COTW 2026 09 14

Good evening. We'll call this meeting of the committee of the whole to order at 6:30 p.m. Uh, roll call. I'm sorry. Alder Mesner here. >> Alder Brezer here. Alder Close here. >> Alder Boris >> here. >> Alder Decker >> here. >> Alder Pella >> here. >> Alder Kelly >> here. >> Alder Mitchell >> here. >> Alder Heidman >> here. >> All are present. Um let's rise for the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Third item on the agenda is approval of the minutes. I'm looking for a motion. >> Motion to approve. Fourth item is public comment. Is anyone here for public comment? Oh, I'm sorry. Hurrying things along. Um, all in favor? >> Uh, chair votes I also. Any nays? That is approved. Um, public comment. Nobody. Surprise, surprise. All right, then we will move on to the presentation. The 2027 budget presentation by city administrator Casey Bradley and finance director Caitlyn Krueger. Good evening everybody. We are here to present the uh preliminary budget uh for 2027. So first we'll go into just what we have done to date. Uh we had started uh the budget process back in probably June when we gave out uh parameters and everything to department heads. Uh we from the city administrator. So they were uh instructed to enter known contract prices and increases. Uh new positions were only to be considered if they were submitted to city administrator with job description being ready to get submitted for job uh placement on the grade and step scale um for the non-represented staff and requests for new purchases needed to be separated um onto a spreadsheet. And lastly, they were instructed to analyze fees and revenue accounts. The requests were due by August 14th. Um so then after that we start a meeting with department heads um with the budget team which consists of myself uh city administrator Casey Bradley, deputy finance director Evan Gen, and the assistant city administrator Marie Foss. So the four of us met with every department head and some others in their departments to review their their requests as submitted. Then the budget team works through a couple meetings um looking at the draft budget to see if there's adjustments that need to be made based on what was turned in. For example, um if there is a uh I am in charge of doing the salary and benefit projections. So making sure that opt outs come into the budget if a person doesn't have health insurance and those types of things. So the budget team looks at that and comes forward with the best uh changes that we can make at this stage. Uh, and then the preliminary budget document was posted on the city's website at about 4:30 today. So, uh, you can take a peek at that when you have a moment. I do want to state, and you'll probably hear me say this about four times tonight, that this is a very preliminary budget. At this point in time, we do have the general fund budget balanced without uh, use of fund balance for any of the recurring expenses. However, we do have that annual fund balance use uh for contingency that we've been doing the past several years um for those unanticipated items that come forward. As you can see from the screen, we have a lot of outstanding items at this point in time. The balance of putting out the budget early versus waiting um is there. So, the council historically has asked to receive the budget document early, but with that comes a lot of unknowns at this point in time. For example, we have a lot of items outstanding from the state of Wisconsin Department revenue or department of transportation. So, we could um were likely to receive the state shared revenue estimates tomorrow. Uh so, as of tomorrow, the numbers will be different again. Uh the other items uh we have not uh finalized the wastewater rates for next year because there are such large projects. We want to make sure we're looking at that as we can um in the best way possible for rate uh users. Additionally, like f uh the final health and dental insurance premium amounts won't be determined until next week. So again, all of the numbers that are out there are the best that we have as of today, but you will likely see many changes in the next few weeks. >> How we got to where we are. We started with a $1.5 million deficit in the general fund. So I do just want to mention that. So it is a big feat to get to a balanced budget when you start with a large deficit that way. So uh administrator Bradley just wanted to let you know that we have made a lot of uh put in a lot of work so far to date. And even though we have a lot of work yet to happen um on this budget, we at least uh wanted to let you know we've brought forward the best that we has have as of today. Next, we'll go over just some of the large items or changes that are in the preliminary budget as presented. A few years ago, I believe it was 2025, we had our first uh recurring change to the monthly fee that we charge for the refuge fund or recycling and sanitation. That fee hadn't changed since I believe it was 2015 or 2013. And so it had lagged significantly behind what it costs to provide those services. So when we brought forward the budget in 2025, we had suggested that we look at bringing forward a dollar per month increase for 5 years to get that into a place where the fees cover the cost to provide the services. So that on the screen you can see how that's working. So far we have um decreased the amount of levy support to $200,39 for 2027. So we will still uh propose those fees moving forward because we want to also have it that the garbage trucks and recycling trucks can also get replaced with those fees. So we want the full cost including any equipment and things to be covered by those fees. >> So and just to kind of point that out that that goes back to doing the long range planning. Um, so those pieces of equipment, uh, $400 or $500,000 each and they weren't planned for. They weren't planned to be replaced. Um, essentially the plan would be use tax levy or use debt. And we're trying to we're trying to control cost and we're trying to uh plan for costs. And by going the fee route, we're able to consistently put that revenue away and build that fund. So when we need to replace that equipment, instead of incurring debt and paying hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars of additional costs on the interest side of it, uh we're able to purchase exactly what we need, we rightsize it and then um we save taxpayers money and obviously uh the city budget is a lot more uh sustainable and we can plan long term by doing this. So, uh, like Caitlyn said, this is year three of that 5-year process of that $1 increase. Instead of doing one gigantic increase, we spread it over that 5-year period. So, we're slowly transitioning into that with the least amount of shock to the taxpayers. >> All right. Oh, all right. I got the next one. So, uh, earlier this year, u um, it was unaware to most of us that the, uh, wheel tax sunseted in February. Um, and we had some discussion preliminary preliminarily with, uh, um, council, um, with council leadership and how we were going to, uh, address this. Uh, so we wanted to take a look at how do we best manage with the funds that we have. And then we also ran into a situation where we actually saw a decrease in our state aid for roads. So in addition to the wheel tax going down, we also saw a decrease in that area. So uh a lot less funding. So traditionally we've taken in about 690,700,000 in that in that window. Um this year we ended up taking in $68,142. So, um, we decided that if we want to maintain the road program as it is and not maintain it through debt, um, which obviously, um, is not sustainable in and of itself, uh, looking at bringing the wheel tax back for consideration. Um, in going through that discussion, we wanted to see what other cities are doing. I know there's a a large mix. So we we looked at secondass cities which by definition of state statute is a city um I believe it's 39,999 to 150,000 is the secondass city which obviously city of Shbboan is right in the middle of that. So there was seven cities that we or 14 cities we reached out to. Seven do not charge a wheel tax. Seven do. The average wheel tax on the seven that do have this in place is $3357. So, um, if you recall, our old wheel tax was $20. So, we're proposing and what we've put into the budget preliminarily, um, obviously it's it's council's prerogative. If if you want us to take it out, then we'll have to cut that out of the budget, but uh, we're proposing $30. So, we would be under the average that we saw with the other municipalities. And we're also um if