- I will call to order this meeting of the special fiscal committee council for Wednesday, October 8th.
- And we have here on Zoom, I'll let you introduce yourselves. Committee members on Zoom, we have. I'm
- Dave Rollo. We will increase your volume so we can hear you. Dave Rollo, I'm present.
- Isaka, sorry, I'm present. I hope he's fast forward. And it's about people's mess. We also have Mark
- Holden and Deputy Clerk Bossley and Administrator or attorney later and Deputy Administrator or attorney
- later. And our controller Jessica. Okay.
- We have no public in the group, so we have a few on my end. Any provisions to the committee member talk
- or post for the agenda? Yeah, that looks okay. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Well, let's move on to
- So adding salaries for elected officials, of course, we're going to have a conversation, another conversation
- tonight during the special session of council. We have the responses from the survey that I sent out
- last Friday. So I thought we could take a look at that and see if there are any preliminary conclusions
- or suggestions for what we need to really focus on tonight.
- Um, so we did have all nine council members respond. Some people didn't answer all the questions. Um,
- but I think there's some interesting data there. Maybe, um, but we're back up to know the number of
- questions. But the last question is that my question about the COLA only phrase, and I think was it
- like eight of eight of nine people or seven or nine of us said,
- Yes to that question, I think. So it might be somewhat of a, you know, maybe there's not a lot per se
- to discuss for this cycle. It seems that most people are of the opinion that this is something to address
- it here. But then, so it's all like, okay, so my proposal right now is actually almost that we work
- backwards on the farm rather than, see what I'm saying? Because the question before that was when do
- you do that change?
- I'm doing this remembering that I might be wrong, but when you do a change and we have, there were some
- various proposals there on what that looks like. Right. It was number six out of 10 that, you know,
- in the uncertain financial future or do you think elected officials should receive at most a two plus
- seven percent COLA? And we have seven yes and two no. So that's pretty clear. Right. So,
- But I think the data is useful for the framing of the conversation to come. And then there's some suggestion
- about when that conversation should happen. Believe my thinking. But it's also worth discussing later.
- this concept of number one and maybe putting it backwards instead, because then I would start by talking
- about what we actually have to produce, which is the OMS, and then work backwards to like, how should
- this be done in future years? But there's also a majority, six out of nine, should have some value space
- in the people method. And there's not clear agreement that the method that we came up with last year is,
- the premier option, though most people did agree with principles established last year. I don't remember
- if we were neutral about them. So that would be part of the discussion that we might also take more
- than one year. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. And I also want to say that I invited the clerk and the mayor
- groups to present tonight, you know, to make a statement about their vision of their own salaries and
- other applicable comments related to that. And then also participate in the discussion part of those
- they seen, like as is applicable, you know, in terms of like what it said, you have some indecisive
- lines, say the thing. Like. Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm not gonna.
- I'm not going to tell you that you have to participate in discussion, and I'm not going to say you can't
- be there, so whatever. I think it raises an interesting point, actually, which is, again, thinking about
- starting backwards and then forwards. And there are some other things about pegging. I think we've seen
- a really interesting conversation about pegging our student mayor. But it actually raises the point, then,
- As relates to the mayor and the clerk, we have a very expansive list of reasons for our own, for our
- own justification. And then we get to theirs and it's like some considerations, you know? So, so we
- might think about this year too. It's like, how did we, you know, especially if that is, if those are
- weighty decisions that then influence, you know, other things, I mean, maybe, maybe we really need to
- build out a little bit clearer. How do you set the mayor's salary?
- Yes. I know this wasn't inherently the time where I was invited to chime in, but I would like to ask
- a question in terms of structuring the salary ordinances, which might help in terms of your discussion
- as well as we move forward. There are other cities and towns that separate out the salary ordinances
- for each of the elected official groups. So you'll see the mayoral salary separate
- as one ordinance, and then the first salary ordinance, and then the council member's salary ordinance,
- Bloomington has tended to treat them as one big grouping. But even now, when you're talking about the
- framework, council member Asari was talking about how you have a lot of information for council members,
- and not as much, and not as much, and it might help in that also. I'm probably gonna get the same point
- again for the larger council, but my point is basically that
- some of the issues where if you get into a sticking point over a particular grouping of salary or salaries,
- that will actually ease up any functions and you don't have to go to places of dividing the question
- and running into everybody getting vetoed. It could just be one salary. I said that poorly. Okay. That
- makes more sense.
- I feel like it's to play it back to you to make sure that we got it though. I mean, yes. It's a waste
- of time. I think that as long as everybody's kind of nodding and saying, yeah, you understood my point.
- Three organs doesn't set a lot of organs. Yep. Same 10 minutes. Because then these organs have to have
- like their own rational and their own rationale and their own stuff attached to it.
- Well, it's similar to the concept under various rules, too, like dividing question. Right. But in the
- form of them. Yeah, especially I think another this ties into another question of should they really
- be considered as a property? Right. Should the council member salaries be a percentage of mayor salaries?
- What sort of can they really relate to each other or not? Because I don't think that's
- been agreed upon by the majority of the council. We're close. Yeah, so for tonight, we might, I mean,
- also depending on what we hear from the mayor and what further we might hear from the clerk. We could,
- you know, underline the point that
- seven out of nine council members saying that we shouldn't increase elected official salaries beyond
- OWA. So that may kind of settle it for this year. But then, so at least we can get that timely work
- done and we can talk about where to go from here. So I think ESOT had a lot of good ideas in here that
- would really merit more time for consideration and understanding conversation about. And I think others
- may also have more ideas that just didn't come out in the survey. I still don't know.
- Isabel and I have talked in outside of just informally on them. It's just brainstorming on different
- approaches possible here. I think that the way that I'm thinking about it right now is Michael, even
- within our framework that I think it's admirable that we created a framework.
- Each of the things though has significant drawbacks of, and so that's part of the question is like,
- how do we address, and I'm not getting now, I'm saying things poorly, which is not a comment. I'm like,
- what, you know, but it's like, how do we, it's like, how do we, how do you address the drawbacks in
- the design of this in ways that don't create
- problems that we can't get out of is I think part of the like I think that's part of the issue with
- the salary ordinance is that you can't reduce it fundamentally so so it's like so if we make a decision
- that's that's based on even if it's it's an open and all these things like there's going to be drawbacks
- to to our views right and so
- And then I try to outline some of those as best as possible in my response to you. I'm like, yeah,
- like this, like, I get this, I get where we're coming from in surface level, I get it, but these are
- some of the problems with it, right? And so that's what I'm trying to wrestle with is like, as you set
- these, how do you do it in a way that doesn't set us up to be in this, you know, like moral hazard category
- or we're in a workplace where we're suddenly paying city council members, you know, $50,000 or something
- like that.
