXTRA DEBT. AND THEY'VE JUST GOTTEN WORSE AND ON THE SIDE OF THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION BUDGET WHEN WE SAY WE'VE EXPANDED GOVERNMENT OR ADDED IT TO EXTRA, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. IF WE TAKE OUR CO'S AND WHAT WE DID JUST IN SINGLE FAMILY WE'VE ADDED BETWEEN FOUR AND 5,000 PEOPLE BETWEEN THIS YEAR AND LAST YEAR OR 21 THROUGH 23.

SO WHEN YOU SEE OUR M AND O BUDGET GROW IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE JUST PUTTING ALL THIS EXTRA STUFF IS WE'RE NOT HAVING TO PROVIDE SERVICE FOR 5,000 ADDITIONAL PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T HERE BEFORE. AND THAT TAKES MORE POLICE.

THAT TAKES MORE FIRE. THAT TAKES MORE ROADS.

SO THE M AND O GROWING IS ONLY TO IN MY POINT OF VIEW ONLY BECAUSE WE'RE NOW HAVING TO MAINTAIN MORE THINGS BECAUSE OF THE GROWTH IN POPULATION. IN THIS BUDGET WE HAVEN'T SET ASIDE MONEY FOR ANY PROJECTS THAT ARE TO BE DEBATABLE, I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR THEM, THEY CAN BE UP FOR DEBATE BUT THEY ARE THINGS THAT CITIZENS HAVE ASKED NOR WHICH IS MORE PARKS MORE TRAILS DOWCIALT MASTER PLAN.

[00:20:02]

THERE'S THE SAME SIZE GROUP OF IF NOT A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAT'S CONSTANTLY WEARING ME OUT ABOUT WHEN AM I GOING TO GET MORE, WHEN ARE THESE FIELDS GOING TO GET BETTER, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP MY HOUSE FROM FLOODING.

SO THERE JUSTICE POINT I'M TRYING TO FIND A BALANCED POINT HOW CAN I HELP THE TAXPAYER EVEN IF THAT'S NO NEW TAXES NO NEW REVENUE, ALSO TRY TO KNOCK OUT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS FOR OTHER DISCERNS. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE GREEDY BY ANY POINT, BUT THERE ARE TWO SIDES OF THE COIN.

TO ME I'M TRYING TO BALANCE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY BUT HOW CAN WE FIND THE MIDDLE GROUND, ALSO

PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF TAX RELIEF. >> SO I AGREE.

THAT'S WITH WHAT YOU SAID AS FAR AS THE ADDITIONAL SERVICES.

AND THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT THE SUPPLEMENTALS AND THE INCREASES IN THE BUDGET THIS YEAR OVER LAST YEAR.

I AGREES WITH YOU ABSOLUTELY. THERE ARE MORE RESIDENTS, THAT REQUIRE MORE SERVICES, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE.

THE BUDGET DOES HAVE TO COME UP IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

AND THAT BEING SAID, WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS AFTER FUNDING THE BUDGET, THE DELTA BETWEEN THAT AND THE 65 CENTS WHERE WE'RE AT. MY OPINION IS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP A REALLY GOOD POINT IN THE SENSE THAT THERE IS A GROUP THAT WANTS TO DO THESE AND THERE IS A GROUP THAT DOESN'T.

AND THERE IS A WAY TO DECIDE THAT AND THAT'S TO PUT IT OUT TO A VOTE. RATHER THAN US DECIDING THAT HERE WE PUT THESE PROJECTS INTO A BOND AND WE PUT IT OUT TO THE VOTERS AND LET THEM DECIDE IN MAY IF THEY WANT TO FUND IT OR NOT AND THAT IS TRULY THE WAY THAT WE SHOULD BE OPERATING.

THAT IS THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. >> TO AN TEN, I AGREE, I AGREE -- TO AN EXTENT, I AGREE, I AGREE, WE DON'T ASK THE VOTER EVERY TIME WE HAVE TO BUY A NEUROTRUCK.

THERE IS A HEALTHY BALANCE, BETWEEN SOMETHING WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY AND THERE IS A LINE THERE OF WHEN ARE YOU OVERSTEPPING AND THE VOTERS OUGHT TO HAVE THE RIGHT. I THINK WE ALL ARE TRYING TO

FIND THE LINE. >> I THINK THE LINE DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN WHAT IS A COMMON INTEREST IN ALL CITIZENS AND WHAT IS AN INTEREST FOR SOME CITIZENS.

SO WHEN YOU HAVE A FIRE TRUCK THAT'S FOR ALL CITIZENS.

THAT IS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ROADS THAT'S FOR ALL CITIZENS.

WHEN YOU ARE TALKING POLICE, THAT'S FOR ALL CITIZENS.

WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, THAT'S FOR SOME CITIZENS. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET PEOPLE DRIVING ALL THE WAY ACROSS TOWN JUST TO GO TO A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AT THE FAR SIDE OF TOWN.

THEY WANT ONE FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CREEK VEN WHICH HAS COME UP THAT IS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF CREEK BEND REALISTICALLY.

WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT IT REALISTICALLY AS WHEN THE DEAFDIFFERENTIATION, WHAT'S GOOR PORTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THAT'S WHEN I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO UP FOR A VOTE.

>> I AGREE WITH YOUR STANDPOINT TO AN EXTENT.

I THINK IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT THE CREEK BEND ISSUE WAS CAUSED BY A MUCH LARGER ISSUE UPSTREAM OF THE RESIDENTS WHICH DOES BENEFIT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY WITH THE KROGER DEVELOPMENT AND MANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. AND SO THEY -- I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE ALMOST LIKE AN INNOCENT BYSTANDER, AND BECAUSE OF THAT IT IS A COMMUNITY ISSUE. WE'RE NOT ADVOCATING ON THESE TAX NOTE DISCUSSIONS TO BUILD NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS RIGHT? PART OF IT IS OUR DOWNTOWN PARK WHICH IS LIKE I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE YOU GET VERY FEW OPPORTUNITIES TO GRAB GREEN SPACE IN A VERY WELL ESTABLISHED DOWNTOWN AREA.

AND THAT WOULD CLEARLY BENEFIT ALL OF THE COMMUNITY, IN MY OPINION. AND SO THAT'S JUST MY FEEDBACK.

I DO AGREE THAT THERE IS A BALANCE TO IT LIKE CLARK HAD MENTIONED. DETERMINING WHAT WE SHOULD VOTE ON AND ISSUE DEBT ON VS. WHAT THE CITIZENS SHOULD.

AND WE ARE ALL TRYING TO FIND THAT LINE OF WHAT IS WHAT.

OTHER CITIES AS YOU WELL KNOW MANY OTHER CITIES DON'T GO TO VOTER FOR ANY BONDS. THEY BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANT WHENEVER THEY WANT BECAUSE THEY FEEL THE VOTER HAS ELECTED THEM TO DO SO. AND SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF STRATEGY AND PERSPECTIVE. I THINK THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS A LONG HISTORY OF FINDING THAT LINE AND WALKING IT WELL.

SO I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM MIKE OR ANNA.

IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY COMMENTS. >> CAN I SAY ONE THING ON CREEK

[00:25:03]

I DO THINK IT IS A PROBLEM THAT WAS CREATED BY DEVELOPMENT.

AND I THINK WE DO NEED TO LOOK AT HOW THAT HAPPENED.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, TO ME THAT'S A BREAKDOWN IN THE SYSTEM THAT WE SOMEHOW EITHER IN ENGINEERING OR, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE WATERSHED STUDIES ON THIS, SOMETHING FELL THROUGH.

SOMEHOW, WE DIDN'T PLAN AHEAD. AND I DO THINK THAT THAT'S A PROBLEM. NOW WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, THE SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD ARE THE SOLUTIONS, THAT, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK WE NEED, THAT THIS IS A SEPARATE THING THAT WE NEED TO TACKLE AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT, ONE, WHAT THE APPROACHED RESOLUTIONS ARE TO THIS, AND -- WHAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS IS AND WHAT THE CAUSE IS TO SET UP SYSTEMS TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

>> I DO AGREE. WE'VE GT GOT MIKE ADAMS WHO WIL PROBABLY GIVE US AN UPDATE AND OVERVIEW.

I BELIEVE WE HIRED A CONSULTING FIRM TO GIVE US SOME SOLUTIONS REGARDING THE CREEK BEND ISSUE AND THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITHIN MAYBE A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. BUT MAYBE MIKE CAN GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF THAT PROJECT, POTENTIAL PROJECT HERE IN A LITTLE BIT. BUT MIKE.

>> I'M GOING TO HOPE THAT MIKE CAN COME UP IN A MINUTE.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING TO START.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE FOLKS KNOW I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF. I'M NOT ADVOCATING AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT I FEEL THAT WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE ENTIRE CREEK BEND PROJECT ON OR CARE TO AT THIS POINT. WE HAVE KNOWN I SAY FOR YEARS WE DIDN'T LEARN UNTIL RECENT YEARS WITHIN THE LAST FIVE TO EIGHT YEARS I'M GOING TO SAY THAT WE STARTED NOTICING THAT CREEK BEND HAD MORE FLOODING PROBLEMS. IT WAS ONLY COMMON SENSE THAT WROTE TELL THAT IT WAS DUE TO OVERSIGHT.

NOT TO BLAME ANYONE. WE'VE ACTUALLY LEARNED A LOT WITH WITHIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SOUTH SIDE OF DALLAS, OVER THE LAST DECADE I WOULD THINK.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE TOAKS KNOW THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. THAT WE'VE KNOWN FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW THAT WE NEEDED TO DO THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LAST TRI IS, I UNDERSTOOD IT SO THAT THE FOLKS UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I'VE HAD SEVERAL QUESTIONS WHERE THEY'VE GOTTEN MISINFORMATION.

THE ENTIRE PROJECT AND MIKL CORRECT ME SOON, THE ENTIRE PROJECT AS I UNDERSTAND FOR CREEK BEND IS SEVEN TO $9 MILLION ENTIRE PROJECT. WHAT WE KNOW IS WE HAVE TO REDO ON OUR TAP THE CONTAINMENT POND THAT WILL HELP POTENTIALLY ALLEVIATE, WILL IT CURE IT? NO, BECAUSE THE OVERFLOW OF THIS CONTAINMENT POND EVEN AFTER IT'S REPAIRED WILL STILL CAUSE FLOODING BUT IT WILL POSSIBLY EVEN GIVE THEM SOME RELIEF IN THE SHORT TERM. THAT WAS ALSO THE -- SO WE WERE TALKING AROUND TWO TO TWO OF THAT, I THINK IT WAS 2.1, 2.2, WE ROUND IT IT UP TO 2 AND A HALF MILLION BUT I THINK HAD A THAT WAS ABOUT 2 MILLION ON THE REDO OF THE CONTAINMENT POND AND ABOUT 200,000 FOR STUDY TO SAY OKAY WHAT'S ALL THIS GOING TO DO FOR US ALL. SO NOW THAT'S ONLY ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE. SO AS I'VE HAD TO TRY TO THINK THROUGH THIS SINCE LAST FRIDAY, I'M MUCH LIKE YOURSELF.

YOU CAN TALK TO ANY COUNCILMEMBER THAT SERVED IN THIS BODY THAT I'VE SERVED WITH.ABOUT YOU CAN TALK TO STAFF. THEY'VE HEARD ME TALKING MANY YEARS OF HAVING THESE GRANDIOSE IDEAS OF 40 AND 50 CENT RATES, WHICH I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE. AND I PLAN TO HAVE SOME DAY.

BUT AS I LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE ON THE EXPENSE COLUMN NOW AND I ONLY KNOW MY OWN BUSINESS, I KNOW THAT WORST TIMES COMING AROUND SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. DO I THINK WE POTENTIALLY HAVE WORSE TIMES ON THE HORIZON, YES I DO.

THAT'S WHY I ALSO THINK WE'RE WISE TO GET OUR STAFF PAY TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE. I'VE BEEN HERE BACK IN 11 WHERE WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE MONEY TO GIVE THE RAISES.

I'VE BEEN HERE WHERE WE COULDN'T PAY PEOPLE CORRECTLY.

SO I FIND THAT IMMENSELY WISE THAT WE HAVE KEPT THAT UP AND ROLLING AND ON TOP OF IT. BECAUSE I'M GOING TO TELL YOU

[00:30:01]

WE'RE PAYING PEOPLE OVER A THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK TO BUILD PALLETS. SO THE DAYS OF THINKING HARNG ON TO YOUR MONEY, HOLD IT AS TIGHT AS YOU CAN IN THE LABOR MARKET IS JUST NOT WORKING NOW. I TELL YOU FACTUALLY CS NOW, IT AIN'T WORKING. WE GOT TO PAY OUR PEOPLE CORRECTLY. WE HAVE TO ARGUE THE WAY THAT WORKS BUT THE WAY THAT WORKS IS THE WAY IT WORKS THOUSAND.

I LOOK THROUGH THE LIST OF ITEMS THAT WE COULD DO, I HAVE TO WEIGH OUT WHAT CAN I DO WITH -- IT'S NOT A DIME.

IT'S 55.2 CENTS OFTEN THE NNR I'M THINK, AND 55 MUCH 2, AND LET'S CALL IT A DIME. LET'S START THERE.

I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT SCHOOL TAXES.

I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT COUNTY TAMPS.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT CITY TAXES, THIS SLOT WE'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH. SO WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT A DIME. WE'RE GOING TO DO THE FULL BLOWN NO NEW REVENUE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GO THE 55 CENTS. THAT IS -- GO TO 55 CENTS.

THE 400,000 AVERAGE PROPERTY, $33 AND 33 CENTS A MONTH.

IF WE GO ALL OUT THERE WITH IT, $33.33 A MONTH.

SO WE SAY WELL WE DON'T NEED TO GO THAT FAR, LET'S CUT IT IN HALF. WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING FOR THE FOLKS. THAT'S GOING TO SAVE THEM $16.67 A MONTH. NOW I'VE BEEN THERE.

I'VE BEEN A PART OF ARGUING FOR TAX CUTS.

YOU GOT TO START SOMEWHERE AND, YOU KNOW, 16.67 MIGHT NOT BE ANYTHING TO YOU MIKE BUT THERE'S PEOPLE IN THIS TOWN THAT ARE HURTING AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFERENCE IN ANOTHER MIL OR NOT. I'M ON BOARD WITH THIS IF THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE NEED TO GO. BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE GETTING DONE ALSO.

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING -- BUILDING ANYTHING IN THE CITY THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY NEED? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WANTS AS FAR AS THE ITEMS ON THE TOP LIST? WE KNOW WE HAVE $7.8 MILLION WORTH OF STREET REPAIRS TO DO.

NOT STREETS, NOT BOND TYPE ITEMS. IF YOU LOOK DOWN THAT 52 LINE ITEM LIST WHICH I STUDIED IT CLOSELY, THOSE ARE 40 TO $200,000 ITEMS. YOU'LL HAVE $40,000, $8,000, $32,000, 188,000.

THERE IS NO ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR MILLION DOLLAR ITEMS ON THAT LIST. SO WE HAVE $7.8 MILLION WORTH OF STREETS OF THIS AND THIS YEAR WE'RE GOING TO DO 1.4 MILLION OF IT. THIS LIST GOES ON.

GUESS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? THAT LIST THAT LONG IS GOING TO KEEP BEING THAT LONG. SO I'M LOOKING AT STREETS.

SO I'M SAYING WELL WE COULD CONSUME EVEN IF WE DIDN'T WANT TO MESS WITH THE DRAINAGE AND SAY HEY FOLKS WE KNOW WE MUD SOME OF THIS DRAINAGE ON YOU, WE APOLOGIZE BUT KEEP ENJOYING YOUR OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY IN YOUR BACK DOOR TWICE A YEAR.

THEN I'VE GOT TO THINK ABOUT THE FOLKS THAT LIVE ON ALL THESE DIFFERENT STREETS. THAT WE COULD WE'RE IN A PLACE AT $33.33 A MONTH, TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REPAIRS TO THEIR PROPERTY SO THEY COULD GET IN AND OUT COMFORTABLY.

FOR ME I THINK THAT'S A GREAT DEAL.

THEN I COME DOWN AND I THINK ABOUT LET'S FORGET ABOUT ALL THAT, LET'S NOT DO THE STREETS. WE'RE JUST GOING TO MAKE THE FOLKS KEEP DRIVING THROUGH THE HOLES IN THE STREETS AND WE'RE GOING TO PUT ALL THAT OFF. LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THE DRAINAGE POND WE'RE FIXING TO BE MOVING OUT OF THE THE CITY HALL THIS NEXT YEAR AND WE KNOW ON THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN THAT WE HAVE TO EXPAND HERITAGE PARK. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO COST BUT I DO KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE WAY COUNCIL HAS ALWAYS VIEWED EXMPS SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL IS COUNCIL SPENDS UP TO $2 MILLION OFTEN A PROJECT.

WE DON'T GO OUT TO THE VOTERS FOR UP TO $2 MILLION RANGE OF.

ESPECIALLY 1, 1.5, WE JUST DON'T DO THAT, HAVE IT.

WE WILL LUMP SOME OF THOSE IN THAT YOU COULD FIND THAT ARE IN SMALLER PROJECTION MODELS WITHIN OTHER GROUPS.

[00:35:04]

SO WE HAVE THE KEEP -- AND I CAN TELL YOU SOMETHING THAT I DON'T LIKE. LET ME TELL THE YOU IT'S STRANGE. I GET REALLY AGGRAVATED, REALLY HACKED OFF IF YOU TRY -- NOW I'M AT 65 CENTS RIGHT NOW.

YOU TRY TO GO TO 67 ON ME YOU WANT TO SEE ME GET MAD? I GET MAD. TRY GOING UP ON ME.

SO I'M LOOKING AT OUR COUNCIL WAGES WAS BROUGHT UP.

CHRIS, HOW MANY -- I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS THROUGHOUT THE WEEK AND I THOUGHT ABOUT DIFFERENT WAYS OF LOOKING AT IT.

I THOUGHT MAYBE JUST DON'T DO ANYTHING.

HOW MANY WAGE SURVEYS HAVE WE DONE FOR STAFF? WELL FIRST OF ALL, WHEN WAS THE COUNCIL STIPEND WE'LL CALL IT THAT, WHEN WAS THAT BROUGHT INTO EFFECT?

WHAT YEAR? >> I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE EXACT

YEAR. >> IT WAS WHILE I WAS -- ON 13?

>> PROBABLY IT'S BEEN A WHILE I'LL REMEMBER EXACTLY.

>> HOW MANY WAGE STUDIES HAVE Y'ALL DONE FOR THE CITY SINCE

THEN DO YOU THINK? >> I THINK THREE.

12, 17 -- >> SO YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THREE

WAGE INCREASES? >> YEAH, THE SALARY SURVEYS.

>> INCLUDING THE CURRENT ONE. >> YES INCLUDING, SO IT'S THREE.

>> I WILL TELL YOU I'M NOT MAKING NEAR WHAT I WAS IN 2014, IF I DID I'D BE DEAD BROKE. THAT STIPEND WAS BROUGHT ON BOARD FOR A REASON. THAT COUNCILS, PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING WORK, I CAN TELL YOU I'M A MAN OF FAITH.

BIBLICALLY, BY GOD I'M TOLD BY GOD IT IS OKAY TO FEEL GOOD EVEN IN A CHURCH FORMAT IN SOME CASES THAT IT IS OKAY TO BE PAID FOR WHAT YOU DO, IT'S ALL RIGHT. EXACTLY.

AND IF YOU WANT QUALITY, QUALITY GETS MONEY.

NOW HERE'S THE WEIRD PART. IF WE WERE REALLY GETTING -- IF I WAS GETTING PAID FOR THE AMOUNT OF -- THIS MORNING I'VE BEEN OUT TO MY BUSINESS AT 5:30 ROLLING AROUND IN A SKID STEER FIXING HYDRAULIC LINES, RUN BACK TO THE HOUSE AT 7:17 SHOWERED AND GOT REDRESSED, I'M FINER WITH THAT.

BUT LAST NIGHT I WAS IN A MEETING.

THE OTHER DAY NOBODY KNOWS THIS BUT I DROVE OVER AND LOOKED AT A DEVELOPMENT. I DIDN'T MEET WITH THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE I DON'T MEET WITH DEVELOPERS.

BUT I WENT AND LOOKED AT SOMETHING FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE CITY. SO WHEN I VOTE ON SOMETHING OR A DEVELOPER COMES BEFORE ME I SIT AND LOOK AT PICTURES ON THAT PROJECTOR I FIND I NEED TO STUDY IT PHYSICALLY ON SITE.

I HAVE TO HAVE MEETINGS SOMETIMES WITH FOLKS AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK. I MET WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE YESTERDAY AT 4:30 FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF.

NOT ABOUT MY BUS. CITY BUSINESS.

SO HERE'S THE CRAZY PART. WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DOING IS, WE'VE BEEN GETTING ABOUT $200 A MONTH SOMETIMES, 240.

SO WE'RE TALKING AN ADDITIONAL 260.

YES, IT'S SOME MORE MONEY FOR UP TO A THOUSAND FOR MAYOR AND 750 FOR P PRO TEM. WHAT WE ORIGINALLY SET THE FEES UP WAS ABOUT $75 PER DESTINATION POINT.

