Link


Social

Embed


Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:02]

ALL RIGHT. TODAY IS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2026.

[A. CALL TO ORDER - MAYOR]

THE TIME IS 6:03. AND THIS WILL START OUR PRE COUNCIL MEETING.

AND I'LL DO A ROLL CALL.

ALL RIGHT, MISS DAVID-GRAVES. HERE. MISS TODD IS NOT HERE.

MR. JOHNSON. HERE. MR. WASHINGTON. HERE. MR. RUTLEDGE IS NOT HERE.

MR. DEFFIBAUGH. HERE AND MR. LONG. HERE. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A QUORUM.

[C. WORK SESSION AGENDA]

THIS WILL TAKE US TO OUR WORK SESSION. C1. 2026-203.

DISCUSSION OF THE ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE TO MORE ACCURATELY COVER THE CITY'S COST OF PROVIDING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, PERMITTING INSPECTIONS AND FIRE PREVENTION SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. SHAI ROOS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I CAN EITHER GIVE THIS PRESENTATION AGAIN OR I KNOW YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.

YEAH. MR. JOHNSON. THANK YOU, SHAI. YEAH. I KNOW YOU'VE PRESENTED THIS TO US TWICE AT THIS POINT, SO. YEAH. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT. THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD, OR.

I WANTED TO BRING THIS BACK FOR COUNCIL BECAUSE THE INITIAL REQUEST WHEN THIS WAS BROUGHT TO US, THERE WERE A FEW FEES ON THERE WHERE WE WANTED TO FOCUS ON, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT IMPACTING THE RESIDENTS RIGHT OFF, WHICH I REALIZE THAT SOME OF THESE FEES, IT WAS JUST TIME TO CHANGE THEM.

YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. BUT DUE TO THE CLIMATE, YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO KNOW IF WE COULD POTENTIALLY DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE THREE ON HERE, THE FALSE ALARM FENCE PERMIT FEE, RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS, AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION FEES. I GUESS PRESENT THIS TO COUNCIL.

I KNOW IT'S A WORK SESSION, SO WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION ON THIS.

BUT TO SEE IF THERE WAS MAYBE A CONSENSUS TO POTENTIALLY CHANGE THOSE, LIKE THE.

I'LL START WITH THE FENCE PERMIT FEE. WE WENT FROM $25 TO $75 AND.

WE WENT FROM $25 TO $75. IF I MAY, SIR. THAT WAS ACTUALLY A MISTAKE.

$25 TO $75 WAS DONE LAST YEAR IN 2025. AND SO IT DIDN'T REFLECT IT CHANGED IN OUR MUNI CODE, WHICH IS WHY WHEN WE BROUGHT IT FORWARD, IT LOOKED LIKE WE'D INCREASED IT, BUT IT WAS ALREADY $75.

SO FENCE PERMIT DID NOT CHANGE. OKAY. SO THAT INCREASED KIND OF TAKES CARE OF ITSELF.

ALL RIGHT. THE FALSE ALARM FEE. SO THIS ONE, ON THE FALSE ALARM FEE, WE HAVE THIS ONE AS A WHAT IS IT, $150 FOR THE FALSE ALARM. AND I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE THAT SO THAT IT IT DOESN'T SO MUCH JUST PUNISH PEOPLE WHO HAS LIKE ACCIDENTAL FALSE ALARMS. BUT MAYBE WE CAN LIKE TEAR THOSE. SO LET'S SAY YOU GOT 1 TO 3 ACCIDENTALS.

IT'S CONFIRMED AN ACCIDENTAL, RIGHT? ZERO PAYMENT.

THE 4 TO 5 FALSE ALARM WOULD BE $50 AND THEN 6 THROUGH 7, $75.

AND THEN 8 PLUS WILL BE $100 EACH ON THOSE. AND I BASICALLY TOOK THIS MODEL FROM SOMEBODY I KNOW THEY HAVE A MODEL SIMILAR TO THIS AS WELL AS MCKINNEY. SO I JUST KIND OF LOOKED AT THE CITIES CLOSE TO US AND WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. THE MAIN THING ON THE FALSE ALARMS. IT'S NOT ANY FALSE ALARM. IT'S NUISANCE FALSE ALARMS. IT'S FOR THE PERSON THAT CONTINUOUSLY COOKS AND BURNS AND BURNS THEIR FOOD AND SETS THEIR SMOKE DETECTOR OFF.

A LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO RESPOND IF THEY WILL CONTACT THEIR ALARM COMPANY AND SAY IT'S A FALSE ALARM, THEN WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO RESPOND. BUT THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT.

THEY'RE NOT CONTACTING THE ALARM COMPANY. A LOT OF THESE RESIDENTS AREN'T EVEN MONITORED.

THEY'RE NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CITY. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A PERMIT, IF THEY'RE NUISANCE ALARMS. WE RAN INTO THIS PROBLEM WITH RIVERSTONE, WHEN RIVERSTONE WAS BEING BUILT.

WE CONTACTED THE BUILDER. THE BUILDER DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IT'S THE PLACEMENT OF SMOKE DETECTORS. SO WE PUT THAT BACK ON THE DEVELOPER.

SO IT WASN'T ON THE RESIDENT, IT WAS ON THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE IT WAS A PLACEMENT OF THE SMOKE DETECTOR.

THEY PUT A SMOKE DETECTOR RIGHT OUTSIDE THE BATHROOM DOOR IN THE HALLWAY. SO WHEN THEY WOULD OPEN THE BATHROOM DOOR FROM TAKING A SHOWER, THE STEAM WOULD SET OFF THE SMOKE DETECTOR. SO WE ENDED UP PUTTING THAT FEE ON THE DEVELOPER.

SO HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHAT'S A NUISANCE? IS THERE LIKE A THRESHOLD TO WHERE WE SAY, THIS ADDRESS HAS CALLED X AMOUNT OF TIME,

[00:05:07]

SO THAT ONE IS CHARGED A FEE? YES. AND MAINLY IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS.

YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A COOKING, SMOKE DETECTOR GOES OFF, THAT'S NOT REALLY A NUISANCE ALARM.

BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE NOT REPAIRING, IT'S JUST A SMOKE DETECTOR THAT'S BROKE THAT JUST KEEPS ON GOING OFF AND IT KEEPS ON DISPATCHING US, THOSE ARE WHAT WE CONSIDER NUISANCE ALARMS. OKAY. LIKE IF WE HAVE THAT IN WRITING THOUGH, TO DETERMINE.

WE CAN DO THAT. I'M JUST TAKING OVER THIS AND SAM IS NO LONGER WITH US.

SO I'M JUST KIND OF FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT SHE DID.

OKAY. BUT I'VE GOT NO PROBLEM DOING THAT. BUT WE DO HAVE TO START ASSESSING A FEE FOR THE NUISANCE ALARMS, BECAUSE WE'RE RUNNING ANYWHERE FROM 10 TO 20 FALSE ALARMS A WEEK ON SMOKE DETECTORS GOING OFF.

OKAY. SO IF IT'S COOKING, WE NEED TO GO OUT THERE AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S OKAY.

WE DON'T CONSIDER THAT A NUISANCE ALARM, BUT IF ITS BATTERIES ARE BAD AND THE SMOKE DETECTOR JUST KEEPS GOING OFF, WE'LL GO OUT THERE AND EVEN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE BATTERIES. BUT IF THEY'RE NOT GETTING IT FIXED AND WE KEEP ON GETTING DISPATCHED TO THAT ADDRESS, THAT BECOMES A NUISANCE ALARM TO WHERE WE'RE GOING OUT FOR A NON-EMERGENCY. SO WE JUST NEED TO CREATE SOME TYPE OF POLICY IN REGARDS TO WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A NUISANCE.

SO THAT THRESHOLD IS KNOWN. YES, SIR. OKAY. WELL AND THEN ALSO, MR. JOHNSON, IF I MAY ADD TOO AS WELL, THAT THE PD DOES OPERATE UNDERNEATH THE FALSE ALARM TOO.

AND SO IT'S MULTIPLE EITHER WEATHER PERMITTING ALARMS OR JUST KIDS OPENING UP THE BACK DOOR AND DISTRIBUTING OUT RESOURCES THAT'S OUT THERE.

WE HAVE NO PROBLEM AT LOOKING AT THE TIERED EFFECT.

IF COUNCIL WANTS TO KIND OF BRING THAT BACK AND LOOK AT THAT POSSIBLE TIERED EFFECT.

BUT FROM THE PD SIDE, WE DO TRY TO IMPLEMENT OUR OFFICERS WITHIN THE DISTRICTS WITH INSIDE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SIDE.

SO WHENEVER AN ALARM DOES COME OUT, IT USUALLY JUST DISPATCH STYLE TWO OFFICERS WITH THE NIGHT SHIFT ON THAT ASPECT.

AND SO WHENEVER WE HAVE A MULTITUDE OF ALARMS AND WE'RE DISPATCHING OUT TWO OFFICERS OUT OF A POTENTIAL 5 TO 6 OFFICER SHIFT, THAT KIND OF TAKES UP HALF THE SHIFT RESOURCES.

WHENEVER IT'S A MULTITUDE OF ALARMS THAT ENDS UP COMING IN, IT GETS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE BECAUSE THAT TAKES AWAY SERVICES FROM OTHER CITIZENS. WE DON'T MIND LOOKING AT THE TIERED EFFECT, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT Y'ALL WOULD WANT TO GO.

