I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next. Please all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. to a brief announcement for everyone here tonight. This meeting will be run pursuant to Virginia code section 18.2 415 which regards disorderly conduct in a meeting. This is defined as prevention or interfering with the orderly conduct of the meeting. This disruptive behavior could include speaking when not given the floor by the chair of the meeting. Continuing to speak after the time allocated for any speaker, shouting or any other activity that prevents the transaction of the business of the public. Thank you. Next on the agenda we have agenda amendments and approval. Are there any amendments for tonight's agenda? Mr. Mayor, I have two questions regarding the agenda. Items 12B, 12C. You know my feelings on this. Where's the staff report's? They're on the agenda. They should have a staff report. They're empty. Well with respect to 12b, do you intend to handle that verbally or did you have any additional information to provide to the town council? I think Ms. Lamar will be handling that and they all had anything else to be added. I think we're waiting on an ordinance right now and a more full sum report will be prepared when there's an ordinance available and a public hearing ad will be prepared as well. So should it be removed? I think it's just discussion and introduction to the item so that the citizens as well as the council have a chance to be thinking about it. It's something that we're going to have to respond to fairly quickly. And also I put it on the agenda in part because the publication deadline should we be as a council inclined to meet the schedule set forth by town staff requires that we call for a public hearing at this meeting. All right. All I was saying is that it didn't have any information. So it would have been nice to even have that little right up from the mayor or the lawyer before today. And also for the Virginia Main Street again, there is a staff report and that should have been put on to the agenda for our citizens and us to review. Thank you. Do I hear a motion for approval of the agenda? I move that the personal town council adopt the agenda of May 13, 2025 is presented. Do I hear a second? I'll second that. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Next on the agenda is the consent agenda, which I consist of two sets of meeting minutes Approvals specifically those for the March 11th and March 25th, 2025 town council meetings. Have all members of the council read the minutes and are there any issues with the minutes as written? Do I hear a motion we approve the consent agenda of the minutes of 3.11.25 and of 3.25. 25. Second. All in favor? Next on the agenda we have a proclamation for National Police Week 2025. Mr. Mayor, we're going to go down front. I assume correct. I say we're the police department of the respective standing up in front of them. police proceed to the floor. Thank you. proclamation is to recognize National Police Week 2025 and to honor the service and sacrifice of those law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty while protecting our communities and safeguarding our democracy. Whereas there are more than 800,000 law enforcement officers serving in communities across the United States including the dedicated members of the Perseval Police Department and whereas since the first recorded death in 1786 there are currently more than 24,000 law enforcement officers in the United States who have made the ultimate sacrifice and Have been killed in the line of duties. Whereas the names of these dedicated public service servants are engraved on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C. Whereas the service and sacrifice of all officers killed in the line of duty will be honored during the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund's 37th Candolite Visual onil on the evening of May 13, 2025. Whereas the Candidate Vigil is part of National Police Week, which will be observed this year, May 11, through 17th. Whereas May 15th is designated as Peace Officers Memorial Day in honor of all foreign officers and their families and US flags should be flown a half staff and finally whereas therefore be it resolved that the town of Percival will observe May 11th through 17th 2025 as National Police Week in Percival Virginia and publicly salutes the service of law enforcement officers in our community and in communities across the nation. Thank you. Next on the agenda we have community highlights. Town manager. Community highlights. So last week we had a day of celebration and recognition for our employees. Service excellence throughout the year. So we had our annual recognition luncheon. In addition to that, I met with Tim Hems Creek and team. We are looking at our NVTA 30% fund. There is an allocation of 2.3 million to the Tonga first Perseville, so I'll be obtaining details on how we can go about bringing that money to the Tonga Perseville. Significant progress has been made in our GIS. I commend Risa and team, Andrea's team, for mapping our GIS properties to actual revenue. So those are the three items and give the rest of the time back to you folks because I know this is a great meeting for, I hope it'll be a productive meeting to get us to the budget. All right, thank you for your time. Next on the agenda, we have citizen business comments. I'd like to ask that each speaker discontinue speaking at the end of your time this evening and yield the floor to the next speaker up. The first two speakers are Stephanie Maroute and Paul McCray. So I'm Stephanie Maroute, 421 Crossman Court. Actually, thank you for pronouncing my name correctly. Most people don't. The incompetence, rush decisions, and conspiring needs to stop. At what point will the four of you do the right thing? Council members Luke and Khalil, you still have time to use your voice. Don't robotically listen to net and burtow just because they say so. Reading off a piece of paper that is passed to you, which happened April 8th, by the way, in case you forgot. If you, media, don't know this, you're going to want to hear it. Councilmember Colliel, at the last meeting on April 22nd, you literally spoke on camera that the four of you, obviously behind the backs of the other councilmembers, did not bring up to spanning the PPD until I quote, ban net suffered for a year before he did anything. Essentially, you openly admitted this is not really about the budget, but rather a retaliatory decision that you decided to support. Ironically, after the same PPD you initially voted to defund, you and Mayor Beto asked where they were in the meeting to keep order. You don't get to pick and choose when you want them. I'm going to close with this. If you're so concerned about all members present for major budget decisions, then why was the impulse decision made to disband the PPD on April 8th when all members were not present? You only care when net isn't present because it sways to your majority vote. Do better. Please, for the sake of our town, I urge you to take this budget seriously and to use input from not only all council members, but from the amazing town staff. And thank you guys for everything you do, because Percival deserves better. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Paul McCray, followed by Brian Morgan. That's going to be hard to follow up on. But I'll try. So the personal government is basically a service organization. And the service organization is made up of the people who work there and serve the people of Percivil. I know you've already started looking at ways to cut staff from probably most of the departments. I've seen one from the Water Suer Department that is going to be eliminated, but you're going to contract it out. But there's no details so far on how much that's going to save if anything, because contracting doesn't always save money. This is something that you brought on yourself. There's $3 million into budget is because you won't keep the sewer and water rates consistent with the rise and cost of living. It goes up every year. We know it. We're seeing it at our salaries. We're seeing it at giant food. Yet not only won't you get the rates where they should be, you've turned around and lowered the sewer water rates and blown a huge hole in the town budget. So I urge you to do the right thing and reinstate the money from the meals tax back to the general fund and put the rates where they should be. That's what a responsible town government would do. And so far that's not happening here and hasn't been happening for many many years. It's my real quick question regarding the public comment session. There's a clock set two minutes. We normally give three minutes and it was never announced that we were going to drop it to two minutes. That's me talking. That's due to the number of speakers that we have this evening. Was that announced tonight? Was that announced tonight? It's consistent with the timing that we have to ask. Was that announced tonight is what I'm asking? It was not announced from the day us. Was it announced at all anywhere? Was, okay, thank you. No, are we done? Thank you. Let it tell us, yeah, thank you. All right. The next speaker is Brian Morgan to be followed by Daniel Carville. All right. Good evening, council people. You know, I'm beginning a lot of questions about the status on this petition, this recall campaign. So here you go. Loud and Commonwealth Attorney has referred this case to the Stafford County Commonwealth Attorney. The Loud and General Reg registrar will finish validating and certifying our petitions by Thursday, May the 15th. At that point, the petitions and the evidence that my team has been gathering is going to go to Mr. Olson, who's the Commonwealth Attorney in Stafford County. If Mr. Olson determines that we have a case, then he's going to appoint a judge, the judge will set a trial date and we'll see you all in court. Thank you. Thank you. Applause. The next speaker is Daniel Carville to be followed by Josh Shields. Daniel Carville, 224, Ashley Terrace. Basically, questions again about the budget. I mean, you know, I've got a bachelor's degree in business economics. I've been doing budgeting and financing for 25 years and minors in accounting and finance. And one thing I can tell you about the person to feel budget is you can't fix our town's financial challenges by simply cutting costs. We need to increase revenue, whether that's going to be by increasing taxes, increasing water rates, or smart growth. One way or the other, we're going to pay. The question is, how and when? Overall, for the last 10 years, we've been looking at a strategy. And the strategy has been by our former mayor. It's always been about keeping water rates low, artificially low, and the overall result has been the problem you're seeing financially today. Numbers don't lie, this has been a poor strategy, and this is what's killing us. And this has been going on for more than a decade. But now we have a little bit more of a serious problem on our hands. The economic conditions here in Virginia are definitely changing. The federal government is going to shrink. And along with that, revenues from the state and local levels are also going to be impacted. The money that you are seeing here, the support is going to, for through grants and other programs, is going to narrow and it's going to shrink And overall, this is not going to be a sustainable way to be able to fix our problems. You can't rely on the issues you had in the past. Also, increased financial rates. You're going to pay more for the debt that you have and inflation for these projects and the infrastructure that we desperately need. Perseville is truly a special community. One that continues to attract residents and businesses even with moderate high rate water rates. However, if you persist on cutting services such as our police department, parks and wrecks and programs that support our downtown businesses, we risk undermining the very qualities that make our towns such a great place to live. Thank you very much. Next speaker is Josh Shields to be followed by Kirsten Shields. My name is Josh Shields. I live in 417 Degrees Park, and I co-own a small business in time with my wife. First off, I want to again reiterate my support for the Main Street Virginia program, which I see is again on the tonight's agenda. Second, I want to commend the citizens of Percival for consolidating the past few months around the cause and purpose, ensuring that our public officials properly represent their constituents and make decisions that are in the best interests of the community, our town, and all residents. huge support shown for our police department at the last meeting was only a small part of the overall picture. Unfortunately, time and time again, we have seen the majority members of this council not act in a manner such. And so here we find ourselves in today's predicament, with a filed recall petition on the verge of being validated, a special prosecutor assigned by the district court, multiple investigations of some town council members and the town manager underway, including investigations that could potentially lead to criminal charges, and our little town once again smothered all over the news, local and nationally, and not in a good way. The majority has set us on a reckless course of slashing income, relying on rapidly diminishing reserves, without a coherent budget or plan to stabilize our town's finances. Your actions since January show a lack of education and due diligence, a lack of taking the time to read the briefing materials prepared by staff, a disconnect with the residents and businesses of town, and a complete lack of receiving message that has been repeated time and time again at every council meeting since my first on March 25th when the residents stated that you are not listening. Instead, you act like monarchs with an air of superiority and pompousness that as far from may vary, as one could imagine. As you and the town's potential liability continues to build, it's my hope that you will realize the harm that you are doing to this town and resign. Applause Next speaker is Kirsten Shields to be followed by Tamara Dean. Good rainy evening, personal town council. My name is Kirsten Shields to be followed by Tamara Dean. Good rainy evening, Percival Town Council. My name is Kirsten Shields, 417 gay post-quart. Since I've been attending meetings beginning in January, there has been some learning. You may know now that I love pop music. My brain is constantly singing. You know that I volunteer in the community. I've learned that the centermost bathroom in this building in the women's room still deceivingly opens in when it appears to open out. Women know this, right? I've learned that it's extremely limited transparency among the majority ahead of us. It's not okay, and you know it's not the right way. Tonight I don't bring the statistics, I don't bring the stories, you know them. One of the things you may not know that I also love is wordplay. So in the spirit of a great scene and love, actually, I bring you an anagram. Singer. Sign there. Reigns. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Tamara Dean to be followed by Sarah Morgan. Tamara Dean 601 West Main Street. I'm here tonight to express my concern and disappointment regarding the proposed removal of the economic development part-time staff position. As chair of EDAC, which some of you may not even know because you haven't even met me, I know our staff position plays a crucial role in supporting the town's growth and development efforts. In this past year alone, the presence of EDAC advisor, John Hewler, has been invaluable in driving initiatives that benefit our business community, attract new opportunities, and contribute to the town's overall economic vitality. Having served on EDAC both with and without a dedicated staff member, as Frazier knows, I can speak from experience the difference is stark. It is stark, you guys. I have seen firsthand the inefficiencies, lack of coordination and limited progress that result when this critical role goes unfilled, Bertot, you can also speak to that. Without dedicated staff support, the committee struggles to maintain momentum and produce meaningful outcomes, we cannot afford to have that again. I serve in this role as a citizen as a citizen volunteer, not for recognition, but as a mom who believes deeply in Percival's potential. I want this to be a place where my daughters are proud to grow up in, when they'll want to return to as adults. That vision requires real, sustained support for economic development, not just in principle, but in practice. Removing this position undercuts the work of so many of us are doing that make that future possible. I also recognize that many of those on this town council including the town manager have already raised your families here. Now, as new families plant roots in Percivil, it's time to pass the torch and ensure the town is prepared to meet the needs of a new generation. That means embracing strategies that support long-term economic health, opportunity and vibrancy. I urge the council to engage in a conversation with myself and John Heather before making such a significant decision. Open dialogue is a sense of why is the inter-cigarette making and it sure is grounded in these balance balanced perspective. You did not find the right place. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Sarah Morgan. You followed by Erica Stout. Hi, Sarah Morgan, 608 Gray Stands Lane. I first want to start off with saying thank you for helping me to meet so many wonderful residents of Percival. If it wasn't for this recall, I would have made some new friends. I'd also like to say that I know that this council is not responsible for the problem that we have now with the water and all the utilities. That started a long time ago. However, we have a whole to dig ourselves out of. And I've been telling people all along with the recall process, if getting rid of the police department was the right idea, which I don't agree with, it's how you guys went about it. It's the waiting till Caleb was off the video chat because he had a work obligation to sneak it into an agenda, or not even an agenda, to sneak it into a portion of the agenda and not even bring you up during the agenda amendment. So we didn't even know it was coming. It's that sneakiness that causes that distrust. And I've said it along. All along. It's how you guys are doing things. We know that there are tough decisions. We know that there has to be cuts somewhere. We know that there is a problem, but all we're asking is for how you're going to solve the problem working together. And so why were you okay with introducing this idea of cutting the police department when Stout wasn't here, but then when there's supposed to be a meeting, which everyone agreed to have the meeting, you didn't want to have the meeting because Net wasn't there. It's because of the numbers. You can't shove things through if you don't have the meaning. You didn't want to have the meaning because net wasn't there. It's because of the numbers. You can't shove things through if you don't have the majority. And I would also like to remind everyone in council or in this room that we need to make sure everyone speaks. Everyone has the, is entitled to speak their time. So I do, I do ask everyone. I know that we're very passionate, but we need to put that passion towards processes that are in place for specific reasons. So let everyone speak and just be respectful. Next speaker is Erica Stout, we followed by Amanda Dayton. Erica Stout, 210 upper book terrorists. This is going This is gonna be fast because I have a lot. Another meeting, another bunch of gas lighting but it's how majority. The mayor even gas lit the attorney general. I foiled the letter he sent. He said council member Stout, my husband, lied to the Commonwealth Attorney because Vice Mayor Net voted for an ordinance to be written, not to dissolve the PD. Well, right after that vote, you took three votes to move that money around that you would get by dissolving the PD. And guess what, he didn't include that little bit of context for the AG. I'd like to bring up something, council member Susan and Carol said to a constituent, quote, Caleb wouldn't work with us if we had a cure for cancer. That's a disgusting and egregious-ass version on my husband's character. He has offered to both of you in the past to meet, and most recently I know about three weeks ago he offered to meet with both of you and go meet with finance. He didn't hear back. For anyone confused about why they keep going after the Main Street program, Valerie Curry of the Blue Ridge leader doesn't like it. I heard her with my own ears in the back of the room talking about it to another person in attendance. That's why they won't let it go. You all seem to have a hard time with economic realities. You seem to believe inflation doesn't exist that we can't annex or have any infill development and that we can lower water rates all the same time. Those three facts cannot exist at once. That is economically impossible. last fact. If we hadn't restructured the debt at the direction of Quasifraiser, we would have the debt paid off by 2030. But he screwed around and added tens of millions of dollars to our debt. It's day 133 and my water rates are still the same. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Applause. Next speaker is Amanda Dayton to be followed by Christy Morning. My name is Amanda Dayton and I own the business at 151 West Main Street. I am here this evening to speak about the Main Street program and economic development. When the town made the resolution to form Main Street last year, it was with the vision that it would be a collaborative coalition of community members and the town. All of the volunteers that have committed to Main Street have done so with the intent of revitalization. We have collaborated with Edak, most recently at the Music and Arts Festival, and circulated a 21st Street Vision Survey. I have copies of that survey for all of you guys. This survey was completed using volunteers in no town resources. A similar survey of completed through the town would have likely cost thousands. Perthville Main Street is its own entity and does not belong to the town. It is our wish to continue that collaborative relationship with the town. We have included a board member position in our bylaws that is set aside for town employees so that we can safeguard that collaboration for years to come. We have volunteered approximately 140 hours to cover in-kind donation for the recent grant application saving the town approximately $5,000 of matching funds that it would otherwise be required to apply. I know that a few of you are very concerned about the financial implications of Main Street. We have not asked for funds and we will not be asking for funds. Your current staff has worked with us under the current resolution but we will certainly move on to other tasks as directed by the town manager. Their cost is only a cost if you as council choose to have them involved. It is not a requirement. With all of this being said, if the council no longer wishes to have a collaboration with Main Street, that is your choice. We don't want it. We want you to be involved. We want y'all to have a voice. We will continue to work as a 501-C3 and will continue to work with businesses within our community. It will be without council and without the collaboration of town employees who deeply understand the long-term comprehensive plan and planning goals. As a member of EDAQ, I was also... It will be without council and without the collaboration of town employees who deeply understand the long-term comprehensive plan and planning goals. As a member of EDAC, I was also horrified to learn that the EDAC advisor position appears to be missing from the budget. This position is an essential position and a town that needs to see growth. The next speaker is Christy Morgan to be followed by Steve X-Dane. Thank you. Christy Morgan, 608, Grace Sandes Lane. Figured you guys had missed me. I haven't been here for a while. I hadn't really planned to speak tonight, but because it's deeply frustrating to raise concerns with people who have already made up their minds. Over the past several days, I spent hours reviewing your council meetings, particularly since January 8th, in preparation for evidence at the recall trial. What I've seen is disheartening by ostracizing your colleagues and ignoring expert testimony. You've made it very clear you're not open to dialogue. You've dismissed repeated warnings from multiple people. The transferring funds from general fund risk credit rating issues. By not raising utility rates, you're putting utility fund at risk of becoming insolvent. Mr. Net is untrustworthy, joining Main Street carries no hidden costs. Growing local businesses are best avenue to shore up utility revenues, and the current town manager lacks the necessary background. If it doesn't fit your perceived notions, you lay wood faults without consideration. One of my favorite quotes from Benjamin Franklin is, when you finish changing, you're finished. By refusing to consider informed opinions or expert advice, you risk finishing an era of growth for our town. I freely admit, I don't have all the answers. But when I don't know something, I research it earlier, consult experts until I do. And when I find out the truth, it may not be what I originally thought it was going to be. Right now, Pursull stands on the brink of crisis. We need a town manager who can guide us through these challenges, and your political crony is not that person. We were at 80 qualified applicants, surely someone among them could have helped steer us clear this failure. I know a way out of it, how you can save $200,000 immediately. That would be firing the Frazier. Cuts will need to be made, but due to your poor planning, by moving meals tax and changing real stack rates, you have put us $3 million in the red in our general fund. You're not going to find $3 million in expenses. I have a budget bigger than you where I work and I know you can't do this to expenses deck. Next speaker is Steve X-Feen. We followed by Joan Lair. Steve X-Line, 17273 Picklift Drive. I just wanna speak about the motions on EDAC and the Main Street Program. I believe town code was amended to require a minimum four residents on this committee. The discussion prior to this vote stated that we currently have four resident members on the committee, but recent periods this was not the case. Because the code was less strictly worded, the committee was able to continue serving the town and council. As I interpret the amended code, this would not be the case. While the mayor claimed this change won't show that there's resident representation, this more rigid code is a parent's being an offer amp to disband the committee. So I ask what will happen if the committee does not have four resident members? Should the committee cease to exist or should it continue doing its good and necessary work with a mix of interested and engaged members willing to participate? And as far as the Main Street Program, by many accounts this program is highly regarded for the positive economic, civic, and social benefits, it provides a small towns and communities across the country. Count. Yeah. In contrast, I've heard a persistent line of questioning from CM Khalil in at least two council meetings that attacks the merits of the program on the basis that any cost of the town is unacceptable, no matter how insignificant or marginal. From all the discussion, this requires a minimal amount of time from existing staff. It doesn't require hiring a new part time or full time position. So I ask, why are we discussing pulling support from a civic-led program that builds strong communities with little town resources? Both of these actions seem to fit an agenda by the council majority to dismantle any and all activities that support the small businesses and encourage economic growth in our small town. I shouldn't have to state how short-sighted this is. We've been talking about taxes and utility rates for over a decade. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on with respective development, expansion on the commercial tax basis is a critical piece of the puzzle. We cannot pull all support for economic development, let small businesses move out of town, and I expect the residential tax base to pick up the bill while simultaneously cutting important services. The town will simply die on the vine and cease to be a desirable community to live. The next speaker is Joan Lair to be followed by Beth Goldsmith. Hi, my name is Joan Lair to be followed by Beth Goldsmith. Hi, my name is Joan Lair, a two four woodbine court. I'm also a business owner, 198B, North 21st Street. I'm going to start with the business. The Main Street program is important. To grow revenue in this town, you need to have a 30% business contribution. Otherwise, it doesn't work. I spent eight years on council. We had it up to 28% at one point. I think it's back down to 18 or 19. That's revenue. That's people bringing people into town. That's the people that volunteer for all the town events that bring new people into town. That's the businesses that use water, your restaurants. This is this Main Street program helps the town. It's not just for me, for Amanda, for the other businesses in town. It's for the town and the residents of the town. Y'all, I say it every time I'm up here, you are elected to serve everyone. Everyone means all the residents, but everyone includes the businesses. We pay taxes too. I might live and work in town, but the rest of the businesses that don't also pay taxes and they need to be respected, unlike how previous mayors disrespected the business association and some other things that have gone on. So I'm going to switch now to the budget because if you don't keep the Main Street program, you're not helping the businesses help the town. If you keep the Main Street program, maybe you can find some better ways to look at the budget, but please do not take away an economic development person. We used to have a full person, you're down to a half a person, you need to keep something. And just because he's the one who brought Main Street into the town, maybe that's not your decision making seems to be more retaliatory again. Your budget is down by the line first. That's a legal requirement. And if you don't do what you have to do, then you'll see what happens after that. Thank you. The next speaker is Beth Goldsmith, who'd be followed by Casey Chapman. Applause. Hi, I'm Beth Goldsmith, 301 West School Street. First, I would just like to start by, once again, observing how many citizens are here today. It's because we love our town, and honestly, we don't trust a lot of you up there, and we really want to come and see what's going on with our own eyes so that we know the facts. Facts don't lie. I'm here to discuss the Main Street Program. I think it is crucial to this town to revitalize Main Street and bring in foot traffic in a positive way that will create more revenue for the town. I hope that everyone has done their homework and is now fully educated on the correct Main Street program, and you will allow our town to take advantage of this because it's really, really important. And I just hope that everyone does everything above board this evening, and there's nothing sneaky that happens. And the final speaker is Casey Chapman. Hello, thank you. Casey Chapman, 125. Case go LLC. The common narrative, you know, especially to the mayor's proposal here in the budget is by increasing density or promoting additional housing diversification in our town is somehow going to ruin our small town charm. I don't believe that's the case. By saying that the population of personal is stabilized, that is not also true. The population of personal is declining. We're doing nothing to address the decline in the population of the town. We're doing nothing to address the housing diversification within our town. We're doing nothing to promote the youth or blue collar workers or any other type of people being able to be welcomed into our community by promoting different types of zoning uses and land uses to be, you know, within our zoning ordinance that was just adopted or the comprehensive plan that proposed that we did such things. We are failing to address the community needs from those perspectives. While at the same time, we undercut the values of the property rights of the individual residents and property owners in this town, which therefore makes a reduction and an argument for a drastic reduction in what the taxable value of that real estate should be. I think that Percival is not doing its citizens any favors here by their actions. I think that there's more efforts that could be taken, that could address all these aspects. And just because you get a tap fee and it goes away, it doesn't mean that the benefits of a new residents go away. What are they going to bring to the community from contribution value? You know, are they going to volunteer for our services or be in our community or engage with the public? You don't know and to say that they're going to have a negative impact is really demeaning to anyone that's looking to come into a community that everyone holds so close and dear. Thank you for your time. Mr. Mayor, we have we've received the email from the citizen who wants to have their thing that didn't record. One or two. I've got one. Go ahead. I'm going to get it up here. This is a street name should we get a name? This is from Becky Gardner, 410 South nursery avenue. Dear Mayor, Council members and town staff, I'm writing today as a local business owner and community member deeply invested in the health and vitality of Percival. Once again, the Percival Main Street program is on the agenda. And once again, I respectfully urge you to fully recognize its critical role in preserving the local character we all value. While simultaneously supporting and sustaining the small businesses that are the heart of our town, the Main Street program is not simply ornamental, it is the infrastructure, the advocacy, and the economic development engine that allows small businesses like mine to grow, thrive and invest back into Percivil. This program connects us with resources, marketing tools and community engagement opportunities. We would not have access to on our own. The board has already had a great success working as a team and as exemplified by our participation in the Music and Arts Festival and our community committees are growing. The community is excited. Our goal is, as volunteers, to simply promote vitality and community on Percival's Main Street, that's it. There are no hidden calls, no hidden agendas, so I must ask the town council, where do you want citizens and visitors to Western Lawn to spend their money? Where do you want travelers of the WNOD trail? Are those out enjoying Western Lawn to pop in for lunch and shopping? Are you asking us to spend it and surrounding towns? Many with strong and successful mainstream programs that actively champion their business communities? No, we absolutely want to keep the money in our town. The citizens we have responded and many agree on Main Street. While there is so much potential, it needs PVMS and support of businesses and citizens and ideally our town council to unite for the smart and respectful rehabilitation and Revalidization of our downtown community. We deserve clarity, transparency and meaningful collaboration, not more uncertainty. Councilwoman Luke, as a long-time supporter of the EDAC and previous advocate for the Virginia Main Street Collaboration and a small business owner yourself. I ask for your continued leadership and support. Your voice matters greatly to all of us who believe in the future environment, walkability local first of all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda, we have Mayor and Council comments. Council member Wright can you start us off. Usually last. Just a minute. Sorry. As again, nothing prepared. I do hope, again, that we, as a group, start realizing that the budget needs a lot more consideration than what it's been given in last minute. and it out antics played. We need to take this thing serious. It is the future of this town. It's the long term future of this town. We can do severe damage to this town by continuing down this road that we're on with how we're approaching this budget. There's ways to, if with some input from all, in true collaboration, and not just faking it, for better words, we can and could have come together with some agreeable solutions to address all of the concerns, at least come to some sort of agreement somewhere, but we weren't given the opportunity because individuals on us decided they would go about it on their own and neglect the input, sorry, the input from the few of us and not even give us the opportunity to have input and provide some ideas on ways to achieve the master goal. So I'm hoping moving forward, we as a group, we evaluate what's been done so far. Look at the budget as a whole starting now and come back and make some collaborative changes that are in the best interest of the town for today and in the future. Applause Council member Stout. Council Member Stout. All right. First, let's give a shout out to Percival's water team. Water team members won first place in the American Water Works Association Top Ops Competition and we represent the state of Virginia, that national, which will be held in Washington, D.C. outstanding work by the team and I'm so grateful that these are the caliber individuals who are sharing my family has safe clean water coming out of our faucets every single day. In recognition of National Police Week 2025 we honor the dedicated officers of the personal police department and all law enforcement officers for their unwavering commitment to serve and protect. We join the nation in commemorating the service and sacrifice of all law enforcement officers, especially during the candlelight vigil and peace officers Memorial Day on May 15th. Percival salutes the bravery and selflessness of our heroes. For the budget, I'll start with an excerpt from a recent Round Hill Water Report. Quote, Avoiding a structural utility system deficit requires a major adjustment in either planned capital construction or user rates, as these are outcomes that can be controlled and predicted accurately. Efficiencies and operations and additional sources of funding must also be pursued, but neither can produce predictable outcomes so their impact on rates should be after they have been realized. Not anticipatory. EG used to reduce future rates or delay future rate increases. Unquote. Sound familiar? I also looked at their chart. They also have double-digit rate increases from FY24 through FY28. Put simply, Perseville is not unique. This is a reality of running utilities in small towns, plain and simple. I just want to talk about root causes for a second. What we're dealing with here in large part is inflation. We don't raise tax rates, but tax revenue still goes up because assessments increase. So revenue increases even though tax rates stay the same. Utility rates don't work that way. Rates are paid by users for a service. There's no increasing assessment to deal with the impact of inflation. Let's use a Big Mac for an example. The average cost of a Big Mac today is $5.69. I'm 35 years old. You know how much a Big Mac cost when my dad was 35? $2.45. You know how much a Big Mac cost when his dad was 35? 