I'VE GOT TEN TO 12 DESTINATION POINTS PER MONTH RIGHT NOW.

SO IN MY MIND I HAVE HALF THE DESTINATION POINTS THAT THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAVE.

SO IF I'VE GOT TEN STAGES POINTS A MONTH THAT'S $750 A MONTH AND THAT'S NOT EVEN COUNTING ALL THE HOURS.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING ANOTHER 200 TO 260 A MONTH TO $500 WHICH COMES TO $115 A WEEK, AND I CAN TELL YOU PUBLIC I'M PERSONALLY I WAS ON THE FOARCH YESTERDAY FOR ALMOST FOUR HOURS, ALOANER. I'M FINE WITH THAT.

I'M NOT CRYING ABOUT IT. I'M TELLING YOU THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS -- THAT THAT STIPEND WAS STARTED FOR A REASON.

NO SO MUCH TIME. IT'S NOT AN HOURLY PAY, IT IS A FORM OF RETRIBUTION FOR GAS, CELL PHONE, AND A LITTLE BIT FOR

[00:40:04]

I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT A LOT. WE WERE ALL VOTED, THERE'S NOT BUT SIX VOTED POSITIONS SITTING IN THIS ROOM RIGHT NOW.

WE WERE ALL VOTE INTERMEDIATE OFFICE.

AND WE WERE VOTE INTERMEDIATE OFFICE TO MAKE WISE DECISIONS OR THE THIS CITY THIS OUR OWN VIEWS AND TORMENT.

AND THAT'S WHAT I INTEND TO DO. I DON'T ANSWER TO ANY ONE SINGLE BASE. I DON'T ANSWER TO THE CITY.

I REST UPON MY OWN KNOWLEDGE AND ANY OWN ANNALLIZATION.

AS I LOOK AT THIS AS I LOOK AT OUR ROADS I LOOK AT CREEK BEND AND I LOOK AT CITY HALL WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT, I LOOK AT HERITAGE PARK WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT.

I LOOK AT WAGE, STIPEND THAT HASN'T BEEN CHANGED SINCE THE DAY WE IMPLEMENTED IT. I HEARD YOU COULD DO IT BUT DO IT FOR THREE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

I DON'T NEED TO ODO ANYTHING FOR ANYBODY THREE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. I NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MYSELF AND WHAT I KNOW IS RIGHT.

AND THERE MAY BE SOME PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIKE IT.

I APOLOGIZE IF YOU DON'T BUT I AM GOING TO DO WHAT I 30 IS RIGHT. AND WE OWE IT TO MAKE -- WE SAY WELL, YOU KNOW, WE CAME ON COUNCIL AND, YOU KNOW, WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE GETTING INTO SO WE LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS.

WELL THEN WE NEED TO LEAVE EVERYTHING THE WAY IT IS, THE RIGHTS AND EVERYTHING. WE'RE HERE TO MAKE DECISION HE ABOUT RATES, STIPENDS, CREEK BEND, CITY HALL, ALL OF IT.

AND WE NEED TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

SO I CAN ONLY TELL YOU PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF YOU DON'T THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THE STIPEND. THAT'S FINE FOR YOU THAT'S GREATLY. I'M ONLY TELLING YOU HOW I FEEL.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT WOULD I LIKE -- I HAVE BEEN VERY ONS, ANNA SAID THE SAME THING. I SAID THE THIS THE OTHER DAY, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY MISLEAD ME. WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DOING THE TAX CAP FOR THE DISABLED, I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS -- IT WAS AT A MUCH HIGHER CAP THAN IT WAS MYSELF.

AND I WILL TELL YOU THIS THAT I FEEL LIKE IF WE BUMP THE TAX CAP UP FOR THE DISABLED, WE WILL NEED TO CONSIDER BUMPINGS IT UP FOR ALL 65 AND UPS. SO THAT'S MY TEN CENTS ON IT, ON THAT PART IS WHAT I FEEL A LITTLE BIT UNEASY ABOUT BUT I AS A CITIZEN PREFER THAT THIS CITY WILL BE LIKE IT IS, IF I AM RUNNING MY OWN BUSINESS AND I HAVE EXTRA MOISTEN I'M GOING TO PROVIDE IT TO SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS THAT I MENTIONED AND

THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. >> JUST SO I THINK MIKE SAID HE WAS ON HIS OWN FOR FOUR HOURS BY HIMSELF.

DID YOU HEAR THAT? >> WHAT DID YOU SAY?

>> YOU SAID YOU WERE ON THE PHONE FOR FOUR HOURS BY YOURSELF. I KIND OF BELIEVE IT BUT --

>> I WAS ON THE PHONE ARE FOYER PART OF THAT FOUR HOURS I CAN

ATTEST. >> I DON'T THINK I CAN ADD ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT Y'ALL HAVE SAID, Y'ALL HAVE COVERED IT PRETTY WELL. WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT I WENT TO MEET THE TEACHER WITH MY KIDS THAT I FEEL ARE STILL IN DIAPERS. BUT THEY'RE NOT.

ONE IS DRIVING, THEY'RE GETTING REALLY OLD AND MY POINT TO THAT IS THE REALIZATION OF HOW FAST TIME FLIES, AND IF I LOOK AT THIS AND IF I HAVE THREE YEARS HERE, WE MAY ALL HAVE TWO, ONE, WHATEVER IT IS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR TIME HERE COUNTS.

I'M NOT OKAY WITH STATUS QUO. I'M NOT OKAY PASSING THE BUCK FOR EVERY LITTLE THING OFF TO THE VOTERS.

I FEEL LIKE WE WERE PUT HERE FOR A REASON.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR TIME IS USED VERY WELL.

AND THAT WE USE IT TO ITS FULLEST.

SO AS MUCH AS I THE COUPLE OF DOLLARS WE WOULD BE PUTTING BACK IN PEOPLE'S POCKETS FOR DECREASED TAX RATES I WANT THAT FOR PEOPLE BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY I WANT US TO MOVE PROJECTS FORWARD, PROJECTS THAT PEOPLE SAID THEY WANTED, PROJECTS THEY VOTED FOR, PROJECTS THAT WE SHOULD BE RESPECTING THEIR DECISIONS ON. I THINK WE SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTING AND TO PASS THINGS OFF ONE MORE YEAR I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I WANT US TO BE THE COUNCIL THAT GETS THINGS DONE. WE ARE IN A GROWING, RAPIDLY GROWING COMMUNITY AND I THINK IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT WE'RE BEHIND ON THINGS. PARKS, STUDIES SHOW THAT WE ARE BEHIND ON PARKS, IS THAT RIGHT? YOU KNOW, I MEAN SO WE ARE BEHIND. SO TO BE CONSTANTLY BE LIKE WE'LL DO THAT NEXT YEAR SO WE CAN KNOCK OFF HOWEVER MANY

[00:45:01]

I'M HEARING YOU SAYING IT'S NOT MAKING A HUGE DIFFERENCE IF WE GO DOWN ONE CENT OR WHATEVER. BUT THERE ARE THESE SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS THAT WE CAN BE TALKING ABOUT.

I WOULD LIKE TO BE TALKING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT.

SO WE CAN KIND OF TARGET THE RELIEF A LITTLE BIT MORE.

EVEN IF IN SOME CASES WE'RE HAVING TO IMPLEMENT IT FOR NEXT YEAR BECAUSE OF THE TIME LINE THAT WE'RE ON.

I EVEN HEARD Y'ALL SAY WE'RE DOING THESE TAX CUTS AND IT'S JUST REALLY HELPING OUT THE CORPORATIONS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF LIKE HOW ARE WE GETTING TO THE ACTUAL INDIVIDUAL PERSON AND DOING THOSE RELIEFS SO THAT IS PERSONALLY WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ON IS SOME OF OUR TAFERGHTED EXEMPTIONS. -- TARGETED EXEMPTIONS AND

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> WE'LL DEFINITELY GET TO THAT.

WE'LL ALSO GET TO ALL THE DAIMS ON THE TAX NOTE ISSUANCES.

>> I'LL JUST HAVE A COMMENT AND THEN I'LL BE DONE AFTER THAT.

YOU KNOW, I GUESS I WAS A LITTLE LUCKY IN A WAY THAT MY GRANDFATHER AND MY GRANDMOTHER SERVED IN THIS POSITION ALONG THE WAY. IT'S GIRVE ME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES. I'VE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT CITY OPERATIONS WHEN THEY WERE HERE. ALLEN THE CITIES THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT WERE STRUGGLING THAT WAS MIDLOTHIAN WHEN THEY WERE HERE AND WHEN MIKE WAS HERE IN '08 WHEN MIDLOTHIAN WAS STRUGGLING AND HAD TO RAISE TAXES, JUST TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST, AND THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT THIS.

WHOLE DISCUSSION. WE CAN TAKE A BALANCED APPROACH AND TRY OUR BEST TO NOT PUT OURSELVES BACK IN THAT SITUATION. BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN THERE MORE MORETHAN ONCE OR WE CAN OPERATEN EXTREMES AND THAT'S FINE IF THAT'S WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS. BUT JUST KNOW TO ACT LYING IT'S ALL GOING TO BE FINE AND DANDY IT'S NEVER HAPPENED TO US BEFORE IT'S NOT TRUE. AND THE ONLY THING THAT BUILT THEM OUT BACK THEN THEY HAD POWER TO RAISE TAXES WITHOUT GOING TO THE VOTERS. NOW IF WE GET TO THAT SITUATION I DON'T THINK IT WOULD PASS A BALLOT AND WE WOULD BE MAKING SOME DRAMATIC CHANGE TO WHAT MIDLOTHIAN IS.

AND THAT'S THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE I GREW UP HERE.

I HAVE A QUALITY THAT I WANT MY HOME TOWN TO BE, AND WE CAN ARGUE THE QUALITY OR NOT. BUT WE CAN GET TO A NUMBER.

I'M NOT GOING TO DEBATE THAT WE CAN'T GET TO THAT NUMBER.

BUT THAT NUMBER THAT'S BEEN THROWN OUT IN MY OPINION WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE QUALITY OF THE TOWN THAT I WANT AND WOULD PUT US BACK IN A POSITION THAT PAST COUNCILS WERE IN AND WE'VE BEEN BENEFITING FROM THEIR POSITIONS, ALL THIS INCREASE WAS JUST A BENEFIT FROM WHAT THEY DID AROUND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON HONESTLY WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO LOWER TAXES IS BECAUSE THEY MADE SOME HARD DECISIONS. BUT THAT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS.

IT'S. >> I GOT THREE PEOPLE TO RESPOND, THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS. MIKE YOU SAID IF SOMEBODY TRIED TO GO FROM 65 CENTS TO 66 OR 67 CENTS, THAT YOU WOULD BE EXTREMELY MAD ABOUT IT. WITH THE INCREASE IN VALUATION THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH STAYING AT 65.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING. AND THAT SHOULD BE MAKING YOU MAD RIGHT THERE. BECAUSE THAT'S -- IT'S MORE MONEY COMING OUT OF YOUR POCKET. AND YOU AS A BUSINESS OWNER, THOSE PROPERTIES THAT YOU OWN THROUGH YOUR BUSINESS YOU WILL DEFINITELY BE PAYING MORE TAXES THIS YEAR THAN YOU DID LAST YEAR BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BENEFIT FROM ANY HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS ON THOSE. AND THIS IS NO CAPS SO THERE'S NO 10% VAMTION CAP. -- VALUATION CAP.

THERE IS 20 NOW, JUST WENT INTO PLACE.

SO YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT THAT IS RAISING TAXES STAYING AT 65 CENTS. LET'S BE CLEAR, YOU SAID THAT IS MAKING YOU MAT, IT SHOULD MAKE YOU MAD.

YOU AND I ARE AGREEING ON THAT. >> I DO WANT TO STATE SO YOU KNOW MY VIEW ON, THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY THAT WE CAN LOWER THE TAXES ON THE HOMESTEAD, THE HOMEOWNER'S SIDE, WHICH IS THE LOWER INCOME CAPACITY BRACT OF THE BIG PICTURE WHEN YOU COMPARE THEM WITH BUSINESSES. SO I CAN ONLY TELL WHAT YOU WE'VE ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT HERE AND IT'S A BIG PART OF MY VIEW.

[00:50:01]

BUT IT'S GOING TO COME FROM THE BUSINESSES.

AND IT'S GOING TO COME FROM THE FOLKS SADLY WHO ARE NOT VESTED HOMESTEADERS. THAT'S THE SAD FACULTY.

BUT IF -- THAT'S THE SAD FACT. BUT WHEN WE -- MY MENTION IN THE 65 TO 67, WAS NOT SUCH A CONCEPT BECAUSE WE BOTH KNOW, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER $20 A MONTH WHICH WOULDN'T BE THE END OF THE WORLD. I'M TALKING THE WAY WE VIEW THINGS IN OUR MIND. EVERYBODY LOVES TO GO DOWN,

NOBODY LIKES TO GO UP. >> AND THAT WAS MY POINT IS THAT I WAS MAKING IS THAT STAYING AT THE RATE, WE ARE GOING UP.

SO -- >> CAN I JUST --

>> HOLD UP. I WAITED PATIENTLY TO ALL OF YOU AND I WANTED TO JUST RESPOND TO YOU.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT -- SO THAT'S THE -- THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE I HAD WITH WHAT YOU SAID AS FAR AS THE TAX RATE.

AS FAR AS THE COUNCIL PAY I DISAGREE THAT WE'RE HERE TO AMERICA DECISIONS THAT ARE -- TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE FOR THE COMMUNITY. THE ISSUE I TAKE WITH THIS AND THIS IS WHAT I'VE SAID IN THE PAST IS THAT THIS ISN'T A QUESTION OF SELF INTEREST, AND TYPICALLY IN THOSE SITUATIONS WE NEED TO RECUSE OURSELVES. AND GRANTED THERE IS A THRESHOLD, A TECHNICAL THRESHOLD, BUT THE MORAL THRESHOLD SHOULD BE DO WE PERSONALLY BENEFIT FROM A DECISION THAT WE'RE MAKING UP HERE? AND IF WE'RE PERSONALLY BENEFITING FROM A DECISION THAT WE'RE MAKING UP HERE WE SHOULDN'T BE MAKING IT.

SO THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED EITHER ONE OF THREE SOLUTIONS, WE GIVE IT TO A FUTURE COUNCIL, THREE YEARS IN ADVANCE, WHERE NONE OF US WILL BE SITTING ON OUR CURRENT TERM, REQUIRING ANY ONE OF US TO GO THROUGH REELECTION AUTHORIZED TO GAIN THERE THAT. TWO, TAKE IT TO VOTE, PUT IT ON THE MAY BALLOT, LET THE CITIZENS DECIDE.

OR THREE, AT LEAST, AT THE VERY LEAST, THAT WE HAVE A VOTE OFTEN IT DURING A NORMAL -- ON IT DURING A NORMAL STANDARD MEETING. AND I HEARD PEOPLE SAY YOU'RE PUTTING A BULL'S EYE ON IT OR TARGET.

IF IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO BE AFRAID OF THE VOTERS BECAUSE WE ARE DOING IT, WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT IS MY OPINION.

THAT IF WE ACTUALLY FEAR THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TARGETED FOR IT THEN WE'RE PROBABLY DOING SOMETHING WRONG.

SO THAT'S MY RESPONSE TO THAT AND THAT'S STILL WHY I CAN'T GET BEHIND THAT PORTION OF THE BUDGET.

SO ANN INTO RESPOND TO YOU, ONE OF THE THINGS IS THE ROAD PROJECTS WE NEED, THOSE ARE STILL MOVING FORWARD.

WE'RE TAKING A BIGGER BITE OUT OF THE ROAD PROBLEMS THIS YEAR IN THIS BUDGET, THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS BUDGET THAN WE HAVE IN MANY YEARS PAST. WE'RE LOOKING AT -- WE HAVE A GREAT PLAN OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS TO GET CAUGHT UP.

(INAUDIBLE). >> ON -- (INAUDIBLE).

>> THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO -- >> I WAS JUST --

>> YES BUT I'M SAYING IN OUR NORMAL MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS.

THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO A CATASTROPHIC INCIDENT WITH THE FREEZE THAT CAUSED A LOT OF PROBLEMS THAT WOULD NOT NORMALLY HAVE BEEN THERE. SO -- YEAH BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CLEAR BUDGET AND A CLEAR PLAN.

I THINK THAT STAFF HAS DONE A REALITY GOOD JOB OF LOOKING AT THE ROADS AND THE PROBLEMS PRIORITIZING THEM AND BUDGETING FOR THEM AND THET PUT FORWARD A BUDGET THAT MAKES SENSE.

YOU KNOW, GOING BEYOND THAT, BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE JUST WANT TO HURRY IT UP, I DON'T THINK THAT PERSONALLY I DON'T THINK IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY MUCH I THINK WE NEED FOR THE REASONS I STATED EARLIER.

LET'S SEE THERE WAS ANOTHER THING.

I OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T TAKE GOOD ENOUGH NOTES HERE BECAUSE I'M READING BACK ON MY NOTES THAT I TOOK WHILE YOU WERE TALKING.

OH IN DISCUSSION ON YOU SAID YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT LOOKING AT HOW DO WE ACTUALLY HELP THE PEOPLE RATHER THAN DO AN ACROSS THE BOARD RATE CUT WITH HOMESTEAD OR THE CAPS

[00:55:01]

IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT A PATH TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW, AND WE CAN PLAN ON THAT, THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.

I MEAN IF -- I THINK THAT THAT IS A REALLY GOOD OPTION THAT FITS PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY UP THERE HAS SAID THEY'RE UP WITH THAT? BECAUSE THAT IS TAKING CARE OF THE MOST VULNERABLE AND MOST INVESTED WITH THE COMMUNITY IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE AND HAVE THEIR HOMESTEADS HERE, THE DISABLED AND THE ELDERLY THAT NO LONGER HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT FLEXIBLE INCOME, THEY'RE ON A FIXED INCOME AND THEY ARE A SERIOUSLY IMPACTED AND OFTENTIMES DRIVEN OUT OF THIS COMMUNITY BY THE INCREASE IN TAXES. AND SO WE DEFINITELY NEED TO FIX THAT AND I'M ALL FOR FINDING THAT SOLUTION.

CLARK TO YOUR POINT YOU SAID YOU DON'T WANT TO DEAL IN EXTREMES AND YOU PEOPLE LIKE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING LIKE WHAT MYSELF WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS EXTREME I WOULD COUNTER THAT BY SAYING THAT 65 CENTS IS EXTREME. THAT IS THE VOTER -- ESSENTIALLY WITHIN LEGS THAN -- LESS THAN A 10TH OR 2/100TH OF A%, I WROTE ARGUE THAT STAYING AT 65 CENTS IS AN EXTREME.

IT'S JUST THE OPPOSITE END OF IT.

THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS THE LOW END EXTREME.

NOBODY HERE IS SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO HIT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WE'RE SAYINGS LET'S FUND M AND O, LET'S FUND THE SPLERCHLS, LET'S MEET IN THE -- SUPPLEMENTALS, LET'S MEET IN THE MIDDLE AND COMPROMISE. I DON'T WANT TO BE PAINTED WITH THE BRUSH OF BEING AN EXTREMIST. THAT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM

TRUE. >> THAT'S NOT MY COMMENT.

HERE IS MY THING ON THE OVERALL RATE AND THAT'S WHY I AGREE ON THE DISARNLTS AND THE HOMESTEADD HOMESTEADS THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AT. IF YOU LOWER THE TAX RATES MY RATES ARE NOT GOING DOWN, YOU ARE PUTTING MORE MONEY IN MY POCKET ALONG WITH ALL THE LARGE CORPORATION HE.

SO IF WE CAN FIND A WAY TO DO MORE THAT ACTUALLY BENEFIT THE HOMEOWNER, I AGREE WITH THAT. MY STANCE ON THE EXTREMES WAS MORE OF WHAT WE WANT MIDLOTHIAN TO LOOK AT AS FAR AS QUALITY AS FAR AS LANDSCAPE MOWING, DO WE DO THAT SPECIAL PROJECT, IF THAT'S HOW YOU TAKE IT I APOLOGIZE.

TO MY -- AND I SAID THIS TO ANOTHER COUNCILMEMBER THE OTHER DAY AND I CAN ONLY SPEAK OF THE TIME I'VE SERVED HERE.

IT'S NOT A PRETTY PICTURE, IF YOU HAVE SET HERE THE TIME I HAVE IN THE LAST BUDGETS. FROM THE TIME I WAS ELECTED TO TODAY, THE DEFICIT HAS GROWN EVERY YEAR.

THE CASH RESERVES HAVE CONNELL CONTINUALGONE DOWN, AND THAT'S T I'VE HAD SINCE WE'VE HAD, WE WERE AT 200 AT ONE POINT, I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD BE AT 200. WE THOUGHT WE WERE SITTING ON TOO MUCH MONEY. IT MAKES YOU A LITTLE UNEASY ONLY FROM THE SAYS OF THE DEFICIT THE RESERVES AND YOU KNOW THERE'S MORE PROJECTS COMING AND WE CAN HAVE A ARGUMENT ON HOW MANY DAYS WE SHOULD IN RESERVES.

