Okay, why don't we, we're going to go ahead and start our meeting. I'll call the work session to order. This is a work session, right, Mr. Sisson? Okay, we'll call the work session to order. It's a single topic discussion on our mark continuation of our markup for our 2008-2009 budget. Mr. Sissin, if staff would take us through the latest and greatest, I think it's a attachment B2 called budget change sheet. Yes, and hopefully everybody got a copy of that and Mr. Hodgkins will take us down this list, talked to bottom. There may be extra copies audience if anyone would like copies Additional copies are on their way. Okay Thank you, Mr. Mayor members of council This I were our budget chain sheet is actually a continuation of where we had left off in our previous budget markup session. We started with a, starting at the top, we actually started with a deficit of about $3.8 million because the real estate tax rate was reduced 4.5 cents from the proposed rate of 83.5 cents down to the advertised rate of 79 cents. In addition, we had reduced our estimated investment interest income by about $575,000 due to mainly due to the reduction in interest rates. We also had an estimate from the insurance company, which unfortunately increased our workers' compensation insurance by about $50,000. In addition, there was a series of items that the council came to consensus on in reducing proposed budget amounts. The first item was an amount of $61,000, which was cutting out the historic resources specialist to position. The next item was actually taking money from the bid fund in the amount of $54,000 to finance half of the other half of the position for the recommended Fairfax Boulevard Manager position. We also took out or the council came to a consensus on eliminating or the $30,000 we had in the proposed budget for the Green Initiative. We also reduced estimated overtime for the sign in signal department by about $30,000. Attorney's fees were also reduced by about $25,000. The painting of polls program was reduced by about $10,000. The school bus parking lot that CIP project was deferred to the following year at a savings in the 09 year of about $250,000. And we also eliminated or council had come to a consensus in eliminating or deferring the parks and recreation strategic master plan to the next year in the tune of $50,000. That brought us down to a deficit of $3,935,500. And we also have identified with consultation with Council and also staff analysis, additional items to be considered by the Council. The first item is the sale of what we call the old library property, which we have an agreement to sell that property for $2.7 million. We also have identified savings and the school board has actually approved the transfer of $2 million from the linear supplemental finance back to the city. And an additional $250,000 is estimated to be or was estimated to be saved on the school bonds relating to the Fairfax High School project. Since then we also determined that the estimated cost for our school tuition for the year had to be increased for both fiscal years 0708 and 0809. The combination of those two is approximately $2.2 million. And those are the two items that you see under next in line, in which we also have identified, or the school board had identified additional monies, additional savings from the school bond financing. One for an amount of approximately $940,000 relating to the linear project and another $300,000 relating to the Fairfax High School project. In addition, we have confirmed that the General Assembly is decreasing the state aid to the city of Fairfax along with the other jurisdictions around the state. And our cuts will are estimated to be about $47,000. And that is based on general assembly action. And we've also included back certain items that staff had cut out of the Parks and Rec budget relating to contributions made to the fall for the books, commission of the arts, and the Fairfax Band, totaling about $30,000. And with that, all those items that have received council consensus and also the other items under consideration, we would have a balanced budget. And that is our starting point right now. And I know there's additional items that the council would like to discuss and consider. But this is where we thought the starting point should be. Questions and staff. Mr. Greenfield. Can you talk a little bit about the $2.2 million increase tuition costs that we've just been made aware of. How is that a, is that just an oversight by the county? I'm not looking for a gotcha. I'm just trying to figure out where we missed this because that could have been a significant amount of money. Could we not be able to find that and recognize that problem? And yes, Mr. Greenfield, and it is a significant amount of money, especially discovering that's so late in the game as it were. And also, if a good school board chair, Miss Miller is here, if she'd like to speak on that, she could probably give us a little more insight. Well, maybe Miss Monday is more the appropriate person. I don't know if we both come forward. While Mrs. Monday is coming up front, I will speak to the 755 in the current fiscal year. If council members and the mayor will recall that we did say we had an increase of 44 students and this basically represents that but we'll have Mrs. Vendée give you the complete story. And I do regret that this information came to you so late. I did not receive it myself until last week and at the urging of Mr. Hodgkins to make sure to push Fairfax County to get me new numbers. We are, as you know, not on the same cycle as Fairfax County. They are not, their budget cycle is later than ours, and so is the numbers that they use to calculate these kinds of things are not official. In fact, none of this is official at this point, as you know. The most critical number here for both years is what's referred to as the ADM. The good news for the city is we are attracting young families. We had an increase of approximately 44 students this year at a high, but a high is not unrealistic of approximately 14,000 per student in student cost. You can do the math on that and see that that adds up very quickly. Also, it's projected that next year we will have those 44 students, most of whom are in kindergarten, are not going anywhere. They're staying with us. In fact, we can expect that bump for many years. It's also projected that we're going to have a similar rise in students next year as Will Fairfax County. So you then you look at 80 additional students for FY09. In addition, for this fiscal year Fairfax County's cost per student actually went up from the estimate. So again, when you talk about what I refer to sometimes as the perfect storm in a bad fiscal climate, costs went up and students went up simultaneously. So that's where we are. I think these numbers are possible. I also believe they're not outside the realm of possibility. There's no attempt here to overstate the case. At the same time, I think it's also possible that they could be slightly lower. The ADM numbers are soft at this point. Again, they're based on membership to start with. We know how many students were sitting in our schools in September. Then you can generally forecast ADM based on that number. The number that has actually come from the county now to me is more students than were sitting in our schools in September. And that's very unusual. And that's why I'm still a little bit skeptical that all of these numbers will hold and we're going to be checking every single address to see that they are in fact what they should be. All right, thank you. Yes, thank you. Could some of these new students that we didn't see in September have come from private schools that the, I mean, how did we acquire that you're saying that from just the kindergarten classes? I guess where did we get them? No, the A-D-M refers to the, it's called average daily membership. And so it is the average of the days that children are in school, sitting in classrooms in the city. And that's what the state reimburses us on. So it's not a, it is a frozen in time in that you take September membership and March membership. And then there's an average. So one of the things that says is that our students may not be leaving. We haven't had out out migration, we've had in migration. Ms. Miller and I will be looking at what we've done over the last three ADM lists is look to see what neighborhoods are attending to grow and what neighborhoods are attending to shrink. My initial look at it is that, and this is probably no surprise to you as I've looked at now. Last March, the September and this March, is that no place is shrinking dramatically and some of our rental areas are growing. And I think again with the economy that we're in and the idea that these young families with children that's probably not surprising. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I said thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for that. I may have another follow-up question or two in a moment. The, this is fairly new news of the last two or three days, but is there any other questions of the school board? Why they're here I'm not a school but maybe the staff if I could on this subject while the school would hear Mr. Sisson Well, you know a couple of months ago Mr. Sisson we chatted about We had something come before us about making our budget work with the county. And I was pretty adamant about it if I remember correctly that this is really never a good thing. We need not to have it with the county. And I appreciate that at some point we came up with $150,000 that it would cost us to be with the county on their schedule. And I would just suggest to our City Council and the new City Council coming on board that we take another look at that. And I want to add to that and that I for one had to really look over those numbers and quite didn't quite understand it when we kind of tabled it. And I would like to have a dialogue before I leave this council on that same subject again because I think this is a very good example of why we need to be in tandem with the county on their contracts. And they're also looking at their human resources if I understand the papers correctly that they might be, they're not going to be cutting their budgets there, they're going to be increasing their budgets. So I would like to look at that also. So I'm wondering if that $150,000 that we might lose would really help us with this issue. I hope that we can get that on the docket at some point. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I mean- Schedule. Yes. Schedule, docket, whatever it is. Any other questions to the school board? Thank you all. Appreciate it. You're welcome. Any other questions on the budget change document? Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr. Hunchkin. You referred to this change document. The budget is now in balance. That's correct. How do we treat, particularly the school board money, because this is not the school board issue now, it's our issue of what we do with that money. It's 20 or 30 year money. Are you saying we're just going to put it in the general fund and use it for any activity? That is correct. The way the money will actually come to the city is of course the school board has approved that, but we will refund ourselves or reimburse ourselves for construction period interest, which is a proper use of that money. And at that point, it does become, you know, the council has the authority to use it as they wish. That's also something that is handling it that way is approved by the banks, the financial institutions that we actually borrow the money from and also our auditors. The concern is that it is one-time money. We won't be receiving it that again in the future. But we are presenting this to include it in the budget as revenue that will be used to balance the budget. And how much of the 3.4 can be used for that purpose? The entire 3.4. We have interest payments of 3.4. Yes, we have. Because it's not just in the year in which we pay the interest. It's for the construction period and we can go back to the beginning of the actual loan. And so we do have more than an excess of 3.4 and interest that we paid during the construction period. As I remember the figure yesterday was 1.1. So it's gone up to 3.4 now. That is correct. Initially, we had before we took into consideration the increase in the tuition cost. There was an additional one point, there was 1.1 million, actually there was 2 million coming back from 2.2 million. Actually coming back from the school board. And we actually looked to see, I don't want to say we reconfigured, but we can take the money that we are saving. The one point when I'm sorry catching up, we did have that in construction interest with the linear bond. But we have much greater interest related to the original general obligation bonds for Fairfax High School and Linear. And the savings can be treated as being generated from either of the bonds. So we're using the money that we're saving from the Linear bonds to pay the interest on the Fairfax High School bonds? It's actually the reimbursement that is coming back is going to be the reimbursement will come back from or at least a part portion or large portion of it will be coming from the general obligation Fairfax High School linear bonds so that we have in the overall financing we have received or will receive savings of the $3.4, $3.5 million and we can actually determine, allocate where we'd like that savings to come from. We still have not spent all of the linear Fairfax High School bond monies. Right. Thank you. Mr. Wehrm. Mr. Hodgkins, I have a, maybe you could clarify for me, in the memo that we got from Davenport and company. On page three, it says that using the one-time monies towards annual recurring and operating expenses would not only violate the city's adoption, the financial policy guidelines, but would not be viewed as best practice by city rating agencies and it will jeopardize our strong bond ratings. So what you just said, I have a confusion between this and. And we are in this case, we are planning on using one time monies to balance the budget. It's not just the bond interest that we're receiving being reimbursed for. It's also the 2.7 that we're receiving from the sale of the property. Now the council, again the council has the authority to use those revenues as they wish. And again, our legally the council can do that the auditors do not have a problem with the council doing that the financial community does not Does not consider it a positive or those monies one-time monies to be used for operating expenses or one time or to balance the budget but Again, it's something and again our policy does state that we do not want to use one-time monies to balance a budget or for operating costs. Now, a portion of this money will be used to actually pay for our CIP projects within the bond or within the budget, I'm sorry. But we do not have enough CIP projects to cover the total amount of one time money that we do have coming in this particular year. That's a little confusing to me. I mean, operating expenses, well, first of all, basically most of, and I'm just breaking it down just in simplistic terms, most of what we're using for the library funds are CIP, capital improvement projects which are not considered operating expenses. And the vast majority of that is going toward the CIP accounts. That is correct. And regarding the bond money, the vast, in fact, all of it is going toward paying off the interest that we've paid on the bonds for the two schools over the period of time we've had those bonds. And it's reimbursing the city for the money that we've spent, which again is not operating expenses. I just want to make sure we're throwing around a lot of terminology