- Let us call this meeting to order.
- I'm the Special Fiscal Committee
- of Wilmington Common Council for Wednesday,
- April 30th, 2025.
- Committee members, if you could just say your name.
- We'll go around the table.
- Dave.
- Roll.
- I'm Isabelle Piedmont-Smith.
- Hope Estasberg.
- Esac Vasari.
- All right. Thank you. Then we have staff here.
- Lisa. Lisa Layner, council attorney.
- Jessica.
- Jessica McClellan, city controller.
- Thank you.
- Sophia.
- Sophia McDowell.
- Sure.
- [inaudible]
- Of course. Nicole Wolney.
- Thank you. Two from the clerk's office.
- We are well-served by our city clerk.
- Are there any issues with the agenda?
- Does this look good to committee members?
- Okay. So let's go to a report from council member Asari
- about what the budget task force has been working on.
- Oh, it's back on there.
- So we didn't meet this last week because everybody was away.
- So the main thing that we're still working on,
- I think maybe I'll just pick up where I had left off last time,
- that the main thing we're working on and very close
- to finishing on is guidance to departments
- around the general process with some recommendations
- for how we suggest that the budget packet be shaped.
- And hopefully we'll have that by the end of this week
- so that we can start circulating.
- That's maybe you don't report anything new then.
- And then you have a meeting with a cool person.
- So yeah, so that's it.
- Did you want to talk a little bit about--
- I don't know if it's a good time at this point,
- but some of the initial explorations around new tech?
- Would you like me to talk about that now?
- I think we can get into it when we talk more about this meeting.
- I have a lot of information to share.
- OK, we'll wait then.
- Thank you.
- OK, so as you saw last week, Council President Stossberg
- sent a survey around to council members
- after our first discussion about budget priorities on April 9.
- And if you can show that--
- Yep, I'm working on actually bringing the right thing,
- like opening the right document.
- And--
- So she and I worked on compiling the survey information
- to inform our discussion tonight.
- And then if I could be--
- and I already covered this.
- I said, I'm working on sharing my screen.
- I'm hoping that I share the right thing.
- OK.
- So this is kind of a preview of tonight.
- And if committee members have input as to how we might--
- So--
- Discussion tonight, that's welcome.
- Just to realize that I have to make sure that I'm not
- on the Zoom screen right now, which I have.
- OK.
- So let me zoom in.
- And maybe I should actually back up for the sake of the public
- and say that based on the discussion that we had in April--
- oh, that was just two weeks ago at our April deliberation
- meeting, council members shared several ideas at that meeting
- and then also shared afterwards via email
- specific budget priorities and specific ideas for things
- that they wanted to fund.
- And so then what I did was I put every single one of those things
- on a slideshow, which then got distributed
- and then put that into a Google form questionnaire essentially
- and asked council members to rate these ideas on a 1 to 5 star
- rating.
- And then these are the results.
- So I just want to give the instructions
- that council members received in terms of this.
- So please do not rate items in comparison to each other.
- Instead, rate the items according
- to how much you value the project or concept listed
- specifically for budget year 2026.
- For example, if you think something is very important
- and is an urgent need, consider rating it 5 stars.
- If you think something is important,
- but it doesn't need to be prioritized in 2026,
- consider rating it lower.
- If you think it should never be prioritized,
- then only give it 1 star.
- And I did tell council members that this was not
- going to be anonymous and that these results were
- going to be fully discussed.
- So that's what you see here on this sheet are those 5 stars.
- So for example, Isabel--
- and zoom in on this a little bit more.
- So Isabel rated a bond to fund the Southwest Fire Station a 1,
- never a priority.
- Maybe I didn't follow the instructions correctly.
- Oh, maybe we didn't follow the instructions correctly.
- I also did not even notice those instructions
- for whatever it's worth.
- Eventually, I think we probably do need to do it,
- but I don't see that any time soon.
- OK.
- This is the problem with instruction.
- What is this, people that don't read instructions?
- I remember when I was trained to be a teacher,
- they said that if you get the wrong response,
- it's actually the teacher's fault, not the student's fault.
- So you know--
- I think that it is an expectation that you
- can't read the instructions.
- I'm the same, I'm the same.
- You know, I have a master's in Beijing as well.
- I know, I'm just saying.
- Anyway, so either way, these are the actual survey results
- on a one through five, and then the average at the bottom.
- Could we, tonight, ask people if they understood the instructions?
- Because I'm hearing that Isabel did.
- So do you have others?
- And therefore, we'll have to read about it.
- Either way, I think the thing is that five was best.
- One is the least probably.
- I think as long as nobody got that backward.
- Right, exactly.
- As long as nobody got that backward.
- But I don't think you want to prioritize
- this underlying that you said this should never be funded.
- Well, I said four isn't quite right.
- Yeah, the idea that most of us think
- that we should never fund additional incentives
- to recruit or attain police officers,
- I don't think is something you'd like to say.
- Nor do I think that that's what was said.
- Well, we should make assumptions.
- Maybe the intent isn't--
- Precisely, but we should be clear about--
- People could state it tonight.
- Exactly.
- I wanted to-- that's why I specifically
- read the instructions that I had put on the sheet, though.
- I'm sorry that not everybody read instructions.
- We'll move on from that.
- I'll move on from that.
- That's all I can do.
- Anyway, so the first section-- and this
- is something that is we're working
- on, making sure that this is formatted in such a way
- that it meets all of the guidelines for accessibility
- in terms of being released in a packed agenda.
- So that is something that is being worked on today.
- So I have all of this.
- And I think the other piece of information
- that is interesting, potentially,
- is that there is another sheet Isabel and I compiled
- that just takes the over fours and just takes the over threes
- and categorizes them.
- [INTERPOSING VOICES]
- No, it's over threes.
- And then we wrote a letter that includes
- all of the 3.5s and above.
- Basically, we just drew a line somewhere in the sand
- and said, we're going to put these in,
- and then we'll see what happens in terms of discussion later.
- Because if people didn't read the instructions
- and they really wanted things to be a slightly different
- priority, because this is not supposed
- to be a result, this is supposed to be
- a guide in producing a result.
- So we can-- let me see if I can stop this screen shot.
- Well, OK, do we want to look at any of these
- individually further down?
- Does anyone have a specific one they want to look at?
- Write this second.
- I think it's very reasonable to say the threes
- are what's in there across the board,
- and that's what goes in the left, things like that.
- And then-- hold on, let me see if I can get back to Zoom.
- All right, I'm going to stop the screen share.
- And then I'm going to find the screen share of the--
- there it is.
- I have a great number of tabs open.
- There we go.
- So this is the thing.
- These are the things that got over four and over five.
- So incorporating government transparency
- throughout all operations, maintaining our government
- infrastructure, increasing food security,
- which Isabella and I discussed was really vague.
- So in the overall letter, that has a little asterisk
- next to it.
- Are there specific initiatives that
- can get attached to this in terms of budgeting?
- Investing in a non-polluting community response team,
- successful hand support programs,
- partnering with the county on strategic use of opioid
- settlement funds, expanding the centerstone partnership.
- I'll keep that a little bit.
- But there we go.
- Incorporating equity as a value through all operations.
- Also got a four.
- And then the threes, continue and expand
- direct grants and assistance that support residents.
- Specifically $200,000 for co-location of mental health
- services, $200,000 council office investment,
- $6 to $10 million on priorities and safe streets for all,
- funding a land bank, doubling Jack Hopkins,
- housing summit, $8 million for sidewalks.
- And I want to point that one out too,
- because we have a pretty relatively high priority
- on that, $8 million for sidewalks,
- multi-use paths, et cetera.
- And then also $6 to $10 million on priorities and safe streets
- for all.