YOU KNOW I'VE SET HERE, I'VE SEEN US BUY STUFF AND HAVE TO PAY CASH SO I CAN SAY THERE IS A BENEFIT THERE HAVING THE CASH BECAUSE WE'RE NOT BORROWING THE MONEY.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES ME UNEASY. SO I THOUGHT THE 10% HOMESTEAD AT LEAST FOR ME WAS THE COMPROMISE ALONG WITH THE DISABLED. AND SO WHEN WE CAME BACK TO THE TABLE AND SAID THAT'S NOT ENOUGH I GUESS THAT'S WHAT KIND OF MADE ME JERK BACK AND SAID OH I THOUGHT WE HAD PRE PREACHED IT.

>> AS WE SAID BACK THEN CAN IF WE HAD HIT 20% AND COMPROMISED IT I'D BE MORE INCLINED TO TAKE THE 65 CENTS NOW.

THAT IS THE ISSUE. I TOLD YOU DEVICE AT THE TIME, WHEN FEE DON'T -- IF WE DON'T DO IT I'MING LOOKING AT IT AT THIS POINT. WE DIDN'T DO IT THEN, WE HAVE TO

FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT NOW. >> REGARDING THE HOMESTEAD AGAIN I THINK WE DID A REALLY GOOD THING.

I ALSO THINK THAT THERE WAS -- THIS IS ONLY A MONTHING, BUT THERE -- MONTH AGO, BUT THERE WAS A TON OF UNKNOWNS, IN REGARDS TO THE FUTURE OF THIS DISCUSSION, THERE ARE VERY LOUD VOICES IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE CALLING FOR NO NEW REVENUE AND OTHER THINGS SO A MEASURED APPROACH I BELIEVE WAS TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL IN HOPES OF ESTABLISHING THIS SEEING THE FRUITFULNESS OF IT ULTIMATELY AND THEN GETTING TO THE MAXIMUM

[01:00:03]

AND SO I WOULD JUST COMBAT THAT BY, THERE IS A MEASURED APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN AND AGAIN A BALANCED APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN TO SEE WHAT THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THESE MOVES

ARE. >> ONE QUESTION I'D ASK YOU IS HINDSIGHT NOW THAT YOU HAVE THE NUMBERS, FINAL NUMBERS WOULD YOU HAVE HAD ANY PROBLEMS GOING TO THAT 20% NOW?

>> IN HINDSIGHT NO, BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE CAN DO IT GOING FORWARD FOR NEXT YEAR BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT WE NOW KNOW HAVE COME FROM THE COUNTY OR FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

AND SO YEAH I FEET LIKE WE CAN GET THERE.

NOW -- FEEL LIKE WE CAN GET THERE.

I WILL SAY IF WE TAKE, I WON'T CALL IT EXTREMES, I DON'T THINK YOU ARE OFFERING AN EXTREME POINT BUT IF WE TAKE A DRASTIC APPROACH TO LOWERING OF THE OVERALL TAX RATE I DO BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO ENACT A HIGHER HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR NEXT YEAR.

>> I JUST (INAUDIBLE). >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION TOO? SO HOW DO YOU WANT -- BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE IN A MUCH DIFFERENT SETTING THAN WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PREVIOUS SO FOR THE MAYOR, YOU KNOW, WITH THE FLOW OF TRYING TO DO MY BEST THOUGHT TO INTERRUPT ANYBODY BUT ALSO DON'T WANT TO NOT --

>> I WOULD JUST ASK LET'S ALL BE COURTEOUS TO EVERYONE.

LET'S TURN OFF THE MICROPHONE AND HAVE A GENTLEMEN AND GENTLE

WOMAN'S DISCUSSION UP HERE. >> WE -- I DON'T THINK YOU'RE EXTREME BY THE WAY. WE ALL AGREE THERE IS A GROUP OF THINGS AND WE AGREE THAT WE COULD MAKE CAP CHANGES, WE AGREE THERE IS A POTENTIAL CREEP MEN AS SITUATION, THERE IS STREETS TO DO AND THERE'S A CITY HALL IN THE PARK.

WE'RE ALL ON THOSE SUBJECTS. SO WHAT WE NEED TO HAVE IS A COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ABOUT IS WHAT ARE WE GOING TO -- BECAUSE IF WE GO BACKWARDS WE'VE GOT TO ELIMINATE STUFF SO WE'VE OBVIOUSLY GOT TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT.

BECAUSE IF WE SAY A PERSONY, BUT TO ME -- PENNY THAT'S $3.33 A MONTH TO ME, I COULD CARE LESS HONESTLY.

TO AVOID THESE OTHERS SUBJECTS, 3.33.

I'M TALKING ABOUT MEANINGFUL WAYS TO GRAB LARGER BLOCKS OF MONEYS TO GET BACK TO THE PEOPLE ON THE HOMESTEAD SIDE.

SO I'M LOOKING AT I PEOPLE LIKE WE GOT 10% OF THE DIRECTION I WANT TO GET TO THIS YEAR BUT BACK TO WHAT HE WAS GETTING AT I WANT US TO TALK ABOUT OKAY, IF WE WANT -- BECAUSE IF WE DROP ANYTHING, WE FIRST OF ALL GOT TO KIND OF DECIDE HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO. BECAUSE TO ME WE'RE KIND OF SEEING IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THE 65 CENTS OR NOT AND THEN SAY OKAY WHAT EXACTLY DO WE WANT TO DO NOW? BECAUSE THESE ITEMS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEY WILL -- WHENEVER YOU DO THEM POSSIBLY REQUIRE SOME DEBT.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CREEK BED --

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS CITY HALL MAYBE AND EXPANDING THE TIME LINE OF WHEN IT FALLS IT MAY REQUIRE DEBT SO WE'VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT -- WE'VE EITHER GOT TO SAY NO CREEK BEND WE'RE NOT DOING YOU, STREETS FOLKS KEEP ENJOYING IT AND BY THE WAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO, WE'RE JUST GOING TO LET THE BUILDING STAND AND WE'RE NOT EXPANDING THE PARK AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE ALL YOU FOLKS $33 A MONTH BACK. I DON'T FIND THAT TO BE IN MY VIEW WISE. BUT I AM WILLING TO LISTEN WHAT YOU GUYS THINK. I'M LISTENING.

>> CHRIS COULD YOU GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT ALL WAS INCLUDED ON THE TAX NOTE? CREEK BEND, HERITAGE PARK?

>> YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO TALK. CREEK BEND HERITAGE PARK AND

ROADS. >> WELL, WE HAD CREEK BEND LAND REQUISITION PARK AND PARK AND ANYTHING ELSE WOULD BE ROADS.

>> SO Y'ALL TURN YOUR MICROPHONES ON.

I WOULD ASK THAT THOSE THAT ARE TALKERS TO MAKE SURE THAT OTHERS WHO ARE NOT TALKERS BE ABLE TO CHIME IN AND HAVE HEALTHY

CONVERSATION AND Y'ALL CHIME IN. >> WE SUGGEST BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO EVERYBODY, LET'S GIVE ALLEN HIS TIME.

>> DENY ID. >> NO I'M TRYING -- DENIED.

I'M TRYING TO GET INTO THIS MEETING, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS FORMAT WITH A PURPOSEFUL I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST NOT TO JUMP IN IF I'VE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY JUST TO KEEP IT RESPECTFUL TO YOU GUYS. BUT WHAT I'M WHAT I WANTED TO ASK AND CLARIFY TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISUNDERSTANDING BECAUSE I MAY CHANGE MY ENTIRE PREMISE THAT I'VE HAD AROUND THIS THOUGHT PROCESS IS, CAN WE PASS A RATE AT 65 AND A HALF?

[01:05:03]

WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL? >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO START THE PROCESS OVER. IF YOU WERE ISSUING MORE DEBT

YOU COULD RAISE THE RATE. >> OKAY.

>> SO AND I WOULD -- I GUESS MAKING THAT IS SOMETHING COLEMAN GARDNER SAID EARLIER. 65 AND WHY YOU END UP CLOSE TO THE VOART APPROVAL, WHEN YOU ISSUE DEBT YOU CAN RAISE THE RATE AS HIGH AS YOU WANT. YOU CAN MAKE IT 70 CENTS, 65, 66. WE WERE SAYING WE WANT TO ISSUE ALL THE $40 MILLION WE HAVE ON THE BOND AND THAT COULD TAKE US RIGHT TO 70 CENTS YOU COULD DO THAT WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL.

THE ONLY REASON I SAY YOU NEED TO START THE PROCESS OVER, WE HAVE A MAX RATE OF 65. YOU'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO THAT HAPPEN BUT ON THE RATE YOU CAN GO AS HIGH AS YOU WANT.

>> WITH THE CURRENT M AND O BUDGET AND RATE, 65 IS THE HIGHEST WE CAN GO WITHOUT TAKING EXCESS DEBT OR DOING IT ON THE DEBT SIDE, OKAY. SO ONE OF THE THINGS I'M SLIGHTLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH AND I WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT SEVERAL TIMES IN THE BUDGET WORKSHOPS AND IT'S COME UP TEN TIMES IN THE CONVERSATION TODAY, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES IT'S GONE UP BUT THIS WHOLE NOTION IN DEALING WITH EXTREMES.

I LOOKED UP THE DEFINITION OF EXTREME IT'S REACHING THE HIGH OR HIGHEST DEGREE. SO ED HENGSED THAT EARLIER, BUT I SEE THIS AS DEALING IN EXTREMES WHEN WE'RE NOT HAVING A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THIS, THE ROUTE THAT WE'RE ON. I KNOW THAT'S WHAT TODAY IS FOR BUT I SEE THAT AS MUCH OF AN EXTREME AS THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE WHICH I'M NOT PERSONALLY IN FAVOR OF, THAT EXTREME EITHER.

I ALSO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE EXEMPTIONS AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS. SO ON THE EXEMPTION SIDE I'VE THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT THIS AS WELL.

WITH OUR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WHEN WE PASS THAT 10% EXEMPTION, I THINK THE CONSENSUS OF THE ROOM AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED EARLIER WAS THAT BECAUSE OF THE UNKNOWNS IN THAT MOMENT WE NEEDED TO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ACCECHARACTERIZE IT, GOING WITH0 INSTEAD OF A HIGHER NUMBER WHICH I THINK WE UNANIMOUSLY PASSED IF I REMEMBER CORRECT, AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, SO WE WERE ON 74TH OF THAT WHICH I THINK IS AWESOME.

-- WE WERE IN SUPPORT OF THAT WHICH I THINK IS AWESOME.

HAD WE NOT PASS ED THAT HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION COULD WE CURRENTLY PASS A 6-5 RATE, COULD WE HOLD THE RATE IF WE HADN'T DONE THE EXEMPTION MATHEMATICALLY?

>> YES, YOU COULD BECAUSE AGAIN ON THE I AND S SIDE WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE TO ISSUE, SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND ALL THESE RATES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE BASED ON TOTAL VALUE. SO WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE HAD, WITHOUT DOING THE EXEMPTION YOU WOULD HAVE HAD AN INCREASED VALUE THAT GOT CERTIFIED. IT'S AN INVERTED CALCULATION.

SO YOUR NO NEW REVENUE RATE WOULD HAVE WENT THEORETICALLY WOULD HAVE WENT DOWN BECAUSE YOU HAD MORE VALUE RIGHT? SO YOUR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND VOTER APPROVAL RATE WOULD HAVE WENT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

BUT DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO ON THE DIBT SIDE YOU COULD HAVE STILL DONE 65 CENTS. IT JUST DEPENDS.

>> WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO CUT THE M AND O BUDGET TO DO SO CORRECT?

>> IN THEORY BUT WOULD YOU HAVE HAD MORE VALUE SO THAT'S MORE TAX AT A LOWER RATE, THAT MAKE SENSE? YOU WOULD HAVE A LOWER RATE BUT HIGHER VALUE.

>> WE ARE GOING TO PASS THAT M AND O BUDGET ON A 6-5 RATE WHETHER WE DO A NEW BUDGET OR NOT?

>> YOU COULD HAVE. AGAIN IT DEPENDS ON YOUR DEBT

MODEL. >> I BELIEVE HE'S ASKING WITHOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL COMMENSURATE DEBT.

THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. WE COULD NOT HAVE HELD --

>> WOULD YOU HAVE HAD -- >> THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE I MEAN THE VOTER APPROVED WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER THAN THE CURRENT

65 CENT RATE. >> WEM OKAY.

REGARDLESS I DON'T KNOW WHAT THW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION STILL. BUT IT MIGHT JUST BE MORE COMPLEX THAT I'M TRYING TO -- IT MIGHT BE MORE COMPLEX OF AN

[01:10:03]

>> TO COUNCILMEMBER GARDNER'S ANSWER, IF YOU HAD THE SAME AMOUNT OF DEBT THE M AND O WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO I FEEL LIKE IF THAT'S OUR CURRENT MAX RATE AFTER WE DID THAT HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BRINGS ME TO A CONCLUSION THAT WE CAN DO MORE. AND THAT'S ALL THAT FROM THE BEGINNING EARLIER THAT I SHARED I THINK WE CAN DO A LITTLE BIT MORE. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS OPERATING IN EXTREMES, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOSE THAT ARE IN SUPPORT OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE RATE AS-IS.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S OPERATING IN EXTREMES.

I THINK WE'RE ALL TAKE A BALANCED APPROACH.

I THINK OUR PERSPECTIVES ARE JUST SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.

>> SO DO YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL? >> I HAVE SEVERAL.

(LAUGHING). >> OKAY.

>> HE CAN GO DOWN AND THEY WILL -- SOME WILL BE MORE

PALATABLE THAN OTHERS. >> WHAT IS YOUR BEST PROPOSAL, PUT THAT FORWARD AND LET'S SEE WHERE WE'RE AT.

>> WHERE I AM COMFORTABLE AND THE REASON I'VE HAD ALL THESE PROPOSALS IS I TRIED TO THINK OF EVERY WHICH WHICH THAT I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD. BECAUSE ONE THING THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT I KNOW HAS BEEN AT SEASONS AT ISSUE IS WHEN FOLKS SAY HEY I DON'T WANT TO DO IN BUT THERE'S REALLY THOUGHT AN ALTERNATIVE SO I'VE REALLY TRIED DILIGENTLY TO HAVE AS MANY ALTERNATIVES OTO MAKE TO SPEAK FOR MYSELF THAT I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH.ABOUT ONE IS W. ONE IS THAT WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND LOCK IN THE MAXED EXEMPTION FOR THE 2024 TAX YEAR ALONGSIDE HOLDING THE RATE. SO THAT WE KNOW FOR A FACT THIS YEAR, HOMESTEAD RESIDENTS WILL NOT SEE AN INCREASE ALTHOUGH IT'S LIKELY THAT THEY SEE IT FLAT AND WE CAN ALSO GUARANTEE THAT NEXT YEAR THEY WILL NOT SEE AN INCREASE WITH THAT SOLUTION.

THAT'S MY PROBABLY MOST PALATABLE SOLUTION I WOULD

THINK. >> CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION OF THAT SO WHAT ELSE? BECAUSE AND I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS

A LOT. >> WHAT ELSE?

>> WHAT ELSE IS THIS IS HOW THIS CONVERSATION STARTED THIS YEAR.

WELT IF WE DO 10% THEN WE'LL DO THIS SO IT WON'T BE A PROBLEM LATER. EVERY TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE WHEN IT GETS TO THE FINISH LINE THERE'S A PROBLEM SO IT'S 10% TODAY BUT THEN WE SIT DOWN IN THE BUDGET WORKSHOP NEXT YEAR, YOU SAY YOU GOT YOUR 10% AND I WANT 3 CENTS OFF THE RATE.

YOU'RE LOCK US INTO NUMBERS WE DON'T HAVE TO THINGS THAT CONTINUOUSLY CHANGE. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PASS THE 20

IT WILL BE FINE. >> THERE IS A TRUST FACTOR

THERE. >> THERE IS BUT THERE IS ALSO A POSSIBILITY OF ONE MORE OR TWO MORE I DON'T KNOW --

>> BUT NEXT YEAR THE SAME DISCUSSION IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE. THE SAME CONVERSATIONS ARE GOING

TO TAKE PLACE. >> AND THE SAME THING COULD BE SAID ABOUT THE TAX NOTES. WHAT ELSE, WE'RE GOING TO DO CREEK BEND, WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT ELSE?

>> WE'RE NOT DOING HYPOTHETICAL NUMBERS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REAL NUMBERS OF. HERE'S THE DEAL.

I WOULD AGREE WITH ALLEN'S APPROACH.

I WOULD TAKE IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CATCH FOR 65 AND OVER AND DISABLED RIGHT NOW.

LET'S DISCUSS THOSE, BECAUSE IF WE CAN COME TO TERMS ON THIS YEAR, LOCKING IN FOR NEXT YEAR, THE -- THE MAX OF 20% FOR HOMESTEAD AND WE CAN RAISE THE CAP FOR DISABLED AND ELDERLY, WE CAN INK THAT, I'M OKAY WITH HOLDING THE RATE AND I WILL -- ON MICROPHONE FOR EVERYBODY I'M SURE I'M GOING TO PISS OFF A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WANT THE NEW REVENUE RATE AND WANT TO LOWER THE RATE OVERALL BUT I WILL SAY THAT IF WE CAN COME TO TERMS ON THOSE THAT I WILL PLEDGE TO VOTE FOR THE 65 CENT RATE.

>> I'M JUST GOING TO SPEAK FOR HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE FOR ME.

WE HAVE NEVER AND I DON'T CARE WHO WAS SITTING UP HERE HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO COVER TRUE TAX SAVINGS IN THE M AND O.

EVERY TIME THEY SAY WE CAN CUT THE M AND O I SAY SHOW ME AND THEY SAY WELL I DON'T KNOW THAT IS CHRIS'S JOB AND THAT'S NOT

[01:15:02]

CHRIS'S JOB. >> WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

>> I WANT SANTA INCREASE THE CEILING AN I WANT TO INCREASE THE DISABILITY CEILING, THAT MEANS THAT AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO NEXT YEAR EITHER TAKE A CUT ON THE M AND O OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE OFF DEBT AND I'M NOT LIKE THIS IS AN OPINION. I'VE SET THROUGH THESE MORE THAN

YOU TWO HAVE AND I'M JUST SAYIN- >> HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE DEBT SCHEDULE? WE CAN CUT IT OFF THE DEBT.

>> OKAY THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING THERE THOUGH.

Y'ALL MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THERE BUT I WAS WHEN WE PUT THOSE BONDS OUT FOR THE PUBLIC AND I TOLD THE PUBLIC THAT WE WERE GOING TO ISSUE THESE BONDS IN THIS TIME FRAME AND I AM NOT STOPPING. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE REC CENTER, IF THE PUBLIC TOLD ME TO BUILD IT I AM GOING TO BUILD IT.

>> YOU ARE ONE OF SEVEN. >> I AM.

>> WE ARE GOING TO BUILD A REC CENTER FOR $119 MILLION NEXT

YEAR? >> WE'RE GOING TO START THE

PROCESS. >> (INAUDIBLE).

>> I TELL YOU WHAT ELSE WE TALKED IF.

I TOLD YOU I SET IN THIS SEAT WHEN WE HAD THESE SURPRISE SITUATIONS, WHEN WE HAD THIS SITUATION THAT'S NOW GOING TO BE CITY HALL WHEN WE WERE BUYING MORE PARKING, THESE LAND REQUISITIONS ESPECIALLY FOR PARKING HAVE SETTLE THE SITUATION DOWNTOWN, THOSE FOLKS DON'T SIT AROUND WAITING FOR THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO WHEN THEY COME UP WITH THE MONEY THEY WANT THEIR MONEY RIGHT THEN. I WAS SITTING THERE WHEN THE MAIN PUMP WENT OUT FOR THE WATER SUPPLY.

I WAS SITTING THERE WHEN WE HAD MAJOR WATER LEAKS.

I FORGOT HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IT COST LIKE THAT.

AND JUST DOESN'T WORK OUT ON THIS BUDGET.

IT'S JUST EXACTLY LIKE RUNNING MY BUSINESS.

I TOLD SOMEBODY YESTERDAY, YOU THINK STAFF, IF YOU WOULD THINK IN THE PUBLIC THAT STAFF DID A BAD JOB OF MANAGING MONEY, LOOK AT MY BUSINESS ON HOW GOOD I JACKED MY BUSINESS UP.

I CAN ONLY SAY ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS IT'S DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS OF HOW WE WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY.

AND THE FIRST STEP THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN IS, I AM ONLY ADVOCATING THAT IF WE HOLD THE 65 CENTS, THERE'S ONLY ONE REASON. BECAUSE THERE'S A LIST OF VIABLE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE AND IT'S NOT WORTH 33 DOLLARS A MONTH TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, I GET EVERYTHING, AND I TIM YOU MY TAKE ON THE DISABILITY SIDE AND ALL THAT.

I'M GLAD THAT WE DID AWAY WE DID THIS YEAR, I'M GLAD WE DID WHAT WE DID ON THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.

I PLAN TO GO TO 20% BUT I WILL TELL WHAT YOU I RAN IN ON THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. I RAN ON THAT AND THE DAY AFTER I WAS VOTED IN I STARTED WORKING WITH THEM ON THAT WITH CHRIS AND THEM THE DAY AFTER I GOT ELECTED.

