WEBVTT 00:00:00.322 --> 00:00:06.561 - and call this meeting of the fiscal committee, special fiscal police order on November 18th, week 31. 00:00:06.561 --> 00:00:12.249 - If you want to go around the table and say who we are first, so we start third, district 40. 00:00:12.249 --> 00:00:18.548 - General Manning, you're deputy public works director. Morning. Nate Nichol, business manager of public 00:00:18.548 --> 00:00:24.848 - works department. Lazarus Sears, director of sanitation department. Adam Wason, public works director. 00:00:24.848 --> 00:00:29.374 - Isabelle Piedmont, city council district. Cynthia McDowell, fairs office. 00:00:30.018 --> 00:00:37.569 - if we're all listed in council. At 30, it would be kind of by and large. Janet, machine and city control. 00:00:37.569 --> 00:00:44.692 - Yeah, thank you. Thank you. I just opened up my computer and analyzed the whole thing and restarted 00:00:44.692 --> 00:00:51.957 - it somehow overnight. So I'll bring up my agenda. But I think basically we need to through the agenda 00:00:51.957 --> 00:00:59.294 - and then we have sanitation here to discuss their memo, presentations, questions and comments from the 00:00:59.682 --> 00:01:06.364 - Committee and then public comments and then we need to get back to our official salary discussion and 00:01:06.364 --> 00:01:13.374 - public comment on that scheduling because we always have to have notes on scheduling and then adjournment. 00:01:13.374 --> 00:01:20.057 - So any concerns or additions to the agenda? Great, we'll proceed like that and I will hand it over to 00:01:20.057 --> 00:01:24.446 - our wonderful sanitation folks over here who are going to tell us. 00:01:24.898 --> 00:01:31.865 - All of it. Great. Again, public works director with the whole team here to back me up when I say something 00:01:31.865 --> 00:01:38.637 - wrong. But it's kind of ironic that we're in here today to talk sanitation rates because when this room 00:01:38.637 --> 00:01:41.502 - first became a conference room in 2016 2017 00:01:41.730 --> 00:01:49.054 - We sat around this table for months and months on end with the Sanitation Modernization Advisory Committee. 00:01:49.054 --> 00:01:56.106 - We did not call it the SMAC, but it was when we first looked at how to revamp and modernize sanitation. 00:01:56.106 --> 00:02:03.091 - That's where we got with CART system and the rate system that we're currently using, where we're doing 00:02:03.091 --> 00:02:10.686 - a single family collection from units four or less. And that's a weekly service for both trash recycle and then 00:02:10.978 --> 00:02:19.130 - yard waste during yard waste season. And so since that kind of big switch over in 2017, we have seen, 00:02:19.130 --> 00:02:27.522 - we've really had great benefits from the new programs, lower injury rates. I think customer satisfaction 00:02:27.522 --> 00:02:31.198 - is higher. I was sitting at a table with some 00:02:31.490 --> 00:02:37.657 - folks yesterday at a luncheon and the topic of conversation when it came to public works and sanitation 00:02:37.657 --> 00:02:43.289 - was how glad they were that they didn't have to still go to the grocery store and buy stickers 00:02:43.289 --> 00:02:49.219 - for collection. So while we have a much better system in place for both residents and staff, it's a 00:02:49.219 --> 00:02:55.267 - more expensive system and everything's more expensive right now, as you folks have been seeing in our 00:02:55.267 --> 00:02:57.342 - budget requests and everything. So 00:02:57.570 --> 00:03:05.907 - We were asked to put together from the fiscal committee some projections on what it would look like 00:03:05.907 --> 00:03:14.410 - to eliminate the general fund support for the sanitation division and what those fiscal impacts would 00:03:14.410 --> 00:03:23.080 - be. We have sent off a memo to the fiscal committee and to the council that outlines what we considered 00:03:23.080 --> 00:03:24.414 - in all of this. 00:03:24.898 --> 00:03:32.799 - to set those rates, a couple of big factors to recognize upfront. Everything is simply more expensive 00:03:32.799 --> 00:03:40.777 - right now. It's not just that trucks that used to be $360,000 or $350,000 now, but all of the supplies 00:03:40.777 --> 00:03:48.677 - across the board for sanitation are more expensive. Fuel, we all know what's going on with fuel costs 00:03:48.677 --> 00:03:52.318 - across country. Those are hitting us directly. 00:03:52.962 --> 00:04:01.529 - We've been averaging between $600,000 and a million dollars in general fund support is looking more 00:04:01.529 --> 00:04:10.268 - like a million and a half for 2026 here and into the future. And so what we've kind of worked on here 00:04:10.268 --> 00:04:18.750 - is a rate structure for council to consider that would at the council's request, we put together a 00:04:18.882 --> 00:04:26.739 - projection here of what it would look like to eliminate the general fund support over a three-year period. 00:04:26.739 --> 00:04:34.301 - So those are all outlined in the tables that are in the memo. To just cut to the meat of it, what that 00:04:34.301 --> 00:04:41.644 - looks like to sanitation, the residents that use our sanitation service, our monthly costs for our, 00:04:41.644 --> 00:04:47.518 - so we're continuing to propose rates that are based on your cart size or trash. 00:04:47.842 --> 00:05:02.643 - the 35 gallon, 64 gallon, or 98 gallon. The proposed increases from 26 to 27 are going to look like, 00:05:02.643 --> 00:05:08.798 - so from $9.66 for a 35 gallon up to 1072, 00:05:09.602 --> 00:05:19.141 - or 64 gallon from about 1750 to 1940, and then 96 gallon would go up to $29.11. You'll see three subsequent 00:05:19.141 --> 00:05:28.414 - charts that outline what that would look like for 28 and 29. And then also, as we look at this ordinance 00:05:28.414 --> 00:05:37.246 - update, we would also look at updating the costs for moving on to page like 10 in the memo would be 00:05:37.506 --> 00:05:48.008 - a chart that outlines how we would change rates for yard waste, large item appliances, cart exchanges, 00:05:48.008 --> 00:05:58.409 - and extra pickups. Overall, this is a rate proposal that it looks like it's about 12% first year, 16% 00:05:58.409 --> 00:06:06.974 - the second, and 12%, again, the third year. That does capture the amount of revenue 00:06:07.074 --> 00:06:14.111 - by the third year to cover the whole cost of the system, with the caveat that what will happen with 00:06:14.111 --> 00:06:21.429 - costs going into the future is still somewhat of an unknown. There's a lot of information in this memo. 00:06:21.429 --> 00:06:28.607 - I think probably the best way we could go about this is to just go through questions that the council 00:06:28.607 --> 00:06:30.366 - committee has and let us 00:06:30.498 --> 00:06:36.721 - try to answer those as we're able to today and such. But Gretchen, Jeff, do you have anything you want 00:06:36.721 --> 00:06:42.762 - to add on this topic of convenience? You know, there's a lot covered in the memo here. I would just 00:06:42.762 --> 00:06:48.985 - call our attention to the annual or competitive to market rates and what's available on the market and 00:06:48.985 --> 00:06:55.207 - note that, you know, in the market, if you're getting the largest size crash and you don't need weekly 00:06:55.207 --> 00:06:59.678 - recycling pickup, we can, you know, we're on fargish with those services. 00:07:00.034 --> 00:07:06.068 - But the majority of, if you're looking at the 257 proposed rates chart, that shows the total Carson 00:07:06.068 --> 00:07:12.162 - inventory for 34 gallons, 64 and 96 gallon, the majority of Bloomington residents choose the smaller 00:07:12.162 --> 00:07:18.377 - size. And so as we think about our environmental goals and what our costs are to residents and whether 00:07:18.377 --> 00:07:24.472 - we're providing them a good value for a city service compared to what they can get on the market and 00:07:24.472 --> 00:07:29.118 - covering the costs, I just think we should keep that in mind that one of our 00:07:29.282 --> 00:07:36.450 - The UI goal, obviously, is to encourage people to make less trash, and offering smaller parts is a really 00:07:36.450 --> 00:07:43.550 - important piece of that, and also lower service costs. So anyone who's concerned about the cost of their 00:07:43.550 --> 00:07:50.312 - trash making less trash pays off for a resident. And then I guess just the other, this is just sort 00:07:50.312 --> 00:07:57.344 - of another piece of information to consider as far as the numbers go. I've been looking at your monthly 00:07:57.344 --> 00:07:59.102 - expenses versus revenues. 