- And those have tremendous overlap in them.
- And so tonight, that's going to be one of those things too,
- that we can talk about how we can.
- So what was the line between medium and high cost?
- When does something go from a high cost?
- Isabella, do you want to talk about that?
- It was really a big ballpark.
- So it's just like, I was eyeballing it and saying, OK,
- we want to expand direct grants, assist and support residents.
- We currently do that maybe with $50,000.
- So maybe $100,000, that's going to be-- that's medium.
- And my $100,000 report is medium in my view.
- Low is like government transparency.
- Well, I don't know, we might get a consultant for $50,000,
- but it's not going to cost us that much.
- A high is like a million long term, all time year.
- I think it's super useful to have that cost sort of estimate
- of what we think.
- But some of them, I think maybe we
- want to tease out a little bit because we
- have a mid at $200,000 and then a high at $6 to $10 million,
- which feels like there's a category in between the $10,000
- and the $6 to $10 million, right?
- Yeah, it was just a starting point.
- Yeah, but I think a super useful is saying this is high priority.
- Seeing things that are high priority, low cost is easy wins.
- It's essential that we've identified it.
- And then the others are here are the things, high priority,
- high cost things are the things that need to form the base.
- We need to spend a lot of time talking about those things
- so that we don't spend all of our time talking about high priority,
- low cost things, like incorporating transparency.
- We don't need to spend three hours in our negotiations
- with the mayor about it in the same way
- that we might really want to make sure that we get close to our $6
- to $10 million on Safe Streets for All as an example.
- Now, with the transparency, if we're going to look at the graph,
- the very rough draft memo to the mayor,
- I don't think there are any specific points under that.
- Right.
- What do we mean?
- Right.
- Why is that?
- Right.
- What does it really need to be for the government
- to be transparent?
- And the other thing about the costs that I want to say
- is, I mean, Isabel estimated those.
- That was Isabel's contribution to the chart.
- Actually, Isabel made this whole thing
- based on what Isabel knows, which is a lot of things.
- Yeah.
- But maybe incorporating government transparency
- throughout all operations would cost more than Isabel
- thinks that it would cost.
- Right.
- And so that is part of--
- it's a guess.
- Well, some of these--
- Some of these--
- It's a guess.
- I don't know how much is already being spent.
- Yeah.
- Like when we say double the road repaying budget,
- I don't know what it is now.
- I know it's going to--
- I mean, I know that's going to be high.
- And is that the same as maintain--
- that's part of government infrastructure.
- So again, there's overlap.
- Right.
- And there's space to tease it out.
- And so just for the sake of the public,
- I knew going into this that there
- was overlap between these.
- And unless two people, two council members
- said the exact same thing, I left the overlap.
- I just-- I was not going to try to synthesize two people's
- thoughts together.
- I was just going to have two separate similar items.
- So I think that we left off at the $8 million per sidewalk.
- So additional council staff, which
- got a little bit lower than that specific--
- sorry, that was a specific thing as opposed
- to the more broad $200,000 for council office investment,
- which could be used for additional staff
- or could be used in other ways in the office.
- So that's sort of an interesting difference as well.
- Investments related to transportation safety
- and efficiency, that also overlaps
- some with that safe streets for all.
- Incentives for small developers, small multi-unit buildings,
- burning process changes.
- And see, that's where--
- so in the letter, we didn't put anything
- on that was underneath this 3.5.
- But, Isaac, you're right, if there's some low-cost things
- that are close to the border--
- I mean, like, limiting Airbnb is like, Dave,
- that was your idea, and in a big way,
- that's like a legislative thing.
- We've got to figure out enforcement of it afterwards,
- but it starts with legislative action.
- And so that's fine.
- It's a team approach, because we have no enforcement power.
- So the mayor would have to take that on
- and have to have an agreement with the department of the board.
- But if we can get legislation as a guide of what this is,
- this is what we want in terms of how to do it,
- I mean, I think that that's probably
- the beginning of that lift as opposed to the end.
- I think you all can read.
- I don't know if you want me to read all of these for you.
- Well, and I think just with the Airbnbs,
- we definitely need buy-in from the administration.
- I mean, remember the scooters.
- We have very clear guidelines for years enforced.
- So anyway, sorry.
- So I have a question that goes back
- to what Isabel said before your discussion a moment ago.
- Tris, Isabel misunderstood the ranking.
- And Isabel, you said, it's not that I
- don't want this to ever happen.
- I want to-- it's just the temporal nature.
- How soon do I want it?
- How soon is soon?
- And I mean, what kind of outlook are we looking at?
- Is this just for this year, or is it--
- My instruction said the five should be the things that you
- really want to prioritize as soon
- as possible, which is funding in fiscal year 2026.
- I mean, that's what the instruction said.
- But I mean--
- So soon is this year.
- So your outlook was this year, or this.
- OK, just one more time.
- How do we feel-- and this is not a rhetorical question,
- just genuinely about the way that we're then--
- so we're prioritizing the collective list,
- assuming that most people were looking at them
- not in relation to each other.
- So assuming most people didn't read the instructions,
- and they're not bad students like me, right?
- If everybody ranked those things independent
- of the other things, and then we're now ranking them
- in relationship to each other, we
- didn't first rank them that way.
- Do you see what I mean?
- So how do we--
- because there's a different question, which is--
- there's sort of like an assumption that it's--
- assuming we could do all of the things, how do you rank this
- if we didn't rank them relative to each other?
- Do you see what I'm trying to think through here?
- Well, I think that that is what the conversation and the
- discussion processes are for, is to rank them
- in compared to each other.
- So that's why I felt like this was useful to go like, OK,
- if-- because I mean, in our minds and what we want to be
- able to do, we're not constrained in the same way
- that in practical terms, we're constrained by how much money
- we have, we're constrained by how much staff we have,
- we're constrained by how plausible
- it is to enforce things.
- Even if we had staff, we're constrained
- by Indiana state law.
- We have all these constraints that
- have to play into it in real life.
- But if given-- yeah.
- But also thinking about the--
- so one thing we haven't done here,
- I don't know if we need to, but is then
- thinking about how these--
- where each of these fits.
- And there's overlap, like we already talked about,
- but where each of these fit within the broader, what
- do we call them, goal areas, priority areas.
- And so in how we've ranked--
- in our first conversation, we ranked those goal areas,
- roughly.
- Though I don't know if we arrived at an answer,
- but we at least started to have that conversation.
- Because what I'm trying to say is there may be--
- how do you deal with multiple similarly ranked things,
- like here, so we say, continue to expand direct grants
- and assistance to support residents.
- And then maybe those are actually quite similar.
- So maybe actually, I mean, now thinking about this out loud,
- maybe the process has yielded quite similar things.
- Because things like Double Jack Hopkins,
- all those are ranked quite similarly,
- and they are all very similar proposals, right?
- It would fall under the same--
- but it's interesting to me, and I'll
- stop after saying this, maybe this informs our conversation
- for this evening.
- I think that $8 million for sidewalks is one.
- The number $8 million might have affected
- the score of our priority.
- Whereas some of these are general.
- If it had said fund sidewalks, I wonder
- if we would have ranked it higher, question one.
- But then do we, even though it's ranked lower in score
- as continue to expand direct grant and assistance
- to support residents, is funding sidewalks more
- important to us as a council than direct grants
- and assistance to support residents, as one example?
- Just one random example.
- Well, I'll tell you, my personal answer to number one
- is that, yeah, sometimes with certain dollar amounts,
- I rated them differently, because I was
- responding to the dollar amount.
- Because I was kind of looking at that and going,
- oh, where's a good one?
- A good one is not on this list, maybe.
- Or even maybe the UDO one, the $200,000 to $400,000
- overhaul the UDO.
