Let me welcome you to the Fairfax City Council budget outreach meeting here at Daniels Rodney's here the City Council for the last six years tries to at least once during our budget process leave sort of the walls of City Hall and come out into the community and I think we've used this particular school for almost all of those exercises and so we thank you very much. You'll notice that Mr. Greenfield, Councilman Greenfield, is not here. He had the unexpected death of one of his childhood friends a couple of days ago and he's out of town tending the general and certainly our thoughts and prayers are with him. I'd also say that if you all decide during the night to either ask questions or testimony, I'm going to ask you to come to the microphone. This is being televised. And so it's really tough to hear unless you're speaking directly into the microphone. So I'll certainly ask you to do that. This is a really for the opening. It's a single agenda item and it's a budget outreach meeting. And we're going to immediately go to agenda in number one, which is the opening of the public hearing for the 2008-2009 budget year. And we'll invite the public to the podium first to sign up as Tom Dodson. And I ask if you give us your name and address when you start speaking. We do have a five minute rule time one minute in place. Please. My name is Tom Dodson. I'm here representing the Police Chiefs Advisory Council. As most of you know, the Council represents neighborhoods all over the city. I'd ask the members of Council that are here tonight to stand up. We have representatives from Carrechester Woods, Cobdale, Comstock, the Muse, and I represent Little River Hills. We support the police budget and we're here to give a few reasons why. The police budget is, we think, a lean budget. I work in the federal bureaucracy. I know full well that many agencies will have their budget anticipating cuts so that they'll come out at the right point. We've reviewed the budgets as they've been submitted year after year and we believe that that does not happen here. We think that when the chief needs says he needs five officers, that's the minimum he needs. Second thing is public safety, I think, is the most important service that the city provides. By public safety, I mean police, fire, EMS, those types of things. When you need something in an emergency, there can really be no compromise. I had a family member had an emergency this past year. The police were there with a minute, EMS was right behind. And I'm really thankful I lived in Fairfax because one time in DC, I called 911, took me 15 minutes to even get a voice on the line. So we think those are paramount importance. I would think that although the idea of a cross-the-board cuts is very palatable because it means that everybody in all programs share in the budget pain as you will. Public safety, I think, to be a higher objective and get all to have the least cut on my behalf. I haven't taken a creature approach to public safety being first, essential services that we need day-to-day zoning and permits being second and enhancement things that are nice to have and make life better should be third. I've noticed that in the March 18th hearing the chief stress the fact that he needs more officers because of training and court appearances or taking up more and more time and that's true and that's valid. But as a citizen, we all know that the city has grown tremendously in the last 20 years. We have approximately the same number of patrol officers on the road that we had back then. We've got more other physicians, and we're grateful to the Council for the computer, for instance, and other physicians have been filled, but we need to keep pace with the city's growth to make Fairfax a pleasant and safe destination. So to conclude, we support the police budget. There's certain programs that we like to conclude, we support the police budget. There's certain programs that we'd like to mention my children, Brandon H. Six and Justin H. Seven, go to this very school. So I and other parents are quite desirous that the DAIR program continue. Joe Beck, if you're just a words, has asked me to mention the child's safety seat clinic that the police department conducts. The child's fingerprinting exercised the national night out and the 4th of July bike rodeo and social that he helps with is also deserving of continued support. Thank you very much. Thank you. May the carpenter? Mayor, council of members. Different topic. I'm representing Fairfax Little League tonight. And I just want to emphasize, thank you for the decisions you've made on the youth facilities upgrades in the parks and the fields and we really support that and we would like you to continue to support the fields as planned. Thanks to Mike McCarty, Rich Wyant and the Parks and Rex folks who have really done an outstanding job supporting us with the baseball and FBYC. We continue to team with the city and work on the fields and everything else. And that's why we really think we want to continue to team with you as we develop for us providence in the 90-foot field out there that is critical to our program. We support the current budget as planned. Thank you very much to the city manager. And what these fields do for us is they support youth at a critical time. We do not have a 90 foot regulation baseball field. And the one field we do have dedicated to us isn't really where we need it to be. We do need occasional use of Robinson field, but that's on an occasion. And that's on an occasion. And that's a critical time for us in Little League. They go from 12-year-olds into teenage years, and they move from 60-foot fields to 90-foot fields. To keep their interest, to keep them engaged at a critical part of their youth development, we think this is important. We're afraid that if any of these fields are eliminated, of course, it'll extend. We understand it'll extend the time it takes to get the 90-foot field done at Providence. It'll increase cost significantly. We understand there's been some good contracting work done by the city and some good plans ahead. But for example, the fill that we're going to use to level out Providence, that fill is going to come from great for a staffer. And if those projects don't go, we're worried about delays moving it maybe as a year as far as a year into the future. We have dedicated, we are committed to $45,000 to help fund the fields. We haven't had the contract from the city yet, but we just a little bit have committed to that. We've also committed to anything on either fields if we can help with volunteer work. You know there's certain things we can and can't do because a lot of legal issues and all that, but there's things we can do. We'll get people out there to help put together bleachers or you know diamonds or wherever we can to save a few dollars here and there. Anyway, thank you very much. Thank you. Doug Church. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I'm Doug Church. I'm executive, our vice chairman of Virginia Heritage Bank, located in the city of 11166 Fairfax Boulevard. I'm also advised chairman for legislative affairs with the central Fairfax chamber of commerce. I'm here really last week. I spoke unexpectedly as I was listening to the needs of the community, and mostly residential which is certainly understandable. But I was concerned I wanted to do a little more research in terms of the impact on business as to where we are right now. I talked about fairness last week and working together and that the community of business as well we may not vote although I should start looking for a house here in Fairfax City, and they told me that there are some available. But I've spoken to many businesses, and chamber members as well as others, and reached out, as a matter of fact, a few people have joined us tonight. Unfortunately, not as many numbers as would like to be here because they're running their businesses, but maybe a few could stand up has just representing some of the business community. Spoke people in the legal profession, construction, retail, real estate, auto dealers, and others. Significant contributors and long time contributors to this community. Talk to the CFO of Ted Redford, Ms. McKay was contacted, Art Foster, Bo Robinson, Bruce Jennings, and the Myriad of Others. These are people that have volunteered, they've contributed, and they certainly are significant taxpayers. In general, sales revenues down. I can't think of any businesses that are not being impacted right now by the down-down turn. It is very significant. In fact, talking to the folks at Ted Brett and some of the other dealerships, there's much as 25% down in revenues this year over last year. The, rather than talking to some of the other areas, the same things occurring. I couldn't find anybody that said, my business is robust. The, well, with the exception perhaps of some of the foreclosure folks. The presidential assessments are down, which I found interesting. Commercial assessments are up. That seemed odd. As I've dug a little deeper with a few of the business owners, I found that including the search charge that's proposed, and I understand that's still up in the years to whether it's going to be done, that the tax impact could be as much as 30 to 45% more than they paid last year. Again, I'm talking about fairness. These businesses can't just turn around and raise their prices to raise their revenue. What's happening right now and has happened over the last six months. They're taking salary cuts, they're cutting the salaries of their employees, they're laying people off, they're reviewing the way they can handle benefits and many are faced with closing. Your face with a tough decision, I know a good bit about budgets, I've seen it from the side of the people applying for loans, as well as creating the budgets for our business. You have to carefully assess the necessity of expenditures, no matter how nicely seen. You've got to demonstrate the discipline to control expenses during this downtime. There will be enough cycle. I'm old enough to know many cycles in banking. That's what we talk about. Businesses pay a disproportionate taxes in the city, and it will only get worse if we continue down this path. I understand that in Fairfax County businesses pay just less than 50% of the taxes. In the city of Fairfax businesses represent almost 60% of the taxes. Fairfax is what we're talking about. Small business, a medium-sized business, and businesses located here. We have a great community, a great business community. We look to participate with Council in any way we can, but it is the economic engine. And we would like to commit to fairness and working with you on the toughest decisions you have ahead. Thank you very much. Thank you. That is all is previously signed up with anybody like to address the City Council in 2008, 2009. Thank you. Please. Bye-bye. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Council. Some of you may know my name is Mike Murphy. I'm a president of the City of Fairfax. I'm a company this evening with Martin not when he was my vice president. I'd like to first thank you by allowing us the chance to speak here before you tonight. Martin I have worked closely with chief Rapp report discussing the challenges that have faced our department over the past few years. I'm a company this evening with Martin not when he was my vice president. I'd like to first thank you by allowing us the chance to speak here before you tonight. Martin, I have worked closely with Chief Rappaport discussing the challenges that have faced our department over the past year with great concern being focused on the shortage of sworn police personnel. We have had the opportunity to speak with a few of you in these regards. This council has always been supportive to the needs of a public safety personnel. I have been an employee of the city, a fairfax for the past 10 years, and this council has always done their best to see that we, those in the public safety sector, perform to the best. When we are at the top of our game and working to the best of our ability, the city of Fairfax shines, which reflects on you that in the tremendous job that you do as city council. The type of service that we are able to provide starts with you. In everyday interactions with the public, I have compared the city to a hidden jewel. I do not know of any other jurisdiction in the northern Virginia area that provides the personal service that is given to its residents and business owners. Where else do waste management teams enter a person's yard, carry the trash can to the truck, place to can back where they got it. I've heard people say that if they need rescue, to respond for them, they hope that the city and fire rescue units are the ones that respond. When it comes to the police department, once the call is made for police service, the complaint or victim gets to talk specifically to an officer in person. No matter how large or small the crime crime officers in our department try to make the complaint and feel that we are truly working for them. My intentions for speaking for you tonight feel specifically to this issue of service. As a result of the personnel shortage that the police department is experiencing, the police department has begun to deplete its resources and an effort to try and keep patrol squads at a minimum safe working level. In doing this, other areas of the Department have begun to suffer. We have not been able to fill several detective positions such as the juvenile detective, narcotics detective, gang task force detective, and the general crimes detective. The effects have also been felt in the support operations division. We're both members of the bike team and one motor officer from the traffic services section have been reassigned. But these reassignments not only, not staffing the detective position, the patrol division still finds itself at a minimum staffing levels. This at times can compromise the safety of the officers working the street. Patrol officers may find themselves responding to a call known that normally would require two officers or assistants may find themselves waiting because there are no officers available. This could compromise public safety. As you have been made aware by Chief Rappelport's presentation, the police department is currently undergoing changes with its personnel. We are trying to hire new officers to fill vacant positions and looking to the future to prepare for the inevitable retirement of seasoned officers who are eligible. This mass retirement begins this year and will continue through the next couple of years leaving the department short once again. Our concern is not with the possible safety issues but with the possible waning of the personnel service we so proudly provide to the citizens of the City of Fairfax. The chief's goal of having one officer in every patrol area 24-7 cannot happen without the addition of five new officers. All our members hope that the council will take a very close look at the position that the police department has found itself in. The chief's original proposal has found that the chief's proposal of five new officers is a fair one and will allow and ensure the goal to patrol each area 24-7 as well ensure the safety of those who serve and those we protect. On behalf of the Madam and the Women of the City of Fairfax Police Department, I thank you for the opportunity to speak for you tonight. Thank you. Who else would like to address the City