00:07:59.650 --> 00:08:07.630 - taking out the fleet set rate, taking out any capital expenditures and taking out the transfers from 00:08:07.630 --> 00:08:15.689 - the general fund. You're basically running both from last year and this year around a $45,000 monthly 00:08:15.689 --> 00:08:23.670 - deficit in just basic operations. I'm just saying 43,000 last year, 42,000 this year. So the numbers 00:08:23.670 --> 00:08:25.566 - are actually per month. 00:08:26.114 --> 00:08:33.592 - deficit. Again, that's just that's basic operations. Does that kind of jive with what you guys are saying 00:08:33.592 --> 00:08:40.787 - also? A couple other things to note with the with any equipment intensive division of public works or 00:08:40.787 --> 00:08:47.842 - Department of the City. One of the biggest things we can do to stay ahead of increased costs in the 00:08:47.842 --> 00:08:52.286 - future is to have a really strong capital replacement program. 00:08:52.610 --> 00:09:00.070 - we need to replace at least one truck every year. With the rising costs that we've been seeing, we've 00:09:00.070 --> 00:09:07.456 - not been able to keep up with that like we would like. We're about one year behind right now. But we 00:09:07.456 --> 00:09:14.916 - also have, from the initial purchase on the sidearm trucks, we need to, over a couple of these years, 00:09:14.916 --> 00:09:21.790 - we probably need to try to replace two trucks. So you will also see built into this a capital 00:09:22.114 --> 00:09:28.794 - line that should cover those costs into the future. Just to put a bow on that, anytime you get past 00:09:28.794 --> 00:09:35.607 - the best management practices or life cycle for a particular unit type, these are obviously big heavy 00:09:35.607 --> 00:09:42.287 - equipment unit types, seven to 10 years to max. We've been in a position where we've been running a 00:09:42.287 --> 00:09:49.101 - lot of trucks that are 10 to 12 years, and the cost on that from a repair and maintenance perspective 00:09:49.101 --> 00:09:51.038 - is just really, really high. 00:09:51.330 --> 00:09:59.198 - So that capital part of everything's very important. Thank you. Do you guys have anything that you want 00:09:59.198 --> 00:10:06.991 - to add to any of this from your perspectives? Yeah, we do offer a lot of services that do not generate 00:10:06.991 --> 00:10:15.011 - revenue. Oh, true. Yeah. Yeah, such as a little recycling, car replacements, or when the new developments 00:10:15.011 --> 00:10:19.550 - come in, you have to furnish totals for every single house. 00:10:21.410 --> 00:10:27.202 - The other thing that we looked at on this line of thought is, you know, when we talk about the general 00:10:27.202 --> 00:10:32.825 - fund support numbers that go towards sanitation, that also includes all pickup from our city parks, 00:10:32.825 --> 00:10:38.673 - every pedestrian scale, trash can we have through the city, and then every city facility. So we service 00:10:38.673 --> 00:10:44.353 - Twin Lakes, we service the ball fields down at Winslow, we service, you know, that all gets captured 00:10:44.353 --> 00:10:49.470 - into these costs as well. So there is some level of general community benefit with all the 00:10:49.698 --> 00:10:56.153 - you know, these other non-revenue generating services that we do provide. And you've included that as 00:10:56.153 --> 00:11:02.735 - what, 200,000? Roughly. Really trying to figure out the cost on the recycling for that is a little more 00:11:02.735 --> 00:11:09.253 - difficult, but yeah. And I would add one thing to what the deputy mayor mentioned too, just as a pilot 00:11:09.253 --> 00:11:15.709 - sector comparisons, they typically only offer one, sometimes two sizes only containers where we offer 00:11:15.709 --> 00:11:18.430 - three. And our recycling pick up as weekly 00:11:18.530 --> 00:11:24.787 - We're private callers. They operate for the five of you. Any other? Yeah, I got a question. Yeah, let 00:11:24.787 --> 00:11:31.290 - me wait on questions for just a second. Anything else that you guys want to add? Open it up to the floor, 00:11:31.290 --> 00:11:37.670 - please. And then before I open that up, Dave, I do just wanted that chart that you pointed out, because 00:11:37.670 --> 00:11:43.805 - you emailed something about there being a chart that didn't quite have the right numbers on it. Was 00:11:43.805 --> 00:11:47.486 - that the chart on page 10? Yes, it is. That was on page 10. 00:11:48.546 --> 00:11:55.114 - Number of items should not have dollars. Exactly. Yes, until we've got that updated. So we could run 00:11:55.114 --> 00:12:01.942 - through what that should be, and I don't know if that could be shown on the screen at all. I don't know. 00:12:01.942 --> 00:12:08.640 - It was Zoomed. It was Zoomed. I'm not in the Zoom right now. I don't know if it's Zoomed. I just added 00:12:08.640 --> 00:12:14.558 - page numbers to the document. Sorry. OK. And do you want to project anything in this room? 00:12:14.690 --> 00:12:27.459 - You're asking something that I might not know how to do. There's also another factor. My computer is 00:12:27.459 --> 00:12:40.101 - on absolute red and my charger is over in my office in the garage. I apologize. Others, do you have 00:12:40.101 --> 00:12:43.262 - it on there? Yeah. Okay. 00:12:44.866 --> 00:12:53.667 - So basically, let me just walk through it verbally. So for the chart that had some misinformation on 00:12:53.667 --> 00:13:02.903 - page 10 there for yard waste, large item appliances and such, in the initial chart, we had dollar figures 00:13:02.903 --> 00:13:11.704 - for the number of items collected. Yeah. So for like yard waste, we did at a dollar per bag for yard 00:13:11.704 --> 00:13:13.534 - waste, we did 45,000 00:13:13.730 --> 00:13:22.188 - We collected 45,353 items for 45,000 in revenue. Large items, we collected at $25, 1,484 of them at 00:13:22.188 --> 00:13:30.646 - 37,100. So that updated chart will reflect the actual number collected in the total revenue amount. 00:13:30.646 --> 00:13:39.442 - So it was pretty minor. It was just, yeah. But all through that column, there's discretion. So Gladrid, 00:13:39.442 --> 00:13:41.726 - could you maybe send that? 00:13:41.858 --> 00:13:47.854 - to me, and then while we're doing some questions after that, I'll figure out. And it was in the updated 00:13:47.854 --> 00:13:53.851 - Google link. It was in the updated Google document. OK, I made a copy of your document for this folder. 00:13:53.851 --> 00:13:59.732 - So I'll just figure out a good way to show that up on the screen, and I'll join the Google link while 00:13:59.732 --> 00:14:05.843 - we're having those questions. You were saying the numbers were actually. The dollar numbers were actually 00:14:05.843 --> 00:14:10.110 - correct. It was just the number of items collected that we had to adjust. 00:14:12.258 --> 00:14:20.423 - Sorry. That's okay. Thank you. So, Dave, why don't you start us off. Well, I'll start with a question 00:14:20.423 --> 00:14:28.427 - people ask, someone asked about pay as you throw. So that's been discussed for a number of years. I 00:14:28.427 --> 00:14:33.950 - know there are reasons why you're averse to that, but could you just 00:14:34.946 --> 00:14:41.672 - Have you considered it? Absolutely. We certainly tried it. We've had two failed vendor relationships 00:14:41.672 --> 00:14:48.732 - on the hardware software side that have not been able to meet the obligations necessary for us to collect 00:14:48.732 --> 00:14:55.525 - that data. We cannot find a vendor that can provide a service that tells us exactly how many times we 00:14:55.525 --> 00:14:59.454 - pick up a cart, even with the RFID and the serial numbers. 00:15:00.290 --> 00:15:08.649 - It has not been a successful attempt in either of those iterations back in 17 or in 21 when we went 00:15:08.649 --> 00:15:17.509 - to different vendors. A lot of the challenges is we have so many carts that get placed so close together, 00:15:17.509 --> 00:15:25.868 - the readers cannot distinguish when you've got 301 North Washington with three units and nine carts 00:15:25.868 --> 00:15:27.038 - or six carts. 00:15:27.266 --> 00:15:33.013 - And they put those all out front. That reader cannot discern when it's on one card versus the next when 00:15:33.013 --> 00:15:38.815 - they're two or three feet apart. And we could never get valid data month after month to tell us anything 00:15:38.815 --> 00:15:44.397 - close to how many times we're picking up to every individual household. We were just at the national 00:15:44.397 --> 00:15:50.033 - conference with the American Public Works Association. We talked with vendors again. At this point in 00:15:50.033 --> 00:15:55.725 - time, I'm not confident that we could find a vendor that could provide accurate enough data with their 00:15:55.725 --> 00:15:56.830 - systems to do that. 00:15:57.090 --> 00:16:05.913 - The logistics are problematic. But it must work somewhere. So are those carts that are shipped or something? 