AND JUST KIND OF MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT POLICY SET IN PLACE.

AS FAR AS WHAT A NUISANCE IS, THE CONTINUITY OF FALSE ALARMS AND KIND OF ROLL FROM THERE.

OKAY. AND I KNOW I CAN'T UNILATERALLY MAKE THAT DECISION, SO I'LL LET COUNCIL.

IF I COULD SAY JUST A FEW WORDS ABOUT THAT. LOTS OF TIMES, DEPARTMENTS WILL HAVE REGISTERED THE FIRE ALARMS OR EVEN THE BURGLAR ALARMS, ROBBERY ALARMS, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

AND IN THAT FORM THAT YOU HAVE IN THE REGISTER, DO YOU NOT HAVE A FEE SCHEDULE FOR THAT? BUT ALSO IF THEY RECEIVE FALSE ALARMS, WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST? I WOULD NOT KNOW. THAT WOULD BE THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT THAT ISSUES THOSE. THAT SHOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE REGISTERED ALARM, IF IT'S A NUISANCE ALARM, IF IT KEEPS GOING OFF, THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

YOU KNOW, THEN I ALSO KNOW IF IT'S A FIRE ALARM, ALSO, YOU COULD SAY IF THEY'RE HAVING A, FOR INSTANCE, A SCHOOL OR SOME OTHER BUSINESS THAT HAS A FIRE ALARM, IF IT KEEPS GOING OFF AND THEY HAVE TO TAKE IT DOWN TO REPAIR AND EVERYTHING.

I BELIEVE ALSO THE CODE ALLOWS YOU TO MAKE THEM HAVE MAKE THEM HIRE FIREFIGHTERS FOR FIRE WATCH THERE.

AND THAT MIGHT HELP. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK BUT A LOT OF THESE THAT ARE NUISANCE ALARMS, I GUESS THE RESIDENTS ARE CALLING IN BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A MONITORED SYSTEM.

THEY'RE NOT COMING FROM ALARM COMPANY. SO THEY CALL IT IN BECAUSE THEY'VE.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY. IF THEY BURN THE BACON, IF THEY DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A FIRE, WHY THEY'RE EVEN CALLING IT IN, YOU KNOW, AND SOMETIMES THEY DO. AND THERE'S MULTIPLE TYPES OF ALARMS THAT WE RESPOND TO.

I KNOW POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONDS TO BURGLARY AND PANIC AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

WE ALSO RESPOND TO MEDICAL ALARMS. SO THOSE ARE ALSO INITIATED BY THE ALARM SYSTEM, WHICH WE DO GET QUITE A FEW FALSE ALARMS ON THE MEDICAL SIDE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO CALL THOSE A NUISANCE, BUT THOSE ARE OTHER ALARMS THAT WE DO ANSWER AS FAR AS ON THE FIRE SIDE.

ARE YOU GOOD WITH THE POLICY COMING BACK UNTO YOU FOR THE NUISANCE ALARM BEFORE? OKAY. ARE YOU GOOD? I'M SORRY, MR. LONG. YEAH, I AGREE WITH THE TIERED EFFECT FOR BOTH FIRE AND POLICE.

IT'D BE GOOD TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THE FIREMEN AND THE POLICE OFFICERS, THAT TYPE OF STRUCTURE.

THAT WAY, WHEN THEY GO OUT TO THAT FIRST FALSE ALARM, THEY CAN MAKE IT CLEAR TO THAT HOUSEHOLD OR BUSINESS.

I THINK WITH PROPER INFORMATION, MOST PEOPLE CAN PREVENT THOSE THINGS FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE,

[00:10:01]

ESPECIALLY IF THEY KNOW THERE'S A STEP UP IN COST.

YEAH. SO DEFINITELY I WOULD SUPPORT HAVING THAT.

AND THEN PROVIDING THAT COMMUNICATION THROUGH PERMITTING TOO, WHEN PEOPLE DO PERMIT FOR SECURITY SYSTEMS AND ALARM SYSTEMS THAT'S PROVIDED UP FRONT. SO WE CAN PREVENT THOSE FALSE ALARMS FROM THE GET GO WITH THAT INFORMATION.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BIG THING IS JUST PRODUCING THE INFORMATION AND THE COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITIZENS THAT, HEY, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS, BUT THIS IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, YOU KNOW, ON NUISANCE ALARMS. DO WE HAVE A POLICY REQUIRING WHENEVER A PERSON PUTS IN A MONITORED ALARM SYSTEM, THAT THEY REGISTER THAT WITH THE CITY WHENEVER THEY INSTALL IT? DO THE INSTALLERS HAVE TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE CITY OR THE COMPANY? WE DO HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT THE ALARM BE REGISTERED, BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO CHECK IF PEOPLE DON'T, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO RENEW IT EVERY YEAR OR SO.

SO WE HAVE FEES, BUT WE'RE NOT SURE HOW MANY OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY DOING IT.

WE ARE HAVE BEEN THINKING OF WAYS TO MAKE SURE, HOW DO WE DOUBLE CHECK AND WHAT WOULD IT MEAN FOR OUR STAFFING? SO WE HAVEN'T YET COME UP WITH A SOLUTION, BUT IT'S ON THE RADAR TOO.

I UNDERSTAND. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE HARD TO DO BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING SOMEONE CAN COME IN AND PUT ON A WEEKEND, PUT IT IN SOME ALARM COMPANY. THEY PUT THEIR LITTLE SIGNS UP FRONT, MONITORED BY WHOEVER, YOU KNOW. AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE PUT SIGNS UP, MONITORED BY AND THEY DON'T HAVE AN ALARM SYSTEM.

SO. YES, SIR. THAT'S THE WHOLE CONDITION OF HOW DO YOU CHECK IT? SO A CATCH 22 SITUATION. THANK YOU. THANKS.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION. SORRY. [INAUDIBLE]. LET ME ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK.

SO IS THERE NOT A WAY FOR US TO SEND REMINDERS THROUGH THE PORTAL? THE PERMIT PORTAL? IF THEY HAVE TO RENEW EVERY YEAR, IS THERE NOT A WAY THAT WE CAN SEND THOSE AUTOMATIC EMAILS OUT FOR THEM TO RENEW? SO THE ONES THAT WE HAVE A RECORD OF, WE DO FOLLOW UP.

IT'S JUST THE ONES. SO I'M GUESSING IF WE RESPOND TO A CALL, THEY DON'T HAVE A PERMIT.

HOW DO WE GET THEM TO REGISTER? THERE'S SOME TYPE OF WARNING WE CAN GIVE AND THEN MAYBE FEE AFTER THAT, OR. CHIEF OR CHIEFS. WITH THE AMOUNT OF CALLS THAT WE'RE RUNNING RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD BE HARD FOR US TO, EVERY CALL THAT WE GO TO, ASK THEM, HEY, ARE YOU MONITORED? AND I MEAN, WE COULD START WITH A FLIER OR SOMETHING LIKE A LITTLE POSTCARD, MAYBE TO DROP OFF WHEN WE RUN A CALL JUST TO VERIFY THAT THEY ARE BEING MONITORED AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

BUT WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO GO OUT THERE AND START CAUSING CONFLICT WITH THE RESIDENTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

NO, I UNDERSTAND, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE HOW WE CAN GET EVERYBODY REGISTERED.

THE ALARM PERMITTING IN EVERY CITY IS VERY DIFFICULT TO MONITOR, ESPECIALLY IN CITIES LIKE OURS THAT'S GROWING SO RAPIDLY THAT IT'S.

THE ALARM COMPANY. NORMALLY ON A NEW SUBDIVISION, ALARM COMPANY IS THE ONE THAT DOES THE REGISTRATION ON THE PERMIT FOR THE FIRST YEAR.

IT'S A MATTER OF GETTING THAT HOMEOWNER TO. TAKE IT OVER.

TO TAKE IT OVER AFTER THAT FIRST YEAR. AND THAT'S THE HARDEST PART IS WITH ALL THESE NEW HOMES COMING IN, YOU HAVE 1100 HOMES IN EAST RIDGE, AND ALL OF THEM ARE MONITORED.

SO FOR ONE YEAR, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 1100 PERMITS, BUT THAT NEXT YEAR YOU ONLY MAY HAVE 500.

OKAY. [INAUDIBLE]. YES. I WAS WONDERING, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO.

DO WE HAVE INFORMATION OR DATA THAT WOULD GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE THE SAME INDIVIDUALS NOT RESPONDING TO THE ALARM OR NOT SILENCING THE ALARMS? BECAUSE I'M THINKING THAT THIS IS A DISINCENTIVE.

AND SO IF WE JUST HAVE A NOMINAL FEE, PEOPLE WILL SAY, OH, WELL, BUT IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY $150, THAT WILL BE A DISINCENTIVE. SO I'M THINKING THAT WE DO NOT CHANGE THE FEE, BUT WE LOOK AND WE SEE WHO'S NOT SILENCING THE ALARM OR CALLING THEIR COMPANY, BUT CAUSING IT TO BE AN EVENT WHERE WE'D HAVE TO GO OUT, WHICH IS TAKING AWAY TIME FOR MAYBE A TRUE FIRE.