45 cents. This begs the question. I've consistently heard from some members of this council that now is not the time to raise rates or take on debt for CIP if not now then when We must increase revenue or we will go bankrupt tax revenue increases automatically as assessments go up Utility revenue does not we can ensure appropriate revenue for our enterprise funds or we can bankrupt them those are our choices choices. Councilmember Rayner. All right. So congrats on national peace officer week and to our personal PD. I am so grateful we still have a PD to proclaim at all. I will keep my comments short because you're going to hear from me plenty during my budget presentation and yes I made a presentation too. We have big decisions to make over the next few weeks regarding our budget. Let's just remember as we're dealing with council decisions from years past, I would like everyone to think about the following quote. The most valuable math you can learn is how to calculate the future cost of your current decisions. Thank you. Councillor Member Net. No comments I appreciate it. I will get it. I appreciate all of the input on the budget. I don't believe the decisions we make are final as far as forever. And we are going to look at the budget, find the solutions that we think are going to work, and then if we have to we can adjust these things. I don't believe that the decisions that we make have to last for 30 years. We can go on and look at these and keep evaluating. So I'll have to say. Council Member Colliel. Well, last Saturday I had the honor of attending the 25th commencement for Patrick Henry College. I was in awe as I sat in the audience listening to the commencement speakers, as well as all of the accomplishments made by this year's graduating class. Over half of the approximate 80 graduates graduated with high honors, and that's no small feat knowing the rigorous curriculum at Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry College is an absolute diamond in our town and I count us very fortunate to have them They are graduating intelligent poised Confident and soon to be amazing professionals I'm sure I can guarantee you in years to come they will not be creating chaos and cultivating disrespect in the halls of their towns. Oh, I see. Oh, respect. Respect. Let her speak. Let her speak. It's awful. All right, thank you. I want to give a shout out to our water team. This is not the first time they've swept the honors at this competition and I very much doubt it would be the last. Last Saturday I too had the honor of attending Patrick Henry's 25th commencement. I was amazed at their accomplishments and an awe of their excellence. The faculty, staff and students clearly form one vital nucleus of excellence in our wonderful town. On the agenda tonight, we have first and foremost continuation of the town council's budget discussions. And for the record, we had only two fully confirmed availabilities for the last scheduled budget meeting. That's not even a quorum. We have before us tonight a series of proposed budget changes outlined in detail by our finance team. And we also have a couple of presentations, one by the mayor and one by council members, Rainer, Stout and Wright. All of these changes will require careful consideration by the full town council on the best way forward to a balanced budget that preserves our vital services, need by our residents while allowing for relief for our residents and businesses from high water rates and town tax increases. I look forward to a lively discussion with participation from all members of council as we work through our budget issues. I'll look forward to further meetings as needed to bring this budget in for Percival before the close of the fiscal year. Next on the agenda we have, well forgive me, we have no action items. So the next item on the agenda is our discussion and information items. We'll kick it off with 12A FY26 budget. Town council strategic guidance and proposed changes. First we have a brief presentation by the town staff on FY 26 potential changes to the proposed budget by fund. Okay, May and Tom comeso, you have before you, spreadsheet that was prepared by Linda, our finance team. And that's the budget, it's reflected with the budget that I presented back on March 19th. So this meeting is your meeting and the rest of Tom Kongso to deliberate on any changes to that proposed budget. Any questions we could take those questions and in real time make the changes that you'll request that we make. Okay, questions? I just wanted to note that for those listening online and for those in the room, if you go to the town's website and download the agenda packet, the spreadsheet that's being discussed is on page 54. I have a question. Mr. Town Manager, at a few budget meetings ago, the Town Council majority voted to move 100% of the meals tax over to the utility fund. All of sudden we see in a spreadsheet without any coming back to us that you directed town staff to lower that to 83%. That was a policy decision made by council. You didn't have the authority to do that and if you that needed to be done why didn't you reach out to council discuss it and call for another vote to change that policy. We can change it back to 100%. It's not about that. I want to understand what led you to do that. Yeah. When I saw the 100% that would mean that we would be at a steep deficit in the general fund. Correct, but that was the policy that the majority decided to do. You don't have the authority to change council, direct it and vote upon and approve policy. So why didn't you, when you saw that say that was a bad decision that won't work and call us or email and say we need to have another vote and discuss that. Why was it just implemented without permission essentially? Because I know it's easy to put that back in as from 83%, that's a 17% increase. And if that's the way council wants to go, we can do that. Put it back to 100%. Okay, so I guess you're not getting what I'm saying. The council voted for that. You do not have the authority to change anything. You should have in turn called all of us emailed and called and said that won't work for the budget. And that vote needs to be changed because it can't be changed by you. It can't be directed at administrative level. It is a policy decision made by council. So I don't want it to be at 100%. I want it to be at zero. However, the point of it is it shouldn't have been done without the discussion and the voting of us. I agree. But you still, until I called you on it, didn't email us in discussion. Council Member Rayner. Are you quite done? We as a council have not voted on a budget yet. But you didn't have the authority to direct staff to do this and put it into the budget. That is what I am saying. And you were okay with it because you were probably told I wasn't, Kevin wasn't, and Kayla was. But to interject, we have not voted on a complete budget yet. The town manager has given this town council one proposed budget and now in effect a second proposed budget. However, there was a vote to move 100% of the meals tax over. He, unilaterally, or maybe with you, don't know, changed it to 83% without a revote, even in the proposed budget, or even a discussion or an email to explain the reason why. So, that is my point I am making. Yeah, Mayor and Tom K so that decision was made not in vacuum. I spoke to my finance team and we saw the ramification of putting it to 100%. And I, in my judgment, put it to 83%. Yes, I should have come back to Tom Kong so to have a meeting on that. I did not. I apologize for that. But now you have before you, a March the 19 budget that was at 50% Meal stacks. You have this one at 100%. If you like to, and 83%, if you like to move it back to 100%, you can do it. Again, my apologies for not calling a meeting to tell you what myself and finance have done. But again, we are here tonight to hopefully get to a decision on the budget so we can have a budget pass before July 1st. All right. Councillor Member Wright? So it's my, let me hear here and here is we have not voted on anything on the budget yet. Everything's been a straw vote to this point, correct? We have as a council voted on several measures for the budget but not on the budget as a whole. I'm confused because if we voted on 100% then there was no ability to drop a 83 whatsoever. So either they were all straw votes up to this point. We as a council have also not voted to drop it to 83%. Okay. So that's what I'm saying is I want to make clear what's happened so far because this whole budget process has been out of the ordinary and out of the norm. So I want to ensure that what's been done has every vote we've taken from a budget perspective been nothing more than a straw vote to this point. That's not true. So every vote has been taken has We have been. Let me clarify. We have not as a council voted on a whole budget. We have voted on various measures for the budget. We may need to address and review some of those prior votes. But we as a town council have not voted on any particular budget. We have several proposals before us and I've also asked the town council to come up with their own ideas on how to have a balanced budget that meets the needs of the citizens. Okay, I'm just a little bit lost because we're saying it's okay that he dropped a at the 33% after a vote was taken to move at 100%. That was a vote. That was a vote that was the same vote that We took on everything else. I just want to know what is still able to be adjusted and what is not? Is every vote is every vote we've taken done? So that way we can't go to 83% because we voted on 100%. We can revisit the vote to 100, going to 100%. Okay. So moving forward, every vote we're taking is not a straw vote. It's the actual vote towards the budget and at the end we will vote on the budget as a entirety with all those amendments we've made to those previous votes. Because that is different from the way we started this because when the Acting Town Manager at the time set up the budget meetings, the direction he was given are telling us that they wanted to go was basically we'd be doing nothing but taking straw votes towards amendments to the budget. And then at the end of that all those those straw votes will come together and we would vote on the budget as amended with all those straw votes. So is that what's occurring or is every vote now locking it into the budget unless it comes back up for another vote? We can continue to have straw votes as needed and we can continue to have full council votes. What's the difference between a straw vote and a full council vote is what I'm trying to get at. We don't differentiate between this is a straw vote and this is not a straw vote. So I'm trying to make sure that what we're doing is correct and legal and we're all on the same page because right now I thought everything was being done as a straw vote. As on page 22, thank you very much. I mean there was something. So proposed changes of our costs. Staff will incorporate approved plan modifications into a staff report on insurpride by the fiscal 2020 budget of 2022. Straw Straw poll votes on fiscal 26 budget changes. Each council will have the opportunity to bring plan changes to the floor for a straw vote. So what is a straw vote and what is not? I'll defer to the town attorney on that. What is the legal distinction between them? I'll give you a round of 30. I'll turn it over. Yeah, a straw vote is, in formal vote, it can be just thumbs up, thumbs down. And that's a way that you often roll through proposed changes or consider a consideration of proposed changes. Some votes, such as the one that you took on April 22nd, were an officially recorded vote of the council. So I think the two things are different. Straw votes are informal and non-binding. An official recorded vote, I think, would be binding in the absence of motion to rescind it. So what makes it a straw vote? What makes it a formal motion vote? What action do we take up here that differentiates between those two? How do I know if I'm doing a straw vote compared to a formal vote? You know, you know going through the formal, I mean voting process and I mean I think it would have to be Denominated as as an official reported vote as vote, as opposed to what a people think. I mean, the law is just an informal temperature taking, at least as I conceive it. Okay, well I think that since there is a lack of any clarity, what difference is a true straw vote and a true vote, then we ought to establish some procedure of what will be a straw vote and what is truly a vote in standing a formal vote. Because I know we have made motions to do straw votes, but it sounded no different than the motion of a regular vote. You just added the word straw that we took a motion and ran through the roll call. So that's, it just seems extremely fuzzy between what is a formal vote and what is a straw vote that is non-binding. Well, then, I mean, you're suggestion of, you ought to, it ought to be denominatedinated as let's take a straw vote, let's take the temperature of council to make it clear that it's not a formal, not intended to be a formal binding vote. Because right now I don't know all the votes we've taken which ones are straw and which ones are formal. That of all through the budget process, I can't tell you which ones are strong, which ones were strong. Well, if they weren't denoted as strong, then they are formal. I'd be more than happy to have that list of funders. I'll give you a second. Well, didn't tell me which ones those were, because I know we did motions in seconds, and it was told it was a strong. So, again, and when I got the town manager saying we're just going to destroy votes. I'm just assuming moving forward from that point we're doing install votes. All right thank you. Council member Rainer are you ready to start your presentation. May I have questions? Just follow on questions. I apologize I wasn't here at the time. The motion to direct the town manager to transfer 100% of Meals Tax revenue into the enterprise funds. Was that a motion that was made and seconded and voted on? Yes. Okay. So that's a legally binding motion, not a straw poll. Is that correct, Mr. Cafferty? If there was a motion and a second and a rule call vote? If that's the case and I can't honestly recall that specific vote, but then that will be right would have to be unlown with another vote. Sure, the mayor said it was, he's filamé and I'm going