- It's like, I don't know, within 2026,
- I want to prioritize that money.
- Instead, I want to do the take steps now
- toward form-based code than before an eventual UDO overhaul.
- So it is kind of interesting, actually,
- that those two things averaged out identical to each other.
- Because for me, I was going, OK, I
- don't want to put that dollar number on something.
- But yes, I do want this overhaul to happen.
- And we need to take steps toward that right now.
- Right.
- Yeah.
- These are all good questions.
- I don't know if there's--
- I don't know that all council members would agree
- on the [INAUDIBLE] especially how we filled this out.
- Right, right, right.
- We do need to keep that in mind for the discussion tonight
- so we all understand exactly, OK, what
- our memo to the mayor, if that's what we want to do,
- what is it saying, like, in what context,
- and is it relative to each other, the priorities?
- Or can we even put in the memo, put some above
- and say the ones that appear first
- or have the most support?
- But it's very difficult, the specificity versus the very
- broad things like improved food security.
- Like, how much is that?
- What is it?
- What is that?
- So we had quite a range in the proposals of specificity.
- So I stopped that share so then I could share the letter next.
- OK.
- And while she's doing that, I will say--
- and I pointed this out in brackets in different points
- of the letter.
- Some of these are the same as last year.
- They have the same things last year.
- So that's interesting to note.
- Yeah, so we used the basic format of the same letters
- last year in terms of having a little bit of language in here
- that just talks about the budgeting process,
- mentions SD1 as this kind of piece of uncertainty
- because it's going to change our revenue outlook, potentially
- substantially.
- And so we're going to have to figure out
- a way to respond to that.
- And yeah, and so then it's very helpfully blue and red
- depending on the average rating.
- So blue is 4 and above, and then red is the 3 and 1/2 to 4.
- And then it's sort of by outcome area objective investments.
- And so the government transparency,
- very broad objective, what are the specific investments?
- And so that's where, as part of the conversation tonight,
- what are specific investments that we want to put under there?
- And so for example, it's like I own a better website
- under there.
- I think that if Eric is somewhere online, which he is,
- he would say something about the open finance portal.
- But making sure that that is optimized for user interactions
- and accuracy as part of that investment.
- And I think that investments can be time
- and investments can be money.
- Meantime is money in some ways.
- But what do we want investments to be?
- And these are in no particular order, Isabel.
- Is that correct?
- Correct.
- And the notes on the side, I put those in line in the packet
- that you all are getting via email
- because I was trying to make it more accessible.
- I delved into PDF accessibility last night,
- and it was a nightmare.
- It helps us all appreciate our staff more.
- Hi.
- Welcome to my--
- I have a question.
- Yeah.
- So we're proceeding on our agenda,
- and I should have mentioned earlier.
- Jessica, are you going to come tonight?
- I am open to that.
- I just realized during this meeting
- that it might be useful for me to be there.
- Well, the reason I--
- I just realized now I might be there.
- So you're on the floor on today's agenda now.
- But I'm sure you have a lot to say about the latest state,
- the implications of that state.
- And I'm thinking that's probably going
- to have some sort of impact on our discussion tonight.
- In other words, the budget that we assumed was happening
- may not be happening.
- And we have some tough decisions to make about whether we're
- going to--
- I mean, I assume we're probably going
- to have to raise the ED lid.
- But do we raise it a little bit and then
- cut the budget concurrently?
- Because I would like a discussion about that.
- Is there something we can cut?
- We could raise the ED lid corresponding to the gap.
- Or we could raise the ED lid to fill the gap plus more.
- So this is, of course, a lot of it is great stuff.
- But it assumes a budget that we formerly were anticipating
- that we no longer have.
- So does that make sense that we would--
- because I'm going on the assumption
- that everybody's agreeing that the income tax as it's
- structured is without tiers, without brackets,
- and it's regressive.
- And I don't want to--
- I'm going to be very hesitant about raising taxes at all.
- So anyway, what do you think about it?
- About coming tonight?
- Well, about coming and discussing
- the implications of the state budget cuts
- and maybe just tentatively wages in which we could proceed.
- I'm prepared to talk to you all about it now a little bit.
- And that might be a good kind of just like a good practice
- session before we present it to everyone tonight.
- We could kind of go over some-- go over what I have.
- And I could hear what your questions are.
- And then I'd be better prepared to present
- to the whole room tonight.
- And I'd be happy to-- absolutely happy to do that.
- I've also-- I could also be available tonight
- to just try to like quickly answer
- general financial questions.
- Like how much did we spend on streets and sidewalks and alleys
- in total in the budget?
- And how much do we spend?
- And just in general terms on these various things
- in the budget, so you have an idea when you want something.
- If I have any sense of like, are we already doing that?
- Are we budgeting for that?
- How much do we normally spend on that?
- I'd be happy to be there to help.
- Well, and here's the question.
- So that wasn't really built into this agenda.
- But it is built in on May 14 when
- we have a joint session between council and administration
- about budget.
- Was the SB1-- sorry, was SB1 built in tonight?
- No.
- Discussion on that?
- OK.
- No.
- OK.
- Because this was done before.
- I mean, this was all planned in terms of the structure
- before SB1 passed, before we knew what SB1 was
- going to look like in the end because it had so many changes
- on it.
- So I think that's a good question.
- I wonder if-- because if tonight the goal is to figure out
- councils, like our consensus, essentially,
- what we agree as priorities, what we want to--
- I mean, I think ultimately our original goal of this
- was to try to prioritize our priorities, right?
- Which might mean changing the order of this letter,
- for example, and putting the highest priority things first
- and then dribbling down, right?
- Or something like that.
- And I think that--
- I don't know.
- In my opinion, I think it's still
- worth to do it kind of the same way that we had been doing it.
- And then in May, when we're trying to, I'll say,
- find consensus in the administration in terms
- of reality.
- Because I mean, I still think that this list of ours
- is still more high level, high in the sky.
- This is what we dream of, as opposed to what
- are the realities on the ground?
- What are the practical ends of what we can really
- accomplish in terms of how much money we have
- and practical things about enforcement
- and all of that kind of stuff?
- But I don't know.
- Here's a thought, maybe, about how to approach this.
- And I'm building off of something
- that Gretchen said at our last fiscal task force meeting,
- which is that we could think of this document
- as helping us in the first stages of negotiation.
- So rather than it being here are the things we want in the budget.
- It's more of us saying, here are certain things
- that we can sort of--
- if you agree with Mayor and team, it's a lot easier.
- We don't need to spend a lot of time talking about it.
- If you already agree that you like these categories
- and you already agree that you want funding for sidewalks,
- there is general consensus amongst us
- that we want those things.
- And then so it's sort of this is more--
- maybe this first letter is more in the terms of sort of setting.
- It's like the first letter of a negotiation.
- It's just saying, here's the sort of boundaries
- in which we're hoping to discuss.
- And because you asked a good question, I think,
- on the survey, which is like, OK, there
- weren't any proposals around economic development.
- What does this mean?
- And it's like, well, maybe it means
- that we didn't have enough time.
- Maybe it means that lots of things, we just--
- We're not experts in all the things.
- Yeah, that, right?
- And so it's like-- so it's not--
- I think what I wouldn't want this letter to be is,
- as it was last year, in our method, it led to this.
- And I think that was OK, because we had the right method
- to lead to this output, which is, here
- are all the things that council members would like to see,
- or 20 demands, if you will, or 20 requests or something
- like that, and so meet them.
- This is more, we're trying to work together
- and be collaborative on coming up with what outcomes are
- and the proper ways of achieving those type of outcomes.
- And here's some of our initial thinking on that.