here. And I've read the Davenport letter and I know you all have gone through it in great detail. But in essence, and I know it's not quite dollar for dollar, but the money that's being used for the sale of the library is going against for the vast majority of the CIP funds. And all of the money we're returning from the bonds, while at one time we were hoping to pay down some of the school bond debt with that, is now going to refund the interest on the two school bonds. That is correct. Okay. Okay. Miss Lyon. Thank you. You know, if I remember correctly, when we first were like to, we were talked about Daniels Run and Providence Elementary carrying interest also. Is that, we're still carrying them until 2010 or 2012. What is that drop dead date on the interest of Daniels Run and Lynn and Providence? We'll look it up. Okay. The reason I asked that is is that, you know, if we're looking at, you know, interest that we're paying, well, some of this interest then go for, which I guess, which is cheaper, you know, or where we're going to get the most bang for our buck. If we pay off the Daniel's run and Providence loans and interest. I mean can we do that? I mean are we is that how we're mixing it up with all of those or just specifically fair facts and linear. No various very spawned issues have they don't all have the same requirements. For example the linear supplemental financing we have certain things that we are allowed to spend that money on. One is, reimbursing ourselves or reimbursing the city for construction period interest, but that can only be for the linear supplemental financing. And now it could also be used, in this case it could have been used to pay for parks, park projects in addition to school projects. Thank you for that. Let me ask another question now. Since we loaned, I mean, we had to put $8 million into the school budgets, you last year or the year before, is there a way that then we can take those funds now that we're receiving and use it towards what we, you know, kind of making that flip-flop. Like we loaned it to the school board and the bonds to flip it back. I mean, is that really an essence what we're doing taking some of the money that we had spent on the schools to put back in the covers? Because we did use, approximately, 8.0 something million to add to the school. Well, we borrowed a point two and then appropriated it for the school use Right and now that as the schools have gone through the other process of renovating Linear they've determined How much of that money is needed and they are and that's there in the process of returning surplus money, right so my one okay, but my I'm going back to being a bond money or money that we borrowed from our own funds in the city of Fairfax. I got a city of Fairfax bucket of funds versus bond money. I guess I need to understand the difference in with that. Well, we didn't loan the school board money. But our budget at one point we needed in our budget to give another 8.2 million dollars to the schools to assist them in you know building the schools And that was the bond money. That was also bond money But I just I think we're we're missus lines getting at is the citizens approved a bond On a voter referendum in the amount of 97.8 I might be off in that but I think it was 97.8 96.8 million dollars. Then when we started to actually let the contracts they needed another up to 8 million dollars above that which we borrowed the city in addition to the school bonds we borrowed through our assets that money and then gave it to the school board to meet their shortfall or their overrun on the pool of money that we got through the school bonds. That's exactly where I'm going. So then if you know the schools have that money to put back in this bucket back into the can we use those funds to pay off a part of the 8.2 million dollars that we borrowed for out of our coffers for that and that's exactly what the schools are doing. They'll work on it and get back to you with one more question. Thank you. Mr. Respondzel. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If the sale of the old library property does not consummate in this fiscal year and we do not get the 2.7 million from the developer, then where does the money come to pay for the projects that are in the budget? We balance. It would either come from the fund balancer or actually reductions in other expenditures or a combination of the two. Or if I could address, boss. If you're sure, I don't know. You have the floor, I don't want to. I'm done. Or if we don't consummate the deal with the development team, the property could be returned to us in which case we could put it back out on the market and sell it and use the proceeds of that money to plug that whole as is planned with the current contract purchaser in the GDA. Correct? That is correct. I just want to make... You've got to lay all the options out here. You're kind of filling in with little pieces. We want to make sure we get the whole picture. Well, to be honest with you, that same statement will be true if we have a shortfall in tax revenue. There's nothing there indeed in this budget. Mrs. Cross. Two things. I would just... on the matter of realizing the sale of the library property. And Mr. Reeffield's premise or question is to, or maybe it was Mr. Rasmussen, question is to whether, if this deal does not happen in fiscal year of seven or eight or nine. to whether, if this deal does not happen in fiscal year 07 or 0809, we are not going to know that if I understand this arrangement correctly. We will not know if that's the deal is going to consummate until January 09. If for whatever reason the developers pull back and say no for what you know, we can't do it. And we are not going to be in all likelihood able to consummate a deal on that property within the next fiscal year. So we are going to have a $2.7 million whole. So we are going to have a $2.7 million whole. Mr. Lackle, maybe I can comment on that. And then I do have one other question. Well, I think you've correctly stated sort of what the effect is. You're either going to have the $2.7 million by the end of the fiscal year, or you're going to have the property by the end of the fiscal year. And those are the essentially the two options that you're dealing with. The deal remains the same with the developers. What we've been trying to do is just lend some certainty as to when exactly the city might expect to recognize the 2.7 million. Or just as importantly, get the property back if need be in time to at least arguably market it and sell it before the end of the fiscal year. You'd have from January until June 30th to market and sell the property. But knowing our, the history here and the market as we see it today, it would be my guess that it would be a long shot to be able to turn that property around in six months. I'd be puzzled if I could, Mrs. Cross. I mean, to be honest with you, it's a long shot that they wouldn't buy this. The issue that we're really grappling on is when they would build the condo project, not whether they'll buy the property. And I went back three times now, the last three days, just to get this all clarified with the folks one more time. The reality, you know, as we've been told by our expert, that property is probably worth twice as amount of money as we're selling it to them, but we cut that deal based on market value many, many years ago. So the issue is, in my viewpoint, the issue is not whether or not they're going to buy the property. The issue is, in my view point, the issue is not whether or not they're going to buy the property. The issue is whether or not, when they're going to actually start construction, if we say it's got to be condos or not, not whether they're going to buy the property or not. All this agreement did is said we have this purchase agreement and this general development agreement. It's very gray and this general development agreement, it's very gray, and this puts a timeline, and the reason, I think, January was picked is at least if for something, I don't even know what could happen that they wouldn't buy the property. They're business people, too. They understand there's a piece of property whether they build it or not, that's probably worth a lot more than what they've agreed to pay for it. So, to me, the issue is A, we're going to know by the end of January, so we have technically six months to get this valued property back if we had to sell it, which I don't see us in area that would help. Or B, they'll just with the loan that I'm doing is if the condom market hasn't turned and we say condos are bust, they're going to hold on to the property and wait for the condom market to turn. And instead of getting it built now or a year from now, it may take two years. So that's the more likely scenario than a scenario that they're going to just suddenly turn this property back to the city that's worth somewhere upwards of $2.7 million. I hear you loud and clear, it is not a certainty. I feel a lot better for work. So that's my comment on that. And then I hit a question for Mr. Hodgkins. I'm missing the subtlety here between the difference between refunding the city for previous interest pain and paying down future interest. The reimbursement? We are the money that we're receiving back from the school board is we are using that to be we are using that to reimburse ourselves for interest expense that we have paid. Refonding if you're talking comparing that to refonding of a bond, we can also, you know, in this case, we could pay down the principal on that debt with the money that we received. That's an option. We're, again, as we're proposing, reimbursing ourselves for that money and using it for our budget. But if we paid down principle, would we not in the long run be saving ourselves considerable money as we shorten the amount of time that we have money outstanding on these bonds? Well, it most likely, not necessarily short shortening the time it would probably reduce the annual payment over the 18 and a half year period which does save money because we won't be paying interest on that portion that we're paying back. The savings is not significant in that the interest rate is so low on that particular financing that we would not pay, would not recognize a great deal of interest savings, but it is an option to pay down the principal on that debt if the council chose. I thought you had given me a number or all of us actually, I can remember the meeting, that you said over 18 years, we would save a million dollars if we paid down principal. We would save approximately a million dollars, but if you also look at that as a in today's dollars because that is over an 18 and a half year period of the savings was significantly less if you applied inflation to that dollar amount because interest that we're paying isn't a great deal higher than what the annual inflation rate is Hatchkins it was about 30,000 dollars a year. I believe the number you gave us and interest savings if we did that I That sounds about right a year. I year. I'm trying to look beyond just this year, which is is a hard enough budget. But I have really significant concern about the next budget and where we are going into that. And that's why I think it's really incumbent upon us to be very careful what we do with these one-time funds. We won't have those next year. And with the cuts that we're going to have to make this year and have made this year, in many areas it's going to be a catch-up time next year. We're deferring road work. We're deferring hiring. We're making a lot of concessions to get this budget balanced and out. But next year we're not going to be able to do those things again. And that's why I think these one time funds, the school funds, and the sale of library property funds are extremely important to try to use those funds to set us up to be in a better position next year. And so my questions and my thinking is, along those lines, I just don't think we can go with the quick fix and think we've done a good job here. Thank you. Well, and I certainly understand that and I certainly respect that viewpoint. The reality of rule we sit tonight is the tax rate it can't exceed $0.7. So if there is a different approach to get to that number, I think we'd all be certainly interested in hearing it. I mean, one of the unusual things that's taken place that, whatever number it is, 19 or 20 budgets that I've sat in, in the last week, we've been hit with $2.7 million of expenditures that we didn't know about when we started down this path. But that is where we sit as we sit here tonight. And so we have to make a budget balance. And I'm sure it will be time for everybody to give their philosophical viewpoints on what we did right and what we did wrong is we have to balance a budget at a seven cent tax rate. Unless somebody has a different approach on how to do it and this would be a good time to bring it up. If I might, Mr. Mayor. Yes, Cross? Mr. Mayor. Chris Cross. I think it would be worth exploring when the 7 cent increase was proposed. I was like, we had no idea at that point in time that we were going to have an additional two million dollars needed for the school budget. I think on that basis alone, we could reconsider, or we could defer the action on the budget for four weeks. And I understand it presents all kinds of problems with Mr. Bologna and his staff. However, I think it's worth discussion because we're really, you know, I think the council has a real philosophical divide here on how to approach this and we need to work through that. And I think had we known, I opposed the seven cents and I would ask those that were in favor of that as to whether they feel it's worth a week's deferment just to kind of take a look. And I don't believe I could make a difference. I don't have been here. Unless I misunderstood things, I don't believe we can go back and revisit the issue of what the advertised tax rate was, because we have to do public notification and deferring it one week doesn't give us the opportunity to reopen, whether it's 79 cents or 82.5 cents or whatever the magic number is somewhere in between. I mean, it's difficult. We, I made the motion, I'm trying to exercise a little bit of fiscal discipline. We have in the past gone through tough budgets. We have gone through budgets where we have seen Recommended increases by city staff. We have fortunately You know had the ability to Reduce the tax rate to offset increase in assessments because we've had those dollars coming in now. We've gone from investments because we've had those dollars coming in. Now we've gone from a tango to a slow dance and we have to be a little bit more mindful of how we're spending our dollars. But we have also in the past taken money out of the fund balance to budget, to balance the budget or pay for projects in advance and everybody has supported it. Just about everybody has supported that. We have also on a number of occasions, this is a year that it's going in the opposite direction, but we have typically, we budget a certain amount for the tuition contract in almost every year that we've sat here, we've received money back from the schools because we've overpaid what that dollar amount is. This year we're going in the opposite direction and it's one of those rare times. But you know, it's, there's no question it's not going to be easy for several years. But you know, there's this, the way government wants to solve problems when we need to do one thing or another is throw more staff at it. And that's not always the solution. It's not always the solution to add more programs to add more new initiatives when we're dealing with tough times. I mean, it just doesn't make sense to go in that direction. So, you know, I would hope that we can work within where we're