00:16:05.913 --> 00:16:14.088 - We have RFID. We can try to pull some examples of other communities that may do a sample type of pay 00:16:14.088 --> 00:16:22.505 - as you throw. But we have not found success with ours. So I'll be happy to do some more research there. 00:16:22.505 --> 00:16:25.662 - But we have tried twice now. OK, good. 00:16:25.986 --> 00:16:33.113 - So let's just suppose you can do it. OK. That was a big hit. You can't do it. But suppose you can do 00:16:33.113 --> 00:16:40.311 - it. You can't do it. You've been trying for nine years. Well, I'd like to work through other, what do 00:16:40.311 --> 00:16:47.579 - you encounter in terms of obstacles or actually advantages? I mean, we want to reduce the waste drain, 00:16:47.579 --> 00:16:54.142 - right? People would be incentivized to not put their cart out every week and maybe find ways 00:16:54.466 --> 00:17:01.084 - compost or whatever, but then you're driving streets anyway. So you're spending fuel doing that. 00:17:01.084 --> 00:17:08.180 - So that's, that's the downside. So are there any other things I should think about regarding your, your 00:17:08.180 --> 00:17:15.207 - needs or, you know? If we want to go back to a sticker system, if we want to go back to something that 00:17:15.207 --> 00:17:22.576 - shows we've paid for that week, the collection side has not yielded a system that, that accurately collects 00:17:22.576 --> 00:17:23.326 - that data. 00:17:23.938 --> 00:17:30.033 - Certainly. Go ahead, please. But you just made a really great point, Dave, which is the trucks are still 00:17:30.033 --> 00:17:35.837 - making it around. The trucks are still there. The people are still there. We would get low if there 00:17:35.837 --> 00:17:41.758 - was less trash. Our disposal rate would go down. Presumably, the tonnage goes down. But there's a lot 00:17:41.758 --> 00:17:47.794 - of phase costs that are still the same. So people are interesting. So anyway, there's something I don't 00:17:47.794 --> 00:17:52.670 - think you got the answers right. But I would just like to run through the scenarios 00:17:53.442 --> 00:17:59.466 - just to see if there's, if it could be cost effective, if it's possible. Because people do ask about 00:17:59.466 --> 00:18:05.431 - it and it is, it's a legitimate question. Why am I, why am I subsidizing others? You know, when the 00:18:05.431 --> 00:18:11.575 - goal is to reduce what we're all, you know, trash. And I'm doing my job composting or whatever they're 00:18:11.575 --> 00:18:17.838 - doing, you know, to reduce waste. In conversation we've had every time this has ever come up and there's 00:18:17.838 --> 00:18:19.806 - never been the perfect solution. 00:18:20.002 --> 00:18:26.742 - I've heard, yeah, Dave, I've heard this ever since we came in 2017. I mean, another option would be 00:18:26.742 --> 00:18:33.550 - to point out that the smallest size that we offer is smaller than anything we can get in a panel. So 00:18:33.550 --> 00:18:40.560 - that is the incentive to create less trash. Yeah. And, you know, if we wanted to create the mini, mini, 00:18:40.560 --> 00:18:47.705 - mini trash size, you know. We can't go lower than 35. No, ladder does not allow something smaller. Sorry. 00:18:47.705 --> 00:18:48.446 - 35 is bad. 00:18:48.610 --> 00:18:54.672 - I have kind of a math question related to that, that if you think about those fixed costs and you think 00:18:54.672 --> 00:19:00.850 - like, because like the electric company does that, right? I don't know if you guys read that, but there's 00:19:00.850 --> 00:19:06.678 - like a $12 a month, like base electric charge, and then your usage is on top of that. So if we have 00:19:06.678 --> 00:19:12.565 - some kind of a base sanitation charge with some sort of usage on top of that, I guess my question or 00:19:12.565 --> 00:19:17.694 - like my thought is, if you have the smallest container right now, would that usage cost 00:19:18.050 --> 00:19:27.744 - plus some kind of an actual disposal charge actually be less than the, oh my God, why are you, would 00:19:27.744 --> 00:19:37.439 - that actually be less than the smallest monthly sanitation vendor? But are you still suggesting we'd 00:19:37.439 --> 00:19:40.798 - have to know when they put it out? 00:19:41.378 --> 00:19:47.335 - No, no, I'm just, it's kind of like a math question. It's like, I mean, I think that the people who 00:19:47.335 --> 00:19:53.470 - do this, like what they want to do is they're like, well, like I'm paying more than I should be paying 00:19:53.470 --> 00:19:59.665 - based on how much I throw away. My question is, are they actually in terms of, you know, having to have 00:19:59.665 --> 00:20:05.622 - the truck store around in terms of what's in the bin? Because in terms of whatever that base charge 00:20:05.622 --> 00:20:08.958 - would have to be to run those trucks with those people. 00:20:09.314 --> 00:20:16.259 - and do those operations like it might not actually save any money, but I don't know if it would or not. 00:20:16.259 --> 00:20:23.337 - Yeah, that was actually gonna be my question to phrase the different way. I was gonna say what percentage 00:20:23.337 --> 00:20:30.081 - of your costs are fixed costs just associated running the routes versus the disposal costs? So total 00:20:30.081 --> 00:20:36.158 - budget for 27 proposed is 4.066 million. So right off the top, 58% of that is category one 00:20:36.354 --> 00:20:45.636 - Personnel, 2.3 million is just, so almost 60% off the top is personnel. You know, so roughly 85% is 00:20:45.636 --> 00:20:55.104 - probably fixed cost when you think, well, 75% to 80% would be. Say that again. So if a million, could 00:20:55.104 --> 00:20:58.910 - you have it right in front of you? Yeah. 00:20:59.106 --> 00:21:05.239 - Category one personnel off the top is 58% of the overall budget. Which is how much? 2.32 million. Okay, 00:21:05.239 --> 00:21:11.313 - so it's basically the fees that we've collected. Roughly, yeah. Well, yeah, somewhere between like the 00:21:11.313 --> 00:21:17.210 - 20-27. Yeah. There are like very weasy ways to get in, like the fairest way to do great design, and 00:21:17.210 --> 00:21:23.578 - like CDU does this with like how do you fix costs, how do you get allocated. Right. I think that's probably 00:21:23.578 --> 00:21:24.286 - like beyond 00:21:24.578 --> 00:21:29.594 - what we need to do. But I guess I made the point today that the vast majority of people don't have the 00:21:29.594 --> 00:21:34.610 - smallest card and do have an option for size down, waste less, and save money if they want. The people 00:21:34.610 --> 00:21:39.626 - in the lowest card option, no, they don't. Like there is a floor, but it is lower than the rest of the 00:21:39.626 --> 00:21:44.496 - county. You know, any other private office, they're a little like, I'm interested in your questions 00:21:44.496 --> 00:21:49.414 - too, David, like it's continuing to explore technology solutions, but like on balance, I think we're 00:21:49.414 --> 00:21:51.070 - doing all right. That's my point. 00:21:51.682 --> 00:21:58.056 - I guess my question was more like for the public out there. Here's the other piece to think about when 00:21:58.056 --> 00:22:04.368 - you're assessing this bill. Sure. People always feel agreed about the fixed charges on their Duke and 00:22:04.368 --> 00:22:10.619 - their Sarah Boyd and their NSCEU. And actually those are under, like the Duke, I know for a fact the 00:22:10.619 --> 00:22:16.436 - Duke ones are lower than they should be based on fixed costs. But it's always an negotiation, 00:22:16.436 --> 00:22:20.830 - isn't it Paul? Yeah. That's acceptable. I have another quick question. 00:22:22.370 --> 00:22:29.928 - Matt had raised his hand before that. You've already started talking. Go for it. Briefly, I had a few 00:22:29.928 --> 00:22:37.856 - as well. So this is, Trash is part of the CDU water bill for everybody who gets it, right? The orientation 00:22:37.856 --> 00:22:45.488 - services. The program that Cat Zeiger has helped to move forward as far as folks experiencing economic 00:22:45.488 --> 00:22:51.934 - insecurity and struggling to pay their bills, that we've got to make some progress on, 00:22:52.034 --> 00:22:59.128 - trash included in that, or then exempted in some way. That's also, I think, worth noting here, but I 00:22:59.128 --> 00:23:06.643 - think is a concern, in terms of our rate increases, is folks facing economic insecurity, how do we support 00:23:06.643 --> 00:23:13.736 - them? And we actually are, and it continues to be. And that's another form of... That's CBU dollars? 