Environmental Advisory Board

Mhm.

Mhm.

All right, we have to move on with the head of the town council budget workshop session for May 23rd, 2026 to order. And if you would please join me in standing for the pledge of allegiance.

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.

[clears throat]

Thank you. I do thank each of our staff This time I know we got a lot to talk about today, so I'm going to let All right, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Good morning, council and mayor.

We uh

excited to be here. I feel that it's optimistic. I feel like we're nearing the finish line of this product that we can then have our public hearing on. So, we're going to run through the updated comparisons from different jurisdictions that we have, and then we're going to go through the scenarios that you all requested us to come back with, and then hopefully get into decision points and next steps. Okay. So, I'll turn it over to Jessica.

All right. So, um so far we county municipalities, everybody except Zebulon has presented. They present tonight, so uh we'll have more information soon. Um but overall, um the average tax rate proposed for FY 27 is um 42.6. And um of those increasing, the average increase is about um 2.4 cents. So, when looking at the cost comparison of what the taxes cost, solid waste, water, sewer, vehicle fees, stormwater, and electric. We come in second in terms of affordability. This is based on because it's all of Wake County, we based it off of the Wake County average home value, and then we use the metrics for a standard customer that we typically use such as $5,000 for water sewer usage and

1150 for electric. And then this is just a reminder. So, our rate impact as we stand now with a 3-cent tax rate is about $31.71 per month or $380 and 52 cents per year. So, I'm going to walk through our four scenarios. Our current tax rate is 35.6. Our current proposed for FY27 is an additional 3 cents to put us at 38.6. And then we have three additional scenarios where if we only went up 2 cents, we only went up 1.75 cents, or if there were no tax rate increase. So, I'm going to walk through all of the scenarios first, and then we're going to guide back through them one by one to have discussion around. So, for our existing 3-cent increase, this was a 0.54 change from the original proposed budget, and we did that by um decreasing travel and training, IT software, LSC reductions, and some other operational cost updates throughout departments. We also adjusted our revenues based on the fee schedule updates, and as well as some additional Wake County finalized projections. So, to go down to a 2 cent increase, this would put us at 37.6 cents. We looked at adding additional fund balance per the direction at the May 8th work session. So, 500,000 in fund balance. We worked with our finance department to see where we could potentially pick up more interest earned. And so, we added additional 200k in interest earnings. We added in the Richardson Road at Corbans traffic signal. That was requested. And then we made reductions to department operations all

across the board in the general fund. Those were in categories such as printing, advertising, departmental supplies, professional services, contracted services, and we got an updated quote on some of our capital. So, that um we updated that as well. Then we looked at what is proposed as new items for next year. And so, we chose to defer four vehicle replacements. So, one is the Parks and Rec special events van. And then three of those are police replacement vehicles. We also looked at the at delaying the hiring of some new positions. So, this was 384,000 in reductions. And it pushes the six police officers to an October start date. And then it pushes the downtown athletics and ground worker to January start date to align better with the updated timeline for that project. Then we also looked at the new position requests for next year. And so, we proposed the removal of one new position, which would be the corporal in PD. And then we also looked at existing positions that are vacant. And so um we uh had uh one inspector position identified and the um clerk's office government relations position um to unfund for this next fiscal year. So that puts us at our um 2-cent increase instead. So then to get that additional 0.25 cent reduction, um we went uh to the SIF bucket of the tax rate proposal. So um we're proposing a 0.18 cent reduction to the SIF. Um that would leave the SIF at 7.82 cents um in allocation. Um and this would just remove one project from the immediate 5-year plan. It's the Peakway

Southwest Widening. This is the project that um both groups identified at the May 8th workshop as um potential for um if we were to uh reduce the SIF um a project that we could move out. And then to balance that, we put in additional 145,000 in fund balance um to get to that 0.75 increase.

And real quick on that, that was based on the historical look.

Yeah, so um we did get updated fund balance numbers um with uh the finalizing of the audit. And so um we have a little more room to play with with fund balance, but this leaves approximately 1.4 million um over our 20% mark. And historically um our 3-year trend right now is about 1.3 million dollars in budget amendments each year. So we're within policy, but it also gives us um based on how we typically operate and things that are unknown and come up during the year, this gives us that um room in fund balance. So then moving to the um no tax rate increase option, uh so this is based off of um the three cent our current proposal only. So we took the route for zero cent that as an organization we would prefer to maintain our existing operations and programs and eliminate new initiatives as opposed to continuing to decrease our base operations over an additional 3.6 million from that 1.75 cents. So we base this off of the initial proposal for three cents and we also included that 500 thousand dollars of fund balance. that means removing the public safety personnel penny which eliminates funding for nine positions and the associated vehicles. For police this means limiting proactive

policing and event staffing. Delays in investigations and slow response times, overtime reliance increases our costs and burnout and it reduces departmental flexibility and resilience. For fire that means uninspected buildings creating public safety risks, high inspection to inspector ratios worsen the backlog of inspections. And it creates liability exposure to the towns ISO grade. Then the next penny that would be removed is the fleet replacement. So that is deferring funding for 30 vehicles. In police that's increasing maintenance costs and downtime, decreasing operational readiness and reliability and also creates liability exposure. For fire it means an inability to conduct inspections independently. And for our parks team it means limited vehicle availability for programming and event needs as well as reduced standard of maintenance of our downtown spaces, our parks and our greenways. Since we added that additional 500,000 in fund balance Um, down from our three cent scenario we were able to maintain 0.25 of the SIFT penny. So, um, this would remove 0.75 of the SIFT penny, which, um, equates to $18 million of worth of projects to push out of the immediate five years. Um, and then in terms of what that looks like, the projects listed are the ones that were identified in February to be a part of that added one cent to the SIFT.

So,

[clears throat]

we now would like to head into decision at this session. Uh, the first, so this is kind of the the different scenarios. Uh, so obviously the three-cent scenario that we thought we got the base of what we were presenting. So, we're happy to discuss anything in that particular budget that you would like to. But, then

[clears throat]

depends on how you want to proceed

there. You want to go into we can stop and check [clears throat] on each scenario. We can go to the decision points within. So, for example, going This is the two-cent scenario. What you've got circled, we can have a decision point on revenue. You want to stop and talk about that. If there's consensus for that piece, we can move on to the next. Would you like to do that? Okay. So, first [clears throat] up, going through uh, the two-cent scenario, two-cent increase scenario, revenues. Uh, this is typically a painless point for most. So, hopefully we get consensus here, but we want to make sure everybody is comfortable with our increased fund balance based on the historical um, analysis and also the interest earned. Which was done by our finance team kind of looking at things. So, any discussion or input on the revenue piece.