there's interest in pursuing this, one of the I'd say kind of the downfalls of how how the old wheel tax was um specifically designed to be used was that it was strictly for capital. So it was strictly for major projects or only projects that were related to um street replacement or street construction. Um, probably the most common complaint we get is that folks want to see more street maintenance done. So, fixing potholes, things like that. So, what we're proposing is if we do bring this back and bring it for council consideration that we we look at allowing um this to be used for street maintenance and for street capital. So, um, this could actually be replacing, you know, one year we might have a big replacement project and we use the funding for that, but also give the flexibility to where it could actually be used for street maintenance, which would be those lower items, which are much more frequent that currently the restriction didn't allow for. So, um, we could see a lot more of the in-house work done, um, and get a lot more potholes, things like that that the public really seems to, um, care a lot about. Um, so yeah, that that's the major changes we're looking at there. And obviously, uh, that increase would be about another 110 to $200,000 a year. Um, that's just based on our estimates. We don't know that for sure until the money is actually coming in, but that would be the proposal on that. Any questions? And if I can add something very quickly, uh we didn't want to bring forward it is an ordinance requirement. So we didn't want to bring forward that ordinance until this was presented here. So um if there's any com comments that want to be made now, that's fine. Um but we will be bringing forward an ordinance for this exact purpose in the next finance and personnel uh cycle. >> Were there any questions? Perfect. So, uh, the 2027 salary and benefit costs, um, we had initial when I did the presentation for the 2027 outlook, we were looking at, um, some insurance premiums, we entered in the 4% for both health and dental. The, uh, salary changes are listed there. Uh, we have a step and a cost of living adjustment for non-represented staff. Um, for those of you who were here, uh, during the compensation, uh, schedule implementation, a step is either 1.25% or 2.5%. And that's if you're here for a year, you get another step. So, non-represented would get that 2.5% cost of living. In addition, the police um, their contract expires at the end of this year. So, we are um going to be actively negotiating, but we do have a placeholder in the budget at this point in time for what we think is a good estimate for what that would be. Transit and fire both have contracts in place for next year. So, the budget reflects those expected increases. And lastly, Wisconsin retirement system, they provide us the requirements um on what we have to collect for the pension. So, those have also been factored into the budget currently. As you can see, um, this is for all funds. So, not just general fund. This includes wastewater, transit, library, all of the funds. Uh, just salaries and benefits is a $2.8 million increase from 2026 to 2027 as currently put in the budget. >> Any questions? I have a question. >> I have a question on the previous slide. >> And please proceed. >> Can can we have go back to the previous slide, please? So the $30 um will tax proposed. How much is the forecasted revenue out of that? >> It's down in the lower right hand corner. It says 2027 proposed. It would be 999,000 or $999,260 is what we would estimate based on the history we have. >> And another comment just really quickly, you'll notice it's kind of odd because we did a request of a 2127 start date start date for the wheel tax. the individuals who registered their vehicle in January of 2026 still paid the wheel tax for 26. So that's why we're suggesting doing it to 127 so that there there's not a group of individuals in the city who happen to pay that fee twice um when others didn't pay it will only pay it the one time. So just wanted to point that out as well. I was just thinking uh about the fact that um the historic increase has been much less than what the final revenue would be. So in theory we could charge less than $30 even if we wanted just to catch up and get the same revenues we were getting in previous years. So instead of for example I don't know the math but instead of 30 we could charge 25 or 23 or whatever is that that gets to the same level uh as the previous years with an adjustment of uh the historical increase. That would be correct. Yes. So if we charged a $25, we would go back. I did, I believe, a estimate based on the $30 for 11 months minus with an adjustment based on the factor that has been historically seen where we see about a $20,000, $8,000, you know, increase every year. I did an average of quite a few years to determine that $999,000 on a $30 fee. >> Right. Okay. I just want to put it out there because the less we charge the best the better in my view. So um we can uh reassess when the ordinance come true I assume in details. >> That would be correct. Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you chair. >> Alder Bors. >> Thank you chair. Also on this note um the previous wheel tax had been in place for was it 10 years? >> Correct. Over the course of that 10 years, had that wheel tax changed year-over-year? >> No, it was always $20. >> Okay. So, this would be the first increase in 11 years and it would be about a 50% increase. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Any more questions? >> Did you have a question on the next slide also? No. >> Okay. Oh, Alder Kelly, >> I I don't know. I doubt you would have this number handy, but generally speaking, how much has the road maintenance costs to the city increased over the last 10 years? Just I know 50% over 10 years might sound like a lot, but my assumption is that we spend a lot on road maintenance. I can give you some numbers of you know maybe >> you you you don't need to um bring that up now but when we do um talk more about the wheel tasks in the future that would be nice to have handy. >> Sure. And I I can comment at least historically on the capital side we have increased road spending quite a bit in the last few years alone. Um so I would anticipate that the street maintenance um portion of it even in the general with that maintenance piece has gone up as well um significantly but I can provide those that information when it comes back through. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, we can pull um like asphalt going up with oil prices. So you know what we're seeing right now is historic high on on gas prices which correlates into the asphalt prices. So a 50% increase from 11 years ago, you know, we're not even coming close to what we were doing lat 10 years ago with this. So it's it's changed dramatically. And we can have uh Kevin pull some of that data and what we're seeing in bids now versus then >> just because I I am this way. Um, I pulled up 2016. Um, and we paid it was and I would have to make sure that it's apples to apples comparison cuz I wasn't here during that time to make sure that staffing was categorized the same way and everything. But in um 2020, sorry, 2016, oh, now I bump my screen here. 2016 it was our budget was $3.1 million for the street maintenance account and for 2026 it's $5.4 million. for salaries, benefits, and then all the because we do have in-house staff that does do quite a bit of that work. >> Okay, thank you. >> Other boards, >> just one more comment on the wheel tax. Um I was sad to see that it had lapsed. Obviously, it was something that I know um predated probably everybody on city staff. Um, but I just from an opinion perspective, I do think it's appropriate for it to be reinstated. Um, I had anticipated that this would likely happen. Um, and in terms of the redistribution of the funds so that street maintenance can be included, I I think I many many people would agree that um, that is probably going to be a very popular decision um because it is I think consistently one of the pieces of feedback that a lot of us get as alders. Um the road projects that happen obviously are greatly appreciated, but the street maintenance is seen as a big area of opportunity. So um I appreciate the proposal um coming forth the way that it has. Thank you. >> Moving along. >> Any questions on the salary benefit slide? >> All right. Oh, other Boris, >> just a quick question. Um, obviously this represents the anticipated increases, but how much of this is like an increase in terms of total position counts or something of that nature? >> We'll we'll get into that um a little bit. We'll talk about kind of overall um we've got it broke out by by fund, things like that. So it's it's actually very nominal the changes this year. So >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair. >> Oh, Alder Pela, >> I I still have a question about before. I'm a little slow. >> Go ahead. >> Um I and we knew that there was maybe some proposal of changing the will tax at the level of the state. Has anything changed on that level? I believe you're talking about the fact that uh there was some legislation that would have had to take wheel tax to referendum. >> Let's go back. >> Uh I believe that did not go forward in the state. So at this point in time where correct it is okay to you know approve at the council level. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. And to answer your question about the table of organization just so you have some context um our proposed budget has uh 2.6 FTEES more. So it is a slight portion of that but not substantial. Any other questions on that? There is another slide next where we talk about the non-represented salary benchmark. Um this slide is a little goofy I must say even as a finance person. So, um, if I can take a second to explain what we have in our financial policies currently is that non-represented staff, um, the salary increases are based on social security as the index for those. So, we always take a look annually to see, you know, how we're comparing in the past several years to how the social security increases have come through. So we um our goal is to be you know consistent across uh the compensation plan so that we make sure that we're keeping up with inflation and can continue to be a competitive employer in the market. So if you look at the table uh we are lagging slightly behind uh from the past 3 years from what social security percentage increases were. However, I do want to point out that in 2022, we did do the compensation plan and when we did adopt that or when council adopted that um it was benchmarked higher than what the market was at that time. So 50% would have been the normal market rate average the council adopted to go to the 62.5% because we were in such a high um or kind of a tumultuous time in the market for wages. So we wanted to be ahead of that. So, we're hopeful that when we go to do a comp uh proposal, uh we'll be coming forward to go get an RFP for a market rate review just to make sure that even though we l right now that that initial bump that we put forward is keeping us uh competitive in the market. So, we're hoping to have that uh planned for early 2027 for consideration either during 2027 if possible or with 2028 budget. All right. All right. And then the large initiatives that are in this budget. Obviously, we've got a lot of projects that are going on, but just kind of highlighting some of the bigger ones that we're focusing on. Strategic plan is going to affect every department and ultimately um council will be heavily involved um I'd say in phase two, phase three of that part of that project. And then uh obviously the public the component um so over all through 2027 that'll we'll be hearing a lot and being very involved with that. Uh wastewater projects uh obviously the southside interceptor and lakeshore interceptor are massive projects. Um they both should be ready for bid here uh late fall and hopefully we'll see both those projects under construction uh early next year. So, those those are substantial projects. Um, I know there's some misunderstanding about what the Southside Interceptor is. It is a replacement for the vast majority of this project. Um, we've seen some misinformation that's been put out online that we're adding 1.5 million gallons of capacity. We are not. Um there's an existing line that runs through the Alliant corridor, which is where the uh transmission lines run through the south part of the city. Uh they run east west. So we already have a pipe in there. The southside interceptor is a replacement. It's an upgrade of that pipe. And then off of that pipe will be one that runs south. So we're running from the wastewater treatment plant all the way to the industrial park and upgrading that nominally um compared to what it actually is. And then we're increasing a portion of that that'll take the wastewater from the Gartman subdivision. Um and it's designed capacity goes all the way down to V. Um because it's a regional um regional system. So um we've designed it so that we would take that whole area's wastewater if need be into that pipe. So that will run back up to the Alliant corridor and then back to um back to the uh wastewater treatment plant. So not much of a capacity increase, but obviously the service area increased substantially. So Lakeshore interceptor that is a FEMA project that has been in the works for 5 years. Um and that finally is moving forward. FEMA and uh core engineers and DNR have all finally signed off on that. So that project's moving forward. The main impetus behind that project is um essentially armoring that and protecting that in case of uh beach erosion things like that taking place that line will stay buried. Um so a lot of uh rip wrap things like that will be going on top of that to protect it. um phone system transition, transitioning uh away from a PBX, a box on site on prem to more of a cloud-based phone system. Uh public safety campus and fire station obviously uh uh public safety campus will um be replacement for fire station 3 and then fire station 2 projects. So um we're hoping the next phase will be ready for consideration in the next few months. and then in-house assessment division. We do have an accepted uh offer for the assessor position and now we'll be looking at the staff um moving forward. So um we're excited to bring that inhouse. So um that's adding three FTEEs but eliminating the contract. So um from a cost perspective, it's actually a reduction in cost overall. And then obviously Arbinger and establishing the in-house training program for Arbinger and getting that second cohort going um probably midway through next year. So any questions on those large projects? >> Alder Bors. >> Thank you, Chair. Um what qualifies as large initiative? Because from a cost perspective, there's a huge swing from top to bottom of this list. Um so what actually qualifies as a large initiative? >> Uh so we looked at overall organizational impact and cost. So some of these are large costs obviously in and of themselves they're large. Uh you look at the strategic plan it's going to involve everything from all of our employees through community involvement. So that's a large initiative. uh Arbinger is going to involve every employee and then ultimately um have an impact on our service to the community. So large impact there even though cost is relatively small. So we just kind of looked at from from that perspective what are the most common things that folks are going to see or hear about and it's going to be those types of projects. Thanks for clarifying because I just I don't want there to be many any misunderstanding that say Arbinger, you know, or in particular is would be on par with, you know, like the public safety campus when it comes to costs because this is specifically budget related in finance. Um, so I just want to clarify that. Thank you for that. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you, chair. >> Right. >> All right. And these are a lot of numbers on the screen. So I do recognize that and I will send this out to all the alders after this um meeting but just wanted to provide the expenses but by fund at this current stage. Um there are some large swings. For example, if you look at affordable housing fund, we would go from $724,000 for 26 to $10,000. Uh that is the we made the final mortgage payment for the Gartman property in 2026. So, we no longer have that. We may come forward hopefully with a new program with some sort of down payment assistance or something like that that I know has been on the radar with that affordable housing funds, but at this point in time, we don't have an estimate of what that would look like. So, we don't have anything in the preliminary budget. The redevelopment authority, again, it's just recognizing some of the expenses that they've been having over the course of the past few years um coming forward in that fund. um the tax increment districts that uh budget nearly doubles, but that's preliminarily due to um some of those capital projects that are going to be considered um by the council in the next few weeks. >> Other bars, >> um sorry, what is MEG unit? That is actually the drug unit uh at the police department. So, we have a special revenue fund for that um because we have an agreement to cost share certain things with the county. And then we also receive several grants that provide um funding for the supplies and the overtime that uh occur in that fund. >> Thank you. One of those many acronyms I have not mastered. So, thank you for that. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you, chair. >> Alder Pel, >> can you please uh reexlain why the affordable housing went to slow down again? >> Sure. So, affordable housing, that is where we were paying for the property purchase for Gartman, the 200 plus acres down on the south side. So, we um when we purchased that property, the sales agreement had it that we actually took out a mortgage to pay the homeowner that was or the land owner that was selling it to us. So, we have made that final payment now in 2026. So, that won't occur next year anymore. >> Thank you. So, and just for so everybody's on the same understanding, so we wrote the project plan for Gartman to also reimburse that fund. So, the city will get those funds back as it's developed as well. So, um even though the cash outflowed, it'll come back in. This is the TIG closure fund. So, that one year extra that we can collect and use for affordable housing. Um, so because we didn't necessarily dedicate this project to affordable housing, then we're making the project pay the city back so those funds can be reinvested in another way into affordable housing, >> right? It's just that the the the descriptor is a little misleading and it's hard to associate that with the garment farm and even especially that project. So I it's kind of a little misleading. Maybe I would add a little descriptor there so that the public understands what we're talking about. >> Um, that's the fund that was used. So when when council made the decision to fund that project, they they chose to use this fund and that's the name of the fund because it's a special revenue fund ultimately. So property tax dollars don't go into this fund outside of that TIG closure. >> Right. Right. That being said, we do um the finance department does develop uh what you'll see on the website which I would was going to go into later um in the presentation is I think 250 or so pages of every line detail that is in the budget. Um so if you compared last year to this year, you would be able to see that that Gartman payment comes out. But that being said, the finance department has a more readily uh we'll say legible or easily digestible version of the budget that we also put out um which has it in um instead of the uh financial systems generated report, it has it in a a more easily uh readable version. So, we could easily put a note on the affordable housing fund that that is the cause of the significant increase or decrease. That wouldn't be an issue. Um, but again, yeah, it's not that we're not doing anything towards affordable housing. It's just the expense in that fund is not happening anymore. >> Thank you. >> And this is the rest of the funds that we have. Uh, so as you can see, we have quite a few um funds in the city. um parking has an increase and that's related to a capital project request uh for the uh riverfront parking. Um additionally there is a decrease in the liability fund. Historically how that has been used is that premiums were being paid out of the liability fund. However, we weren't truly funding them 100%. So it was using some fund balance and other transfers to try to cover that. So what we have proposed for 2027 is that each fund is actually paying its insurance premiums on the front end instead of having it go through this pass through account and making sure we're full fully covering those appropriately. All right. All right. Then general fund. Um, so we've got the removal of the assessment contract and the addition of three FTEES in the assessment division. Um, again, that's going to be costneutral or even favorable, uh, depending on how it all ends up working out. Um, annual clothing allowance for non-represented employees. We had numerous staff that have asked, um, right now we require safety shoes. um to get a quality pair that lasts more than a year. Um they need they're seeing prices at about $200. So, uh that $100 gets ate up really fast. So, we're looking at doubling it to $200. So, this would be for all nonreps that are required to wear uh safety gear, things like that um that we don't provide. Um we have an increase in tuition reimbursement program from 10,000 to 30,000. Um, if this does stay in there, we do have a draft uh program change uh because right now it's it's pretty loose in how it gets interpreted. So, we're gonna if if council commits to uh making that commitment, then we'll bring in bring forth a um more of a solidified program by which um there's criteria of what types of programs are covered. um it's pretty much has to be an accredited school at this point, but we don't differentiate that it's a degree that has to be usable within the city, things like that. So, um this is something that we've heard from a number of staff. Um right now we reimburse about $2,000. Um, and it doesn't cover much of the cost, especially when some folks are going for graduate degrees to try moving up, whether it be, you know, in positions in police, fire, um, or other departments that they need that that, um, master's degree to be competitive in that position and internally with us. So, um, we want to look at, um, focusing more on, uh, helping to grow our staff internally and help promote, you know, we might have folks that, uh, start out here, you know, why they're going to college and we can help them through that and then they progress through their career here. So, um, if that is supported, then we'll look at bringing that forward and, uh, I think we'll have a lot of happy staff because of that. Uh we do have a6 FTE increase in the police department for a records clerk um to help offset some of the work that is um needed for the open records requests um and the backlog that exists there. Um it's basically converting a long-term employee and LTE employee into a full-time employee is the big change there. Um, so then you'll see, you know, salaries are about a 4.92% increase, fringe benefits about 5.37. Um, then overall everything else is pretty pretty consistent throughout the budget. Any questions on the general fund? All right. And before I forget uh to mention this uh Alder Boris, you asked a question about the FTEES and as soon as the assessment division came up and it was three. I knew that my Excel spreadsheet that I brought up was not including that. So it is a 5.6 increase of FTE just so you know. Wanted to correct that right away. Okay. So the expenses um by department for general fund are on the screen. It's the next two slides actually. So, I just wanted to point out a few. There are some ups and downs that um are pretty um standard as you uh council for example is down 5.25% but it's not because of um any significant change other than where the program is coming from for the agenda software. So, that is removed from the council uh line and it's now in it because it's used by all departments. So we were trying to align if the IT fund is so that the IT fund covers most of those expenses that are broadly used by departments particularly because our financial policies state that the IT director is in charge of approving any software. So we want to align that with what is anticipated and expected uh from staff. The two big changes here on the screen, you'll see that liability insurance. That is what I just mentioned previously on the slide that I covered related to that liability fund. So instead of the uh expenses being in the liability fund, they are now in each independent fund. So general fund does see that increase, but we have it in there just to make sure that we're covering the claims and the premiums directly out of the general fund. Um other funds have the insurance premium increases as well. Additionally, human resources has the increase. Um those there are three main drivers of that and that's employee engagement, the arbinger training and tuition reimbursement. So that's where that 12.8% comes in. Any other questions on that slide right away? And again, if you have any questions, you can feel free to reach out to me. I'm happy to answer them. The next slide um is pretty much consistent with what you see on the first slide. The big uh difference I would say is the cemetery expenses, but