Good afternoon, everyone. My name
is Miguel Sanchez calling to order a special committee on ways and means, Wednesday, June 10. The time is 05:33. Awesome. Thank you. Also wanna recognize
So is this all one item right here,
We should do separate substitutions, I think, for each number. Okay. Do that. It's not an exhibit. So it's just substitute, you know, item one.
we'll take care of these motions quickly. Is it by different institutions then? I'm sorry? Is it by different?
Motion to substitute item one. So moved. Motion made by vice chair Taylor. Second by councilwoman Graves. All those in favor, aye.
Any nays? Any opposition? Any discussion? So motion made by vice chair Taylor. Second, I'm cancel Goldman Davidson.
All those in favor, aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Motion to substitute item four. So thank you.
That being said, I think we'll get started through this exhibit. I don't anticipate a super long meeting. But, of course, if anyone has any questions or comments,
So first off, I'd like to just, you know, better put her with the levy was after as we know, when the budget is proposed, our assessor is still assessing, receiving abatements, receiving information, and so that levy is constantly in flux until she's ready to certify. At this point, she feels confident she is ready to certify, so we will have a total levy of 418,954,285. This is a reduction of about $500,000 from last year's levy, so it is something that we're gonna wanna keep an eye on. The bulk of it is an intangible personal property and is related to a specific tax case. And if you'd like to talk with the assessment, I'll be happy happy to do that.
But just in general, this is how the the levy moved from one year to the next. We'll move on to slide three if there's no questions on the levy. There were a few revenue adjustments. $196,692. The levy changes that we reviewed on the previous slide resulted in a real estate tax revenue pickup of $734,916 and a tangible test tax revenue loss of $1,105,123.
And the last line item that was adjusted during this budget is balances per meter revenue. It was determined that there was a slight overage in this line, so we'll be a little more There is additional funding that is gonna add to the sustainability department for the energy administrative assistant position, which is going to assist tremendously with the volume of work they have in our department, much of which is managing utility accounts. Additionally, the market has also changed my behavior due to sustainability steering, and we would need to potentially add additional funding to this line item. So there has been additional $250,000 to be added to the heat pipe and power budget to allow for market changes. And, you know, if we're lucky, we won't need to have that, but it's better to have it in the budget in case we do kinda see this trend continuing into next year.
There's been an additional preparedness coordinator funded in the chemo department. In PERA, we funded an investigator and created a new policy and community engagement manager position, which is a combination of two previously existing positions. Services, a veteran support coordinator position was added at a cost of just over $70,000. Housing and Human Services also had an additional $50,000 added to their budget to provide funding for a grant to Madison Street Church. There was $25,000 added to the recreation department for additional programming funding and an additional $80,000 to see our PDD to help support their continued business operations.
To help increase the cost, we reduced reduced the police salary line item by a little over $340,000. This is for officer attrition that is of officers who have either who left city service since the budget was proposed to now. We typically see this budget adjustment in in all budget hearings. Additionally, on the staffing level, there was about 336,000 in staff kind of changes from what the budget was proposed until now. And so, typically, one of the things our budget analyst might do is if someone moves positions mid budget, we're trying to read right side that and make sure that everybody's in the correct position to find a budget.
That resulted in about a $300,000 savings for the final budget. And last but certainly not least, there was a decision and an agreement to move neighborhood infrastructure funds into the capital improvement budget and fund this year's allocation with
the pending fund. I have a question. Yes.
Please Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just for this year or is this going forward? Wait.
For I am not to my knowledge, this is a one year agreement, and and I don't know what has been agreed to in writing. I proposed one operating budget at a time.
So It's it's just that I'm sorry. I'm looking ahead, and it looks like this is appropriated for five years, which I'm not necessarily sure that I'm supportive of at this point in time.
So it's it's in the ordinance, but we it's not necessarily funded for five years. So we wanna move it back to general funds next fiscal year.
That's in in our power. Words would say that.
So in the breakdown of the budget book, you'll see, like, all of the other projects where there's a funded line and unfunded line, you will see a funded line for the neighborhood for the neighborhood infrastructure, and then you'll see the unfunded out there. So the unfunded out there is still need to be there. I think it goes out for final, I I never thought of that.
What what what exactly would you So
that control, why are we reverberating from one side to the next? I just don't understand.
Like, so many things, infrastructure comes with something that we didn't have in CID before. Right. Why are we moving it that way now if if if we're just doing it for this one short term for the year?
Why is it that it's showing for full five years at because this is just I'm just going off of what it says here. Adjustments, and I asked if I'm going from FY '27 through FY '21.
Because all CIP allocations are on a five year projections.
not necessarily funded for
So I I guess my question on the myth is is the I I guess these are continued conversations we have, but have you guys made the decision if we're gonna increase the next bond, or is it is it better to use premium funds that has been discussed or reality decision projects? I guess it's the Yeah. Latest on on that.
Certainly. So I believe right now our options are to either add another 1,500,000. Like, the options that I think are most viable are pursuing either adding $1,500,000 to issuance amount or utilizing non premium to shape the neighborhood infrastructure fund allocation. We typically see at least 10% bond premium. So if if we do a $25,000,000 bond issue, we will have probably likely $2,500,000 in bond premium to use towards either additional projects.
However, that also provides funding for the public pub public public public building authority administration of that bond. And so, again, we're gonna have to to make that decision shortly, but not necessarily today. Believe a resolution will be coming forth, you know, to this council with the amount of the bond when that decision is made. If I'm being candid, I would like to do a debt reduction with our investment advisers before that decision is made to just see what the actual cost of one and a half line is over 30 years. The annual debt service, I imagine, is gonna be pretty small, but at this point in time, I don't think that decision is gonna be to my knowledge.
what's the timeline on on when when's the estimated projected date to to go out for bond?
So we would wanna start with Sarah and I because we're just talking today about starting that process as soon as next week. We wanted to get, you know, through tonight in these hearings and then shift gears over to beginning of the filing process. You know, we needed to make sure that the the bond would actually make it out of committee and be approved and, you know, would be something we wanna move forward for before we start the work of actually, you know, pricing and and all that work.
Counselor Davis? I don't know. What is what was the reason for moving the neck? What's not? Yeah.
What was it again? What was it again?
Like I said earlier, throughout this budget season, I've been kind of keeping a number in my head that we need to to balance to to to meet this full appropriation number. We're not 600,000. We were we were fine. We were gonna be able to meet that with little to no pain in this time. When that number went up by $2,000,000, we then had to start looking into what alternatives there were in the budget.
And so this was one of a variety of things that could have been done. From a financial perspective, I will say one of the things that I have seen as a challenge of myth in general is that typically, these projects don't start and end within one fiscal year. Right? And so by nature, they're not operating type. Well well, like, even by definition.