[clears throat]

Um, So, part of our policy is that we get a We have a fairly right 2025 % We're [clears throat] getting close to the 20% mark. Is there a view on how we're going to increase fund balance over the next couple of years to bring this back up to 25%. If I may.

[clears throat]

I think the remediation requirement kicks in if we drop below 20% and 20%. [clears throat] But even that, you know, if we're right at 20% or very close to 20%. So that's kind of our outlook for future or you can talk about fund balance how it will develop and yeah, there's a little bit more cushion I guess in there.

So big picture answer to that is that and that's where we wanted the historical analysis which came in around 1.3 is historically what we used. So where we are now currently in the fund balance is that 20% plus a 1.4 million dollars. So that anticipates that over the the fiscal year we might use some of that 1.4 but we would not drop below the 20% unless something else happened to

spend more. So we would anticipate not going below 20 in the next budget year.

We would be facing with this issue of that scenario of hey, we can only plug in X amount to keep us above 20. And if you want to grow that, then you have to either put taxes or other cuts or what. So we're not anticipating dropping below 20 with what we put in here. If you did want to utilize more,

[clears throat]

then you I think you would say there's risk in dropping below the 20. That's what I'm suggesting.

Um So typically what do you see Yeah, because we we have our capital expense plan, right? And typically we see kind of at the year at year end we didn't use all of those or there's early deals that were signed later in the year. And you know, some of the fund balance goes unencumbered and gets added back in at the end of the year. What's kind of the typical what you average as at the at year end? And the don't really budget for that, but it's it's kind of routinely happens. So what's what's roughly the average there?

I don't have the average of what we put back each three three million. Um but um uh this year based on some of the revenues that have uh come in short such as um ad valorem taxes, we're anticipating about a million going back in and that is factored into the um suggested fund balances for next year.

So I think essentially that trend not having as much left over at the end of the year as we divide for that reprogram. So something we definitely need to keep an eye on cuz next year if it's a million this year, next year it could be less than that. So our fund balance growth will not occur.

Okay, um the CIP projects, the longer [clears throat] we delay, the more ex- expensively it gets. So it bothers me.

I'm okay with that. I mean I I would point out that the way we calculate fund balances changed with the creation of the CIP.

And uh so this isn't exactly apples to apples for what we how we measured fund balances five years ago. And we measured it the way we measured it five years ago, our current fund balance would be would be 5% or something. But yeah, the balance of the CIP fund is added on. So we divide the two and our general fund is is a smaller section because we're actually putting a good amount into it. So um And I think if you if you look at what credit raters and and auditors look at the financial position of the town, they can look at all of the funds, all the money that's there, not just the general fund balance. So just keep that in mind that 20% today doesn't mean the same thing it did five years ago. You could say that which has a significant cash balance. We're trying to build for for future infrastructure investments.

And and because and we do have the CIP, so I do think that it may be a topic of discussion, certainly not today, but a topic of discussion in the future as well. And that 100% should still be 100%.

We didn't change it like we did lower it 25 to 20 to 25.

Right. Yeah, we may we may be back in a position where we take a look at it and we're reduced down to that amount because honestly, I think the loss behind the 35% that we had was because we were basically accounting for those set funds. Yeah. You weren't really accounting for the set funds, so

So, now that we have some website or getting some some experience with the set funds and where that is and how it goes how it goes, I think that might be the appropriate conversation as 20% still the right is.

[clears throat]

And I'm uh Okay. Okay.

I mean, it'll be around there because I mean, you do want your general fund whole one of the set is that it's that it's um pulled off and treated separately from your general fund. I just bring up the comparison to say like we do have other cash real real currency. But, the point of the general fund is like, you know,

people stop paying tax altogether and you want to be able to operate. And ideally, you'd like to just pull from the the general fund and not from your set. You don't want to set those funds aside. It may be a recurring theme in this conversation, but so maybe you look at it and you I I I don't bring it up to say we should lower it. I bring it up to say just keep in mind change the calculation. We have other accessible funds and cash in the emergency fund that I think would would be considered by others. That's what I think.

I'm not disagreeing, but just adding to the thought process that the whole point of creating that set is to have that dedicated fund. And so, being mindful of what happens in a lot of cases where you create certain funds and they're like, "Oh, well, then we're going to go raid that trust fund. We're going to go raid that fund." And then it defeats the whole purpose of creating dedicated capital funds. So, just putting that out there as part [clears throat] of this.

Yeah, or or you're purposely saving something and putting money in the bank for it for any knowledge and mark and down the road that it looks like you have this this massive fund balance, but it's dedicated to the fund purpose that to get the project to finalize itself, but you know, think of the water sewer uh balance. You have an unbalanced artificially high against you know the large expenditures. We'll still pick up the mission and still not make But we're being mindful that we're not just collecting money for the sake of collecting.

Right. Actionable dollars.

Actionable dollars.

Okay, so seems pretty good consensus on the revenue piece. Okay? All right, next decision point and we've got another addition to talk about later, but this one we felt like there was consensus. So, the addition of 270 core bank's traffic signal for 100,000 since it's actually a a minus that we had to include, but this is added in. We'll make sure there's a consensus for that piece.

Is that was factored into the consensus vote?

Basically it's one of four by 80, right?

Okay? See good there? All right, next decision point is where

we delayed hiring of new positions and I'll talk for a second on on that piece. I'm not a huge fan of half-year funding or

three quarters of your funding because then the following year you got to take on all of that, right?

And so, our intention was not to get the savings for that purpose. It [clears throat] was we we took a practical approach to when we felt like the positions needed to be staffed. Uh and so, the downtown positions to completion of the inclusion of that project all practical purposes we don't need that till after that project. We did some looking at January, so that put us up to a half-year funding. And from a PD perspective, we have some positions because of that promotions and some other positions that have come available. Uh so we've got some hiring to do in the PD. Uh so we originally looked at a happier, but we were worried about the absorption of that full year cost the following, so we pulled it back to October. So you get uh 3/4 of a year funding, uh but we also believe that's a reasonable timeline to get the existing vacancies filled and then proceed with that next round of vacancies. So it wasn't done just for savings, that's the result, uh but it was done because we believe that's the practical application of the hiring of those positions. So that's the first line item. The next is April 1st in there. Uh the PD

Six officers.

So they're October [clears throat] 1st for the six officers. And then the downtown Vegas position will be in January.

Are those the six new ones or are they are they the previous years?

That's the six new uh police officer positions will be delayed by a quarter of the year.

But this also does not does not go with the assumption of it takes more than 5 months. [clears throat]

Correct.