Council? Please. Good evening, Gary Karem, in 11008 bus more drive. As you all know, about a year ago, maybe longer, we came up with the ball field issue and at the time I was very supportive of it. Since learning what's been going on with the one ball field I got to ask the question why are we building a trophy field? You couldn't have picked a worse space to put a ball field. It's a wetland a wetland is just that it does not drain. You're going to put a soccer field on it with synthetic turf there's been new things out on the internet concerning infections with synthetic turf. You put it into an area where there's a lot of insect activity and one that never dries. I got to wonder what's the long-term effect. You've also taken out a 20-year loan on a field that probably will not be usable 20 years from now. They do have a life and if they're going to be played on with the amount of play that That we're hearing about they'll never see that 20 years. I'll have to be resurfaced before we pay for what you got The next point I look at is I got to ask myself we have two fields at Graper with lights We have Providence the extension of a field all of those added together only come up to as much as you're going to put into Stafford So I got gotta ask myself, what's the, why are we building a trophy field? This is a time of wants and needs. We need a field. There's no doubt about that, but we don't need a trophy in the middle of the city. I also gotta ask myself with two empty schools, with 20 acres plus to build on why we picked the worst site in the city to try to build a field. It just doesn't make any sense at all. And I'm not an ecologist and I know I said this before and I got in trouble. I'm not a tree hugger. I am looking at it from a financial stand. I'm very supportive of F.U.I.C. I like what they do. I've coached. I've refereed. I've done everything. But to spend this kind of money on one field is ludicrous. You're also looking at the possibility of having to spend another six million to put in your community center. And I believe the original plan showed for five million for the building and one million for the outfitting, which would have been six. Times when the budget are tight is where you've got to weigh your wants and needs. And I know these decisions are very unpopular, and they're going to be unpopular But talking to the people that I represent in our community Associations they're wondering where are we coming off asking for large tax races from both the commercial and the community and Then spend the money putting in things that we just don't need Thank you Who else would like to address the city council? Yes, please. My name is Val Morgan. I live on Cornell at 36. Am I too short? I knew that. 36, 17 Cornell right next to the golf course. And I'm all dressed up because I've just come from Safer. In the low parts I was sucking the mud. That won't make good fill. Neither will the shale or mica that's going to have to be blasted. No doubt. I was just on the phone this morning with a geology professor from GMU. She's very excited to see what's there because it looks like all it's all it's singing out is, I'm an ecology class. I'm a geology class. We have the high school. We have George Mason. This weekend, I went over with Elizabeth and my friend Carolyn Williams, who leads bird blocks. We've identified some birds there. I'm sure there'd be some great birds come through in the migration. It's a terrible place to put a soccer field. Here, Westmore would be a great place. It's flat. It's not a big hole. And also in the city of the plant, the Comprehencing Plan. There's talk there about wetlands. There's talk about green space, and that means soccer fields. Soccer fields are nice. I mean my kids played soccer, and the important thing about the soccer was the game, not that the field had a great sign. Everybody remembered the soccer game, not that the field looked like one of these baseball fields, it cost maybe bucks. And I think to try and do something without other than actually try and help it be what it is It's just gonna cost even looking at it monetarily. It's ridiculous amount of money when Westmore would probably Just love to have some soccer field over there Something to think on because I don't have the money and I don't think the city has it either Yes, I the back please. May I hand something to each one of you? Who wants you to just hand it out to us. My name is Doug Schauss. I'm at 11010 Fairchester Drive. I live right back up to Cutton Park. As all of you may know, I'm a soccer coach for my daughter's U11 soccer team with FBYC. And actually today we're supposed to be our first organized practice. The weatherline that is put out by the Parks and Rec asks us to give him a call whenever there's been a rain. I call the parks, every single park, athletic field, and the city is closed today. Well, obviously, I live right next to the cut to the park and that is evidence of organized play on that field this afternoon. Still going on when I left. Coaches are kind of putting in a hard spot. We were asked in our coaches meeting that if we saw any organized play and organized play is divine by our director of soccer operations with FPYC was that anybody over 10, any group over 10 individuals playing an organized pickup game. Obviously this was over 10. We were to ask them if they had a permit to use the field. Well, I did. They said they didn't have a permit. I also informed them that all the fields were closed today as per the Parks and Rec weather line. Well, make a short story. Even shorter. They blew me off. At that same coaches meeting, I was also instructed as a representative of FPYC that we could contact with police department if they refused to leave and have them help us ask them to even explain the rules of playing on our athletic fields. Well, I did that. Police department troll officers came, they were very polite, but they basically said their hands were tied. Parks and Rec did not notify the police department that the fields were closed. They did not put up any signs on the fields to say that they were closed. There's no communication there. He had no legal recourse to ask them to leave. So there they are, still playing. I bring this up tonight, and obviously the parks and the athletic fields is a pretty hot topic, evidently, tonight. In that last fall, my team played on dirt and rocks on that exact field because of the organized pickup that ran that field into the ground. Dirt and rocks. Now seeing the precarious situation that we as a city and our parks and wrecks is in with the shorters of fields right now. I think that we could do, and the parks and recreation department could do, a better job of policing their fields. Create some bylaws, create some type of regulation that says that unless you have a permit you cannot play on that field. And then police it. We need somebody out there to be able with some kind of authority to tell them to leave. And I think that's more important now than any time that we have sitting quite frankly and personally I think FBYC is getting shorter than the stick for a long long time. We needed two parts and providence we got one. We needed two additional fields at another place we got one. All right, if we're gonna have, if you're gonna give us fields, then in the meantime, we gotta construct them. We have to do a better job of policing the ones that we have so that our kids have something reasonable to play on. I don't know what we can do about it, whether there can be a memorandum between the council and city government, parks and rec and the police department to help us out in this kind of situation. So there you go. Thank you. Who else would like to address the city council? Yes, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, notable members of council. My name is Kathy Lewis. I live at 97.11 Ashby Road in the Fair City of Fairfax. I'm here tonight to speak to you in support of the Parks and Recreation Department's budget. As you are aware, I'm also an employee and have been of that department for 21 years. The Parks and Recreation Department is not asking for any new positions. Granted in this difficult economic times, it's pretty easy to look at entertainment value. That's more than what they do. They do have programs for children of all ages, including adults. I've seen you at our festivals. I've seen you smiling and I've seen you laughing. I've also seen you in other programs within, you know, that might be offered for your children. So I would like you to consider supporting their budget. There's many events that we do, that they do, from the chocolate lovers to the fall festival, to the holiday craft show, to July 4th, of which we are honored to have you participate in the many years that you have. We would like to continue in that vein. Entertainment value of the festivals, it's going to be important this year. If you realize people are not going to be able to travel very far from home. The cost of gas, the cost of milk, bread, goes up and up and up. So what we do provide for the citizens is a break. I'd like you to consider their budget. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Who else your time. Thank you. Who else would like to address the budget tonight? Yes, please. Thank you for letting us all speak. Can you hear me? I have a question for you and this is about the budget. I don't know why Fairfax City continues to brag that it has the lowest tax assessment in the region, which it does. But we can't keep bragging about having a low tax assessment and provide everything that we need in the city. It just doesn't make any sense. I know it's politically correct, especially for those of you who are running again, but it scares me. And I wonder if you worry about the outcome in this city of too much renewal, too fast, too much lease financing. I don't really quite understand that except what I hear about it scares me and an overall disregard for responsible spending. I think we need to rethink that and I know you passed last I guess it was last week you approved the real estate tax at 79% 79 cents per $100 a SEST value, which is the lowest in the whole region. And the city manager had proposed 83.5 cents, which is really very low in comparison to other jurisdictions, but you voted to keep it at 79 cents. And I think that means there are going to be some major cuts in planned development and in services and some of those are really critical in essential services. I wish you'd rethink that. Although I don't want to pay any taxes at all, just like everybody else, but you know, you can't have services without taxes. All right, this brings me the subject of these ball fields. How could it possibly be more extensive to build a field on the Westmoreland, which is an ideal place for a ball field, than to build one on Stafford West, which is the most unsuitable piece of land for a ball field that one could find. You just can't find a place that's less suited for a ball field than Stafford West. And if your estimate is that it's cheaper to build it Stafford, I'm just begging to differ. You've got skewed stats. There's just no way that could be true. It just couldn't be right. Some of you argue that you spend a whole pile of money on plans for staffer and therefore you have to go ahead with it. And that's just spacious thinking. The resulting plan shows that all sorts of problems will result in cutting down the hill, cutting into the area from Stafford Drive, bringing in plumbing and electrical lines, creating a serious traffic problem going into and out of Fairfax Boulevard. None of these problems would be present at Westmore. It's obvious that Stafford is a sinkhole of money and it would be hard to keep it up. I mean it's just not suitable for ball field and it would be better spent elsewhere and we could preserve the Stafford tract for less invasive activities and provide recreation and nature study for more city citizens than a ball field that would be used only by members of FPYC, only. We couldn't do a pickup game not that I'm in any condition to do that, but some of my neighbors are. And we couldn't use that field. And in case you think we have two fields adjacent to our property already. So that would be three fields. And I'll bet there aren't many people in this room who have fields adjacent to their property. There just aren't many in this room who have fields adjacent to their property. We have it adjacent to our common property in our neighborhood. So that's what I have to say about that. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Who else would like to address? I'm sorry. I'm Ellen Pence, I live at 3211, Adam's Court, Fairfax, Virginia 22030. Thank you. Who else would like to address the council tonight? Just please. Jenny? Who else would like you to address the council tonight? Just please. Jenny? Thank you. Good evening. If my taxes stayed the same yet last year, we are faced with heavily declining revenue. Everyone else that we deal with is holding the line on expenses, on expenditures. We are forced if you go through with this proposed tax rights. We would pay 35% more taxes. I just talked to Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson has been my business neighbor on ticket road for more than 40 years. His father, my late father, and his late father were there before us. He's 50% down in his revenue. Concrete contractors, construction, there's nothing going on. We have declining revenue. Our taxes have doubled since 2000, doubled, and you're talking tens of thousands of dollars. We do our part supporting the city. 60% of the taxes, you were talking about why the tax rate low? Six because the business people pay 60% of the taxes. That's why. I talked with Art Foster with Foster Brothers before I came here. I talked with Cac and McCay. Her comment was, if they go through with this tax rate, I guess they don't want me to be in business here. I would urge you to strongly urge you to defer the proposed search arge you're talking about and hold the line on the taxes. The budget should be cut evenly across the board. They should feel the same pain that we feel. We don't have this money. We are not going to be, we can't do it. Our revenue has to meet our expenditures. We have no choice. We are not able to raise our revenue as fast as a rate of taxes. I look on my balance sheet, that is, that is getting to be the bigger line item every year. Every year it's higher, percentage-wise, with our revenues. And I said I'd be brief and I will. And we just, we can't do it anymore. Thank you. Thank you. Who else would like to address the City Council? Mr. O'Dowell? Mr. O'Dowell, you're going to have made while waiting to speak as is often case. I am some of you know Gerald T. Jerry O'Dell. As regards the community center, it must be Bill. No doubt about that. The comments of another speaker left me wondering if he objects to it to be Bill. But given that $5 million was donated for it and that five million dollars must be turned into a building or a senior center within two years. It just wouldn't make sense not to build it. The must be made built in installments as someone else suggested. Because if you build it all at once, you'll just further increase our debt. You'll threaten our bond rating and drive up interest rates. We're already by your own admission in previous years. The most indebted jurisdiction in the area of Northern Virginia, whereas we used to be least indebted just four or five years ago. And you already