- Can I offer, as an observer, going back
- to council member Rallo's point, it
- seems like having some presentation from Jessica
- tonight about some of these broader issues
- on the landscape would be helpful to council members
- and sifting through some of those issues.
- And then it might give more time for that information
- to percolate down a separation for the joint meeting.
- But what I'm also saying, perhaps,
- is that maybe we just need to put a little bit of uncertainty,
- if you will, openness to negotiation in the framing,
- which is to say, and I think you've already
- done this at the beginning.
- We get there, these are times.
- But I think then framing the purpose of this
- is to start our discussions rather than,
- this is the last email you will receive from us
- of these type 20-- you know what I'm saying?
- Yeah, and we recognize that there may be multiple ways
- to meet an objective.
- We encourage collaborative deliberation.
- Recognize that several recommendations will take more
- than one year to implement.
- We look forward to our discussion on May 14th.
- Right.
- I think this is then, in which case, I think framed super well.
- And again, to today's point, as these things
- are evolving better, I think then
- us having this ranking already, we're
- a half step towards us putting them in some type of order.
- But this wasn't something that all of us
- were really, really wanted.
- And the things that need to be perhaps removed from it
- are--
- give some indication there.
- I guess I would tend to agree with Lisa
- that even though we didn't put it on the agenda,
- I mean, it's an elephant in the room
- that's going to show up invited or not, that's being won.
- And I don't want this meeting to feel like we're so out of touch
- that we're talking about grandiose projects
- without recognizing the realities
- of our shrinking finances.
- But I mean, it's up to you then.
- And the more times you hear about it, the more it'll sink in.
- Because it is a huge bill.
- And there are many complicated things in it.
- So it's not--
- I don't want you to just hear it one time
- and then have to remember it until 2030,
- when all the things actually get implemented.
- Yeah.
- So it's very confusing.
- So I talked to Gretchen already about the representative
- from Reedy, who was at the panel last week, coming on May 14.
- And--
- We've been communicating.
- OK, great.
- And then maybe there's one other--
- Gretchen recommended a whole 'nother meeting, too,
- just about SB1 stuff, as well, somewhere,
- which would have to probably happen at a--
- not Wednesday night, not at a time that is not currently
- known.
- Just a quick question.
- So--
- Actually, hold on.
- The first item is presentation of compiled information
- and summary of special fiscal committee discussion,
- which means that that actually could be built
- in with Jessica, a component of SB1,
- because we literally just talked about it right now.
- And we're having a presentation next.
- So that doesn't actually change the agenda.
- It just might change the timing of how long the meeting lasts.
- But I also think that the last thing was to final comment/vote
- on priorities list.
- I've not felt like this would be ready for a vote for a week.
- I just don't think that it's reasonable to think
- that tonight we're going to consensus around a letter
- that we want to vote on.
- I think that maybe we can consensus around ideas
- that will need to be modified into a final version of a letter
- to be presented at next week, probably,
- as part of a council member comment.
- And you would like unanimity on that, I suppose.
- I mean, there might be council members say,
- I don't agree with my priorities.
- Amazingly, last year we were able to do it.
- Yeah, I'm not saying we shouldn't.
- I'm definitely wanting to--
- You think that we should try for unanimity?
- And I think that this is like a whole council conversation
- to go, how much do we care about unanimity versus--
- I mean, I think sometimes to get unanimity,
- you have to water things down so much that then they're not
- helpful anymore.
- So depending on--
- so it's like, OK, in order to get unanimity,
- are we going to have to water things down enough for everybody
- to agree?
- Or are we going to say, oh, we'll
- be OK with five or six votes in a document that's
- super robust?
- And as a body, what do we want to do?
- I don't--
- And do you think that's where the space of us discussing,
- what is the purpose of this document?
- That came into play last year during budget,
- where it was like, OK, we all voted
- for this, but then clearly, a lot of us were like, well,
- I mean, yeah, there are things on there that
- were make or break for me.
- I was happy for them to be included.
- I didn't want them to not be included,
- but that not being included in the budget didn't change.
- So whereas others said, no, the things that were in this thing
- was what we all expected, so maybe some conversation
- on what it is that we're adopting or sending,
- I think, is important, too.
- Yeah, yeah.
- But I'm certainly happy.
- I think personally, and I would advocate for an approach
- that sort of starts on, whatever is included,
- does anybody have an objection to the thing being included?
- And if there's an objection, let that be noted, right?
- But it's sort of like--
- That's a good approach.
- Thank you.
- I was just going to ask Jessica, what's the hit?
- What are we going to--
- and when does it happen for the city?
- So 37 million-- I don't know anything about this,
- Bill, I'm red.
- So 37 million over three years, what does that mean?
- Should that wait until we get through this, and then just--
- Oh, yeah.
- You're going to address that.
- OK, yeah.
- All right, thank you.
- I mean, this is like the last stage here.
- OK, yeah, definitely.
- So high-performing government, maintain government
- infrastructure, which doesn't have any specific investments
- under it, and maybe as council members,
- we have some ideas about that.
- But maybe we don't, in terms of, say,
- how much money it costs to maintain different pieces,
- because that's a very practical on-the-ground thing
- that the department has now, but we don't necessarily
- know in terms of dollar amounts.
- And then improve functionality and work
- capacity of city council.
- And then those two specific things
- was the $200,000 in council office operations,
- and higher additional council staff.
- And those were the things that got over the 3.5.
- But then I think that there was another one that
- was just under 3.5.
- Got more money for consultants, I think.
- Something like that.
- But that could all maybe be rolled into the $200,000,
- and it's $200,000 the best number.
- I can't remember who said the $200,000 originally.
- It might have been Flaherty.
- Yes, it was.
- And I also don't know how that coincides with the budget
- that you presented.
- The department budget that I presented to the fiscal
- committee was less than that.
- Yeah, and so--
- It didn't utilize consultants and some strategic contractual
- components, potentially.
- Right, and so is that the number--
- does that number need to be adjusted?
- That's the kind of conversation I want to have later.
- Neighborhood livability and social health,
- increased food security for our residents.
- Isabel carried that investment over directly from last year
- about incentives to develop grocery stores and food
- deserts, and then aiding the low-income residents
- by doubling Jack Hopkins, expanding,
- and continuing direct grants.
- So I think mostly-- Isabel, I think mostly you did this work.
- Thank you to kind of take some of those specific investments
- and backtrack them into common objectives.
- And that's very helpful.
- Public safety, investing in a non-police community response
- team, and then a slight rephrase from last year's objective
- about a similar thing, housing and homelessness,
- maintaining safe housing by continuing hand support
- programs, and then the housing summit, the bonding
- or otherwise funding a land bank and trust.
- And this is, of course, another interesting--
- this is maybe the first example of something
- that I'm going, how much is the city already helping
- the summit land trust?
- Are they helping the summit land trust?
- How is that relationship working right now?
- Is that a new investment, or do we just
- need to be more explicitly shown how we're currently
- investing in that space?
- And is it making a difference?
- Do we need to--
- So this stuff tells with what I was reporting on the last time
- that we met, is that we primarily
- have talked about what most people think about
- as investments or enhancements.
- What we haven't touched on is continuing and stopping
- this stuff, which would be the other two categories of things.
- And so to that point--
- and that might be useful in framing
- to say that most of this is about enhancements,
- if you will, and investments we'd like to see happen.
- And this shouldn't be taken to mean
- that there's lots of good that happens
- that we're in support of, but that's
- been outside of our conversation so far.
- Yeah, I mean, that's how I saw the government transparency
- thing.
- I think the administration is working on that,
- and I just write them to keep working on it.
- Well, and I think that we're in--
- I mean, legal compliance is usually the lowest bar to jump,
- but I do think that that is a piece of transparency.