So that 6 months actually could be

The the October could be November, um but our intention is cuz we've already started on filling the vacancies that are currently there, but because of that process and how long it takes, so these we would start in July saying that they'd be on board October. So the intention would be to start in October, but there could be a little bit of play there.

And then and we've already budgeted for those vacancies.

Right. So that's the first part of this um decision point. The next is removing the one new position request. Feel like there was consensus with the corporal position in PD. Um talking to the chief, that was um painful, but also with the of the positions that he had, the least painful of of the positions. Uh so that's what you see there and then That was That's all in that line item. Okay. And that included the capital that came with it, that's why that number might be a little higher. That's not all salary

[clears throat]

in there. And then the last is unfunded existing positions. Just connection once in the clerk's office, there are two positions that he's in the process of hiring. One of those would be a year for reduction, and the other was on the inspection front. We have a few vacancies in inspections department. And so we felt like taking one from that area was something we could work with. Obviously, if activity were to pick up and and require more, we would come back to council. But that would be a constant economic indicator as well that would come then. So we felt pretty good about those reductions. So cumulative effect you see, that's about 300,000, 7, 8 900,000-ish dollars. So [clears throat] any thoughts? Suggestions on numbers?

I understand the the reduction of If if that's the number that we're going to get to, I see that's that's a necessary change. I'm not happy about it. I get it. I feel like you know, when we when we bring that that staff in the promotion chain, we're also taking away an authority. We're we're taking away a decision-making point. We're pushing some decisions upward that may not need to be there. So yeah, I I get that's a painful cut. So I I I fully understand the

[clears throat]

sensitivity of to not only offer that up, but also yeah, the the the the resources and vehicles that go along with that. I

think this is something that I'm okay with it. I don't like it. I'm okay with it. But I certainly want us to keep that on our radar still for next year. I didn't think that we're still looking at how our squads operate. That corporal position is not a it's it's not a nice to have. I think that's a I think that's a with the firm band. So

We we had also spoken about looking at all other vacancies in the organization. So, we came up with two on on them entirely. Um what said really all the opportunity because I would really get us existing vacancies plus net new positions, you know, in terms of the total net add to our existing capacity. It feels a little bit light to me that we were only able to finance two positions that are on our file to say we're going to on on them. Um especially in in in the list of open positions, I would expect a little bit more room to move those to higher priority positions rather than the 18 that are in the budget that are in the higher priorities. Right? Are those the ones that can get filled first before we fill up the remaining back log? I think it I understand my thought process. You know, fair number of positions open, it would feel light that we only came up with two positions that we were able to move forward on.

So, I I think when we looked at the existing positions, I want to say the number was somewhere around 30. I think 50 was mentioned. It was closer to 30. Uh and then we looked at this existing where they were deployed. Some of those are for enterprise funds, which obviously we can still look at, but they won't affect the tax increase. Um so, we we looked at that and then many of those positions were already in the hiring process when we got into it. Uh and

where they were deployed, our opinion was that uh when you got down to maybe the 15 positions or so that you were looking at, uh that we would rather be getting into the newer positions than cut the existing positions.

What do you concerned about that um inspection position we are cutting? Recently, I got the um several emails and some residents were telling me that our inspection process kind of not you know so efficient as expected. So maybe we need that position. I'm not okay. But if we have [clears throat] to or we can delay and we'll pay with that but I'm just have this concern.

So we have a few vacancies in inspections and if we can fill some of those vacancies that will help. I mean I would venture to guess that rarely will we hear a lot of people say our inspections process in any jurisdiction goes as fast as they want. So I would put that up front but we have some other vacancies that we focus on in that department to get those hired it would it is something that if we like I said if we saw the indicators and we were able to fill some of those other vacancies we would come back and say listen this is what's happening our numbers are way up and we filled our vacancies. We come back to council at that point but we feel comfortable with the reduction of the one inspector position knowing that we have a couple of the vacancies that we're working to fill in that area.

Thank you.

Other discussion?

Yeah.

[clears throat]

Can I ask about the vehicle replacements?

The foreign [clears throat]

four vehicles. Yeah, so describe what those are again one is parks and rec.

One is parks and rec

And before we get too far into that one keep on this cuz I'll go to the next bubble which is what's that? Sure absolutely. Everybody good here or I heard maybe looking at additional reductions in staffing.

Um one post here.

Yeah. Okay. We'll talk about this later.

But it does tie back to this position.

Yes, sir. There's a relation. Okay, so we'll go to the next decision point, which is what we're looking at two counselor releases. We had operational reductions that were brought forward by our departments in addition to the operational reductions that were brought earlier to get from the 3.5 down to three. And then we have the deferment of four um vehicle replacements. One was parks and then three of them were two of them were parks.

So if you ask

Uh I believe it was actually higher than 25, but what we do the recommended budget was 25 and then we reduced that down to 22. So still more than we had done current year. So we felt comfortable reducing to that level. Uh obviously we would love to still be at 25. But we looked at the expense of those

items that makes them a a target for us as typically is, uh but still something we have to uh stay on because of the potential liability that comes with this and what one accident can cause if you're not keeping up with your vehicles in a pursuit or or high speed. So we we felt comfortable going down to 22 in that case. Just we push some vehicles a little bit longer, but we'll still ensure safety.

It it's it's a replacement plan. 25 to 30 is where we're going to need to be. Uh so every year that we're not at that level it pushes vehicles longer, which in some cases it is is okay, in some it's not. But but we felt comfortable going down to 22.

And the median lifespan for one of these?

I want to say it's I know there's variance, I'm I'm sure. For PD though I

want to say four

Four years.

Four years on police vehicles.

Um and I just wanted to clarify that this is chief has signed off on

This as opposed to having

more vehicles deferred in order to fund the corporal position.

Yeah, so I don't want to speak for the chief. He can certainly chime in. He he would much rather have all positions he requested and all the vehicles he requested. So I'll I'll go ahead and say that for him.

[clears throat]

Beyond that, the cuts that we made he's he's excited about the support that we're still getting

from council. I think if it goes less than this, then he might have

So that's what it is is the [clears throat] scenario of deferring

one more

a few more vehicles, so you're now down to 19. So that's a good number in order to supplement the corporal position. I just want to make sure that that was the best

Chief, you want to weigh in?

Yeah, I think that while as stated in my statement, vehicles you all are doing your work really well. Astounding effort to write the report. All of the current cost maintenance They did. Prioritizing the employees we already have before we're focused on hiring any one of these cuz we prefer that this is where our focus to be, so that I'm very comfortable with taking those positions.

That's what

[clears throat]

what I what we asked for that.

Yeah, I have one um question about that uh parking deck, the vehicle. So um what is based on vehicle what that based vehicle do, you know? For the parking deck, I want to learn more about this.