bet a mortgage, so to speak. You already mortgaged or offered a security for the improvements to City Hall and other buildings, the City Hall itself, the old City Hall and the new are pledged as assets to back up the bond funding for the renovation of City Hall. That's a very, that's a move. Ranted we are a, in the municipality with General Revenue Bond Authority, not special. So we are always able to raise the money by simply raising taxes. But you've been raising taxes. When interest rates fell to an all-time low in starting in 2001 after the crash, it started March the 10th, 2000 and lasted for three years. Everybody freighted and investing in the market, rushed to find something else, and low interest rates meant real estate was the bargain. While that bubble has burst, while assessments were going up between 2001 and 2007, you kept lowering the tax rate, yes, but never by enough to come anywhere near offsetting the unjust increase in revenues in the city coffer. And now that assessments are down, you're still going to raise the tax rate, which makes sense when assessments are down. But you can't pick up your past sins because you lack the horse out of the barn by not saving the money or returning it. You need to engage the whole community in determining what features the community centers should have. I said this to you before, and months are ticking by. The perhaps most economical way to do that would be cable TV, but most of us don't have that. But you send a city-seen newsletter to each house every month, register voter or no. Ask the people that fill out a questionnaire as you did back in 1989 to ask what our preferences were. You could ask what we want with regards so much narrower scope, what we want in the senior center. First time that I'm aware of being asked, my preference, was when I was interviewed just a few nights ago, I folks have associated with something called Mosby Woods, this or that, friends of Mosby Woods. And they asked me, and I said, that's the first time I'm aware that anybody has me and I think it's interesting that they interviewed all the challengers for City Council before they interviewed any of the incumbents. The gesture may be a foul motive but we'll talk more about that another time. The how so much for the Senior Center, that's for ball fields. You know, there's more in life than ball fields. Exercise is important to hear radio spots talking about obesity. So rampant in our youth, our young children, and even more so in our high school age children. Clearly, we need to have good PE program in our curriculum. And we need to have plenty of exercise facilities close at hand as their spots say, so that people will use those facilities and the children will be healthier and live longer. But I don't see the value of tearing down trees long before you put in ball fields. We reprived ourselves as a tree city, but you wiped out at least 80% of the trees at Providence Park. I'm West Street in what, about-97 and you put it in only one field and the remarks that us women's speakers, sorry, don't her name, which is here moments ago, the remarks that staff and property is not suitable and I you do have to accept she has perhaps an ulterior motive because she lives in Mosby Woods and nobody seems to want anything in his backyard, especially the people that Mosby Woods and I can't fault them, that's only human nature. But she observed that that terrain is not suitable and it really takes a lot of imagination to think it is, but you've already committed to it and I think it'd be even worse to throw away the money that you've already paid under contract to prepare the property. You can go to the dollar if you'd wrap up your file. I went to Providence Park in preparation for that. Do it be a center view? I alluded to a moment ago. And I saw the one field they have there. You promised maybe someday we'd have too, but you tore the treesound, even though you don't have any definite plan to put another two in at the other one in. And you don't have those tennis courts that you've involved with, a basketball court rather, that you talked about putting in there at West Providence Point. But I looked at the existing field and I said, wow, I haven't played on that field, but it doesn't look to me like the safest field to play on, because there's lots of toughs to grasp in this person. Is there a drill I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up your comment, your five minutes is up? And it didn't seem to me like it was level enough to avoid people stumbling. So if you can't smooth that, smooth area out enough, how are you going to do us an acceptable job with preparing the ball field at Stafford? And I'll have to say the other remarks for the next meeting. Thank you. Thank you. What I actually thought was a cell phone going off over here. I'm told is the five minute bell. So if you hear that, if you could wrap up your comments, I appreciate it. It's like somebody needs to tell Melanie to turn off the cell phone. Anyway, anybody else in the audience like to address the City Council tonight on the budget? Yes, please. Hi, sitting mayor in the City Council. Dennis Minnotton, 3725 Ward Circle. This is short, not going to be five minutes, not five seconds, but not five minutes. We have an increase of 11, I think 11.1 cents but proposed increase on that. And the way that my math came out, it comes to about a 9% increase in my real estate tax. And that's quite a bit. I don't know what part of the budget that can be cut. This is a time where we have employers cutting back salaries. Same time, gasoline is going up. Food's going up. So it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have the burden or have some type of budget put out that is going to increase average real mine at 8.9% around it off the 90. I'm sure that's pretty much the weight is across the city. So I'm hoping that something here can be done with that. And with respect to ball fields, I came in late, and I'm sorry. I went to Draper. As you know, the ball fields are closed today. And that's all Mike out in a hallway there. I went to Draper at 5 o'clock and it's actually a beautiful play on and if we can't have our natural turf being played on in times where I mean the sun came out like about noon or noon or so and I understand that as as a club I'm supposed to be at soccer practice now at draper with F-V-Y-C. So we don't get our permits until five and just make sense that I mean the fields, they're perfect. And if I just hope that in the days to come, even including tomorrow, that the decisions can be made where we can play on our fields. And to me there was no threat of ruining the fields. Although Draper does have dirt, but it's completely fine to play on. So I was very frustrated and disappointed to find out that they were closed. And so when we have artificial turf, they're open all the time. But now we have natural turf being closed when it's pretty well manageable to be played on and find something in the budget to cut. Thank you. Any other comments on the 2008-2009 budget? Yes, sir, in the back. My name is Gary Hill, and I'm a chairman of the Fairfax Little League. The field that we're looking for is at Providence. All the ball fields for all part of the package understand. One of the things about part official turf that a lot of people don't understand is that it's cheaper in the long run because you don't have all the maintenance, which we have a problem in Fairfax City with being able to maintain these fields because we don't have enough people working for parts of recreation. I went by a rat cliff today, and there was a baseball team, as FQC baseball team, T-ball, with T-ball. They were practicing in the outfield and not on the field, because there's so much dusty dirt in there. We have the same problem in had providence in the field that we play on that. It's the only 90-foot field that we can play on in Fairfax City. It's the only one that they have, and it's not a legal sized field. That's why we're, we're hoping to get a 90-foot field out of this package, um, at Providence. Um, the 90-foot field that we play package at Providence. The 90-foot field that we play on at Providence right now, we can't play in the rain. Typically, you can't play baseball in the rain. But we can't play when it's windy either. Because so much dirt is blown up, because the fields are not maintained well enough. We do the best we can with the parents, but parts and recreation need more employees to help with this. Again, I wanted to really make this statement and make sure that people understood about artificial turf. Okay. If Fairfax County just put in artificial turf on Alpha 7100, it's not there to make it a trophy field. It's there because the city's and counties are putting these fields in because it's cheaper in the long run. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the council? Yes, please. In the back. Mr. Mayor council, thank you. My name is Mike Kelly. I live at one, two, one, eight, Shiloh Street in Mosby Woods. First of all, I'd like to commend the council for their recent decisions. I believe that the City of Fairfax is the best place to live here in any neighboring area. And as other people have said, we still have the lowest tax rate of any surrounding county city. I know for a fact that the spring and fall leaf pickup for example is the envy of every person in Fairfax County because they have the bag everything. So I mean just small things like that. I'm basically here tonight to support the Parks and Recks budget, the fields, support the Parks and Recs budget, the fields, baseball, the tennis courts, Providence Park, Stafford and the two draper fields. And for me personally, I can't see why a small increase in even a tax rate would not be acceptable. I believe that I think overall maybe a 5 cent tax rate for thousand, which even on a $400,000 house is a quick math, probably $200, which will be paid over two different payments of $100 a piece. I'm sure most people here in the city can afford that. So I just am here to support the fields and thank you for the council for doing a great job on that. Thank you. Last chance. Anybody else like to address the city council on the 2008-2009 budget Hello, I'm Tom Sibelia. I live at one or two three one to come to Lane in the Mosley Woods development. I hear him to also to talk about the Parks and Rec budget. I would encourage you to accept it. I've heard several comments here tonight. One thing that I want to ask, I guess, and I guess you all will address it in the beginning is we've talked about a rate increase, a rate per 100 increase, but there's two components of our taxes, a rate increase, a rate increase, and then the assess value of our properties. So as I understand, at the net effect on our taxes is fairly minor. You can address that in more detail, but I just wanted to make sure that you did. Regarding these ball fields, a couple of things that I want to bring out is what FPUI C's commitment is to these ball fields. At Draper Drive, FPUI C's committed $168,000 per ball field to defer some of the costs that the city's going to incur. We've also committed to $110,000 at the Stafford West Property. A couple of things that you may not know. If, for some reason, that we do not get Draper Bill, we really don't have a place to put our football program. They've lost Providence Field, excuse our Providence School, excuse me. They've lost that. We're not really sure what we're going to do with our football program in the fall. We were promised the Draper field with lights in the fall and that's really what we had planned on. We've lost three fields at Sydney Linear. We had anticipated receiving those fields back for the spring season and we don't have them. We've lost 11 Oaks. We're going to lose Fairfax High School because they're going to be doing some construction on the track there so we'll be unable to use that. So we don't have a place for our FlexMine Rugby program, which was a huge success line here, because it's a summer sport. So I bring out all of these things, because people say, well, I'm all in favor of FPYC. I'm all in favor of kids sports. I'm all in favor of these recreations. I'm all against obesity. And this is all great stuff. But so we're up here trying to say, this is what we need. These are the shortages that we have. This fella said, well we had kids playing in the outfield because of the bad conditions of the field. Well, I got news for you. They're playing in the outfield for that reason and because of overcrowding. So we'll have it We'll have an FPYCT ball team, you know these little rug rats and they'll be playing In the infield and in the outfield because we don't have enough fields for them if we most of the children in the FPYC lacrosse program come from Fairfax City we don't have a field in the city we got four or five teams practicing at a time on one field in the county over to Oakmont. It's disgraceful. Westmore versus Providence. Westmore versus Stafford West. Everybody says, well, how could it possibly be less expensive? How could it even be the same cost? You'd have to ask the experts. I'm not. As I know, as the city staff is the experts, they say that it seems to be money neutral to build on those two sides. I take exception to comments where people say the field doesn't matter, it's the sport that matters, the field does matter. Just heard Doug Schauss say what a disgusting mess his kids were playing in rocks and dirt and sticks. It does matter. Our kids deserve better. This is not about me. It's not about Tom and it's not about the FPYC vote. It's about these little rugrats that we've got an overcrowded field. It's as simple as that. We've had a critical shortage for years, for a long time, and I've been talking to you guys for what, ten years now about this shortage. And people go, well, I'm all in favor of FPYC, but deal with it in another way. Put it somewhere else. There's nowhere else to put it. We have a shortage. We were promised two fields at Providence. We went several years for that. We didn't get, we got one. You all made promises on that night, and they haven't been kept. Now we've got Stanford. It's a wonderful property. And by the way, it's a wonderful property for a park. It's not just the soccer field, it's a park. And anybody that thinks they can't use that park or that soccer field that FBYC is the only one that can use it, they're just wrong. Go to Providence Park, go to any other ball park, any other ball field in the city when it's not being used by FBYC., which by the way is not all the time. And this thing has a fairly short time during the day it's going to be used. You can use it for anything. You can use it for any pickup and any warrant. You know, I can't address the commercial issues here that Bruce Kennedy was talking about. I really can't address that. But I can address the residential side. We have we have a critical shortage. We've had a critical critical shortage for for a long time. You talked to the city engineer and then the folks that said it's a terrible place to build a field. Again I was I go back to the experts. The expert said the engineer on that side said and he said to me and he said to you, I've never seen a better site for a park in a ball field than Stapford West. It's not me. I didn't say that. The engineer who designed it said, I've never seen a better site for a ball field from that. Sometimes folks, you have to make painful choices. We've had this shortage for a long time, and