that is related to um we had a staff change there and it's a a reduction in um salary and health insurance because of those uh options. So >> the police department uh with that 5.38 as we indicated we have we have the proposed what we think is going to be the framework of the union negotiations. We have that built in. So that's why that's a little higher than you see consistently across the other departments. Other notable changes. So, the library fund um we we have that uh report from from uh uh Bold Path in regards to the shortage of supervisory staff there. Um essentially, I believe it came back that they have 79 FTEES covering every 10 um full-time staff. So, obviously we we try to keep that number about one to 1 to seven max. So, we're way over what we should be there. Um, so in the way this all kind of worked out, we've been working with with the library board. Um, they could they're consolidating a couple positions. Um, and so the way it all works out essentially they're going to have one additional full-time supervisory position and then a lead staff in this first goaround. Um the recommendation ultimately was for two uh supervisory staff in a lead. So we're doing part of it this year and we're going to try to work it into next year to do the other part of that. Um but because the library board was uh willing to kind of consolidate two part-time employees, we're only seeing an actual change of a.5 FTE. So costwise, it's a little a little skewed. Um it's not adding one full-time position. It's um a little bit more than it's about a 6 to 7 cost average that we would see and that's because we're promoting one to a lead. Um but overall it's less than one full-time employee cost. Uh Uptown Social, the inclusion of a.5 FTE for additional help. Uh that will be partially grant funded and the rest will come out of program revenues for uh Uptown Social. So no actual and cost uh or additional tax levy would go into that. So they're sustaining uh their program with um their own funding. Uh no allocation of the to the county for the co-responder program. So I know that was that was a program that was really successful and uh when the county or when the city partnered with the county, the city cannot provide uh the co-responder services. Um so what what the the city did was initially allocate ARPA funding. ARPA funding has expired. We've utilized all of that. So um ultimately we don't even have the authority to provide those services. So what happened was the city provided funding to the county. The county went and contracted with a contractor to provide those services. Um and we did see really good outcomes as a result of that. But ultimately, that's not a service that the city provides. And um it's about a $400,000 a year need >> $460. >> 460 um was the latest numbers that we got from them. Um that is not something we ever had in our budget. It was one-time funding that was used to help set up a pilot program. So um in looking at how do we balance our operational needs with the things we have to do versus paying another agency to do the things that they provide. Um we opted to um in in the case of the police department um we also a couple grants ran out um at the same time it the ARPA funding ended which ended that program and we had a separate grant for our victim witness coordinator um that also expired. So, in talking with police chief, obviously that's about a $70,000 year grant, um we opted that providing that critical service to city residents was um a priority. So, we're we opted to fund back fund that grant with other other sources. Um obviously tax revenue ultimately picks that up. Um but we we will not be moving forward with the co-responder program from a funding aspect. We have uh notified the county of that and we have also said that should they choose to continue funding that the city will continue um providing uh the workspace the capacity to ride along and uh the staffing partnership that we had as a part of the program. So anything else you want to add on that? >> Alder Pala had a question earlier but you jumped right into being able to um could we go back and scoop up what she's got to ask? >> Went through a few of those. So, what was that about? Do you two? >> I can look specifically, but uh the likelihood is that it relates to health insurance choices and we budget a certain way and then we budget if it's vacancy, we budget for a single. There might be people when they fill positions that opt into a family plan or a higher plan um that costs more. So we budget a certain way for vacancies, but also an employee could change that um choice anytime if they have a uh family event or related to a um open enrollment time. >> Thank you. Um did you want to finish the slide you were on and then there was a couple of questions? >> Yep. Uh so the other the other notable changes uh planning development we do have the addition of one FT uh through economic development coordinator. Um that the work will primarily be funded just through TIFF because it would be built back because um the role as we wrote the job description if approved um essentially would focus on um downtown and projects related to TIDS. So it would be eligible for reimbursement. So it would not actually be a levy funded position but funded through the tiff and eligible for that. Um and then we also um I know we made a large reduction in our contribution to thec last year. Um we're looking at another reduction this year. We did reach out and ask um what contributions have been made. Um I believe there's been some followup and no responses in the last couple weeks. Um asking for clarifications of projects that they said they were related to or had partnership in. Um so they gave us I believe council received an email um with some very general information. Um when specifics were asked a couple weeks ago, they haven't been provided as of yet. So, um, and from the staff perspective, uh, very similar. Um, what we're seeing is, um, Taylor and her staff are actually making referrals to them as opposed to them bringing businesses and referring them to the city. So, it's kind of a reversed relationship of what we're paying for versus what we're getting. >> Um, Alder Kelly, you had a question. >> Yes. So, um, just so I can understand, the co-responder program, was that a partnership with Elevate? >> Oh, sorry. >> No problem. Uh, Elevate is the contractor that the county hired to provide the co-responder service. Uh, they also have contracted with them to provide mobile crisis services as well. Uh both of those things started within about 3 months of each other. Uh the county had previously contracted with a different local company to provide the uh mobile crisis services. Uh I can add a little bit of detail if that's all right. Uh just beyond what uh what administrator Bradley had. Um so we've we've been in discussions with both the county and other organizations to uh specifically about how we continue to support the co-responder program. uh in addition to uh doing an exceptional job of providing better mental health outcomes for people in the city uh because there's an ability to intervene with the right kind of training and resources before people get to a crisis point that uh that has much broader implications and and costs. Um the other part of it is that uh because our emergency detentions have gone down, it has saved the county money. um they have uh indicated that at least the latest word is that they intend to use opioid settlement money to to fund the program. Uh but at a significant reduction um of about 45% or so. So what that looks like, I don't know. Uh obviously their budget isn't through their board yet either. Uh and I think that there's support on the board to try to continue it as well. So we'll see what happens. But obviously we we want to continue our support of it with u providing them office space, computer access, training, all of that that we've contributed from the start as well. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> Alder Bors, >> thank you chair. Um, thank you for providing that information and I would hope that additional funding is, you know, um, found through other resources so that we can continue that program um, based on how positive the reviews of it have been that you have provided to us. Um, regarding the second two or the last two bullet points with the additional FTE for the economic development coordinator, even though it is or should be funded through TIFF and it would be focused on TIFF areas, if you will, is this a direct correlation or response to the lack of engagement or support that we get from SCEEDC? >> I think that's a contributor to this. Uh we were looking at doing this in last year's budget and then opted to wait and kind of see with the development of the planning and development department. Um so overall the the amount of workload that is really falling onto that department um with the success that we're having in development um you know there's there's just not enough time in the day um for Taylor to be divided between the various tasks within her department and then the attention that's really needed for development specific whether um you know that's dealing with new developments coming in and the one area that um we're really not hitting well and that was kind of always the it was supposed to be what what we were seeing out of SEEDC was the engagement with the existing businesses the stay interviews the uh going around um and understanding what local businesses need to grow and having that communication that direct link and that's something that we've heavily written into the job description because it hasn't been done for years. Um, so the the mayor and I have had an initiative where we've tried to go to every major business. Um, and Taylor's predecessor came with on those meetings and now Taylor comes on those meetings. And you know, there's there's some businesses that when we go talk to them, they said they've never talked to somebody from the city of Shbboan or anything anyone affiliated uh with the city ever before. So, um, we want to change that practice. We want to change that narrative. Obviously, you know, everybody that comes to us, we want to work with them, but they don't necessarily understand that until we've done that outreach. And there's just too much for um you know, somebody with another 50hour job that's assigned um to have that on them. And same thing with, you know, we we try to match, you know, we're probably two to three months out when we schedule these just so we can fit them in our all of our schedules. So, we're we're not doing our existing businesses justice by not having somebody dedicated to helping them and making sure that we're getting the resources they need, whether it's, you know, navigating challenges or just navigating the city system or navigating uh the state system for whatever they have going on. You know, if it's to grow, if it's to sustain, whatever it may be, we need to be that resource and make sure we're making those connections. So that's probably I would say the bulk of the expectation of this position and then obviously the new business engagement things like that that um we're I think we've got a good a good pattern going where we've we're we're connecting folks through our our uh new developer summit things like that um that that's really worked well and I think um we've had a lot of success out of that but we need to go and grow bigger and recognize that we we need a better relationship or better connection to our existing businesses. So, >> thank you. Thank you. Chair >> Ala called me. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. I just want to voice my deep deep disappointment with the decision of or the propos the proposal of remove of not um having the corresponder program. This is the one thing that we have been doing for the community with huge positive results and I know that the the Shibboan Police Department as chief uh as the chief said has uh plenty of data on this. We may even end up paying more by the issues that result in escalations of is of situations without this program. In addition to the fact that this has a positive impact also on the unhoused community that we deal and we know that we have to find better way to deal and work with. So I'm disappointed by the fact that we have and if we don't have yet perhaps we could still have take the opportunity of looking for uh alternative fundings for this program and looking for uh the many creative ways that this this administration has shown in other situations to find creative hard odd solutions to fund programs that are worthwhile. So I I know I am just one of the 10, but I would recommend that if council shows the um interest in this that the the administration takes a second look and that f looks for alternative funding resources for this program. Chief Sample. >> Thank you. Uh Alder Prella, I hope that you're delivering that message to your county board representatives uh because that's who has the authority to levy taxes and provide services for behavioral health in our community. The city doesn't have the authority to do that. The city was willing to partner with them several years ago to get this program off the ground and demonstrate the value to the community. And so I agree with absolutely everything you said. Uh I also want to point out that we have had discussions with alternate funding um opportunities. Those are ongoing. Uh I don't think I should say more than that at this point, but there is a potential for other sources. I don't think that that absolves the county uh of their responsibility for the service. Um I will say that um based on meetings that we've had with them, they have statutoily mandated services that the Department of Health and Human Services is required to provide. Um the co-responder model is not one of those services. And so uh when it comes to how they prioritize their budget, I guess I can understand why, uh why this isn't necessarily at the top of the list, uh in in amongst other ones that are required. While it is an incredibly successful model and I think we've demonstrated that to be the case, um it's uh it's also a little bit novel and uh and unfortunately I think we haven't necessarily um persuaded everyone that it really is the best way to provide this service to the community. >> Followup. Um it could be considered doing it uh half the time that we have been doing it before though. So even if we even if we do not have a 50% part I understand the count we we cannot talk about the county here. I mean that's we I I'm not a a super county supervisor so I cannot speak to that but um we could consider also to even reduce the hours so to reflect 50% of what we were contributing >> I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying. I think that's what the county is proposing is that they're going to fund it at a reduced level. Um, and what that looks like as far as the service uh and hours and and quantity, I'm not sure. They they haven't they haven't let us know that yet. >> Uh, Alder Decker. >> Yes. Uh, I just wanted to kind of comment that this chief kind of stole my thunder on this actually uh because I agree with him that this mental health services are controlled by the county. That money for mental health services comes through the county. The county takes care of those things like that. And I think that you are he is correct. I think we need to we and other citizens need to contact the county board supervisors and uh strongly suggest that they help us help fund this to to the uh extent that it was before. It is a very important program. I I I don't disagree at all with it. I think it's been a very important program. I think it's it's it's been well, but I do believe that we have to we have to start talking to our to our counterparts on the county board that represent the city because we as city taxpayers pay half of the county's taxes and that that that that money should be going towards these kinds of services and that's because they are the ones that hold the pur strings for mental health services in the entire county. Uh just one one thing to add uh to Alder Plla's comments that we're uh innovative in the in finding solutions to these problems. We are um and with this this particular one because it's not a service that we provide and we're kind of beholden to the county for this. um Chief Simple and I when we met with them, we actually offered to approach our state legislators and um proposed this as a pilot program that the state takes over funding because it's been so successful and we see a lot of value in it. It's it's just hard trading off our statutory requirements that we need to provide as an organization versus what they're providing. But um please understand we're doing everything we can to try um salvaging the program to make sure that these services aren't lost um because they do add a tremendous value and we are seeing very positive results in the community. So um any any way that we can we are trying to help sustain them. Right? If there's no questions we can move on. uh 2027 uh requested capital projects. So again, very preliminary numbers, but um for fiscal year 