to transpire when I was gone. So a legally binding motion was taken to direct the town manager to transfer 100% of meals tax revenue from the general fund into the enterprise funds and Mr. Town manager you exercise judgments To not follow that direction Yes in anticipation that we can change it if it needs to be sure we can change many things We could take a motion today to draft a resolution that the sky is blue. And two weeks from now, take a motion to draft a resolution that the sky is pink. And we could do the same thing two weeks after that. But that's not the point. The point is that you were given legally binding guidance, which you did not follow. So should we have a little cross? Yes. Is that a question? No, it's a statement. Okay, and I agree with the statement. Okay. Yes, I change it to 83%. Our staff is here. If we want, if you folks would like to go back and put it to 100%. Or at 73%. No, no, no. It is 100%. But he made a proposal. It's up to us to accept the proposal or to not. I have another question, Council Member, if you don't mind. I have a following question. Did you discuss that change from 100 to 83 with any members of council? I did not. I discussed it with our staff. Only with finance staff. So you made a change to direction and guidance that was given you by town council without consulting any member of town council. Correct. And I was incorrect in doing that. Have there been any other motions made by the town council that provided you with guidance and direction wherein you changed the guidance in your implementation like this motion? No, not that I'm aware of. Not that you're aware of? Yes, correct. Okay. So this is the only time this has happened? This is the only time I know of that this has happened. And it would not happen again. Okay. But let's recognize that that was pursuant to bringing a second proposed budget before the town council for their consideration. Are we ready to begin with the first budget presentation? Yep. All right. So I'm going to preface this saying, I put this together for our work session that we were supposed to have a few weeks ago to work collaboratively together to work together towards a budget that would be in the best interest of the town. This is my fourth budget probably working up here, fifth budget because I actually, before I ran, studied it, met with staff and started looking into it. I've met with finance staff over the years so many times trying to learn, understand, get their opinion, and understanding of the facts and implications of what has happened here in the last few years, decade, and working with our finance director. And this is your 28th budget with us, isn't it? So you kind of know your way around these numbers and what's historically happened. 28 years, this fine lady has done our budgeting, and has kept us going. So we'll have done this. So if you skip to slide three, I put my lovely quote up there. I just want to give a little history. So these were the new policy decisions that were made to the budget for 26. So we have the elimination of the vehicle license fee. So with one year of bridge funding, so that's minus 183, K a year. We have the property tax reduction consequence. We are losing 279 K a year. So originally they proposed 50% meals tax revenue revenue allocated to the enterprise fund or the utility fund. Then the council changed to 100% revenue and then the town manager directed finance to do 83%. It still stands at utility rate reductions of 9 and 11%. So that's the policy changes are changed for this year. So next slide. So I just want to go over some facts. So we're working here with two major funds we budget for. The general fund, which is the government fund, that's what operates the town, inser overhead essentially. And then the enterprise fund, our utility fund, which is supposed to be self-sustaining, it runs our utility. And by financial best practice, the two funds need to be separate and funds should not be mixed. They're treated as two business funds. And this is for fiscal transparency. So the citizens know where their tax money is going and where their utility money is going. And that's for transparent reasons. And it's great to have these two business funds. So utility rates are not a tax. Water andurer rates are usage rates to set to cover operational expenses and pay into our CIP, our capital fund to pay for maintenance and new funds. So next slide. So let's talk about our government fund, our general fund. It's never been a problem. Liz and her wonderful team over the years have kept it so well-run. It is healthy, well above fiscal policy limit. We can afford our town government, we can afford our staff, we can afford our PD. We can afford to pay them appropriately and we can afford our services. So our next slide. And they're saying we're going to have to cut staff. Well, we've had many, many, many operational assessments over the years. And they've all come back saying we're understaffed and we're not bloated. Even if you look line, even chat GPT will come back and say that we are under per thousand citizens, we are understaffed. And so we had the Novak report in 2018. John Isavino was a former town manager that did an operational report. We have a PD report coming any day now that I'll show. But we have been blamed and said, oh, we're bloated in our costs of staff. We are not. We are under staff. We are thin margins. All our audits have come back. Incredibly thin that we are not bloated with staff and we run a lean mean machine. So our next slide, the problem has always been the enterprise fund. It's a utility fund. So two restructurs and refinancing, okay, well intentioned because at the time we needed cash. We didn't have the cash. They restructured. But it's supposed to be a bandaid. A bandaid to hold us over till we could find revenue sources and fix the bleed. Well, it added $12.5 million to our debt service cost. There was no solution implemented. There was 10 years of not raising rates appropriately, two years of not raising rates at all, and 2.8 million increased in the principle of the loan, and that has now come due. So this year brought the massive debt service increase that we saw last year, what we went from 800,000 a year for a debt service to over 2 million. So the utility fund has been subsidized for years by not charging the true utility cost. And this is drain the cash reserves to critically low and what we saw last year was we had a two year runway before we're going to go bankrupt in that fund. So next slide. This is my favorite, favorite slide to show what the tube cost of utility is and where we're hemorrhaging money. And it is not our police, it is not our general fund. It is right there. Look at these numbers. Every thousand gallons of water and sewage we produce, look how much we're undercharging look those numbers We haven't charged appropriately for years and yes, it is expensive to run a small utility But that's the true cost what we're dealing with and that is the reason why our utility fund is in the mess It is is the undercharging of the chuk operational costs so per every thousand gallons of processed water and sewer, seven, where you're under charge is $17, over $17. So our next slide. Last year, Stan Tech came back and this is the previously proposed rates. Yes, it shows, oh, the double increases for FY26, 27, but then it dramatically goes down and normalizes. Right? So that's what was the shock factor of last year and this year, but it was the right thing to do to put us on a path to structural balance. And that's what we need to achieve or find a path to. This is, next slide, this is what was proposed this year. Look at those numbers. yes, 0, 0, 0, 0 this year. Or now this was made, stand-techs modeling before they reduced even your utility rate 9 and 11%. They're pushing down, if you look, it goes double increases further down the road. So they're kicking the can further down the road. So you don't get it this year or next year, but you're getting the balloon double digits 282930. So I mean, you're just pushing the can down the road. And then next slide, you just wanna go back to some financial recommendations years past and now. So this year, Davenport still says best practice is not to use general fund meals tax money to fund the enterprise fund. The legal, it's not recommended as repeated practice unless a policy is set to fully refund the withdrawals in its place. We don't have a plan to replace those. 23, they sent us a memo saying don't do it. 23 brown and Edwards are accountants in an internal controls report on page 3 says do not use meals tax money and that's a clip it from their revenue side. And with anticipated loans for CIP coming up in the near future, I'm not willing to risk our triple a bonding on these risky financial moves. And then the next slide, I won't hog the whole, the whole slides, well, Kevin and Caleb will speak to it more in depth each slide. But we need to be realistic and focus on the true issue that we're facing. And it's not our general fund. We're not our staff. It's not funding our operations. It is purely utility fund issue. We need to charge as bad as it is the true cost of our utility to prevent future bankruptcy. The financial, like I said earlier, the financial reason for having two funds is the fiscal transparency. So if citizens know where their tax money and their utility money goes. We need to focus on things that can support the utility fund in the future, economic development and working with the county and federal government for grants for CIP funding. And I mean an idea that Kevin will speak like to is maybe instead of moving meals tax money, we could use to the utility fund. We could use some of the general fund savings which we're good on for the CIP projects that we need and use some of our cash. And then concerns are over high water bills for people can afford. Their bills is we created relief program for citizens or seniors that can afford their bills. The county already has a senior relief program. We could also work with nonprofits that support community members to support our community members that are in need support. And throughout the year, which we haven't done properly in years, is sit down and work throughout the years. multiple touch points with our staff to develop long-term strategic plans to support our utility funds. And then the next slide, and it's something I talked to Liz about a lot over the time is the key word is structural balance. We need a sustainable fiscal plan to get to that structural balance. And the proposed budget this year does not fix the problem. It actually makes it worse. In addition, the proposed plan also destabilizes the general fund and draws down very quickly their reserves without a plan to replace the funds. So you're creating a new problem on top of our utility problem. And it creates further financial risk and consequences down the road, potential loss of a credit rating, potential bankruptcy. So we need a realistic plan to stabilize our utility fund because there's no magic bullet that's going to fix these problems. And if you cut from the general fund, which I see in the mayor's proposed budget, there's going to be consequences. There will be services got it. What services are you willing to not have? That's something the citizens have already spoken to. And again, we'll speak again. I'll speak further when we go into the budget in depth about my concerns over the potential job positions that are being frozen or cut. And then I can hand it over to Kevin and you can take over. Sorry. So if you want to pull up the last slide there and it's still hard to read for some out there, but if you look at what's basically where we're at, sitting out with the proposed budget amendments, total debt under funding is what, changes in the cash from the budget. The items in red are what you're looking for at the bottom, is operating surplus deficit now is what, 2.4 million in red, correct? And then general is the 3.3 million in the negative as well. When you go down to the basic end of it, is the operating cash, but CIP budget in the red is about $30 million. We're not fixing anything. So that's, it's a 10% of the meals. That's just to get it balanced. That's just to get it balanced. So we're not fixing anything. All the proposed changes that have been done, we didn't fix a thing, we just made a situation worse for later down the road. It might look good this year, but it's not going to look good next year and the many years after. And what I call that is lack of any true educated planning. It's just throwing spaghetti on the wall, throwing stuff on the wall, hoping it'll stick to get us by for a little bit and hoping everybody will forget. And the term keeps getting used, but we just, again, we're kicking the can even further down the road, but now we're kicking it to the point that, you know, we don't have much further to kick it before it's going to come back and hit us in the head. So we have not done a good job in, in when these proposed budget amendments changed to plan out what that means, plan out what that does in the long term. And that's where a lack of true leadership and planning comes into play. Is you have a true plan that puts, hey, look, if we do this and this, I promise you we will get to here. That's not what's been done. And I'll just use the proposed elimination of the police force and the false narratives that were given that, there was discussion taking place with the sheriff that this won't be a big deal. This won't be a big deal. We