at. I'm confident that we can get there. I would have never, no, did I know about $2.2 million? None of us did. But I felt the numbers that we had at the time were solid. It would afford us an opportunity to try to give residents a little bit of a break from going from significant tax decreases for a number of years to what is the largest, even seven cents, is the largest tax increase, probably at one time in the last 20 or 30 years, if not longer than that. But like the early 90s, when we had tough times, we had to do incremental tax increases. And as soon as we had the opportunity, we began to push it back in the other direction. And I think it's a partnership between the schools, the city, and the taxpayers. And I think that they're going to continue to work with that partnership. And so I just hope that we can move in a direction tonight that gives us that ability. Well, if I could bear before everybody, let's just talk in technical terms. If I understood your comment, Mrs. Cross, you'd like to defer for a week, assuming that the council is willing to reconsider the sevens and tax rate. To do that, it would take somebody who voted in the affirmative to bring it back up on the floor. That's either Mrs. Lyon, Mr. Silverthorn, Mr. Greenfield, or Mr. Letterer. And let me just ask, is there anybody in that group who would like to reconsider the seven cent tax rate? No. But absent that, Mr. Mayor, you've, Mr. I raised at the beginning, Mr. Lubkmann shook his head correct. We can't do that. No, well, I understand for the money issue and the technical issues from the city treasury, you mean? No, no, no, no, legally. We don't have the opportunity. Oh, because we had another meeting. For it for another week, we don't have the opportunity to re-advertise the tax rate and get it back out there. Right, you do have the right legally to do it. You need a minimum of two weeks to do it. And you don't have, there's not enough time to get the bills out at that point. Right. So you're out of time in terms of redoing the tax rate at this point. Right. Okay. Well, however we get there, that's the reality. But I'd also, you know, just, you know, there's other ways to look, we talk about setting the tax rate as though it's some invisible thing and some invisible impact on this community. And we've heard time after time and testimony from our commercial owners over the last two weeks and certainly the residential people that I'm talking to throughout the community that the tax rate does have a major impact. We have all kind of programs like tax rebate programs and senior deferral programs and programs like that. You know what we're talking about is if we don't use the money that's returned from the school board to reimburse back the interest rates, then we have to increase the tax rate which we don't have the ability to do tonight even if we want to. That saves $30,000 a year in our operating budget in terms of interest. I'd be willing to bet you the impact that $30,000 has in the average commercial business or tax rate if we went back up to $0.11 or whatever tax rate we'd have to get there to come up with the three, whatever it is, $ plus million dollars that we're using that way. It would be just, it would be a totally different impact on the typical residents and typical business. You know, they're talking about, you know, the 30-sitting increase. That's, that's at the seven cents, not the 11. So I just throw a little bit of different impact. And I know one time money is, you know, something we've talked about and we've debated in your right, Mrs. Cross, it's a philosophical difference in terms of that approach. I don't think any of us understood that we were going to be confronted with $2.7 million in the last three or four days of the budget process, but we are. but we are. And so now instead of using $1.1 million to pay down the debt, we're going to have to use that money to reimburse the expenses to balance the budget. And quite frankly, I think the net impact on the community with a lower tax rate is far superior and I think would be preferred by the community. Again, that's just a philosophical issue, but I think it's a very valuable different way to look at it. Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, we are really boxed in. We probably can't find $4.5 million worth of savings tonight. But it seems to me that it's really setting a bad precedent to use one time money to balance this budget, no matter how you get the money. We ought to start through this and do a scrubbing of some items that we could get along without and at least put it into a little more honest context of balancing the revenue with expenditures. I would say for starters, we eliminate all new positions. I would say we take a million dollars out of the CIP. We did it in 91 and 92, and maybe we ought to do it again tonight. Let's take each one at a time. I think that's certainly a reason approach. You see, I'm sorry, I didn't write down the number. What were you suggesting on that? I was saying a million dollars. Not air marking it just across the board or when would we? Well, see IP is a little different than that. I mean, that's parks, that's roads, that's. We could go through tonight and do it, or we could just take a million dollars out and come back in a week or two and if that's legal, come back a week or two and put together the list of what we're not going to fund. We certainly could do that, like, Mr. Sowithin. First of all, I apologize to the council for being late. It's a typical traffic and also the fact that I left DC later for a meeting from a meeting. So I'm playing a little bit of catch up and I think I caught on pretty quickly where we are in the process. And Mr. Asmos and I think you're right and I'm happy to take, I'm happy to go through, we can even go through the CIP this evening. I don't necessarily think we have to lay that a week. We can go through it and you'll recall in 1991, Mr. Rasmussen, we basically took that CIP down to zero. I mean, it was almost zero. And the only caution and in fairness to my colleagues, I mentioned this to Mrs. Cross this morning on a telephone call was that, and I'm certainly willing to do that. But the only caution is that you play catch up in the out years. And of course, you could argue that we would do that anyway with other one time monies because those are one time benefits to this year's budget. And therefore, the next council will be faced with a more difficult year. And I fully understand that. I don't look at this as any different though. In any way, you shape it. We're doing somewhat of a disservice to future councils, but I get that. There's only one or two choices. You either have the revenues or you cut expenses. One or the other. And Mr. Rasmussen, I'm going to give you a little credit here, but I do laugh at your comments at the candidates forum when you said nobody wants to give up anything. I sat here and I've looked at my emails over the last couple of weeks and some of the same people are saying, don't raise my business taxes, but yet I want every festival that we have to continue to go. There's a real disconnect here with what people are willing to sacrifice versus whether or not they're willing to pay for it. And I got to tell you, as I said two weeks ago, and I'm willing to go through every position, every new position. I've already said this to be consistent that I think we should hold the line on any new positions this year. Not popular, I realize it, but we are in a difficult position. And it's the only thing we can do. And then beyond that, I think we have to really decide what are our priority events, what are our priority programs, and many of which we hold near and dear as personal, as personal, whatever the right word is, things that we hold near and dear to our hearts. But the fact is, is that if we're going to do this right on the operating side, which is what this debate was leading from, you have to look at real programs. And that's something I know that's not necessarily popular, but we'll have to do it. Well, and Mr. Sereuth, if I could just jump in, you know, I agree totally with this spirit of this concept. We can do that. That's great. But here's what strikes me as we have this conversation. I'm assuming the spirit would be since the tax rate is at $0.7, I can't imagine, I mean, maybe if the intent is not to reduce the tax rate with these expenditures, then you put it in the fund balance. And the fund balance is one-time money. And so next year, when we start looking at it, I assume what we need to do is put it in the tax stabilization fund that we set up a number of years ago. So whatever we save now gets put in a pot that then would be used to stabilize the tax rate next year, which is what we did a couple of years ago when we knew they had these problems. Otherwise, if it just ends up in the fund balance, the fund balance grows up above the 10%, which we brought it down or the staff did in this thing. Then we're right back into the same dialogue and philosophical on using fund balance money or one time money or however you want to categorize that. So I certainly think going through this budget, you know, and if there's things that fall into that category, let's do it. The CIP budget is on the, it's a pink tab toward the very back of our budget. I don't have a, oh, it's F5, I think, is the first, let me make sure that's right. No, that's actually not right. It's, yeah, it is F1. No, well, that starts on F1. Right. That's a summary, isn't it? When F5 or F4, the first, I guess F4 is the first detail page, that is correct. Well, here we go. I mean, F4 is schools. Should we put the school aside for right now and look at it? Nothing. Yeah. Okay. So F5 is the first page. Miss Greenfield, please. I will question. If we look at page F9, I'm just with all the back and forth, I'm not sure if this number is still accurate. General fund share for transportation for FY09 proposed is $1.4 million. Some of these projects we kind of moved around and I want to make sure that before we try to figure out whether any... I guess what I'm going here is, is there an ability if you look at say the remaining piece of this transportation bill that's million dollars and put that toward these projects that are being proposed to be paid for? Would general fund monies? Well, it's my understanding that that money is solely for the purpose of new initiatives. And so, well, but Mr. Sisson in the spirit of that, if you look down, the biggest line item that jumps out, and I don't know what the asterisk means, so I may not be included, but the Norfax Gateway Highway and Sewers, that in this thing, that's not part of the one point. Was that NVTA money we requested or that's tied up in that? That's actually, there is no general funds associated with that budgeted number. Of course, we're looking for NBTA money to fund the deficit, but we will get some money from us. There is some state money that will be coming in, and also federal money that's coming in for that project. But in this budget, there are no monies from the general fund to support that. So that would not be a savings. So I'm assuming the only funds Mr. Greenfield on that page F9 would be the 40 for street lights video detector systems. Would probably be and maybe the video traffic might would only be the new funds that are in here. To be pay being in the. So that would be $90,000. Mr. Mayor, up ahead though, there's $911,000 for street repraving programs. And I wonder if we could be cutting from there. It's not new. Oh, that's not new. You're talking about for the. I'm road maintenance, right? Yeah, I'm looking at the road maintenance and that all above all that is that not good. Well, it could not be used. I don't think street maintenance would be allowed for those funds. I'm I say, OK, Mr. Mr. Mayor, I just would like to make one comment if we could before we continue down this. And that is, you know, when I'm hearing about this, the school money and borrowing it and taking it and going back and forth here, you know, when I add these funds up and then I see that the tuition had an issue and people are having trouble going, well, you know, we're getting $2 million from the school back from the bond, but you know, they're now in dire straits to pay for our own students at 1.4 and 755,000, I feel like that's a wash. I just really do and I'd like to make that statement pretty clear that we've always wanted to support our students and that's the way to do that. If you're looking at a philosophical issue here, I do feel like we need to do that and then to look at this budget that you balanced it, you know, it still came to a balanced came to a balanced budget on an if we sell something. And I'm of the mind to think positive and know that we already have that $2.7 million in the coffers for the library. And I'm a little shocked that people are thinking that that's not going to happen. This is cross not to be rude here in that mine. So I'm all for cutting the budget and bringing the tax rate down even more. I mean, so I would like to make that comment. Thank you. Okay, well, that takes us still back to page F5 in the spirit of the process we're following. Anything on page F5 that falls into this category? Yes, Mr. Esmer? I'd not help the property yard maintenance, the station 33 maintenance and a couple hundred thousand out of vehicles. Okay. The first one you would knock out was city property maintenance of 45,000 comments from staff. That $45,000 was actually a requirement by the EPA for storage for our lubricants. Okay. Okay. Okay, Mr. President, then you were down to... Well, it's only one aspect of that. There's also replaced high back, garage generator, three roll-up doors, utility building, antithe exterior, so that EPA or whoever's, the feds are only asking for one of seven of those items. Do you know how much out of the 45? I think the rest of those items have been pushed back to another year, except for the 45,000. Already? Yes. So the only thing left in that 40, I mean, that's the difficult part of going down through this list as we've already pulled. So the only thing left, the 45 is not really 45, the 45 is minus everything but the EPA or the 45 is totally for EPA. Totally for EPA. Okay. Then Mr. S. Muston, you were down to, I'm sorry. Was it? Station 33 maintenance, 12,000. Staff comments? Assistant. Ask Chief O'Lean. He would address that, please. Those who are ongoing items of Mr. Mayor, it's certainly a council meeting for that we can make that work for them here. Thank you. Okay. Fire 12,000. Okay. Mr. Esmeralzen, was there more on that page? I'm sorry. That's all. Okay. Anything else on F5? If not, we're now on F6. Okay. I eliminate the 30 for planting. Sorry, what? I eliminate the 30 for planting. Yep. 30 for plantings. Okay. Planning and beautifications. Any staff comments? Well, I believe that's all of our median plantings around the city. One of our points of pride, and we're certainly willing to sacrifice that, but I just want to make sure the council understands the impact of that. So median plans would be in the CIP. That's my point, Mr. Mayor. I may say this about operating versus CIP. I mean, many of these are viewed as in many ways. You can categorize them either way as Mr. Sisson admitted last week at our hearing. That's why I think it's a little bit unfortunate that we're getting into this philosophical debate because in many ways we have routine CIP that is operational in many ways. You're right, but you know what I would suggest, let's go through this process and see what it looks like at the end and then we can start back over. Mr. Mayor. Mrs. Cross. I would ask Mr. Rasmussen if he might consider the substituting the $46,000 debt-end stub street improvement as opposed to the planning and