you all know it. Everybody here knows it. And sometimes you just got to pay to take care of your problems. And I think that's kind of where we are right now. Yep, it's going to hurt a little bit, but we're going to reap benefits of a better youth for tomorrow if we just do the right thing today. Anybody else like to dress? Yes sir, please. I'm Ed Acker from 9734 Ranger Road, Cambridge Station. We've heard that before, I haven't heard the mention tonight that you have about $5.6 million for this budget for the fields. And we've heard the number of 2.8, 50% of that for staff at West. And we've heard a lot of people say the fields that you have aren't well maintained. Well, it sounds like for a million dollars a piece you can do two fields instead of one brand new and Then do eight hundred thousand dollars to maintain what you got I I don't know what we're arguing about here I think you get a better deal by not developing stuff at West Then then putting money into that sinkhole. Thank you Anybody else Thank you. Anybody else? My name is Elizabeth G. and I reside in 97-16 Ranger Road and just want to have some closing comments. This isn't a personal thing and it's not about being anti-socker or not having the great fields for the kids. But when you look at this particular property and I understand the original intent was one of value to put something there for the league. But when you actually look at it and you visit it with people who are experts, you know it is not flat, it's not well-drained, it's nearly our PA, hundreds of trees will come down. And I really have to say tonight we haven't talked about this recently. I don't care what any report says, it is a wetland and I invite you over the next few weeks before this is demolished to slosh through it and see for yourself. The report for whatever reason is not accurate. So when we look at the cost of this and we didn't know how it was being financed we just heard the financing was arranged and we saw this recent document about open space and saw the pictures and read this is the only one that's going to have a field. It begs the question, why would you want to spend over $3 million for one field with the attendant amenities because certain people on council wanted the bathrooms and everything else? it doesn't benefit a whole range of people. We don't have those kind of amenities at Van Dyke Park. So when you look at other properties in the city that are level with easy access and drainage and maybe one or two trees come down, it certainly begs the question in these challenging economic times, why we don't step back and take another look. And so these leagues could have a grass field in a short period of time and a synthetic field later. I just wish we could all have a conversation that was a win-win because ultimately if FPYC was willing to look at this in a different way, they would actually get more fields. And I just wanted to say this is an ongoing conversation and it's hard because we see how much this is costing and you could have three fields somewhere else for what it's costing here. And people who are experts will tell you that you can't dig out that field and take the material somewhere else and easily use it. It's going to have to be blasted. There's a lot of shale. And it's going to be more of an engineering feat. And some would say to me the other day that it's the worst possible location in the city in a wetland with that shale content to put a soccer field. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the city council? If not, we're going to close this public hearing. Actually, we're going to continue the public hearing. We have one more public hearing, which will be next Tuesday night. That will be the night that we set of attacere rate for the year. We're going to adjourn in just a second to recess the City Council meeting and go into a work session. Let me just say, I'm sure there's going to be a mass accident here in a second. We would love for you all to spend the entire night here with us if you'd like to. You're more than welcome. But for those of you who did come and will be leaving, let me just thank you all very much for coming out and providing your feedback and your input. I will just remind everybody that right now the advertised tax rate is seven cents. That means that the tax rate can still come down over the next week, but the tax rate cannot go above seven cents and that's what the council will be working on tonight and as we go forth between now and next Tuesday night. So thank you all for coming. We're going to take just a five minute short recess while everybody, if you want to leave, this would be the right time to do it. And then we'll re-adjourn in about five minutes. We can be. We can be. Excuse me. I'm Okay, we're going to go up. Everybody who's going to stay, take your seats. We're going to go ahead and get started. Let me, we'll re-adjourn our meeting. We're in work session. Reconvene, I'm gonna be right back. We're sorry, we're in a hurry. We're ready to go home. That's a wrap. We'll re-adjure our meeting. Reconvene our meeting. Reconvene, I'm ready to go home. Mr. Cissin, just in discussion, so we kind of have a benchmark rule we're having to talk to. Sorry. and talking to my colleagues up here and understanding we're down Mr. Greenfield tonight. I think what we'd like to do is to slot out Tuesday evening. We're going to try for 430 if there's not any objection. Can everybody make it by 430 on Tuesday? Hold on one second. I'm looking at what this is. Yeah. Okay. by 430 on Tuesday. Hold on one second. I'm looking at more. Yeah. Okay. We'll certainly try to see what we can accomplish tonight, but short of that, we'll plan for you start time on a budget work session for 430 on Tuesday night. We'll go as long as we have to and then we'll start our regular meeting at seven o'clock. So. Okay. This, this is always a fun chance. If I could, Mr. Sisson, maybe could you all share? Obviously, last week as we got to seven cents, we identified the two one-time sources of revenue from the sale of the old library side and the money that's being returned from the school bond for the linear project, not the school bond, excuse me, from the bond that the council took on the overaches for linear. Can you kind of tell us where we are now within that seven cents based on those two items before we start our dialogue? Right. Well, in just in terms of the gross numbers, there was about 2.7 million that we're contemplating receiving back from the sale of the old library site. And about 2.25 million from return of the linear school construction. Unspent money. That brings us to about 4.9 million roughly. And if we're down about with the reduction in the tax rate of the 4.5 cents, we're down about 4.4 million. So we're at about $500,000 plus now. So we would be at six and a half cents, give or take, is that? That is correct. We're actually in part of the 4.4 was the, including the short fall of interest revenue. That includes that's in that, that's correct. Okay. That's about 575,000 of it. Okay. Mr. Restridge. Could I ask a question? Sure. On the money return from the air projects to what your buyer? Is it my understanding from your memo that that can only be used for capital items or interest? That can be used for capital items in interest. Yes, it's not specifically for operating expenditures, but it can be used for interest that has been paid, will be paid during the construction period in one year after the construction period, and also for CIP or capital projects. And then do we have what that's all for now? Well, if that's a good point, we would have to make a determination of which items to apply that 2.2 million within the budget that is capital. Well, and if we went that way, the other way was obviously to buy down the debt. I know you all sent out a budget memorandum. Does staff have a particular recommendation on what's traditionally done through these circumstances or what you would recommend from the two or did you just basically outline the options? And obviously if we're going to go to the CIP route then we'll have to identify the projects if we buy down the debt then and we just go In that direction is that Reserve I would assume buying down the debt over a longer period of time when actually save us money is that that is correct buying down the debt And assuming is about a two and a half million if we did receive two and a half million dollars back that assuming is about a two and a half million, if we did receive two and a half million dollars back, that would save us over a period of about 18 and a half years. It would save about $1.1 million, which would be about $60,000 a year in interest. In interest, yes. I could light up here. I'm sure. Thank you. Maybe I'm going to present all the problems. Yes, Mr. Estmus. I'm going to pursue that one more time. If we use it for capital items, to me, it should be only used for capital items that we would ordinarily borrow money for, not the capital items that we fund out of, ongoing operating costs. If we went that route, will we have enough items to share to qualify for that? We have about two and a half. We have about 2.8 million and CIP items in the upper post budget right now. There's also other items that I know the council is considering such as the shortfall in the financing for a brunt of some other items that it may be considering outside of the budget that it could be used for. But that 2.8 of the CID includes stuff like car buying trucks and cars and all this stuff that we don't ordinarily fund out of water debt. That is correct. So I'd like to have, before our nextup the list of items that could be applied to. Now just have one thing to say. In terms of the items that Mr. Rasmus has just named, in essence those are almost operating expenses. I mean, and that's what I think you're getting at. So I want to make sure that the public understands that even though we classify them as capital, we do them every year, street repaving and everything else, so it's something to keep in mind. But the obvious point, if we use, or don't use the 2.2 for those items in the CIP, and make a determination that they're small items and we don't even want to use them. That we have a real challenge for that 2.2 million. I mean I'm not the financial wizard, certainly you will are, but I'm trying to wrestle with the two options and I'm trying to figure out why we wouldn't just buy down the debt. It's going to save us, you know, maybe in plus dollars over a 20-year period. I know $60,000 a year is not a ton of money, but it seems like in the spirit of what we did and why we did it, that would make the most sense. Well, I mean, it's $1,000. Right. I mean, it's a thousand annual. Right. I mean, if we could get a consensus that that's the way we want to go, then we, and maybe we can't tonight. That's one thing we could identify of you. If that's the way the will of the council wants to go, then we don't need to jump through the hoops on the CIT list, if it's not, then yes, we do. So, just cross. We've had, um, those trash can do the calculations on two at $4 million. But what if we get the calculations on the $4.9 million? By now, what then would be the savings? Yeah, on the 4.9 are you referring to the ball field financing? I'm talking about the funds from a library site sale and the school, but the library site sale and the school. But the school of the grant line. Well, in savings, and I had not done a calculation on what, let's say, for example, the $2.7 million is, well, $4.4 million. We would save possibly close to a half a million dollars. We would actually, the financing, we would have to handle that through a different financing. For example, we could pre-pay on other financing if the council chose to take the 2.7 from the library downtown financing to actually apply that to, for example, the ball field financing that could occur on July 15th of 2009, but could not occur in this upcoming fiscal year. to absorb just on the fly. Could you do a... Yes, sure. I can put it on that for us. Well, we can apply the 2.7 million, too. Yeah. Should we use... If we should decide that we want to use these millions of dollars, 4.9, do we have a choice of finding down that debt that is carrying the highest interest or do we are we committed to some other way of deciding which debt to buy in? And it usually is dictated by the terms of the financing agreements. For example, the linear financing in which we have identified about 2.25 million that could be applied to that financing. That is you can pay down that debt with or you could use those funds to pay that debt down. I would have to look at each of the different financing to see what the terms of those agreements are to see if you are allowed to certain financing we most financing we cannot pay down because they are bonds and there's a period of time in which you are not allowed to refund that financing or pay it down and that would that would apply to any of our general obligations at this time and we always keep an eye on those to see when we can actually refine the answers. But what I will do is take a look at what debt we do have on the books that we actually could apply the 2.7 to and also the 2.25. Great point of fact. But since that particular approach might result in a smaller payoff of debt. In any fiscal year, stretched out over the next several years, it opens up a pretty significant area that we'll have to cut. So I think we need to early on identify some areas where we can roll up those kind of numbers. That's the central question in my mind tonight is how we will be using those excess funds. I think there are those on Council who in the process. Greenfield the other night, he would use these excess funds to pay operating expenses from those funds to close the budget gap. I would not be and voted against that proposal. For those reasons I don't think that's the appropriate use of those funds. So here we are, I don't think that's the appropriate use of those funds. So here we are. I mean, I think that's the fundamental question because we either have to find you know, $4.4 million to close the gap in the budget or we need to decide to apply the funds funds to that? That is correct. Just to add a point, we have the 2.7 million that we anticipate receiving from selling the library property. That 2.7 does not apply to any existing debt. The debt from when the city purchased that property has been paid off actually several years ago. So unlike the additional $2,250,000 from the only when near financing, which there is, get outstanding, it is a different, it is a different animal. Well, Mr. Houchigan says I could, we're using different phrases here, but why couldn't we use the school money to pay the debt payment? Printful here, which is five, whatever it is, million dollars in one year. And if we take the 2.25 and apply it toward the debt payment that does help us with the O-8-09 fiscal year, which is, I believe, what Mr. Greenfield said. I don't think he suggested that we use it and operating expenses. And I just want to make sure that's correct. Well, the uses for that money are limited based on, you know, the finance agreements. And we are allowed to use that money, of course, for what it was originally its original purpose, which was the refinancing. Of course, they were saving, and not refinancing, I'm sorry. But the financing of the short fall for the linear project, and that is the savings. And with the savings, you can actually apply