AND I'M TEMG YOU THE WHOLE PUNCH OF THAT IN MY VIEW IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT WE HAD THAT IS ADJUSTABLE YEARLY IF WE WANTED TO DO SO ATHAT IS ABOUT EIGHT OR 9 SERNTS WORTH OF TAX VALUE.

THAT THAT CAN BE OUR FLUCTUATING BUDGETARY ISSUE BUT WE'RE ALREADY HEADED DOWN THE ROAD TO MAXING THAT OUT AND THEN MOVING AS FAR -- WE'RE GOING DOWN THE ROAD CLARK WAS TALKING ABOUT.

AND SO WHAT THIS ALL REALLY BOILS ITSELF DOWN TO IS SIMPLE.

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT ARE WE INTERESTED IN ADDITIONAL STREETS, DRAINAGE ISSUES, CITY HALL, OR HERITAGE PARK? THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT THAT EXTRA POTENTIAL, THAT 65 CENTS IS THERE FOR, TO PROVIDE OR THE THAT STUFF WHICH WE CAN'T EVEN DO HALF OF THAT STUFF WITH THE BALANCE.

>> HOLD ON. LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT SOMETHING HERE. LET'S GET DOWN TO BRASS TACKS.

CHRIS, AN EXTRA 10% ON HO HOMESTEAD, TAX, WHAT DOES THAT

AMOUNT TO? >> WHEN WE HAD DONE THE ORIGINAL WE ESTIMATE BED 2.2 MILLION. WE HAVE A QUESTION TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE THE EXEMPTION WAS ACTUALLY HIGHER. WHEN THEY SENT IT TO US, WE THOUGHT IT WAS BASED ON THE CATCH VALUATE, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE DOING IT ON MARKET VALUE.

SO BASICALLY GIVE THE HOMEOWNER A LITTLE BIT MORE.

IF THAT'S THE CASE THAT NUMBER CAN BE ABOUT 2.7.

AGAIN WE'RE TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION ON WHAT NUMBER THEY APPLIED THE EXEMPTION TO. RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON MARKET VALUE WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY HIGHER.

>> SO DO WE KNOW FOR 65 AND OVER AND DISABLED WHAT THE TOTAL

[01:20:04]

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT IS? >> WE KNOW THE DISABLED WAS 229.

WE JUST DID THAT. I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER OF THE OVER 65. WE CAN TRY TO GET THAT FOR YOU BEFORE THE DAY'S OVER. BUT I'M JUST KIND OF -- SO I WAS JUST GOING OFF OF MEMORY THAT I THOUGHT I.T. WAS OVER 2,000 SO THAT COULD BE COMPLETELY I DON'T THINK.

>> WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. >> WE KNOW BECAUSE THERE IS A LIMITATION, BECAUSE OF THE CEILING WE KNOW WHAT WE GENERATE. I'M NOT SURE WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND CALCULATE HOW MUCH WE GIVE UP IN REVENUE BECAUSE OF

THE CEILING AND THE EXEMPTION. >> OKAY.

SO JUST BASED ON THIS RIGHT HERE, IF WE WERE TO LOCK IN THE 20%, AND STAY AT THE 65 CENT RATE, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO FULLY FUND ALL M AND O ALL -- OR ALL BUDGETED SPENDING CURRENTLY, SARND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE -- AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL ROOM FOR SOME OF THESE PROJECTS BUT --

>> $5 MILLION DEFICIT. ADDITIONAL TO THE DEFICIT WE HAVE AT ONE AND A HALF. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NEXT YEAR

OR RIGHT NOW? >> I THOUGHT THE QUESTION WAS, IF WE WENT THE ADDITIONAL 10% HOW MUCH WOULD THAT BE?

>> YES. >> AND I WANT TO TELL YOU BHAIFD ON THIS YEAR'S NUMBERS IT WAS 2.2 TO 2.7 THAT'S ACTUAL REVENUE

THAT WOULD -- IT WOULD BE GONE. >> SO 2.7 MORE THAN WE -- WITH

THE INITIAL -- >> WITH THIS YEAR WITH EACH PENNY BEING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE OFFICIAL 6-12 BUT THEN WHEN YOU TAKE IN THE THING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PROBABLY 4 CENTS.

>> IF YOU DIDN'T CUT -- IF WE LEFT EVERYTHING IN THE BUDGETS RIGHT NOW WITH A 1.4 MILLION DEFICIT YOU WOULD ADD 2.7 TO THE

DEFICIT. >> TAKE IT OFF -- YOU'RE SAYING DEFICIT ON THE GENERAL FUND OR YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT OFF THE DEBT SIDE. BUT IT WOULD BE FOUR CENTS GIVE OR TAKE RIGHT WHEN YOU DO THE MATH.

SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING ONE OR TWO CENTS. IT WOULD BE MORE THAN THAT.

BECAUSE OF THE TOTAL REVENUE. >> I WANT ANOTHER FOUR OR 5 MILLION IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE HAVE THIS YEAR.

>> WE HAD 25% GROWTH THIS YEAR. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR GROWTH RATES THERE IS -- WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL GROWTH AS WELL.

>> I'M NOT ARGUING GROWTH. IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE VALUE, VALUES ARE GOING DOWN RIGHT NOW. ARE EVERYONE KEEPS SAYING STATE OF THE ECONOMY IN RECESSION, THAT'S COMING.

SO TO SIT THERE AND GO ALL I'M ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S BEST AT THIS POINT I JUST LISTEN.

ALL I'M GOING TO SAY IS EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS WHAT I SAID EARLIER. PAST COUNCILS THAT IT WAS NEVER GOING TO RAIN. IT'S ALWAYS GOOD WE ALWAYS GOT THIS GROWTH IT IS GOING TO BE FINE AND THOSE BOYS GOT THEMSELVES IN A BAD SITUATION SO I'M JUST GOING TO SILT BACK AND

LISTEN. >> YOU ASKED EARLIER WHAT WOULD SOMEBODY CUT? LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING RIGHT NOW. YOU ASK THE AVERAGE TAXPAYER THEY'D SAY CUT THE RAISES DON'T BUY THE NEW VEHICLES.

DON'T DO ALL THIS ADDITIONAL SPENDING THAT IS IN THIS M AND O BUDGET. TRUST ME.

PEOPLE LOOK AT THIS AND THEY COMAIR IT TO THEIR OWN -- COMPARE IT TO THEIR OWN PERSONAL BUDGETS.

I KNOW YOU DON'T EXACTLY COME FROM POVERTY.

WE KNOW N THAT. YOU'RE PRETTY WELL OFF.

THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE STRUGGLING IN THIS COMMUNITY RIGHT NOW. AND THOSE PEOPLE THAT $40 THAT MIKE TALKS ABOUT A MONTH ACTUALLY IS MATERIAL.

IT TRULY DOES MATTER. THE FACT THAT WE COULD CUT THIS BUDGET, AND WE'RE NOT, IS ALREADY MOVING IN THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WANT. MY THING IS, WE'RE LOOKING AT ALSO GOING OUT AND TAKING OUT ADDITIONAL DEBT TO DO ADDITIONAL PROJECTS OVER AND ABOVE. I'M SAYING RATHER THAN TAKE THAT MONEY, THAT -- AND DO THESE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS, LET'S CUT THAT BUDGET IN HALF AND GIVE SOME RELIEF BACK TO THE TAXPAYERS. THAT'S WHAT I'M ADVOCATING FOR.

>> I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT WE'RE A SERVICE ORGANIZATION. AND WE PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY. AND WHEN WE DON'T RETAIN OUR STAFFING WE'RE UNABLE TO GIVE SERVICES AND SO THINGS LIKE

RAISES AND THINGS LIKE -- >> THAT'S WHY I SAID I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET AS IT STANDS.

>> ALL THESE THINGS MATTER. I'M PERSONALLY SPEAKING IN MY PERSONAL LIFE I'M VERY PLUGGED INTO THE BENEVOLENT SIDE OF OUR

[01:25:03]

SO I SEE IT FIRSTHAND. AND I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOUR POINT THAT EVERY $40 MATTERS BECAUSE IT DOES.

BUT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS WE HAVE TO TAKE A HOLISTIC VIEW OF THE COMMUNITY AS LARGE AND THAT INCLUDES ALL THOSE THAT ARE STRUGGLING BUT ALSO ALL THOSE THAT NEED AND WANT AND DESIRE TO KEEP MIDLOTHIAN AT A SEARCH LEVEL.

-- CERTAIN LEVEL. SO IN MY OPINION WE HAVE TO FIND THAT HEALTHY BALANCE OF THE TWO VIEWS.

>> AND I TRULY BELIEVE THAT OUR CURRENT BUDGET ACHIEVES THAT

BALANCE. >> SO WE'RE BACK TO THE SAME CONVERSATION. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO CUT IT IN HALF WE'RE GOING TO DO TWO AND A HALF MILLION NOT FIVE MILLION.

>> FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT TWO AND A HALF MILLION AND SPEND IT ON BULLDOZING THIS PERFECTLY CAPABLE BUILDING THAT WE COULD INSTEAD RUN OUT FOR SOMETHING

ELSE THAT'S YOUR DECISION. >> SO THE OTHER THING SHOULD BE

IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT? >> WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHEN YOU TELL THE TAXPAYERS THAT YOU TAKE THIS BUILDING RIGHT HERE WHICH IS FULLY FUNCTIONAL AND WE'RE GOING TO BULLDOZE IT FOR A PARK

PEOPLE GET FRUSTRATED BY THAT. >> THE ONLY PROBLEM THOUGH ED IS THAT WE HAVE HAD TO DO THAT IN ALL -- BECAUSE DOWNTOWN SPACE IS LIMITED SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO ANY CHANGE IT GETS BULLDOZED, THERE IS NO WAY AROUND IT. AND WE HAVE A PARKING ISSUE.

IF MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS IF WE'RE NOT VERY CAREFUL AND ONE THING I CAN TELL THE PUBLIC THEY CAN COUNT ON WITH ME, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP OUR DOWNTOWN VITAL AND GROWING AND PROSPEROUS AND MAKE IT AS BEST WE CAN TO WHERE IT STAYS VITAL AND PUMPING.

I LOOK AT SO MANY OTHER CITIES AND I ALMOST SAID SOMETHING BUT I'M NOT GOING TO. A LOT OF OTHER CITIES, MOST OF OUR CITIES NORTH THEIR DOWNTOWNS DIE AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY BUT WE'VE GOT TO KEEP IT PUMPING AND GOING AN CHANGING.

AND I DON'T -- I'M WITH YOU. I HAVE A HARD TIME LETTING ASSETS GO LIKE THIS. I HATE TO SEE SOMETHING JUST IMDEMOLISHED AND HAWMED OFF BUT WE'VE GOT TO SOMEHOW IF WE HAVE GOT TO CUT SOMETHING THAT'S OKAY WE'RE NOT DOING DRAINAGE.

WE'VE MENTIONED CITY HALL AND HERITAGE.

WE WOULDN'T DO ANY ADDITIONAL PARKS.

BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY STREETS OR DRAINAGE SO THAT WE CAN GIVE HALF THAT BACK, WHICH MEANS THAT WE COULD GIVE FOLKS

$16.67 -- >> SAYING WE'RE NOT DOING ANY STREETS IS DISINGENUOUS. WE'RE STILL DOING STREETS.

>> IN OTHER WORDS WE WOULD AGREE IF WE HAVE $SEN.8 MILLION WORTH OF STREETS TO DO AND WE'RE DOINF FOLKS THAT WILL GO, WHY DON'T YOU COME DOWN MY STREET AND I'M NOT SAYING -- I'M BANKING ON THE FACT THAT PUBLIC WORKS, THEY AS I CAN BEST TELL HAVE THIS MAPPED OUT IN A SERIES OF AS FAR AS WHIT NEEDS TO BE GOTTEN TO.

SO BY ANY MEANS GOING INTO STUFF THAT WE NEED TO DO NEXT YEAR IS NOT GOING TO BE SOME HUGE JUMP TO WHERE THEY REALLY DON'T NEED IT DONE. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE WOULD DO STREETS. I'M SAYING THAT I GO BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO AT LEAST DEAL WITH THE CONTAINMENT POND. IS THERE ANY WAY -- OH MY GOSH,

DID MIKE LEAVE OUT OF HERE? >> HE RAN MAN.

>> HE GOT SMART! >> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION MIKE, LET ME ASK A QUESTION AND THIS IS TO CLARK TOO.

FROM RIGHT NOW I'M NOT HEARING IT AT ALL FROM EITHER ONE OF YOU. IS THERE ANYPLACE YOU TWO ARE

WILLING TO COMPROMISE? >> I'M GOING TO MENTION THIS ALSO. BECAUSE I WAS HEARING 11 AND I AM GOING TO TELL YOU WHY WE GOT INTO TROUBLE WITH 11.

WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THE RIGHT BACK TO 65 CENTS.

I WAS HERE, OF COURSE IT WAS IN MY FIRST TERM AND IT WAS IN THE

FIRST FEW WEEKS. >> MIKE ARE YOU WILLING TO COMPROMISE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM?

>> I'M TELLING YOU THAT IN ORDER FOR US TO EVEN CONSIDER THE BUMP IN SALARY OR RAISES THAT'S HOW WE GOT INTO TROUBLE THEN.

BECAUSE WE KEPT KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND SAYING, THEY DON'T NEED THAT MUCH MONEY. WE'VE KIND OF WE HAD PARKS

PEOPLE MAKING $8.50 AN HOUR. >> THAT'S NOT THE CASE ANYMORE.

EVERYBODY IS WELL FUNDED AT THIS POINT.

>> WE BROUGHT UP THE DISPARAGE BEING WAGES STUDY AND WE'RE WISE IN CONTINUING TO KEEP THAT WHERE IT'S AT.

>> AROUND I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR CUTTING THEIR PAY.

>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS TO YOU, I WILL LOOK AT THE BUDGET AS YOU HAVE. I FIND IT TO BE -- I KNOW THIS MUCH ALSO. THAT I WILL ONLY MENTION.

THERE WAS A LOT IMRAWLT UP DURING THE ELECTION CYCLE OF HOW

[01:30:04]

I'D RATHER PAY GOOD PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE DOING MORE THAN HAVE TO HIRE A BUNCH OF MORE PEOPLE.

BUT ON THAT NOTE, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THIS BUDGET THAT I'M

SAYING THAT POPS OUT AT ME. >> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET. I'M TALKING ABOUT ON THE TAX

RATE. >> UH-HUH.

>> IS THERE ANYPLACE THAT YOU'RE WILLING, ARE YOU EVEN AT ALL WILLING TO NEGOTIATE THE PROBLEM?

>> IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF I DON'T THINK WE HAVE 7.8 MILLION WORTH OF STREETS TO DO DRAINAGE ISSUES TO DO, THE CITY HALL TO DO SOMETHING WITH AND HERITAGE PARK THAT I KNOW IS COMING HOW DO YOU DO IT THAT'S MY POINT, HOW DO YOU DO IT?

>> YOUR ANSWER IS YOU'RE COMPLETELY UNWILLING TO BUDGE IT'S 100% GOT TO GO YOUR WAY OR THAT'S IT?

>> NO, NO. WE DID THE 10% ALREADY AND THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT. TO WISELY NOT JUMP ALL THE WAY INTO IT. WE ALL HAVE --

>> THE NUMBERS ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTED BEING ABLE TO GO ALL THE WAY. AND ACTUALLY, GIVE TRUE TAX RELIEF TO THE HOMESTEADERS. WE HAD THE NUMBERS OF THAT SUPPORTED IT AT THE TIME. IN FACT JUSTIN JUST CONFIRMED THAT HAD WE HAD THE FINAL NUMBERS THE ABSOLUTE FINAL NUMBERS THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT.

WOULD YOU HAVE HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT WITH THE CURRENT

NUMBERS? >> IT DOESN'T MATTER.

>> IT DOES MATTER BECAUSE WITH THE CURRENT NUMBERS, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THAT DATE, WITH THE CURRENT INFORMATION WE HAVE

WOULD YOU VOTE FOR THE 20%? >> I DON'T THINK THAT I WOULD HAVE -- I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD HAVE ON THE FIRST YEAR BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT WISDOM IS NOT OBTAINING 100% OF WHERE YOU WANT TO GET. IT IS TO GET THERE IN

TRANSGRESSION -- >> WHAT IS YOUR SCHEDULE TO GET

THERE? >> I THINK THAT NEXT YEAR WEED

TO DO 20% THAT IS MY POINT. >> WHICH IS WHAT I'M CG FOR, ALL I'M ASKING NOR IS THAT NEXT YEAR WE AGREE TO 20%.

>> THAT GAINS BACK TO MY POINT THAT WHILE WE CAN AND WE HAD THE ABILITY WITHIN THE RIGHT, WE NEED TO BE ATTACKING SOME OF THESE PROJECTS. THESE ARE NOT MADE UP PROJECTS.

>> AND HERE IS THE DEAL MIKE. BY AGREEING TO NEXT YEAR AT 20% YOU'RE STILL GETTING TO DO THOSE PROJECTS THIS YEAR.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. >> WHAT'S MAKING YOU THINK I'M NOT AGREEING TO DO 20% NEXT YEAR?

>> THE FACT THAT YOU'RE -- >> WE'RE ALL ARGUE WHEN IT.

BECAUSE IF WE'RE NOT ARGUING ABOUT IT LET'S JUST ROCK AND

ROLL AND BE DONE WITH IT. >> WHAT I'M SETTING HERE TELLING YOU THAT AS OF TODAY, I'VE HAPPY TO APPROACH LOOKING AT DOING 20% NEXT YEAR. LET'S DO --

>> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE ECONOMY IS GOING TO BE LIKE THIS THEN. I KNOW TODAY WHERE THE ECONOMY IS AND WHAT WE'VE DONE I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS GROUP OF

PROJECTS. >> HEY, HEY.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO DO .65 IF WE DO THE

20% FOR NEXT YEAR? >> YES.

>> THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> YES.

>> CAN WE LAY THAT OUT AS A QUESTION AND JUST FOCUS ON THAT

RIGHT NOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? >> YES, THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING

FOR. >> YES, DISCUSS.

>> AND LIKE NOT IN PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS.

I CAN SEE THE LOGISTICS -- >> ALL I'M ASKING WAND ALL THIS DISCUSSION I'M BE AS CLEAR AS I CAN BE JUST SO THERE'S NO LIKE YOU SAID PHILOSOPHICAL -- IF WE'RE NOT COMING, IF THERE'S NO WIGGLE ROOM WHATSOEVER IN THE STRATEGY AND/OR THE RATE TO BE THE MAX TAX RATE, THAT WE CAN LEGALLY PUT OUT THERE WITHOUT TAKING ON EVEN MORE DEBT THEN I'M NOT -- LIKE I'M NOT OKAY WITH THAT. IF THERE'S ANY ROOM FOR FLEXIBILITY, AT THE MINIMAL AMOUNT WHICH I FEEL LIKE TAX RELIEF FOR NEXT YEAR IS WIGGLE ROOM THEN I'M PERFECTLY FINE.

I DON'T AGREE WITH 100% OF EVERYTHING BUT I DON'T EXPECT TO BECAUSE WE'RE A BODY. SO I THINK THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT I'M -- THAT I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF.

THE M AND O BUDGET I HAVE VERY LITTLE OR I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THAT SIDE WHATSOEVER. WITH THE DEBT THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT I WOULD PREFER MAYBE NOT TO DO BUT I'M OKAY WITH DOING. I'M OKAY WITH SUPPORTING AND I'M OKAY WITH SUPPORTING THE RATE HOLD.

I JUST WANT SOME ASSURETY FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THAT NEXT YEAR WE'VE GOT SOME GROUNDWORK LAID TO MAKE SURE THEIR TAXES DON'T GO UP.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S TOO MUCH TO ASK.

>> LISTEN FOR JUST A SECOND. THERE'S ONE THING I'VE LEARNED

[01:35:01]

IF YOU THINK WE ARE GOING TO COME TO SOME FORM OF AGREEMENT AND WE WOULD BE LYING TO THE PUBLIC TO TELL THEM WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT YEAR, IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A DIFFERENT

COUNCIL. >> THAT'S FINE.

>> WE'VE GOT TWO ELECTIONS GOING ON NEXT YEAR AND WE'VE HAD PEOPLE PASS AWAY ON THIS COUNCIL, TOO.

>> IS THAT A THREAT? >> NO.

BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT ONE THING I'VE LEARNED IT'S OKAY TO PLAN OR THE THE YEAR AND IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A NICE CONVERSATION ABOUT STRATEGIES THAT REALISTICALLY THIS YEAR'S WHAT YOU GOT. THAT'S IT.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THIS YEAR IS THE YEAR THAT I'VE

GOT. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND, WE CAN'T

CHANGE THE 20 PICTURES. >> I THINK THEY'RE SUGGESTING WE

TAKE A VOTE ON NEXT YEAR'S -- >> WHAT DOGS IT MEAN?

>> IT MEANS THAT IT'S LOCKED IN. >> WHAT IT REALLY BASICALLY MEANS BECAUSE THE CONVERSATION EARLIER I ASKED IF WE WERE GOING TO TAKE MORE TAX RATE CUTS IF WE DID THE 20 LAST YEAR AND THEY SAID YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME TRUST.