- And there's no, there's no way you can't change that. That's, you know, which, which I suspect is similar
- to probably what happened in like Gary or something like that, right? That it's not like they have very
- high salaries for, you know, their university. Yeah, it was recent. I think that, um, last year doing
- that research, they, uh, did it because they really wanted to attract the high quality people because
- they were having such, I mean, it's such serious issues and struggles and challenges.
- that they really had some. And the argument here is like, I get that. And I think that there are some,
- as we heard last year, there's some evidence that, or at least that there's some academic evidence that
- says maybe that works. There's others that says it doesn't work. So we have some sort of
- the, the jury's out there. However, we can't go back on it is the, is the challenge. So it's like, we
- can't hide it. Let's see, let's see what this does. Exactly. Where we could see how that's done in Gary.
- I mean, I think it's recent, but I think it's, you know, like, like you happen to remember what the
- Gary, um, I can pull it up. So like when that went,
- When it when that increase happened because I know there was a big increase, but I think that it was
- within like the last five or so years so and so I don't know if. But then, but then it's part of the
- conversation that I think it's that's lost and I did raise this in my in my thing, albeit not well is.
- What we, we don't discuss and I think we can change on a year to year basis, up and down is benefits
- for the position so you know like can you think of a broader benefit package that
- you know, that maybe changes what it means to be having counseling. And obviously, like, we don't talk
- about the fact that we have the option of getting health insurance, for example, but, you know, are
- there other things that might fit in, you know, that other city employees get that we may not have a
- conversation of saying, actually, maybe that's what you can send to counsel to make up for, you know,
- the significant amount of work. It's not, you know, direct pay, as it were, but it's, you know,
- But I don't know if that's an area that we haven't much explored. That's true. And that's kind
- of interesting. But I would still say if the salary isn't enough to actually, say, meet a minimum cost
- of living, then you're going to have to have another job, or at least write a job in the household.
- So it's like, I don't have any current council members who are taking advantage of the city health insurance
- versus the health insurance that might be provided by their other full-time job or their spouse's other
- full-time job.
- Exactly. My guess is that it's a minority of council members right now just because of the nature of
- the way that we set up salaries. And the way, I mean, like in most places provide health insurance in
- terms of full-time jobs. Yeah. Well, I mean, I take advantage of it, too, because I know some staff
- doesn't provide health insurance. Right, right.
- No, I don't have the. No, I don't have it readily available. And I think, just for the purposes of pursuing
- that I think council members get the full city benefits that other full time sitting posted. No,
- there's no, we don't. What don't you get. Now we can't get a.
- Why did you start there? But the thing we don't get is this $20. I don't think you get contributions
- to the HSA. Do you guys want to see? No, I don't think so. Do you?
- Yeah, you sure. No, like, we can't, we can't do last I check and I feel like these things are flaps.
- I think that HR just various things. Um, but so with some of those like extra like health and wellness
- kind of benefits. Yeah.
- Those are different because I have to get some of those. Yeah. Or some of the retirement things as well.
- Reimbursement. Yeah, we don't get retirement. No. Yeah, I had to pay for reimbursement. I don't think
- it took me too long to get a health plan. Last I knew, because I looked into that at some point, and
- now I'm kind of like, I don't know. Do we get that? That's one of those that I'm already going to get
- changed again. Which one? The health plan. Oh, yeah. We get to use the health plan. I'm used to it.
- That's interesting, because when I looked into that and couldn't, they were like, I showed up and they
- saw me. There's some real lack of clarity there. And I was actually just thinking about that recently
- because they sent out that email around vaccination encouragement. And I was like, oh, that's interesting.
- I wonder if I actually applied for that or not. I wonder too. And I thought about asking, and I was
- like, I don't even know if I want to.
- I thought you guys had all of the basic health benefits. I didn't think about the massage or gym or
- bicycle reimbursements. I don't know if they still do the bicycle thing or not, which a lot of council
- members do benefit from. Sorry. I would like to ask Dave, because Dave was one of the, if you don't mind,
- You don't have to answer, Dave, but you were one of the three council members who said no to the question
- about, should the council create a value-based and repeatable method for sending salaries? Do you mind
- expounding on that a little bit? I'm just trying to understand that response. Did I say no or that I
- was neutral? You said no. It was the very first question, I think.
- Um, sorry, I'm trying to find my scrolling down to mine. Um, I think that, um, so I'm not opposed to
- it per se, but I think that what was lacking is that comparisons with peers was not part of this. Um,
- let's see.
- Well, that first question was about, should there be one at all? Not necessarily the one that was created
- last year. Should there be one at all? I was also cognizant of maybe what this calls for is, and we've
- done this in the past, is outside consultants to evaluate as opposed to the council. But that did happen
- last year.
- They did get the consultation last year. Well, yeah, that was a consultation, I guess. If a values-based
- means of setting salaries should be incorporated, then I think it's something maybe to work out with
- the consultant. Say this is the method that should be deployed. So I think that's
- where I was considering that, you know, should the council do it or should it be really up to objective
- body? Okay. So you're not fundamentally opposed to establishing a values-based and repeatable method?
- No. Yeah. You know, if I would, you know, could have expounded, it might have been clearer and maybe
- I can say that this evening. Okay. Yeah.
- Just for the record, I think my other major reticence to the proposal that was made last year was one
- was process. The discussion was overshadowed by the manner it came to the attention of the majority
- of the council. It just landed in our laps as opposed to
- a committee report that would, in other words, there was a resolution there as opposed to a committee
- report that then we could have discussed a bit before proceeding. That was one thing that worked against
- a fair hearing in a sense on the $45,000 proposal. The other one was, again, the comparison with peers.
- Either most equivalent cities have gotten it wrong, and then there should be evidence for that because
- we would be an outlier, or we in some way are very unique. We stand apart from our equivalent municipal
- legislative peers, and that could be the case too. Those are things worth exploring, but
- Those are my main sticking points when it comes to a significant increase in council salary. I think
- that did come across with integrating all your responses. Any other ideas for tonight so we can focus
- on that whole lighting breeze like that.
- We are first and then kind of discuss where to go from here. Which I have a feeling is fiscal committee
- go do something else. Well, remind me what our timeline is for it. We don't have to do this until the
- end of the year. Is that right? For the actual ordinance?
- It's supposed to be on like December 3rd or something. But I think that that was one of the things last
- year is that it was probably, what, around late September? Yeah. That it was like, oh, you have to do
- this. Oh, make this group. And, oh, like, yeah, work with the consultants. And, oh, so I mean, Dave,
- I appreciate you going like, yeah, we didn't get a report after that. There really wasn't time. Like,
- there literally wasn't a meeting before between those kinds of, because it really was.
- We were trying to pack a lot into a short period of time. And let's be clear, the reason was that for
- decades, we were not doing our job for Indiana code. We were letting the administration bring bill work.