beautifications of the median, such that 30,000. But the debt ends in that was last year. We are zero this year. We're in the O9. Oh, excuse me, excuse me, and in the wrong column, hard new. I'm in a tent though. And under planning strategic master plan, obviously we already did that one. So now we're down to the bridge. I take that all. Can now we're down to the bridge. I take that all. Can we ask a question on the bridge because I was going to ask the same question. Is that a safety issue or is that one that we can defer for one additional year? It could be a safety issue. We've seen some quick deterioration in some of our steel bridges and that's the next high priority on the west. It may Maybe that we have to limit the weight load on that bridge. We're inspecting our bridges monthly now. Is there any maintenance that can be done to short up rather than an actual replacement? There could be some quick maintenance that we can do to short up. Can I just ask if we're trying to do this exercise to help next year? And within the next 24 months of it has to be done, and I'm not saying it does, but if it has to, move it to this year. Then we're not gaining anything, it's all I'm saying. Well, Mayor, we could do it if we move the CIP item to this fiscal year before the fiscal year ends, and therefore from an accounting procedure it doesn't impact next year's budget at all. Well as as council knows from the approach that we've made on this budget the if you do that then we're below our 10% magic number for remaining fund balance. So just if you want to make that decision fine, but one let you know. That's a fair point to raise. Thank you, Mr. Assistant. Okay. So right now we put that amount on the list. That right. I just think we have to know the safety impact. We don't want to find ourselves in a position. Just 60,000 is a steel bridge. If we went with a fiberglass bridge, you could cut that down to 40,000. And that was certain because it is out in a visible area. We've been typically trying to see the steel bridges. If you cut it back to fiberglass bridge which we've done over a Daniels run throughout Daniels run park you could save about 20,000 dollars on that. So is this the telephone bridge now that's there? The old telephone old? No, no, no, no. So how old is this bridge? It's only about nine years old. I mean, that's really surprising because we typically pushed back on deferring bridges unless it was an absolute safety issue. And I can tell you there were a number over the years of telephone pole bridges that sat around Daniels Run Park was a great example that sat around that it was a nice to do in terms of being on the replacement schedule, but it wasn't a safety issue. So we invested money and a bridge that's only lasted this nine years. It was a maintenance issue of what they were putting down on the bridges with salt, which were an ice time that was eroding the steel bridges over a number of years. So we've changed our maintenance practice of how we're doing the maintenance on that. That was contributing to the rusting and the erosion of the bridges. So what was your analysis and determining that this bridge needed to be done this year would it so it would a structural engineer come out and take a look at it? Or is this just we're looking at it and there's showing some wear and tear? We think it needs to be replaced. It's showing the same theory that we saw on two of the bridges that we replaced this current here which were kind of emergency quick replacements on Ted Ridge and Richard Lane. But we did have city staff and engineers come out and look at our bridges and when this is the one that we also had our engineer that replaced the current bridges that we've done, come out and take a look and assess this as the next one that we have to address. So out fiberglass or back end fiberglass saves 20,000 out, save 60. For now, I don't know if we for the fiberglass, how what's the life on that? Is that going to last as long you know it'll last as long as the steel bridge would. Yes. Okay. Well that seems like a no-brainer. Yeah. Okay. So we're that, we save 20 there, then. Is that what I'm hearing? Mr. Rasmussen. Well, I would, I would take a whole thing out and have the city engineer look at it as opposed to somebody else. And if it's not safe, then we put a yellow tag on it until we, and then find the money to replace it. But otherwise, we let it go for another year. Okay. Let find the money to replace it. But otherwise, we'll let it go for another year. Okay. Let's see if we can get it consensus or we'll move on. The two options are 60 or 40. Is really the two options. Who's cross? For now, and pending how this process goes, I would go with the fiberglass at 40. Okay, Mr. Greenfield? I would say hold for now and the only reason I'm saying is because you've already indicated that we're going to go back through this list a second time. We've proposed that we take some things out that we might want to add back in. This may be something we want to add back in, so can we just agree to maybe set it to so we've signed for now. So why don't we just bracket 60 and put in parentheses next to that 20, 40, or then we'll come back. Is that okay Mr. S. Lesson? We're just streaming through this. Okay then that takes us down to the Westmore Park, excuse me, the Cutter Park Tennis Resurfacing. I know that came up and you were going to check on whether or not you did we already take this out. We talked about it last Tuesday and you were going to see if you could you said you could pass the cracks. Yeah, we could do it for in all by say three to four year fix on it for 15 for 15 thousand dollars. Okay, so will of that to take out 35,000? Okay, now we're down on page F-8. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Rasmussen. I take out the first two items and drainage. Just have to tell people we got away to here. We get a summary on what those projects were. The $25,000 is for our in-house cruise to flush the storm sewer pipes and clean the debris out of the boxes. We have about 58 miles of storm sewers and a couple thousand storm drain boxes. And so it's basically general maintenance on the existing infrastructure. The neighborhood drainage projects, that was reduced. That money really, that 60 left is for two projects, one on Howardton and one on on Stonewall and we were going to just get those designed and try and construct a min house so that 60 would be for survey design, stakeout and materials and the in-house crews would do the construction. That's grant money. Okay, is there consensus to the 25,000? Do you spend that just about every year? Yeah. We do sometimes carry it over so we get a better price. Here we go again. Yeah. It was really a facetious question more than it was. Exactly. Didn't seem funny after I asked it, but okay. So what's the will of the council? Mrs. Winner? Just a question for the 25,000. If I would think that if they are plugged up and we have a major storm, there's going to be a whole lot more damage that we will have to be responsible for than 25,000. So I would say to leave the, make sure those drains stay clear. That's correct. And we have to, you know, the patched the boxes that get run over by trucks and crack and I mean, there is a lot of maintenance that's required for the storm sewer system. Okay. So now, certainly makes sense to me. But so let's look at each one the 25,000 in or out. Mrs. Cross. Mrs. Frost. In. Mr. Greenfield. This is the stormwater maintenance, 25,000. In. In. In. Okay. That would be any farther. Neighborhood drainage project, 60,000. Mrs. Winter. Were those, is that the, were there were houses that were in jeopardy? Yes, these projects go back several years where they got on the list. I'm drainage projects and their time has come. These two for the residents are looking forward to having these projects done. And one of the pictures if I remember correctly on heart and it looked if there was a really good uh... strong came through the house the structure the house could be involved well these are houses that have ditches they don't you know there's no curving got her in their kind of in low lying areas where water will accumulate in and sometimes going to the front yard in towards the houses on any of them is the structure itself in jeopardy? They don't really have any structure. Oh, the mean the house? House. I think the house on Stonewall, when I'm visited with the resident, when they were getting heavy range, it was going into the house. And also the house on Howard's in was having problems with their garage. I know they were getting a lot of water into their garage. OK. So I'm just thinking if there's major damage on those homes and we're help liable, it's going to, again, it would be. Okay. Neighborhood drainage in or out, Mrs. Winter. Stay in. Miss Lyon. Miss Meyant, I'd like to hold that. And I guess I want to ask a question. Is this, would we be liable for those houses if there was some damage? I guess I don't understand. I guess it depends on the storm. Our entire storm sewer system is designed for really a 10-year storm. So if we get a heavy storm, everybody could have damage to their home depending on the rain intensity and how long it lasts. So we could really actually hold on this for probably another year. I mean I remember those pictures also and I'm you know I believe you're correct. I think maybe our in-house crews can maybe install some temporary measures do some maintenance on the ditches or something to delay this. I would offer to take it out. Mr. So let's defer to you. You for a year. OK, so that then is 60,000 there. OK. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Sovitt, are assistance. Sorry. Just a comment. We're talking about delaying these things for a year. In many cases, this means it could be many years, if at all, because the staff has already pushed and pushed a lot of these things out to future years before you've even seen this document. So and with the pressures that we already know will be there next year, there is no telling when these projects will be done. But Mr. Sisson, if I may just respond, I mean that's going to be a policy decision for the next city council. And they're going to have to determine whether or not it is a priority that needs to be addressed now. So, but I appreciate your comment. But as this Council is making that decision, it doesn't mean a future Council. Well, but let's also understand the spirit of this discussion. I think at the end of this, we're going to then philosophically decide if this is something we want to do or not or just sort of let's true. You know, let's cut and prove this. Sewer, water, anything else on F-8? That's in the enterprise fund. It doesn't help. F-9, I think we... Okay, nothing? Up? I'm sorry, Mr. S. Moussen. Well, I would certainly say that if we were serious about reducing expenses, we could take half of the curbing gutter and maintenance, curbing gutter sidewalk maintenance out. I remember one time we eliminated it entirely for a couple of years. We could reduce street repaving by, I know with this level, the staff is saying and they're right that the increased cost of material that we're already going to do less. Well, we may have to do less for a couple of years. So we could, I think, take some money out of it. Any comments, staff, any? I agree. Okay, so let me just see. But I can make a comment. We had a budget memo on this. And Mr. Summers could possibly help us out. But there was a budget memo that said you could get along okay with $100,000 reduction in the street meeting budget and a $30,000 reduction in the concrete contract. But we would have to put $50,000 additional into the street and asphalt division operating budget. Yes. Yes. Can we do that? So how does that reflect on these numbers here? Would it all come out or all those changes be necessary in the street repainting program? Well, I guess a hundred would come out of the 9-11 and I think 30 would come out of the 280 and 50 would have to go into the operating account for the asphalt and concrete division. And if I could, that analysis was kind of based on Mr. Summers' effort to maintain kind of an equal effort compared with this year. So if you're talking about reducing it by half, that analysis really is out the window. So it really savings would only be about 80,000, that is what you're saying in that budget. So what's the will? I go with recommendations of staff. Which is? The 80,000? We take 80 out of Kerwin-Gutter. No, we would take. We take the total. We total. Total. I'm sorry that I'm going to need somebody here with the technical expertise. Perhaps you, Mr. Mayor, to explain this, but how does this interplay with the state program in terms of transportation funding that we could levee here in the city? And therefore, you actually, Mr. Soverthorne, I didn't mean to jump in, but we had this discussion before we came on. We couldn't use any of the maintenance money for that purpose anyway. So we're okay. So what would that money go for then if we decided to? It has to be new projects. It's not repaving and fixing up curbs and gots. North facts. North facts. North example. Yes. Okay. All right. So is the consensus under the combined categories of curb gutter sidewalk and street repaving? We saved $80,000. Yes, that are right that right? Okay, so do we have a consensus on that? Yes Yes, yes, okay, all right now we anything else on page F9 Okay, it's not. Now that brings us to, that's it. Okay, Mr. Hodgkin, did you write down all those numbers? 12,000 for fire, 30,000 for planning. It looks like 20,000 for bridge, 35 for cutner, tennis, courts, 60,000 for neighborhood drainage, 25,000 for storm drainage and 80,000 for curb gutter sidewalk and street rebaving. Oh, I believe, I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, I believe the 25,000 was not cut with a storm drainage. It was not? No.000 was not cut with a storm drainage. No. It was not? No. Which page is that? F8. F8 the top. The 25,000 with storm drainage was left out. Okay, you're right, you're right, you're right. Okay. And so what's the total there then? We are with the items that we have consensus on that about 217,000. Now, I know we defer the decision on the bridge. The bridge, the number we put in was the 40 instead of the 60, I think, is where we, and then we were gonna get back with it. With the 40, that brings us up to 257,000. For deferred. Which I guess is what we're coming back to. Let's just one question. Page F-5, there's been some discussion about federal grant monies for police radios. And in the spirit of if everybody is talking about we're just not hiring any new people or adding any new staff years. Where are we with the money that would come in this year for radios? I think the thought was you would, the money that would be the general fund for federal grant. Right. And the money that would be there for, that was going for radios from the general fund would go to fund another police officer. But if everyone has already said no new staff then do we want to yeah? We're done with the CIP is that where we are well this is a CIP item. Oh, okay 87,000 I think the consensus we can get now without any issues is that we would use the federal grant money for that now the police department issue will come up back on the staffing issue but but you're missing my point. You then you then take if you're getting federal monies for the radios forget the staffing for right now if you're getting federal monies for the radios you'd save a hundred out of this. So add a hundred back into your total number. Oh yeah I was doing that in a different line. So now it'd be, it'd be 257. I don't know, it's 87 savings. 87, 87. 87, correct. 