That's here. He's talking about the one that's supposed to be reduced.

Yeah, one pool vehicle. This other vehicle would just be a perspective this vehicle has. We had training when we got out to Venice.

[clears throat]

One vehicle assisted another. We had some new vehicles but we didn't have everybody in town on the streets. So, having [clears throat] the additional vehicle helps. Be able to get to where we needed to get to without using our own.

I think it's so we how long are we going to delay this?

I'm sure it'll be back in the request for next year. So, this would be we would not fund it for the next fiscal year and I'm pretty sure it'll be requested next year as well.

I know we have lots of special events going on in our town to serve our residents. So, you are now using your personal vehicle, right? For the special events. Thank you for doing that but I wish we can help with this situation sooner. Like yeah.

Questions there? Okay. So, then the last major area actually we'll go more after this. Then the reduction down to 1.75. So, that scenario which Jessica covered again we pushed fund balance a little bit more this is said earlier mentioned for this piece this is where we pushed fund balance a little bit closer to based on our historically use. So, we're comfortable with this number and not comfortable with a whole lot more than that. I'll say that. And then also hearing from council that there was room to impact the CIP but make that kind of the impact of last resort. And so, we worked to figure out what is a practical reduction so we targeted the one project that we thought like there was consensus on to make that then a targeted reduction of 0.18 to the additional penny to the CIP. So, it was there seven we added the penny to go to eight, and then we're reducing that by 0.18 down to so 7.82 is

the number. So, try to impact this as as little as possible in this area to get down to 37.

[clears throat]

I have a response. Um so, I appreciate the work to to specifically to not identify a project that's

Yes.

I did have a visceral reaction just cutting the CIP not realizing what that actually meant. So, it is responsible to to pairing that with reducing

[clears throat]

future projects that's what that actually does. That being said, I I do think the CIP investment uh is really important, and I'm going through the CIP this sooner or later creating it to me I think that's a bad precedent to issue. And if you have like certainly the affordable housing fund and other stuff where it's where it's separate. I realize we're probably not in future years it's not quite the same. We're trying to build up to a appropriate level of CIP funding keep it static. This is another step along the way. So, so this to me is pretty painful. I guess I'll start by asking a question like if we were and maybe we won't, but if council were to direct you to say, "Hey, we're not cutting the CIP. Um find another $372,000. Do you have any ideas to where you would go to to make that up or what your next sort of action would be and address those two? [clears throat]

So, uh our preference as Jessica mentioned would be to look to the new new things that are there. So, we would go back to uh if it's 22 vehicles, maybe it's 21 vehicles, maybe we look at the new positions that were left in. Um our philosophy and approach unless directed otherwise we need to look at the things we're adding newly to new to budget instead of existing.

[clears throat]

Question, what would it look like? What would be impact be if uh that money

were maintained? [clears throat]

What would this 1.75 scenario look like with this P way Southwest widening?

Part of the reduction from the two cent increase. Two cent.

Wait, let me rephrase that. We're looking at the two cent scenario. And pull out just the P way Southwest widening, what does that look like there?

It would go down to so just a little.

Right.

[clears throat]

Just below the two cents, right?

Oh, yes. Correct. Uh yeah, we're at um Well, to get to just the P way Southwest, you mean? That would be the point two Oh, uh

Which thing?

You're looking at that and added as a reduction from the two penny increase. Point being a preservation of the SIP funding and

Uh got you. So, you're not reducing the SIP.

Right. Correct.

What would the rate be?

Above the So, build up from the 1.75, it would be a

Yeah.

Adding that back in.

Still taking the revenue.

No.

Not taking the revenue.

Is it all

You're back at the two cents.

1.75

Oh, I'm sorry. So, the P way Southwest is already part of the two penny.

Yeah, it it's in.

To reduce down to 1.75

specifically to that project.

If that's the added to the

I see now that the circle and I see the sample is not there.

There's a lot on this screen.

Got it.

Yeah.

And we add back that 0.18 cents then into the you know uh the 1. Um add back, you know. Now we are we are looking at 1.93 cents.

Yeah, that's correct.

So, in essence, you would be taking the revenue.

That's So, the two cent

Yeah.

With the addition of the revenue.

Yes.

Can I ask for the um one of the projects that is still in the on the road map is the Ginger Road and X people way intersection.

That's good.

How far do the improvements of that

intersection go? This when when we improve the Seymour property rezoning. Condition to that rezoning was what the developer would be improving the north side of E way and the northern portion of the road. Widening that road all the way through the asphalt. This asphalt widening is basically taking the asphalt to Ginger Road. But this is the main part of the Ginger Road improvement. Um Seymour developer backed out, so that's zoning condition that was added, you know, that's not going to be implemented. In turn, we now need to kind of pick up the improvements to that intersection. But are we improving it to the point of what was originally specified in that rezoning condition?

Well, we're not. We are proposing to provide some temporary lighting. Again, I don't know if the operational velocity solution signal but it obviously needs a signal.

So, really the [clears throat] E way widening that I'm talking about here is widening a section of road that really is supposed to stay down to the widening section.

They have 100 ft and that is part of the reason why we didn't recommend that be the project because we don't think based on the It really is not a public benefit. Obviously, the Seymour portion of the

Correct.

And that's kind of why I'm bringing it up before that this project doesn't really deliver the real benefit that it needs to deliver

[clears throat]

um and I'll go on record that I a lot of people equally and our our goal people are individual little sections.

Yeah, that's

my personal department.

Along those lines, what is the timing on that?

contingent equally If it is funded

When when is the quickest that could be

It's all funded, you mean?

Once it's funded.

Uh it's a we probably probably a year for design and probably one of those actually be required.

Usually we say 3 years total.

design and then we have to go ahead and do the construction.

Okay.

So we're good.

Okay. So

[clears throat]

we have the next scenario. We're ready to go to to that.

This is the zero tax increase and again our philosophy was to take away those things that we newly requested in the budget. And Jessica went through each of those. So I'm happy to answer any questions related to that or the team can answer those.

[clears throat]

So this one saved a little bit with the revenue adjustments. So you wouldn't have to cut the CID as much and that's why you see the penny drops to which is 0.75 of it so you still get a quarter of what the CID increase and that's the revenue adjustments. So that is the no tax increase scenario. It basically took all the new buckets items away. And then the last thing I have to show you and come back to any of these is the District Attorney proposal. I did meet with the the candidate for the office, Mr. Nichols Nichols. Um

[clears throat]

and he did did Allen did we share the documentation? So you all received the documentation that he gave me. The request at this point is for $84,000. It would be a half year funding of a position. The full year obviously would be roughly double that number.