2026, we had total appropriation requests of 85,72,591 that was included in the 2026 to 2030 CIP, not all general fund uh general government requests. Um in 2027 that number has come down a little bit. A lot of the projects or 26 to 20 it should be 27 to 31. >> Sorry I can jump in here that the fiscal year 2027 request in the previous plan. So in last year's plan was the 83 million. If you look at the next number its current request has jumped up to 126 million. So we provide this for context of what departments are coming forward requesting for. >> There you go. Um so significant changes there are increase to street engineering improvement projects. Uh obviously the public safety campus. Um we're getting into where we had phased that. So you're seeing the bigger parts of that move into the budget now. Um and then construction amounts based on current estimates. So um those initial estimates have come down some additional new park requests and uh adjustments to the pedestrian bridge in TID 21. So um we'll be having a bigger conversation in regards to that. that bridge project initially was about a $6 million project that grew to a $10 million project and then um you you all learned the budget at the same time I did um during the presentation last week that it's now a $12 million project. So um I don't know that that's sustainable um in the TIFF plan anymore. So we're going to have a bigger conversation internally and uh be moving forward with a recommendation on that. So that might be something coming out. So any questions on those? All right, >> the next several slides, again, I won't go into too much detail on them because these are the requested capital projects. I will send out again this presentation so you can really look at what was requested um because we will uh refine the capital plan um in the next few weeks um and bring it forward. So this is just all the capital projects as they were requested at this time. So city buildings, police department, fire department. Next slide has parks, forestry, streets, traffic control, bridges, and lastly, um information, technology, and motor vehicles. So again, I won't go through all these projects because I think that would take a lot of time. So if you have any questions specific to them, just let me know. >> All right, TID capital projects. So um TID 17 we had this in the uh 26 budget and also in TID 20 we had that trail improvement was in the 26 budget. We're moving those forward into the 27 budget. Ultimately what we're waiting on is the railroad. So we had to do an environmental assessment. We had to get an appraisal uh to acquire that for the Indiana core uh trail corridor. Uh we did that I believe in 25. Um towards the end of 2025, we had the assessment and then the environmental was done. All of 2026 that has sat with the the railroad. The railroad came back and said we require two environmentals to be done. So they're rerunning an environmental assessment and >> or DNR is >> testing sites. >> So we're going through the environmental process again. Um so we're hopeful that we can get this wrapped up in 2027. Obviously, TID 20 and TID 17 have the funding um that would cover cover these project costs, but ultimately that's what's holding up that that portion of the bike trailer being created. Um so stay tuned. We'll continue moving it forward. Obviously, it's a plan at this point. We haven't spent really any money. So if uh once we get to that point, then it'll come for for your consideration to uh move forward with that. And one item of note on that, I just want to we bring it forward every year and we also have debt proceeds often that are associated with these projects that aren't for sure or they're plan like we're hopeful that they happen, but we don't borrow those funds until we know that that project's going to happen. So that's why it was in 26 you probably saw debt proceeds and the project. You now see it again with the project and debt proceeds, but that's because we never borrowed for that in 2026. and nothing is borrowed without your vote. So, it'll come back before you multiple times. That's go through bond council. So, it's a long process that um is well vetted. Uh TID 21, we've got the Harbor Center Marita Revitalization and Repurpose. So, um, what we would anticipate there if that project continues to be approved as it moves through the the, uh, review process would be, uh, more than likely looking at bidding, um, in the summer next summer and then phase one taking place, um, which I believe they're looking at, uh, the northern part of the project. So, they do about half of of that next fall. So they would look at timing that somewhere around uh September so that they could get one dock replaced and then we would be open the following summer and then that following fall then that that southern part of the dock would be done. Um what you'll see in our our strategic plan of of this project is I will be projecting that this probably won't be complete until about 2032. So, um, if you'll recall in the presentation, uh that was done in regards to the marina project, their recommendation is that we don't do the north side of the north pier, uh, or the north docks. If you remember, it's at Christmas tree. Um, their proposal is that we not put that side of the the docking system in until the seaw wall is done. So, um, we've been working with core of engineers. Their proposal is that they'll replace that in 2029. So, um if if everybody remembers, it was about a two-year project to get the South Sea wall done. So, this one's going to be a little more complex where they're actually going to be driving sheets down along the existing pier and then repouring. So, um that's going to take a little longer. So, we anticipate at least two years of that process. So that that's why we'll see these costs being incurred incrementally over you know the next 5 to 6 years of that process. Um pedestrian bridge again um I think we're at a point we need to reconsider uh the viability of this. Um so we'll bring that back for further consideration and get everyone's input on that. Um, and then the Gartman uh development infrastructure, what we, uh, like I said, the Southside Interceptor, we'll start seeing that go in uh, this uh, early next year. Uh, should see a a bid package hopefully this fall yet. Um, and then we'll start seeing some of the infrastructure going in uh, mid to late summer next year. So, all of that obviously will come back for your final approval, but uh, that's kind of the tenative plan that we see going forward on that. and Caitlyn. >> All right. Again, I won't go through these lists because the text is small and you probably would like to actually look at maybe a map even to see exactly where these projects are. But these are the current uh the current list of tenative projects for 2027. Both this slide is the contracted uh side and then the next slide is in-house street projects. So, I would just recommend taking a peek at those when that PowerPoint comes out to see if you have any questions specific to those locations. Um, you could always ask uh city engineer jumper Boris has a question. Thank you, chair. Uh, I scanned those really quickly, but um I did not see the uh pedestrian crossing at uh Uranian 13th. I know that that was budgeted and I believe has been paid for this year. So, I just want to clarify and make sure that that's why it's not listed here, not that it's no longer on the list. >> Sure. I can get a I can get that answer for you. I believe we did make that amendment in 2026. So, yes, it would have dropped off for the 27 request, but I can confirm and I can always follow up with you as well. >> Yeah, I believe that there's a delay on the equipment based on the last communication I had with engineer jump and that it will probably not happen until spring, but it would have already been paid for essentially out of this year's budget. >> So, how our city financial policies are written is as long as the purchase order is un so we're under contract at the end of this fiscal year, those budget dollars carry forward. So it will be an automatic carry forward and what we do is actually bring forward a resolution for the next council to reapprove those purchase orders if they're still outstanding. So to answer your question, it would be an automatic pull forward of that contract value into 27 into the budget, but it's not needed to be initially appropriated at this time because it's already been approved. >> Thank you. Thank you, chair. >> Did you get this? >> All right. Any other questions on street projects? All right. Um, so I