87, 600, or 87, 864. In savings. What does that bring with the old number? Well, can I just, why 87? That is what we are federal grant. That's what we have in the budget. That's what was budgeted for. So the other 15,000, we don't know what, we're going to put that against? No, they'll probably buy the radios because they also have budgeted for the following years to purchase radios. It's a five year. Okay, so the savings, so what's the total now come if you add the 86,000 back? The 86, that brings us to about 340,000 to 360,000, depending on the decision on the bridge. OK, so what's the decision on the bridge? Take it out totally or build a fiberglass bridge. It's not like with the two options that people were leaning toward. Safety issues. You need a new bridge to fiberglass. Okay fiberglass. Mrs. Lyme. I Think we could probably hold it take it out for this year the total amount Mr. Sovardarn I I Think we should we should start with mr. Rasmussen's viewpoint of take it out and then if we need to go back and go fiberglass Take it out totally the screen we need to go back and go fiberglass. Take it out totally. The screen fill. Yes. This cross. Okay, so now what's the number? Out of the number. About 350,000. Okay, you're going to get us an exact number. I assume if we go through this process. Yes. Okay. All right. Yes. I can just ask a procedural question here. Is there any way, Mr. Light, that we could have thisum. Yes. Never mind. No. Okay. Well, if you want to write it, we're approximately 350 that we've saved so far. Mr. Restmusson. Mr. Greenfield, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to figure out a- Yeah, I was just taking it in chunks and pieces, but before we do that, kind of just ask if we didn't hire any new staff outside of what we already took out of our consensus document, what additional, and I don't remember what all the staff were. There was a janitor, there was a somebody for the fire department to handle ambulance records. There was, I can't remember what they all were, but what's the dollar amount? The ones non-funded? Yeah, we already took out the historic resources and something else. Yeah. That's correct. Yeah, we already took out the Fairfax Boulevard and the historic resource specialist. So what's left over? And what's the amount if we just none of them got to add it? Well, we have another 60,000. We have, and I can give you the exact number in just one moment, but we did have one of those employees is a plant operator which is part of our enterprise fund which does not help Then exclude that so exclude and just one verify I'm going to give you a moment with the ends and out. I don't want to give you the wrong number. I I have savings of approximately $143,128, which includes the one police officer, the historic resource specialist to the billing manager in the custodian. The historic resource too, we already took out of the consensus document. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, that was not included in my number either. Historic was not part of the 143,128. That's correct. Okay. Mr. Sissin, this is a good point. And I, you know, if the spirit of this is also taken off the burden of next year, let's, let's, the issue came up last Tuesday about the, the cola. And in this budget, if I understood it right, instead of just giving a cola of 2% across the board, it was to give a cola of 3.89. I don't remember the exact number, but approximately 3.89 percent for the last six months, the net impact of that is, is not on this year's the 0809 budget, but on the 0910 budget, it would be starting with that higher number as though we gave a 3.89% raise throughout the course of the year. It's my understanding that if we just went with the 2% COLA for 12 months, that would save. Last I heard it was approximately 500,000. Do you have a number? 535,000. I'm sorry if we went with a 2% throughout the year. That doesn't save any. In the following year. In the following year. Part of this exercise is talking about the impact of the following year as well. So I see. It does an impact this year. You mean, oh, nine. Yeah, but it takes a half a million dollar issue up. And what is the, I'm sorry. What is the, what's the coal or Fairfax County in this year's budget that they had? It could change obviously, but it's approximately one and a half percent for the full year, for the full year. Yeah. That was my. Mr. Mayor. My question was, what if we did 1.5 instead of the two over across the whole year? What does that say, Mr. Hodgkins? The thing that just strikes me of doing the 2% of a month but not the accolade on the six is Assuming the counties at 1.5 our employees are actually picking up a little pace on the county Not a ton but half a percent Which kind of helps with the spirit of the 3.89 in the last six months, but Well, that would equal about 400,000 as opposed to 535,000. In this year's budget, though, if we went half a percent, it would save us a little over $130,000. So if we went from 2 percent in essence for 12 months, the 1 a half percent That would save us a hundred and about a hundred and thirty thousand dollars Mr. Mary I know you asked about Fairfax County. Can we do we have any updates on what other jurisdictions are doing as well? I mean, I know you provided us in the initial documentation, but do have we heard anything new in that respect? Okay anything new in that respect? And what is it ranges from like zero to something? Let's go back over it then. Well, and I know also, you know, at least one jurisdiction starts out with zero and then at their budget adoption they'll actually introduce the call at that time. So it's hard to, they'll propose in the proposed budget, there may be a zero proposal, and they oftentimes come back with the rate at the night that they actually adopt the budget. And what did Loudon do? That's already passed their budget? Well, they haven't, you mean their proposed budget? I think they've passed it. Haven't they? Did they pass it last night? Usually they always pass it the night before we'd have thought they did. Yeah. I didn't. I do not know what their call is. They did. Mr. Mayor, they approved a 2% call for their operating budget. 2%. What was their increase in the tax rate just out of curiosity? I know. It was really huge. It was one time. It was 19 percent on the tax rate on the rate. Right. Okay, so what's the will of the Council on the COLA? Two options. One is reduce it for this year, which saves $130,000, or don't impact this year's budget, but just give a two percent across the board. It won't do the 3.8 over six months, which then passes on a half a million dollar liability to the next budget. Or nothing. Not nothing meaning zero, but leave as is. nothing meaning zero, but leave as is. If we don't do anything else, I would recommend we do the 2% even throughout. I just would agree. I'm not real comfortable with the, it just seems, I mean, we've been talking a lot about about a budget gimmick career, whatever you want to call it. And I find that this approach just doesn't sit as well. And it's certainly not understandable to, it's taken me three explanations for people who explain it to me, and I just don't understand why we would even have gone this route in the first place. Well, let's see if we can get a consentist that at least we'll do that, we'll not do the backload it, we'll just do whatever the caller we agreed to will be straight across the board for 12 months. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. And then is that call a 2% or something less? I personally, we recommend we leave it a 2% move on. I don't know. We've done an awful lot for our employees over a long period of time to get them competitive. And I think we ought to just stay with the 2% and not go lower than that, even though the county and other jurisdictions may be. Is that a great deal? No, you're okay. All right, so now we're, so cross that one out. Mr. Greenfield, did you want to talk about the business improvement district? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There's certainly a possibility for us to find another $400,000, but that's looking at the implementation of a commercial tax that would get us started for transportation. I mean, we have the ability to roll back the bid entirely which would generate I think it's 500,000 I remember correctly. You could put a hundred thousand dollars toward contract services that keeps the bid going but allows them to figure out how they're going to do it and then gives us four hundred thousand dollars that comes back into the general fund. That's assuming a gives us $400,000 that comes back into the general fund. That's assuming a $6.00 increase, not the full 12.0.5 cents, a $6.00 increase for a commercial tax. Then you could also roll back the downtown business improvement tax from a 12.0.5 cents to $6.00 and then add on top of that the commercial tax. So that gives them a net savings in the downtown of a half a penny. But it gives us the ability to start the process of putting money aside for transportation in the city. It's the last piece of the transportation bill that is alive, that gives us the ability to start doing something with transportation. If you talk to anybody that's out there, I mean, one of the number one issues talked to David Bollard for anybody who's done surveys of their constituents, the number one issue is transportation and our ability to do something with it. And this is what's left, like it or not, until the state comes up with something that's better. This is what we have available to us. So that's an option. Well, let's cut that into two things. The first is, and we talked about this last Tuesday, there's a half a million dollars sitting left over from the bid funds. And I think what you're suggesting is that we would airmark, and I think we had this discussion last Tuesday, we would airmark $100,000 for contract services that our planning staff could use toward the master plan implementation. And then technically, $400,000 would come back. And I think the spirit of that, if I read the staff memo was, $300,000 and some of that $1,000 could be used toward projects that are slated for the Fairfax Boulevard, which I think legally we have to do is that correct? That is correct. And then that leaves about $100,000 still there. And one way to do that would be to airmark 200 of the 300 toward contract staffing, master plan, whatever, it may not be used that, or do something or save the hundred thousand, I guess, is that the end? You don't have to do anything. Okay. Is that correct? You could, if that money still has to be spent, it could be spent next year against the Fairfax Boulevard. That is correct, but it's not something that can ever be returned to the fund balance. Right. Something else. Right. Correct. So It has to be used for something along the boulevard, but that is, don't have to use it for what some of the recommendations were for this year. That is correct. Okay. So I think the spirit is, without getting into all the detail, 100,000 in contract services to support the master plan of the $500,000 and $400,000 toward Fairfax Boulevard projects and whatever we can't do this year, we were just told in that account. Is that the spirit, Mr. Greenfield? Okay, is there a consensus that that's? Yeah, good question. Mrs. Cross. So your proposal is to eliminate any assessment with suever on the businesses along Fairfax Boulevard. For bid. Correct. And that's coming up. But yeah, the first thing we're dealing with is the half a million. And then the second thing would be the service district. Either keep it eliminated, commercial, and then the commercial tax. I'm strictly dealing with the money that's sitting there right now. The half-mile dollar issue of the bid, whether you do this or not. All right, but we want to be sure to acknowledge that in the last go-round, I think. Don't we have that here that you are going to, you know, Fairfax Boulevard manager half a position. So if that hundred thousand. But it's she's referring to the B2 change document that shows $54,000 to be funded by the bid or some of the way. Yeah, the expense was taken out. But what we're dealing with is the revenue of the half a million dollars. Yeah, I understand that. I'm just saying that it needs to reflect that change if we're going to have them fund the entire position. Sotomayor. Correct. Which this does. Actually, this takes it out of the city and puts 100 percent of it into the bed. And now we're spending that out of 100,000 of that out of the bed money. Right. Mr. Smith. I'm comfortable with Mr. Greenfield's suggestion. I just want to make sure I understand. I like the term contractual employee or whatever you want to have, contract services, contract services. I want to make sure that that doesn't slide into an eventual quasi-city employee where we end up paying health benefits and everything else. I think that ought to be paid for separately because otherwise that becomes part of our overall budget challenge that we're going to have year after year. So if they're looking at full service benefits and everything else, which is fine, I think they should potentially, although some contractual firms already supplied that on their own, I think it ought to be, it ought to be all maintained and operated by the bid, which is I think what Mr. Greenfield's getting at, but I just want to make sure I understand that. Thank you. Okay. Now, Mr. Greenfield, the commercial tag, I assume the spirit of what you're suggesting is, if I followed it right, was on the Fairfax Boulevard, you'd reduce the service tax to zero, and replace that with a six cent commercial citywide. Citywide. And then in the downtown district, we would take the 12 and 12.5 that's there now and reduce that to 6. Did I follow what you were suggesting? It seems to make good sense. Okay. Is there a consensus? Yes, Mrs. Sure. Sorry. I understand the proposal. Thank you. That's, and I don't necessarily agree or disagree. And I'm trying to get my arms around what I missed earlier. And I know this is my fault. I accept the blame. But in terms of the commercial tax, and it sounds like we can't use the money as you all have already enlightened me here for other existing projects, only new projects. I'm wondering, do we have a pretty good plan for what that money will all be spent for? I saw Mr. Assistant indicate one example, but in other words, are we just raising this money just for the sake of having the money or is it actually going towards a substantive project or several projects? It could, if I could speak to that. Please. I would absolutely agree. I think the problem that we had when legislators wanted to try to do a half-sent for transportation, half-sent for education is it was wide open. There was no direction as to what it would be spent on. I would argue that we already have two things identified. We've talked about in the master plan this five to transportation network that it could go for that. Or the more immediate thing I believe is the North Vax project and we already know that we have a $10 million short fall there. So I would argue that the money be spent for either one of those projects in consultation with staff. Okay. And I'm those are the biggest priorities I think they're dealing with. I mean, is there anything and I don't see our lawyer in the room. Is he still here? The good thing is to explain to people how it can be spent. It can only be spent on new transportation road that was where I was coming from I'm assuming that he gave you all a presentation at the front end of this meeting where he said that that's where The limitations this is just from dealing with the NBTA Got a stuff and knowing what well I certainly read delegate Hugo's comments on this where he was up in arms because he felt like jurisdictions were talking about using in this replacement money and I get all that. And so