to the interest payments on that particular debt, or you could apply it, of course, to the schools. And you could actually apply it to ball fields, parks, and trails, because the debt payment, for the, and the only part of the debt for the funds that are left over, the 2.2 million, 250,000, or interest on the debt payment, not the principal on the debt payment. But we can go back, the council passes a resolution, we could go back, or the council can actually include in that realm of items that the money can be spent on. It could actually, the council could apply to CIP projects, that's something that typically financial institutions support. But they would have- With that part, that's something that typically financial institutions support. But they will not- With that part, that's the easy move that we've done before. We're trying to figure out the debt part. I think he's saying perhaps you know this already, but take lease payments debt and apply it to the GO debt. And that would free up the money we would have paid with the GO debt. And we'd have to go back, we'd probably have to go back to the bank banking institution to see if we wanted to apply that money for example to the geodent which is a different debt. That's not, we do not have the ability to do that at this time but that is something that we can see if the bank will allow us to do that. Well and I guess where we are tonight, there's two options. The list of CIP projects that would be allowed to use, which we've already talked about, that maybe you can identify this week in a budget memo. And I'm going to see the debt portion of it, and what can that money be used toward paying down the debt payment for interest that would then be a savings out of quote the budget for this particular year. Mr. Westminster. No, I'm OK. I'm Mr. Winner. And also to look at, thank you, Mr. Right, at taking that money and putting towards, going towards the plenum problem, this shortfall there, and the idea of a tangible the Blenum problem. This work fall there. And the idea of a tangible . . . That's blind my boat, sorry. A tangible capital approval that people can see that it's going from a school type project to a project you can say. Like one. And I think that would qualify as a capital improvement project. project to a project you can say. Like one. And I think that would qualify as a capital improvement project. Right. Just so we understand that's not money included in this budget. Correct. So that's money. Right. What happened to come out of new. I realized that. I realized that. Yeah. Yeah. I think if I could just. I don't want to use that money to pay off something we're not going to be able to show for. Like interest or I don't see that money going close to that. Good. I have a question. I mean, it seems to me and we've gone through this process many years as my colleagues will know, and Mr. Assistant even has proactively in some cases come back to us with some suggestions dealing with you know shifting of funds for CIP and so forth after many years of fighting it he just gave up I think but and I'm sure our good friend Mr. Rucker may make cringe when I say this but in many ways I look at it as a bit of smokes and mirrors because you could do as as Mr. Rasmussen is suggesting, and go through the CIP item by item or you could, to some extent, you know, shift it as just an overall reduction in the overall cost. And at the end of the day, it's still on the balance she can end up being the same amount of money. Am I right, Mr. Sisson, in saying that, or I mean, I realize, as Mrs. Winter has just said, there is an issue of appearance, but the end game is still the same. Well, David's the expert, but it's my view that if you take the latest revenue money, and that's the unspent linear money, and we're to apply that to next fiscal year's payments on some of our geodes. It's the same difference. That's what I was getting at. Thank you. Now, I want to. Well, you got to raise the first. Yeah, well, come back to the memo. If that's allowable to I've the bond and did share. Right. You know, at this point, I think we ought to just all dive into our own project. We're talking about the easy portion of this budget right now to be honest with you, which is the one time revenue sources that we have. But I had one question on the budget memorandum that I think I understand that I just want to clarify. And if I'm talking about a project that's obviously near and dear to me, and that's the housing Renaissance Corporation, We used the phrase during the budget meetings on zeroing out the housing Renaissance Corporation and I think that's left the impression that maybe was not intended and if I understand the memo, if we keep pace with the number of loans that we basically what what I've got Number four number four for everybody if we keep pace with the number of loans that were given this year with the Escrowed amount if that's the terminology I think that's in the memo I'm looking for it. Yeah, the the for it yet, the amount that's still in there on it is starting cash that they actually would have money to keep pace with that. Before the coming year, all we're talking about is not funding additional money as we have traditionally done for the last four or five years. That doesn't mean they're closing the doors and they're out of business. With the amount of money they're sitting on, based on the number of loans that they're currently doing, they will have enough money to make loans for the 0809 year. And still at the end of the process have 62,000 dollars left over. Did I read this memo right? That is correct. Okay. I mean, could be as high as 130,000 if over. Did I read this memo right? That is correct. I mean, it could be as high as $130,000 if the city does not charge them for first nail time which the city never has. Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I understood that because that's not what came out sort of in the dialogue the other night, but I thought that's what I understood. But I just wanted to just get that clarified. This would be a good time if people have projects they want to cut, discussions they want to have on the budget, no particular order if anybody wants to dive in. Mrs. Lyon? Mr. Mayor, thank you. I'd like to chat a little bit about, go back to our festival, lights and carols and special events, in revenue page. There are a couple things that I found missing, I guess, on this page. One is National Night Out. How much that costs us. If we're still going to do those home tours for historic Fairfax, what those funds would be costing us. Trail days is not in this chart. There's a lot of things in this chart that are here, but things that aren't in that. And I would like to see those, at least specifically those three. And if there's anything else that I might have forgotten to be put in for expense. And then when we go to Mr. Mayor's, I look at these expenses and some of these activities that we do. I was the one that, and along with the mayor, and I think this is cross, we all were very excited about festivals, lights and carols. And looking at that budget, it's $71,000. My thought is I would really not want to lose the Christmas tree and the lighting of the Christmas tree But I think to have all the activities going on during that day You know, I think a lot of that is overtime expenses and I need I guess a memo on that is that for the lights that we put up Or is it for the overtime of the employees? It's mostly lighting Lightly the ones that we put on the buildings around Oh that so that's 71,000. I guess that all the other expenses are much lesser percentage. And I know Mr. McCarty, a listening intently, and he might listen to us the breakdown that percentage. We have it. Yeah. Yeah. The majority of the expenses going to lighten the buildings on Main Street. The light of the Christmas tree is around downtown. The lighting and the lighting goes in. The lead up preparation goes into that. The actual day of that with the breakfast with Santa, our lunch with Santa and the s'mores and the cider, the staff there and the light of the trees, the smallest percentage of it, Alex Hayes. Can I get a breakout of that? I really guess any, is it easy? Can you give it in the book? I guess I'm, we should have put a bunch of memory that you received last book. I guess I'm. We should have been a budget memo that you received last. Yes, there was. And I you know what I thought it brought with me. I think. Number five. Number five. Number five. Number five. Number five. There was two specials on here. It's page two of that special. I've been able to find you on this too since we've had just all since we've done it. It takes all the other parts of the product. We'll look at the numbers to make sure how accurate they are. But the breakdown, the main tree tree lights below $10,900. The kitty-close or guardian lines are something that we lost. The kitty-close or light overall were $11,000 and $16,400? Okay, well, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to take a look at that when the roll up or see again sometime to figure out really what we wanna do. And then that brings me really to the other, all those other activities that we do here in the city. And I know they do make a smile and a lot of them are very important to me, dear to my heart. But, I going to say that I'd like to see a couple of those, the chocolate level festival. For instance, I think we spend 10,000, 16,000. I'm wondering if we could pull back on that. I know the friends of Fairfax, they may need to talk with them and outreach to them. But I know when I was havingfax, they may need to talk with them and outreach to them, but I was having lunch with a couple of folks on that committee. I thought they might be amenable to that. I'm not exactly sure, but I'd like to see us cut that budget quite a bit. You know, then I'm looking at the Fall Festival or the Holiday Craft Show. I think we can give one of those up in my mind, you know, I think going downtown and keeping having a wonderful day outside is great, but I'm wondering if the holiday craft theory Fairfax High School, three weeks later with these same vendors, is something we need to be doing. And I know that this is not a popular thing to be cutting, but I am really adamant that I think we need to start cutting this budget in certain finding ways we can spend more money. If I can just point out that the quality of craft should all allow us to, and it allows us to really get quality that is also for the fault-festival. The majority of our vendors that come in the craft management, well, investment in the crash show, due to old shows. And I think it's one of the reasons why we've been one of the few festivals, outdoor festivals, well, festivals, particularly that hasn't decreased dramatically from the public scratch or extinction as we've made it up for all of the crash show, that there's kind of a bit of a different field because it's people might have a lot of businesses. Well, I still think we need to be kind of way of thinking is to be provided or the resources. I still think we need to be cutting more and more of it out. So, Ms. Mayor, I'd like to have us take a good look at that and see what we can agree upon and what some of those activities that we could, as a council, come forward and show that we have our city at heart, but we need to cut our budget instead of worrying about how much money we have in the coffers. Okay, you have something to say. I'll just make sure. Okay, then I do have another couple questions and this will be to Mr. Sisson. You know, as I went through the book, and this is one of my things I always asked for, I guess, is salaries. I know about the COLA and the three-point-eight COLA, but I can never figure out, especially in this budget, really what the steps were this time. So I'm wondering, how many positions changed gray in this budget? And what were the steps and really what that impact is on this budget? I didn't see that. Well, the way that that works is most of our employees are already have worked long enough for the city, that they're in that top range. No means. They don't get it. So that's half of the employees then. That's 50% of our force. And the other 50% are then eligible. And that 50% their anniversary date is dispersed over the entire 12 months. So that takes it down another 25%. But one of the things that you so nicely have done over the years has showed me. How much that cost is? Yeah, and I guess I'm really looking for a memo in that cost that would be great and then the next thing I'd like to ask is for the police department just for just a minute for just a little bit of a clarification is per capita how are we sitting per capita in our police force with positions now I never would ever want us to be looked at that will not save here in the city of Fairfax and I believe we are. And so I guess I want to know today how many of those positions have we not filled because I mean I think all the positions we've allowed all the positions that they need to be filled. Am I right on that? Well, we have an authorized strength of officers and they have had a bad patch of being able to fill those quickly because when the police department hires they have to go to the police academy. When they come out of the academy then they have to be trained in the field. And when that happens it takes a police, or a seasoned officer working with the new recruits. And so, but there are some vacancies. They have people in the academy, but we can give you a memo. That's right. But in this budget, we have enough room in this budget for five of the positions that I understand you're still looking for are still in this budget. Is that right? No, we, uh, my recommend. Not the three that are the one that you want, but, you know, the positions that are not still. Oh, yes. In current vacancies are funded. Any current vacancies is in this budget. Is that right? Okay. So, okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll have more as we go, but thank you. I yield a floor. Mr. Mayor, just on the issue of festivals, you know, I see Mr. Napis here, and I, you know, he has supplied the council with some, I think, pretty good guidance on areas where we might be doing a little bit too much. I would just ask that the council revisit that and let our own parks and recreation advisory board advise us on where we should make these cuts. I agree with Mrs. Lyon in principle however that overall we certainly do a lot of festivals and I think that's quality of life I get that I support it but at what point does it become probably one or two two men and if they're duplicative I appreciate the staff angle on that But if they're duplicative it seems to me that we ought to we ought to be Finding ways to reduce some of that Just cross just on that subject and reflecting on Mr. Mance figures that we received. I would like to see a memo on reducing the city's cost as proteins to light some pharaoh, the holiday crown talk of lovers to one day advance rather than two days. And what cost savings there would be to doing that? And for Chica, looking at police and police overtime and staff overtime. But I guess I want all the numbers, but I'll put you clearly in the screen, though. Thank you. Mr. Winner. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Is there any way we could look at the idea of the quality of life, what you know, attracts people to the come to the city fairfax? Are the special events? I do concur that maybe going to one day versus two would be good, but the idea of taking too much away would not be good. And it seems that whenever we go to cut, it is parks and rack. It's things that bring the quality of life and makes this area special. Could we, you know, curb and gutter and street repair resurfacing? Sometimes you go into neighborhoods and they're redoing and it doesn't look like it needs to be done because it has been kept in good repair. Is there any way that we can do spot improvements for a couple years on curb and gutter. Instead of, you know, redoing the whole streets that maybe have, you know, a small pothole that could be taken care of with a whole lot less manpower and expense. And look at those type areas of the city rather than the special events or you know the things that make this area unique. Mr. McCarty said many of the programs that they have are revenue neutral. You know if it's revenue neutral they're bringing people from outside of the area into the city, then you can look at the destination fair facts idea. I'm definitely going to be able to have people come into the city and spend money here. If that totally goes away, the business people that work here tonight saying that, you know, their businesses are low because people aren't coming to the city, well, there's another that we're not paying attention to them. I'd like to look at coming to the city, well, there's another that we're not paying attention to them. I'd like to look at the low to the ground things, like the curb and gutter. And I'm sure there's other things that can be addressed to, to bring some to save money without sacrificing some of the things that that give us our uniqueness. The police issue, you know, you can say at how many people are in the city and how many police officers we have, I think what needs to be looked at is how job descriptions have changed. The first public safety, we can't search site. And then the Renaissance, I want to make sure that it does stay viable because we do have an aging housing population, not that we have to put a lot of money into it, but enough that people are encouraged to improve on their homes. If there's not that little incentive there, if they're not in, you know, even if it's one or two that we're offering, there's a competition for that Renaissance fund. There'll be more people that want to come and improve on their homes, which is going to keep people wanting to come to the city. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me see if I can pick up on some of these comments. I mean, quite frankly, tonight is less on discussions and more intended to roll up our sleeves and see if we can't start getting consensus because at some point in time we're gonna we're gonna have to get to the in-game here and so far we're not making too much progress But let me see if I can pick up on a couple of them and I'll just dive in and try to take on some of the tougher issues And see if we have any consensus on any of these and if we don't so be it but let's let's talk about the police Pick up on Mrs. Winner's comments. I shared with the chief as I did with officers as I met with him over the last week and quite frankly I don't disagree with a single thing that Mrs. Winner just talked about. It's disappointing to me because up until two Tuesdays ago, as long as I've set up in this dies, I've never heard the situation that's been outlined by the chief and the officers again tonight on where we are as a police department. I have always said, and I think this council has always said that we take tremendous pride in our level of fire services and police and I think it's always been the cornerstone of this community and I certainly hope as long as I'm on this elected body that will continue to be that. Having said that, I spent a good deal of time and meetings over the last week trying to understand it and I think Mrs. Winter did a good job of outlining how we've gotten to where we've gotten. I'll say it again, I'm disappointed we haven't had this dialogue over a much longer period of time, but the reality of it is it is concerning as I've set in some of these meetings. To hear that we're not being as responsive to the community, to hear that we're not following up on some of the crimes, to hear that we don't have an officer on the gang task force or the narcotics task force anymore. To hear that it no longer takes two hours to go up to the county courthouse and process a criminal or somebody that gets arrested, it takes three, four, five, sometimes six hours or to take somebody who's got a mental challenge over to the hospital that sometimes takes four, five, six, seven, 10 hours to process. I get, I think, how we got here. Mr. Sissen, if I could, just as we try to peel this back, it's my understanding that it was recommended that we try to address this over a two-year period. In some of the dialogues that we had this week, it was identified that we're anticipating getting a federal grant for equipment and support to the police department. I thought I heard it in the tune of $100,000. I know in this budget is an amount of $85,000 for the upgrade of the, and I'm sorry, I don't have the technical terminology in my head, but the radio, walkie-talkie system that we have to do over a three or four or five year period. If we get the federal grant and it's my understanding, we've been notified, we will. I'm assuming if we apply that toward the $85,000 that that would free up. Is that already asked for somewhere else or would that in essence free up money that if we decided in this budget to apply toward the staffing shortfall that's been outlined that that would be additional money. Is that it would be additional money? Non-return. Okay and if we followed the recommendation of the the chief for the three officers and I know we have a memo here I'm sorry I'm gonna have to scramble here for it. There it is it's actually memo number nine, I believe. If I follow it or write, we have in the budget the 62,000 for the one officer. If we move to the three officers, that's a total of 186,000 in some change. If we apply the $100,000 toward the federal grant, toward other equipment that's in the budget and other line items, does that mean we could actually hire the three officers and have and have to make a shortfall of $86,000 give or take? Is that the side you agree with that? I'm going to jump on almost every other staff recommendation this budget a few minutes. And I don't know that I'm asking for a consensus tonight. But I would just tell you, as much as this pains me to say this, because we're just sort of getting a feel and understanding where the reality is of it, is that would be something that I would suggest we seriously consider moving from the one to the three. There may be other ways to get there, which would mean that we'd be scrambling for another $86,000 budget. Is there any support for that or is this an item to move on from or is an item we need more time to think about. Mrs. Winter has said yes. Mrs. Fine. I want to make sure I don't. I like to think that I'm really worried about overall staffing in general. I shared that with the officers a little while ago. I, you know, we have so little control over our budget when you factor in personnel costs and and county contracts and I just think we need to be very cautious in this park because once we're there We're there forever. No question Just to ask my second part Miss Carnell Okay, well let me in the spirit of that conversation, let me just dive right on in to the other five positions that have been recommended in this budget. And I think it has to be, I started with the police because I think it has to be put in that. But I said last week that one of the positions, which was the full time position that was recommended to staff, the Blenheim, the, not the Blenheim, the interpretive center of Blenheim, I feel very strongly that we need to see how that goes. I feel very strongly, we need to rely on the volunteers, as was committed. I feel very strongly that we should take one of the staff that's either at the museum or the Ratcloth Allison House and put them over at the interpretive center and let me just see if I can get any additional support to eliminate the additional position I don't remember the amount of money Mr. Sisson it was $61,000. In the amount of $61,000. Any support for that? $61,000. In the amount of $61,000. Any support for that? This is winner yes, this line yes, this is so-and-yes. Mr. Schumass, that's my son Mrs. Cross. I have a friend on the head. Consider it taking that down to a half time. I'm not sure where I'm at. OK, it sounds like we have four votes to eliminate the full time. So traditionally what we've always done, Mr. Assistant, as we capture these things, you give us the summary of pluses and minuses and where we are that I certainly will get the next couple of days based on this dialogue. So we can track that. Obviously nothing's going to be formally decided on until next week. But, okay, let me dive into another one that I know will be tough. And I hope this becomes less territorial and more just trying to understand and get a feel for the issue. But I'm going to talk about the business improvement district minus the commercial tax just for a second as we all know the business improvement district is recommended that I think they were split 50 50 but if I heard the presentation right they recommended that we at a minimum reduce the service tax district on the Fairfax Boulevard from six cents to one cents. There also is a full-time position that's funded half by the city, which I think was about $100,000 of them not mistaken until $48,000, half by the bid. And I want to just frame this in twofold. Look, I tried to provide a lot of leadership and I was very supportive on the establishment of the bid. And so, in principle, I completely support the concept. I've spent a lot of time this weekend. I spent an hour with a chair this afternoon. I've spent quite a bit of time with people that I think are principle landowners that have been very involved in the bid this last week. And here's the reality of where I think we are in the bid. First of all, we have $500,000 that's been collected as a result of this business improvement service district that's just sitting there. I can't imagine in this light of this economy and light of all the testimony that we've had from the business community, while we're talking about $16,000 chocolate lover festivals and no pleas or pleas, we've not talked about what to do with that $500,000. And I will just tell you, and I think this will bear out and consistent with the least the folks I've been talking to that have been involved in the bid in instrumental and ending some of the business owners. That money was money that we collected for major projects on the business improvement district. Certainly part of that went toward the master plan and I think that was a great example of an expenditure. But there are no more ideas, at least that I've heard, on how to spend the $500,000. And to let that sit there and get whittled away by covering operating overhead if we choose not to do the 1%, which was never the intent of the business improvement district and not to spend it for big projects for the Fairfax Boulevard would just be, I think, just such a deviation from the commitment we made to the business community and I believe from the spirit of it. I would also like to say that, you know, I spent a lot of time talking to a lot of the people who are major landowners that are going to be very instrumental in the master plan. And here's the reality. I said this a couple of weeks ago. The master plan will be a byproduct of the vision and the willingness of individual landowners to make the master plan a reality. There's a lot of exciting dialogue and discussion that I think is taking place with a lot of the developers who own land on the various nodes that are willing to have and having dialogue and discussions. But as one landowner reminded me today, this is not something that's gonna happen in the next couple of months. It's not something that's gonna happen in the next six months. And so that's a segue in my mind that I do not support and don't think we should this year support an additional $100,000 for a staff person to help staff the business improvement district. That certainly, I think, is in total question in terms of what we're going to do. It certainly was designed to support the master plan, which I'm supportive of moving that process forward. But the reality is, it's going to really be less on economic development and much more, at least for the next 12 months, on zoning ordinances and things that are going to be more internal. We went through the entire downtown redevelopment process without hiring an additional person to manage that. So my suggestion would be, and I know we don't have much time, but I think we need to sit down with the leaders and talk about the $500,000, which I think, and I don't know. And I guess one of the things I would ask is what is in this budget this year that would be applied for the business improvement district or the Fairfax Boulevard, and I don't know what those expenses would be. I also think we ought to sit down before we just jump on this additional staff person, which is another $100,000. And really seriously think about the timing what's going to be accomplished. And that's why I said I hope it doesn't get into just sort of a personality, territorial thing. I honestly believe there's a enough discussion and enough questioning to to to buy some time on this. So my suggestion will be first and foremost we have a look at the $500,000. I don't have a recommendation tonight that it should one or two things should happen either it should be applied to major projects on the downtown or on the Fairfax Boulevard or it should be refugged and I'm not opposed to that. I don't know logistically, I've just lived through the nightmare of the Northern Virginia Regional Transportation Authority and trying to refund money. I know that's a very difficult process, but just to let it sit there, it's just such a disservice to our business community and not intended what it is. So let me see, first of all, if I can get some consensus to take a deep breath on the full-time staff person by the for the business improvement district and a dialogue in the 500,000. We're not. Mr. Resmus. I'll drop it. I don't know that I agree with all of your premises about the 500,000 to 5,000 that I certainly agree that this is not the year to be adding staff. Well, I would say we're all up the staff. Okay, great. See if we can get a consensus on that. That's great. Ms. Wiener. Could part of that 500 possibly go towards an employee that's looking at one-base code or looking at, you know, use that person to use the money that's already there to help develop the plan. I don't know if it's... That's really what this is. We were taking roughly 54,000 from the city, 54,000 from the bid putting those together, hiring an employee who would start working on all of the issues and their huge issues start working on starting that ball rolling for the bid. The 500,000. That was the in 450 roughly. Or what if it was if you took a hundred off of that? Because the idea of looking at even $500,000 on a major project that's going to take just a little bit of it, it would actually be a minor project. And I don't think that money would be, it would probably just, it would like almost disseminate it, we just kind of