- Right. And just without much discussion. And so last year, we're like, wait a minute, we're supposed
- to be doing this ourselves. So at least we've corrected that.
- Well, and I think on the bright side. Right. I think there's really like good reasons to have a body
- and can I be the ones to do it? Because then you have this whole like debate back and forth. Like you
- and the lateral person setting our salaries. But I think then it does get really, really potentially
- complicated and potential. So the fact that like other city councils across the state maybe are still,
- you know, around this same number, because I mean,
- how many of them have had significant increases because it is so intense to have these kinds of discussions
- or you just default to, you know, a mayor as an executive kind of doing it for you. So if we look at
- question eight, also that kind of indicates, you know, if we do consider an increase beyond the COLA,
- Should it be done in 2027 for the new council term? Should it be done in 2026 to take effect when somebody
- decides whether or not to run for council? So we do have some answers there that may dictate the timeline
- for establishing a systematic way of deciding this. Except that both of those have more nos than yeses
- in both of those places. That's true.
- And I frankly said no to both of them. I don't think that I'm going to ever back myself into this corner
- where I say something should only be done on certain years. Like that I, you know, it's like, well,
- no, I don't, you know, I think that, I think that it needs, I think that things generally speaking need
- to be done when they need to be done. And that may or may not fall near like that. I frankly wish that
- the last term council had dealt with the salary thing
- because the majority of them are cycling off, but they were not willing to do that. I wouldn't say they
- weren't willing, I think they didn't realize. I've had conversations about it early enough, or at the
- half end, and there was, from what I understood, a couple people that I talked to not willing to kind
- of rock that boat and have that conversation.
- All right, well, it's almost, excuse me if we can get back. Oh, no, sorry. I can say it at night. I'll
- just say it at night, but thank you. I'm just cognizant of the time because we only had until 2.30 today,
- I believe. I do have to leave at 2.30. I knew somebody had to. So I think this was helpful to frame
- tonight's discussion a little bit.
- Um, controller's updates. You did provide us with the reports. I included a fund balance report as of
- a couple of days ago. And so that just is the cash balance of every, the beginning balances of January
- 1st. The debits are the, um, is the revenue and credits are the expenditures.
- in ending balance. I was trying to make the math work and I thought debit is expenditure because that's
- the plain English but it's reversed. It's reversed. I was like, this is not. This is maddening, yeah.
- So what are debits? So debits in this report are the revenues and credits are the expenditures. It depends,
- it's just,
- Yeah. Why is that? That's because there's debits and credits mean different things. If it's a cash account
- versus an expense account, like there's lots of different kinds of accounts in accounting and in cash
- accounting.
- This is a running report off a cash account. It's really boring accounting rules. It's just accounting
- rules. It will never make sense. It just is what it is. This doesn't include a lot of things. It doesn't
- include revenues we haven't received yet like property taxes. It doesn't include the budget.
- It doesn't include expenses that are budgeted that haven't been spent yet. Is the income tax, have we
- received all of that, or is that also- That's monthly. No, it's in months. Yeah, that's monthly. So
- this is just as of the, that's what a fund balance, that's really what we can do for fund balance. And
- then I wanted to,
- Well, before I move on, do you have any questions for me about this report? I will say that I was at,
- you guys asked me to conclude consolidated TIF, and there's, or TIFs, there's consolidated TIF, Kinzer-Prow
- TIF, and the Bloomington Meridian TIF. The consolidated TIF receives about 17 million in revenue
- I mean, that is controlled by the RDC. It's a board appointed by the mayor and the city council. Do
- you want to share for the public who are watching her? I am not logged into this meeting. Maybe somebody's
- read this law. Do you guys want to put the packet up? Or do you guys want me to share it? We can always
- help you. Yeah, I don't know what you want us to do. Starts on page 39 of the packet, yes.
- I'll start at the packet. I included on bond, bond proceed funds like fund 4653, 2016 city geo bond
- proceeds. The city has projects still happening there. Are all the bonds in this list? Yes. Okay. So
- the bicentennial bonds are still projects going on there. But not CDU.
- No, not CDU. I didn't include any of their funds. And just to clarify, I'm the one who asked for this
- list. And I appreciate it. I think it just helps us to understand where we are at this point of the
- year and the fact that there are revenues that come in at different points.
- So you said the expenditures column, does that include what's it called? Money that is earmarked?
- Does not. What are those called? I would just call them budgeted expenses. Okay. But like where there's
- already a PO, but it hasn't been paid. Oh, open POs? No, it does not include that either. Okay. No,
- it only includes actual expenditures.
- And this is a full list of funds. It's the funds that have budgets in them. It's the funds that we use.
- There are a lot more funds that we are not using. And actually, let's see, I actually didn't include,
- there's bond payment funds, a fund that just gets property tax deposited into it, and then it zeros
- out when we can make the bond payments.
- I didn't include those. There's nothing happens in those funds except where it makes a home thinking.
- Dave, do you have a question? Yes. Well, it's a question regarding the consolidated TIF. Jessica, I
- just said this in the past and I think other council members concurred with this that
- The consolidated TIF is a pretty big area and it's deriving tax revenue from throughout the TIF, but
- probably in certain areas more than others. But the expenditures, I really don't have an idea of where
- they are mapped. And I think that it might be useful in the future for all of us to see on a
- actual physical map where the Tourette taxes are derived and where they are spent and for equity purposes
- to make sure that this TIF, it's covering areas, but are we taking revenue from one area and we're putting
- it somewhere else? I mean, surely we're doing that to some extent and maybe necessary, but it would
- be just good to visualize that. Is that something that you're interested in or that we could achieve?
- Yes, we can definitely achieve that. I can present that next time we meet. We've done that work. We
- haven't made a map, but I can tell you the projects that we did in 2024 in the TIF, and there's not
- that many, so it's just a handful. First Street reconstruction around Hopewell. B-Line's, the B-Line
- multi-use path by connecting it to 17th Street.
- The 17th street reconstruction project and hope, um, Hopewell East doing all the site work and prep
- and Hopewell East, um, building the tech center that called the forge, um, other, other work in the
- trades district, um, related to the infrastructure, building those roads and sidewalks and maintaining
- the mill. Um, let's see here.
- Those are pretty much the projects that we did last year. So it was mainly around Hopewell, the 17th
- Street reconstruction and the V-Line and then the trades district and the Pets Center. But I can present,
- yeah, I can keep that in mind to present that on a map and show you the numbers. Okay, just a quick
- follow-up. I heard through the grapevine from somebody that we had failed to get
- state funding for Hopewell Street construction that we had missed a deadline or something and that there
- is there any. I know that we are getting in that reimbursement for a lot of the road construction that
- we're doing there. I think all the projects have some level of state reimbursement, and I think one
- of the road projects there, the Jackson Street project that's going on now, I believe has ready funds.