that's often passed. So that's off the table. They actually passed an amendment as I understand it to the House Bill that we're operating under that chain clarified it. Puzzle of what took place. What? Fairfax account. It can only be used in essence for new money or money in addition to what you traditionally have spent. And again, I am so sorry for delaying the meeting by asking redundant questions. And again, it's my fault for not being here on time. The other question is then based on the fact that the law is very explicit. I'm assuming in terms of future councils, is there anything in the law that says that we can't just keep collecting and then not spending? In other words, my fear is, is the same trap we had with the downtown where we have been collecting, respectfully, I say this, and not using the money in essence. Or we've been collecting and, well, I know we use some, but I mean, we've been, we're holding, all right, well, all right, let's go to the Route 50 corridor then. I mean, my point is, I'll find the money where we've been collecting and haven't been spending it because we have been doing that in some cases. And my question is, is there anything to preclude us? About 55 minutes to find it. Is there anything to preclude a future City Council from doing that? I just want to ensure that our business community in particular is protected against just collections without any real goals of spending the money if the Councils, and this is future Councils, clearly, but future Councils haven't come up with the projects. And I realize there's some on the short list right now, but this time in three years or four years, they may not exist. We're relatively built out, gentlemen and ladies, sorry. So therefore, I want to make sure that we're not just doing it for the sake of... Well, and I think, no, there's not. I mean, I think the protection is they can't be spent for other purposes by state law. Right. I guess there's nothing that would braveebit a council from just collecting that fund for a bigger road project or holding it. I would hope the spirit of this, quite frankly, as we talked about, would be to eventually flow to transportation bomb where we could actually do something big on the route 50 improvements, which aren't going to cost a million dollars a year. They're going to cost 50 million dollars probably and all. And this is our only tool left, depending on what the State does at the end of the rainbow. But I would guess there's not something in the State law that says, I mean, I guess eventually they would pry foul, but I don't know how to answer the question, Mr. Wachkins. And if I could, we will, through the Regional Commission, we actually will have to report on a quarterly basis what we are using the money for. So there is accountability to then VTA, not just our citizens, but to then VTA also. So they do watchdog or they are going to watchdog the different jurisdictions to make sure that the money is spent properly. Okay. First response, I'll send it to you. Please. Is it clear that we could use this money for North facts? We feel that that is clear, yes, because this is a new, a very expensive project that is above and beyond what we do on an annual basis. That was my conclusion, too. But my question as arriving out of that is we created the bid to improve Fairfax Boulevard, and there's a tax on it. Do we want to continue that tax and put that money into a major project like North Fax, which would probably improve all of the businesses on the Boulevard or do we want to do a citywide tax with the first priority, which I think all of us would agree the highest priority and only big project we've got is North Fath. And so will we run into a problem with the business community, ask to being taxed in lieu of the root 50 Fairfax Boulevard community being taxed specifically to do a Fairfax Boulevard project. No, that's a great question. It sort of reminds me of the open space initiative discussion. It's very nice. It's very nice. A certain neighborhood has benefited more than others. You know, it's going to be up to a council to decide with the highest priority in the city would be as we spend that money. But there certainly wouldn't be, I don't think any restriction depending on the source of revenue and what the state does would be to use the commercial, as I understood this and I asked the MBTA at one time that we could actually use the revenue stream, which in this case would be a million dollars. It was a two million, I think at 12, so it must be half that I would assume Mr. Herschen. So a million to start out, to offset a revenue stream, to offset a bond, which could be a city-wide transportation, would, whatever projects we felt, I mean, that would be the big picture, go all that I think would be something worth while. Obviously, we're not going to do it with a million dollars, but I think this is just a marker we're setting down to make sure we get through the next 12 months on all the challenge. Pardon me. The new tax is and then go from there. Mr. Greenfield. Mr. Fowland, so I want to make sure I understand you are talking about maybe not doing the commercial tax but leaving the bid in place Yes, and then also leaving the downtown Tax the way it is. I wasn't addressing the downtown tax Okay, so just you would do a commercial tax or a leave the In lieu of the commercial tax You have the only problem with that as we all know that brings in $400,000, not bigger money, which to do anything mean, I mean, we're, I don't know what 50 is gonna cost, but it's a $50 million, those are the numbers at least, it may be more. We're short, we need 10 million to fully fund that project. That you're talking about, just to eat in place, to around 50, I'm talking about the whole north land. I'm talking about to do the the entire not where Alex says to do the entire north facts that that the stormwater and other improvements right in that area we need an additional ten million dollars correct. And that's just 50123. That's right 50123. Right. Right. That doesn't include possible discussions about eaten in 123 improvements at some point in the future So I just want to make sure I understand where you're going Mr. Mayor This is I just have a question that I just don't quite understand. Okay, so we are gonna do a 6% tax across the board But then the downtown folks I guess my understanding is they'll be painted additional 6 cents. Is that so they're right now 12 and a half cents. We're going to reduce that to 6. They'll be so everybody will be at 6. There won't be 6 and 6 for them. So everyone's straight across the board would be doing it. Okay, I just want to do if you follow the spirit of Mr. Greenfield's recommendation, correct? That's all right. The, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, keep it the same. It's the, I mean, they're at 12.5 cents right now. Six cents would be across the board for everybody for transportation. And then the other six cents in the downtown area would be for the continuing of undergrounding of utilities. I mean, if we're not, if we're not serious about doing it, which is fine, and get rid of that altogether, I. Well, but I make sure that that's what we're going to do. Well, but I think the spirit of it was on Route 50 for all of those businesses, by limiting the service district and replacing that with the Citywide Commercial, the net difference is zero to those businesses. Right now in downtown, they're paying 12.5 cents. Now we would be able to add the commercial, reduce the service tax, and they would actually save a half a percent, I guess, if I follow it right. So at least they would be paying no more either to be able to implement the citywide commercial tax rate. understand that now I understand I just want to make sure that the downtown folks once the underground is finished and we're done they were keeping an eye on that on that and that little piece of that extra six cents that that's all because it feels like you know their tax burden is still higher so and for good reason you know and for good reason but I just want to make sure we keep an eye on that ball how long was that going to go for do when will we finally be done with that? I think it was 20 years. And we started it two, three years ago, is that? How long ago? How far are we? Seven years ago. Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry, so we have 14 more years of that is what you're expecting. Approximately, it's just off the top of my head. Now, Council does realize that the city at large picks up the overwhelming majority of the cost of that undergrounding. And Mr. Mayor, if I could add one other thing, one of the advantages of the citywide transportation tax is that if there is a bond desired by the city you could apply it you could do project citywide whereas if you just do it on Fairfax Boulevard you're limited just to that area. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My understanding of why there was still 500,000 in that bid fund was that all projects would be substantially more expensive than that. And the idea of the sixth sense, you're not going to have time. It'll take a very long time to collect enough money to actually do a project of any consequence. On the city wide, how much do you estimate would be raised? If it's going to be a million a year on an $11 million project, yes, then bonds might have to come into it. And so that is a good idea to be able to use those funds. But if If it's how you have any idea of how much a city wide six cents business would be. Yes, that is it's approximately 1.1 million that would be brought in for the whole city. For the whole city, correct? For the all the commercial industrial properties in the city. It's not a lot really. all the commercial industrial properties in the city. It's not a lot really. When you're looking at a project of 11 million, is there a better way that we could address that? Well, except for, you know, I think the spirit, at least if I understood it right was this is kind of a real transition year for NVTA and this entire commercial surcharge. And quite frankly, we're not going to know until this summer what they may do and replacing all the other revenue which we would. If you remember, we were going to get a revenue stream of four or five million dollars. But we could have done something. I think the spirit of this is let's enact it. Let's get the system set up. Let's do it in a way that the net impact on the businesses and light of the budget and the increase in assessments. It would be a neutral and I would guess the spirit would be in future years. Once we know what's going to happen with the state, we would then bring that. So we have the right to do it anywhere and actually 25 cents. We picked 12 and a half originally because I think that's what the county was going to do. And that was the discussions region wide False churches bailing out at it completely this year because they want to see how this whole transition is going to happen Fairfax County understand is is that 12 and a half in the draft budget right now? They're 12 cents in the back 12 cents I think Alexandria is considering something less than that. About half or three cents. Three cents. It's all over the map because everybody's sitting back and waiting and seeing it. Okay. To that end, we've had many businesses come before us saying that they are having a really, really tough time. I think our base should be that we want good quality businesses coming to the city and good quality businesses staying in the city. So if we in this one year, if you want to look at it for a year, if we can help our businesses to succeed, that I think is what our priority should be. And maybe adding that extra six cents, maybe it should be less than that. Maybe it should be at some of the other jurisdictions that are letting it go this year. But what I'm saying is there's a lot of empty space downtown. There are, I would rather have a good quality business come in a long quarter rather than a check caching store. I mean, we have to, if we want to promote good business, we have to show that this is a good business place to be. Thank you. Well, and that's a good philosophical discussion on what, you know, the other flip side of that is, and I'm not trying to push for it, is if we don't get our road systems straight now, and we don't try to eliminate region wide, not just the city, transportation, then those businesses aren't going to be better off either. And I'm not taking one side or the other, but I think the whole argument on the whole regional state tax plan is we have to do something on transportation. And this is right now the only tool we have, but it's a fair point. I think that certainly the approach Mr. Greenfield suggested is a very nice compromise if we want to do it this year. If we don't, then that's certainly a valued feedback as well. Man, man, I ask a question. Sorry. Thanks. And again, it is strictly on the, what's left of the package at this point is strictly on assessments for commercial property, nothing else. And that's what we're talking about. That's only 1.1 million, huh? That's a- That's a few to six cents. That's six cents. That's just remarkably low, though. I was surprised. I mean, when we started down this path, you remember, right? I don't remember the exact number, but it was about 2 million at 12 cents from the commercial tax and another 2 to 2. half million, I think, from maybe three. From the regional taxes that became unconstitutional. So there was a serious pool of money coming in the city to do some serious project. That here, half of it is in limbo right here. Here's where I am and I know that it's not actually that far off. I don't think Mrs. Winter and I are saying that two different, necessarily two different things, which is that I remain concerned that we don't have projects that were ready to kick off boom tomorrow. I do think that Mr. Greenfield's proposal is the right one. I'm just questioning the timing, whether or not it's next budget or this budget. And that's all I'm saying. Having said that, when I heard from some of our friends in the business community, like we all did last week, and I've even heard from some additional ones via email, as I'm sure some of my colleagues have, the fact is, is that no matter how you slice it, we're still substantially lower than our dear friends in Fairfax County. So I guess I can argue about those, I'm talking about overall tax rates in the city. And you know, as we heard from one gentleman who's based on picket road, as I said to Mrs. Cross earlier this morning, if he was one block away, he would be paying probably 18 to 20% more in real estate taxes than he would be, or in personal property taxes, then he would be just by being one block inside the city. But again, arguing against myself here, I do think that in a time like this when you're trying to attract businesses here, that's probably why some people choose to locate here and some businesses. That's how I get that. The only question here is timing in my mind. And if we are, if I can be convinced that we're ready to kick off these projects, North Facts, everything else, the city manager is not in yes. And close on that one. Then, you know, losing. Close as in three or four years is a big thing. Well, that's what we're doing. Mayor, he raised a very good point because let's talk about close. Let's talk about the last 16 years of close on the road behind City Hall right here. George Mason Boulevard. It seems like a lot of our track record here, it is a slow process. So my question is, is this the right time? And that's, I just need an answer. I think I guess I guess we can argue, is it ever really the right time when you want to do a new tax? I mean, I'm not, you know, terrible excited about it. I threw it