CORRECT. AND IF WE HAVE THE SAME INDIVIDUALS, I WOULD SAY THAT WE JUST LEAVE THE FEE AT $150 RATHER THAN TEARING.

AND IT WILL BE A DISINCENTIVE. TWO, WE COULD PUT A NOTICE ON THE WEBSITE AND IT GOES OUT FROM COMMUNICATIONS THAT THIS IS A NEW THING THAT THE CITY IS DOING. SAME THING WITH THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED.

IF YOU HAVE A HOME AND IT HAS AN ALARM, WE ASK YOU TO REGISTER BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

BECAUSE IF WE DO HAVE TO COME OUT TO YOUR HOME AND IT'S NOT REGISTERED, THERE'S GOING TO BE A FINE OF $500.

IF YOU ARE REGISTERED, IT WILL BE $150, IF IT'S CONTINUING TO BE AN ALARM THAT GOES UNMONITORED.

[00:15:08]

YEAH. BECAUSE WE TALK A LOT ABOUT NEEDING FUNDS FOR FIRE AND OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, BUT WE CANNOT SAY THAT WE NEED FUNDING AND AT THE SAME TIME SAY WE'RE GOING TO CUT FUNDING OFF AND STILL REQUIRE MORE TIME, MORE MANPOWER, MORE SERVICE HOURS. SO I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK AT THIS IN A VERY STRATEGIC WAY AND LOOK AT ONE THAT WILL GET RESULTS RATHER THAN ONE THAT WILL STILL ENABLE THE BEHAVIOR.

CORRECT. YEAH. I MEAN, BECAUSE I'M WITH CHIEF WATERS ON THIS ONE.

WHEN WE HAVE A RESIDENTIAL FIRE ALARM, WE'RE SENDING ONE APPARATUS AND A BATTALION CHIEF.

AND IF WE GET A COMMERCIAL FIRE ALARM, WE'RE SENDING A COMMERCIAL RESPONSE, WHICH IS A LADDER TRUCK ENGINE AND A BATTALION CHIEF.

WHICH LEAVES US ONE APPARATUS IN THE CITY TO COVER THE REST OF THE CITY.

AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE HAVE TO ALSO LOOK AT HOW PRINCETON IS LOCATED.

PRINCETON IS WAY OFF 380. WE CAN HAVE OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENTS COME AND HELP, BUT THE TRAFFIC, THE WAY THINGS ARE, WE HAVE TO HOLD OUR RESIDENTS RESPONSIBLE IF THEY WANT TO GET THE TYPES OF SERVICE, THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICES THAT THEY'RE EXPECTING FROM WHERE THEY CAME FROM.

PRINCETON IS GROWING. IT'S BEING ESTABLISHED.

AND IN ORDER FOR US TO PROGRESS AND PERFORM AND PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT ARE NEEDED, THERE HAS TO BE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE RESIDENTS.

UNMONITORED SYSTEMS. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE PROBABLY GOOD FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF A FORM OR A CARD OR SOMETHING YOU GIVE TO PEOPLE TO TELL THEM THEY NEED TO REGISTER THEIR SYSTEMS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE GETTING ALARM CALLS THERE.

AND THAT INFORMATION THAT WHATEVER THE OFFICER THAT ARRIVES ON THE SCENE, THE FIRE OFFICER, THEY TAKE DOWN THE INFORMATION, THE CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE RESIDENTS WHERE THEY'VE GOT THE FIRE ALARM CALL AT, AND THEY FORWARDED ON TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOLLOWS UP WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY REGISTER THAT SYSTEM EITHER BY LETTER, OR SENDING SOMEONE FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT OUT THERE AND SAY, HEY, YOU NEED TO REGISTER YOUR SYSTEM, AND THIS IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE. AND THEN ALSO LET THEM KNOW THAT, AT THAT TIME, THAT THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE KEEP GETTING ALARMS HERE.

AND IF YOU NEED SOME HELP IN PREVENTING IT OR LESS LOOKING AT IT, WE'LL BE GLAD TO COME OUT AND TAKE A LOOK TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES.

WE'D BE HAPPY TO WORK TOGETHER TO LOOK AT A PROCESS OF HOW TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE AND BRING IT BACK FOR Y'ALL'S CONSIDERATION.

INSTEAD OF CHANGING FEES, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE OR HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE.

BUT IF YOU'LL GIVE US A LITTLE TIME TO WORK TOGETHER, WE'LL BRING SOME OPTIONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.

OKAY. MR. WASHINGTON. YEAH. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO BRING BACK WITH THE TIERED EFFECT.

AND HONESTLY, I THINK ANY OF. IF IT'S AFTER THE SECOND FALSE ALARM, I THINK THE PENALTY COULD BE EVEN A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN $150, HONESTLY, IF IT'S PUTTING A STRAIN ON RESOURCES.

SO JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU KIND OF GO BACK AND PUT IT TOGETHER.

SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION REAL QUICK. SO WE'RE GOING TO END UP BRINGING BACK TWO DIFFERENT PRESENTATIONS HERE.

SO IT'S $150 OR ABOVE. IDENTIFY THE NUISANCE CLAUSE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.

AND THEN ALSO LOOK AT THE TIERED APPROACH USING SOLANA AS THE MODEL THERE.

AND NOT SO MUCH TO SOLANA, BUT WHATEVER WE FEEL IS WHAT FITS FOR US HERE.

BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE EXPERTS IN TERMS OF HOW YOU GUYS WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

YES, SIR. AND I DID HAVE TWO OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS.

ONE, I MOVE QUICKLY HERE. I KNOW WE'RE CUT FOR TIME.

THE RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS AND REMODELS. I NOTICED WE DID NOT USE THE PER SQUARE FOOT METHOD FOR THE FEE ON THAT.

I THINK WE'RE CHARGING A FLAT $400 FEE ON THAT.

I WAS WANTING TO KNOW IF COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER POTENTIALLY DOING THAT, LIKE PROJECT MANAGEMENT TO WHERE.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT, WE USE T SHIRT SIZES TO ESTIMATE THE PROJECT.

IT'S GOING TO BE LARGE, EXTRA LARGE, SMALL. SO THAT WAY A SMALL RENOVATION DOESN'T GET HIT WITH THE SAME FEE AS A LARGE RENOVATION.

SO I WANTED TO BRING IT TO COUNCIL TO CONSIDER POSSIBLY CHANGING THAT SO THAT THE ADDITION FOR THOSE FEES, A SMALL ALTERATION OR SMALL PROJECT WOULD BE $200, MEDIUM $300.

AND THE LARGER ONE, THE $400. SO THAT WAY THE BULK OF THE FEE IS, YOU KNOW, MORE FOCUSED ON THE DEVELOPERS MORE SO THAN RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. MAYOR. YEAH, SOMETIMES IT DEPENDS ON IF THEY'VE GOT LOAD BEARING WALLS THAT THEY'RE HAVING TO MOVE OR PUT IN

[00:20:08]

DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT. AND ELECTRICAL, WATER.

SO ALL THAT'S TAKEN SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALSO ON EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST A FLAT FEE. IT DOESN'T TAKE ANYTHING INTO CONSIDERATION.

SO WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A LARGER ONE VERSUS.

I DON'T KNOW, A BATHROOM REMODEL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE YOU HAVE TO GET A PERMIT AND IT'S A LITTLE SMALLER.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS A $200 FEE OPPOSED TO THE HIGHER $400.

YEAH, I LIKE THAT MYSELF, IF YOU CAN GET JUST THAT OTHER OPTION, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

SURE. WE CAN LOOK AT IT. DO YOU HAVE ONE MORE, MR. JOHNSON? NO, I THINK THOSE WERE THE PRIMARY ONES.

DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PRESENTATION? I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANKS.

THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM C2.2026-204. DISCUSSION.

DISCUSS FISCAL YEAR 2026 THROUGH 2027 PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET.

BEFORE WE GO INTO THAT, IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK? YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT A FORM. JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU FILL OUT THE FORM AND HAND IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK.

YEAH. THE FORMS ARE IN THE BACK. THEY JUST HAVE TO BE FILLED OUT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING STARTS.

ALL RIGHT. SORRY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

KELLY WILSON, CFO FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON. SO TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER THE NEWLY PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2026-27.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STOP ME ANYTIME TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS, OR YOU CAN SAVE THEM TO THE END.

BUT I WANTED TO GO OVER THE BUDGET PROCESS AGAIN, JUST THE CALENDAR ITSELF, BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES.

WE MET ON AUGUST THE 10TH GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET PRESENTATION WITH A HIGHER TAX RATE.

HERE WE ARE TONIGHT WITH YOUR RECOMMENDED TAX RATE FOR TONIGHT, THAT WE'LL GO OVER.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE TIMELINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO HAVE THIS SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING.

THE ACTION YOU WILL TAKE TONIGHT, LATER IN THE AGENDA, IS TO SET THE PROPOSED TAX RATE AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER THE 16TH.

AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT WE HEARD FROM COUNCIL AS TO YOUR PRIORITIES GOING INTO THIS FISCAL YEAR, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, TO MANAGE THE GROWTH THAT WE'RE SEEING IN THE CITY OF PRINCETON THROUGH STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY THROUGH EXCEPTIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY.

ENSURE THAT LONG TERM FINANCIAL STABILITY IS MAINTAINED.