evaporate into a very small project, just if we could look at different possibilities and I would leave it. Well, if I could. I'm not opposed to that approach at all. I guess what I'm saying is I want to take the money out of the city budget for that staff person. If over the next week, you know, we can have dialogue and some justification and the business improvement district would support that concept. I have no problem with that, but it sounds like we can get a consensus to take the bid out of the, it's not the right words, but the bid employee lacking a better word and employee out of the budget. And now what we need to do is focus on the 500,000 which I made my case. But if one of the justifications is we have, I would just urge us to really think about this. There is so much more work that needs to be done by this body and a future council, I think, on the master plan in front of a staff person, and directing on what to do, and telling them what that vision is, and understanding that I think we're premature, even on spinning it on the bid, but certainly we feel more comfortable with that approach. I just think it's a little bit premature in the discussions I've had with Ms. Maron with you. I'm with you, I agree with you. Okay, so it sounds like there's a consistent, we're taking the 54,000 out, we're looking at the 500,000 whether we fund it that way or don't. Now the only thing I would say is again, and if the use of Mr. Silverthorn's coming on the police department, once we hire that person and once it's 500,000, it's dwindle, it's still there, but I'm certainly open that dialogue, Mr. Cross. Thank you, Senator. I have no problem if we want to take the salary of an individual out of the bed funds which understood that this is their decision. But I think it would be a worthwhile expenditure for them and would certainly qualify for appropriate use of the money. However, I am most frustrated that eight, nine months have passed now since this council and a retreat setting indicated that I spent an entire day on the plan and absolutely nothing has come of that or any with me, no progress whatsoever toward even a public discussion of the plan and adoption of the plan. So I'm very concerned that if I may just add another thing, I think it's so important that for the first time that I'm aware, we have a group, an active group of businesses, business owners and property owners on the Boulevard, which have never come together as they have since synthetic organization was formed. So I would be most, most interested in using or recommending that some, that the funds for the big coordinator come from from their accumulated funds. I think that probably is a better solution in the long run than having a 50-50 sharing of that expense because as I've said in other scenarios, it's a very hard thing for an employee to work for two different bosses. It's just the division of loyalty and responsibilities gets very, very confused. So I think in a long run maybe this is better than in visual just the employee strictly and be responsible to strictly the idea. OK. have be responsible to strictly the idea. Thank you. Okay. The last thing, and this is just really that I had to say point of question that maybe I'm just just, I think I had the right number, but I've only been verbally told. But you know, tonight when I listened to the testimony in the discussion on the staff or ball field, one person testified. It was 2.6 million. Another said 2.8 million. And the last testimony we had, it was over 3 million. Can we just get a summary, Mr. Sisson, on what the exact cost of bright data I, it may be in a memo. I know I verbally have been told what it is, but just so like right now. No, let's just get it in a budget memo, and then we can certainly have that dialogue next week. This really doesn't belong in the budget, but I'm just going to, I'm really confused on the availability of all the fields that came up tonight in the discussion. I think it's segues a little bit in the budget, but certainly it may not belong in this discussion. But I heard that 11 Oaks has come offline. I don't understand that. I was told that their permit was pulled in this week and that they were told they couldn't use it. You know, the Fairfax High School field that I was told is coming offline because of the track The linear Situation can we just and it really doesn't belong in the budget and I apologize but this since I have it written down to night And it came up during the budget discussion. Could we just get a memo on exactly where we are in all these fields and Including 11 oaks and draper and linear and obviously the ones I talked about on staff including Levin Oaks and Drayper and linear and obviously the ones I talked about on staff. Those are the, I mean I'm certainly can dig up some more here but let me see if anybody else wants to add anything for the flavor of the discussion for tonight and so forth. Just on the staff issue, I know that we also have a water position and that's being paid out of the enterprise fund. We're also raising the enterprise fund rates. So, I mean, it's the same principle in terms of cost and long-term issues. And I realize that it's necessary, it's all the justification, but I also think that this is not the year to be doing. And I just like to throw it in. The power response to that system. But in this one is a little bit different. I know you probably explained that on any one of these. But the issue here is that strengthening or stronger state regulations for having treatment plan operators on site on the plan for certain number of hours per shift and so forth. Keep going up and we've been meeting that commitment and responsibility with overtime. I mean, we don't have any choice and our people are working so much over time now. They're saying, hey, we can't sustain this. So is there equal reduction in overtime cost? It's about I think it's like 60% is what we will say In that and mr. Boroshoek's here and he can get an actual savings of 60% or are they no? It's 40% at that point savings will be about 40 position. Okay well 40% at that point. The savings will be about 40% of the position. Okay. Well, you're persuasive when you talk about state mandates. So that's not something I'd like to admit, but I appreciate it. Well, I know there were five and a half staff. I hit three, you hit four. I didn't mean to leave the other staff and a half unpicked on, so I just won. Places won. And then the fire department had a half-time person for the ambulance. For the ambulance, right? OK. And other administrative duties they have gone without. That obviously is an offset against the revenue coming in from the panel inside of this. I mean, we still have more work to do in the next week. And as I said earlier, we're going to continue this dialogue at 4.30 next Tuesday. But are there other items with this cross place? I do have a few. I wish they were great things, but they're not. If I went through the budget, I year marked some places where I thought we could take a little. And one was the individual or the consultant that was proposed to be hired to look into the green initiatives and that was to cost $30,000. And in the sessions, the manager, it was agreed that at least part of it would be done in house. So I would suggest that that be eliminated. Well let's see, I mean, the comments, thoughts, support, no support, continue the dialogue until next week. I'm fine. Fine with that. I support. Okay. It looks like we got that one. Go ahead, Mr what it says. Let's 30. That's 30. Right. Another $30,000 item was a reduction of the overtime for the sign of signal people. I forget what their number was for overtime, but I'm suggesting a $30,000 reduction. I'm sorry not to be able to tell you what their number was but it must have been really significant to catch my eye. Well, it's all I had. Mr. Hock can say you can, as I try to build again for you, he can hook up the number but... You're fancy. really what happens with sign and signal is they produce all of the signs for all of the special events that they have a huge amount of overtime for midnight work two in the morning whenever there's a traffic accident the pole is struck there's an out function they are on the road on overtime so what I suggest is to miss it across if the 30,000 is desired by council as a cut we certainly can put that in the budget but it may have to be spent. We just don't know and if there is not special money at the end of the year and we need that 30,000 we'll have to come back to the council for an adjustment at that time. If I could add to that, that's actually even though it's over 30, it's about 37,500 over last year's budget. But as it turned out, it's not in the previous year the actual was closer to about $120,000 and was being requested in this year's budget is $122,000. So it's really bringing up the number to the actual experience as opposed to an actual increase from one budget to the next. That is what they actually are experiencing. And it's really about my feeling on that would be to follow up with Mr. Assistant that let's reduce it and if we run into trouble down the way or run short, at least we'll have to really tighten up our use of people requiring overtime and if we need to allocate some money at the end of the year, consider that. But I feel like the increases is a lot and we always have the option of funding this from the general fund of the need to. I'm trying to find a free chair. Thoughts, comments, noodle? There's a form of predecessors. Terminology. I found that. I'm fine with the cut. Okay, bye. Noodle. Too fine with the cuts. A noodle. A noodle. Too cut. Three. Okay, well let's put that on the list for cuts and then we can talk about it. An enrolment across the world. On the city attorney fees, I think that we're probably at the end of our at least our purchasing for some time and so I'm suggesting we reduce the fees to $5,500. And I believe Mr. Sissons had a discussion with Mr. Leckman on the bill. He feels like he can achieve that if the council's so good. Have a 50. Okay. Okay. And he Yeah, that would be cool. Okay. Okay. And he certainly beats well into. Great. There you go. You three for three so far. My gosh. Okay. We were going, we were, it was proposed that we should have a service contract for painting our polls and maintaining our traffic polls. And I don't think that we really need to have contractor to paint polls. So I'm saying that we should reduce that number by $10,000. A great. We do that number by ten thousand dollars. Agreed? No poll fingers. Agreed. I think it's fine. I told you this was not yours. Or get smaller, but that would keep going. We like a little bit of the long fingers. We like a little bit of that. Do you cut? No poll fingers. Great. This is winter. Yes. It's lime. Fine. Do you have any comments as long as you get in here get a new one. I think in that account there was a contract that this is for massed arms and the cabinet cuts it in half, the other half, it's to this maintenance on our red light photo cameras. So we'll take a rest for a year and see how that that is okay this one I may strike out on but I would propose that the televising of city means that we restrict those to just the elected bodies and I think the only thing that affects is the planning commission. And it is in its significant savings. I think it's $4,000 for that was a great sales estimate. But you know, it's a little bit, I don't know how the rest of you feel about it. But I think it's an easy line to draw that we just make television, or televised meetings that are elected bodies. That's true. Yes, sir. You know, this is the first time I'm going to disagree with you this evening. And only because land use is such a large part of what we do. And as you know, on the usual transparency, I pushed the whole internet issue which we just got a memo on by the way which talks about how widely used it is. So people are actually watching this stuff. I just think it's a movement of Andre. Okay. Okay. I agree with you Mr. Sir. Okay. Okay. Looks like that one went down. Sorry. You didn't hit a home run. Oh, yeah. Triple though. Hey, he's got a longer list than anybody else apart? That's right. So I'm going to have Ms. Cross. Well, this too is small. But it works me that we have a book that looks like this. When it could be half the size that we just use the other side of the page. I can't think of anything that we get in our packages except for the, um, he's really powerful, uh, that, uh, shall be sensed to us, that, that those sides of the picture used in, and I think that's kind of excessive. So I would oppose that we, in, in whatever possible, we use both sides of the board? This is just, and I think we could probably just get a consensus that you guys would have. What happens is, for the council, during these sessions only, we give you a three-ring binder and it's constructed with tabs and so forth for ease of finding things. All of the staff copies are done on complex papers. Oh. It's half the thickness, too. Yeah. And, but what next year? We want to treat you as nice. Now let's say 300 volunteers. We like the binders, sorry, because we know the thing. Okay, this is good. You know, I think that's where I'm going to stop for now. OK. Thank you. Anybody want to step in? Mr. Winner? What's this? Mr. Winner. On the paper issue, I mean, there are so many, everyone's going paperless. And we are provided computers when we take on this position. I think you know, you could even just get your reading glasses on and do more paperless work. I don't know, I am challenged with the computer, but I think that's maybe one thing we need to work towards or even some city council meetings of having the computer screens are in front of us to be able to follow along on the computer. And now to have the paper there, I think would save a lot of money too. If I could make the first case. I actually had a discussion with Mr. I personally think the whole budget process needs to be re-looked at, re-analyzed, to be much more productive. And what I would suggest is for the new council, why don't we pass on a recommendation of the new council to take a look at the budget process. And certainly that would be a dialogue and the budget format would be a dialogue. And I find spending two nights of not very productive listening and which really is something that we almost all could read not to be the most effective time of time either. So why don't we just pass that on for a future council and suggest that they relook at the entire budget process. Miss Wanner? My idea on looking at Curbin gutter and re-working how often things are done was that something that got on Mr. Systems' list? There wasn't a consensus following that item, so maybe it needs to come in. Could we see three? I would. Go ahead. Let's throw it in. I'm going to cry the rest of it. Go for it. Okay. And then the one other thing, you know, like leave collection of maybe doing it, you know, one month. Compressing it. So that people had a little bit more to get it out by a certain date and not let it go as long. I'm sure that would cut down on overtime a lot and that would cut down on the expenses. And if we look at compressing that, if we could look at that for next week. Madam, Madam Chair, my name is Hermione the Council of Metley, ran into this not expectively by circumstances, I guess about three years ago, four years ago, and you first became mayor. We all leave the felt one time. That's right. Six a year