- I'm awarded to it. We didn't fail to get available funds from the state that we were allocated.
- I got it. Dave, I think that's an MPO question. It's a great MPO question. MPO is actually presenting
- to council during the report time on the 22nd. Great. Thank you for that. I look forward to
- seeing such a map, I think will be very helpful for us. No problem. Great. Thanks. So Dave, I thought
- part of your question, maybe I misunderstood, part of your question was also you wanted to know where
- the property tax, increased property tax revenue was coming from. Is that right? And that would
- be interesting to me. Like, where are we actually getting most of the money
- into the TIFF that we are then spending on. Yeah. Well, yeah, that was part of it. Where is it derived
- and where does it end up? Yeah, is that, these are all to do desktop? Yes. I'll pull, I can pull personal
- numbers. I'm exchanging that assessed value and ask GIS to make a heat map. Cool, that'd be cool.
- Heat map, yeah. That would be nice if you could see the other thing, though.
- That moved over. Yeah, it's nice for me. I have a question about the funds. I've heard them talking
- about the TIF. Yes. Thanks. What's going on with our vehicle highway fund, which isn't negative? Yes,
- that stood out to me. That has revenues that come in every month, and I think that they've
- They spent on, they've been spending their budget, especially in the supplies and other services line
- faster than the revenues from the state have come in. So hopefully by the end of the year that those
- revenues from the state will catch up with the spending in the other categories. Well, I hope for what
- you mean. That's how it was fleshed in. Yes. The state tells us normal because like, are there more
- expenditures say during like,
- A prime kind of baiting and construction season. Right. Less elsewhere. Exactly. So we expect those
- expenses to start really sloping downwards, then the revenues will stay roughly the same. Yeah, exactly.
- And is that from gas and meat taxes? Yes, that is gas tax and excise tax. Those are all revenues in
- that fund. Gas tax and excise tax. Excise you pay when you register your vehicle.
- That's good. And that's based on like the county or like down to the city like just the county. That's
- only based on the county. Okay. So you share that with the county based on population? I think based
- on lane miles. Based on lane miles. It's the technical term for
- Yeah. Yeah. In your jurisdiction. Yes, it's not. Three things. One is why we spent any money from the
- rainy day fund. Why haven't we? Why haven't we? That's no zero. Oh, zero. You said at the beginning.
- Slipped, okay, got it. And then you said that in the beginning, I still looked at it again and saw exactly
- what I wanted to see. The second thing about the pension fund, so for fire employees, maybe just as
- an open-ended question, what is this fund? This is a good question. Sorry, the other part of the bottom
- of your question. This one, however.
- We keep a cash balance in there and we pay the police and we pay the police and fire pensions and then
- we submit what we pay to the state and the state reimburses us. Okay, so this goes, so there's a larger,
- there's a larger state fund that we basically transferred this money into every year or? No, we, well,
- let's see. We pay not,
- To get into the details, I'm going to have to bring Kelly in. I don't know exactly if we pay the state
- or if we pay the insurance company that pays the pensions. I have a feeling we pay the insurance company.
- But these are what we collect from their paychecks toward pension? No, we don't collect anything from
- any. And also, this is for past pensions. It's quite low, though, for the
- And this is, this is what it always runs. This is what it is. And I actually don't have, don't know
- a lot, a super lot about like how many, how many are on the plan? How many are we paying? What's the
- average amount? The plan is discontinued, right? This is only for people who retire. This is like, yes,
- this is for a discontinued plan. Oh, I didn't realize. So please currently don't have, don't get state
- funded pensions.
- because I thought that this was a whole these people do these are people that used to work for us and
- they're still on the old plan and then we also have the city pay into the state the big state plan for
- the people who are current okay okay so there's got it that's a separate that kind of so I'm
- Okay, but I didn't understand that there was a state separate thing now, because I knew that there was
- this big question about when people, because it used to be that you could only change a city's one cent,
- still keep your pension or something like that, and that changed last, I don't know, ten years or something
- like that, which has been a big thing for recruitment and it's caused us a lot of problems, because
- people could go anywhere.
- And so this is actually a past fund that no longer, so this just runs at this amount to fund, but at
- some point in some far off future, this will stop being a thing. And this just currently transfers from
- where? From general fund every year or? No, it's just the cash balance that's in this fund, the cash
- that is in this fund sits here and it's sort of like a closed loop. Hopefully the idea is that cash balance
- There's always there. So we make a payment and then we're reimbursed. Reimbursed from the state. Yes.
- Got it. So the only revenue is revenue from the state. Got it. And like this kind of funds distorts
- our budget because it's included in our budget. It's included in our budget. So things like this don't
- cost us any money, but they are included. Got it. Good question.
- I don't have a good answer for that. The new fire police pension. So is there not another fund for that?
- Like, I mean, maybe it's new enough that we don't. It doesn't need its own fine. That we don't, what
- we do is we take that out of their salary lines, like in the general fund and just send that to a payment
- that we just send up to the state.
- and the state hold it, and the state administers all those payments. So now somebody retires. Somebody
- retires, then they just deal directly to the state, and we are not admitted yet. Exactly. That feels
- more efficient. Yes. And then with Jack Hopkins, does this reflect the current appropriation for
- this coming year or what, what that, that, what does that say? There are no appropriations in here.
- This is just saying this is how much money we've sent out this year. Like you may have, you may be done
- with all your meetings and you've awarded all of your money that was budgeted to you or to Jack Hopkins
- this year, but this is only how much has been sent out, but paid out so far. So far this year. Yeah. Right.
- So there's like 200 and some thousand that people have not submitted receipts for re-personing there.
- And plus there's some, some cushion of their. Yeah. Yeah. Which we, which, which I think last year we
- spent some of, this year we proposed to, but didn't have to. See, I think that it's just like last year
- to spend some of, but I don't think the receipts actually came in. Which is I think how the cushion
- gets created, right? Right.
- Yeah, there might be a little bit of cushion, but that for Jack Hopkins, it says 115,000, what you started,
- that could be deceptive because there could be open POs in a relax that hasn't been fully paid yet.
- I think that they're supposed to submit receipts by March or something. There should be anything outstanding
- in that account. That makes sense, March. That's like my memory from like over a year ago. Yeah, that's
- what I recall.
- by the end of the year, but then we'll give an extension. Yeah. And we review those reverted funds.
- Right. Right. You guys know about it. It wasn't all extended. Right. Right. All right. Oh, Dave, you
- have another question? How about? Yeah, just a comment.
- Jennifer Crosley and I discussed this a little bit, but not nearly enough, and she had the great idea,
- and I think maybe others did too, that we might want to consider uniting the Sophia Travis and Jack
- Hopkins funding for various purposes. We could discuss those. I don't want to get into the weeds today,
- but it might be something to consider.