AND STRENGTHEN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND INVESTMENT.

AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR EVERY RESIDENT.

OBVIOUSLY, OUR CURRENT CONDITIONS, WE'RE SEEING THAT CONTINUED POPULATION GROWTH, A SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS ARE NEEDED WITHIN THE CITY.

WE ARE LOOKING AT EXPANDING THE PARKS AND REC AMENITIES THROUGH THE GO BOND THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2023, AS WELL AS CONTINUED INVESTMENT IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY.

ALSO SOME ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS WE HAVE HEARD FROM COUNCIL, AS WELL AS WHAT STAFF HAS INFORMED COUNCIL OF NEEDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO HELP WITH THE SALES TAX REVENUE WITHIN THE CITY. THIS CAN HELP OFFSET WHEN WE START TO SEE PERMITS DECLINE.

SO A FINANCIAL SNAPSHOT. THIS IS CITY WIDE. LOOKING AT 62% OF THE REVENUE THAT COMES IN IS FROM YOUR CHARGES FOR SERVICES AND 21% FROM THE AD VALOREM. SO 41% IS YOUR CHARGES FOR SERVICES, WHICH IS GOING TO BE THOSE WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY BILLS.

AND THEN THE AD VALOREM TAXES COME IN AT 21%.

SO A LITTLE OVER 82% COMES FROM THOSE TWO REVENUE STREAMS. LICENSE AND PERMITS COMES IN AT 22%. AND THEN WE HAVE OUR SALES TAX AT 9.

SO WHERE DOES THE DOLLAR GO? THIS IS, AGAIN, CITY WIDE FUNDING, WITH PUBLIC WORKS COMING IN AT 47% AND THEN PUBLIC SAFETY AT 19.

SO WHEN I SAY 47% FOR PUBLIC WORKS, THIS IS GOING TO BE THE WATER PURCHASES FOR THE CITY AS WELL AS YOUR WASTEWATER TREATMENT.

THAT'S WHY THAT IS SO SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH WHEN YOU LOOK AT CITYWIDE EXPENSES.

PUBLIC SAFETY AT 19, AND THEN GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND SO ON.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION, BUT ALL THE WATER PURCHASING, EVERYTHING THAT WE DO FOR THE TREATMENT,

[00:25:03]

THAT IS ALL GOING. THAT IS A COST THAT WE REGENERATE THROUGH CHARGES FOR SERVICE, CORRECT? SO THAT'S NOT A GENERAL FUND ITEM. THAT IS CORRECT, MAYOR.

IT IS IN.

SO AGAIN, CHARGES FOR SERVICES, PROVIDING THE WATER AND TREATING THE WASTEWATER.

SO PROPERTY TAX, JUST DIVE RIGHT INTO THAT. WANTED TO SHOW YOU THE SAME NUMBERS THAT WE SHOWED BACK IN AUGUST, THE MEDIAN HOME VALUE LINE, 5.2%. SO WE ARE SEEING A MEDIAN HOME VALUE IN PRINCETON OF $307,881.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT YOUR TAX BILL, IT IS NOT JUST THE CITY OF PRINCETON THAT MAKES UP YOUR TAX BILL.

63% OF THE TAX BILL IS WITH THE ISD. WE'RE COMING IN AT 24.8%.

COLLIN COUNTY COMES IN AT 7.49 AND COLLIN COLLEGE AT 4.3.

SO TONIGHT HERE'S THE PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX. YOU CAN SEE THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE AT 445102.

THE NO NEW REVENUE M&O TAX RATE OF 258898. THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE OF THE M&O TAX RATE IS AT 0.267959. OUR DEBT SERVICE AT 0.205, WHICH MAKES UP YOUR VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE OF 0.472959. AND WE ARE PROPOSING THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE IN THIS PROPOSED BUDGET.

THAT WAS THE DIRECTION WE RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL.

SO WHAT DOES THE PROPERTY TAX RATE MEAN? AGAIN, THERE ARE TWO FACTORS IN YOUR PROPERTY TAX.

THERE IS YOUR M&O WHICH SUPPORTS YOUR SERVICES IN THE GENERAL FUND, MEANING POLICE, FIRE, STREETS AND PARKS. THEN THERE IS YOUR I&S, ALSO KNOWN AS YOUR DEBT TAX RATE.

THAT IS WHAT IS SUSTAINING THOSE LONG TERM INFRASTRUCTURES, PAYING THOSE THE DEBT SERVICE THAT WE INCUR FOR THOSE INFRASTRUCTURES.

SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A HISTORY OF WHAT THAT TAX RATE LOOKED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

YOU CAN SEE IN 2023, OUR TAX RATE WAS 5345. AND THEN WE DIDN'T DROP IT $0.09 IN 2024, RIGHT AFTER THE 2023 GO BONDS WERE APPROVED. WE MAINTAINED THAT TAX RATE FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, AND RIGHT NOW WE ARE ASKING FOR A 3.27 CENT INCREASE FROM OUR CURRENT TAX RATE AT THE VIR RATE OF 472959.

SO AGAIN, WHAT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE MEANS.

IT MEANS IF YOU LOOK AT THE SAME EXISTING PROPERTIES ON THE TAX ROLL LAST YEAR TO THIS YEAR, WHAT WOULD THAT TAX RATE NEED TO BE TO GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE FOR THE CITY? AND YOU CAN SEE IN OUR RATE THAT I SPOKE EARLIER IS EVEN HIGHER THAN OUR CURRENT TAX RATE BECAUSE PROPERTY VALUES HAVE DECLINED.

SO AGAIN, WHEN YOUR VALUES GO UP, THE NIR RATE GOES DOWN.

IF IT'S THE OPPOSITE, IF YOUR VALUES GO UP, THE NIR RATE GOES DOWN.

I ALREADY SAID THAT IF IT GOES THE OTHER DIRECTION, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING, AND A LOT OF CITIES ARE SEEING, VALUES ARE GOING DOWN, YOU'RE SEEING THEIR NIR RATES INCREASING.

THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE IS THE HIGHEST PROPERTY TAX RATE THAT A CITY CAN PRESENT TO COUNCIL WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE RESIDENTS, AND THAT IS ALLOWED A 3.5% INCREASE FROM THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE IN THE M&O SIDE.

SO AGAIN, THE GENERAL FUND MONEY INCREASING 3.5%.

THAT IS THE HIGHEST WE CAN GO WITHOUT ASKING THE RESIDENTS FOR A VOTE.

AND JUST QUESTIONS. SORRY. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT 3.5%, IF WE WAS TO GO WITH THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, THAT STILL HAS US UNDERNEATH WHAT WE BROUGHT IN LAST YEAR, CORRECT? FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN, WHERE WE'RE A LITTLE UNDER WHAT OUR BUDGET WAS LAST YEAR.

SO EVEN WITH THE HIGHEST WE CAN GO RIGHT NOW, WE'RE STILL KIND OF SEEING A NEGATIVE IN OUR BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR, REGARDLESS. WE ARE DEFINITELY MAINTAINING OUR CURRENT SERVICES AND IT IS A STRUGGLE RIGHT NOW WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND.

YOU'LL SEE IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES COMPARING THE TAX RATES AS WELL AS WHAT IS THAT DOLLAR LOOK LIKE TO THE RESIDENTS.

TWO SLIDES FROM HERE. BUT THAT WILL EXPAND UPON YOUR QUESTION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO THE IMPACT OF A DECISION.

THIS EVEN KIND OF HELPS QUANTIFY IT AS WELL, MAYOR.

WE DID PRESENT ORIGINALLY THAT RATE OF $54.99, BUT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WAS TO TAKE IT BACK TO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE.

AND ON A $5.05 BILLION VALUES WITHIN THE CITY, WE'RE LOOKING AT A REDUCTION FROM WHEN WE PRESENTED THE BUDGET IN AUGUST TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY, ALMOST A 3.9% REDUCTION IN REVENUE. SO THOSE ARE A LOT OF SERVICES WE HAD TO PULL BACK OUT OF THE BUDGET,

[00:30:05]

THAT WILL GO THROUGH IN DETAIL FOR YOU. BUT ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ALONE? JUST THE CHANGE IN THE TAX RATE AND THE DOLLAR AMOUNT.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBERS AS WELL FROM $17.4 MILLION DOWN TO 13.5.

SO HERE'S A REALLY ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE. IT IS YOUR TAXPAYER IMPACT STATEMENT WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED UNDER THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 5501. SO AGAIN, YOU LOOK AT THE MEDIAN HOME VALUE LAST YEAR $324,747 TO THIS YEAR, $370,881. YOU'RE NOT EVEN COMPARING THE SAME HOME VALUE.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TAX RATE, THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE DOES INCREASE THAT PROPERTY TAX RATE OR THE REVENUE THAT THE CITY WOULD RECEIVE BY $26.53. NOW, IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE REDUCED HOME VALUE OF 307881 AND APPLY THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, THIS EVEN BRINGS LESS REVENUE INTO THE CITY OF $59.24.

SO I HOPE THAT HELPED CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT AS WELL.

$26.53 A YEAR INCREASE OVER WHAT CURRENT RESIDENTS ARE PAYING TODAY.