[clears throat]

I had some discussions about the potential that there could be a financial gain for the town, but we don't have data yet that supports that. We'd have to get with the chief. The big point that he brought to me was that the coordination of cases, the timing of cases, if they were better staffed, that would have an improvement and would potentially trickle down to

better use of our staffing resources. And that's where we could see some of the financial gain. All the other reasons, which I can't address, would be the quality of service and all of the things that come with having a unified So, that was part of it. The other part was potential direct savings to us in staffing.

I I agree that the DA's office needs additional staffing. I mean,

[clears throat]

I could not agree with that. You spend the money. I don't think that we as a municipality should be in that game of providing that funding. Two big issues jump to mind. One is, you know, if if we start the offensive experiment or we're doing that a half year, then we're going to be budgeting in a year. And this is uh you know, the used political already already bought explanation. We break it, we bought it. This is going to be the recurring cost for us. Um and is it a recurring cost that gives us a dividend? My concern is that there is no way for him or any other DA to be able to say that this is going to be a person dedicated to solving crimes directly for Apex. That's just not how a DA's office operates. You just get whatever case comes in. If you're looking at current statistic data, the majority of the cases that the office is currently handling is coming from Raleigh, Garner, and Knightdale. Um which wait for us behind them. I mean, we're not even We're not We're not even on that list. So, if we start looking at how much money we're providing, we would be giving an extra hand to Knightdale, to Wake Forest, to Raleigh, to Garner. Not to say I don't like those guys, and I'm not to say they don't need the help. They certainly do, but I'd have a hard hard time explaining to my my my residents why I'm paying for their additional work. And I don't know, and this is the part that I I as we talked about, I think we you you really need to get data, and I don't think we can find the data, but I do think we do need to find to examine

the data as to whether or not that's going to lead to a time saving or cost saving for our officers to have to show up. You know, I think the real problem is, you know, we'll have agents that will show up, they get to court, they have to wait all day, that matter may be continued, that matter may stick around, but we've got a you know, we've got a patrol that's off the scene, that's you know, not useful, just sitting around for an entire day. That's a manpower issue, but honestly, that's also a management problem. You know, there are things that the Wake County District Attorney's office can do right now in order to streamline those processes to make sure that agents aren't showing up and waiting all day, making sure that victims aren't showing up and waiting all day. So, I don't know whether or not throwing money all of the money at this problem is going to be a solution.

[clears throat]

That's just my thought.

I have a couple of questions, which is first, are we able to see this proposal? Are you about to slide through? Or was that the proposal?

The proposal was distributed, so you should have it in front of you.

I mean, I mean, you're not going to show the slide up here. Okay. My second question is, are we able to hear from the chief when he um handles conduct from his uh position? I mean, you I'll say a few things, and then I would like to hear if if it's possible for me to hear from the chief uh directly. As a civilian, it's my understanding that this is about a whole systems approach. And if we're talking about law enforcement, that is the enforcement of the law. And so, if our police department's doing the arresting, and we're not doing the prosecuting, and we look at the stark contrast between Wake County's staffing and Mecklenburg's Mecklenburg County staffing, it seems to be at least a gap for me as a as a resident um looking to see especially when a subject matter expert is talking about the need for this. Um to bring that up efficiency aside, um I wonder if it's simply just enough

hours there. So, I was just wondering from the chief's perspective what it looked like when it comes to handling what his department um manages, and then what that whole systems approach looked like there.

I'm in a little bit of a disadvantage for a couple of reasons. One, I have not seen the proposal, just to be clear. Two, and part of why I would initially probably voice concern about this idea is that I've not been approached by the district attorney to discuss at all what the state might be to my department or what the cost is. He's probably just more about efficiencies and cost savings for his department than it is for mine. Which is where I would object. Additionally, I'd say that we have a number of inefficiencies in terms of how things operate in the DA's office, which are not unusual in the administration. But none of those are at this point attributable to a lack of district attorneys. A model I've seen used in the past that could create efficiencies where we would see cost savings here would be to have an employee for the town or the police department who is a court liaison. Uh a non-sworn position that helps to keep us from sending officers to the court when they don't need to be there to testify. Who is working directly with the district attorneys to know which cases today are actually being calendared and getting served, and making sure they're not our sitting around on overtime and not getting them and that's fine anyway. Or you going to be keep our cops on the street and call to bring them to court when they do impact on the cases being heard. So, those are things that would bring efficiencies here. I think the DA is going to be much more filing on more cases. And we can have a significant concern with large facing that there is legal cynicism. That is one of our biggest concerns in terms of creating and retaining the costs, right? And they feel that there's this revolving door that they're doing their work and you're taking the case speed up to five. Something that is not the fault of the current policy. It's just not enough people in the DA's office to change these cases. So, I think that's a very real problem the DA is facing that's not necessarily a problem that's solving everything cost savings from Bay backs. Unless you can show me something I haven't seen the

Okay. And for clarity, I'll say that there are candidates for office. I'm less concerned about regular candidates. In fact, I would go out of my way to ensure that this is an unbiased process. That the sure for me is simply the stark contrast in in staffing from a similarly sized also in the current Bay back.

I think that actually I just heard you.

There was a good idea. And it is it is not reasonable also in the there's something there. Uh so, I haven't seen it yet.

I agree with that. Um I think this position is necessary, but it's not specifically funding the Bay backs. A better approach would be, you know, um the district attorney's office request funding from the state because it's the state's responsibility. Request funding from the state and the big county. If the state and Wake County can work with all the municipalities, you know, every municipality share their fair share, it will be more fair and and I save cost to for our Apex residents. Because now I think um you know, I you know, I like by living and supporting him

[clears throat]

for many years, but I think now it's not coming is not all right and the approach is kind of narrow too narrow because he focused on several Apex, Cary, maybe Holly Springs, but we have so many municipalities in Wake County. And other municipalities, they have much more bigger problem So, I think it will be

fair and better, you know, from the District Attorney's office to make request. You know, I will from the state or the or the county, you know, everyone work together. Yeah.

I just want to work together. The last time we had this discussion I had asked if maybe discussion but I asked what your thoughts can be on this.

Yeah, there's an uh there's authority for the municipality to provide funding um of this nature. I've seen a copy of the contract with um between Mecklenburg County and City of Charlotte. Um you know, I would want some adjustments to that particular contract. It's not what I would recommend to the town, but as far as authority, the town has authority.

Okay.

Okay. I also think it will be better, you know, um from the District Attorney officially request. They [clears throat] cooperate. It's kind of like my concern is he's still a candidate. It's hard to explain to the residents, right? Yeah, another concern. Yeah, I'm hard no.