- you know, to not duplicate services or not to get into a situation where we would be competing
- or inappropriate funding going to one place or another and it, you know, gets complicated in that sense.
- So anyway, I hope you and I talked about it too. I know this has been batted around by a number of people,
- but I just wanted to bring that up as a, because I don't know if the administration is considering it as well.
- Yeah, that's just kind of the earliest stages of figuring out what kind of collaboration can exist in
- terms of, because it's two separate entities and two separate funds and how exactly that can work. We're
- still at the stage of our attorneys making sure that we can't do anything at all before we move on to
- the stage of committees getting together to talk about practical and logistical ways to collaborate
- to make the whole thing as efficient as possible for, honestly, for the organizations that are... Yeah,
- I mean, just generally speaking, it makes sense to me because, you know, this is social service funding
- for the community and it doesn't, you know, the boundaries are kind of arbitrary in that sense. So,
- and just for efficiency sake and for,
- of what I mentioned before. I think it's something worth exploring. Thanks. And thank you, Jennifer,
- for bringing that to my attention. I have another question for Jessica. The Meridian TIF, that spider
- TIF for the high-speed digital access, are we ever getting money from that? Like, how does that work?
- We should be getting money from that next year.
- And the way that agreement is written, that is when we get that TIF money, 95% of what we receive, we
- give back to the company that is installing that. So back to Meridium or M Street Fiber. And we should
- start receiving it next year. We have to give 95% of it back? That's the agreement. Yep.
- So it was part of the incentive package to get Maria to do it? Yes. I think- For how long did it get
- designed? Is there a- I believe it's for the life of the TIF. But well, I believe it's for, well, that's,
- the term is in the contract, the term in the contract, and I believe it's 20 years, but Rick,
- that's a, I can ask for it, can give back to you. It's for a,
- like the terminal bond. So a TIF is the additional property tax revenue after an investment. So how
- does that work for a Spider TIF? For the Spider TIF, the property taxes are collected on the personal
- property is the fiber that's underground and they have to file the property tax return
- claiming that property and its value. And then that will generate a tax bill. And then that tax bill
- will be collected in the TIF. We will get it. We'll get it as a separate deposit, separate from all
- of our other property taxes. It'll go into this fund, separate, and then we have to send it back to
- the company. So who's paying that property tax? The company is paying the property. So we're going to
- basically... And then we're getting 95% of it back? It's basically abatement.
- of property tax abatement. Okay. On business personal property. Correct. Oh correct. Only on the business
- personal property. Because they're working directly. Correct. So they're paying us property tax based
- on those improvements and then we're giving 95% of it back to them. And then what happens after the
- life of the contract? Like do they still pay those property taxes but it goes into our the general fund
- instead of going back to them?
- No, it'll always go into the TIF. I'm actually not exactly sure what happens after the life of a contract.
- I'll have to look at that in the contract. I would like to give the public an opportunity for comment.
- I'm sorry I didn't have that on the agenda, but I think it makes sense. I didn't really know what the
- controller would be bringing, so I didn't put it on the agenda. But is there any number of the public
- who would like to make a comment at this time?
- We need to use the raise hand function again. I don't see any. So we have six minutes of Jessica's time
- left. Do you want to tell us a little bit about sanitation or should we save that for next time? I can
- start with sanitation. I wanted to start by giving you the information as it stands now. It shows you what we
- what our expected revenue means this year. And our expected total expenses this year, 2025 in the middle
- of that chart. And the deficit this year would be 1.5 million. That was interesting at the time. Yeah.
- So some things that,
- that jump out is that recycling is free, but recycling definitely has a cost to it. Some other things
- that aren't in this chart. Recycling is free, but it definitely has a cost. It doesn't split out the
- recycling versus. Yeah, and that's something that we want to bring to you. We want to bring to you what
- the actual costs of each side of the program are.
- Also, there's costs, there's capital costs that are not included in this. They're not even included
- in the budget. Sanitation trucks are not even included in the budget. We're really skating on thin ice.
- In the budget, that would be just sort of like breaking down. If something happens, we kind of have
- to just try to find a place to purchase a sanitation truck because we'll cannibalize another fund.
- We have the vehicle replacement fund that has 500,000 budgeted in it. We could use that. Sometimes there's
- extra money somewhere else in public works that we use for something that they plan for that they didn't
- spend, or they forego something that they needed in order to pay for a sanitation truck. They also do
- have facilities too. This is just like a drop in the bucket of all the information about sanitation.
- I was hoping to start with this and maybe let you guys
- Tell me what your questions would be like, or we could talk about, you know, things like we need to
- know what the actual expenses are for recycling. We need to know what the actual, you know, kind of
- how we want things broken down because I'm working with sanitation to develop, you know, our new rig
- structure. So we need the cost of recycling, we need the cost of trash to pick up.
- We need all the items that are listed above. And then if we could at Brown and Hays, we need
- those expenditures too much. Yeah. I'm really interested too in modeling out some different price mechanics,
- particularly, and thinking a little bit about demographics. So like this number that mass 35 gallons,
- you know, whatever,
- I know that there's been some proposals of trying to institute like a pay as you throw program or something
- like that, where you, under the idea that some ways that we structure it might be a little bit regressive,
- particularly on renters. So I'd be really interested in being able to model out, okay, hey, if we did
- this, this is who it affects it, I think is sort of important in many ways. So how it's spread out,
- I'm most particularly thinking about renters and homeowners.
- in this context. That's what we used to do is pay as you throw. And so we can work on that. I've asked
- sanitation about that too. And they said that we used to do that and it really did not work. Right,
- right, right, right, right. But we can also, we do have like a program that a person can apply for to
- waive their sanitation, like a low income program. Yeah. Yeah. To waive their water bill, sewer bill,
- and sanitation bill. Yeah.
- Dave, do you have a question? More of a statement. I'm agreeable to this idea, pay as you throw, just
- simply because it follows the adage, show me the incentive, I'll show you the outcome. That is, if people
- are incentivized to reduce their waste, then we'll have less volume going to landfill, which is our
- overriding goal.
- And then another means to reduce volume I would think would be to encourage people to compost because
- a lot of food waste goes to the landfill I think still. And that means that there's a lot of methane
- being produced in that landfill. And then the last thing I want to say is I've always been intrigued
- by this idea that we might want to explore at least reopening the landfill. So we have control over
- our own waste stream. So just want to throw out those ideas. I know time's short.
- Well, you have to talk to Tom McClassen. I don't think that's feasible. I'm on the waste reduction board
- and that landfill is on a very strictly controlled timeline with item. And so to reopen, I just think
- it would be a very, very, very heavy lift. Also, I wanted to mention
- But sorry, I didn't mean to diss what you said, Dave. I understand your perspective and it would be
- nice to not have, you know, pay for hauling and diesel fuel to haul it to the Menorah River. As far
- as pay as you throw, I've been asking Adam Weissen every year for like eight years if we can do it.