- We're noticing things.
- Doors are open.
- It's public.
- We're not doing things behind closed doors.
- Which is even more important with a restricted budget.
- Yes.
- And that also gets to the framing
- you've given here, which is as we're
- having these conversations, I think
- that one of the ways you might see the transparency is
- that maybe what we are saying is that we
- want to do more on the transparency front.
- Maybe that's what we're saying.
- And then if so, well, maybe we come up
- with ideas of how we could accelerate
- this work on transparency.
- And so it still is useful to say, look,
- there's a lot of support around transparency.
- So if that's the priority, let's push for it.
- But to your point about the summit,
- that to me also sounds more of a sort of continue in so far as.
- Yeah, I mean, I don't know how much we're
- supporting the current land drafts now at all.
- I mean, I think that they're doing really good work.
- They disappoint with what they've got.
- We gave them a chunk of our funds
- to get started with themselves.
- Health and Human Services, a couple
- of things about collaboration, both with Centerstone
- and the county, and then supporting mental health
- services for co-location.
- And that's another one of those.
- I have a lot of questions about how much that is currently
- being worked on in other spaces.
- I mean, I know that Beacon is working on some co-location
- in their new building when that gets up and running.
- And I think that there are some other pieces of that.
- Could we do more of that?
- Well, hopefully, Courtney will be there tonight
- because that was her.
- She wasn't there at our first discussion.
- Right.
- And then equity also scored highly
- to incorporate it as a value without specific investments.
- There was a specific $200,000 to $400,000.
- I can't remember how it was framed right now,
- but that scored below the three, I think.
- So how do we do that?
- Are we doing that correctly?
- Do we need to just continue doing it?
- Do we need to enhance what we're doing, et cetera, et cetera?
- And then transportation and mobility was all--
- all of this was between the three and 3 and 1/2.
- Improve current safety.
- I'm sorry to go back to that.
- I wonder if, as we phrased it, if it isn't actually
- more of a transparency question than it is an equity question
- per se.
- Because the ways that we've talked about equity a lot
- is more about having some way of measuring
- how we're doing equity.
- So in all of our decision making,
- you think about equity and then we
- can score ourselves on equity and those type of things
- that would have downstream effects, we would hope,
- of us actually then putting investments into equity.
- But that's a good thought there.
- I don't agree with that.
- Well, I think that some department has incorporated
- more just because they understand it or they've
- had more training.
- And maybe what they do is more obviously related to equity,
- like CFMD, but I think others really see it
- as a separate thing.
- And if that would be separate, it should not be seen.
- So I think there's more than transparency there.
- Exactly, and actually, as you say that too, again,
- thinking through how useful this is as a document
- was sent to the office of the mayor,
- that's a great point of worth saying, look,
- this is something we want to see.
- We'd like to talk about how we made that happen.
- Why-- where are we--
- I think it's the Otter there.
- Wait, what is that?
- Where is the OK button?
- It's on the [INAUDIBLE] screen for the other module.
- It's OK.
- If someone hit the OK on their Otter, it's [INAUDIBLE]
- Is it-- it's not this physical device?
- No, I moved the mouse.
- It's not on mine, either.
- Well, we'll work around it.
- Is Eric in the meeting?
- Yes.
- And there's another person with an Otter.
- I could remove that.
- Eric, would you be able to click OK?
- We're showing a pop-up screen that
- seems to be related to your Otter.
- There's also the possibility that he's not in the meeting,
- that his Otter joined.
- No, I'm in the meeting.
- What are you saying?
- It's auto.
- Oh, no, it was us.
- Yeah.
- Oh, my god.
- Did we just lose Zoom?
- No, because it's--
- No, you're still there.
- And my-- so what are you seeing on the screen?
- I don't mind, Eric.
- It wasn't you.
- It was our technical difficulties in the meeting.
- OK, thank you.
- Thank you for all your work.
- He can't see the screen anymore.
- Just as an FYI to everybody out there online,
- we can no longer see the big TV.
- But you can still see us.
- I heard it.
- It made a noise.
- I'm still--
- I'm at-- yeah, it's still going.
- I'm still in the meeting.
- OK.
- Yeah, I understand, too.
- Oh, there we go.
- Wonderful.
- I think we do need to move on.
- I think that transportation mobility is
- the last one on the letter.
- So any other--
- So we will talk about this tonight.
- Are there any--
- Dave and Asok, do you have any major concerns or advice
- for tackling this tonight?
- No concerns.
- Advice, as I already shared.
- No, I'm curious to hear what people say.
- I think I'm of the mind that the council really
- has the most effect in how the budget is
- structured in our requests.
- If we try to remain a unanimous vote,
- it's a stronger impact, if we're all willing.
- And frankly, given that this is--
- soon means a year.
- Maybe we don't get to the Ferris station for another year,
- or what have you.
- I think all these priorities were good ones.
- And they're due.
- I would be appreciative, though, to hear
- Jessica's breakdown on things at the beginning,
- just to keep us sober when we're talking about these things.
- Jessica, I don't know if you're going to talk about this tonight
- or today, but I'm curious about the ED lid
- and where it's been going frequently this year.
- Because we had an objective of putting it in different buckets
- when we initiated that.
- And so that's part of the discussions.
- Maybe not tonight, but sometime?
- It was trapped in the budget proposal.
- Yeah, we have tried to keep it in the budgets and then
- buckets that you all--
- So quality of life, public safety, essential services,
- and flying it.
- OK, and then the other thing is that some of this
- is discretionary.
- So when we're talking about maybe cutting funds or shifting
- funds in order to make budget cuts,
- be good to know what you consider,
- what my colleagues consider to be discretionary
- or to be essential.
- Yeah, and that's another thing that everybody
- will have a different opinion about that.
- I do want to share that information with you
- so that you have it.
- It's so hard to share so much information at one time.
- But I've got some things to show you today
- so that you can start to see some general numbers
- and some ways to slice information.
- It isn't pretty.
- It's Excel 2013, so there's not a lot you can do.
- Well, I'm also keeping in mind that we're probably
- going to be hit by federal budget cuts too.
- And I'm really concerned about BT, Bloomington Tram.
- So I don't mean to get there.
- But just to say that I'm getting very
- antsy about how we're going to be able to fund things
- in the next few years.
- Transit will be very affected by federal cuts.
- And then most of all of our other federal money
- goes to the hand department for the CDBG.
- Let's move-- try to get through our agenda.
- So let's open it up to public comment
- on what we've just talked about, the gauging council
- budget priorities and the structuring our discussion
- with the mayor's administration.
- Are there any people in the public
- who want to comment on that at this point?
- Yes, Mr. M.G. You want to come to the table
- so you get captured on the--
- Sure.
- Just a couple-- Christopher M.G. from the Greater Bloomington
- Chamber of Commerce, thank the committee on this.
- Just one thing to note, I like the cost on the chart
- with the input from the council members.
- But put a little X on if it's ongoing or not one time.
- I think the one thing I've learned from the SB 1
- is that down the line, the cuts get more severe.
- So looking at the budget to limiting your ongoing expenses
- and your ongoing commitments I think
- is going to be a big, big deal.
- And I just want to reiterate Council Member Rallo's statement
- about the ED-LIT and budget cuts.
- And we sort of have to have a separate meeting sometime
- on sort of looking at some hard facts on where we sort of go
- on that and a strategy moving forward.
- I know the chamber is looking into where we might kind
- of come across on that.
- But I just want to thank you for your time.
- And I'll see all of you tonight.
- Thanks for sharing.
- Thank you.
- Anybody online care to give a public comment at this time?
- Don't see any hands raised.
- So let's turn it over to Comptroller McClellan
- for some reports, maybe some context on SB1.