I KNOW YOU'VE SEEN THIS SLIDE, PRESENTED THIS AT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED BUDGET, BUT IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, NOW WE'RE COMPARING THE SAME HOME VALUE. 307881 TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

AND COMPARING THAT TO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN THIS BUDGET, WE'RE LOOKING AT $85.77 MORE A YEAR FROM A HOMEOWNER ON AVERAGE. SO THAT LOOKS LIKE $7.15 A MONTH OR LESS THAN A QUARTER A MONTH, A DAY, LESS THAN A QUARTER A DAY. SO ABOUT THE PRICE OF A COFFEE PER MONTH.

WE ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER THE TIRZ. SO AGAIN, THE TIRZ OVERALL.

WE'RE SEEING $1.035 BILLION IN THE VALUES, WHICH DOES MAKE UP 20% OF THE CITY'S TOTAL VALUES WITHIN THE 5 BILLION THAT TIRZ OBLIGATION, WE'RE LOOKING AT $1.5 MILLION.

THAT HAS TO BE GIVEN BACK TO THE TIRZ, WHETHER IN THE M&O OR THE I&S SIDE.

BUT THERE IS A COMMITMENT, AN OBLIGATION OF $1.5 MILLION WITHIN THOSE TIRZ.

ANOTHER INTERESTING FACT IS OUR NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT CAME INTO THE CITY WAS $474 MILLION.

40% OF THAT WAS IN THE TIRZ. SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE SEEING THE GROWTH IS WITHIN THE TIRZ FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

HERE'S ALSO A REGIONAL COMPARISON. I WAS ABLE TO GET AND REACH OUT TO THE OTHER CITIES THAT WERE COMPARING TOO.

AND THIS IS WHAT THEIR PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES ARE FOR THIS YEAR.

SO MELISSA AND THE CITY OF PRINCETON ARE VERY CLOSE IN THEIR PROPOSED TAX RATE, BOTH AT 47.

THEY'RE AT 47.16. WE'RE AT 47.29. SO VERY MINIMAL DIFFERENCE THERE.

BUT YOU CAN SEE ANNA IS AT 54.82, CELINA AT 57 AND PROSPER AT 50.5 CENTS.

SO IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT ANOTHER REDUCTION OF $1.4 MILLION THAT WE'D BE LOOKING AT IN THIS BUDGET THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO CUT.

SO THESE ARE DECISIONS THAT COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO BE MAKING TONIGHT ON THAT PROPOSED TAX RATE.

AGAIN, I'VE TALKED ABOUT THE HOME VALUES, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE HOME VALUES AS WELL WHEN IT COMPARES TO THESE OTHER CITIES.

AND WE ARE SITTING AT THE BOTTOM HERE AT 307881.

WE GO ALL THE WAY UP FROM 326 TO 685,000 IN PROSPER.

BUT ALSO THE GRAPH ON THE LEFT SHOWS YOU HISTORICALLY IN PRINCETON WHAT THAT HAS LOOKED LIKE.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO BRING TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION TO. THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS. WE DO HAVE THE $25,000 EXEMPTION FOR DISABLED PERSONS.

WE HAVE ABOUT 126 RESIDENTS THAT ARE RECEIVING THIS EXEMPTION, WHICH DOES REDUCE OUR TAXABLE VALUE BY $2.9 MILLION.

OVER 65 EXEMPTION. WE HAVE THAT AS WELL. CURRENTLY, WE HAVE A LITTLE OVER A THOUSAND RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THAT EXEMPTION, WHICH DOES REDUCE OUR CITY'S TAXABLE VALUE BY $23.4 MILLION.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE OVER 65, WHICH IS HAVING A $275,000 REDUCED TAXABLE VALUE.

SO THAT IS GOING OVER THE PROPERTY TAX. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND? BEFORE WE GO TO PROPERTY TAXES, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO READ AN EMAIL THAT I RECEIVED FROM A RESIDENT WHO SAID.

[00:35:03]

GOOD EVENING. I AM A PRINCETON RESIDENT WRITING TO YOU TO VOTE YES ON INCREASING PROPERTY TAXES.

MY FAMILY AND I JUST MOVED HERE ON THE HOPE THAT PRINCETON CONTINUES TO DEVELOP AND GROW.

WE WANT MORE COMMERCIAL SPACE AND CONTINUED INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENTS INVESTMENTS.

PLEASE CONTINUE TO FUND THESE EFFORTS SO FAMILIES CAN FLOURISH HERE FOR YEARS TO COME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH AGAIN, MAKES UP 35% OF OUR REVENUE COMES FROM THE AD VALOREM TAX. THIS IS THE NO SIDE OF THE AD VALOREM TAX.

THIS WAS 40% WHEN I FIRST PRESENTED IT. SO BRINGING THIS DOWN MAKES IT 35%, WHEN WE TOOK IT DOWN TO THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE.

24% FOR LICENSE AND PERMITS AND SALES TAX OF 12%.

AND I KNOW WE HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THAT SALES TAX AND HOW WE'VE GOT TO FLIP THAT BECAUSE OUR LICENSE, PERMITS AND FEES WILL START DECLINING AS WE GET TO BUILD OUT.

NOW, WHERE DOES THE EXPENDITURES GO WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND? PUBLIC SAFETY MAKING UP 53%, OR $19.39 MILLION.

AND THEN THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMING IN AT 20% AT $7.35 MILLION.

AND THEN CULTURE AND REC AT 12. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AT 10.

AND PUBLIC WORKS AT 6. TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES IS 36.66.

AND TONIGHT I'M PRESENTING YOU A PROPOSED BALANCED BUDGET WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND.

WHERE DID THE FUND DOLLARS GO? AGAIN, A MAJORITY OF THOSE EXPENDITURES ARE GOING TO BE PERSONNEL.

WE ARE A SERVICE INDUSTRY PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS OF 63% IS PERSONNEL EXPENSES.

CONTRACT SERVICES COMING IN AT 16%, CHARGES FOR SERVICES AT 11 AND 5% ON SUPPLIES.

SO HERE ARE THE SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED BUDGET.

AGAIN, WE ARE GOING TO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE OF 4729 IN THIS PROPOSED BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES, A BALANCED BUDGET OF $36.6 MILLION. TOTAL COMBINED EXPENDITURES CITYWIDE IS $110.6 MILLION.

THAT'S CITYWIDE. SO THAT INCLUDES PROPRIETARY FUND, IMPACT FEE FUNDS, EDC, CDC.

SO IT ENCOMPASSES A LOT OF EXPENDITURES, NOT JUST THE GENERAL FUND, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT 110.6.

SO WE DID REDUCE THE AD VALOREM REVENUE BY $3.3 MILLION IN THE GENERAL FUND BY MAKING THAT CHANGE IN THE TAX RATE.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE. ALSO, WE DECREASED THAT BY HALF A MILLION FOR THE ESD BECAUSE AT THE TIME WE DID NOT KNOW WHERE THE ESD WAS GOING WITH THEIR SERVICES AND WHAT THEY WOULD BE PROVIDING THE CITY. I DID, HOWEVER, PRESENT YOU AN INTERNAL MEMO LAST WEEK, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO GO OVER THAT.

I WILL GO OVER THAT SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM PROPOSING AND ADDING BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH IS THE ESD IS GOING TO PROVIDE THE CITY OF PRINCETON FOR FIRE SERVICES, PROVIDING FIRE SERVICES FOR THE COUNTY OF $1,028,553.52. THERE'S BEEN SOME. IN THAT MEMO THAT I SENT, I LOOKED OVER THE BUDGET OVER THE WEEKEND, THERE IS AN ADJUSTMENT THAT CARRIED OVER FROM THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT I DO NEED TO CORRECT, MAYOR. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, THERE WILL BE A NET REVENUE INCREASE OF $278,000 FROM THAT MILLION, BECAUSE THERE WAS A NUMBER THAT CARRIED OVER THAT I NEED TO CLEAN UP, AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO PRESENT THAT TO COUNCIL FOR YOUR APPROVAL.

SO THERE IS SOME POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE IN THERE THAT I CAN GO OVER HERE IN A MINUTE.

BUT LET'S GO THROUGH WHAT WE DID REDUCE FIRST.

WE DID REDUCE THE TOTAL GENERAL FUND BY $3.1 MILLION.

THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF DECREASED BY ALMOST $100,000.

THAT WAS IN THE FINANCE, THE IT, THE EMPLOYEE EXPERIENCE AND IN MARKETING.

SOME LITTLE ITEMS WE HAD ADDED IN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET HAVE NOW BEEN PULLED OUT.

PUBLIC SAFETY WAS THE BIGGEST DECREASE IN THIS BUDGET OF $1.8 MILLION.

THAT WAS TAKING AWAY THE SIX PERSONNEL FOR POLICE SERVICES.

THAT WAS 6 FTES THAT WE PRESENTED IN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET THAT IS NO LONGER IN THIS PROPOSED BUDGET.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. WE ALSO REDUCED FOR PERSONNEL REDUCTION.

CULTURE AND REC WAS ALSO RELATED TO STAFFING, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE TWO PARK MAINTENANCE TECHS AS WELL AS A LIBRARY RECLASS AND A PART TIME TO A FULL TIME. AND THEN PUBLIC WORKS, WE REDUCED IT BY A MILLION AS WELL FOR THE STREET MAINTENANCE.