ago. And I just know that this is one of those city services that you just don't touch. And I think that it sets us apart. I realize that in some cases people think it's a little bit beyond what we should be doing but I think it's what makes us a unique community. I'm a person. Second. I agree. Okay. Mr. Restma, do you have some... Going alive. Go for it. I'll start off with Mr. Winter winter point about the asphalt. I think one of the things that does satisfy me is we do keep our streets in good shape. But this is a tough year. Maybe we ought to look at taking two or three hundred thousand dollars out of the asphalt budget and just stretching the streets a little further. Bismarck. We've done that in the past and reluctantly I could go along with that because I do think that when I asked the staff for their best recommendations in terms of which streets can go next year or two, I think we can survive it. Is that a direction we're moving in? What happens there obviously is with the cost of oil skyrocketing. We're now taking less dollars but we'll also be able to buy less with those dollars. So it's gonna really cut our program quite a bit. But could you maybe just analyze that and get us something on it? We know and next Tuesday so we can have that dialogue. Mr. Smeral. I have a question first. In the budget, in the CIP budget, there's an item for school bus parking lot construction, 250,000. It says proposed, but it's folded. But then in your list of items at the last page of your summary, I thought that was an item that was not included in the budget. No. What that is, we've included money for the construction of the lot, but we don't have yet a solution to where that lot is going to be. So the argument could be made that we need to have the location before we need to have the money for the lot. But we also knew one was a certainty and the other is not, so that's why we did it. Mr. I was going to say maybe we could get the equal potential buyer of the 11-0 site, what buses are to pay that $250,000, is part of a part of a premium for having such a good sale. Well, but recall both of them except the one state institution said that they had no solution before either the location or the law. Well, but we might encourage the final location if they want to buy the property. Well, could I take it maybe just same spirit for the different approach? And I had this discussion with Mr. Susan, I think a week or so ago. You know, if you look at the timing, we're still working through the proposal. Let's say that takes us two months to do that, three months, whatever. We're now getting close to the start of the fiscal year. There is no developer who's going to be able to submit a site plan. Get a site plan approved and actually start construction on that site within the 0809 fiscal year and what's outside it, really miss the boat. Quite frankly, I think that is an amount of money that could be taken out of the budget, whether we get it back by selling it or just simply timing as long as we make an agreement with whoever buys it that as long as they're not actually showing up with bulldozers to bill, we can still use that as a bus life. And I think that in itself gets us through the end of this 0809. So whether we get it in a revenue side or we just save it on an expense side, I would agree that I think that enough to come out. The only thing I would point out there is that whenever we close the bus parking lot at 11 oaks, we have to have the other site constructed and ready to go on that date. I still personally think we'll be okay. So it looks like there's at least a consensus at this stage, unless somebody gets a heartburn in the next week to pull that in. Also, Mr. Westminster. The other CIP item was a screen restoration of an Appetite cream, which is also bolder, quite sure what the building indicates $200,000. Doesn't it say those are brand new projects? Stream restoration. It's $200,000 to three years, nine, ten and eleven. David, what's the status on that project? Miss Mayor Fockerdas? I believe after the work session that we had we were going to defer that project. We did talk about evaluating Daniel's run and we do have enough money because if he had the consultant with a Daniel's run, but I believe that would result for work session with the third at $200,000. Was that all planned for O9? Yes, we were going to put $200,000 in early 2009 to start the disassembly of drawings and possibly do some areas of restoration. That's one we can pull out. Okay. Since I found $450,000 in savings, I'd like to propose adding back the coal for the half year for the city staff. I think we talk about the uniqueness of the city and part of that is comments from having a city staff that's really dedicated and on target. And even though it's tough times I would urge that to add in back the full coal. I asked a question on that this morning. So my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, please I'm sure you will. We are not actually reducing the co-op what we're really doing is back ending and my correct is still going to be the full co-op but for the last six months or it's going to be it's actually cut in half. It's actually cut in half. The calculation, the formula that we've used for the last number of years indicated a COLA 3.8 instead of cutting that to 1.9 for a, well, let me back up. Because of the difficulty of this budget and other jurisdictions were adjusting the benefits of their employees. We felt like that we had to follow suit. So instead of reducing it to the entire 12-month period, we just said it would not start until December, I'm sorry, January 1st, 09 at the 3.8 level. And that way our overall competitive situation with other jurisdictions doesn't change. Our cost of living stays the same at the end of that fiscal year. And then heading into the next year, being a better position managed week, cut it in half and implemented it for it for a full 12-month period. Can I suggest that's a tough one? I know that there's a stand-alone motion that will have to be taken place next Tuesday on that and maybe that's something we can, you've put it on the table for incineration and you'll be able to follow. I have more questions, I need to fully understand that. Mr. Westpustin. Again in the CIP, 50,000 for resurfacing the cutener tennis courts. I haven't gone and looked at them, but I'm just wondering if we can't push that off a year. To a better budget. To a better budget here. That was a little time in jake. Hurry up, let's go. There's some significant cracks in the court. Not the only other option we could do is be to do that. I'm quick on the service. I can't do a fully servicing number. I've been to a couple of years, so we can get to that cost. And then maybe possibly we can use that. Yeah. Let's see what that cost. Yeah. No, I can't. Let's just give it that. Go away. The parts master plan for $50,000. I know Mr. Greenville would be very unhappy because he's been talking and asking for a Parks Master Plan for 10 years, but if we put it off one more year, it'll only be 11 years. And that's just 5%. Why for example? Well, I would defer to the parts of the region advisory board which are, you know, drone vacuums. And I understand that the reason why they're talking was so, you know, counting these and some of the situations going in, but it's trend improvements, what are the literature that you can first have a lot of views and so forth. But I'll defer to that on that. Well, defer to Council on that if it's okay with you, but the, you know, here's the problem for that? Well, we'll defer to council on that if it's okay with you. But here's the issue. And I agree with you completely. Next year's budget is not going to get any better than this year's budget. We're spending a lot of money on fields and the open space initiative and a lot of the things. And I agree with Mr. Restmuss and I just think this is one that could wait. And more for any other reason, there's going to be no money to do the things that may come in, the master plan next year. You got a memo earlier today that said, you know, next year we're going to be starting $10 million shortfall. But this year we started with $9 million short fall with not a whole lot of one-time money so I Certainly would recommend that deferral any I'm sure you know, yes Yes Cross Yes, okay that one will come out as well Another one. Yeah. Sure. This one's going to be a little difficult with the chair of the school board. But since we're all going to undergo some pain this year, what we like in the budget, I would suggest we, and since we can't control what the school board does with the new digital line-ins, without even looking at what the lion items are, I would say we ask the school board to accept $25 or $50,000 less than their budget requests. Should I just bring up two things? I don't want to get off that, but there's two things that I know have come up in dialogues. And they're both substantial money and I don't know how we get at this. And this really gets at the problem that we always have by the county approving the budget. 45 days after we are, but it's my understanding that in our budget, and Mrs. Miller, I would invite you up front if you want to. If you, there come up, but that in our budget, we have a 4% transfer from the Board of Supervisors to the school board. But in the Board of Supervisors budget, it's only 3, a little over 3%. That equates to a substantial amount of money. And I know in the work session we had with you all Mrs. Munde caution just to start to like too much but Okay thank you Mr. Mayor the school tuition contract is based on two things it's the cost for people and it's the cost for people and number of pupils the budget that we're proposing is based on a 4% county transfer and an additional 40 students. If you recall, as Monday said, that we had 40 unanticipated students this year, and we expect that in the Congress will year we may not have enough money to get covered as opposed to the mission contract. So and to get to your question, Mr. Mayor, or to your comment, it is true that the budget is based on a 4% county transfer. And the county, after this point, is only transferring 3.3%. But so we can't get any better figures than what we have. What you're saying is accurate. I guess everyone could take a guess. In my right that that's $1.2 million or thereabouts. Probably I would think it probably is about $1 million. I mean the only reason I'm bringing it up and not to cite you. I mean that's a huge amount of money that's just sitting there and that's operating. And 25,000 in comparison to a man doesn't seem like a lot. I just see everything we need to realize that there will be carry over on an accounting schoolwork budget from this fiscal year to next fiscal year. That is and that's a good thing and that's bad thing. The good thing is, is that it will lower the actual cost for this fiscal year. But because they will carry money over, that there will be additional monies for the county school where they spend next fiscal year. I, I, I, I, I, I, let me, let me do this. Let me talk with Mrs. Monday, and let me see if we can get a better figure. And at this time it's only an estimate. It's better than a gas, but it is still an estimate. And we'll see if there might be any savings realized in that part of the budget. And I would ask if we could, Mr. Assistant, maybe our staff contact the county staff and see what their perspective. And I said I would do this and I have them, but I certainly would be willing to contact the appropriate elected officials in the county and see on the board side, the supervisor side, not certainly the school board, see if they have any better feel of where that may come out. But I understand that's a little bit of a gamble, but it's an awful lot of money sitting on the table. In the current budget, we did have about 40 students that we did not plan for. It probably has to do with the economy and people not moving as they had expected in things of this sort. Perfax County saw an unanticipated growth the same way we saw that. Originally, our estimate, our earlier estimate was that we would not have enough budget monies. But because of savings by the County School Board, actually in September, I think approximately $195,000 was returned in the school tuition contract. And we would hope that we would see some savings, but it's the kind of thing that we don't know until it. We will know better in the dirty days, but it does not help you on the day. Okay, Mr. Woke. So we'll put those two items together and try to work out. And again, I will talk with Mrs. Monday and she'll get back to Mr. Susman and Mr. Hodgkins to help make the operations. Thank you. Sure, I must not talk about it. Any other comments, Mrs. Lyre? Thank you, Ms. Mayor. I have just one more comment or something to ask for in the next week or so. And that is health insurance. You know, it's my understanding that last year, or year before we got over and checked out health insurance costs for our employees. Have you done that this year? And have you found, has there been any change in that? Have we had the increase, have a decrease for health insurance for the employees? And I'd like to have a memo on that if I could. This is Cross. I did have one more. I guess it's a question that I get that I want hope that it's a savings and we talked about this. And that's the long term disability insurance. We have this discussion last year and. a long-term disability insurance. We have this discussion last year and another wide, I'm aware that if you're unfortunate enough to meet the benefits of your long-term health insurance policy, those premium payments are taxable unless you paid for them with tax dollars. So in other words, the city should not be paying those premiums that the employee should be paying them with tax dollars. So they do the event that they needed or that they had to draw upon that insurance. Those benefits would not be taxable to them. It's 36,300 dollars. It's not expensive insurance so I don't think it would be a horrible burden for the employees but it would certainly be a very nice thing if they needed those funds that they would not have to pay in tax on them. So I think it's so open to look into the sure that things haven't changed since I left that industry in number two. I think it seems to be sold to the employees, that it's to their benefit to pay these premiums themselves. Yeah, I do recall the discussion. I think where we finally came down to it is that, you know, if we only have one incident a year and sometimes we don't have any, it's penalizing all 400 sitting employees who have to, you know, highlight insurance themselves. But I think it should be an option that they have to either be in the long term disability or not. But if they are likely to do it, then they should pay those pay. Matt, can we give the employees a choice? Welcome back. It would be nice to see, I mean, some may choose that option because that way they wouldn't have to pay the taxes. I think it's a good idea. We'll give you a write-up on. Lots of write-ups. Okay. Well, this just bears out the importance of our meeting during the 430 next Tuesday. So, Mr. System will plan accordingly a lot of memos and discussions and understanding and we'll continue the dialogue next Tuesday. With that, I'll entertain emotions for a journey. Some of them. Move by Mrs. Silverthorn, second of my Mrs. Winter, all in favor, single five of the voting I. Opposed, the cash in animals.