out there and just raised the question if we want to try to begin the process of doing something, putting new money toward transportation, this is our remaining option. I mean, I think rolling back the bid tax for those businesses along the Boulevard helps all of those businesses. I mean, what I've heard from business owners when I've gone out and asked them about this particular issue, they've all said, you know, if I see some benefit, I can support it. And if it's across the board, I'm more open to that than if you target a segmented industry, like the Meals Tax or like going after gas stations and inspection fees and some of those new fees that have been ruled unconstitutional that were being levied by NBTA. So it's no question that it's tough times, but we've heard for years, in years, in years, in years, in years, that if we don't start doing something about transportation, people are going to leave because they can't get around. So we've got a couple of projects that we already know that we're short. One, that's a significant project that allows us to redevelop the North Facts Gateway that's $10 million short. This at least starts the process to try to put it there. Mr. Fair. Just in response, I look, I get that and I also appreciate the point about if we've got to do something about transportation, but it's a little bit misleading to think that this money is going to appear and suddenly all of our transportation wells are going to go away because in reality, even North Thacks, while it improves in intersection, it's not, I mean, the big project that the mayor's alluded to is Route 50, which by the way, I don't even know if there's full philosophical agreement on this council or future councils as to what to do on Route 50 My argument has always been that that our dear friends in Fairfax County stonewallis and therefore what's the benefit to widening Route 50 inside the city when the minute you hit Fairfax Circle it's gridlock Because you enter the county in a two-lane road and that's going to remain the case for the foreseeable future So I would hope that future councils are certainly up to them, not me, but future councils would be very weary of widening all of our roads to the benefit of everybody to the west of the city for everybody to the east of the city to come to a complete standstill, which is what happens daily. But the master plan doesn't talk about widening route 50. I realize that the master plan, I'm sorry, but the master plan, this is, well, the master plan is one that is also Up for debate in the sense that there are a lot of developers if we're going to actually improve the root 50 corridor You know, you're giving up a lot of real estate in that process and I'm not sure a lot of developers are going to be real to see that happen But again, make that master plan a reality if you if you want to attract businesses into the city and you can look at, go to Gala's Road and look at that town center that they're doing there, look at Fairfax Corner 2, just go outside the city and look at the trees that are coming down. They're starting the process of building Fairfax Corner 2. Those are all competitive for the city of Fairfax. And we have to do something that attracts new businesses into the city. Part of that equation is a transportation network. I mean, if we're not going to do anything about the master plan or the transportation piece of the master plan, which I thought all of us when we had an offsite work session on that, agreed that that's the first step and we said that that's the right approach. If we're not doing that, then you might as well quit spending any more money on the master plan and put it on the shelf and let it be one more thing that we've studied and do nothing. I don't think we're in disagreement. We're not in disagreement. What would I do? Can spam concern? Then why don't we quit while we're ahead of work? Well, I'm just concerned that we can't do it in a vacuum without our neighbors surrounding us. That's the problem. dialogue, that's a different dialogue and we'll need another four hours just on that. But I think what Mr. Greenfield did and the leadership he provided is if we want to start collecting the commercial tax rate, which is at least what we have talked about now, his plan is I think a good compromise on how to get there in year one. It certainly is a fair question of women out not we want to start it this year. And that's a very fair question. And that's probably what we ought to focus on. I would suggest, I think we're all in consensus, we're eliminating the service tax districts similar to what Mr. Greenfield said. It's six in downtown, zero in Fairfax Boulevard. Then the question becomes do we add back in the commercial surcharge? And I think there's two arguments. Do it now start collecting that money so that a million this year and it's better than zero or wait a year. And either one of those to me is a fair discussion or argument. Can I see if where we are philosophically on starting at this year or waiting a year? Let's see if we can just do that and then we can work out the details depending on what we agree to. Miss Cross starting at this year or waiting a year. May I just say this, I am not necessarily for the total elimination of the service district these. So having said that, I mean, we haven't discussed that yet. Okay. Well, let's just let's first focus on the new commercial tax rate and where we want to be next year, I think I think I would take the position that what we do this year is just a prelude to what we might do or what we will do next year and in terms of escalating it perhaps. So I would start at this year but perhaps at a slightly lower than the six cents, perhaps four to five cents. Okay, let's, before we start numbers, let's get the big philosophical. So you're saying started this year at some number? Yes. Mr. Greenfield? It's probably six cents for an apple. Okay, so started this year on a number. Mr. Greenfield, I'm Mr. Westminster, I'm sorry. I would hold on at this year for this reason. I think the biggest element of a plan that we're going to start funding is North Fax. And whatever else we decide to do on the Boulevard. And I think we'd be well placed to have adopted the master plan. At least as far as the transportation element goes, before we ask people to start putting money into a, into paying for it. So I think we need a stronger position next year to do that. Mr. Overtorn, I'm with my distinguished colleague on the left, Mr. Responson. Mr. Slyne. I'm going to go with my colleague, Mr. Greenfield. Okay. Why do I know where this is headed? But Mrs. Winter? I think we should hold on it. It needs more discussion. This is not just benefiting the businesses, it's benefiting the citizens as well. And so it might be that you wrap in everyone, not just the businesses. Well, I would hold and hold on a picture. Okay, and essence we're going to have to do is get four votes because I cannot vote on a tax increase or decrease. So short of that, we're going to be back at exactly what we've got now, which is a six-inch bid tax, a separate question. The bill is a separate question. The bill is a separate question. The bill is a separate question. The bill is a separate question. The bill is a separate question. The bill is a separate question. The bill is a separate question. The bill is a separate question. The bill is a separate question. The bill is a separate question. The bill is a separate question. The bill is a separate correct? Did I count that right? So that means we're not imposing a commercial tax this year. So let's now, assuming that's where we are, now let's go back to the service, the existing service districts. The bid has recommended to get rid of the service tax district. Half their boards had get rid of it. Totally half their board said leave 1% in. It just seems to me it makes no sense if we're spinning their $500,000 and we've left $100,000 there. Why would you keep 1% in? Why wouldn't you just eliminate it, not spend the $500,000 or? And I'll just say at 1% we are funding them as an organization. We are no longer taking taxpayer money and the Fairfax boulevard and spending that money on meaningful projects. At 1% it's got to be $150,000 of that, $100,000 at $125,000. So I would suggest to you then why wouldn't we fund the central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce? Why would we not fund the Fairfax Car Dealers Association, the Downtown Merchants Association? And at that point, it's taxpayer-funded organization because we cannot justify it as spending money on big projects. So we have no commercial tax at least this year. Where are we on the service tax district, which is going to take four votes to figure out. So it's right, it really is 1% or 0. The two right now? Pardon? You're still dealing with it. You're talking about the service district. I'm talking Fairfax Boulevard. Are we at 1% or 0? Well, based on the logic that we, if I could, based on the logic that we shouldn't do anything until we have consensus on some other things, then I would say we should do nothing at this point. Which would be 0? 0. That's early. 1, 0. 1. So we're nowhere because I can't vote on it. I'm saying. No, I cannot. Mr. Mayor, if I might, I would like to say a couple things about it. Could I call on you, Miss? What is the logic of 1 percent? I get the personalities, I get the relationships, I get the discussions, and I know it's split with even their own board, and I talked to the chairman today who was pretty comfortable with Mr. Greenfield's compromise, but what's the logic of 1 percent? I don't get it, is it to pay for their administrative staff and allow them to continue to meet on the court? Because at that point, that is so far opposite of the spirit of what we did. And if you remember right, there's a very close vote. I was comfortable with it because we were setting it a rate that would bring in meaningful dollars for big projects. $120,000 a year is no longer that. That barely covers the management fee, the website administration, the telephones, and the electricity. Is that what we're suggesting we're gonna spend in this tough economy, the downtown businesses on the Boulevard's money? Go ahead, Mr. Messon. Well, it's the remvard's money. Go ahead, Mr. Rasmussen. Well, it's their money. Sorry, Mrs. Cross. I'm misled. I'll get right back to you. Go ahead, Mr. Rasmussen. I'm sorry. I've screwed that up, but go ahead, Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr. Rasmussen. Well, it's their money. Now, I would hope that we'd, and the bid was set up as I remember it to focus attention and get some movement on redeveloping the Boulevard. I would hope that some organization would continue to do that other than the city, because I think they can bring some focus and attention to redeveloping the Boulevard. I would hope we have found out that six cents has produced money that hasn't been used and it ought to be taken in use some way. But I would submit that it would be good to keep the money in existence, try to figure out a way to use that one percent in a meaningful way over the next year and see whether a redirected bid can emerge. That's my reason for keeping a medicine. If we limit it entirely, it will never come back. But if we can keep it in existence and see where it can be productively moved, I think that's worthwhile. It's not, it's, it's using money that they put up themselves. And as you said, Mr. Mayor, they're even split within their own board as to whether they go for zero or a smaller amount. Well, I just suggest that board is not representative of the landowners of businesses in the Boulevard, but Mr. Lyon. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I hear this debate back and forth, and I have to say that when we're looking at Fairfax Boulevard, you know, we need to look at it more in a systems approach. And you know, taking, leaving it at one cent is, I think, ludicrous that we will be maintaining that. If we go with the 6%, back to Mr. Greenfields or 6 cents, back to Mr. Greenfields point, that allows us to continue to keep it open, continues for us to have some control over it and not make that master plan that we did for $350,000 or whatever, a new point. We're not looking at Fairfax Boulevard as a with a systems report approach approach where we might need police, where we might need traffic signals, where we're going to need water. I mean, I really am kind of shocked that we're not thinking farther out than just a one cent for this year. And not thinking the six cents out over the next 14 years like we did with the downtown. So I'm disappointed in the council can't come to agreement on that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Miss Koss. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What we have in the bid as I view it is the first time that we have had business owners and property owners come together and form a body that is an advocate for that part of our business community. And I would like to see us have them self-fund to the tune of one cent, simply to enable them to undertake some projects that are of universal importance to that economic engine, so to speak. You can say that this is not a representative group, but it's the only game in town right now. And I really want to see it continue and remain viable. As Mr. Aspison said, I think if we eliminate it, the group goes away and it's a wasted effort. And we also lose the credibility that we've begun with the citizens who supported very strongly the efforts of revitalization in that area. So I would encourage people to think about the one cent. If it's just to enable them to do marketing efforts or signage efforts or minimal things, beautification efforts, whatever, to build a viable district, business district down there. Thank you. Mr. Hodgkins, what's the current operating overhead and staffing? Staffing website operation, telephones, their management contract is for how much? I'm sorry for which we're going to be. The bid for the bid. To operate the operation of the bid right now, how much are they spending annually in administrative overhead? Well, I don't know if you've missed it. That's no. Mr. Mayor, I'm not quite sure, but I believe it's around 100,000. That's my point. So all your funding is for them to keep their management team, their lights, their electricity, and their website. There's nothing left over it, 1%. So we all understand that. We can argue that, and we can say that's what we want to do with the money. That's great, but that's a nice thing. Where we're actually right now is six. Six. And what I'm going forward with tonight is six. It's well except one or nothing. It's it's six now because there's no agreement with doing well, but I would assume we could get an agreement at one. I think what we're taught were tied up on is one or zero. But one percent keeps their staff overhead. They're administrative fees fees period funded. But you can do contract services. If you pull back the whole six inch, you can give them $100,000 toward the contract services, which I proposed 30 minutes ago. You did. I got it. But I still have the same abilment. Can I just make sure that at least we have an agreement that it's going from 6 to 1. Is that at least is on the table correct? Assume if you support 1, you support going from 6 to 1 correct? Okay. So now the discussion is is it a 1 or is it at 0? And I assume those that are at 0 unless somebody budgets will be at zero. And I assume those that are at zero unless somebody budgets will be at one. And maybe we're not going to get that solved until somebody actually makes a vote. But I would just urge us that if we can't get a compromise at zero, then those who are at zero support one so that at least it gets reduced from 6 to 1. Okay. And