SO WITH ALL OF THAT, $3.1 MILLION WAS PULLED BACK OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

[00:40:01]

AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT A BALANCED BUDGET WITH CORE SERVICES BEING MAINTAINED WHERE THEY ARE TODAY.

DO WE. JUST WAIT. NO, YOU'RE GOOD. YOU'RE GOOD.

DO WE KNOW WHICH PROJECTS WOULD NOT BE. WELL, WILL BE IMPACTED BY THAT DECREASE FOR THE STREET MAINTENANCE? OR DO WE IDENTIFY THE PROJECT AND WE BASICALLY SAY WE'LL PAUSE THIS ONE FOR NOW? OR DID WE JUST LOOK AT THE BUDGET AND SAY, WE'LL TAKE $1 MILLION.

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHICH PROJECTS ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED. SO THE STREET MAINTENANCE HAS ALWAYS HAD A BASE BUDGET OF HALF A MIL.

I KEPT THE HALF A MIL IN THERE. I WANTED TO GIVE ANOTHER MILLION BECAUSE I KNOW STREETS IS DEFINITELY A NEED WITHIN PRINCETON, BUT WITH THIS CHANGE IN THE PROPERTY TAX, WE JUST COULD NOT MAINTAIN THAT $1.5 MILLION TOTAL.

NOW, THERE IS HALF A MILLION IN THE CDC BUDGET FOR STREET MAINTENANCE.

THIS HALF A MILLION IN THE GENERAL FUND WOULD GIVE US A TOTAL OF $1 MILLION.

BUT PUBLIC WORKS, I HAVE NOT. I KNOW THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT, GOING THROUGH WHAT NEEDS TO BE.

THAT'S SEPARATE FROM IMPACT FEES. PERFECT. SO IT WAS DONE WITH THE CONTINGENCY IN PLACE, IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU JUST STATED THERE.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONTINGENCY IN PLACE WHEN THAT WAS MADE.

SO YOU MENTIONED THE CDC HAS A, YOU KNOW, TYPE B TYPE DEAL TO WHERE THEY CAN FUND SOME OF THE STREET MAINTENANCE.

SO MAYBE THAT'S CONTINGENCY. I CAN SAY. AND THIS ISN'T TO YOU DIRECTLY, KELLY.

YOU'RE AWESOME. BUT LOOKING AT THE REDUCTIONS HERE, IT WAS A LITTLE PERSONALLY DISAPPOINTING THAT COUNCIL COLLECTIVELY DECIDED THAT THE NUMBER ONE GOAL WOULD BE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE NUMBER TWO, PUBLIC SAFETY, OR I THINK THOSE ARE SWITCHED AROUND.

AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE TWO LANDED ON THE REDUCTION WHEN COUNCIL COLLECTIVELY STATED THAT THOSE WERE THE ITEMS OF INTEREST.

SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE PARKS AND RECS OR ANY OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN HERE WHERE WE PROBABLY COULD HAVE PULLED FROM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEPT THIS GOING, ESPECIALLY THE INFRASTRUCTURE PART OF IT. SO THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, TAKE FOR ME.

AND I'M LOOKING FOR YOUR GUIDANCE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES, NOW IS THE TIME AND WE BRING BACK THE PROPOSED BUDGET AT THE NEXT MEETING FOR ADOPTION. SO I APPRECIATE ANY OF THIS FEEDBACK.

I MEAN, WE COULD BE LOOKING AT SPECIAL EVENTS.

I KNOW I HAVE IN THE BUDGET AN EFFICIENCY AUDIT AS WELL OF $168,000.

WE'VE GOT THE UDC IN THERE. SO THEY WOULD LOVE FOR YOUR FEEDBACK AND INPUT ON THAT.

THANK YOU. MISS TODD. THE REDUCTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, DOES THIS NUMBER INCLUDE THE LOSS OF THE GRANT THAT OR. BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE LOSING PERSONNEL THERE, OR THE INCREASE OF PERSONNEL THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR, IS THAT DIRECTLY AS A RESULT OF ADJUSTMENTS TO THIS BUDGET, OR DOES IT ALSO INCLUDE THE LOSS OF THE GRANT THAT WAS GOING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OFFICERS? SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. LET ME JUST CLARIFY THE GRANT.

WHEN YOU SAY THE GRANT, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SAFER GRANT, OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE POLICE GRANT THAT THEY PRESENTED LAST SPRING? SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FIREFIGHTER GRANT, OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SAFER GRANT FOR THE POLICE OFFICERS? I THINK THAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THE GRANT THAT WHEN WE. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THROUGH FLOCK OR THROUGH THE OTHER SERVICES THAT WERE PROVIDED FOR ONE FOR ONE DETECTIVE'S SALARY FOR THAT FIRST YEAR. I THINK THAT THAT'S THE GRANT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I THINK IT WAS FOR $200,000, I BELIEVE. YES, SIR. YES, MA'AM. SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO BECAUSE OF.

AND I KNOW WE HAVE THE FLOCK, THE LPRS THAT ARE COMING ONLINE HERE IN A LITTLE BIT.

AND WE DID END UP PULLING OUT OF THE FLOCK CONTRACT.

YES, WE DID. I BELIEVE WE ARE LOSING THAT GRANT ONLY BECAUSE WE DECIDED NOT TO PUT UP THE FLOCK CAMERAS AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

THAT GRANT, WE PUT IN A GRANT THROUGH THE FLOCK SYSTEM TO HELP FUND ANOTHER DETECTIVE THROUGH THAT SYSTEM.

I THINK WE WERE STILL KIND OF IN THE PROCESS OF THAT, BUT BEING AS THOUGH WE DID PULL OUT OF THE FLOCK CAMERA SYSTEM, YES, THAT GRANT IS CUT OFF. SO IS THAT AN ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL THAT WE'RE LOSING TO WHAT IS REFLECTED HERE IN THE BUDGET, OR IS IT ONE AND THE SAME COMBINED? NO, IT IS DEFINITELY NOT.

THAT WOULD BE WITH GRANTS. THAT WOULD BE CALLED SUPPLANTING.

YOU CANNOT PUT A POSITION IN UNTIL YOU ARE AWARDED THE GRANT.

SO THERE IS NO POSITIONS THAT ARE BEING WITHDRAWN FROM THAT DUE TO THE GRANT.

THIS IS JUST POSITIONS THAT WAS REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENTS.

WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT AN INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE, THIS WOULD BE WHAT I HEARD FROM COUNCIL, WHAT WE COULD SUSTAIN WITH THAT HIGHER TAX RATE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MISS DAVID-GRAVES. YEAH. MISS WILSON, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP THE EFFICIENCY AUDIT. THE AMOUNT OF $168,000. THIS MAY HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED AT A MEETING THAT I WASN'T AND I

[00:45:01]

DIDN'T WATCH THE VIDEO, SO I NEED TO KNOW, WHY WAS THIS BROUGHT UP AND WHY ARE WE PUTTING FUNDS ASIDE FOR AN EFFICIENCY AUDIT? THAT WAS THE DIRECTION I GOT FROM COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR TO PUT THIS INTO THE BUDGET OF $168,000.

THAT WAS REALLY WHAT WE THINK WE MIGHT BE SPENDING.

IT COULD BE MORE. IT COULD BE LESS. BUT THAT IS WHAT'S IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

YEAH. AND THAT FEE WILL BE INTO GOING INTO EACH DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE CITY AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY FOLLOWING UP TO DATE PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES AS WE FIGURED OUT THAT SOME PROCESSES HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE PAST.

AND THIS ALSO GOES INTO HOW THEY'RE SPENDING THEIR MONEY THROUGH THEIR BUDGET PROCESS.

SO THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A FORENSIC AUDIT, BUT IT STILL AUDITS HOW EACH DEPARTMENT IS FUNCTIONING AND HOW WE CAN DO BETTER AT WORKING TOGETHER THROUGH EACH DEPARTMENT. BECAUSE BEFORE, I MEAN, EVEN NOW, SOME DEPARTMENTS STILL STRUGGLE COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER AND SOME STUFF IS FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS. SO THIS WILL HELP US GET TO A POSITION TO WHERE WE CAN PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT WE NEED FOR THE CITY. I AGREE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE OVERALL OPERATION OF HOW THE CITY IS RUN, AND TO SEE WHERE WE COULD BECOME MORE EFFICIENT.

HOWEVER, WE ARE HERE DISCUSSING THE BUDGET AND WE'RE SEEING WHERE WE'RE SHORT.

SO WE DO NOT HAVE A CITY MANAGER. AND I IMAGINE A CITY MANAGER COMING ON BOARD WITH THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE HAD, WOULD LOOK TO EACH DEPARTMENT HEAD TO PERFORM A GAP ANALYSIS OF THEIR OWN DEPARTMENT, AND THEN TO DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED. WE KNOW WHAT OUR PROBLEM IS.

WE'RE SHORT STAFFED. WE HAVE GROWN EXPONENTIALLY AS A CITY, AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES BECAUSE WE HAVE STAFF LEAVING.

WE'VE HAD QUITE A NUMBER OF SENIOR STAFF LEAVE.

WE STILL HAVE JUST, YOU KNOW, MEDIUM STAFF, OTHER STAFF LEAVING.

AND SO OUR PROBLEM IS WE'RE SHORT STAFFED. YES.