00:23:13.736 --> 00:23:20.830 - Is that a general assumption? We put $25,000 into that. Oh, that's great. So yes, that is there too. 00:23:21.602 --> 00:23:32.188 - So thanks for comparing, I think. Thank you for answering all my questions. Thank you. So I'm looking 00:23:32.188 --> 00:23:42.982 - at page six of the packet, maybe page seven of the memo, I'm not sure. There's, well, it's a table that 00:23:42.982 --> 00:23:50.974 - starts on the previous page, projected deficit slash surplus with new rates. 00:23:52.226 --> 00:24:00.809 - It shows for 27, 28, and 29, it shows a surplus. Is that to build up the reserves? Yeah, we do have 00:24:00.809 --> 00:24:09.392 - to keep the cash balance with the sanitation fund. Mr. Controller, can you help me explain exactly? 00:24:09.392 --> 00:24:13.598 - Well, yeah. Anytime you have salaries in a fund, 00:24:13.890 --> 00:24:20.296 - You have to have enough cash balance to be able to make payroll the next year before the revenue starts 00:24:20.296 --> 00:24:26.517 - coming. So there's not a rule that says we have to have exactly this amount. You have to have enough 00:24:26.517 --> 00:24:32.676 - to be able to handle your early on expenses at the beginning of the year. Yeah. And we need a push. 00:24:32.676 --> 00:24:39.390 - I mean, we've seen how much the general fund support amount has kind of increased or changed over time here. 00:24:39.554 --> 00:24:50.770 - We definitely need a cash balance for market fluctuations that hit us, like fuel this year, other things. 00:24:50.770 --> 00:25:01.775 - There's plenty of unknowns in any given year of sanitation. So on the same chart, the... Oh, I'm sorry. 00:25:01.775 --> 00:25:09.182 - I just answered my own question. Okay, so that includes the $200,000. 00:25:09.442 --> 00:25:16.615 - that will be built to the general fund? Yes. All right, I have more but. Okay, I have a question about 00:25:16.615 --> 00:25:23.649 - that while we're talking about that. So in terms of that, it's phrased on here as it would be billed 00:25:23.649 --> 00:25:30.683 - to the general fund, but then there's actually an amount. So would it actually be like billed to the 00:25:30.683 --> 00:25:36.254 - general fund or could we think about that as a general fund subsidy in order to 00:25:36.514 --> 00:25:42.074 - just in terms of like how you were thinking about it, not necessarily as like this is the plan we're 00:25:42.074 --> 00:25:47.910 - going to do. Yes, that's certain that the general fund would still support that basic amount of community 00:25:47.910 --> 00:25:53.415 - service that we're providing that is not repaid or supported. Right, but it wouldn't necessarily be 00:25:53.415 --> 00:25:58.590 - billed in terms of, you know, some kind of like, I'm just trying to think of like how easy it 00:25:58.882 --> 00:26:07.287 - The ease of transfers and the ease of inter-city communication. I mean, a budgeted transfer is the easiest. 00:26:07.287 --> 00:26:15.536 - Okay. I wasn't going to try to answer that. I was just going to keep looking across the table. I wouldn't 00:26:15.536 --> 00:26:22.462 - use the term subsidy. It's not for services actually. Just really quickly to that point. 00:26:22.690 --> 00:26:29.158 - We've had a lot of discussions about all of this. And there are certain things that we're still going 00:26:29.158 --> 00:26:35.563 - to subsidize slightly. So an appliance pickup costs us more than the even proposed amount that we're 00:26:35.563 --> 00:26:42.285 - putting in here. But if we actually charge the full amount, we're going to be picking up washing machines 00:26:42.285 --> 00:26:48.626 - on the side of the road. And so there are certain smaller things, but those are not a large portion 00:26:48.626 --> 00:26:50.782 - of the revenue we're bringing in. 00:26:51.234 --> 00:26:59.548 - And that's still internal to your rate. Some of that cross-subsidization of types of activities within 00:26:59.548 --> 00:27:07.781 - the rate of charging is inevitable. Yep. Well, a constituent asked about going completely privatized, 00:27:07.781 --> 00:27:15.934 - you know, and running numbers and seeing if that's competitive. I'm not saying I'm going to do that. 00:27:15.934 --> 00:27:17.790 - That was the question. 00:27:18.242 --> 00:27:25.824 - I have not on those numbers. We are a strong supporter of our union workforce, and I've not been asked 00:27:25.824 --> 00:27:32.965 - to do that. So we have not gone to the market to see what it would look like. And would, I mean, 00:27:32.965 --> 00:27:40.842 - we would be, might be even more affluent of like price fluctuation. If it went privately, fully privately. 00:27:40.842 --> 00:27:46.878 - From the basics of what I know of communities that have private sector contracts, 00:27:47.234 --> 00:27:55.066 - It's a very much negotiated thing that the Council and the Board of Public Works would enter into over 00:27:55.066 --> 00:28:02.823 - a multi-year period. I know you can separate structures that are capped and I'm sure there's a lot of 00:28:02.823 --> 00:28:08.222 - legal language in there that outline all of it, but again, we have not 00:28:08.386 --> 00:28:16.172 - done a deep dive into privatization. Okay. Again, I'm just asking a question, but one quick question. 00:28:16.172 --> 00:28:24.186 - Have we locked in fuel prices? Our fuel prices fluctuate every few weeks. Adam, I was just talking about 00:28:24.186 --> 00:28:32.048 - that. We may need to do an additional get this year because of fuel escalation. So, pollution transit, 00:28:32.048 --> 00:28:36.094 - in the past, I don't know if it's still low up here. 00:28:36.482 --> 00:28:46.293 - They lock in prices. They anticipate that there might be some pretty big fluctuation. If your prices 00:28:46.293 --> 00:28:56.202 - go up in a couple of weeks, we're going to have to... Oh, absolutely. Is there any way to lock it in? 00:28:56.202 --> 00:29:06.110 - No, we have never seen an option where we can lock in for 12 months or anything. We can explore that. 00:29:06.370 --> 00:29:13.642 - We put our fuel out to bid every year, and basically, we've got five or six vendors that said they would 00:29:13.642 --> 00:29:21.053 - want to bid on the fuel. We have one or two vendors that ever respond anymore. It's a really tight market, 00:29:21.053 --> 00:29:28.048 - and I'll be happy to explore with Jeff and Cory and Joe, but we have never seen an option to lock in 00:29:28.048 --> 00:29:34.974 - at a price for 12 months. That's not how it's ever worked. Contingency plans, if there are shortage 00:29:35.970 --> 00:29:44.834 - I mean, we're trying to reduce fuel usage, but no, we're at the limits of the market in that way. And 00:29:44.834 --> 00:29:53.699 - the other thing too is we do pay gas tax. That is one of the things that we don't, you know, so we're 00:29:53.699 --> 00:30:01.086 - benefiting as a city from the suspended gas tax. So I know. The irony. The irony is. 00:30:01.730 --> 00:30:10.702 - Well, yes. You can get some money back. Yes, there is. We just got them yesterday. Yeah. We have been 00:30:10.702 --> 00:30:19.938 - with seasonal payments. But I understand the uncertainty with fuel and we'll try to answer your question 00:30:19.938 --> 00:30:28.911 - about locking in longer term. Yeah. Other questions? Do you guys want me to throw that chart up there 00:30:28.911 --> 00:30:30.846 - now? Sure. All right. 