I'm assuming the three who wanted it won are still out that and the three that wanted it zero are at that. So we'll just, we'll have to see if we can get that vote. We don't have a choice. Okay. All right. Now, if I followed where we are, through the CIP process we saved about $350,000 through the staffing process we saved 143,128. And from the bid process, we saved about 300,000. So at right now, if we go and put in our consensus document, which I'm hoping you could do, Mr. Hodgkin's force if we break for 30 minutes, but would be, I don't know what that, you know, with 643? We're actually at $807,999. $807,999. Well, but here's the issue. Is the spirit of this exercise, if it's not to reduce the tax rate from seven to six, which I don't think that was the spirit of war. We started. Is it to put it in a fund for next year or is it to buy down some of the school debt by 807,000? I would put it in the fund balance in the anticipation that next year is going to be worse. Okay. So it would be in a tax stabilization or fund balance or however we want to categorize that, which would be airmarked for next year's budget, tax stabilization. Okay. Well, yeah, you're right. Now, we're at 807 and let's have additional dialogue. Mr. Mayor, I could support, you know, the problem is that we have merged your very creative idea of a tax stabilization fund with the fund balance. And what ends up happening, as I said a week ago, is that if it's in the fund balance, somehow or another, it's hard to resist either by the council or by the staff making recommendations of the council. I realize we have the final say. So I would caution that if we're going to keep it as an, as I hate to use the term earmarks by the way, but you've been using it tonight so I'll continue with it. But if you're going to earmark it for a future council's use as part of a rainy day, essentially, or a stabilization fund. Let's put it in a separate category if we can truly do that. So it's not part of our fund balance. And I think even I can get support from Mr. Rasmussen on that in the sense that it's still being saved for future councils, but it's not part of the fund balance where I want to make sure the line is clearly drawn. So therefore it won't be spent. Well, I think if the spirit is Mr. Rasmussen, you have it for next year's real estate budget challenge, the process we set up a couple of years ago, which is really one of the same, but that's the problem, Mr. Mayor. Okay, let me see, Mr. Rasmmus and would you support putting it in a quote tax stabilization fund with the spirit of using it for next year's challenges? I think that was the spirit of before I answer yes, could we ask the staff? Does that give us any problem? No, that does not. We could segregate the funds. Okay, that would that would that would make me happy. All right. That would be the spirit of the funds. Okay. That would make me happy. That would be fairly the most. Are there any additional cuts or revenue sources that we have not already identified that anybody wants to throw out? Well, I'm going to start Miss Cross. When her wants me to start. I really just have a few minor things. It might push us up next to 100,000. Go for it. I have kind of harped on this for a couple of years and I would like to see the city not continue to fund the long-term disability insurance. And he to reiterate why, but it's because if the city place those premiums then benefits are taxable to the recipient. If the recipient pays those benefits and really these policies are very, very inexpensive. I mean, there may be a dollar or two. It's not a big deal. Then should benefits be necessary. They come to the insured tax free. So there was a budget memo on this. I feel a little pushback by staff on this, but I'm sure it can be done. And it would be a savings of $36,300 for the city not to pay those premiums. So. Let me see if I can, let's get an yay or nay. I know we talked about this last Tuesday as well. And I guess we just didn't push it to a consensus one way or the other. I actually thought it was in this document, but it's not, so we must not have had a consensus. But Mrs. Cross, you would be in favor of that. Mr. Greenfield. The staff have any comments on this, by the way, I'm sorry, I should have. Mr. May I ask a question of the staff? Sure, please. I had also asked last week, based on this, could we give the option for employees? So therefore, you know, I mean, could it be one of the other? Was it in the staff memo? And if it is, I missed it. I apologize. I mean, in other words, if staff, if individual staffers wanted to pay their own, it seems to me that that ought to be an option. Therefore, they actually benefit as Mrs. Cross is saying in the long run if they end up being disabled. But go ahead. It seems to me that we have many employees that that would be a substantial sum of money to them and they might forego buying that insurance for themselves. I would feel better as an employer of the entire workforce that we provide that benefit for everybody so that everybody is covered. And then yes, if there is an accident and they don't get the full benefit. I still think it's better to make sure the entire workforce is covered in that eventuality. Okay, so Mr. Greenfield, yay, nay. No, Mr. Restmussen. No. Mr. Silverthorn. No. Mrs. Lyne. No. Okay. Next, Mrs. Cross. Um, caught me up guard here. Okay. Um, got me up guard here. Okay. Um, okay. We did that. Okay. Back to the, to the special events, expenses. The holiday craft fair is currently a Saturday Sunday affair, but apparently the attendance on Sunday is mostly drives themselves to the event. So if we drop our transportation on Sunday bus transport, we would save $44,000. It's kind of big deal but it's a little bit. With that savings money or is that a decision we can make? It's really an achievement. Well, $140 million, I mean it's fairly insignificant. I mean this is one event that actually makes us a little bit of money. And, yeah. Well, that was my only point. If it's not going to save us money, then we could make this decision later on outside of tonight. Would it save us any money or would it cost us money to do that? The savings for not doing the transit on Sundays actually $2,400. We could live without the cue buses transporting people in on Sunday. So the only cost of the city for Sunday is the cue bus component of it? To save on Sunday for that one particular piece. Well, but I think the spirit of what Mrs. Cross is saying, I don't want to belabor it because I think we are talking about small numbers here would be, you'd say, staffing, you'd say, police, there's got to be more than just the transit if we didn't do it on the second day is. But I'm not saying we're not doing, I'm saying we're having the holiday craft there. For two days. For two days. Okay, I misunderstood that. Well, for $2,400, and I don't mean to make this a minor thing, but that's probably something we could talk about outside of this. I would assume, Mr. Sisson, if we decided to save that money, we could just do that at any point in time as we can discuss savings at any time. Mr. Cross? Just in a, I was told by staff that very few people use the bus system on Sunday anyway. The chair makes sense to me. Yeah. Can we get a quick consensus on it? Fine. Sounds like we can. So, on 2400, go ahead. The Festival of Lights and Carols and Chocolate Leopards, I propose that we make those one day events. Certainly lights and carols, we want to, youols, I'm very much in favor of the decorations down to town and the events of the one day that we like the tree. But for the rest of the month of December, I think we, you know, leave the lights and the decorations and all that in place, but we just let people enjoy that on their own. And we get a consensus on that. I don't know. Oh, I'm out. But no. OK. Just. I'm sorry. Which budget memo are we looking at? How much are we talking about if we find out all the other? Well, I was going to I mean, I make the same suggestion for chocolate lovers that the one day event. And the savings would be $4,100. I make the same suggestion for chocolate lovers that the one day event and the savings would be $4,100 as I understand it. Mr. Mayor, may I add something here about the festival since I was one and was so open about it last week? I'm wondering if we can just go to staff and say, you know, we would like, you know, cut your, you know, the festival budget by, let's say, 20,000 and let the staff figure it or 15,000. And you know, or even, you know, 10,000, whatever number we can come to an agreement here on council, you know, so the staff can go back and figure out really where they should cut more than I think that we can sit up here and do that. I guess that's really more of my talking specifics. I'm just saying let's just make the one big splash with both of those on the tree lighting evening and the day events. I'm just talking about all the festival. I mean just putting them all in one big bucket and say, okay, let's cut, you know, whatever we need to that budget by 15,000. Instead of, you know, nickel and diamond each, each festival, that would be what I'd like to. You know, what we're doing now, if we're not going to cut the tax rate, we're doing next year's council's bidding, quite frankly. And because it's just going to go into this fun balance, if I heard what we're doing. And I just think this is, I'll just say one thing on the Chocolate Lovers Festival, and if it's $4,000 or whatever we say, I attend that event, both as an attendee, as an exhibitor, and the amount of people it brings downtown on Sunday for our restaurants and for all the other people is it's not as big a Saturday but it's still a very very substantial number and it just seems to me that having it on the second day unless we're talking about big numbers helps every business downtown that would far offset you know the small amount of money would save, but let's hope they stay open. Usually they don't. They don't? And Sunday now. I bet most of the restaurants in the new development, I don't know about how, is have a might open on site. They're not. Okay. Well, can I suggest, well, whatever, we need to keep you know, if these are, are there any other big numbers you've got there Mrs. Cross or? Well, I did have a question about the very last thing, the performance and merit adjustment for general and public safety personnel. This was, this mail just came to us in the last batch. And I'm not really sure. This is a big number. It's $352,000. Can somebody explain to me what that is and how we use it? It's called the step program. It's performance. It's the step program. It's the step program. It's the step program. It's the step program. It's the step program. It's the step program. It's the step program. It's the step program. It's the step program. It's the step program. It's the step program step program for the city employees. That's the annual estimate cost for that program. But this is separate in a part from the code. That's correct. The code is the cost of living. They go from a step one to a step 10. And this is what the cost is for all city employees, public safety, and general schedule employees to go from whatever step they're at to that next. Is that correct? I thought we were only going to do call us. The sh**. I didn't, I haven't heard that, but certainly on the table, whatever. Maybe I misunderstood, but I got out of the way. It's one and a got out of the payroll. It's one and a quarter and you two you were of the mind that we were only going to do COLA's and not the and it's 350. Tell me how much. Just a 252 thousand dollars. Right. For their step for their pay increases for the year. Right. For the merit adjustment because performance. Hmm. I'm not the human recommendation. I'm just saying. Do we need to look at this? If I could, Mr. Mayor, if we're not trying to reduce the tax rate, we could do this at any point. Well, not just that. I'd rather instead of trying to balance it on the backs of city staff across the board, I'd rather go back in and look at more difficult items if that's what we want to do. If we're trying to put more money in this tax stabilization fund or fun to work on toward next year, there's very few city employees that are able to live in the city of Fairfax just because of what the cost of living is and how expensive it is and not even taking into consideration increased fuel cost to get home to where they live, which a lot of them are west and south of here. I mean, there's other things that we can look at cutting versus this, especially if we're not trying to get to a reduced bottom line, just my opinion. Okay. Is there a strong consensus? If there's not a, we're missing two people, now we're missing three. So, well, all I would, here's what it strikes me on is if, if, it certainly is a fair discussion, if we're not doing it to, to say, to cut the tax rate tonight, there's really nothing that would prevent us to have this discussion next week, the week after before the fiscal year would start, is that not the call-up because we have to approve that tonight, but the merit increase, and I'm not suggesting we do that in any way, shape or form, but if we wanted to consider it, that doesn't have to be tonight if we're not using it to balance the budget. Is that correct? All right. It's in the budget you would have the flexibility to address yourselves to it later. That's what I would suggest we do, Ms. Cross. If not, there not the short. I'm sorry. I just wanted clarification and I think it's something that we need to specifically address because we'll be answering a question. Okay, this is winner. I would like for the to look at possible the senior tax relief program reducing the scope of that. In 2000, it was 113,000 and next year it's proposed to be 1 million. That's a 780% increase. And it's affecting 300 at this time, 363 households out of 8,000 households. And I would propose that we have a lot of young families who are struggling. We have single parents that are struggling. And there's struggle across the board throughout the city. And I would propose we take the million and maybe break it down, bring it down to 500,000 and ask the staff to review and maybe look at criteria for that program. Ms. Lyme. I'd like to comment on that. You know, I appreciate young struggling families and I appreciate single parents, all of those things, but I do know that our seniors are in fixed incomes. And with the cost of everything for them now, I would hate to see us not continue with that service. But the last thing I want to say is see us not continue with that service. But the last thing I want to say is, is it is a good point that Mrs. Winner said that maybe we should look at it the criteria. And I think again we can look at that in another put that on another work session. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I could, before we get into this philosophy, we're down to people and be,, we got to start our meeting in just a few minutes. But let me see, is there any support from, I assume that's no from you, but from either of you two to reduce it by half a million? No. Okay. So there's not, so then me and we can't have dialogue a different day. But I want to make one is that there are many families that do not own their home, that do not have a lot of equity. And I would assume that most seniors have a huge amount of equity in their home. And that's what reverse mortgages are for. Thank you. Okay. If there aren't any other issues at this point, let me suggest Mr. Hodgkins, you get some work to do here in the next 15 minutes if you would do that consensus document for so we'll have it in front of us and then we need to go from there. And Mr. Sissin, if you could stay and help me figure out the procedural work section of the jar.