THERE ARE SOME OF OUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO BE SHORED UP.

BUT AS WE HAVE MISS WILSON, AS WE'VE SPOKEN WITH SHAI, THEY'RE REVISING POLICIES.

THEY'RE BRINGING THEM UP TO DATE WITH THE ORDINANCES.

AND SO I'M THINKING THIS $168,000 COULD BE WELL SERVED BY HIRING 2 OR 3 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE CITY. AND WHEN A CITY MANAGER COMES ON BOARD, OR EVEN IF BEFORE THAT, EACH DEPARTMENT HEAD COULD DO A GAP ANALYSIS AND PREPARE SOMETHING TO SAY, THIS IS WHERE THE GAPS ARE IN OUR DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS HOW WE NEED TO COMMUNICATE BETTER. SINCE CHIEF CAME ON BOARD, HE HAS INSTITUTED SOME ACTIVITIES OR JUST SOME. WHAT CAN I SAY, SOME PROCEDURES, THAT HAS ALLOWED THE DEPARTMENTS TO RELATE BETTER TO EACH OTHER. WE GET REPORTS AS COUNCIL, WE SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING.

SO YES, THINGS ARE NOT PERFECT, BUT I THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE THE MUCH NEEDED STAFF THAN TO LOOK AT AN EFFICIENCY AUDIT.

WE'RE AUDITED EVERY YEAR BY THE STATE. WE JUST HAD A FORENSIC AUDIT, DID NOT SHOW ANYTHING.

SO I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE. I KNOW A FINANCIAL AUDIT IS NOT THE SAME AS AN EFFICIENCY AUDIT.

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR FINANCES. WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT BEFORE WE THEN JUMP AND SAY, OH, LET'S DO AN EFFICIENCY AUDIT, IS GOING TO PROVE CERTAIN THINGS, BUT DO WE HAVE THE STAFF TO EVEN MAKE THAT EFFECTIVE? YES. SO I'M GOING TO BRING UP A SITUATION WHERE WE HAD A CITY MANAGER IN FULL STAFF BEFORE STAFF WAS LEAVING.

A PART OF THIS EFFICIENCY AUDIT AND THE CONDITION THE CITY'S IN IS COSTING US $1 MILLION BY NOT HAVING SOME OF THESE PROCESSES IN PLACE.

SO I THINK THAT SPENDING $162,000 TO SAVE US A MILLION WILL PROBABLY BE GOOD, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THAT IS COSTING US MONEY BY NOT HAVING THESE THESE THINGS DONE.

I THINK THAT THIS AUDIT WILL PAY FOR ITSELF IN THE LONG RUN.

MR. MAYOR? MISS TODD. IF IT'S POSSIBLE, I THINK IT MIGHT BE WISE TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.

I DON'T THINK MISS DAVID-GRAVES HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH STAFF TO GET UPDATED ON THE INFORMATION WE WERE PROVIDED AT THE LAST EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BETTER HELP HER UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND WHY THIS WAS PUT ONTO THE AGENDA.

YEAH. NO, I THINK THAT WE JUST NEED TO CONTINUE BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY STILL IN THE PRE-COUNCIL MEETING.

BUT LET'S GET THROUGH THIS BUDGET, AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO PUT SOME OF THAT INFORMATION OUT THERE, BUT NOT HAVING THE OFFICIAL AND NOT HAVING THE RIGHT STAFF, NOT HAVING, YOU KNOW, ALL THAT. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY'RE LEAVING NOW OR NOT BECAUSE WE'RE STILL PAID A MILLION FOR MISTAKES THAT STAFF HAS MADE WHEN WE WAS FULLY STAFFED,

[00:50:05]

SO. ALL RIGHT, MISS KELLY, YOU CAN CONTINUE. I'M LISTENING FOR YOUR FEEDBACK AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE BUDGET.

I MEAN, AGAIN, THIS WAS JUST GOING THROUGH WHAT I SEE AS REOCCURRING EXPENSES.

PERSONNEL IS REOCCURRING, DOES NOT GO AWAY. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A TAX RATE, KEEPING IT LOW, THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE GOT TO CONSIDER AS WELL.

SO IF WE NEED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION. THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN PARKS AND REC, AND I KNOW THAT WE REMOVED THE RIGHT AWAY SERVICE FROM PUBLIC WORKS, BUT THAT WAS, I THINK 200 SOMETHING THOUSAND FROM PUBLIC WORKS, BUT THEIR INCREASE WAS 400 AND SOME THOUSAND.

SO IT WAS MORE THAN WHAT THAT BUDGET ORIGINALLY WAS.

DO YOU KNOW WHY THAT INCREASE IN PARKS AND REC IS SO HIGH? SO WE ALSO ARE GOING TO BE TAKING ON THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS PARKS BY THE LAKE AND CDC IS OFFSETTING THAT WITH $150,000. OKAY. SO THAT WAS THE.

YES, SIR. OKAY. AND THEN IS THERE ANY WAY THAT, WHEN YOU BRING THIS BUDGET BACK, THAT SOME OF THESE ITEMS FOR OUR CONTRACT FEES AND OTHER SERVICES, ESPECIALLY WITH OUR EVENTS, THAT WE HAVE AN ITEMIZED NUMBER TO THEM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE LIKE ONE OF THEM IS OVER A MILLION IN CONTRACT FEES, BUT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THOSE CONTRACT FEES ARE. BY DEPARTMENT? HAPPY TO DO THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. OH, I'M SORRY.

MR. WASHINGTON. OH, NO. I THINK MISS TODD WAS.

WAS SHE BEFORE YOU? I'M SORRY, I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION.

DO WE HAVE A LINE ITEM OR ANYTHING FROM ANY OF OUR DEPARTMENTS REGARDING THE COST IT'S GOING TO BE FOR THE CITY IN REGARDS TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND TAKING ON THOSE PARKS? I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CDC, EDC IS PUTTING SOME MONEY TOWARDS THAT.

HOWEVER ACCORDING TO, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLICATIONS IN THE PAPER, REGARDING THE COST TO MAINTAIN THOSE PROPERTIES, WE'RE LOOKING UPWARDS INTO THE MILLIONS TO REPAIR THEM AND BRING THEM UP TO WHERE IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE USABLE.

SO THAT SMALL AMOUNT THAT WE'RE GETTING TO HELP OFFSET, THAT IS A VERY SMALL AMOUNT.

AND DO WE HAVE A LINE ITEM OF LIKE, THIS IS HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST FOR US TO BE TAKING ON ALL OF THESE PARKS? BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE SITTING HERE DISCUSSING RAISING OUR RESIDENTS TAXES, I THINK THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE THE FULL INFORMATION OF THE ADDITIONAL THINGS WE'RE TAKING ON TO BE SPENDING MONEY ON. AND AT THAT POINT, WE NEED TO DECIDE, IS THIS THE TIME TO BE LOOKING AT THAT? YEAH. SO I ACTUALLY CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I ACTUALLY MET WITH THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS LAST WEEK, AND THEY GAVE US A LIST OF ALL THE PARTS THAT WERE TAKEN OVER IN THEIR MAINTENANCE. AND SOME OF THEM ARE IN THE MILLIONS. BUT THIS ALSO ENCOMPASSES SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY WAS GOING TO BE MAKING ON THE PARKS, NOT JUST IN MAINTENANCE ITSELF, BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.

AND BEFORE WE CAN EVEN TAKE ON ANY OF THE LEASES AND PAY THE $150,000, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A FIVE YEAR PLAN.

SO WE'LL HAVE TO COVER ALL THE MAINTENANCE AND LET THEM KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO BUDGET IT.

AND WE HAVE TO SHOW PROOF THAT WE HAVE THE MONEY. SO BEFORE WE CAN EVEN TAKE ON A LEASE FOR ANY OF THE PARKS, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SHOW THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY AFFORD TO GET THE PARKS UP AND GOING, SO. AND THAT WILL HAVE TO BE WITHIN A FIVE YEAR PLAN.

BUT WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED, WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IN THE MILLIONS, THAT IS JUST WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

AND THAT IS NOT FORCING US TO TAKE ON THOSE SAME IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE.

AND I HAVE THAT DOCUMENT HERE, AND I'LL GIVE YOU A COPY OF IT. CAN THAT DOCUMENT BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC SO THEY CAN BE AWARE OF WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE THAT WE MIGHT BE INCURRING? YEAH, WE CAN PUT IT ON THE SITE. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S.

LIKE WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS DECISION IN FIVE YEARS, BUT WE'RE SITTING HERE DISCUSSING RAISING PEOPLE'S TAXES TODAY, WHICH WILL BE AN ONGOING THING GOING FORWARD.

AND WE'RE DISCUSSING HOW WE'RE SPENDING MONEY.

WE ARE LOOKING AT DOING AUDITS TO ENSURE THAT THINGS ARE BEING DONE APPROPRIATELY.

AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE ARE LOOKING AT TAKING ON THIS ADDITIONAL COST TO THE CITY WHILE TRYING TO BE ABLE TO OPEN A MULTI-GEN CENTER AND BE ABLE TO STAFF IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE ALREADY HAVE IN MOTION, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT HAVING MONEY, AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS MYSTERY ITEM ON, AND IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN AFFORD IT.