00:30:31.426 --> 00:30:40.162 - I will share my screen. Can I ask the following? Yeah. I think Dave had a good question. What are the 00:30:40.162 --> 00:30:48.984 - contingency plans if there are shortages? Every year we try to budget at a very conservative price per 00:30:48.984 --> 00:30:57.892 - gallon amount. When I say conservative, we project high. This year, even though gas, when we were doing 00:30:57.892 --> 00:30:59.262 - our budgets and 00:30:59.714 --> 00:31:06.567 - at this in August of 2025, we were predicting 359 to 389 in our budget projections for that year. So 00:31:06.567 --> 00:31:13.555 - we always project high. That's our contingency. When we have a fluctuation like we've had for the last 00:31:13.555 --> 00:31:20.408 - 10 months where it has done what it's done, that is, I mean, we're at the lens of the fuel market at 00:31:20.408 --> 00:31:26.718 - that point. Just to answer further on the contingency, with any kind of shortfall like that, 00:31:26.882 --> 00:31:35.148 - The first contingency is to transfer from other lines in the same category that have several. Now, I'm 00:31:35.148 --> 00:31:43.414 - talking about actual shortages. Like if there's rationing. Oh, like you can't buy it. Like 70. Is that 00:31:43.414 --> 00:31:51.599 - part of our emergency? At this crew walk around, yeah. We don't keep those parts. I was not following 00:31:51.599 --> 00:31:56.254 - that, but the heart palpitations got us. Hey, and today's 00:31:56.418 --> 00:32:03.589 - I don't think this is fantasy. No, I get it. Do we even have storage facilities? We have our tanks at 00:32:03.589 --> 00:32:10.619 - our two fueling sites within the city limits, and then the fueling tanks at CBUs, and that would be 00:32:10.619 --> 00:32:17.930 - the limitation of storage we have. And trash trucks are diesel? Yes. I assume. And we try to keep those 00:32:17.930 --> 00:32:25.382 - full in the map. Oh, yeah. I mean, we're always, yeah. I mean, the logical thing to do would be alternate 00:32:25.382 --> 00:32:26.366 - or just skip. 00:32:26.818 --> 00:32:32.206 - Do it every two weeks. Oh yeah, no, we would immediately scale that. So it would be like winter weather 00:32:32.206 --> 00:32:37.491 - season this last year where, you know, there was a couple of week period there where we couldn't pick 00:32:37.491 --> 00:32:42.672 - up. You know, we would certainly, there were fuel rations. So let me get back to the core question. 00:32:42.672 --> 00:32:48.112 - If there was rationing of fuel, we would be rationing services accordingly. So we're doing weekly pickup 00:32:48.112 --> 00:32:53.293 - right now. If we were checking out that we only had fuel to pick up every resident once a month, we 00:32:53.293 --> 00:32:56.350 - would be moving it once a month. It would be a very, very, 00:32:57.634 --> 00:33:07.337 - stressful time. On that kind of line before I, I will actually draw my attention to the screen at the 00:33:07.337 --> 00:33:16.944 - moment where I did put those numbers in. Thank you. For actual items collected instead of. So how is 00:33:16.944 --> 00:33:25.886 - that charged fine if yard waste is a dollar per thing? How is that 45353 go to 45202 dollars? 00:33:27.170 --> 00:33:35.424 - That might be version control. I was going to say, that sounds like a timing issue on numbers. 00:33:35.424 --> 00:33:44.113 - And then say, is there any like, I mean, so you said that trucks are diesel right now. Is there any 00:33:44.113 --> 00:33:52.802 - electrification in your area? Is there any other alternate fuel? Is there any other options at all? 00:33:52.802 --> 00:33:54.974 - And are those in any way 00:33:55.426 --> 00:34:04.279 - Yes, there are alternative fuel sources for sanitation equipment. There are some electric, so Lafayette 00:34:04.279 --> 00:34:12.877 - is running a couple of electric truck routes and I talked with their drivers, they really like them. 00:34:12.877 --> 00:34:19.006 - It's the upfront infrastructure cost of having the charging capability. 00:34:19.202 --> 00:34:25.936 - I think those were almost double the price of a traditional diesel, so then you've got the higher upfront 00:34:25.936 --> 00:34:32.607 - cost. But yes, the other compressed natural gas is always a possibility, but then you need a CNG filling 00:34:32.607 --> 00:34:39.469 - station, which the infrastructure for the filling station is, I haven't looked in a few years, but probably 00:34:39.469 --> 00:34:45.822 - at least a couple million dollars upfront to have a fueling station for CNF compressed natural gas. 00:34:46.370 --> 00:34:53.091 - So there are options that come with high upfront costs and high infrastructure costs to support them. 00:34:53.091 --> 00:34:59.878 - Oh dude, does the cost of like any electric sanitation truck compare to the cost of a diesel, like the 00:34:59.878 --> 00:35:06.467 - original? I think it's about the, $1,000,000. Last time I checked it was $1,000,000 for a truck and 00:35:06.467 --> 00:35:13.056 - a charging station. And a charging station. That was 450 to 480 right now. Yeah. Okay. So it's like 00:35:13.056 --> 00:35:15.230 - four times the cost essentially. 00:35:15.394 --> 00:35:21.958 - And that would scale back. Once you have the charging infrastructure in place, right? Yeah. Are those 00:35:21.958 --> 00:35:28.459 - trucks, have they been around long enough to know if they're locked? So actually, I followed up with 00:35:28.459 --> 00:35:34.380 - the LockYet team a couple of times. Since they've had them in place, the drivers love them. 00:35:34.380 --> 00:35:41.008 - They're quiet. They're not running on diesel. They're smooth. And they've had good maintenance success 00:35:41.008 --> 00:35:43.454 - with them, but they're, I think, only 00:35:43.874 --> 00:35:50.064 - They're less than a year in service right now. Winter. The mileage goes down, but it was during road 00:35:50.064 --> 00:35:56.315 - school last year when I was up there, so they've had them through the winter. So they have to be back 00:35:56.315 --> 00:36:02.995 - at the road work? Yeah. So then we don't really know the answer to that question yet. Is there a projection? 00:36:02.995 --> 00:36:09.123 - I would be answering questions I don't have fully accurate answers for, so let me- Just in terms of 00:36:09.123 --> 00:36:12.126 - who's selling them and what they're- Volkswagen. 00:36:12.546 --> 00:36:21.202 - Well, no. Well, sorry. I mean, what they claim. They're a thing of like, yeah. Sure. And so that would 00:36:21.202 --> 00:36:29.690 - be the, I can imagine that they're quite four times. Oh, I see. Yeah. Do we still need this up here? 00:36:29.690 --> 00:36:37.758 - I managed to get all of the things on the screen so that we can see that number of items there. 00:36:38.754 --> 00:36:46.549 - So this is still the copy, so it's not the updated version, but I did chat with all the updated version. 00:36:46.549 --> 00:36:54.344 - That's not those two little tweaks again. Yeah. Like, I mean, yeah, I changed it. I went in and manually 00:36:54.344 --> 00:37:01.991 - changed it in the fiscal committee folder, but. We'll review all of them. Perfect. Yeah. Double check. 00:37:01.991 --> 00:37:07.262 - OK. So we did put those, and I will stop my screen share and go ahead. 00:37:08.162 --> 00:37:17.290 - Um, so another couple of little questions on the tax and the memo. Um, so page nine, top page nine of 00:37:17.290 --> 00:37:26.329 - the packet, um, the 20, 27 proposed rates with complete general fund support elimination. Does that, 00:37:26.329 --> 00:37:35.457 - uh, but you say complete general fund support elimination, but this does factor in the $200,000 quote 00:37:35.457 --> 00:37:37.694 - bill to the city, right? 00:37:39.874 --> 00:37:50.571 - understand what these figures mean. So this is, so just for clarity, we're talking about if we made 00:37:50.571 --> 00:38:01.589 - the leap all in one year to get things in it, does that, you're asking if that the revenue from parts, 00:38:01.589 --> 00:38:08.542 - that's just the revenue from broken costs. So it doesn't include 00:38:08.930 --> 00:38:16.145 - It's not showing the expenses, it's just showing the chart on the shows, the revenue. Oh, I see. It's 00:38:16.145 --> 00:38:23.431 - just for figurative, the show. Okay, so it's, my question was a bit, sorry. This was, if we did it all 00:38:23.431 --> 00:38:30.504 - in one fall swoop. So this is just, that chart is just to show if we didn't do it over a three-year 00:38:30.504 --> 00:38:37.790 - phase period. How are you looking at it? I'm totally in it. Just. Top of paper. Oh, there we go, okay. 00:38:38.402 --> 00:38:51.388 - On page 11 of the packet. You have a paragraph that talks about yard waste. If yard waste was added 00:38:51.388 --> 00:39:04.763 - to the recycling percentage, it could be reasonably considered as being diverted. But we do charge for 00:39:04.763 --> 00:39:07.230 - yard waste, right? 00:39:07.906 --> 00:39:16.328 - Yes. This is just talking about the actual diversion rate of things not going into a landfill. There 00:39:16.328 --> 00:39:24.666 - are some revenue. There is revenue associated with that. As I was interpreting it as diversion. Oh, 00:39:24.666 --> 00:39:33.255 - I see in that very last paragraph of it. It also kind of makes the cost comparison. We don't get money 00:39:33.255 --> 00:39:37.758 - to do that diversion, but we do get some money. Sure. 00:39:42.466 --> 00:39:51.734 - Okay, other questions? Oh, maybe related to that. So the yard waste you don't get any money for is the 00:39:51.734 --> 00:40:00.912 - leaf picker. Yes, that's October through December and also the holiday trees that we live in. Gotcha. 