- And he's always said it's not feasible. I think it would be too expensive.
- it would be for each row, it would be so expensive to make it work. I think that that's essentially
- the problem. My point was less to argue about that, more to say that when we're having the conversation
- about rates, what would be greatest to be able to have them in the full spectrum of possibilities, so
- that we always understand it's that antithesis of, OK, if we didn't do this, we get it. We're going
- to lose a lot of money, and then we can't pay for lots of things. Great. But then there's also the,
- We evaluated three different options and this is how we arrived at the best choice is to raise the 96
- gallons by X, right? Because there's also been people who presented at City Council about other diversion
- things, this free cycle program as an example. And it would be really interesting to model out, is there
- some investment that we can make as a city where we could lower the cost of sanitation while also increasing
- You know outcomes that we're really interested in those type of conversations, which goes to Dave's
- framework of like you actually maybe it's reopening a thing or, you know, so so and I don't know all
- of the possibilities in that framework but but just so that we don't just look at this just from the
- percentage of, you know, how many cents do we raise per person, you know, to meet our, our deficit.
- want to make sure that, even though I'm interested in those cost differences between like, well, how
- much does recycling cost, how much does trash cost, et cetera, et cetera. But there's also, like, if
- we have a larger overall goal of diversion out of landfills anywhere, we do want to incentivize recycling
- and composting and some of these other things. And so if we simply say,
- charge for recycling what it actually costs that could then de-incentivize people to recycle them. Because
- then you go like, well, am I going to have a full one of these or two half empty things? And so in terms
- of assessment, not only the numbers, but also some of that kind of information in terms of like,
- Yeah, like, and I'm sure that there's studies about, you know, incentivizing, like, does it increase
- people's rate of recycling to call it free, even if you're charging more for the other other parts of
- the waste stream. There's got to be some studies somewhere that talk about that kind of that kind of
- psychological stuff.
- We'll do our best, the best we can getting those numbers that we don't and they have. I'd also like
- to know how long our current contract is for public is because the waste reduction district entered
- into a new contract with Romney this year where they're actually paying us for some recyclable materials.
- And so it might be wise to renegotiate our contracts.
- Alright, made notes, composting, pay as you grow, reopen our landfill. I did write that down. How long
- is our current contract with the public? We were talking about like how much does recycling cost, how
- much does trash cost, and then how much money would we
- How much would composting reduce trash pickup? And I think the problem there is that they still are
- going to run all their routes. So it's kind of like, we still have the same number of trucks, the same
- amount of gas, the same number of people. And not some of those like, I mean, so like right now I'll
- just call out our household because I live in, right? We have the largest recycled bin, but that also
- means that probably 90% of the time it's half sold every week. So, you know, is there some kind of,
- Like could we somehow switch to an every other, every other week pickup? Like could recycling be picked
- up every other week? What would that save? Is most of our expenses from running the trucks or is most
- of our expenses from actually like getting rid of the items? And so like, would it then ultimately be
- more cost effective for me as the person to have the largest bin for the pickup every other week or have the,
- smallest bit of the pickup every week. And like, how does that like work out in terms of, you know,
- maybe, you know, having some real alternative systems to what we have now. Okay. So is the most of our
- expenses from running the trucks, I mean, like just operations, right. Or is it from the cost of,
- you know, getting the price wasn't in the trash with the larger question of, you know, should we consider
- every other week? Right.
- So either for trash or recycling. Rout efficiency. Yeah. Reduction. All right. Great. This is great
- conversation. This is exactly what I needed. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate you bringing that to us.
- All righty. Thank you guys. Let me know if you need anything after the meeting. I got to be able to,
- I'm sorry. Oh, okay. See you tonight. Can the other three committee members stay? Yeah. Okay. So the
- next item is improving the budget process.
- Um, and this is kind of like a broken record at this point. And then what do we do next? And they've
- turned out how they spread today. And I really would like to, at some point we have all these outcomes
- we want. We need to rank them at some point, which is most important outcome. Um, because we have limited
- that money and we need to prioritize at some point, make those hard decisions. Um,
- And then I think we need more public engagement in general. We had, I feel like we had fewer people
- talk during budget hearings than ever before this. Of us or the public. Of the public, yeah. Maybe both.
- Maybe both, yeah. So anyway, wanted to throw that out there, see what you all.
- I'll start on both of those questions. First, in terms of the, sorry, in terms of the public engagement,
- you know, the, in many ways, I think, and I mean, I saw on the call, you know, Kevin Keough or Eric
- are on the call, who I think have been super engaged and so grateful for all of their, yeah,
- I detailed reading of our documents, and it's been wonderful, very helpful. The points that I was making
- during budget hearings is that the way that the budget was presented this year made that quite difficult.
- That was a heavy lift, I think, in many ways, for the general public. And so that may be one area to
- think about in terms of engagement and how things have broken down.
- And then in terms of us of us prioritizing it might be interesting for us to think about. And then what
- I think just came out of this conversation is that.
- Our outcomes are not all like we're comparing apples and oranges sometimes, because if you look at outcomes
- across the board, some of the things we might care about, sidewalks, sanitation, may be funded by other
- streams that you don't want to compare to things, or maybe you do, but how do we deal with comparing
- them to things that are in the general fund? You see what I'm saying? So like we may,
- need to think about some categorization of priorities of outcomes or something like that. And then I
- think there's something you've been getting at this whole year that just is a lot clearer to me now,
- like a clear mapping between funds and outcomes, right? Like we have, let's use parking data as an example.
- We have $6 million in parking data funds,
- And here's the thing we can use for it to do with it. And then what are our outcomes that are associated
- with that fund and how do those fit into the broader outcome? So that makes the next step in interfacing
- the priorities and the outcomes. Right, we kind of have to identify what are the fundable
- Right. What, what things have dedicated revenues that go towards them, right, separate that from the
- more fungible. Right. Right. And then, and then maybe I mean maybe an improvement, but this year ESP
- budget as an example, I mean we have
- I think a lot of engagement on this question of, well, actually, we've moved a lot of things onto EDIT,
- or we've moved a lot of things outside of which could have structured a good way. We wanted this money
- for these outcomes. So explain directly to us why moving this salary to that is leading to that outcome.
- rather than, well, this is money that was available. This is justifiable use of paper. Are you referring
- to the plan for the 80 lead when the council approved the 80 lead? Correct. And then, and I might be
- mis-speaking, but this year ESD budget chose to move certain things on to, but maybe it wasn't the 80
- lead fund. What was the fund that they, the 80 lead, right? And they put some salaries on the 80 lead.