I I do think that, you know, I think what we should be able to do is regardless of who the next DA is, is uh voice our our accept with the idea of yeah, we think this is something that, you know, all the voices of all the municipalities and our great county or uh you know, commissioners should essentially make this a big push with the General Assembly. I think you can count on either or whoever the next DA is or even currently can count on our support and and voicing that we feel that this office needs to be staffed more. Um I just don't think our money is the way to do it.

I have an idea. I mean, so that would be that city we can make, but I see other states going the way that school districts use technology. And that would be a really great thing. Is that I think that's something we can do?

I have I have a

Yeah, we can have

I have my thoughts on it. Do you actually have to solve the problem?

Well, I I I I will I will I will reserve those for the one-on-one conversations Thursday. The the Yeah, but I'm getting into the weeds. I do think, you know, a corporal position that would be essentially coordinate liaison with the kind of resolution set on our end in terms of how we deal with these inefficiencies, but a lot of it is just the internal structure of the entire DA's office and how it how it receives cases and how it coordinates cases. I have my thoughts in terms of how some administrative strategies they should pursue. I'll leave it at that. Let me say um I mean, the DA's office is supposed to be funded by the state. I'm saying that

[clears throat]

the deficit of ADA's there to me looks real. There's a sufficient number that they are getting funded by the state level. I'll also point out that there is a lot of pressure in North Carolina for counties and municipalities to step in and supplement funding for various state services that have other services when the state has fully funded them. So it even happens in in a variety of other areas.

[clears throat]

So at a high level I'm comfortable with the idea of Apex providing funding using our tax dollars to do it. That being said, some of the things that I find very persuasive that I would want it to be just state money. I would want it to be so much more so than for the county. I don't really know why I don't know if you or we all should have come together and make sure Raleigh's on board, Cary of course, and then the top house. So I think there's a way that it would work. And I do I am concerned about you know, how the officers are doing great work and arresting people who are shoplifting

whatever, bringing them downtown, they wait around for great hours, and then they don't even get charged. They don't get that revolving door that I heard about. That's that's distressing from from you know, public safety standpoint to me. And I do think that an approach where you look at all aspects of public safety is appropriate to try to make sure stuff like that doesn't happen. So I guess where I'm at like I'm not against the principle, but I agree that maybe we need to do some more work and see if that can all work and do it just this way.

[clears throat]

Some of them are the same day as like you know, we do or at least you know, not every pay up probably funded, right? And then especially when you look at like the school district funding, right? Wake County jumps in tremendously to basically deliver that to the city. There's definitely precedent for yeah, the structure that it holds there. Um, I also am sensitive to the fact that it's more about making sure that we see the police work through the through the means, you know, charging conviction where appropriate. Right? Instead of, again, like our police doing work and then getting bumped last because of the lack of DAs to do proper investigations of those cases. Um, you know, if if we're doing all the work and maintaining investments in your police force, even actually, you know, that's all, you know, basically subjected to the decision that hands down this is a unique situation. So, I'm principally okay with the proposal as made by the likely candidate elected for DA's office because nobody running against them. Um, but I also am sensitive to the timing of all of this that you know, just to make aware of that, yeah, in office there might be other challenges with the office that you know, as a candidate he might not be able to fully review, assess, rectify. Right? And so, I think the timing of all the requests is a result of that. So, I'm I'm in camp uh

generally supportive, but now is not necessarily the right the right time. But I would definitely consider this at future budgets, either amendments or budget re-appropriation. The following fiscal year. And then revisit it at the top of the next time.

I'm going to just close two things. I I don't know if that's agreeable for all of our colleagues visiting us. Um, I think it's worth I think it's important to point out, again, to emphasize, this is not about supporting a candidate. This could be any person that office wants to Once the case was brought to me that um Wake County is the largest county in the state. Mecklenburg has 94 prosecutors. Wake County has 43. 94 in Mecklenburg, a smaller county. We have 43. And the last thing I'll say about um whose job is it to um ensure the job is done. Uh I fear the bystander effect where everybody steps back and says, "Well, that's not my problem." Or that's really the tragedy of the commons, but I digress. The point here is this is about apex leadership in whole systems law enforcement. So, I look forward to revisiting this colleague respectfully um later this year.

Yeah, I think the timing will be better after Wiley you are actually elected as district attorney. It will be more official. Now, the timing I don't know. I mean the people I mean the the timing I don't like. Maybe later and we can debate it, but not now.

And I also just want to make sure I heard you correctly to confirm that Wake County is understaffed.

Yes.

Oh, Wake County

[laughter]

Wake County is understaffed.

Thank you.

And Mark, trust Mecklenburg has more than Wake County does.

Yeah, they have more. They also have the same problems as Wake County. I mean, then we can revisit this in a couple months.

I'm I'm just saying this. I mean, it's really tough to solve problems. He didn't ask for police cases, so they got shared with him in our meeting. Where is the police station? He supported that. He said he had to talk to the police. I just feel that that's necessary.

And And to be fair, out of my meeting, that point was brought up too, and he did indicate that desire to meet with our chief and to get into the data. So, I don't want to make it sound like he was running from it. I think he was willing to embrace it, it just hadn't happened yet. So.

It's not a small amount of money for the whole year is you know 168,000. So if we can share you know this um uh this burden you know this kind of burden with all the municipalities probably we'll we only need you know like 1 10,000 you know each one of the municipality and it will be a much better.

I think that was our share with our share of taxes.

That's only our share. That's so expensive.

My my concern is that we find ourselves in a position that our colleagues at the Wake County Board of Commissioners falls into. Wake County School Department.

I don't know what to say.

They set a standard of filling the gap that the state Now we're walking into a possible scenario where they can't even increase their funding to support those things. So now they may be looking at turning to their school board and saying we won't give you as much money. I ask us just to be cautious of the idea and that's why I started off with the article on principle. We break it, we bought it. This is not a fund that goes away. It only will get bigger. We've got to be very very deliberate when we start talking about

how we solve this problem. There has been no discussion as of yet as to be internal processes, internal problems, internal staffing issues, management issues, coordination issues, liaison issues that take place within this office and I'll tell you whoever steps into this office next they're going to have their hands full. They're going to have to look at these issues in order to come up with efficiencies. Efficiencies will will be created. But the thing I want us to be very cautious about is are we going to be throwing money at a problem that won't get a solution Or we're going to be providing money for contractors.

And then hence my desire to wait for the position to be filled or data systems to be completed. It's like what can be solved with existing means within the office. But assessing the need to drive some of those efforts including those contractors and or the need to draw additional funding out. So again, I'm I'm personally not against the idea if it's, you know, for the right reasons and and you kind of solve the other internal problems internal problems along with supplemental problems that we have going on. And again, I'm not necessarily looking at this from a what if he he same thing on on maybe the college side being the support group feeling more of the follow-through of the investment that we make in our law enforcement and before that that our law enforcement does every day, right? And I want to make sure that that cycle is sustained. Right? And you know, people don't walk out of the back door, you know, for whatever these people count.