00:40:00.912 --> 00:40:10.270 - And do you have any breakdown of expense for that leaf pick up at this point in terms of like number of 00:40:10.690 --> 00:40:18.373 - Cause we do it by bag now, right? So like, is there any, like do you even track that? Like the number 00:40:18.373 --> 00:40:26.057 - of bags that you pick up? No, we do not. We do not. I just take that. Or yardless. Okay. So you don't 00:40:26.057 --> 00:40:33.815 - really have a concept of the expense for that. We could easily, we could associate a labor expense and 00:40:33.815 --> 00:40:40.670 - things, but the actual, we can do a labor expense and there is no disposal costs on those. 00:40:41.122 --> 00:40:47.894 - Yeah, so equipment and labor costs, we could put some good close estimates on that. I guess I would 00:40:47.894 --> 00:40:54.870 - appreciate that partly because I feel like that maybe is also a service that we're providing everybody 00:40:54.870 --> 00:41:01.845 - because the leaves are then not clogging up stormwater and causing other problems. So it's almost this 00:41:01.845 --> 00:41:08.212 - idea of what part of what sanitation does is to prevent other problems from happening at all. 00:41:08.212 --> 00:41:09.566 - It's a service, but 00:41:10.306 --> 00:41:16.852 - It's for our benefit. Yeah, it's not just for the benefit of the property, all right. It's for the benefit 00:41:16.852 --> 00:41:23.031 - of the whole system. Then similarly, I guess, do you have any idea how many pollinators you can get? 00:41:23.031 --> 00:41:29.639 - How many pollinators do you have? Or is there a labor potential you could associate with that? I'm assuming 00:41:29.639 --> 00:41:35.757 - there's no- We could do the same cost estimate on leafing. Because that strikes me as maybe less of 00:41:35.757 --> 00:41:37.470 - a- Oh, it's very much less. 00:41:37.666 --> 00:41:44.357 - And it also is very then individual, the people who benefit from that are the people who have holiday 00:41:44.357 --> 00:41:50.983 - trees. Like it burned into the waste reduction list. Yeah. Not that I want to push the boss. Oh, no, 00:41:50.983 --> 00:41:57.609 - we do. We want them to pay for our recycling program eventually. So, no, this is a very valid point. 00:41:57.609 --> 00:42:04.300 - I was going to try to fit this in and thank you for the way to do it. City residents pay the majority 00:42:04.300 --> 00:42:07.646 - of funds into our solid waste management district. 00:42:08.546 --> 00:42:15.076 - for the whole county. And the benefit that we received from them is pretty limited. Their whole goal 00:42:15.076 --> 00:42:21.541 - in what they do is to eliminate waste, correct? So it's a waste elimination. It would be high time, 00:42:21.541 --> 00:42:28.071 - in my opinion, to have a very robust conversation with our colleagues at the county and others about 00:42:28.071 --> 00:42:34.601 - how we pay in so much to that fund. The only city residents that benefit from that are the ones that 00:42:34.601 --> 00:42:36.734 - take things to their facilities. 00:42:37.346 --> 00:42:45.725 - And so when we want to talk about subsidizing recycling, the Solid Waste District has a mighty fine 00:42:45.725 --> 00:42:54.105 - funding mechanism that could help support city recycling efforts. By mighty fine, you mean property 00:42:54.105 --> 00:43:02.484 - tax. Sorry, yeah. I mean, everybody's property tax, yes. The Solid Waste District receives property 00:43:02.484 --> 00:43:06.590 - tax from everyone in the county, including city. 00:43:08.546 --> 00:43:17.156 - And, well, this is probably getting into the leads to my step. I would love to know all that. It's going 00:43:17.156 --> 00:43:25.602 - to change with SB1 because I feel like they were on the list of things that ends up being. It was like 00:43:25.602 --> 00:43:33.884 - $120,000 impact or something. I can't remember. No, I can't remember. Other questions? OK, I want to 00:43:33.884 --> 00:43:35.934 - take note that it's 950. 00:43:36.610 --> 00:43:43.426 - which I'm not at all surprised about and I wanted to prioritize this discussion, but I want to have 00:43:43.426 --> 00:43:50.446 - a public comment just for a minute and then I would love for council members to just kind of everybody 00:43:50.446 --> 00:43:57.397 - give a two minute, that's how I feel about this right now kind of thing to help give some guidance on 00:43:57.397 --> 00:44:04.622 - where to go. So if there are members of the public, there are none in the room who would like to comment, 00:44:04.622 --> 00:44:06.462 - you could raise your hand. 00:44:07.522 --> 00:44:15.907 - That would be excellent. And again, specifically comments about sanitation rate increases in this discussion 00:44:15.907 --> 00:44:23.599 - that we've had this morning. Yeah, I'm not seeing any hands raised. So that actually helps us a lot 00:44:23.599 --> 00:44:31.599 - here on the council end. So if one of my colleagues wants to go first, Matt, go for it. Thanks. I think 00:44:31.599 --> 00:44:36.830 - this all looks pretty great. I've been advocating for it for years. 00:44:37.154 --> 00:44:43.834 - And I think phasing it in is generous and beyond reasonable. Even the doing it directly in 2027 did 00:44:43.834 --> 00:44:50.581 - not create a reasonable cost. Increased standpoint, I don't think. Part of middle-sized card defucks 00:44:50.581 --> 00:44:56.659 - them up. That's not wild to just actually start getting full grade out of a cost star. But 00:44:56.659 --> 00:45:03.540 - I was forward-weighted in the approach as well. Thank you. Sorry, Dave. Or, Isabel, do you want to go? 00:45:03.540 --> 00:45:06.078 - I'm good with all the new agreements. 00:45:07.234 --> 00:45:17.512 - Yeah. I think this is a good proposal. I think we should do it. Dude, we don't need two minutes. Great. 00:45:17.512 --> 00:45:27.593 - I just want to follow up on something. So there's the current diesel trend for the stratosphere right 00:45:27.593 --> 00:45:33.918 - now. I mean, there was a shutdown of Joliet, Illinois, I think. 00:45:34.722 --> 00:45:42.200 - refinery, which is going to add the cost of the near term. But this is why I'd like to see prices locked 00:45:42.200 --> 00:45:49.322 - in. I mean, if we could anticipate. We would like that, too. Yeah. Well, not now. But I mean, back. 00:45:49.322 --> 00:45:56.444 - Dave, I don't think that was an option. I think it might have been for us. Yeah. It was going to be 00:45:56.444 --> 00:45:59.934 - at the rate that it's going to be probably soon. 00:46:00.898 --> 00:46:08.735 - It was for, somehow it is an option for Wilmington Transit. We'll explain. We'll remember about that 00:46:08.735 --> 00:46:16.572 - repeatedly. Maybe when Lou was here, but if that's been the case in the last five years, I'd be very 00:46:16.572 --> 00:46:24.409 - shocked. Okay. I'll check. I will. Okay. I also generally think that it's a good proposal. I do want 00:46:24.409 --> 00:46:26.814 - to make sure in terms of that, 00:46:27.298 --> 00:46:33.672 - That general funds expense going toward the things that are city benefit. I just want to make sure that 00:46:33.672 --> 00:46:40.046 - those are really third credit. I would also honestly prefer because there was some conversation in your 00:46:40.046 --> 00:46:46.910 - memo about the potential of fluctuating that you're needing that flexibility of rates to deal with fuel prices. 00:46:47.042 --> 00:46:53.797 - And I would prefer not to do that kind of thing on our residents. Like, especially for this kind of 00:46:53.797 --> 00:47:00.686 - service, we need, I think, a stable monthly price that at least lasts one whole year for people to be 00:47:00.686 --> 00:47:07.509 - able to budget their expenses. And so I would personally rather see more flexibility in how much the 00:47:07.509 --> 00:47:14.533 - general fund is paying in to give that cushion than asking our residents to have that potential of flux 00:47:14.533 --> 00:47:16.830 - mid-year for some of their bills. 00:47:17.058 --> 00:47:23.400 - I know that that might happen with other mills, but we have the power, I guess, to help soften some 00:47:23.400 --> 00:47:29.995 - of those blows. I would rather do that as a personal thing than the potential of rates having to change 00:47:29.995 --> 00:47:36.400 - mid-year. And similarly, and that might just be a mid-year transfer, but I guess I want to say I, as 00:47:36.400 --> 00:47:43.249 - a council member, am more open to a mid-year transfer to help cushion some of those uncontrollable expenses 00:47:43.249 --> 00:47:45.342 - than an increased rate mid-year. 00:47:45.762 --> 00:47:52.836 - Yeah. And that's like the only thing that kind of made me go like, you know, like, how do we want to 00:47:52.836 --> 00:47:59.909 - handle that, you know, $200,000 and how strictly we want to stick to a $200,000 and put it in there. 