found out that was a lie. We found out we were misled with that. So again, that's been done with this entire budget, with the moving of the meals tax and everything else, the lowering of the water insurer rates. That's the exact same thing. There's no plan. There's no long term or even short term plan other than to get us through one year and if there is a plan it hasn't been presented. It's just been, let's just do this and we'll weigh about getting some money from somewhere else. We'll weigh about getting this from somewhere else and that's not the way you budget. That's not the way you plan. It's not the way you leave the town. It really isn't. So I'll close them another bit more perv it all. Kill peasant anything with the add to that last part of it. Let's talk to follow that. I think that the most important thing that I would point to here is that is something that supersedes all these individual decisions. We're talking about meals tax, how much of meals taxed 50-100, how do we pay for CIP? Do we do it this year, next year? These are all important decisions, they should be considered carefully individually, but the overarching theme, the thing we have to keep in mind is that we have to have a long term sustainable vision for the town's financial plan. We can't only think about what works this year and next year. We discussed this several weeks ago when we were looking at the transfer from the general fund at that time. It was 50%, and there was a nice little table that Linda pointed us to. I can't remember which page it's on now. But it showed if you adopt this stance of transferring 50% of the meals tax every year and backstopping it with general fund reserves, you can do that for two years. I think it was maybe three years. Pretty sure it was two because we were 4 million over reserves. It was 1.5 million transfer. So you do that two years. That's 3 million. You don't have enough of the third year. Everything we're discussing, everything we're discussing has to be taken in the context of a long-term plan. This Council member Rainer's slide, Kim, if you can go back to this one. Number number, it's the second rate slide. Yep, yep, yep, yep. So, a Meals Tax Transfer. Let's discuss it. Let's discuss a Meals Tax Transfer, 50, 100 Okay 0% FY 26 0% FY 27 It's starting in FY 28. We have to do 20% then 25% then 30% then 25% again So we can't just talk about what works this year We can't just talk about what works for the next few years We have to look further than that because kicking the can down the road by saying, oh, we won't raise rates this year because we have meal stacks money or we have general fund reserves. Which general fund reserves aren't going to last forever, especially if we don't have a means to replenish them. The second thing I would say is I would call back to my council comments before. We can't cut, innovate, or do anything to fight inflation. Inflation will win. On a long enough time horizon, inflation will win. No matter how lean we think we can cut the town budget or we think we can leverage AI or anything like that, it doesn't matter. Inflation is going to win at some point over a long enough time horizon. And so it doesn't matter what we think we can cut this year next year. Things are going to be substantially more expensive 20 and 30 years from now. They just are. And so unless we are taking into account long-term ramifications on the town budget, we are setting the town up to fail. The last thing I'll say is it was on a slide up there, but anything we discuss must be taken if we're talking about the enterprise funds, anything we discussed has to be considered in the context of achieving structural balance. This year, let's do 50%. This year, let's use some cash reserves to pay for some CIP, any of that. That's all fine. If we want to have those conversations, but it has to happen in the context of achieving structural balance, because if we take steps this year that aren't moving towards structural balance and the top row there is a perfect example. Eventually it's going to come back around to Bytus and the Butt because by an28, 29, 30, 31. Yeah, we're getting away with two years and no rate increases, but then it's going to go way up. Further, all you're doing is pushing the pain further into the future. That's all you're doing. So long-term consideration, long-term, sustainable vision and structural balance because if we don't have structural balance on any time horizon, the town will go bankrupt. All right. Council Member Colliel, do you have any comments on what was just presented? Yeah, thank you. Council members, Rainer, Stout and Wright. I totally see everything that you presented. I don't necessarily agree with it. I do feel that we can reach a good structure by taking a different approach. We, I don't know about you all, but it's on the news 24-7 about how cuts have to happen in every town, state. Middleburg couldn't bill to policemen. They decided to not do that because they had to keep their budget down. So to be in a financial situation that we're in, as far as the water, because it is unique to Perseville that our residents have to have these water rates on their back. It's unsustainable and we will continue to lose residents. So we have to kind of manipulate things a little bit and figure out how can we reach a good structure that will be sustaining over the years to where we aren't coming out of taking money out of reserves year after year after year. No, that's not good. I don't agree with that either. But do I agree that cuts have to be made when times are tough? Yes, I do. And I'm for that. It's happening all over. And for us to think that cuts don't have to take place here in Perseville. You're living in a dream world. Everybody has to not pay the price, but everybody has to chip in and do their part in order to get our town financially stable for not just this year but for the years to come. Councillor Moverlouk. I agree with you, Susan. I think back to how I run my own house and how most of you do. I could have a fixed budget but the problems that come up aren't fixed. Oh, I need a new roof. I had to repair the air conditioning. There's been some surprises that yes, I should have budgeted for, but other things took President as they might. We're more fortunate than that with our town budget. It is more predictable. But we are in a tough position historically as far as revenues for everybody. I guess I was listening to the news the other day Fairfax is having the same issues, situations with budgeting for their citizens. So I anticipate that we have to be flexible. We can find solutions. None of us want to be broke or in debt or in the red. But that doesn't mean,000 a year loss. It's not for fiscal year 26, because as you note, the bridge funding, the property tax reduction again, I'm proud to have voted for the equalized tax rate and stay in my that vote as well. If you want to characterize that as a loss, so be it. Support of the 50% meal tax revenue. And again, we changed that to 100% that was not a stronghold that was a vote. I thought that was cleared everybody at the time. If we need to revisit that based up on the proposals been put forth by the town manager and by the slide that we presented with tonight from these three council members and what the mayor is going to present. I'm happy to do that. What I'm not interested in doing is revisiting our vote. Again, that was a vote not a straw poll to reduce our water rates 9%. In our sewer rates 11%. We had an election in November and the choice was presented to the folks. If I may finish, well, you have that chance. So I ran specifically and openly on these very issues. And what I heard from the majority, the overwhelming majority, the residents door to door, is that the water rates are real concern for them. And I believe they're all alternatives to that that that we can find through trimming the budget. And passing a fiscal year 26 budget is not the end all and be all is I believe council member Luke alluded to earlier. You can make budget amendments at any time throughout the year, the calendar year. And if we need to revisit some things we can do that. So I look forward to the continuing presentations tonight. Thank you. OK, I just have a few comments. I noted that you presented only two of the static scenarios. There were, in fact, eight. And the first of the two that you presented is pretty much a throwaway because that's last year's scenario. The CIP forecast has changed for this year and up about years and therefore we could not have a sustainable enterprise utility fund either on the water or on the sewer side using last year's rates. I'd also further note that of the two that you presented, even the water B and sewer B are among the least attractive scenarios and least likely to be chosen by this town council. In addition, I think I heard this correctly. This was created several weeks ago and the full town council is only seeing this tonight. Seems less than transparent. I said I started making it for the cancelled meetings that you cancelled. Mr. Mayor, I would not talk about transparent lines. No, there's not talk about transparent lines. That's not to the best of us. That's not to the best of us. Yeah, it's not. I have not yielded the floor. I have not yielded the floor. I have not yielded the floor. And finally I'd like to note that the CIP forecasts and outbound years per stand-tech and in agreement with Davenport are highly variable and they're based on estimations that are quite likely to change. So what they're telling us is for a few years out, they can predict with some level of reliability and after that, it gets very, very hazy, very fast. It's outside the uncertainty limits of their own modeling. So with this, can we move to mayor's presentation? Okay. You advance the slide to slide two? All right. One unique and distinctive aspect of this town is that roughly 52% of the land is occupied by schools, churches, community centers, and municipal buildings, none of which generate any tax revenue for the general fund. That means that only 48% of our real estate is income-producing for the general fund. We have 2,700 households in businesses that bear the burden of supporting our town operations. This town is inherited 46.3 million as of the start of FY26 in debt, which extends through 2040.40 and of that 38.1 million of the debt is for water and wastewater infrastructure. This total debt equals $14,137 per household in Percival. Next slide please. So what are our options? Well we can annex land for residential and commercial development to get some upfront tap fees right now for most new households. It's roughly $47,000 for between the water and the sewer tap fees. This would spread cost burdens among more households and businesses. However, doing so would result in some one time income. Kind of a windfall, and I think we all know what tends to happen to windfalls. Also, for every additional residential tax dollar received, numerous studies have shown that $1.70 more will be needed for additional town services. This would result in a dramatic increase in traffic on our already crowded streets and put us at risk of losing our small town charm. Can we grow businesses? I agree that we should. We need to attract new businesses and help grow the existing businesses. But I would argue that, oh, sorry, Mr. Page. Could you go to, Kim? Could you go to the raise utility rates line? Oh, she got it. All right, we can raise our current utility rates by double digits for the next five years to meet our debt payments. However, the cumulative effect of this would result in our already astronomical utility bills doubling over the next five years. This is not just unacceptable, I find it unnecessary. Percival's population has stabilized over the last few years, and I do dispute that it's declining. That's based on census forecasts of the number of households in this town, and it is not based on an actual enumeration of households or individuals. This would also result in increasing utility bills to the extent mentioned which would hasten the decrease in utility usage, leaving our existing utility customers bearing an ever higher and higher financial burden for financial services and for their utilities on a per gallon basis. Next slide, please. As previously stated, I believe it's a lot of a goal to attract new businesses and help grow our existing businesses. But I also believe that our best way to do that is to provide stable utility rates in taxes and streamline the town's approval processes for business expansion and other new business activities. So I built a strategy based on the goals of a balanced budget, utility rate relief, level taxes for this coming fiscal year that is same as FY25, and stability in our reserves. We're proposing to, I'm proposing to draw down 1.6 million from the General Fund Reserves this year. That leaves us at $4.2 million above the 30% policy limit. I'm also proposing to increase the wastewater reserve to 75% and water reserves. I would leave it 88%. The cuts that I am recommending are a total of 6% of the FY26 budget when CIP is excluded. And finally, the last slide, the best way to understand this is to start at the bottom half with the utilities. We have a budget of $3.838 million. Proposing water and wastewater reductions of 9 and 11%. That's at a total cost of $668,500. Proposing, we're planishing the wastewater reserves to 75%. That's a cost of $466,760. Proposing merit merit increase, hay range, increase from 1 to 3% to 1 to 5%. Within the