BUT WHILE WE'RE AT IT, WE'RE GOING TO THROW SOME MONEY AT IT. YEAH, THAT'S NOT HOW THAT WORKS.

WE WILL HAVE TO SHOW PROOF THAT WE HAVE THE FUNDS TO EVEN TAKE ON THE LEASE. SO BEFORE WE EVEN SPEND A DIME ON THIS PROJECT TO SIGN A LEASE, THIS IS NOT FIGURING OUT IN FIVE YEARS, WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT MONEY UP FRONT AND SHOW IT.

SO, I MEAN, IF WE CAN'T AFFORD IT, THEN WE CAN'T SIGN THE LEASE.

SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING WE JUST THROW MONEY AT AND TAKE IT ON A MYSTERY PARTY. WE'LL HAVE TO SHOW THEM THAT WE HAVE THE MONEY AND WE CAN TAKE IT ON. BUT I DON'T WANT TO

[00:55:01]

GET TOO MUCH INTO WHAT.

THIS BUDGET RIGHT NOW. IT'S NOT IN THE BUDGET BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE READY FOR IT, SO. AND THAT CAN HAPPEN NOW, THAT CAN HAPPEN IN FIVE YEARS. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY TAKE ON THE LEASES. BUT MISS KELLY.

SORRY. MR. WASHINGTON HAD A QUESTION. SORRY. I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THIS PERSONNEL REDUCTION WAS. IS THAT THE ONE ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION THAT THEY HAD REQUESTED TO HELP WITH PROCESSING AND ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS? YES. SO ANY OF THE POSITIONS THAT WE DID PUT IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED BUDGET, WE ONLY DID THREE QUARTERS OF THE FISCAL YEAR BECAUSE WE WANTED TO WAIT TILL AFTER THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. SO THAT'S HOW I BUDGETED THAT OUT.

NOW THE POSITION IS GOING TO BE MORE, IF WE START OCTOBER 1ST, WHICH WOULD BE $84,500.

GOT IT. YEAH, I THINK THAT. AND I THINK WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE UP HERE, BUT I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POSITION FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. I BELIEVE A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO, SHAI WAS IN FRONT OF US SPEAKING ABOUT JUST HER DEPARTMENT AND ALL OF THE EFFICIENCIES THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT AND THAT POSITION IS VERY, VERY CRITICAL, SO. AND I THINK NOW WITH THE CONTINUED GROWTH AND, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A FOCUS ON COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALL THOSE THINGS, I THINK THAT POSITION IS QUITE IMPORTANT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT. MISS TODD.

SINCE WE USED TO HAVE TWO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS, NOW WE HAVE ONE, DOES OUR BUDGET SHOW LIKE HOW WE REALLOCATED THAT SALARY THROUGHOUT OUR BUDGET? GREAT QUESTION. SO IF YOU WOULD GO TO YOUR BUDGET BOOK ITSELF, YOU'LL SEE THE FTES, WHICH IS GOING TO BE PAGE. STARTS ON PAGE 11, ACTUALLY STARTS ON SPECIFICALLY PAGE 12.

YOU WILL SEE THAT WE DID REALLOCATE THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER IN OUR CURRENT BUDGET TO WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT AN ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER.

THAT WAS A RECLASS. AS WELL AS A RECORDS CLERK.

SO WE TOOK ONE POSITION AND WE'RE ABLE TO RE-FUNCTION THAT INTO TWO POSITIONS WITHIN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

ALL RIGHT. YEAH, LET'S FINISH THIS SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR MEETING, BUT LET'S CONTINUE.

SO IF WE CAN JUST HAVE HER FINISH THE PRESENTATION AND HOLD OUR FINAL QUESTIONS TO THE END, PLEASE. OH, I WAS LIKE, MY CLICKER IS NOT WORKING.

THEN I JUST FLEW THROUGH IT ALL. SO WE'RE DONE RIGHT NOW.

SO UTILITY FUND, THERE WAS NO CHANGES. JUST WANTED TO REAFFIRM THAT THIS IS STILL THE BREAKDOWN ON THE REVENUE.

WATER SALES, WASTEWATER TREATMENT. I'M GOING TO GO REALLY FAST BECAUSE I'M SENSING WE'VE GOT TO GET TO THE OTHER MEETING.

NOTHING THERE. AGAIN, MENTIONING WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING AN INCREASE IN YOUR WATER OR WASTEWATER RATES FOR NEXT YEAR.

WE'RE TOEING THE LINE ON THAT DUE TO MEETING ALL OF OUR TARGETS, AS WELL AS MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PLANNING OUR CAPITAL OUTLAY.

AND HERE'S ALL THE WORKING CAPITAL AND THE DEBT COVERAGE FOR THAT.

SO FUND BALANCE OVERVIEW. HERE AGAIN, BALANCE BUDGET IN THE GENERAL FUND AND THOSE FUNDS THAT ARE REDUCING IN THEIR FUND BALANCE.

THOSE ARE SPECIFIC FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE IMPACT FEE FUNDS AS WELL.

EDC, CDC AS WELL, TAKING ON SOME MORE. SO, QUESTIONS? GUIDANCE, SO THAT I BRING YOU BACK A GOOD PROPOSED BUDGET? NO QUESTION. I WOULD JUST SAY I FEEL THE PARKS AND REC EVENTS, WHATEVER, IS A EASY LOW HANGING FRUIT BECAUSE THEY CAN MAKE UP FOR THE DEDUCTION WITH SPONSORSHIPS. SO THEY HAVE AN AVENUE TO GO AND GET ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO SUPPLEMENT THOSE DEDUCTIONS.

SO I WOULD SAY FOCUS ON MAYBE PULLING SOME MONEY THERE AND KEEPING THE DEVELOPMENT POSITION.

SO I'M HEARING DEVELOPMENT POSITION AND I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT FOR YOU AS WELL, COUNCILMAN JOHNSON.

SO SPECIAL EVENTS TOTAL COST, $424,000. WE DO HAVE IN THIS PROPOSED BUDGET SPONSORSHIP MONEY COMING IN, AS WELL AS PARKING FOR $231,000, IS WHAT WE PRESENTED AS REVENUE.

SO THE OFFSET WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT A NET EFFECT OF $193,000.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE DELTA THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT, MAKING SURE THAT IT OFFSETS EACH OTHER.

YEAH. AND JUST TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID EARLIER ABOUT SOME OF THE, LIKE I SAID, CONTRACT SERVICES, THE EVENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT. WE CAN HAVE JUST A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THAT SO WE CAN KIND OF MAKE A MORE INFORMED, YOU KNOW, THE DECISION FROM THERE, BECAUSE I THINK MOST OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE CONTRACT SERVICES AND SOME OF THEM ARE A MILLION PLUS,

[01:00:03]

ESPECIALLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AND ALSO I WANT TO LOOK AT, IF ANY OF THOSE SERVICES WE CAN BRING IN-HOUSE THAT MIGHT SAVE US MONEY INSTEAD OF SPENDING MILLIONS ON THIRD PARTIES, SO. AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN MY LAST PRESENTATION, I'M SORRY I DIDN'T BRING IT OUT, BUT IT IS NOTED HERE, $600 000 IS ENGINEERING, OUTSOURCING THAT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES.

SO THAT'S WHAT MAKES UP A LOT OF THAT AS WELL AS THEN PLAN REVIEW, COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES REVIEW, INSPECTIONS REVIEW. SO THAT IS A LOT OF OUTSOURCING THAT MAKE UP THAT A LITTLE OVER A MILLION IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BUT DEFINITELY WILL GIVE YOU A DETAILED LINE ITEM OF WHAT MAKES UP ALL DEPARTMENTS CONTRACT SERVICES.

THAT WORKS. MISS TODD. FOR THOSE ENGINEERING SERVICES THAT WE PAID FOR, ARE WE REVISITING ANY OF THOSE? NOW THAT WE JUST HAD A PRESENTATION FROM THEM SAYING THAT THEIR WORK THAT THEY CHECKED DIDN'T CATCH THE FACT THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY WERE APPROVING WASN'T ENOUGH OR ADEQUATE.

ARE THEY DOING ANYTHING TO WORK WITH US ON GOING BACK AND INSPECTING AND CHECKING ALL THAT, OR ARE WE GOING TO BE PAYING THEM AGAIN TO DO THAT? I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT ANSWER. I KNOW WE ARE LOOKING INTO OTHER ENGINEER FIRMS NOW.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT WE HAVE FOUND JUST ON THE CITY SIDE WITH THE ENGINEERING FIRM.

GOING BACK FROM THE STUFF THAT YOU FOUND, TO RECENT THINGS.

SO I THINK THAT WE ARE REVIEWING THOSE SERVICES NOW.

SO I BELIEVE THAT SOON WE SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT SERVICE, BUT WE WILL STILL HAVE TO REVISIT SOME OF THE OLD STUFF THAT WERE MISTAKES AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I WILL MOVE ON.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO SKIP ITEM D AND E AND WE'LL JUMP TO ADJOURNMENT. AT THIS TIME, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

YOUR HONOR, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO ADJOURN.

I'LL SECOND. THIS. MR. JOHNSON, SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.

ANY NAYS? THE TIME IS 7:05. WE WILL TAKE A QUICK FIVE MINUTE RECESS.

WE'LL BE BACK AT 7:10.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.