I mean, one of the important kind of support of this was said here. I had applied earlier, but it is what happened being a former member here. Fine. Generally multiple times I would give us the situation that sucks. And then I would drive the receipt and that the office

there. Yeah, see that thing. And to the extent that there's experience in this room in this organization, other organizations around how to change um that could be brought up to say, "Hey, we're happy to help you out, but we think you need to do this better with our own stuff. So you need to do this better. And then we'll talk about funding this additional copy thing to change." So I think that process uh could be beneficial both in what Vision would do and also how we could help uh negotiate our additional dollars, too.

Yeah. And agree.

I um uh I raise a comment, but also think after Wiley actually you know become the district attorney all the words of IOU uh contracts has official you know uh In fact, now as candidate it's not official. It's [clears throat] a timing as you Yeah. Timing is still off.

So, I feel like I've got consensus to not move forward on the vision now and maybe we can discuss or revisit it later, but as far as the budget today, it's a not putting in the budget. Um then going back to the Check that one off the list. Then we've got our four scenarios. Uh I I'm There was a lot of consensus as we built into the two pennies. And then there were some thoughts related to the 1.75 and potential going back up to the two. So, we can go to that if you guys want or if there's any entertainment. I'm assuming the three cent scenario is off the table. Anybody loving that one?

Uh I'm not loving the three cent one.

Okay. What about the zero?

No.

Well, let me say that's not a good idea.

Yeah.

I think it's like a not realistic expectation of being able to

I I I want to for three I thought Okay. Um I appreciate the staff and the uh to to you know back us into the uh the zero [clears throat] based

budget. You kind of start with I think the recognition that needs to be made here but we are in the new request. Now that you've taken out we are actually solving or problems. And it it would be it would be additional budget which we have underfunded for several years. Third time fully included. Um or three to three months at least. Um and so we have always known that this was you know, there was going to be a day of fiscal or we're talking big numbers. Uh I think deferring that further is only going to make the problem worse in the future. So, I don't think that's you know we can completely eliminate all the debt needs to be paid. This year's budget balance to uh you know, to come in the positive, right? Like we we need to add some some money into this office these these things. And to help limit Magnus' points earlier. Um we are still a growing community. There's a lot of demand from the community to you know, to put capital investments that the the WTP of bank to not only maintain the level of service that we I could sit as much as it possible. The adding of the tax rate into the service makes sense. Makes sense. That's how the water billing rate increases. The the zero percent in there and we see nothing. Um didn't matter.

[clears throat]

The condition was

I'll be brief in saying that I spoke uh at the budget hearing last year in favor of the balanced budget and no direct tax increase approved to and would love to do that again this year. We're just in a different fiscal environment and as has

been said by some of my colleagues and it's uh tax rate which is local government is not immune inflation that we're seeing across the board. So, I would love to consider zero penny tax increase but I don't think that it's feasible. Okay, so that leaves us and then and obviously there are iterations in between. I talked about one of those. So, the scenarios that are left would be the two penny and the 1.75 and then I also heard the beginnings of maybe a I'll call it the 1.93. Sean's going to hate that number but I like

[laughter] [clears throat] [laughter]

So, um we've got the two penny, the 1.75 and then I heard a proposal coming from this way which was maybe a 1.93 which took the revenue and if you could go back

1.93

took the revenue piece on the right under the green tab but then like you said

Can I speak in favor really quickly? The reason why I think it's worth considering is because we're able to show residents um how we're willing to have the courage to take on cuts to projects and initiatives and operating expenses and capital expenses that we really like to work with. The reason for incorporating that revenue back in is I don't believe that things are going to get any less expensive a year from now and I think that a dollar is going to go um not as far just like a dollar today does go as far as a dollar next year. So, that is why I'm supporting proposal.

My my What is that to be like four nearly four and a half million dollars of capital

investment? We are getting precious little in return.

In terms of what?

In terms of the public benefit. I mean the the the of both of the deep lane in this this particular section. There is there's no benefit to the community for many years to come. So, if that's the Seymour property develops and then the road gets widened, not only on on the north side of Bothell-Everett Highway, but also the south side. It could be to Walmart. Yeah, so it's Um Yeah. We're just not getting much out of this. Um but I'm okay with taking this project out. Or or the time to do it.

That's me. I I I'm inclined to agree. That's the kicker. Once the Seymour the property kind of went away, we're essentially talking about taking a widening for what? 500 m? So. I'm okay with that. So, it's not going to alleviate traffic. And by the time we get that complete that next condition online, we're probably have to restart and redo what we previously did. So, I mean, I mean that's

We're talking about the lessons directly on the project and more about the um the 18 cent production.

I think we got a program. We got a party program.

I think we have to do that quickly southwest widening anyway. You know, um either now or wait, right? But the longer we wait, the more ex- expensive it get. So, now it is only going to be Not only is 4.38 million, probably in 5 years it will be, you know, 6 million, 7 million. We have to think about this to the inflation of the cost.

That's That's my only question.

Right.

I'm with you. My neighbors are actually probably not happy with me right now speaking on on behalf of you guys um because every additional car running

through our neighborhood um is another one that uh that they would like to to leg. Um that's it. I'm just looking at budgets.

Okay.

That is ultimately the fun part of our job when we get to do the budget part. Every single one of us has been at this game and in a position where they had to look at our neighbors and they're like, "Why did you do this to me?" And they have to play I didn't do it to you.

Uh

We got them in.

No. No, I mean These are the top These I mean and this is what This is the top part of the budget. You know, it always comes down to There's never been a project that we've had on the project that hasn't been subject to this ask. That was something that we Again. Yeah. That That one. Everything is coming down to which arm do we take off? Do we take off the right arm or the left arm?

I don't want to take that arm.

Right.

You think [laughter] that's fair? I don't want to pick any of

With the last three cents.

You're not going to get a break.

Give a position with the last number on just accounting for

Yeah, I know. I I'm I I agree with the argument. Yeah, I think I think I mean, I don't necessarily

[laughter]

do the research on this one, but I don't know whether or not we get a savings on a project. I know generally it costs more the later we do it. But are we going to be redoing the same project twice in the next 3 years? Or whatever seem or gets up and up and running. Now we essentially have to take what project that was already done and try to merge it into a new project that's going to be completed in 6 years. Are we just restarting the whole project and Am I Am I reasonable to think that it would

I think it's highly likely.