00:47:59.909 --> 00:48:07.193 - So then y'all don't have to, you know, pull the hair out and have heart palpitations as much, you know, 00:48:07.193 --> 00:48:13.566 - around some of that stuff and our residents don't either in terms of that stability. Yeah. 00:48:14.434 --> 00:48:20.511 - I just want to say this is a really great example of this committee working really well to meet its 00:48:20.511 --> 00:48:27.075 - purpose. I feel really good about the, you know, earlier conversation we had that led to the four-plus-shot 00:48:27.075 --> 00:48:33.213 - memo and just having a conversation and getting this ready before it goes to council. I'm happy with 00:48:33.213 --> 00:48:39.654 - the process and how things are going to be planned. I think it starts with all the research and gathering 00:48:39.654 --> 00:48:44.030 - the data. Yeah. Any other last words for sanitation and all this topic? 00:48:46.178 --> 00:48:52.225 - All right. Actually, I guess I have a question. Is your next move coming to council with a proposal 00:48:52.225 --> 00:48:58.393 - or are you going to put together something more specific with a specific ordinance and bring it to us 00:48:58.393 --> 00:49:04.500 - again for feedback? What do you all think? I'll defer to Gretchen here. My comment would be this was 00:49:04.500 --> 00:49:10.789 - council-driven. We were asked by the council to really do this and move it forward. We're going to need 00:49:10.789 --> 00:49:11.454 - a council. 00:49:12.162 --> 00:49:17.669 - From my perspective as a public works director, I don't want this just to be a public works raising 00:49:17.669 --> 00:49:23.396 - revenue conversation or raising rates. I would like it to be the council and we are in sync with moving 00:49:23.396 --> 00:49:28.957 - this forward together. So we would need a council sponsor. It would be an ordinance update. We would 00:49:28.957 --> 00:49:34.519 - take advantage of opening up the ordinance to clean up other things. So there will be the whole rate 00:49:34.519 --> 00:49:40.191 - schedules and things, but there are other things when we open up the sanitation ordinance that we will 00:49:40.191 --> 00:49:41.182 - want to clean up. 00:49:41.442 --> 00:49:49.497 - i.e. student move-in and move-out language and how we might capture more revenue when they dump their 00:49:49.497 --> 00:49:57.551 - whole house out onto the street. Missing containers. We are going to add some language about, Lazarus 00:49:57.551 --> 00:50:05.527 - talked about, we cover the full cost of purchasing and supplying a car to a brand new residence. Not 00:50:05.527 --> 00:50:11.134 - only when we have redevelopment in the student neighborhoods and such, 00:50:11.330 --> 00:50:17.894 - that add a bunch of units, there's no cost, there's no fee to give them a new cart. We want to put language 00:50:17.894 --> 00:50:24.032 - in there that says, think of Sudbury, you know, think of some of these larger developments coming if 00:50:24.032 --> 00:50:30.231 - we absorb all of that cost to purchase all, what was it, 200 carts is $10,000. So just as a technical 00:50:30.231 --> 00:50:36.613 - analysis, we want to raise rates in 25,000. We do need to get this to council and get it approved before 00:50:36.613 --> 00:50:37.950 - the end of this year. 00:50:38.146 --> 00:50:49.062 - who and I can get together with legal and Julius and council schedule to get it on there to make sure 00:50:49.062 --> 00:50:59.977 - before the end of the year we tidy this up. And is there a council member on this committee who wants 00:50:59.977 --> 00:51:06.398 - to sponsor or co-sponsor and help with that in English? No. 00:51:06.626 --> 00:51:13.311 - Thank you. I'll sponsor that as first chair and we can just make sure you keep on bringing it to the 00:51:13.311 --> 00:51:19.996 - committee and I do kind of expect as a committee that we can continue advising on it and checking it 00:51:19.996 --> 00:51:26.681 - as, because I do think that it's not technically in our kind of special thing to have this committee 00:51:26.681 --> 00:51:33.300 - look at different rate increases, but we've talked about that as a sort of specific committee would 00:51:33.300 --> 00:51:35.550 - do for councils to understand it. 00:51:36.002 --> 00:51:43.229 - I'm happy to work on it with you, but I really appreciate you volunteering as a student. Jeff. And then 00:51:43.229 --> 00:51:50.318 - just to remind everybody that the current budget that's been advertised has a $1.6 million subsidy in 00:51:50.318 --> 00:51:57.337 - it. So that will be something that if you want to adjust, you'll have an opportunity like the budget 00:51:57.337 --> 00:52:04.286 - here on next Wednesday. And so the people right now would be adjust that down to $1 million, right? 00:52:04.706 --> 00:52:14.567 - 1.2 million. Okay. Based on the three-year phase. Anything else to kind of add about that question I 00:52:14.567 --> 00:52:24.820 - asked in terms of finding the kind of phase they were going to try to get it before the end of the year? 00:52:24.820 --> 00:52:31.166 - So it sounds like it could stretch into January if it needed to. 00:52:31.362 --> 00:52:36.808 - Hopefully, I mean, that would certainly change project. I mean, anything that goes into next year would 00:52:36.808 --> 00:52:42.045 - change these numbers. And we'll be fine to notify residents if they change too. And you guys have a 00:52:42.045 --> 00:52:47.282 - very tight schedule for the year. Well, that's why I'm more concerned about our tight schedule. I'm 00:52:47.282 --> 00:52:52.623 - a little bit concerned about getting the ordinance with all the other changes done. So if worse comes 00:52:52.623 --> 00:52:58.017 - to worse, we could do an update just at the right tables by the end of the year and then come back and 00:52:58.017 --> 00:53:01.054 - fix everything else in January. That would be nice to do. 00:53:01.314 --> 00:53:08.163 - I think there's only three things we want. It's pretty basic. Do you have that file somewhere that's, 00:53:08.163 --> 00:53:15.146 - or is it all in your head? We got it. All right. Anything else to? All right. I want to thank the board 00:53:15.146 --> 00:53:22.466 - for coming. Thank you. And the writing this memo, it says that it's from you, so thank you. And I appreciate 00:53:22.466 --> 00:53:29.180 - that. At this point, we have six more minutes of our meeting. So I think for the most part, we need 00:53:29.180 --> 00:53:31.262 - to scrap our last agenda item. 00:53:31.618 --> 00:53:40.110 - Um, but what I will say about the electric salary depression is I kind of started making a new compensation 00:53:40.110 --> 00:53:48.052 - framework for 2026. The guiding principles were the ones that Matt and Isabella worked on earlier in 00:53:48.052 --> 00:53:56.072 - the year that we kind of approved the annual process. I kind of used the former, uh, the 2024 one and 00:53:56.072 --> 00:54:00.318 - added a little bit of date stuff in there in terms of 00:54:00.770 --> 00:54:09.165 - I added in physical committee concept. And so totally to take feedback on that and the relevant information 00:54:09.165 --> 00:54:16.938 - and data. I added a few things that we had talked about from the original document. And then it was 00:54:16.938 --> 00:54:24.711 - really the spaces of salary setting. I was kind of like, how do we want to do that this year? And I 00:54:24.711 --> 00:54:27.742 - think that we need to figure that out. 00:54:28.162 --> 00:54:36.361 - But we need to figure that out because we're kind of getting down to, we can say, the proverbial wire 00:54:36.361 --> 00:54:44.721 - on this. And so you can see my thoughts in there in terms of in an ideal world, we would have something 00:54:44.721 --> 00:54:54.206 - that could be consistently applied year over year. But then right now, we maybe just need to have something for 2027. 