- We only have about half an hour left.
- So I know you have more data than that.
- But whatever we can get to you.
- I think talking about SB1 will be the best use
- of our time.
- But before I start, I want to let you
- know that I have an Excel list of all of our fund
- numbers, and the revenue source, and the authorizing code,
- and the fund number, and what it can be used for,
- and the departments that are in it.
- It was first created by an intern.
- And then I've checked it.
- So it says draft on it.
- So don't take it as gospel yet.
- I still haven't checked it off.
- I haven't double checked all the code citations, for one thing.
- But it's pretty good.
- It's a pretty good start.
- I'll just send that to you.
- And I also have a debt special, again.
- It was in the 2024 budget packet.
- But I've updated it to include the 2024 GO bonds
- and the Convention Center bonds.
- So I can just send that to you.
- And on bonds, a lot of them are paid by property taxes.
- So that's a separate tax rate.
- And so that's taken care of.
- We'll always get a tax rate to cover those.
- And a lot of them are paid by TIF.
- So those are always paid out of TIF.
- Those will be fine.
- There's the 2022 ED lit bond, the public safety bond.
- That's one that's in the budget that we have to budget for.
- And then the Convention Center bonds
- are kind of their own thing, too.
- So just bear that in mind when you look at what
- the debt that is due each year is.
- I think it's close to $20 million.
- But that is sort of taken care of by other mechanisms.
- So it's not affected by SB1 changes?
- And it won't be affected by SB1 changes.
- Is that just civil city, or is that utilities as well?
- Not just civil city.
- Civil city, right.
- Yeah.
- Utilities debt has to be funded by-- it is huge.
- And it has to be funded by their rate.
- So every time they have a rate study, yes.
- So that should be also taken care of with that, too.
- All right.
- Those are the documents I prepared for you.
- I'm going to go into kind of another SB1 overview.
- I'm not Eric Reedy, but I'll do my best.
- I'm going to share my screen.
- Let's see here.
- It's very slow.
- Four different times.
- Anything.
- Share, share, share, share, share.
- You made it out of me.
- Thank you.
- [LAUGHS]
- And then just pick the right screen.
- I know they're off screen.
- Yeah.
- [LAUGHS]
- I think that's big enough.
- All right.
- I'm going to bring my laptop up here, but you didn't change.
- So I'm going to--
- I'm going to talk about Lit with you,
- but the beginning of my shivu is an overview of what
- is happening for taxpayers.
- What's happening, they're getting different homestead
- credit deductions.
- They're getting more deductions.
- '65 and over is getting more of a deduction.
- All of these are increasing.
- So people who are in the 1% cap to homestead properties,
- they live in their home, they'll start
- seeing property tax savings.
- More about that.
- I didn't create these charts.
- I screenshotted these from one of the presentations
- that I attended just for my own notes and just for myself.
- And I think that those are on the ones that got sent out
- related to the panel last week.
- Oh, they were?
- I just think so.
- They shouldn't have been because I didn't use it.
- This is my own private Word document that I have.
- Oh, I think the first two.
- Because you said you screenshotted those.
- From a different presentation that was not real.
- Yeah, and they still haven't looked that interesting.
- Yeah, this is from a different municipal advisor.
- 2% personal, 2% there's different standard deductions.
- You don't really need to worry about this, OK?
- You have savings for taxpayers.
- This is great for taxpayers.
- And here's my notes to myself.
- Legislative service agencies didn't have an update yet
- as of April 14.
- Business, personal, and property.
- All of these things Reedy has looked at and said
- it's not going to affect us that much,
- except we will start losing more tax revenue to our cap.
- Reedy is doing a parcel by parcel analysis
- of how all of those deductions is
- going to affect our property tax and affect our cap.
- We're going to find out how much tax revenue we're going to lose.
- When?
- Yes.
- All right.
- Same question, I think.
- When?
- Assuming now, we will know.
- I don't know exactly when, but as soon as possible.
- What does that mean?
- May, you think?
- Yeah.
- Within May.
- Okay.
- Definitely between May.
- Okay.
- Good.
- Yeah.
- So there are changes coming to local income tax, and the first thing I think you should
- know is that this is going to be beginning in 2028.
- So all of our memo buckets for income tax are going to stay the same.
- We have public safety lit, ED lit, and certified shares.
- But in 2027, the city council, in 2027, the city council is going to have to vote on the
- city municipal lit rate.
- Your max city rate is 1.2%, and all the buckets go away.
- You just get 1.2% of the taxable income in the municipal boundaries of Bloomington.
- So in with the adjusted gross income of people who live in Bloomington, that's the base for
- that 1.2%.
- And the trend, the trend in Indiana is that people with more money live out on land and
- the county and unincorporated areas, and people that make a little bit less tend to live on
- the smaller parcels and the slightly smaller older houses in the city.
- And so we're assuming that we're going to see a drop in our lit because our base is
- going to be much smaller.
- So the maximum lit will be 1.2%?
- Yes.
- What is our, so currently, currently PS lit is?
- Can I switch my screen to another really cool spreadsheet that I made that I think will answer
- all of your questions?
- I love your excistions.
- Alright, stop, share.
- I'm going to share, share this.
- Share.
- Alright, don't, yeah, don't worry about this, can we make the part that we have to worry
- about bigger?
- Yeah.
- Bigger.
- Alright, good.
- So the current is 2.14%.
- And we're in capped at 1.2%?
- Oh, but some of that isn't ours, right, correction, rehab, so.
- Okay, so we're counting what I've missed.
- Okay.
- Currently, currently on, wait, let's talk about on the 8, on the adjusted gross income
- of the whole county, and the adjusted gross income of the whole county is 4.4 billion.
- And so, 0.948% of 4.4 billion, that's the total collections for certified shares.
- So for all these different buckets and all these different rates, it's taking from that
- number.
- And then these are divided, this is divided by property, like your share, property tax
- levy, others are, a couple others are population, most of them are property tax levy.
- So then these total amounts are distributed out to the other units based on property tax
- levy or population, yes.
- So the 0.25% public safety lit is on the whole county, not just on the city of Bloomington.
- And so then that money that gets collected, some of it, well, actually, most of it goes
- to dispatch.
- So dispatch is county-wide.
- Yeah.
- Some of it's dispatch, it goes to dispatch, some goes to the county, city, I can't remember
- if Alexville gets any, yes.
- Okay.
- All these are, I don't know, broken out to the different units.
- So what is the 1.2% that we're allowed is for the city?
- Yes.
- And so what's going to, so this is current, what's going to happen down here is that these
- are all the different rates that are allowed county-wide, but we just did municipal rate
- 1.2%.
- And so what I did here is I asked, I said, what if our AGI is only three billion?
- That's how much we're going to raise.
- This is how much we're getting now.
- That's how much three billion we'll raise if our AGI goes down to, we need, we need at
- least 3.3 billion AGI to get the same amount of width.
- And this is a formula, these are all connected so we can play around with these numbers and
- change the numbers and see how much we're going to get.
- But right now that, that 3 billion for wages within the city limits is just an estimate?
- Total estimate.
- How do we actually find that out or is that something that we can really only find out
- after the fact?
- Because people like change jobs in the middle of the year.
- Exactly.
- The DLGF, the DLGF has until 2027 to figure that out.
- They do not know, they've tested, they're testing it in Hamilton County first.
- But property tax, like what we are going to actually get, say in 2026 of property tax
- money is already going to change, right?
- So I read we're going to be down as a county 10 million, approximately, how much of that
- is you?
- We're going to be down as a county 37, oh, just next to the other point.
- I don't know.
- And then it gets incrementally worse.
- I don't know how much of that.
- Yeah.
- So Jessica, currently we have 1.888%.