utility funds, that's a cost of $47.86. Subtract from that, a small P card refund, which has fairly late in the budgeting game, been recognized in fairness. finance staff cannot recognize that refund until they actually receive it, seems eminently fair. So that leaves additional meals tax revenue of $1.181 million needed and that represents a total of 83.6% of the meal stacks revenue. Obviously, I'm presaging that we need to have a vote to change it from 100% of meal stacks to 83.6%. On the general fund budget side, going back to the top, we have a general fund budget of 15 million 8 69 6 72 Our equalization of the tax rate Cost us 278 6 86 On the general fund side and that includes parks and rack increasing the merit pay range For our staff costs 172 970 and there's a slightly larger P-card refund of $8239. That added to the increase in meals tax needed from to support the utilities means that I'm recommending that we find general fund cuts of $1.6 to $4 million. Now as I understand it, I believe the town manager has preliminarily found some potential cuts, but I expect the town manager to come back with a more detailed and fleshed out plan for meeting the subjective, but that is the objective that I wish to set as mayor. Questions? Yes, I have many. Thank you very much for this presentation, Mr. Mayor. Okay, let's start. First one, very intrigued that early, you said that you hadn't communicated at all about the 83% and that was the policy set, but yet it's already in your presentation that you're cutting it down from 183. Bizarre, since that was a policy vote, that was done. So that's intriguing. I also want to know what is the town manager waiting for if he has more cuts to come. And 1.624 from the general fund, how do you plan to do it and still provide the services that our citizens expect? Like, exactly what do you suggest to re-reduce because there's a cost for everything and our staff are still, like we said before are very, very lean and they take on a lot of responsibility and do a lot with little and they cannot do more with less and I'm just intrigued how you're going to cut staff because the positions that the town managers already said when I I had to email him last week to ask for some of the positions he's thinking about, and including decimating our planning department, and cutting our economic development director, and not, and freezing the positions of a planning manager and our permitting and compliance, which I'll talk to when we get to the budget part, but I just wanna to know where do you think 1.6 million of savings in our general fund is going to come from without drastically reducing the services to our citizens? Well as you'll recall from the roles of town council and town manager, it's the role of the town manager to implement the directors of the town council. So we would, I would direct the town manager to advise on whether this is a possible goal, an achievable goal, and if so, what the risks and benefits are to achieving it if it is achievable. Questions? Yeah. So is that a call based on previous binding votes of the council? If you went through with this, you'd have to do as we discuss. You have to change the mill stocks revenue from 100% to 83.6%. And then there's also I'm looking at the reserves. It says the correct me if I'm wrong. Anybody in the council? We voted to put the reserves for water and wastewater 100% was that the previous vote of the I can clarify that the the previous vote was in two parts one was to increase the wastewater reserves to 75% the other other part was to increase the water reserves to 100% So we'd have to change that vote on the water reserves to 75% under this proposal? No, not on water. We would have to leave the water reserves at 88% rather than increasing them to 100%. Right, so we would have to undo that previous vote. Right. Half of that previous vote. Okay. Thank you. Council member right. So again, thank you. Thank you for the beautiful proposal. I'd like to back down with the town hall and the the background. It's really nice. So let me start with page one here. So in point number one, you say, none of these things generate tax revenue for the town. I'll make the assumption you're talking about personal property tax, because actually they do generate quite a bit of tax for the town because the people that work there go there, they spend their money in town while they're in town. We have a, so yeah, so, and they use the water which they pay for. So that does generate some revenue for the town. So to say they generate absolutely none, that's a false statement. Now I'll make this assumption you were probably referring to real estate taxes, which they don't generate real estate taxes. But there is other tax revenue. They do generate that is very beneficial for this town. Down at the bottom, you say the personal debt equals 14,000 per household. But we also have commercial the the pays, real estate tax. So obviously that 14,000 is not accurate, because you're not taking in, unless your definition of household is also all commercial buildings as well. So that number would be a lot lower because there's personal property and real estate tax generated by businesses and commercial buildings in the town. So, the $14,137 is not accurate. I'll just move to point that out. You also did an X-Page Water Options annexation. I agree that annexation for homes is not a very good cost benefit analysis. However, annexation for commercial does provide more than a one-time expense, because commercial real estate personal property and real estate taxes is higher than residential taxes. And that's an ongoing payment. So to say that provides no long term benefit to the town is also another false statement. Because if we were to add more commercial structures into the town, where we could tax them and allow those commercial structures would have some personal property that goes along with them, which is also taxable, that is more tax revenue to the town, which takes some of the burden again off the household. So that wasn't 100% accurate either in the presentation. I'll see what I'm going to do. I apologize. I just got this tonight, so I don't have a chance to look over. So the one thing I think that's really missing out of this entire plan is there is no plan. This is just describing a one time budget. It shows nothing for the future. What happens after next year? What happens after this year? What happens after next year? There's no plan in this presentation. You're just saying in your presentation, this is what we want to do this year, but you don't provide any long term or even short term, you know, beyond one year. What's next? we just gonna continue to pull out of the general fund? What if we do hit a bad streak in a year or two and the meals tax drops drastically? Our first property goes down drastically. We can't keep the pleading, can't count on the meals tax to continue to cover that. We can count on property tax to cover that. So what is the plan? What is that plan? And that is a question, because I mean, you did provide this presentation, but it is missing the key component of a true plan beyond this coming budget year. So I'd be really interested to know what that next step is, what that next plan moving forward beyond fiscal year 26 if we were to adopt the budget as you're representing and But what does 27 look like we're just gonna guess? I don't know. I'd be interested to see what your plan would be for that Okay, you've made several points and raise several questions, but I'll start with the one you ended with and that is what is the plan. We have within the General Fund reserves over and above the policy limit, we have enough to continue drawing down on the General Fund reserves for a total of three years, FY 26, 27 and 28. And unsurprisingly, we will have to adjust our strategy accordingly in year two or year three if the outbound forecast changes. But this plan is solid, stable, and predictable for three years. Also, I'd like to note that water tap fees are not attacks, and you were kind of mixing the categories there. That's different kinds of income and comes to us in different ways. I'm sorry. Can you clarify that? Because I didn't remember talking about tap fees. I was talking about how annexation doesn't provide anything. My statement was annexation can provide something if done correctly. I'm not marketing annexation, but to say that annexation doesn't provide anything. Yes, a tap fee is a one-time fee. But if we add it, we're to annex a large section of commercial buildings in. They have water usage that they pay. They also have personal property that they pay. They also have real estate they pay. So again, what are your options? Anxation was on your slide. I said the question mark. That is a possible solution that could bring in some income that offsets the burden to the average household So to say it doesn't do anything but a one-time tap fee is not accurate. It does bring Continuous revenue into the town through other mean other taxable means they go into that so I think I believe you Incorrectly inferred that I was stating outright that that was the only benefit annexation. Also, I need to note that any annexation for our comprehensive plan requires the ascent of a majority of our citizens. No, I'm just reading a thing. It says, however, adding households, of course, are result in in one time income that will eventually be depleted over time. I'm just reading a slide. I mean, if that's not what you meant, I apologize, but that's what it says, so that's the only thing I have to go on. Other questions or comments? Okay, so let's start with how long we can pull from reserves. We're transferring 1.6 million per year. At least that's what we have this year from the General Fund Reserves. 1.6 times three is 4.8. We are not 4.8 million over policy in General Fund Reserve. So your statement, we can do this for three years. Isn't the case, best case, we can do two years. And we may not even be able to do that as the IP costs come online. So we don't have three years of runway. We may be have two, maybe not even that. So just to clarify that first. Second, to Council Member Cleal's comment earlier, Percivil is not unique. Round Hill is facing water-rate hikes of 19.19%, 19.8%, 19.8%, 11.5%, 10.8%, and 10.3% from FY24 through FY28. So this is, we're not unique in this regard. Third question. On council member Rainer's presentation, Mayor, I noted you corrected her and stated that the rate modeling from last year is irrelevant because the IP costs have gone up. So to say that last year's rate modeling wouldn't cover CIP costs because they've increased. Did I hear that correctly? That's correct. the CIP costs have changed for the current year. So water A and sewer A, the first two models that Stantec presented. Were there for reference, they could not be considered to be reflective of anything that Stantec was recommending. Sure. So if those rate scenarios are insufficient now, because CIP costs have increased, why do you think now we can decrease utility rates in the face of rising CIP costs? Thank you. Well, thank you for pointing that out, because as I already noted, the second scenario that was presented, which was Water B, was among the least favorable of the eight that Stantec put together for this town council. I wasn't referencing scenario B. I was referencing scenario A, which you told council member reiner was irrelevant because it was insufficient. So instead of raising by the 18 and 22, I believe that we're recommended last year for FY 26, you're proposing cuts of 9 and 11 because the IP costs have increased. They have increased in the long term. So in FY 26, they have an increase. Sure. But it's only there for reference because we've moved on a year. Our view of what CIP costs are going to be in FY28, 29 and 30 have considerably increased. So it's an unsustainable model. If you look at the second part of those slides for the scenario A, which is last year's scenario, you realize that we very, very quickly run out of reserves in both water and sewer. Right, because the IP costs are increasing over the longer term. Correct. So a decrease in utility rates this year only necessitates an even more drastic rate increase through to five years from. But again, it is deceptive to present only two, and in fact only one valid for FY26 and beyond scenario from STANTECH. The other scenarios were much more favorable. Yeah, the ones that involved getting rid of the police department. That is simply incorrect. They did not forecast this based on getting rid of the police department. They forecasted it on costs within the utility funds, the enterprise utility funds of which there are two. Okay. The eight scenarios that many of what you're describing is more attractive than scenario B. Many of them involved cost-cutting measures that would have stemmed from eliminating the police department, or other measures, such as transferring the meals tax on 100%, 50%, 83% basis, what have you for recurring years, which as I pointed out earlier, and you yourself said, we can only do for three years, I think it's too and probably less. So those scenarios, I would argue, are completely irrelevant. I absolutely failed to understand your point. You are claiming that there are costs or there are costs in the stand-tech scenarios that are reflective of eliminating the police department. How is that true? I'll go pull them up and you can come back to me. There are significant cost-cutting measures in all of those scenarios, or recurring meal tax