get the big one. The, uh, 2027 requested wastewater capital project. So, um, as Caitlyn indicated, we're still kind of working through a lot of this. Um, I know we've we've been talking about this extensively for about a two-year period. Um in our our deferred maintenance for the um facilities assessment obviously wastewater was the number one uh area that we saw the number one department it was um of the 109 million of estimated deferred about 32 million existed solely in the wastewater treatment areas. So um a lot of these projects that they identified were already in our plans. Um, this is what's been planned for a number of years. Um, there's a couple really big ones. Uh, Kentucky, uh, Avenue Station upgrade, uh, that a $5 million upgrade that's very substantial. Uh, the UV disinfectant system that's basically upgrading us from the existing um, system and modernizing it to modern technology. Um, Lakeshore interceptors in here. Um, so a lot of the stuff you've you've talked about at individual meetings over the last two years, um, we vetted through this, but now we're going to actually start seeing the engineering complete. We're getting to the point where we're going to start bidding a lot of these things out. So, uh, not all of these are going to be utility fees. Some of these are grant funded. So, there's a a large mixture of different funding sources that are going to go in here. So, um, like Lakeshore Interceptor, uh, substantial chunk of that is actually going to be, um, funded through FEMA and the grant that's associated with that. Uh, the Southside Interceptor, um, we we have a clean water fund that will fund all of that project. So, that will be, uh, very low interest. Um, and a portion is forgivable. Um, I don't know if we're going to end up ultimately having enough to get forgivable out of that. That's a state discretion, but they did determine that a portion of it could be eligible forgivableness. So, um, we need to figure out what all of that is, but just by the fact of getting the clean water fund saved us millions of dollars in in revenues. so or in uh interest expense so it won't impact the utility revenues anywhere near what we initially projected in worst case scenarios. So um lot of lot of work going on there. Um again going back to the the amount of uh just misinformation that is that is uh circulating that all of a sudden out of nowhere we're adding all this additional capacity. We're not um what what you see here is not there's not a single project here that's an actual capacity increase at the wastewater treatment plant. This is just modernizing the system that has not been modernized in generations. So um we are a regional plant. Um obviously you know the the UV system alone the modernization of that seven $7.2 million that has nothing to do with capacity. It's a processing efficiency. It's a cost efficiency. Um, so it's it's long overdue and should have been done a long time ago. Um, but everything else is just basically modernizing. Uh, the Kentucky pump I believe is somewhere around a hundred years old. Um, the infrastructure out by that. So, um, if I'm remembering correctly, off we had we had a couple of our, uh, pump stations that were extremely old. Um, and this this being one of them and has been a target to be, uh, not replacing it, not adding additional capacity, but just basically upgrading it from the old technology to the new technology and, uh, modernizing everything in there. So, uh, any questions on that? Again, these these projects are going to be coming back for you individually, and I know you've heard a lot of them individually and went through the discussions, but just kind of putting them all together on what you've heard for the last couple years is pretty significant. All right, some budget next steps. So, September 30th is uh the next date that is of um importance to you. uh we will be as in finance department we'll be putting together a uh more formalized proposed budget um and putting that on the city's website with that will match the budget resolution as it comes forward to committee of the whole um I will send out an email to all the alders just letting you know that it is available on the website when that happens um we do the n um September 14th date which is today so that you have a full month before the October 14th committee of the whole to start looking at some of the detail that is in the preliminary budget. But again, I can't say it enough that they it is preliminary. So there will be quite a few changes that come forward. Um even at that September 30th deadline, um there will be a couple changes probably after that as well. um when when we get talk about DOT aid and things of that uh nature, but as of September 30th, we tried to have at least the closest we can to the proposed budget for you to consider for the October 14th committee of the whole. That way, you have two full weeks to look over that document as well before we meet again as committee of the whole, which again is a Wednesday, so it's a different meeting night. So, just a reminder of that and we will bring forward um the finalized versions of those capital plans and the budget as um determined by administrator Bradley since he is the initial decision maker on staff side for council to consider. And then lastly, November 2nd, we will have um the finalized version of the budget on the council agenda and we do have a public hearing in there as well and that notice will go out in a few weeks. So other than that, um other than knowing that it's a preliminary budget and then things will change. Um if you have any questions that come up while you're looking at that preliminary budget document or the proposed one in two weeks, I would suggest reaching out to myself or Casey um related to changes that might have come through. If you have operational type questions um from uh a specific department, the department head might be the better person to reach out to. Um, but I'm happy to try my best or direct you that way if I can't assist. >> All right. And just a couple comments. Huge thank you to our department heads. Um, we we uh put a pretty heavy task on them of coming back with uh at or near zero in their budgets. Again, um we knew this was going to be a tough budget year. Um ultimately what what we're dealing with, you saw about a 2.8 8 million increase in just the staffing side of things. Um we had in the net new construction we estimated at.77%. Um so this is construction that took place essentially in 2023 is now hitting this budget cycle. So you're about 2 to 3 years behind. So the projects that we're working on now we're going to start seeing those in like 2029 2030. So, it's several years from when they start construction to when we actually start seeing that revenue uh coming in. So, realistically, we're dealing with um about 300 to 400,000 of additional uh tax levy revenue. Um and then the estimated changes that we're seeing in other revenue streams like um like shared revenues or state aids that that we get through various programs which some of them are limited and what they can be used for. So um it it's despite the fact that I know you know property taxes are going up um on homeowners and we're all experiencing that but the reality is it's not new revenue to the city. it's not new operating funds to the city. Um, essentially what what is happening is, you know, on the commercial side, we're seeing a decrease. So, they're paying less taxes, homeowners are paying more. Um, and ultimately, you know, we're we're feeling that that operational pinch and we we want to prioritize maintaining services and that was the focus of this budget process was um prioritize the services that we're required to provide and try not seeing a reduction in service quality or service levels through that. So, uh really thank our department heads for uh really coming in with uh at or near zero. In some some cases, they just absolutely couldn't be at zero, but um everybody made a diligent effort to be as close as possible to that. And then obviously a thank you to Caitlyn and her staff. Caitlyn and Evan um have poured over this for numerous hours. Um so I really appreciate all their effort and the work that they put in. So, uh, with that, does anyone have any questions? >> All right. Thank you. >> Well, I just want to say thank you for your presentation. Is there anybody else that wanted any comments or questions? All right. Uh the next tenative date for committee of the whole meeting will be October 14th and I will entertain a motion to >> all in favor. >> Eyes have it. Um meeting is adjourned.