- So we add the certified shares, public safety and PS and economic development rates to get
- what our current rate is.
- Is that correct?
- Because we, even though we share that with the county, we only get the portion now that's
- on the county residence, county residence.
- Our current rate, do I have that somewhere here, right?
- I'm sharing my screen with them.
- So wouldn't it make sense that it's those three added together?
- Our city rate, right.
- It's something like that.
- It's quite a bit less.
- It's a higher rate, but it's going to be on a smaller base.
- It's going to be on a smaller gross income, adjusted gross income.
- No, but currently we get 0.948 plus 0.25 plus 0.69, which is 1.888, and we're going to have
- to cut back to 1.2.
- Oh, I see what you're saying.
- Is that correct?
- No, well, our actual distributions is what we need to look at.
- That needs to be like a separate calculation, so it's like, we don't get that this creates
- that full amount.
- Yeah, so we're actually getting a different rate in the city, and I have that somewhere.
- It's all going to be a moot point in a couple of years.
- We've got to figure out how much money we need and what our AGI is, and then what kind
- of rate we need to pass in 2027.
- But for the year 2026, we're just really screwed because our lit's going to stay the same,
- but we're going to have less property tax revenue.
- Our lit's going to stay the same, which is good because we're not going to lose any lit.
- We shouldn't lose any lit next year.
- So we're losing property taxes.
- We're going to lose a little bit of property tax.
- Yes?
- I have a question.
- Not really my place, but I hear someone in the audience.
- When you said they need to pass the rate in 2027, is that something that they do at the
- beginning of the year, or did they do it as part of the budget process?
- When does that have to happen, or do you know yet?
- I don't know yet.
- It hasn't been told, they haven't been talking about it like it's part of the budget process.
- I think it's definitely going to be a separate process, but I don't know yet.
- Okay.
- But yeah, we should plan for them to have some meetings to do that before the budget
- process.
- We should plan for them to do that before the budget process so that we know how much
- revenue we're going to get, and that's all, you know, for budgeting.
- Yeah.
- So, that's going to be the last year, if that's not saying, yeah.
- Okay, this, all this fun stuff over here, it says taxpayer impact based on a taxpayer
- household.
- And this is like, if you, if your household makes $150,000, come all the way down here
- and see how much, oh my gosh, income tax that household will be paying compared to this
- is current 3, 3,200 and this would be just at the full, full maximum rate, 43.50.
- But like the full maximum rate, then there's like nowhere to go after that.
- Right.
- Then you're really capped.
- Yeah.
- So, if you have some additional services that you need, like something else comes online
- that you want to find revenue for, you know, like the county is doing the jail, they were
- able to use the special jail rates, the city, there's something the city really needs to
- do, or you just shift around what you're already using your revenues for.
- We can bond with property tax rates, but then of course we need to budget for those payments
- and the interest on bond.
- Yeah.
- I'll go, I'm going to stop share this and go back to that other document to see if there's
- anything else that we should talk about share this document, share, all right, all right.
- You are the, you have the power over that lit rate.
- There's no local income tax council, just the city council will vote on your municipal rate.
- It's the max is 1.2%.
- That's starting next year.
- But no, that's what's started, but you have to vote on in 2027 effective 2028.
- So as far as PS lit, we'll still have it next year.
- Yes, we'll still have it.
- And we'll still have it in 2027, we'll still have it in 2027 too, but both of those years,
- 26 and 27, we're going to have reduced property tax revenue without increased revenue from
- any other place.
- Correct.
- That is correct.
- You've got it.
- All right, maximum levy growth quotient was capped again at 4%, even though it was estimated
- to be a 5% or 6% growth about the cap.
- So in real numbers, our 2024 property tax levy was $37.2 million and 4% growth will
- give us $38.6 million, not very much.
- And then-
- So that's capped for next year.
- Yes.
- So this has been, yeah, this is the cap for next year.
- This has been status quo for the last three years.
- The legislature has capped property tax growth, even though they have this formula that they
- all agreed on that we're just supposed to take the natural growth of your county and
- apply it to your growth and property taxes.
- We don't get that anymore.
- And then another thing that is going to be a big deal for cities and counties is there
- is another step added to our budget hearings.
- If you want the property tax rate in the levy, well, if you want the property tax rate to
- increase, you have to hold a special hearing that's going to increase over next year.
- You have to hold a special hearing separate from your budget hearing 15 days before your
- budget hearing to approve raising that rate.
- So the thing that's currently capped at 4% will be capped at 0% unless you do this extra
- step.
- No.
- We're going to have our property taxes capped at $38 million, and your property tax rate
- is based on your property taxes, the $38 million, your AV, which is like $5 billion for us,
- assessed
- value.
- Thank you.
- And that gives you your rate.
- So when your AV changes, your rate also changes.
- So to raise the $38 million that you need, you have to apply a rate to your assessed
- value.
- If you ever want to raise that rate to get the property taxes that you need to get anyway
- that you are approved to get, you have to have a preliminary public hearing before the
- budget hearing to do that.
- Whereas before we could just do that at the budget hearing?
- Yeah.
- That was not a separate step.
- It just happened as a result of your budget hearing.
- Your budget hearing was like, that was a chance for taxpayers to come and say, we don't like
- this budget because it raises our tax rate, now they're giving an additional sort of transparency
- around that rate.
- And that's the thing where last year, the mayor was like, I don't want to raise the
- rate.
- We're going to make our budget meet the same rate that we're at right now based on what
- our assessed value was.
- Am I remembering that right?
- Yeah, you are.
- Yeah, definitely.
- Last year, our rate was going to drop because our assessed value improved, and so we got
- the GO bond and that adds to our rate and that kept our rate at the same level.
- So if your assessed value doesn't grow and it drops, your rate is going to go up.
- So our assessed value tends to keep on rising.
- So just to cut to the chase, it looks like in 2026, we're going to be short millions
- of dollars.
- Are you... flush that out for me, because of property taxes, I just want to make sure
- that you are...
- The implications of SB1 on property taxes, about corresponding ability to raise funds
- through LID.
- Right.
- At least we were to...
- Right.
- Act quickly or something.
- Right.
- But are there any other means to raise revenue?
- Working meters?
- Well, that...
- I don't want to do that either.
- No, nobody wants...
- It's only for people.
- You know, there is a...
- Some of you may know that Parks is doing a capital or a master plan study, and part of
- that is to find true cost of all of their programs and services, and really trying to
- decide what things do we want to offer at a low cost, like teaching kids to swim.
- That's just great for our population.
- We want kids to know how to swim.
- Giving adult semi-professional swimmers swim classes is something they should pay fully
- for.
- We shouldn't subsidize that.
- There's that balance between what are we providing that's a public good, and what are we providing
- that's like...
- It's great.
- People should just...
- So, you would do it at the charge of fee, or would you just do...
- No.
- Yeah.
- But also, outside of parking, there's also, to your example, we could increase the cost
- of renting out the pool, and there's lots of levers like that that we have as well.
- Exactly.
- It costs like $30 right now to rent a pool with it.
- You're absolutely right.
- Right.
- So, that's a huge...
- That's not a controller-level task, but that is something that we can pass on to departments.
- If we want to do that, I think the administration is going to say, "Okay, departments, look
- at your costs, and let's really do a cost analysis of what these programs really cost."
- The consultant that the parks department is working with for their master planning is
- really awesome with that.
- Yeah.
- So, yeah, there are other ways to raise revenue are using your services and partnering with
- other organizations that do the same work, and so kind of like sharing the load and trying
- not duplicating efforts, kind of taking a hard look at your budget and trying to decide
- which, you know, you guys talk about that all the time.