WHAT IT MEANS IS THEY DON'T TRUST THAT WE'LL VOTE FOR 20

NEXT YEAR. >> I DON'T TRUST THAT AT ALL.

>> ALL RIGHT ALL RIGHT ALL RIGHT.

>> LET'S SAY WE ALL VOTE AND WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR.

HOW DO HAVE ANY GUARANTEE YOU GET TO NEXT JUNE THE FOURTH WEEK, WE HAVE TWO NEW PEOPLE DOWN THERE FOR SOME REASON AND WE HAVE ONE NEW ONE RIGHT HERE AND IT DOESN'T HAPPEN?

YOU HAVE NO GUARANTEE MUCH THAT. >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO VOTE IT OUT. YOU WOULD HAVE TO VOTE TO TAKE

AWAY THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. >> CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT AND LET CHRIS TALK FOR A SECOND PLEASE?

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT MIKE SAID.

COUNCIL CAN COME BACK AND CHANGE IT AT ANY TIME.

JUST LIKE YOU CAN CHANGE THE EXEMPTIONS.

YOU GUYS APPROVED A 70% EXEMPTION FOR THE DISABILITY.

>> 70,000. >> 70,000.

NEXT YEAR COUNCIL CAN CHANGE THAT NUMBER UP OR DOWN.

SO I DO BELIEVE IN ON THE HOMESTEAD, LET'S TALK ABOUT HOMESTEAD BECAUSE IT HAS A CERTAIN DATE, JULY 1ST.

ANY TIME BEFORE JULY 1ST FUTURE COUNCIL CAN CHANGE THAT NUMBER. THE DISABILITY AND OVER 65 IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY DON'T PUT A DATE SPECIFICALLY

BUT IT CAN BE CHANGED. >> WHAT WE ARE ASKING DO IS TO

CHANGE IT NOW FOR NEXT YEAR. >> CAN WE SAY THAT THE INTENTION COULD BE 20%, KNOWING AND BEING OKAY WITH THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IT AGAIN NEXT YEAR? BUT I MEAN I'M HEARING THAT WE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH.

WE CAN HAVE AN INTENTION NOW BUT THINGS CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT YEAR. COUNCIL CHANGES BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT YEAR. YOU CAN'T 100% AGREE BUT THAT CAN BE OUR INTENTION GOING FORWARD.

>> LET ME ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. JUST SO BASICALLY WHAT ALLEN AND I ARE ADVOCATING FOR ON THIS IS THAT WE LOCK IN THAT 20% RATE OR

THE NEXT YEAR. >> HOLD ON DON'T WANT TO DO

THAT. >> YES WE CAN ABSOLUTELY WE CAN

DO THAT. >> YOU CAN BUT THE COUNCIL CAN

OVERTURN. >> AND THAT'S MY POINT.

MY POINT IS THAT IT'S MUCH HARDER TO STAND IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS AND SAY I'M GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION THAN IT IS TO LOCK IT IN NOW. THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW WITH THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW WE'RE ASSUMING THAT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, THAT WE CAN'T DO

THIS. >> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S

ASSUMING THAT. >> WELL OKAY.

>> LET'S SAY I DON'T PLAY WITH MADE UP NUMBERS.

>> IT IS NOT MADE UP NUMBERS. >> IT IS MADE UP NUMBERS.

>> THIS IS A DEFINITIVE RELIEF FOR THE TAXPAYERS.

IT'S GOING TO BE 20% LESS THAN THE HOMESTEAD VALUATION.

>> IF THIS IS A NON-- SO IF THIS IS A NORTHERN STARTER I'LL GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID AT THE BEGINNING.

IS THERE ANYTHING -- WHEN WE OPENED THIS MEETING AT 8:30 I SAID I'M GOOD WITH HOLDING THE RATE.

I'M GOOD WITH FUNDING 100% OF THE PROJECTS.

I'M GOOD WITH SUPPORTING THE BUDGET, I'M GOOD WITH ALL OF IT, I JUST FEEL IN MY HEART AND MY GUT THAT WE CAN DO JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE. IS THERE ANY SUGGESTIONS THAT ANYONE WOULD MOVE ANY PIECE OF FURTHER TAX RELIEF FOR THE CITIZENS? AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT.

>> I'LL PUT HI CARDS ON THE TABLE.

>> -- I'M PUT MY CARDS ON THE TABLE.

>> FOR NEXT YEAR, THEN CHRIS CAN WE TAKE A VOTE FOR 2024

EXEMPTION? >> LET'S JUST TAKE A VOTE.

>> OKAY. >> LET'S VOTE FOR THE 20%.

LET'S JUST DO IT. >> HOLD ON, LET'S LET CHRIS

TALK. >> SO TO A POINT I THINK YES, I THINK YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY TAKE A VOTE FOR THE 2024 EXEMPTION.

[01:40:03]

>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT CLARK WAS TRYING TO SAY.

>> CHRIS I HAVE A QUESTION AND THEN I'LL PUT ALL MY CARDS ON THE TABLE SO WE CAN MOVE THE CONVERSATION IN ORDER.

HOW MUCH HAVE WE GOT TO PITCHERS NEXT YEAR BETWEEN ALL THE ROADWAY PROJECTS? OVER 54 PARCELS AND NONE OF THE IT'S BUDGETED CORRECT? NONE OF THAT'S BUDGETED.

IT'S IN THE BOND, SEWAGE THAT THE VALUES OF WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR DON'T INCREASE OVER WHAT THE BOND WAS.

I'VE BEEN ON THE ROAD BEFORE. >> (INAUDIBLE) PROGRESS?

>> NO THERE'S NOT. >> HERE'S WHERE I'M AT AND IF Y'ALL CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK FINE.

I'M NOT GOING UNDER 180 DAYS IN RESERVES, PERIOD, LINE IN THE

SAND. >> IS ANYBODY SUGGESTING GOING UNDER 180 DAYS IN RESERVE, BECAUSE ALL IS NOT BEING TALKED

ABOUT. >> I WOULD SAY IF WE ADOPT THE DEFICIT BUDGET, THEN YES IT WOULD IMPACT RESERVES.

>> BUT NO ONE THIS ENTIRE MORNING HAS SUGGESTED A DEFICIT BUDGET. ADOPTING A FURTHER DEFICIT IN

THE BUDGET. >> SO THE SITUATION OF --

>> I JUST DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE THINGS ARE COMING FROM.

THEY'RE NOT COMING THERE ME, FROM ED OR ANYONE ELSE AT DAIS.

>> I'M TRYING TO PUT MY CARDS ON THE TABLE.

THERE IS A POSSIBILITY WE DO THAT BECAUSE DEPENDING ON WHAT Y'ALL STRUCTURE WE MAY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THAT, THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY. THAT'S 100% ACCURATE.

>> WHAT AM I SUGGESTING TO CUT OUT OF THE BUDGET CLARK?

>> I'M NOT SAYING YOU PERSONALLY ALLEN.

I'M SAYING WHATEVER WE DO TO MAKE IT HAPPEN FOR WHATEVER THE MAJORITY AGREES ON THERE MAY BE A CHANCE THAT WE HAVE TO CUT

SOMETHING SOMEWHERE. >> BUT TO PASS A HOMESTEAD

EXEMPTION FOR NEXT YEAR? >> THAT WAS ONE EXAMPLE AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT WOULD PASS.

I'M JUST SAYING IF WE GO BACK TO THE BUDGET.

THIS IS NOT PERSONAL DUDE. IT IS NOT AGAINST YOU OR HIM.

YOU ASKED ME TO PUT MY CARDS ON THE TABLE, I'M DOING IT.

I'M NOT GOING UNDER 180 DAYS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I WROTE LIKE TO KEEP THE BUDGET AS IT SITS AND I AGREE WITH MIKE. IF YOU GUYS WANT TO RESTRUCTURE THE DEBT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE MOST CONSERVATIVE THING TO DO BECAUSE IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE ON DEBT I THINK YOU OUGHT TO PAY IT OFFS AS SOON AS YOU CAN, IF YOU WANT TO RESTRUCTURE THE DEBT, THAT'S YOUR IDEA, I WANT TO RESTRUCTURE THE PROJECTS THAT NEED TO GET DONE. THE OTHER THING I'M NOT COMING OFF OF, I'M NOT GOING TO RESTRUCTURE THE BOND DEBT.

WE ARE GOING TO FINISH THIS BOND ATAT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO KEEP MY PROMISE. WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE REC CENTER OR NOT WE CAN HAVE THE $16 MILLION ARGUMENT LATER.

WE HAD THE ARGUMENT OVER THE PARK, OVER CITY HALL, WE'LL GET TO THAT ARGUMENT, IF YOU ALL CAN THINK ABOUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK WITHIN THAT PARAMETER THEN I'M ON BOARD.

>> CHRIS, QUICK CONSIDERATION, ALL THESE BOND CONSIDERATIONS WHEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND FUTURE BUDGETS, YOU HAVE FLOATED THIS FORWARD ON THE 40 MILLION ON THE BALANCE SIDE THAT WE'VE GOT TO TRY TO HONOR FOR THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE 65 CENT TAX RATE HOLDING, PRETTY MUCH,.

>> YES IT WAS HOLDING. YOU KNOW --

>> YOU GOT TO PLAN OUT SOMEHOW --

>> THERE IS SO MANY VARIABLES, IF VALUATIONS ARE EXTREMELY HIGH LIKE THEY WERE THIS YEAR, THEN THAT'S WHERE YOU THE HAVE ABILITY TO SAY THAT WE CAN DO MORE.

IF VALUATIONS COME IN LESS, THEN YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MEET THAT SCHEDULE. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE NEXT YEAR, LET'S SAY I FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THE VALUES ARE GOING TO BE GOOD BUT LET'S SAY WE ADOPT THIS 20% VALUATION, WE KNOW IT'S EQUIVALENT OF ABOUT FOUR CENTS. IF VALUES FOR SOME REASON DON'T COME IN THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ISSUE.

BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT STATING THAT I THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

I JUST -- THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO BE COGNIZANT OF BECAUSE YOU'RE TAKING OUT BASED ON THIS YEAR'S VALUES, I DON'T KNOW WHAT NEXT YEAR'S VALUES, YOU'RE TAKING OUT THIS 2.2 TO

2.7 MILLION DOLLARS. >> WHEN WILL WE GET NEXT YEAR'S

VALUES? >> YOU'LL START TO GET ESTIMATES AROUND FIRST OF MAY END OF APRIL.

>> WILL AN INSURANCE BE ENOUGH E POSSIBLE?

[01:45:08]

>> FIRST OF ALL, CLARK I APOLOGIZE FOR CUTTING YOU OFF THERE, GETTING A LITTLE PASSIONATE SO APOLOGIES THERE.

>> NO PASSIONS. >> AS FAR AS THAT GOES, WITH RESPECT AND EVEN SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, I'LL THROW MYSELF IN THE BUCKET, IF YOU WERE TO ASK ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL IN ANY CITY, IN MY MUNICIPALITY, HEY NEXT YEAR WILL YOU GREATLY CONSIDER DOING XYZ AND IT'S GOOD OR THE THE TAXPAYERS I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S INTENTION OR VERBALIZATION OF THAT WOULD EVER BE K NO I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. WHIELZ I TRUST EVERYBODY HERE --

>> YOU DON'T. >> I TRUST EVERYBODY HERE, NO NO, HERE IT IS. WHILE I TRUST EVERYBODY HERE INDIVIDUALLY I DON'T KNOW THAT I TRUST EVERYBODY HERE AS A BODY TO MAKE A PRIOR COMMITMENT THAT'S NOT A VOTED RESOLUTION.

IF THAT'S FAIR. >> THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT.

I WOULD JUST SUGGEST, VIEWING IT FROM THE OTHER PERSPECTIVE IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO VOTE BLINDLY ON NUMBERS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S A FAIR ASK EITHER.

SO I THINK WE HAVE TO FIND THAT MIDDLE GROUND.

>> WELL, WOULDN'T THE SAME BE SAID FOR TAKING OUT ADDITIONAL DEBT? WE DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE NEXT YEAR TO PAY FOR THE DEBT YOU'RE WANTING TO TAKE OUT NOW. SO IT'S THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.

>> BUT YOU DO HAVE A DEBT PLAN AND THE PLAN CAN BE ADJUSTED.

I'M WONDERING CAN WE PUT THE PLAN IN PLACE, AND MARCH OR APRIL WHENEVER YOU GET NUMBERS TO AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER THE VOTE, TO FUTURE COUNCILS, STRONG ARNLG, STRONGHOLDING MANIPULATING THEM INTO BEING PRESSURED? BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE SAYING LET'S GO AHEAD AND PUT IT AT THE TWE P20%,THEN THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATN MY MIND.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE DID WITH THE 10% ANNA.

>> NOT AT ALL. >> YES BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T AFFORD THE 10% THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT HOLDS TRUE.

>> US SEVEN CHOSE 10% BASED ON THE NUMBERS.

>> WE SHOULD HAVE CHOSE 20, BUT YES.

>> I'M REALLY GETTING TIRED OF YOU INTERRUPTING ME.

>> SORRY. >> WHAT I'VE HEARD Y'ALL SAY IS LET'S DO 20% FOR THE FUTURE WHEN WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT AND THEN EVERYBODY CAN FEEL BAD IF THEY HAVE TO LOWER IT.

I'M NOT OKAY WITH THAT, NO I HEARD THAT, I'M OKAY WITH THAT, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A PLAN BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO GET TO 20%.

I THINK WE'RE ALL SAYING WE WOULD LIKE TO GET TO 20% BUT IF THERE IS A POSSIBLE WAY OR SOME KIND OF PLAN THAT TRIGGERS STAFF

TO GET TO THE CONVERSATION -- >> I'LL GIVE YOU WORD AS MAYOR AS LONG AS I'M BREATHING IF HE END OF MAY I'LL PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS THE 20% HOME EXEMPTION.

>> MY GUARANTY IS MY GOAL AND PLAN IS 99.9% I'M GOING TO 20% NEXT YEAR. BUT I WILL MAKE THAT FINAL

DECISION IN JUNE. >> WHEN WE HAVE THE NUMBERS.

>> I'M WILLING TO VOTE ON IT TODAY BUT I CAN ALSO PROMISE YOU THE ONLY PEOPLE YOU CAN HAVE FAITH IN TODAY AND THERE'S ONE MISSING IS THIS RIGHT HERE. THAT'S IT.

BECAUSE NEXT YEAR AS THAT MAN SAID AND I'VE SAT THERE WHEN COUNCIL HAS HAD OTHER THINGS RAID OUT IN THE FUTURE WE

FLIPPED THEM ALL OVER THE PLACE. >> THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT MEANS MY -- I'M STARTING TO

FEEL MORE UNEASY ABOUT THAT. >> I'M JUST SAYING I'M MAKING SURE THE PUBLIC IS AWARE AS THIS IS RECORDED AND SHOULD BE AND I'M GLAD IT IS, THAT THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY KNOW THAT EACH NEW BODY THAT COMES IN, DOES WHAT THEY THINK IS BEST.

WHICH TAKES ME BACK TO HOW WE ALL GOT VOTED IN.

SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS I PLAN TO DO THE 20% IS MY GOAL BUT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE WE WILL BE IN JUNE NEXT YEAR.

>> CAN I SAY ON THE UNEASY I THINK THAT'S WHY SOME OF US ARE BEING A LITTLE MORE PASSIONATE, OF WE ALL HAD PLANS AND NO OFFENSE BUT THEN Y'ALL CAME AND CHANGED THE PLANS TO ARE YOU

STRUCTURE -- >> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO

INTERRUPT YOU. >> I'M JUST SAYING --

[01:50:03]

>> NO NO NO I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE SAYING YOU HAD PLANS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT UP TO THIS POINT

OF THE DISCUSSIONS? >> NO.

PAST COUNCILS. >> PAST COUNCILS YOU GUYS EVERYBODY AT THIS DAIS HAS VOTED TO REDUCE TAXES, EVERY YEAR THEY'VE BEEN IN THAT I'M AWARE OF AND SO NOW, THAT THIS DISCUSSION I MEAN I FEEL LIKE IT'S A LITTLE UNFAIR TO BE SO

RIGID, IN THE -- >> YOU VOTED TO REDUCE TAXES AS

WELL. >> REDUCE TAXES.

>> I'M NOT TRYING TO BE RIGID. I'M SAYING THE ONLY PART I WAS MAKING IS HEY, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE A PLAN GOING FORWARD AND YOU GUYS ARE MAKING ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.

ALL I WAS SAYING IS WE'VE ALL BEEN PUT IN THAT POSITION BECAUSE WE ALL MADE PLANS AND EVERY TIME THE COUNCIL HAS TURNED OVER THIS PLAN HAS NOT NECESSARILY HAD TO CHANGE BUT BE KIND OF REMODELED. AND SO LIKE THAT'S THE ONLY POINT I'M MAKING IS WHEN WE ISSUED DEBT WE HAD A PLAN.

I REP WHEN I WAS HERE WHEN MIKE WAS HERE WE THOUGHT THE DAY WE GOT TO 65 CENTS WE HAD FIGURED ALL THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS OUT AND NOW WE'RE HERE AND IT'S SO -- AND WE'RE STILL GOING DOWN AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. I'M NOT ARGUING TO REDUCE DEBT I MEAN TAXES BUT YOU'RE ALSO ACTING LIKE WE HAVEN'T.

I MEAN YES IT DIDN'T GO UP BUT TO THE CITY YOU DID REDUCE THE INCOME OR VALUE OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT COMING INTO THE CITY BY THREE, FOUR CENTS. AND I'M NOT ARCING.

>> THIS SAYS OTHERWISE. >> THAT ALSO SAYS NEW CONSTRUCTION COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH.

>> VALUATION INCREASE. >> HAS EXPENSES TO GO ALONG WITH

IT. >> AND VALUATION.

>> AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE COST MORE MONEY TO MAINTAIN.

A POLICE OFFICER FULLY EQUIPPED IS ABOUT $100,000 SO EVERY PERSON YOU ADD IS MORE PEOPLE. SO I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT THAT ALSO HAS MAINTENANCE COSTS TO IT.

>> SO I KEEP HEARING YOU SAY YOU'RE NOT INCREASING TAXES.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. >> OKAY SO WE WENT UP WHAT, 25% IN VALUATIONS THIS YEAR ACROSS THE BOARD.

THAT MEANS THAT ALL OF THESE BUSINESSES, ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WITHOUT A HOMESTEAD THEIR TAXES WENT UP 25%.

>> ON PROPERTY THAT IS NOT HOMESTEADING.

>> THAT IS NOT RIGHT. >> WELL IT WENT UP TOTAL BUT AT

25 WOULD INCLUDE NEW VALUE, SOM- >> WHAT WAS THE VALUATION INCREASE PERCENTAGE? IF I'M SPEAKING OUT OF TURN

HERE? >> DO YOU REMEMBER ON THE EXISTING? EXACTLY? WE CAN LOOK IT UP FOR YOU. I JUST WANT TO SAY NOT EVERYBODY

SAW 25%. >> IT WAS OVER 10% AS A

VALUATION INCREASE. >> NOT ON A HOME BECAUSE

OBVIOUSLY THAT IS AT A CAP. >> WHAT I'M SAYING IS UNCAPPED VALUE BASED ON HOMESTEAD I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.

I'M TALKING ABOUT MARKET VALUATIONS BEFORE ANY EXEMPTIONS. THAT MARKET REVENUE OR THAT MARKET VALUATION WENT UP OVER 10% AND IT HAS -- I MEAN IT'S BEEN DOING THAT FOR YEARS. WE'RE LOOKING AT NEXT YEAR.

YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE SUDDENLY NOT GOING TO HAVE HOME VALUES UP OVER 10% AND BUSINESS VALUATIONS UP OVER 10% NEXT

YEAR? >> I'M SAYING I DON'T SPEAK IN ABSOLUTES. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WAR IS GOING

TO START. >> CORRECT, CORRECT.

>> I'M JUST LISTEN WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT LEVELS OF WHAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH.ABOUT I DON'T LIKE MAKING FUTURE PLANS OFF OF

UNKNOWNS. >> YOU'RE DOING THAT RIGHT NOW.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M DOING RIGHT NOW.

I'M FOCUSING ON THE BUDGET AN VALUES --

>> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO COME NEXT YEAR.

>> WE KNOW WE CAN FUND THIS BUDGET WITH THE NUMBERS WE HAVE

THIS YEAR, THAT'S A FACT. >> CORRECT.

AND SO FAR THE SUGGESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETELY FUND

IN BUDGET. >> YES I'M NOT ARGUING THAT.

YOU ASKED FOR 10% NEXT YEAR AND ALL I SAID IS CAN WE WAIT UNTIL WE GET THE NUMBERS NEXT YEAR. I EVEN SAID, YOU SAID LOOK IF YAWL WANT TO RESTRUCTURE THE DEBTOR I DON'T BELIEVE ON THIS I THINK WE SHOULD PAY OFF THIS AS FAST AS WE CAN.

>> WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT RESTRUCTURING DEBT? EVERYTHING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT -- NOBODY SAID TODAY ABOUT

DROPPING ANOTHER PENNY. >> RIGHT NOW WE ARE ON THE TOPIC OF THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AND HOLDING THE RATE.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO MY QUESTION OF --

>> I JUST SAID LET'S TALK ABOUT RESTRUCTURING DEBT AND Y'ALL

SAID NO. >> I'M INTERESTED IN HEARING.