00:54:54.626 --> 00:55:00.941 - I don't know how useful any of those city comparisons have been because they really are all over the 00:55:00.941 --> 00:55:07.443 - place in a lot of ways. And I don't have time to read how maybe to go into, you know, I've been looking 00:55:07.443 --> 00:55:13.758 - at like the AIM Salary Study, they're just all over the place. Do we have access to that Excel sheet 00:55:13.758 --> 00:55:20.260 - with the comparisons that has been updated? Because I don't think it was fully filled out. I think it's 00:55:20.260 --> 00:55:24.574 - still not fully filled out. But there is some information there too. 00:55:24.834 --> 00:55:33.628 - Yeah, and the, I guess what I looked at essentially it hasn't changed from, like most places have not 00:55:33.628 --> 00:55:42.593 - increased. I had a conversation with the mayor of another city who's been advocating that their council 00:55:42.593 --> 00:55:48.542 - increased salaries and their council themselves have been saying no. 00:55:49.154 --> 00:55:55.789 - because in their interpretation, it was partly about privilege that most of the people serving on that 00:55:55.789 --> 00:56:02.488 - council don't need it in any way. Then it's like, well, that's one situation with the anecdotal in some 00:56:02.488 --> 00:56:08.930 - ways in terms of the reason why, but we have said that's not how we necessarily want to think about 00:56:08.930 --> 00:56:15.501 - our public serving officials. That's why I was like, is it really useful at all to compare because we 00:56:15.501 --> 00:56:18.142 - don't know why councils across the state 00:56:18.338 --> 00:56:25.222 - Honestly, across different states have made this choice to not increase their salaries. When I was looking 00:56:25.222 --> 00:56:31.849 - at some of that AIM salary chart comparison, we get an email and we can request it. Because one of the 00:56:31.849 --> 00:56:38.412 - things on here is thinking about comparing to civil city and civil departments and how much do we pay 00:56:38.412 --> 00:56:44.910 - our city staff. I was looking at some of those and like, wow, we pay our department heads a lot more 00:56:44.910 --> 00:56:47.998 - than department heads in other cities get paid. 00:56:48.386 --> 00:56:57.070 - and our council gets paid the same as roughly as the ones in other cities. So there's definitely somebody 00:56:57.070 --> 00:57:05.098 - out of whack in terms of council versus our city staff. But what do we want to do right now with, 00:57:05.098 --> 00:57:13.373 - of course, the consideration, financial uncertainty, and all those things. If that's a consideration 00:57:13.373 --> 00:57:18.206 - we want to make, should it be somehow proportional to what 00:57:18.626 --> 00:57:26.836 - department has made from, is that, did we put that in here as a, it was just relevant, part of the relevant 00:57:26.836 --> 00:57:34.590 - information. Yes, it was part of the relevant information that's, yeah. And I'll say we have not done 00:57:34.590 --> 00:57:42.268 - consultation with other Bloomington elected officials. I asked the mayor yesterday, she was going to 00:57:42.268 --> 00:57:48.350 - pull up, and I'm pretty sure that I remember the court saying that she also was 00:57:48.674 --> 00:57:56.717 - was just interested in the poll this year, and I know that that's what she advocated for. I'm pretty 00:57:56.717 --> 00:58:04.839 - sure that I remember her saying that, and I thought that I was going to see her on it. But that's for 00:58:04.839 --> 00:58:12.882 - 27 salary. That's not for an ongoing grant. Correct. So where do we want to be right now? We need to 00:58:12.882 --> 00:58:17.182 - hamper this out. When is our next meeting? Two weeks? 00:58:17.442 --> 00:58:23.986 - Two weeks, and on the preliminary schedule, that's right after Q3 ends, and Jeff is going to get together 00:58:23.986 --> 00:58:30.221 - Q3 stuff. We could postpone that, I think, Jeff, if that's okay with you. Up to that. I mean, I will 00:58:30.221 --> 00:58:36.518 - have the data ready. I shouldn't present it at your convenience. Okay, yeah. I mean, it's right after 00:58:36.518 --> 00:58:42.877 - Q3 ends, so maybe that would even give you a little bit more breathing room for getting that together, 00:58:42.877 --> 00:58:46.334 - and we could talk about Q3 in four weeks and talk about 00:58:46.626 --> 00:58:53.988 - electro official stuff in two weeks. And that kind of covers my notes on schedule. I'm not going to 00:58:53.988 --> 00:59:01.498 - be here in two weeks. I mean, if you zoom in, that's okay. I won't be here at all. Isabel, as long as 00:59:01.498 --> 00:59:08.860 - you're going to be in person in two weeks. As long as the two of us are in person, you can zoom in, 00:59:08.860 --> 00:59:14.750 - Dave. But if you're unable to zoom in, we can't have a meeting. I will zoom in. 00:59:14.914 --> 00:59:21.556 - Okay, period. I'll remind you all that I'm going to stop in my absence, but maybe you should be pretty 00:59:21.556 --> 00:59:28.391 - consistent the entire time. I think we do need to change. I've been abused on what I think are reasonable 00:59:28.391 --> 00:59:34.969 - basis for that. I don't expect a change this year, but I've been abused. Well, if we're going to talk 00:59:34.969 --> 00:59:41.546 - about framework, we should maybe invite the mayor and clerk. To at least that part of it. To at least 00:59:41.546 --> 00:59:44.190 - that part of it. No, and at least, yeah. 00:59:45.122 --> 00:59:54.755 - Ask them to think about framework again from future and not just the next team. Okay. All right, I have 00:59:54.755 --> 01:00:04.111 - a note about anything else from the committee about this. All right, let's go ahead and go to public 01:00:04.111 --> 01:00:13.374 - comment, because there's a public comment. Is there any members of the public who are interested in 01:00:13.634 --> 01:00:20.795 - Making a comment on what the official salaries such as they are and that we're going to talk about it 01:00:20.795 --> 01:00:27.815 - again in two weeks. Raise your hands. See one number with their hand raised Mr. Keough. I asked you 01:00:27.815 --> 01:00:34.835 - to hear me. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, real quick. I left a comment in the chat and it's basically about 01:00:34.835 --> 01:00:37.854 - what you've been talking earlier about the 01:00:38.402 --> 01:00:45.911 - the sanitation costs and how this reminds me of an article I read in the 1980s. It's a management account 01:00:45.911 --> 01:00:53.279 - in the article. It's called the $6 Aspirin. The article detailed the methodology at that time hospitals 01:00:53.279 --> 01:01:00.504 - were starting to implement to charge patients. Bottom line, it's just so unsustainable. It results in 01:01:00.504 --> 01:01:05.534 - obviously higher than COLA cost increases. I even actually Googled it. 01:01:05.730 --> 01:01:10.980 - Yes, the classic case study in healthcare cost accounting illustrates how hospital allocate indirect 01:01:10.980 --> 01:01:16.229 - and structural cost and routine to routine over-the-counter medications rather reflecting the market 01:01:16.229 --> 01:01:21.635 - price of the pill. I guess that's a key thing. I don't know if you guys did talk about the market price 01:01:21.635 --> 01:01:26.989 - of sanitation other delivery service and then you did I missed it then. So hopefully it's in line, but 01:01:26.989 --> 01:01:32.862 - I guess it just thrown us out. This is something that early on when you do this, it has unintended consequences. 01:01:33.186 --> 01:01:43.485 - This is a great case study. This is from 1980, well before the health crisis, the insurance of the whole 01:01:43.485 --> 01:01:53.490 - health affordability. Just another call on the red flag. All right, enough said. Bye. Thanks so much. 01:01:53.490 --> 01:02:03.102 - In that panel, there's a cost comparison at the end to private dollars. That is something that we 01:02:03.202 --> 01:02:12.292 - Discussed. Well, it was discussed in the memo and they only discussed it as a committee. Any other public 01:02:12.292 --> 01:02:20.267 - comments? I don't see any hand raised, so I'll go ahead and close that. So, yeah, all right. 01:02:20.267 --> 01:02:28.843 - So next meeting, we'll dive much farther into the elected official salaries. I'll try to talk about 01:02:28.843 --> 01:02:30.558 - both for next year. 01:02:30.786 --> 01:02:37.814 - And then also an ongoing framework. And by the end of the meeting, we need to have a proposal that can 01:02:37.814 --> 01:02:44.909 - get written up and sent to council for a vote. Okay. Any other? Oh, and of course, the other note about 01:02:44.909 --> 01:02:51.869 - schedule is there is the must pass course meeting this afternoon and one in the courthouse. I'm going 01:02:51.869 --> 01:02:59.033 - to that. We are going to that as well. Wonderful. Are you willing to share every report out with council 01:02:59.033 --> 01:03:00.670 - members? Anything else? 01:03:01.730 --> 01:03:03.838 - Great return. Thanks so much, y'all.