- I know you're well-nourished and trying to figure out where we are doing things in the
- budget, doing things other people are already doing.
- Okay.
- But in theory, hold on, in theory for 2026 though, like assuming our assessed value increases,
- then we could also increase our percentage, and then that, would that, like couldn't we
- do that?
- Because like last year, we can't, because we're probably not allowed to.
- We can't, this is, we can't raise more than this.
- Okay.
- This is how much property childs we can get, and that's why we do things like we got a
- bond.
- Okay.
- Problem number 117 in this bill is that bonds.
- Right.
- This doesn't have any pretty pictures, so let me try, this is from the Reedy, this is
- from the Reedy outline.
- Before you go on, I'm sorry, I wanted to make sure I understood from the previous page.
- So it's the maximum levy for 2026, $38,693, that's the levy.
- Yes.
- They haven't given that to me yet.
- That's not their official number, but that's basically what the number will be.
- All right.
- So last year, we, the only way to raise your rate and get a little bit more property taxes
- is to get a GO bond, because that's a property tax bond.
- You can have your maximum levy and get some bonds and stabilize your rate.
- Now all new GO bonds issued after May 1st, after tomorrow of this year, for a short term,
- five years or less, are subject to a one-year cool-off period.
- That applies to us.
- So we, because we got a bond in 2024, so it is subject to a one-year cool-off period before
- we get another GO, short-term GO bond.
- So we couldn't get one in 2025.
- Correct.
- We have to wake up 2026 to get another.
- Correct.
- The, and this applies to only, bonds aren't subject to referendum.
- So bonds that aren't subject to referendum are your small bonds, your big bonds, they're
- already subject to referendum, so they have all kinds of other controls at home.
- They're the big project bonds.
- Okay.
- So let's say cool-off, let's see, control projects, threshold, something about the thresholds.
- I just copied this for my son.
- Wait, so schools cannot place project referenda on ballot the same year?
- Oh yeah.
- Projects expire, does that mean that schools are going to have a gap year?
- Oh my god.
- All right, so expect people to run their government and their schools.
- Well, I mean, they seriously can't, I mean, that means that you have to like fire and hire
- teachers every two years.
- Like that's...
- I think I'm basically done with this.
- I can clean this up for tonight, um, is there anything that...
- So for the GEO bonds, that's a way to exceed the maximum property tax rate, trying to get
- my terms correct.
- What are you trying to say, that's a way to get like...
- You said that's a way for us to get more money, we can exceed a certain maximum, what is that
- maximum that we would be exceeding?
- Our maximum levy.
- We can get a little bit more property taxes than our maximum levy.
- But we're not going to be able to do that this year.
- Correct.
- And then our rate will go down, and the next year we will want our rate to go up, and we'll
- have to do...
- But we won't be able to because we're going to be...
- The special public hearing, we have to do the special public hearing.
- But that happens every year?
- Every year.
- Yeah, in October, by that October 7th date.
- Yes, you're right.
- Yes.
- If we want to increase.
- Yes.
- Which we'll end up having to do.
- Yes.
- Because...
- I think that you should just put it on the calendar as a housekeeping item, and yeah,
- just always be prepared to raise the rate.
- Will you help us all remember that when we're setting up the calendar in November and December
- for next year?
- My people in this room will have a very large amount into that calendar, so this is my distributing
- that memory item to everybody in this room.
- You're welcome.
- All right.
- We only have five minutes left, so I'm going to stop here.
- Yes, we need to have time for public comment as well.
- Thank you.
- You're welcome.
- Thank you for that crash course.
- Thank you for the crummy news.
- It just helps to hear it a lot, and yeah, there's a lot more information, very complicated.
- Is there any public comment on the SB1 crash course that we just had?
- I do not see anybody.
- So back to the committee.
- Before we adjourn, are there other questions for Jessica at this point?
- So you'll do a similar presentation tonight, maybe.
- I can do that.
- I feel like...
- Maybe it was less data on the website.
- That's very doable.
- So we're going to talk about LIT, we're going to talk about maximum levy growth compulsion.
- I think it's most important to talk about 2026, because that's what we're specifically
- talking about right now, is going like, okay, we don't know the exact numbers for what's
- going to happen in 2026, but that concept that we're going to lose property tax revenue
- and we're not going to have a way to get that back next year.
- Is there any ballpark of how much of a hit we would take with property tax?
- I'm trying to remember that.
- Yeah, I have a ballpark from before it was passed, and I don't think that those numbers
- are changed too much, so I can give a ballpark.
- I don't have enough.
- Yeah.
- I mean, if you're comfortable, it's giving it something close to what you said.
- Yeah.
- I'm comfortable giving it as a ballpark.
- The county, I forwarded something that the county sent us that they have some documentation
- about the big number.
- That's where you got the 10 million, I don't know if they have them.
- And I know that there's other sites that have documented what the schools are going to lose.
- So those two things can get put together to at least narrow down what city, county, library
- combined or not and then we're a subset of that.
- Yeah.
- I can't help but think we're going through a time of austerity when you think about triage
- in some ways.
- Well, I'm really concerned about our wait times, our salaries because we increased salaries
- last year, assuming that we were going to continue that and be able to continue that
- because of our projected property taxes.
- I have a meeting at 3.30 and I'll stay until 3.30, but I'm going to have to run out here
- right at 3.30.
- Yeah.
- I agree.
- Yes, Lisa?
- Can you point me to maybe a site that explains how the AGI would be estimated?
- Okay.
- Do you have any information or no information?
- Okay.
- I don't.
- I don't have any, like, googling, you know, some state agencies and seeing if they have
- anything out there about, like, state budget agency or DLGF.
- I think those would be the two that have to do it because those are the two that deal
- with it now.
- Yeah.
- Right.
- Yeah.
- Okay.
- Yeah.
- I don't know.
- I haven't heard anything.
- All right.
- Thank you, Jessica.
- Thank you.
- Thank you all.
- Our next meeting is when?
- 14th?
- Sounds right.
- Two weeks.
- It's odd timing that we're having a meeting on the 14th and that same evening we have
- a discussion with the mayor.
- It seems it would be more helpful to have a meeting the week before, or just next week.
- I have that held on my calendar for the 7th.
- Is that feasible for the Office of Committee Members?
- I can do it.
- I mean, that's fine.
- I think that makes more sense even though we'll have a meeting that evening too, but it won't
- be.
- At least this way we can make some plans for the meeting with the mayor.
- Some strategies.
- So you anticipate 2 to 3.30 again on the 7th?
- What's the availability with the 7th?
- We can move that to the 8th.
- Yeah, we have a meeting on the 7th.
- Thank you for your flexibility.
- 2 to 3.30?
- And they're welcoming it right now.
- Thank you.
- Lisa doesn't want to be available on that.
- And so then we're canceling the meeting on the 14th?
- Yeah.
- But we're still keeping the meeting on the 28th?
- I think so.
- I'm just trying to clear up on my studio.
- So Sophia, I assume that you'll get that invitation sent out pretty soon, so I don't need to...
- I think there should maybe be a vote to cancel?
- No?
- I always err on the side of caution.
- I don't know.
- What, Lisa?
- As a committee, do we need to decide?
- I would cancel it.
- Great.
- I move to cancel the meeting on...
- I move to reschedule the meeting from May 14th from 2 to 3.30 to May 7th from 2 to 3.30.
- Okay.
- All those in favor, say aye.
- Aye.
- Any opposed?
- All right.
- We will do that.
- Thank you.
- I appreciate you willing to meet with us November.
- Sure.
- And it should be a good discussion tonight that we have like, you know, a hundred different
- things to consider.
- It'll be interesting, at least.
- It's depressing, actually, and it's a thing that's happening.
- All right.
- We are adjourned.