I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO RESTRUCTURE DEBT.

SO IN YOU'RE WILLING TO RESTRUCTURE ACCIDENT LET'S TALK

ABOUT IT. >> I SAID I THINK PAYING DEBT

[01:55:01]

>> SO WHAT'S YOUR SUGGESTION? >> WELL, I MEAN MY SUGGESTION WOULD PROBABLY BE HAVING THE DEBATE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO DROP A PENLY OR TWO AND IN THAT SAME ARGUMENT HAVING THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT PROJECTS WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ON.

BECAUSE I WOULD AGREE WITH MIKE THAT THOSE PROJECTS ARE NOT WANTS. THEY'RE NOT WANTS.

SOMEONE HOUSE GETTING FLOODED OUT BY A PROBLEM THAT WHETHER WE AGREE OR DISAGREE THE CITY CAUSED --

>> AND I'M GOING TO SAY THIS BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE SAID AND IT'S GOING TO BE OUT IN THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE.

AND THAT IS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LIST OF NAMES THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THIS, IT HAS VERY BAD OPTICS.

>> HERE IS THE PROBLEM JUST HEAR ME OUT.

>> JUST READ THOSE NAMES INTO THE RECORD.

>> THAT IS AN EXTREMELY BOLD ACCUSATION GUYS.

>> THAT'S WHY I HAVEN'T SAID IT UNTIL NOW.

>> WE REALLY NEED TO COVER SOMETHING HERE ON THIS.

>> WHEN ITERANCE AND YOUR E-MAIL IS GETTING BLOWN UP --

>> THAT IS BEYOND THAT. THAT CONTAINMENT POND CREEK BEND IS A SMALL PERCENTILE OF WHAT THE POND DOES.

IT AFFECTS AND CONTAINS THE WHOLE MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY AN THE COLLEGE AREA. WE GOING, THIS CITY SOON IS DIAGNOSE TO HAVE TO REDO IT ANYWAY.

SO IT'S NOT I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR.

THIS -- THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT INTO THE CONVERSATION IS TRYING TO HELP THEM BUT WE KNOW IT'S GOT TO BE -- SO THIS ISN'T ABOUT

CREEK BEND AS A NEIGHBORHOOD. >> THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN PRESENTED THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.

>> WE REALLY NEED TO HEAR FROM MIKE BECAUSE THIS POND AS I UNDERSTAND IT AND HE'S MAYBE GOING TO CORRECT ME, THIS POND IS ABOUT AN AREA. IT SERVICES MAYBE LARGE VOLUME

OF WATER. >> ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE DRAINAGE ISSUE AND THAT IS, IF I SENT FIRE TO MY YARD AND IT GOES ACROSS THE FELONS LINE AND BURNS DOWN MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE I'M CULPABLE FOR STARTING THIS FIRE. IN THIS SITUATION THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT WENT IN CAUSED THIS SITUATION.

WHY ARE THEY NOT CULPABLE FOR IT?

>> WOULD I DISAGREE. THERE'S BEEN -- I WOULD DISAGREE. THERE HAS BEEN FLOODING IN THE

AREA FOR YEARS,. >> THEY ARE ALL IN A FLOOD

PLANE? >> YES, FORCE OF IT SURE.

I WOULD SAY THIS IS ONE DRAINAGE AREA, WE HAVE DRAINAGE ISSUES IN A LOT OF OTHER PLACES IN THE COMMUNITY.

THIS IS JUST A BIG ONE BECAUSE IT'S MY CITY.

IT IS A REGIONAL FACILITY THAT IS TAKING ON, WE HAVE I MEAN THAT'S WHY KROGER HAS A NINE ACRE DETENTION POND BEHIND THEIR BUILDING BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DETAIN THAT FLOW.

SO I DON'T -- I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED ARE CULPABLE BECAUSE THEY ARE -- THEY ARE TRYING TO DOUGH TAKEN THEIR WATER OFTEN THEIR SITE TOO. BUT IT'S BEEN A FLOODING ISSUE SINCE THE 90S SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT JUST HAPPENED YESTERDAY. YOU'VE BEEN SLOWLY WORKING YOUR WAY TO THE FRONT. WELCOME ALL THE WAY UP.

>> I WILL SAY AS TO BUILDING THAT HAS BEEN OCCURRING, THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MITIGATE THEIR IMPACTS WITH THE DETENTION POND, IT ROUTES TO THE DETENTION POND.

THERE WERE PROBLEMS AT CREEK BEND IN 1990 AND THE CITY CAME IN AS PART OF THAT PRPBLGHT AND BUILT A DAM ACROSS THE CHANNEL ON OUR PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE LATE I MEAN SORRY EARLY 2001, 2002 TIME TRAIL.

THAT POND HAS BETTER THAN THERE, IT'S HELPED TO SOME DEGREE BUT IT'S NOT BEEN LOOKED AT OR IMPROVEMENTS SINCE IT'S PUT IN.

AND THAT WAS SOMETHING BEFORE ANY BYPASSES WAS THERE.

WE BUILT MIMED PARKWAY AND THE CULVERTS THAT WERE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THAT, CREEK BEDS THAT CAME IN WERE UNDERSIZED, ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE SENDING MORE FLOW THROUGH THOSE CULVERTS.

BEFORE IT USED TO BACK UP. I HEARD FROM FOLKS IN CREEK BEND, WE HAD UNDERSIZED CULVERTS UNDER CREEK BEND DRIVE THAT WENT OUT TO AT THAT TIME 287, WATER COULDN'T FLOW INTO IT, IT WOULD BACK UP INTO THE FIELD WHICH IS NO LONGER A FIELD AND NOW THE CCULVERTS ARE THE CORRECT SIZE. EVEN WITHIN CREEK BEND, WHEN THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS BUILT THE CULVERTS WERE TOO SMALL.

GOING BACK INTO THE 80S, THE CULVERTS THAT ARE UNDER THE

[02:00:02]

BUT IT WAS UNDEVELOPED AND THERE WERE ISSUES, IT'S NOT GOING TO

GET ANY BETTER. >> CAN I ASK MIKE A QUESTION

REAL QUICK? >> YES.

>> SO OBVIOUSLY, YOU LOOK AT ALL THE DRAINAGE ISSUES ACROSS THE

CITY. >> YES, SIR.

>> WOULD YOU PRIORITIZE CREEK BEND NOW WE'VE EVALUATED THAT IT IS NOT CAUSED SOLELY BUT IT HAS BEEN CONTRIBUTED TO AND IT NEEDS TO BE MORE SERIOUSLY DEALT WITH NOW.

>> YES. >> SO IS THIS AT THE TOP OF YOUR LIST? IT'S EVEN WITH SOME OTHERS? HOW DO YOU CHARACTERIZE CREEK BEND? I'M GOING TO CALL THIS THE SOUTH MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY REGION

CONTAINMENT AREA. >> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN RODGERS, THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE HAS BEEN CREEK BEND. I CAN'T TELL YOU IF TYPICALLY YOU'RE LOOKING AT DESIGN, DOING THINGS YOU'RE DESIGNING IT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 100 YEAR EVENT, THE EEPT WE HAD IN 2018, WAS BETWEEN A 100 AND 500 YEAR EVENT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE CAN DO TO IMPACT THAT, IT WAS MORE OF A 300 YEAR EVENT, THE TYPICAL SMALLER EVENT WOULD BE DEFINITELY ABLE TO HEM IN THE

IMPACT. >> WHAT IS THAT CONTAINMENT AREA WHAT IS IT SET UP YOU THINK TO HANDLE NOW WHAT KIND OF AN

EVENT? >> I MEAN RIGHT NOW THE ORIGINAL DESIGN WAS FOR THE 100 YEAR THAT WAS THERE BUT IT LOOKS AT SMALLER ONES AS WELL. THE DAM IS NOT AS LEVEL AS IT WAS, WATER HAS A TENDENCY TO MAKE IT OVER A LITTLE BIT FASTER THAN WAS HELD BACK. AGAIN WHAT WAS REALLY DONE A BERM WAS BUILT ACROSS AN OPEN CHANNEL WITH A CULVERT PUT IN AND A THROW WAY AN OVERFLOW ON TOP.

AND NOTHING WAS DONE WITHIN THE PROPERTY TO KIND OF DEEPEN IT OR BASICALLY HAVE SOME STORAGE. SO IT WAS REALLY KIND OF BUILD A TAX KIND OF HOLD IT BACK ON THAT PROPERTY AS BEST WE CAN AND GO

FROM THERE. >> IS THE PLAN STILL TO DO 100

YEAR AND JUST CORRECT THE -- >> WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO DO THAT. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PROBABLY SO RIGHT THOUSAND IT LOOKS LIKE GOING TO A CERTAIN SPOT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HOLD BACK A THOUSAND CFS WITHIN THAT POINT ITSELF.

WE HAVE A SEARCH A OF AREA. THE OTHER PROBLEM WE RUN INTO IF WE START BACKING IT UP TOO FAR, IT GETS INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES AND WE DON'T WANT TO FLOOD SOMEBODY UP STRA STREAM TT HAS HAD A PROBLEM BEFORE. THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THIS, THEY HAD FOUR DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS.

I MEAN IF THE KILL VERTS ARE UNDERSIZED AS THEY ARE IN CREEK BEND THE PROBLEM YOU RUN INTO IS YOU GET THE WATER BACKING UP AND IT FLOODS PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES AND GETS TOWARDS THEIR HOMES WHEN IT'S NOT FLOWING THROUGH AND WHEN IT GOES UP AND OVER IT IS IN AN UNCONTROLLED AREA SO IT BASICALLY CAUSES THE EROSION IN THAT AREA AS WELL. TO ME IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE ULTIMATELY WORK IS NEEDED WITHIN THE POND BUT THERE'S ALSO ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE NEEDED A NEXT STEP TO CREATE WHERE YOU CAN CRY THE MITIGATE LONG TERM THE IMPACTS.

THE POND THAT WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY BUILT WAS HELPED OUT, THAT HAS HELPED OUT BUT OVER TIME THE NEEDS HAVE GROWN.

>> SO THE HOMES THAT ARE UNDER THREAT, ARE THEY IN 100 YEAR FLOOD PLANE? WHERE ARE THEY AT, IS IT 50 YEAR, 100 YEARS, WHERE ARE THEY AT?

>> WE DID AN AREA OF REVISION, BASED ON LOOKING AT WHERE THEY WERE SET. MOST OF THE HOMES WERE SET TO BE OUT. JUST LOOKING AT THE MAP FROM FEMA, I THINK THEY SHOW A DOZEN FALLING WITHIN A 100 YEAR FLOOD PLANE. MAYBE ONE OR TWO IS WHAT WE KIND OF HEARD ABOUT.ABOUT ONE OF THEM WHEN THEY OPENED UP THE FENCE THE GATE WATER ENDED UP BEING FLOWING THROUGH, BUT I HEARD 12 HOMES HAD SOME WATER INSIDE OF THEM.

>> BUT THAT ALSO BECAUSE OF COURSE BEING IN THE FENCE BUSINESS BEFORE, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF FENCE BUSINESS IN THAT AREA. THOSE ARE JUST THE HOMES WATER'S RUNNING INTO. THAT DOESN'T COUNT ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT THEIR FENCES ARE BEING TAKEN OUT.

>> NO, NO, CORRECT. >> THEIR BUILDINGS ARE BEING CARRIED OFF, GETTING INTO THE CARPORT AREA WITH THE CAR.

IT'S A MUCH LARGER PROBLEM. >> FROM A PROPERTY STANDPOINT YES IT DOES, LOOKING AT HOMES THEMSELVES, I WASN'T AWARE OF MORE THAN ONE OR TWO THAT WE HEARD ABOUT.

>> THANKS MIKE. COUNCIL I'M GOING TO TAKE A

[02:05:01]

AND WE'RE GOING TO WRAP THIS UP BY NOON HOPEFULLY AND WE'RE GOING TO COME TO CONSENSUS ON A NUMBER AND GIVE STAFF SOME REAL DIRECTION. SO TAKE SEVEN OR EIGHT MINUTES RETRESH AND COME BACK READY TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT. GAFLT

>> ALL RIGHT COUNCIL IT'S 10:TRAY.

BACK IN SESSION. APOLOGIZE FOR ALL PEOPLE LOOKING AT ME THROUGH THE CAMERAS, IF YOU SEE MY LEFT EYE WINKING AT YOU, IT'S NOT WINKING, IT'S TWITCHING.

BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE NEXT HOUR AND TEN MINUTES. I'M GOING TO TAKE A HARD STOP AT NOON BECAUSE WE'VE WHIPPED THIS HORSE TO DEATH.

I WANT TO GET A RESOLUTION AND GIVE STAFF A CLEAR DIRECTION GOING FORWARD. SO LET'S HAVE SORT OF A QUICK HIT CONVERSATION. BRING UP TOPICS, LET'S HAVE SOME QUICK DEBATE AND ULTIMATELY WE'LL STRAW POLL SOME NUMBERS AND GIVE THE STAFF SOME DIRECTION.

SO WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST? >> I HAVE A PROPOSAL.

>> A PROPOSAL. >> SO THE PROPOSAL IS, .6512 AND A HALF OR SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE HOMESTEAD THAT WE TALK ABOUT NOW. THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY PUT IT ON THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION AT THE TIME, WHICH WE COULD RAISE AT THAT TIME AS WELL. BUT AT LEAST GIVES US A LITTLE BIT OF MOVING FORWARD. ESPECIALLY AFTER WE JUST CANNON BALLED RIGHT INTO THIS CONVERSATION WITH 10%.

SO I MEAN WE KEEP THROWING AROUND THE WORD EXTREME.

LIKE FOR ME GOING FROM ZERO TO 10% WAS A BIG DEAL AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO GO EVEN FURTHER.

SO THAT'S MY PROPOSAL TO AT LEAST GET THE CONVERSATION

STARTED. >> OKAY.

>> I REESHT THAT PROPOSAL. -- APPRECIATE THAT PROPOSAL.

THE COMMENT I'D MAKE TOWARDS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE 10% IS THAT ALL IT DID WAS CAP THE VALUES AT LAST YEAR'S TAXES.

ALL YOU DID BY THAT, BY US PUTTING IN THE 10% WAS NOT RAISE THEIR TAXES. AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO NOT RAISE THEIR TAXES NEXT YEAR EITHER.

>> GREAT SO DO YOU LIKE IT, YES OR NO?

>> NOT -- NO. I CAN'T BE IN FAVOR OF THAT

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DO ENOUGH. >> SO WE JUST NEED FIVE, I'LL REMIND US, SO I MEAN WE SHOULD KEEP GOING.

>> FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> I THINK HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION BEING MAXED OUT FOR NEXT YEAR IS LIKE ALREADY A NOMINAL MOVEMENT.

AND I WOULDN'T BE -- MY FEAR, THE REASON I WOULDN'T BE FOR THE 12 AND A HALF IS THAT MY FEAR IS THAT WE GET TO NEXT YEAR AND THE COUNCIL HAS THIS DISCUSSION AND GOES TO 12 AND A HALF.

THAT'S 80 WANT TO PUT IN 20 NOW TO FEEL CONFIDENT HOLDING THE RATE, SPEAKING FOR MYSELF BUT I'M JUST ONE.

>> I HEAR YOU BUT YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE COUNCIL AT THAT POINT CAN SAY NO WE CAN ENACT 10% OR 4% OR WHATEVER THEY

DECIDE TO DO. >> YES, I MEAN NEXT YEAR, IF, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY ELSE IS SITTING IN THIS SEAT WHICH IS QUITE LIKELY, THEY MAY GO WITH YOU TO VOTE AND SAY LET'S DO AWAY WITH HIM STEAD EXEMPTION. LET'S GET RID OF IT ALTOGETHER AND THAT WOULD BE THAT COUNCIL'S PREROGATIVE.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS COUNCIL RIGHT HERE WE'RE HAVING TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY, TO DECIDE OON WHETHER OR NOT WE GO WITH THE CURRENT RATE AS IT IS, WE LOWER THE RATE, OR WE COME TO A COMPROMISE SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN AND SAY LOWER THE RATE AND INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.

THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS ON THE TABLE.

I THINK THE -- WHERE I'M SITTING, MY PROPOSALS WOULD BE LET'S ENACT THE 20% THOUSAND FOR THE 2024 -- 20% NOW FOR 2024 TAX YEAR AND AGREE THAT THE 65 CENT RATE, IF WE CAN'T TO CAN THAT THEN I'M -- TO DO THAT THEN I'M GOING TO ASK FOR THREE CENTS ON

THE RATE. >> OKAY.

SO JUST RESTATE WHERE YOU'RE AT. YOU'RE FIRM IF WE DON'T HIT 20% THEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR A 3 CENT OVERALL RATE REDUCTION.

>> 80. >> OKAY.

CORRECT. >> MIKE CAN YOU GIVE ME THE NUMBERS AGAIN OF THE HOMESTEAD PERCENT EQUALS WHAT?

>> I THINK TEN AND 10% EQUALS ABOUT 10.15 CENTS ON THE TAX RATE. BASED ON THE RATE SET

(INAUDIBLE). >> SO WE ALREADY GAVE BASICALLY

[02:10:02]

THE 4.15 CENT IN THE 10% -- >> EQUIVALENT TO THAT 10%.

>> AND THEN THAT TIMES 612,000 IS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE

FINANCIAL -- HOWEVER -- >> I GOT A QUESTION I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT NUMBER BEFORE WE GO FARTHER.

>> I'M RIGHT HERE. >> THAT IS JUST --

>> GO AHEAD. YOU'VE ALREADY INTERRUPTED ALREADY. GO AHEAD.

>> I CAN STAY WITH. I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THE NUMBER THAT WAS GIVEN AND I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND IT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT IS THE STRICTLY THE DOLLARS THAT THE REVENUE THAT IS GOING TO BE REDUCED FOR THOSE HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES EQUATES TO FOUR CENTS OFF THE ENTIRE BUDGET OR FOUR CENTS TO THE HOMESTEADERS?

>> WE'RE DOING EQUIVALENTS QUIRCHES.

QUIFNS. EQUIVALENCY.

SUBDIVIDING THAT ON THE NUMBER THAT'S FORGONE, TO THE HOMEOWNER, YOU'RE DIRECTING ALL OF THAT TO THE HOMEOWNER, IT'S

REALLY BIGGER TO THE HOMEOWNER. >> I NEED TO SEE THAT MATH BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T JIVE WITH THE MATH THAT I DID ON THIS.

SO I'LL NEED TO SEE YOUR FIGURES ON THAT.

>> 2.7 MILLION DOLLARS AS WELL AS ELIMINATED BASED ON THAT 10% HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION DIVIDED BY 650.

650 IS A FENNY ROUGHLY. >> SO OUR REVENUE WENT DOWN TWOCH 7 MILLION BECAUSE OF THE EXEMPTION WHICH WAS --

>> 650 A PENNY SO TWOCH 7 DIVIDED BY 650, 4.15.

>> AND THAT WAS OVER HOW MANY HOMESTEADS?

WHAT WAS THE TOTAL NUMBER? >> OVER 9,000, 91, I'M THOUGHT

SURE. >> RIGHT AT LET'S CALL IT 9200 GIVE OR TAKE. IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.

>> WOULD THE COUNCIL AGREE THAT WITH THE STRATEGY OF MAXIMIZING EXEMPTIONS, FIRST PRIORITY, AND THEN PURSUING OVERALL TAX RATE REDUCTION AS A SECONDARY PRIORITY AS A STRATEGY GOING FORWARD FROM THIS YEAR FORWARD? I'D LIKE TO STRAW POLL THAT OVERALL STRATEGY AND THEN WE CAN NARROW DOWN TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO

DO WHAT. >> INTENTION TO PRIORITY, IS

THAT WHAT YOU'RE -- >> IS EXEMPTIONS AND CAPS IN CREATIVE TAX RELIEF A PRIORITY OVER OVERALL TAX RATE REDUCTION

IS MY QUESTION. >> AS A PHILOSOPHY YES BUT IT NEEDS TO BE ENACTED TO ACTUALLY BE USEFUL.

>> PHILOSOPHICALLY. >> I AGREE WITH EXACTLY WHAT ALLEN SAID PHILOSOPHICALLY. I WOULD PREFER TO GIVE THE

MAXIMUM TO THE HOMESTEAD. >> UNDERSTOOD.

THAT WAS THE QUESTION. CLARK WHAT IS YOUR THEREOF ON THE TOPIC OVERALL TAX REDUCTION OR MAXIMIZE EXEMPTIONS FIRST?

>> YEAH, I'M FINE WITH (INAUDIBLE).

>> MIKE, ANNA. >> TALKED ABOUT THIS SINCE THE

90S, ATTACK THE HOMESTEADS. >> SO THE COUNCIL AGREES THAT EXEMPTIONS AND CREATIVE TAX RELIEF, IT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY.