- Yeah. Like there was a bunch of,
- a bunch of stuff whenever you need various departments. And then for, you know, we might say, well,
- wait, we probably missed an opportunity there to align with outcomes. Right. Right. Because I was that,
- I mean, when council approved that, that was the closest, we've got a very clear example of actually,
- this is what we want to spend this on at least, you know, that's, you know, two and a half steps towards
- kind of a solid outcome is that you're like, you sort of, you sort of the areas that we're spending this on,
- Right. That was in former council and former mayor. Right. And I think it's just kind of gone out the
- window. Right. Right. Which I'm not blaming anybody for. The reason they have to follow the 222 plan.
- But you're right. When I look back, that was an exercise. Yeah.
- So maybe that's pulling on the thread of I think the work we started here, which is we spent a lot of
- time this year looking at funds. So maybe it's that. It's like a fund by fund. I think if that works,
- at least for some of the smaller funds. I don't think that works as well for the general fund. It's
- the general fund where everything gets dumped back. But the general fund is- It's all the other. Correct.
- But that's why I'm saying that we have to separate, we have to separate what we might think of as,
- I mean, we had this one just now, you brought it up, but I think super quickly. With sanitation, the
- question is not just in and out. There's also a question of some things that we may wish to invest in,
- and recycling may be one of those things. And so if we were to set
- within sanitation, we say, well, what are the outcomes of sanitation? We want less things going into
- landfills. We want less food waste. We want more recycling, better quality recycling. And so less costs,
- happier drivers. We can think of a lot of things that we might want. Then when we have the conversation of,
- Do we raise or do we invest or do we, we have a friend to go to that we're saying, well, these are things
- we want to achieve. So first and foremost does increasing the amount, which is the literal conversation,
- right? If we charge more for this, yes, it will solve one of our problems, but it might create another
- one that's contrary to an outcome that we want to see. Right. We don't, one outcome for sanitation is
- we want things that
- Yes, exactly. Exactly. Exactly. And then we can within sanitation say number one priority for us is
- trash gets picked up. You know, we can spend a lot of time.
- Wait, that's our number one priority. Number two is, you know, or maybe number one is diversion of things
- or whatever. I think no rats is a good number. Yeah, exactly. There's so many public offices related
- to it. Exactly, exactly, exactly. And I think what I'm trying to say overall with these illustrations
- is that a lot of these conversations, the reason why they're so hard is because we pull from so many
- places for a lot of, so we ended up having these like,
- You know, so we, I think we've done a good job of counseling, these are things that we all want to see
- here are some priorities, but then they become so up here, because, because like yeah we all want.
- You know, safety. Right. Right. And then, but then we struggle to have the conversation of what do we
- mean by public safety, because we're not actually tying it. And it's like, well, this gets money, that
- gets money, and the other things, and this, and the salaries, and the, right. So, so if we can get to
- actually at a fund by fund level, and maybe, maybe there's an argument that actually we should proliferate
- more funds, right. Because it's easier to have a conversation about what does this fund do?
- And those get funded from the general fund in many cases, they may not have to be, you know, revenue
- producing things, but it's just that if you want to spend money on X, it comes from this fund so that
- we can track outcomes really clearly. That might be a good question for Jessica about like, you know,
- if there's some reason we don't want to have more funds, for example. I almost feel like I need like a,
- A physical exercise like what we have note cards with. Here's our outcomes. Here are the funds. Here's
- how I get from A to B and we have to put them on a big table. Yes. I feel like I need that to wrap my
- head around. Yes, I agree with you. And one of the questions I was having today, don't go ahead. I think
- that that's one of the things that the public needs too, honestly. Yes. Increase public engagement.
- I mean, and I
- I mean, we called out Mr. Pio and Eric. It is really, really challenging to engage with these documents.
- And then, you know, what are your parents, right? It takes a really high level of comprehension and
- processing and a lot of time.
- If we have that high level, then it doesn't take so much time. And if you don't, then it takes a whole
- lot more time to understand exactly what it is it's talking about. And the average person does
- not necessarily have the time that they would need in order to really properly engage with this. And
- so having some other kind of public engagement opportunity that is less related to 400-page documents
- and more related to something that is
- A more hands on or a smaller question. Then it, you know, like the smaller question like categorizing
- as a smaller question, but I mean,
- It's like the prioritization of outcomes. It's way easier to go, okay, here's a list of six things.
- Let's talk about those six things. Because those six things fit on a list that's this big as opposed
- to a 400 page document. And so that kind of public engagement activity, which I think is something that,
- because of how our calendar works. So, you know, those ideas for budget calendar, you know, I think
- that those need to be worked in throughout the whole year. This like,
- community kind of budget activity. And I remember it was the local progress in 2023 that talked about
- Chicago and how Chicago has done some outreach around budgeting and about, you know, like give everybody
- a dollar and like how do you split that up between these categories.
- I'll bet it was Boston and Chicago. But if you had a progress conference, it was specifically Chicago
- games as part of a budget presentation, like they talked about what they had done. And they might also,
- are they on a two-year budget too? I feel like maybe that's part of it is that that was, yeah, I think
- that that was helpful in terms of how they were able to do these public events and things that have
- lasted for too long.
- I feel like I remember us having, maybe not in this committee, but the controller was there. She said
- that the chamber budget really, really hard for us to do, especially right now, just because our revenue
- forecast is so uncertain. But having some other public engagement around the concept of budget that
- isn't just reading these spreadsheets. And I think you raise a really good point too, which in terms
- of public engagement,
- Multiple good points. So I'm just reacting and to, you know, to finger them, if you will, whatever the one is
- We don't need to think about public engagement as the whole of council has to do this, which becomes
- a heavy lift. It's hard to get with these calendars. We only have a handful of times where we can and
- so on. That may be something that we take on as a committee that we can put on and we can be a little
- bit more flexible when we put these type of things on. And then, of course, council members are welcome
- to come to them. And then we can just notice that if people say they're coming.
- The so that's one thought to is really saying back to your point, like if we were to talk about, and
- this is something we've we've on Council and our general meetings had like we've given like Mrs on this
- program where you sort of said it just in passing, like, oh,
- Maybe we could spend the money and parking meters for, you know, somebody was throw out a thing. Right.
- And so these conversations we've had, and then somebody else will go, Oh, I think we can only use it
- on but and so we leave it there. Okay.
- That would be a really fun way to have a conversation with the public where we go, let's just look at
- the parking meter fund. Here's on paper what the allowable uses are. And then there's this floating,
- the attention was downtown or something like that. But people might have way more creative ideas than
- us who are always looking at everything closely. They might go, I mean, to me, what I'd love to see
- downtown is a brah.