I agree with that.

Like I think I think the question now is what level of investment do we want to make? Any investment

Yeah.

And that those investments year over year we re-prioritize stuff moves around.

That's That's what

Like what level of investment do you want to do? Do you want to do it, you

know. Turn it back around and balance the budget is the question, yes or no. And I do think it's responsible to identify what we have kind of a overall plan, but it might not have to be that, you know, it might be something else. It might be that we have to cut something anyway because also across the board at the end of the same amount of funding applies. So, just at a high level when I'm thinking about what is the level of investment we want to make to use the investment funds. I just gave you a steady state where every year we have that separate for investments. For a debt service.

I agree, but we were given an actual body. In this scenario, the sacrifice.

So, the way I'm looking at it like to your point, like we're you know, we're taking if we're reducing to 1.75, right? And that implies a small reduction in the increase of the city budget. This project becomes an adverse project. If I still fit in the I don't think things that things are part of the bottom, whatever. We can move that move that programming if there's money available to supply, you know, for for me right now. I think the 1.75 looks appealing and it's achievable. It's still an increase but still funding. Um And you know, we'll you know That's that's I'm I'm comfortable with 1.75.

I I think that's a reasonable position.

Were there any of the projects under consideration that were right around that what that we all responded similarly? Was that the plus?

So, that was Yeah, the other one each team had a different project selected as their second. One was wayfinding, that's only 1.6 million and the other was solar, that was 1.3 million. The only project similar in dollar amount is the Peavy Northwest widening. So

Lobby. Yeah. And there's there's no statutory or for now.

I know she's the best.

So, is it

Anything that was prior there?

But showing up to send it to the state of the board. Get to send this.

[laughter]

We'll calculate the number. I calculated the number.

But [laughter] I think it's important that um we keep in mind we should plan ahead and plan plan for long term. For Apex. And if we keep our city, you know, um you know, have adequate fund, we can expand our infrastructure. You know, um for for example, to attract more commercial business. So, if we can attract more commercial business, if we can increase into 30% you know, of the tax base, then we can reduce the residents' tax burden by a lot. So, we have to, you know, keep in mind. That's my opinion. I think it's necessary to add back that 0.18. My personal opinion.

[clears throat]

Well, let me Just a quick question. The department is just operational. What's the breakdown there?

Um some advertising, printing, departmental supplies, professional services. Um we got some updated quotes on capital equipment, which lowered those um expected costs, and some contracted services.

Would it be an issue of reflecting that in the current draft? So, would you say what the reduction is?

Okay.

So, yeah, we will be releasing um an update instead of a whole new 300-page book and and having people try to find the differences, we're going to uh um publish something that goes through everything that we've reduced, what categories to get to where we end up.

Give me my second question. Yeah, second question. Um

DC jail with capital projects and then managing those projects as we continue to increase the projects with the capacity of staff in regards to that issue.

It's a good question. And and I I feel like

[clears throat]

we've got projects before you that because of the timing we'll be able to to pull them off. I mean, that said, there are always things that this project took longer. You have a retirement that's coming in one of our areas that we're going to need to to make sure we don't lose ground there. So, there are things that we need to focus on to make sure we can do the projects timely, but we believe what we put before you with this something that we can pull off with the staff. And I'll I'll defer if any director wants to raise their hand and say something different, feel free. Chris is probably

[laughter]

He's getting ready to

We We tried to make it feasible, too.

Uh I mean, I'd like to make a motion. So, I I move to adopt 1.75 increase to the new base budget. But, I'd also like to direct staff policy to include the 7.18% [clears throat] reduction uh to be considered in the future. Second that. All right, we have a motion and a second.

Can I say

What's the time?

Um the amendment could be added to the budget. [clears throat]

Okay, be good. You know, I didn't know this was 6 months.

No.

Yeah, no.

I mean

Excuse me. Can we clarify? Um there this is not actually a motion to adopt the budget, but this is to give direction to staff to prepare the budget towards that.

When I said I said adopt a new base, I I meant like a new base budget survey.

And I just want to make sure we still have the public hearing that's coming, etc.

And we read our read our advertisement language.

Yes. That's what I meant that would be our new our [clears throat] new new uh base budget would be the one that's the one that we're

Yes.

The intention is 1.75.

That's new playing board.

But if we can find a substitute 0.18 in the CIP and hold departments by other items

to bring

Correct. I would say there would be another decision point where okay, Council, you I vote this here's what the new base is. Do you want to swap out these things? We swap them out. And we do maybe we don't.

And going back to my earlier comment about open positions, not right. 51 potential two positions. I think that 372,000 for only one. And the I uh I'm in agreement, [clears throat] but I I think the base plan is 1.75 increase. But that's uh keep up the work that I do whatever protection set up that support additional opportunity in operational improvement.

I support that is because I I really feel like we've got to There's a reason we have CIP as a protected process of funding and the tool and only cut when absolutely critical.

One of the options can be raised the tax rate 0.18 cents. That's a

That's an option.

That really

tion and I think CIP is really important, especially if we um invest to um grow responsibly. We need to plan ahead and plan smartly. Yeah.

Oh.

1.75 days to discuss now. I'm okay with that, but I still think we need to be really careful because see

Let me make it very clear. We are not adding cents. We are adding to the

[laughter]

That's the point where it it was cut from cents.

No. It's cut from the increase What comes from the increase of the 0.82 uh cent. Yes, right.

1.8 Yeah, 0.18. Yeah.

Give me a second. I still think it's what we had put out is what The plan is to slowly increase our city funding to get to a point where it's enough to fund our city.

Then

Yes. We have to increase it.

So, we have you know, we have the 8.9 to write to consider to add back the city fund running. Okay.

Okay. Just that Any comments or questions or concerns? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I'm already on my second now.

The motion motion second. So, we've got a motion to direct staff to start the day fund of the budget at the 1.75 cents and to direct staff to consider other operational alternatives to add that even the 0.18

Yeah. That was reduced

by the increase.

Okay.

Okay. Good. Good wording.

[laughter]

Is that correct?

Yes. That's good wording.

Right. Good sale.

I.

Votes votes carried. Okay. Good. That's basically it. Um our next So, we have [clears throat] our public hearing session June 9th. Hopefully we will be able to adopt that night unless a few of you have office hours and some meetings to have between now and then. Uh and we've got a little bit of work left to do. A lot of work left to do, but a little bit of focus on um what we can do with that 372 372,000. Get something on that. Then we can take it back to volunteer. Anyone else? Jessica Brennan Maury Good. Thank you. We're done. What's your name? William Young. I'll vote for the liars.

[laughter]

And then [clears throat] it comes back and forth.