SO I FEEL LIKE THIS CONVERSATION SHOULD BE STEERED TOWARDS CREATIVELY WAYS TO FIND COMMON GROUND WITH EXEMPTIONS CURRENT AND FUTURE. I JUST CAN'T DEEM WITH FUTURE BUT FUTURE EXEMPTIONS IN ORDER TO FIND COMMONALITY AMONGST THE 65 CENT RATE. IS THE WAY I FEEL LIKE THE CONVERSATION IS GOING. Y'ALL CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. SO ON THAT TOPIC, I ANY IT'S A STRETCH TO -- I THINK IT'S A STRETCH TO ENACT THE MAXIMUM TAX EXEMPTION. YOU JUST HEARD FROM ALL OF COUNCIL THAT ALL OF COUNCIL AGREES THAT EXEMPTION SHOULD BE PRIORITY. I THINK IT'S REALLY AND I UNDERSTAND THE HESITANCY TO ENACT A MAX TAX EXEMPTION RIGHT NOW WITHOUT HAVING THE NUMBERS. WOULD FINDING A COMMON GROUND, UPPING THE TAX EXEMPTION FOR NEXT YEAR TAKING ACTION ON THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT ALSO, LEAVING ROOM OR THE FURTHER DISCUSSION, NEXT YEAR, BE AN OPTION TO DISCUSS IN ORDER TO

LAND ON THE TAX RATE TODAY? >> TO LAND ON A TAX RATE, YES.

BUT IN ORDER FOR ME TO VOTE ON THE MAXIMUM, THE MAXIMUM TAX

[02:15:01]

I MEAN AS FAR AS THAT STRATEGY ALONE.

IF WE WANT TO DISCUSS, I'M VERY AMIABLE, I'M NOT RIGID WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME, YOU KNOW, OTHER ITEMS, AND SOME KIND OF COMBINATION THAT IS A 12 AND A HALF PERCENT AS A PIECE TO THAT, THEN I MEAN I'M OPEN TO THAT AS WELL.

>> LIKE WHAT? >> LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE COULD INCREASE THE -- IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS YEAR, INCREASING THE DISABLED AND SENIOR EXEMPTION, TO --

>> (INAUDIBLE) THIS YEAR? >> I THINK LEGALLY I THINK YOU CAN BECAUSE THERE IS NO HARD DATE SET ON IT.

THE DISABILITY, WE HAVE A LIMB MORE CONFIDENCE IN.

THERE'S SO MANY MORE, WE DID FIGURE OUT I THINK THERE'S 25 ALMOST 2600 SENIOR, OVER 60 ACCOUNTS.

PROBABLY NEED TO DO SOME ANALYSIS ON THAT IF WE WERE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASING THAT NUMBER.

I MEAN OF CITIZENS. WE COULD PROBABLY DO THE MATH BUT WHEN YOU START -- THE PART THAT WE DON'T KNOW IS, IT'S GOING TO BE HARDER FOR THE OVER 65 BECAUSE THEY HAVE HAD A CEILING IN PLACE FOR YEARS. SO THE EXTRA EXEMPTION, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO FOR THEM BECAUSE IT HAS TO BRING IT DOWN BELOW THEIR CEILING, OKAY? SO LET'S SAY TAKE IT FROM 70 TO 100. IT MAY NOT AFFECT SOME BECAUSE THEIR CEILING IS ALREADY LOWER THAN THAT.

SO THAT'S WHY I SAY IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF ANALYSIS.

THE DISABILITY IS A LITTLE SIMPLER BECAUSE WE JUST ENACTED

IT. >> BUT IT WOULDN'T TAKE MUCH ANALYSIS IF WE LOOKED AT THE 70 TO 100 JUST CYCLE.

>> NO. BECAUSE WE JUST DID THAT.

WE KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS. >> IT WOULD BE $60,000 OR

SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> THE SAME THIS YEAR AND THIN INCORPORATING THE AVAILABLE NEXT YEAR.

>> SO ARE YOU SAYING .65 RAISING DISABILITY EXEMPTION AND WHAT

WITH HOAX STEAD? >> RAISING THE DISABILITY EXEMPTION IN RETURN FOR HAVING HOMESTEADERS PAY 7 MUCH 5% MORE -- 7.5% MORE DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A VERY GOOD DEAL FOR ME.

>> WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE JUST DELAYING TAKING ACTION ON THE HOMESTEAD. WE'VE ALL MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT EVERYBODY WANTS TO EVALUATE HOMESTEAD UP HERE.

AND I'VE EVEN GIVEN YOU MY WRORD AS THE MAYOR THAT I WILL PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AT THE END OF MAY NEXT YEAR AFTER WE GET THE NUMBERS. AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER ASSURANCES WE CAN DO OTHER THAN VOTE BLINDLY ON WHAT POTENTIALLY

COULD BE A HUGE NUMBER. >> THAT IS A

MISCHARACTERIZATION. >> CAN I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING? I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WHAT YOU SAID IS NOT HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT.

YOU SAID THERE'S GOING TO BE ASEN.5% INCREASE ON THE HOMEOWNER BUT SEASONALITY -- A 7.5% INCREASE ON THE HOMEOWNER.

DOESN'T THAT ZERO IT OUT? I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS WHAT

IS THE 7.5%, I'M CONFUSED. >> I ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED 20% WHICH I'M COMFORTABLE WITH, THE SUGGESTION ANNA MADE WAS 12.5.

I SID WE COULD DO SOME OTHER COMBINATION OF SOME OTHER EXEMPTIONS. I DON'T FEEL THAT TAKING 60,000 OR 70,000 OUT OF THE BUDGET ON THE DISABLED SIDE IN RETURN FOR REDUCING THE ASK ADD PLUS 7.5% ON THE HOMESTEAD SIDE IS AMIABLE

FOR ME, IS WHAT I'M SAYING. >> I AGREE WITH ALLEN ON THAT.

>> ONLY 20%, Y'ALL ARE NOT EERVE ANYWHERE IN THE MIDDLE? YOU WERE HAMMERING EARLIER ABOUT HOW HARD NOSED EVERYBODY ELSE WAS. IS THAT Y'ALL'S HARD NOSED?

>> THAT I'M RIGID THAT -- >> ON THE 5%?

>> FOR ME TO VOTE FOR THE MAX TAX RATE, I NEED SOME KIND OF MOVEMENT IS ALL I'VE BEEN RIGID ON.

>> CAN I JUST ASK YOU, YOU KEEP SAYING THAT MAX TAX RATE, MAX TAX RATE. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WHAT DID WE PROMISE THE VOTERS WE WOULD ISSUE DO YOU NOT AGREE WITH OR WHAT DO YOU NOT AGREE WITH IN THIS BUDGET? THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THAT TAX RATE.

OBVIOUSLY THERE IS SOME -- >> HOLD ON -- GO AHEAD.

>> THIS ISN'T A JAB THIS IS A TRUE QUESTION.

[02:20:03]

>> IS THAT ACCURATE CHRIS? WOULD WE HAVE TO CUT A PROJECT

TO LOWER THE RATE? >> YOU EITHER NEED TO CUT PROJECTS OR YOU HAVE TO RESTRUCTURE THE PAYOUTS.

TO MAKE IT LONGER BASICALLY. SO INSTEAD OF A TWO YEAR PAY BACK IT MIGHT NEED TO BE THREE OR FOUR OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER NEEDS TO BE. I FEEL LIKE I PROBABLY NEED TO APOLOGIZE TO COUNCIL FOR EVEN BRINGING THIS TAX NOTE UP.

WE PROBABLY I MEAN WE HAD OTHER PROJECTS.

WE JUST WEREN'T -- THE VOTER APPROVED PROJECTS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD CHANGE WHERE Y'ALL SIT.

BUT IF WE WERE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE OTHER $40 MILLION WE COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE COULD ISSUE MORE G.O. BONDS IF IT'S JUST ABOUT THE VOTER APPROVED BONDS.

TO GET TO THESE RATES. SO I DON'T KNOW IF -- I MEAN IF IT'S JUST THE DEBT THAT WE'RE ISSUING IS THE PROBLEM, I.E. THE TAX NOTE PROJECT OR JUST DEBT IN GENERAL BECAUSE WE NEED TO GET TAX RELIEF, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AGAIN I THINK WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IS A LONG TERM PLAN. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS.

IN TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN ISSUE THAT DEBT IN THE FUTURE. AND THERE'S MANY WAYS TO GET THERE. Y'ALL JUST TELL US WHAT YOU WANT TO DO AND WHAT RATE AND LIKE I SAID IF YOU WANT TO EXTEND THAT DEBT PAYMENT OUT FURTHER, YOU KNOW, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT.

>> OKAY SO WE CAN DO ALL THE PROJECTS, IT JUST MIGHT BE A

LITTLE BIT LONGER. >> AND VOTER APPROVED BONDS, DEPENDING ON HOW WE CUT THE RATE, I DON'T KNOW.

>> THE START DATE WOULD BE PUSHED BACK.

THE ONLY WAY YOU GET TO 6.5 IS MAIRCHT AND DEBT.

TO DROP IT MEANS WE HAVE TO TAKE IT FROM SOMEWHERE.

YOU GUYS SAY WE HAVE THE MAXIMUM WE HAVE THE MAXIMUM, OKAY WHAT DEBT PIECE DO YOU NOT AGREE WITH OR WHAT IN THE M AND O DO YOU

THINK WE DON'T NEED? >> JUST TO CLARIFY, IS IT INACCURATE THAT WE'RE AT THE MAXIMUM CEILING BEFORE THE VOTER

APPROVED RATE AT THE 6.5? >> VIRTUALLY.

>> BECAUSE I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISUNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE I COULD BE MISUNDERSTANDING THIS

WHOLE SITUATION. >> NO AND I THINK THAT'S THE HARD PART. BECAUSE THERE'S TWO PIECES TO THE RATE, THE DEBT PIECE YOU CAN RAISE IT TO WHATEVER AMOUNT YOU NEED TO PAY THE DEBT. SO IF WE -- SO LET'S SAY I'M NOT SAYING THAT ANYBODY IS SAYING THIS, BUT LET'S JUST HYPOTHETICALLY SAY THAT WE WANT TO ISSUE MORE DEBT LIKE WE WANT TO DO THE REC CENTER TODAY, WE WAMENT TO ISSUE $19 MILLION MORE AND TO PAY THAT DEBT WE NEED TO GO TO 70 CENTS, I'M JUST MAKING UP THAT NUMBER, YOU CAN GO TO 70 CENTS.

SO THERE'S NO, THAT THE MAXIMUM IS REALLY MORE ON THE M AND O SIDE THAN IT IS ON THE DEBT SIDE.

THE DEBT YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISLEADING YOU IN SAYING THERE'S

A MAXIMUM HARD RATE. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> THERE IS NOT, IF YOU ISSUE -- >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STRUCTURED RATES THAT THE STATE GETS IS FOR US TO DO AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON.

WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS WE CAN SLIDE THE WHOLE SCALE BY TAKING OUT MORE DEBT. BUT WHAT THEY DO IS THEY TAKE A SNAPSHOT OF OUR FINANCIALS AND THEY DETERMINE BASED ON THE REVENUE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET FROM INCREASED VALUATIONS AND GROWTH, WHAT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS IS THE RATE AT WHICH THE CITY CAN FULLY FUND EVERYTHING THEY WERE DOING LAST YEAR INCLUDING DEBT SERVICE BASED ON THE MONEY THAT'S COMING IN.

SO IN OTHER WORDS AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IF WE DIDN'T DO ANY GROWTH, YOU KNOW, IN CITY GOVERNMENT WE DIDN'T TAKE OUT ANY NEW PROJECTS, I.E. DEBT, WE COULD FULLY FUND THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE NEXT YEAR BASED ON THAT 55 CENT RATE THAT THEY PUT FORWARD. HAVING THE VOTER -- WHAT'S THAT?

>> I WOULD PUT ONE CAVEAT INTO THAT.

ONE THING THAT DOES NOT TAKE INTO EFFECT AND THAT IS WHY WE DON'T DO THIS BUT YOU CAN STRUCTURE IT THIS WAY IF SOMEBODY HAD A DEBT MODEL THAT HAD AN INCREASING DEBT PAYMENT OVER TIME I.E. THEY DID INTEREST ONLY IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS AND THEN IT RAISED UP THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE WOULD NOT TAKE THAT

INTO A CALCULATION SO THAT -- >> DO WE HAVE THAT?

>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT. IT IS A SNAPSHOT IN TIME BUT --

>> AGREED IN THIS SITUATION IT'S NOT PERTINENT.

[02:25:03]

A PERCENTILE. >> I'M NOT AGREE THAT WE'RE AT THE MAXIMUM, THE WAY YOU CREATE A RATE IS YOU HAVE PORTION FOR DEBT OR OA PORTION FOR M AND O. YOU HAVE TO CHANGE DEBT OR CUT M AND O. ALL I'M ASKING IS IF WE WANT TO LOWER SAYING WE'RE AT THE MAXIMUM IS ASSUMING THAT -- WE ARE TAKING OUT MORE MONEY THAN LAST YEAR.

>> UH-HUH, CONSIDERABLY. >> WHAT IN HERE ARE YOU NOT GLEAG WITH BECAUSE YOU'RE LIKE WELL YOU'RE JUST TAKING THE MAXIMUM YOU COULD POSSIBLY TAKE FROM PEOPLE.

OKAY THEN WHAT ARE WE DOING WIT- >> I'M GOING TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION AGAIN BECAUSE I ASKED THIS I KNOW IT TURNED INTO A LONG ANSWER. CAN WE FUND EVERY PRPBLGHT THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US WITHIN THAT $5 MILLION AND LOWER THE RATE? IS THAT FEASIBLE? WITHOUT GOING INTO ALL THE EXPLANATION AGAIN?

>> IF YOU EXTEND OUT THE DEBT TERMS OR CHANGE THE DEBT

STRUCTURE. >> NOTHING WOULD HAVE TO BE CUT, JUST A STRUCTURAL CHANGE TO THE DEBT.

>> LIKE I WAS EXPLAINING THERE, LET'S SAY WE WANT TO CUT THE RATE AND SO THE FIRST YEAR OF THE TAX, MAYBE WE CAN ONLY DO INTEREST ONLY OR A MUCH SMALLER AMOUNT.

SO THEN NEXT YEAR THE RATES, THE PAYMENT'S GOING TO BE HIGHER AND SO FORTH AND IT MIGHT GO LONGER OUT.

>> I UNDERSTAND, I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY, SAYING WE CAN PICK SOMETHING TO CUT IS A MISCAKE TRIESATION.

>> YOU'RE MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M SAYING.

THE DEBT WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT WITH.

I'M SAYING TO GET TO 65 WE HAVE A CAP ON THE M AND O SO WE'RE EITHER IF WE WANT TO CUT THE RATE WE EITHER HAVE TO AGREES THAT THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE M AND O PIECE THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH BECAUSE LET'S SAY WE WANT TO CUT IT A PENNY WE NEED TO FIND $600,000 IN THE M AND O BUDGET --

>> THAT IS NOT CORRECT. >> OKAY HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE TO FIND IN M AND O TO CUT IT IF ANY?

>> WE HAVE TO FIND NONE. >> NONE?

>> TO CUT THE RATE A PENNY WE DON'T HAVE TO CUT M AND O AT ALL. I MEAN.

>> YOU HAVE TO RESTRUCTURE ACCIDENT OR CUT OUT DEBT.

>> THAT IS THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE EARLIER.

LET'S SAY WE DECIDED TO DO THAT THIS YEAR AN WE RESTRUCTURED DEBT. THEN NEXT YEAR'S DEBT IS HIGHER.

>> THAT FALLS INTO THE NEW CALCULATIONS FOR NEXT YEAR SO THAT WILL FALL INTO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND BE FOLDED INTO

THAT. >> THE NO NONE REVENUE RATE WOULD BE BASED ON THE REVENUE WE MADE FOR THIS YEAR.

>> INCLUDING M AND O AND DEBT SERVICE.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IF YOU ARE GOING TO GENERATE A NUMBER TO TAKE THE DEBT SERVICE THIS YEAR IF THAT DEBT SERVICE RISES THAT NO NEW REVENUE RATE DOES NOT TAKE THAT RISE INTO

EFFECT. >> IT DOES IF IT'S BEFORE THE

CALCULATION. >> NO, IT DOESN'T.

IT'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF REVENUE AND IT'S BASED ON -- SO IF I -- LIKE ON THIS TAG IF I'M GENERATING A REVENUE THIS YEAR

TO PAY THE DEBT OF $500,000 -- >> YES.

>> NO NEW REVENUE IS GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT RATE DOES IT TAKE ME WITH THE RATE TO GENERATE $500,000.

IF THE DEBT IS A MILLION DOLLARS THAT NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS NOT FACTORED INTO THAT. 94 YU ADOPTED YOUR VOTER APPROVAL RATE NEXT YEAR CALCULATION IS BUT NOT YOUR NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS. THAT'S THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WITH THE RISE IN REVENUE RATE.

GOING BACK TO MR. MOORMAN'S STATEMENT, WE COULD ARE FACING THAT STATEMENT WITH YOUR PAYMENTS BIGGER IN THE FUTURE YEARS IF WE CHOOSE TO DO THAT. THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT.

>> ALL I WAS SAYING IS TO CUT A PENNY YOU TAKE $6TH,000 OFF THE DEBT SIDE OR 600,000 OFF THE AMOUNT.

THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING. ALL I WAS TRYING TO GET AT IF YOU ARE MAD AT THE MAX RATE WHERE DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THE

600,000 FROM? >> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS MAD.

>> IN FACT WE BOTH HAVE OFFERED TO SUSTAIN THE CURRENT RATE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION BEING IN PLACE FOR NEXT YEAR WHICH BY THE WAY, I WANT TO CLARIFY, WILL IF WE ENACT THAT NOW WILL GO INTO NEXT YEAR'S CALCULATION FOR NO NEW

[02:30:01]

SO IN OTHER WORDS, THAT WILL, IF WE ENACT THAT CURRENTLY, THAT WILL SHIFT THOSE CALCULATIONS ACCORDINGLY.

>> YES, I AGREE BUT WHETHER OR NOT WE ENACT THAT NOW OR WE ENACT THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE NUMBERS FROM THE COUNTY IN EARLY JUNE OR LATE MAY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S STILL GOING TO HAVE THE

SAME IMPACT. >> I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION TO MAKE SURE I'M THINKING CORRECTLY.

THE WAY I'M VIEWING THIS IS I HAVE A LIST OF ITEMS HERE THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS MORNING, STREETS, DRAINAGE, CITY HALL HERITAGE PARK. THAT ADDS UP TO ABOUT 13.8 LET'S TALK ABOUT $14 MILLION WORTH OF STUFF.

SO AS I'M DOING THIS WE EITHER CUT THE RATE, OR WE CAN GET SOME OF THESE PROJECTS THAT I VIEW NEED TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY.

THAT'S WHY I'M WANTING TO HOLD THE RATE AT 65 SO WE CAN ABSORB SOME OF THIS THAT HAS TO BE DONE ANYWAY.

AM I WRONG IN MY ANALYSIS? >> WELL, KIND OF TO THE SAME RESPONSE I GAVE TO MR. MOORMAN, YOU CAN ISSUE THE $5 MILLION, OKAY, LET'S MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION, 5 MILLION LOWER THE RATE LET'S SAY IT'S A PENNY WE LOSE 600,000.

WE NEED TO RESTRUCTURE THE FIRST YEAR'S DEBTOR AS 600,000 LESS.

>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT AT ALL.

>> IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROCESS.

>> IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH LOWER A PENNY YOU HAVE TO DEDUCT

SOMETHING FROM THE 5 MILLION. >> LET'S SAY WE WANT TO DO THE 5 MILLION WE DON'T WANT TO CUT A SINGLE PROJECT WE WANT TO ISSUE THE 5 MILLION. WE ALSO CUT THE TAX RATE.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE DEBT LOAD, I'M NOT GOING TO ROLL OUR

PAYMENTS OUT. >> UNLESS YOU CUT SOMETHING SO IN THAT CASE IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO RESTRUCTURE THE DEBT THEN SOMETHING WOULD HAVE TO COME OUT.

>> HOW DO WE DETERMINE HOW TO STRUCTURE THE DEBT TO BEGIN WITH? ISN'T THAT AN ARBITRARY, DON'T WE ASH TRAIRM DECIDE IF WE'RE TAKING OUT A ONE, TWO, THREE,

FOUR YEAR TAX NOTE? >> YES YOU CAN FLUCTUATE --

>> HOW DO WE DETERMINE THAT THIS 5 MILLION WITH THIS STRUCTURE IS THE COMPACT RIGHT STRUCTURE? I MEAN ISN'T IT JUST YOUR BEST

GUESS YOUR BEST ESTIMATE? >> IT'S OUR BEST ESTIMATE LOOKING AT THE LONGER TERM PLAN INSTEAD OF TAKING A SNAPSHOT IN TIME. IT'S KNOWING THAT WE'VE GOT 40 MORE MILLION DOLLARS, PLUS WE TALKED EARLIER IN THE BUDGETS THERE'S FUTURE FIRE STATION COMING, FUTURE ROADS, WE KNOW THERE'S STUFF IN THE FUTURE WE'RE NOT STOPPING TODAY SO IT'S ABOUT A LONGER TERM PLAN SO THERE'S NOTHING MAGIC ABOUT, YOU

KNOW -- >> IT IS YOUR BEST STRATEGIC

PLAN. >> I WOULD ARGUE IT DEPENDS ON WHAT WE'RE DOING. YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE A 20 YEAR OR EVEN A 15 YEAR LOAN OUT ON RESURFACING ROADS.

BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE RESURFACING THE ROADS BEFORE YOU PAY THE DEBT OFF. IT DEPENDS WHAT WE'RE USING THE

DEBT ON. >> WE NEED TO MIRROR MATURITY DATES WITH THE LONGEVITY OF THE ASSETS.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO A REHAB PROJECT THAT WE THINK WILL LAST FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS AND TASE OUT A 20 YEAR DEBT ON.

NOT THAT SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THE TAX AREN'T PERMANENT BUT WE WANT TO MATCH UP MATURITIES THAT'S FOR SURE. THERE IS NOTHING MAGICAL ABOUT 20 YEAR DEBT, YOU CAN TAKE IT TO 40 YEARS, WE NEVER RECOMMEND THAT BUT IF YOU WANT TO LOWER THE PAYMENT MAKE IT 40.

>> HOLD ON A SECOND. JUST TO BE CLEAR MIKE, WHAT ARCHL AND I PROPOSED WITH THE 20% DOES TO THE AFFECT THE CURRENT BUDGET OR THESE PROJECT, THE DIBT FOR THESE PROJECTS IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM THIS YEAR, IT CHANGES NOTHING OF WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS YEAR. YOU GET TO ACCOMPLISH EVERY SINGLE THING THAT YOU WANTED TO DO THIS YEAR.

THE ONLY THING IT DOES IS IT SETS A LIMIT ON GROWTH FOR THEM YEAR FOR THAT DEMOGRAPHIC WHICH IS JUST THE HOMESTEADERS.

THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL WE'RE ACHIEVING BY DOING THAT. WORE SAYING THAT NEXT YEAR THE ADVANTAGES GO UP 10%, THEY DON'T PAY -- THE VALUATIONS GO UP 10%, THEY DON'T PAY ANY ADDITIONAL IN TAXES, THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING, YOU GET TO FUND EVERYTHING YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THIS

YEAR. >> LET ME SAY ONE THING ABOUT THAT. IF WE DO THE 20 THE ONLY THING I WILL SAY IS THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY ALSO WANT TO LOOK AT THAT IMPACT BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE ESTIMATIONS WE THINK IT IS 2.8, 7 MILLION DOLLARS WHATEVER IT IS IN THE STRUCTURING OF THE DEBT. THAT MAY BE THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES A LITTLE BIT. BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE GO TO NEXT YEAR WHEN WE LOSE 2.7 MILLION WE ARE NOT

[02:35:06]

GETTING -- >> IF WE ARE DOING THAT AND TAKE THAT ROUTE IN HAVING TO RESTRUCTURE DEBT I PERSONALLY WOULD PREFER TO DO IT THROUGH A PREEMPTIVE TAX EXEMPTION VERSUS

AN OVERALL RATE REDUCTION. >> I AGREE.

>> SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS MEDIATE THE CONVERSATION HERE IN ORDER TO BUILD CONSENSUS AROUND A NUMBER SO WE CAN BE DONE IN 42

MINUTES. >> I'LL SAY ONE MORE THING AND THEN I'LL BE DONE. I GOT THIS WITHIN THE LAST 20 MINUTES BUT I'LL GO BACK TO KIND OF WHERE I STARTED.

I'M GOOD WITH THE M AND O BUDGET, FULL CIRCLE.

I'M ACTUALLY WILLING TO BE SUPPORTIVE AT THE MAXIMUM RATE OF THE 6-5 TO HOLD THE RATE AND I'M JUST ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF MOVEMENT IN THE AREA OF TAX RELIEF.

AND I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST WITH THE EXCEPTION.

THE FIRST THING I'M GOING TO LIST --

>> IS THERE A NUMBER ON THE EXEMPTION, LET'S FIND A MIDDLE

GROUND WITH THE EXCEPTION. >> FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND -- FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND ON THE MIDDLE GROUND I THINK IS

COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. >> I AGREE WITH THAT.

>> WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF MOVEMENT?

>> WAS THE 4 SERNTS AND THE 10% NOT MOVEMENT?

WAS THAT NOT ALL OF -- >> IF WE WOULDN'T HAVE PASSED THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HOLD THE RATE OR WE WOULD BE DOING

LESS PROJECTS. >> THAT IS NOT TRUE.

>> THAT IS TRUE. IS THAT INACCURATE CHRIS? IF WE DID NOT PASS THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TAKE OUT ANOTHER $5 MILLION IN DEBT OR WE WOULD HAVE A SMALLER

M AND O BUDGET IS THAT ACCURATE? >> AGAIN YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT ON THE DEBT SIDE. WE WOULDN'T CHANGE THAT.

>> IT WOULD BE HIGHER THAN 6-5 TO DO THAT CORRECT?

>> HAD YOU NOT DONE THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION THE CERTIFIED VALUES WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER, RIGHT? YOU WOULD HAVE PUSHED BECAUSE OF THE INVERTED CALCULATION YOU WOULD HAVE PUSHED YOUR NO NEW REVENUE M AND O REVENUE DOWN BUT

YOU WOULD ALSO I MEAN AGAIN -- >> VOTER APPROVED.

>> PUSH IT DOWN, VOTER APPROVE, THE M AND O RATE WOULD HAVE BEEN PUSHED DOWN, YOU ARE LYING THAT TO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER VALUE, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT MATH WOULD HAVE LANDED.

>> IT WOULDN'T BE LANDED ABOVE 6-5 CORRECT?

>> WWE WOULD HAVE BEEN FORCED TO WAVER IT.

>> YOU STILL COULD HAVE DONE 6-- >> WITH A LOWER M AND O BUDGET.

>> WHATEVER CHRIS IS SAYING WE ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION TO OFFSET

THE RATE. >> I'M TALKING ABOUT RATES.

AND I JUST I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DEALING IN ABSOLUTES HERE WE'RE SAYING THAT'S ALL YOU CAN DO.

THE COUNCIL HAS FLEXIBILITY. THOUSAND YOU GOT A CAP ON THE M AND O RATE. THAT ONE'S MORE DEFINED AND HARD LINE. BUT THE DEBT STRUCTURE YOU GOT

FLEXIBILITY HERE. >> CAN I GO BACK TO MY QUESTION TO YOU, WHAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF MOVEMENT? CAN YOU PUT A NUMBER TO IT? IS A LITTLE BIT OF MOVEMENT ONLY

20% ON THE HOMESTEAD? >> 20% FOR NEXT YEAR'S HOMESTEAD I THINK IS A VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT OF MOVEMENT BUT I WOULD FEEL MAKE ME COMFORTABLE, IF WE WERE TO MAKE LIKE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE FOR OUR SENIOR AND DISABLED RESIDENTS AND THAT WAS MORE OF INTEREST TO THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE. IF WE WANTED TO CHANGE SOME OF THE DEBT STRUCTURE, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT'S A PRETTY -- IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S A NONSTARTER. AND THEN ULTIMATELY A RATE DROP WHICH I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE IS REALLY EXCITED ABOUT.

SO I DON'T HAVE, I MEAN I DON'T KNOW WHAT DIRECTION BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MOO MAJORITY OF COUNCIL IS RIGID AT THE CURRENT PLAN TO FOR THE MOST PART AND UNFORTUNATELY, WOULD REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY FOR ME TO GET ON BOARD WITH THAT CURRENT PLAN SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

>> WHAT ARE YOU THINKING WE'RE RIGID AT? LIKE WHAT PLAN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

>> HOLDING THE RATE AND NOT MAKING ANY FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS.

>> OKAY WELL I'VE MADE A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE IT SOME BUT

[02:40:04]

>> I'M SOLID AT 50%, THAT'S -- 20%, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

>> WE NEED 75. ARE YOU SOLID AT THE 20% AS WELL? NOT GOING TO GO DOWN TO 18 OR 15 OR -- WITH THE ASSURANCE THAT I'M GOING TO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA TO REVISIT THE 20 IN JUNE?

>> JUNE, 18. >> CLARK, COMMENTS?

MIKE ANY COMMENTS? >> I MEAN I HAD IN MY MIND THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 20 BUT I HAD IN MY MIND THAT 15 FOR SURE.

BUT I'M GOING TO LOOK AT IT IN JUNE BUT SURE I'M WILLING TO SAY

WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 20%. >> ANNA?

>> (INAUDIBLE). >> WHILE SHE'S THINKING ALSO WHEN WE SAY IT IS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO GIVE A 100S PER ASSURANCE OF 20%, AS YOU STATED.

WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE VALUATIONS WILL BE IN MAY.

SO I'M HAPPY TO SAY HEY THIS IS WHAT I'D LOVE TO DO BUT ANYBODY SITTING UP HERE SAYING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITHOUT A DOUBT BECAUSE I SAT HEARING 11 WHEN THE BOTTOM FELL OUT AND YOU JUST DON'T KNOW. BUT I'M HAPPY TO SAY I'M LOOKING

TOWARD TO DOING IT. >> YEAH, I'M KIND OF THIS THE SAME BOAT. I REALLY WANT TO DO IT.

I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT STICKING WITH IT IF WE HAD

THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF US. >> WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. EVERYBODY GETS THEIR OWN VOTE

AND THEIR OWN PROPOSAL. >> WE HAVEN'T BUILT FIVE VOTES.

>> HAVE TO PASS THE TAX RATE. I MEAN HONESTLY, IF WE HAVE TO DO THE 20, I COULD PROBABLY COME AROUND TO IT.

THE PART I'M MOST FRUSTRATED WITH IS FINE, 10% WASN'T ENOUGH FOR Y'ALL, I GET THAT. BUT TO KEEP SAYING WE DIDN'T DO SOMETHING IS INACCURATE. AND TO KEEP SAYING WE'RE GETTING 6-5 BUT IN THE OVERWHELM BUDGET PROCESS, YOU -- THE WHOLE BUDGET PROCESS YOU ALL AGREED WITH EVERYTHING ON THE M AND O SIDE, EVERYTHING. WHICH MEANS WE NEEDED IT.

IF WE DIDN'T NEED IT, WE WOULDN'T COLLECT IT.

THAT'S WHERE WE LOWERED IT IN THE PAST.

WE TOWND AREAS WE DIDN'T NEED IN THE PAST AND WE CUT BACK.

SO IF WE'RE JUST DOING THE 20 JUST AS A WARM FUZZY FEELING I MEAN THAT'S FINE. BUT TO SIT THERE AND SAY YOU GUYS ARE HOLDING THE TAX RATE AT THE MAX IS INACCURATE BECAUSE NOBODY HAS DISAGREED WITH THE PROJECTS, THE DEBT STRUCTURE OR THE M AND O SO IT NATURALLY BUILT ITS WAY UP TO 6-5 IS WE AGREED WE NEEDED ALL THESE THINGS.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT IT AND I'M ASKING JUST FOR SOME NOMINAL MOVEMENT.

>> I THINK IT IS -- >> HOW WHEN WE SET DOWN AND BUILT THIS WASN'T IT NOMINAL MOVEMENT? IF I HAD KNOWN YOU WERE BEING HELD HOSTAGE AT THE TIME --

>> I PEOPLE LIKE I'M BEING HELD HOSTAGE, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S

HAPPENING. >> CAN I ASK CHRIS FOR QUICK CLARITY WHAT I'M THINKING THAT GOES BACK WITHIN MY ANALYSIS.

SO CHRIS WE'VE HAD SOME FOLKS THAT WANT TO DO SOMETHING SO I WOULD WANT TO TREND THAT WAY. SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY AND WE'RE NOT TALKING TODAY'S NUMBERS, AND WE'RE NOT -- WE DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE BACK A PENNY, WHICH WILL REQUIRE CUTTINGS SOMETHING WHICH WILL REQUIRE CUTTING IN SOME OF THESE PROJECTS AND WE ALSO DECIDE THAT WHILE WE'RE CUTTING THOSE PROJECTS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY THAT IT COULD REQUIRE IF WE -- IN OTHER WORDS IF WE WANT TO DO ALL THE $5 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS WHICH WE HAVE LIKE $14 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS THAT NEED IMMEDIATE -- IN MY OPINION MORE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, IF WE WANT TO DO THE WHOLE $5 MILLION, AND GIVE THE PERSONY BACK THEN IT -- PENNY BACK THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE A DEBT LOAD RESTRUCTURE CORRECT?

>> YES. >> FOR A PENNY?

>> WE NEED TO LOWER THE FIRST YEAR --

>> AND THAT'S RIGHT, OKAY, SO WE WOULD BE REDOING OUR DEBT LOAD TO PAY IT OUT LONGER, TO GIVE PEOPLE BACK $3.33 A MONTH FOR A PENNY. AM I THINKING RIGHT?

>> YES, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO I MEAN ONE PENNY WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO ADD A YEAR INSTEAD OF PAYING THEM YOU OFF

IN TWO YEARS IT WOULD BE THREE. >> OKAY SO WE WOULD BE GOING THROUGH ALL THAT FOR $3.33 A MONTH TO THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD.

[02:45:03]

WE CAN'T GUARANTEE IT'S THE SAM- >> AND WE JUST NEED TO HAVE I MEAN OBVIOUSLY THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY WE NEED TO HAVE THAT BECAUSE OUR PLAN WAS ON THE 22ND SO A WEEK AND A FEW DAYS WE WOULD BE BRINGING THESE BOND SALES TO YOU SO WE NEED TO TELL THEM HOW TO STRUCTURE IT. SO WE CAN SO WE CAN RESTRUCTURE IT. IF WOO KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT WE

LOOK FORWARD TO. >> IF IT'S EASY ENOUGH IF WE GET THINGS DONE IF WE MAKE UP OUR MINDS WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO A LOT OF THIS OR WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND DEBT WHICH I'M NOT -- I DON'T DO THAT WITH MY OWN DEBT. I'M ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO SNOWBALL IT. AND FOR EVERY PENNY WE ELIMINATE TO THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLDS SO IF YOU HAVE TWO PENNIES IT'S 6 MANY 66, IF YOU DO THREE PENNIES IT'S $10 A MONTH.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M THINKING THROUGH THIS AND MY ANALYSIS IS

CORRECT. >> I MEAN YEAH LIKE I SAID WE CUT PROJECTS, RESTRUCTURE DEBT AND I'M GOING TO TRUST YOUR MATH ON WHAT'S ON THE TABLE ON THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD.

>> WHAT'S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW IS NOT AN OVERALL RATE REDUCTION. IT IS A FULLY FUNDING OF THIS YEAR'S BUDGET. AND IT IS A POTENTIALLY A MAXIMIZATION OF THE ■HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR NEXT YEAR WHICH WOULD IMPACT CHRIS AND HIS TEAM AS THEY DEVELOP NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET AND TALK ABOUT NEXT YEAR'S NUMBERS.

>> SO I WANT TO SAY ONE THING ABOUT THAT.

AND THAT IS, AND I'M SURE EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE ON THE DAIS AND EVERYBODY LISTENING TO ME IS IN THE SAME BOAT.

MY PROPERTY HAS GONE UP OVER 400%, OKAY IN VALUATION.

WE'RE ASKING FOR 20%. >> OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME HAS

IT WENT UP 400%? >> SINCE I BROUGHT MY PROPERTY, OKAY? WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE VALUATION SINCE I PURCHASE ID MY HOME HAS GONE UP OVER 400%.

WE'RE ASKING FOR A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION OF 20%.

>> AND EVERYBODY HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO DO IT RIGHT? EVERYBODY UP HERE HAS EXPRESSED THE DESIRE TO DO IT.

THE ISSUE IS THE TIME LINE THAT I THINK THE PEOPLE ARE HAVING AND KNOWING THE NUMBERS AND ADOPTING IT WITH HARM FIRM NUMBERS VERSUS THOUGHT KNOWING THE NUMBERS AND ADOPTING IT

PREEMPTIVELY. >> AT SOME POINT IN ORDER TO CUT TAXES YOU JUST HAVE TO CUT TAXES AND THAT THING IS WE CAN EITHER DO IT THIS YEAR AND WE CAN HIT THE RATE, AND OR WE CAN SETTLE IT FOR NEXT YEAR SO THEY HAVE TIME TO STRUCTURE AROUND IT.

>> SURE THAT'S FAIR. >> IT'S MORE PROACTIVE THIS WAY THAN IT IS TO JUST SLAM IT RIGHT NOW.

OKAY COWM WE HAVE A REPRESENTATION OPEN THE TABLE TO PROCEED WITH THE 65 CENT RATE FOR THIS YEAR.

, AT THE SAME TIME, JUST BEFORE OR JUST AFTER WE VOTE ON THAT RATE, THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE TO ENACT A 20% TAX EXEMPTION FOR HOMESTEADS FOR NEXT CALENDAR YEAR OR NEXT FISCAL YEAR'S BUDGET, DID I WORD THAT RIGHT? AROUND SO THAT'S WHAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. I'D LIKE TO STRAW POLL THAT IDEA. AND SEE WHERE YOU LAND.

AGAIN WE WOULD NEED FIVE VOTES ULTIMATELY ON SEPTEMBER 5TH TO ADOPT IT. ADOPT THE TAX RATE.

SO I'M KIND OF CURIOUS WHERE YOU GUYS LAND ON THAT STRATEGY.

ALLEN. >> I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

>> MIKE. >> YES.

>> ANNA. CLARK.

CLARK. >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> ED? I'M ALSO GOOD WITH THAT.

SO THAT'S FIVE. SO THAT WE HAVE DIRECTION FOR STAFF. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> SO WHAT WE WILL DO THEN TO GIVE ASSURANCES TO THOSE BECAUSE AGAIN ON THE 22ND WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING A BOND SALE SO I'M ASSUMING EVERYBODY IS GOING TO WANT ASSURANCE.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE WILL STRUCTURE THE AGENDA YOU VOTE ON THE EXELINGS FOR 2024 PRIOR TO US APPROVING THE DEBT SO YOU HAVE ASSURANCES AT THAT POINT THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THE VOTE ON THE 20% AND WE'RE GOING TO BRING THE BOND SALE.

WE WILL GO BACK KNOWING THAT AND TRYING TO ESTIMATE NEXT YEAR WITH THE 10 OR THE 20% HOMESTEAD WE'LL TRY AND LOOK AT SEE HOW COMFORTABLE WE ARE WITH THE DEBT STRUCTURE.

JUST TO MAKE SURE. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S GOING TO CHANGE, I WANT TO LOOK AT IT BECAUSE WE ARE SAYING WE GOT THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE 2.7 MILLION OR WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS OFF OF THERE. IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE ACTUALLY NEXT YEAR. BUT JUST GIVE US IF YOU WOULD JUST LET US HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING OURSELVES IN A BIND OR THE NEXT YEAR WITH

[02:50:05]

WILL PRESENT IT ON THE 22ND. >> WITH THAT BEING SAID BECAUSE OF THE ORDER I WOULD SAY THAT ASSURANCES GO BOTH WAYS AND THE NOISE FOR NO NEW REVENUE IS GOING TO GET A WHOLE LOT LOUDER IN THE COMING DAYS BEFORE DECEMBER 5TH.

THAT IS THE DIRECTION THIS COUNCIL HAS GIVEN STAFF SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE TO GET ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED BUT ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT ASSURANCES GO BOTH WAYS.

>> 87 AND I'M GIVING MY ASSURANCE RIGHT THOUSAND THAT I WHICH CANCEL THROUGH WITH THIS PLAN.

>> ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER FINAL COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? ANY QUESTIONS THERE STAFF? DISTURBS ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? NEGOTIATIONS ARE USUALLY SUCCESSFUL WHEN BOTH SIDES ARE LEFT HURTING.

EVERYBODY LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE IN PAIN THERE SO IT'S A GOOD THING.

AT 11 -- >> I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT. WHEN YOU SEE IT ON THE 22ND AND WE'RE ACTUALLY SELLING THESE TAX NOTES I'M JUST GOING TO LIST EVERYTHING SO THAT YOU GUYS HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY IN CASE ONE PROJECT, WE DETERMINE WE CAN'T DO IT.

WHAT IS GOING TO HAVE THE DRAINAGE LAND REQUISITION, PARK DESIGN, PARK CONSTRUCTION, DEMO, AND THEN I'LL PUT STREETS IN THERE ALSO. BUT AGAIN I THINK THE STREETS HAS KIND OF FALLEN OFF THAT LIST A LITTLE BIT.

BUS JUST BECAUSE WE START DOING DESIGN ON SOMETHING AND SAY WE REALLY CAN'T DO THAT I WANT Y'ALL TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO COME BACK AND USE THE MONEY FOR SOMETHING THAT OTHER PRIORITIES

THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED. >> OKAY.

>> DO YOU WANT TO SET THE PRIORITIZATION OF THOSE

PROJECTS? >> I THINK WE CAN DISCUSS THAT LATER. I WILL SAY THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR FINAL BUDGET TAX RATE WORKSHOP.

WE WILL HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS OBVIOUSLY, THE FIRST ONE IS THE AUGUST 22ND MEETING. FOR THE BUDGET.

THE TAX RATE ADOPTION WILL TAKE PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 5TH IN A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. AND THEN WE CAN GO ABOUT WITH OUR LIVES. WHICH WILL BE GOOD.

SO 11:35 A.M. THIS MEETI

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.