- have a really interesting conversation about, well, how might you spend this much money? And how much
- would you leave in the fund? If we were spending it on this, would you approve us increasing the amount
- of costs that cost the park downtown? And it helps us have all of those type of conversations. So I
- love this idea of focusing in rather than like, what would you do with $165 million? It's like, what
- would you do with this fund with these three purposes?
- that's much more feasible. And it could be the start of a broader conversation. Yeah. And you could
- imagine us doing, you know, imagine 10 of these where we take two funds each time. And we're like, we're
- talking about parking fund and, you know, sanitation affected by it. And next week we're talking about,
- you know. Well, and I think that that's also something that,
- we could collaborate with them. I mean, those would be really, really, I mean, I think it would be really,
- really important in those that we said all council doesn't have to be there. Yeah, it could just be
- fiscal committee as kind of, you know, leading these, but I think that getting the administration involved
- is really key in that collaboration between entities and they have so much to add ultimately on like
- what they set the budget.
- And so us getting that input as counsel is in some ways not as impactful as them getting that input
- in terms of budget setting. Right, Tom. It's fantastic. OK, well, let's check in with the public comment
- on improving the budget process. Of course, this is an ongoing conversation.
- British any conclusions here, but any public would like to offer a comment at this time, please raise
- your hand. Well, see any. So should we just maybe put this higher up on the agenda for next time with
- Jessica here and maybe also invite Gretchen?
- Yeah, I think so. And then that would be, you know, the idea of spending a budget calendar for 2026
- is, you know, like maybe having a goal of having that kind of public engagement opportunity quarterly
- or something. And so that you really need to not only need a floor of those ideas for next year, I'm
- sure that you start to start to like now.
- Well, I wrote them down as two categories, looking at a specific fund and the possibilities of that
- fund and brainstorming, and then that idea of if we increase the fee, what would you support the additional
- revenues being spent on? For sanitation, that's... Well, that's pretty obvious. Well, we're shoring
- up what it costs, but then that's free, not general fund money. So what would you support that general
- fund money that we need
- That's a good point. Being used for and able to support other services. I mean, we might be in a budget
- situation out there. I mean, it's hard to know about a situation we would be in, say, next year. Yeah.
- You know, it's like, if we don't have this general fund money, then we can't, you know, pay everybody's
- salary. You know what I mean? But yeah. OK.
- Picture meetings, I don't think we have a next meeting scheduled. I think we've been doing it these
- months. You mentioned that you had some still marked on your calendar. We're doing that every other
- week or so. Yeah, I have those every other Wednesday. Wednesdays are usually very good for me. When
- is that next one then? Two weeks from now, or do we need a meeting? We probably do need a meeting two
- weeks from now.
- to consign the salary ordinance? Yeah, I have a hold on my calendar from two to three on Wednesday the
- 22nd. I can do other times than just those days. That works for you. Does that work for you? Not really.
- I mean, I could skip a webinar. I don't know. I don't know. A webinar. I don't know. I don't know.
- On the 230. Are you thinking that you'd like a draft?
- elected officers, for the next. It depends on how it goes tonight. Okay, sure. Yeah, probably.
- What about now? Yeah, we'll do one or two weeks from now, so the week of the 20th. Morning 27th.
- I could do that. I have a 10 a.m. that I can't miss. So I could do like a super like eight or so. I
- don't know what time people start working. Okay, what does your morning look like? First office on October
- 22nd in the morning? I would rather not do anything today, yeah.
- I have availability of 21st, if you guys have availability of 21st. What time? I could do... That's
- the day that I essentially start at one and don't finish until after five. Yeah, you don't want to do
- that. I sometimes have to add things on either end of that day, but it's not my favorite day. What about
- Thursday, the 23rd around lunchtime? Well, and I can do something on Wednesday morning. I just don't
- want to do it.
- And yeah, my only concern is I have to like, I have this meeting at time that I can't, I can't be late
- for an account move. And so a little 1045, but then I have another one at noon. I could, I could skip
- or move the noon. So I just don't have a lot of flexibility that particular Wednesday. I usually do.
- Um, I should, I could do, but you have, you have every one 30 and one to 30.
- any any opposition to meeting before a council meeting like like closer to like four thirty or five
- thirty it's hard for for for attorneys right um so yeah okay if i could be if i could be virtually talking
- about your availability on thursday oh thursday yeah i could do thursday anytime i'm leaving i would
- have to leave that on the two
- in the afternoon or first day of the semester. It's based on packing and preparation. Well, what if
- we do the morning of the 22nd, but I'll just join virtually? But Dave will probably have to join virtually
- as well. Dave will not be able to join virtually. Oh, he can't anymore. He has to be in person. No,
- actually, that's part of the reason why I came back up. And you should be cautious about joining virtually
- because you're pushing at the 50% for this committee. For this committee. Yeah.
- Not for, obviously. It's hard. So should we go back to Thursday morning? What about Tuesday? Oh, that's
- your hard day. Well, what time on Tuesday? I'm wide open on Tuesday until I can move my 11. I'm actually
- wide open until 2 o'clock at the moment. Well, I could just start my Tuesday at 11.
- Do you want to do 11 on Tuesday? Tuesday. Yes, okay. And the parks office, do we want that on Tuesday?
- 21st of October. Well, um, that counts then. I think, oh, I'll be about, then I'll have to be um, Sophia.
- I'm going to assume yes,
- And if something's wrong, I'll let you know within a couple of hours with apologies, but I think this.
- We have to check with Dave, I think. All good. All right, I'll check with Dave and the club clerk will
- confirm and go get that scheduled, hopefully. And so you say you need to be in person? Yep. And Dave
- will have to be in person. I will go to do two hours.
- Um, to recreate that would be a little bit of a shorter meeting I can do. Usually do an hour and a half.
- Yeah, I have it for an hour and a half. And yes, um, clerk staff can be here on the 21st of November.
- Thank you. So I will ask Dave in person. Okay, any other final thoughts before we adjourn?
- Um, did we want to try to get the. The controller here at the back as well. Yes. I will ask. So maybe
- we should have a second, second option. So this is the second option Thursday morning then are you available
- Thursday morning? I kind of do early Thursday when I can do like Thursday. Like we're out that same
- time I believe.
- Yeah, I can do that any time, but we know about that. So that's maybe a second second choice as well.
- When you ask people, is the clerk available during that window? October 23rd at 11, would that be an option?
- Yes, or somewhere in that you let somebody with that. So, yeah, are you available that day too? Yeah.
- Okay, I'll check with the others. And I do apologize. The agenda for this meeting didn't say one thirty
- to two thirty, because it was in my mind that somebody couldn't go past two thirty and it must have
- been Dave. So hopefully. That's didn't annoy anybody that much was three. I appreciate it though, because we.
- I think we had it. It was on the calendar invitation. I felt free. I felt free. Yeah. I should just
- not put any times on. All right. We are adjourned. Thank you.