transfer in those scenarios. Let's even, I'll put the PD on the shelf. Meal's tax transfer is a recurring theme in those scenarios. Let's even, I'll put the PD on the shelf. Recurring Meals Tax Transfer is a recurring theme in those scenarios. We cannot do that from the General Fund Reserves as you're proposing that we do this year for more than two years, and maybe not even that. It is not sustainable. And as we've just discussed on the CIP, rate decreases this year will necessitate even more drastic rate increases 3, 5, 7, 10, 15 years from now. So I fail to understand, again, as I said earlier in my comments, we can discuss cuts, we can discuss one time transfer of meals tax, we want to use it to pay for CIP, so we don't have to take on debt, let's have all those conversations, let's ask finance. But every single action this council takes has to be taken in the context of achieving long-term sustainable structural balance. And cutting rates this year does not move us closer to structural balance. It moves us further away from structural balance. And as things continue to get more expensive over the coming years, we can cut 9% this year. We can cut 50% this year. It doesn't matter. Any rate cuts will just be added to future rate hikes. It's numbers. Let's go back to your earlier statement about significant cost cuts in the other scenarios. What exactly are they that they're not present in scenario B or A? Go to Kevin. So I'll back it up just a specific. In order to continue to take meals tax out of the general fund and move it to the utility fund. We'd have to offset that loss in general fund to be able to sustain the sustainable, continue to do that. So the cost savings would have to be in the general fund, i.e., the elimination of the police force by $3.2 million a year would offset that moving of the meals tax year after year after year So it wouldn't continue to deplete the general reserves The general fund reserves And I just I'm not correct. Yeah, and this point and just this point as I put that chart is you call irrelevant as a Reference because all the other scenarios run included the meals tax and other scenarios. This was the only one that showed what we had previously done last year to get us towards structural balance and showing what true rate increases would do. So it was for reference relevant or not. We had no other model run this year because you directed them to do it without consulting all seven of us so we didn't get to choose what we wanted them to run. Here and I found it. From stand-tox presentation, WaterB involves a three year 50% meal tax transfer, which we can't do because 1.6 times three is four point eight which is more than we have in general fund reserves. WaterB2, same thing, 3-year, 50 percent meals tax transfer. Water G results with 83 percent meals tax recurring, not just 3 years recurring 83 percent meals tax, which is a lot more than 1.6 million dollars, so we might give one year out of that. G2 recurring 83% meals tax. G3 recurring 50% meals tax. H recurring 83% meals tax. H2 recurring 83% meals. H3 recurring 50% meals tax. In all of these scenarios, we are transferring an unsustainable level of funding out of the general fund and into the enterprise funds. We can do it for maximum two years, most of these less than that. Without other drastic cuts to the services the town provides to the residents, whether that be the police department or elsewhere. That is what I'm referring to. And that is the challenge that I'm putting before the town manager. So if he can come up with a solution that is sustainable, wonderful. If he cannot, then he'll come back to us with something in between. Okay, Mr. Mayor, I do have a question. We've been sitting here at RISM May 13th. We need to have this done and dusted in a month to get all everything through. What's been happening last three weeks? I don't believe for a second you haven't discussed it with him, your presentation. I don't understand if the town manager at the Honours is on you to do all these cuts, why aren't you here with it today because this was supposed to be our budget work session that we had scheduled weeks ago. So what are we waiting for? This This is just more delays that is putting closer to a deadline that is going to get us in a lot of trouble if we don't meet. Like what are we doing here? So the management team and the people of Percival are waiting for a direction from the town council. You need to provide us a direction. This town manager and staff presented a budget on March the 19th. And I did hear a statement that indicates that somehow that 83% was not shared by anyone. And council member Stout would all do respect. You folks have had that number, that 83% number from the static figures that were shared with you over a month ago. You just stated that 83%. So they haven't been any hidden chamber of the mayor and this town manager discussing that 83%. That was already shared with you folks. But to answer your question, council member Rainner, the decision myself and staff worked a lot, even while I was on vacation, to present to you all a budget. And we presented that budget to you, and now is your direction to say, year or knee, or somehow come to agreement as to what the delta or change in that budget should be. Wait, so the mayor just said it's on you to find a solution, but you're saying any direction from council because that's not leadership You need to request the floor I still have the floor. Well, I don't believe that for a second because you should have anticipated Councilmember Rainer. I had the floor. I still had the floor I I'm just incredibly disappointed. Our poor finance team, how many hours of overtime have you had? There's over 300 hours of overtime trying to do all the different chaotic situations. We've thrown at them in the last few months. And now we have this, you're coming out of saying we need to find 1.6, three weeks out, really, before we need this all done in Dustin said, town manager, it's your job to find it. And then he's going to come back up a little bit. This you're coming out of saying we need to find 1.6 Three weeks out really before we need this hold on in Dustin said town manager It's your job to find it and6 Three weeks out really before we need this hold on in Dustin said town manager It's your job to find it and then he's gonna come back at the last second with all these staff reduction costs that I still have the list And for me that I asked for last week that we still haven't discussed yet This is just unacceptable. This has been so Disorganized and I just don't accept that this is This is going to happen in time and this is just really bad policy. You throwing each other back and forth saying it's your job, your job. No, this is this is going to happen in time and this is just really bad policy you throwing each other back and Forcing it's your job your job. No, this is not okay Council member right so I will agree with the town manager for a piece of what he said it's not his job job to determine what gets cut and what doesn't. That's our job. That's what these people elect us to do. We direct him on and staff. This is what the level of service is. We want, and this is how much we're willing to pay for it. You cut this, you keep this, you cut this. The town manager and town staff does not determine what services get cut. That's this body's job. So to put it back on the town manager, say, hey, figure out how to make this system work with this amount of money. That I'm sorry mayor, that's not how it works. That's not how government works. That's not how elected bodies work. This body's purpose is to manage the budget to direct staff on how to spend that money and where we want it spent. So we can't look at the town manager and say, hey, tell us how we can get to this number. That's not how it's done. We got to put on our big boy pants. We have to use some realistic math, not some fuzzy math, and say this is what we approve, and this is what we don't make your work. So do not sit here and say, it's up to you. Woo, so, I'm betting this up. I'll do the same thing. It's not up to the town manager to come back and say, hey, try this, try this. As you said, he presented the budget. He gave us budget. We are supposed to work through that budget and say, yay or nay, yay or nay, in adopt the final end of it. So please don't discard our responsibility as elected officials to do our job, because that's what was supposed to be done. Wow. I'm actually take back the floor. I loaned it to Kevin when I couldn't find the utility models. And then Aaron stole it, but I'll forgive for that. I think the key, I mentioned it before, sustainability. Cuts, one-time transfers, whatever you want to talk about. We can discuss all of those things, but it has to be sustainable. And this rate cut this year knowing full well that we just need bigger rate hikes in the future is just a bait and switch. It's a bait and switch on residents. Oh, my water rate went down. That's great. Two years from now, what the heck? I mean, I would be upset if I were a resident. If I say what do you want me to do? Cut this year and then increase it way more two years from now or just do two steady increases. I know what would be easier to plan for in my budget for my family. 52% of the town doesn't pay tax revenue to. Oh. 52% of the town doesn't pay tax revenue. I'll accept that figure with Kevin's caveat. The only revenue we generate from those properties that you mentioned are in fact utility rates. And it's interesting because we hear a lot of conversations, I've heard a lot of conversation from four members of this council about how we don't get enough money from the county. Well you know what the county gives us a ton of money for? Water in the schools. Okay and not only do they use a ton of water in the schools, they pay at a higher rate because we have a tiered system. So they pay more per gallon than I do in my house. And the most of us pay in our houses, which means that when we raise utility rates, we are generating more revenue from the county than we are levying against residents. That's how a tiered system works. And so we're subsidizing these organizations. These organizations that you mentioned here, the schools, the churches, the community center, the municipal buildings. If you choose to use tax revenue to subsidize the enterprise funds, you are getting revenue that comes exclusively from residents and businesses and using it to subsidize the county. The very organization that you say you want to get more revenue from. It's completely backwards. You are burdening the residents. You are putting a greater burden on the residents if you subsidize enterprise funds with tax revenue because schools don't pay taxes that are on the pay you wanted to respond to that. Well, we've already heard the town manager explain to us that he is looking for direction from the town council. So I put it to you, council member, reiner, you council member stout and you council member right what direction do you propose? I mean, I only have two left and then I'll yield the floor for Air and Airkeven. I love the slide about business growth hugely important, increasing the commercial tax pay through infill development, redevelopment, revitalization. That's great. I love to see that in that presentation. I think we should be supporting that. I find it a little hypocritical that we're saying that's the solution in firing our economic development advisor at the same time. Yes. You are eliminating the position, council member. You are proposing the elimination of the economic development advisor within the town He has a job that you're proposing eliminating the FY 26 budget. How is that not firing? So it's a little contradictory to say that the solution is in fill development and increasing the commercial tax base Which I would agree with and then say you're going to scrap Virginia Main Street and get rid of the economic development advisor position. It doesn't make any sense. It's contradictory and hypocritical. And last one, and then I'll give it to other people. Again, transfers, 1.6 million, 83% 100%, whatever we want to do. Let's talk about what might be inappropriate use of that money. Let's talk about how maybe we could use that for CIP so we don't have to take on debt because it's a heck of a lot cheaper to pay for something outright than to take on debt for it and pay interest over the life of the loan. So let's discuss all of that. But again, if you're looking at us for any sort of proposal. Do that in the context of utility rate changes that move us closer to structural balance over the long term. May I have the floor for a minute? Yes, town manager. There was a statement made about eliminating the economic development position. I do not see that in the mayor's proposal. Yes, you do. It's right here. Well, it's not in the mayor's proposal, but it's in your proposal. Exactly. It's not in the mayor's proposal. Right? So the reason I bring that up is staff made a determination internally to look at positions that potentially we may want to freeze. The only position that was frozen in my budget that I presented to you were the four police department positions that for years they were not filled. Plus the one hydrolysis position. Those were the only position frozen in the budget that was presented to you. In addition to that, the information you see from the planning staff perspective, myself and my senior leadership determine that those are positions that once the manager of planning does a position that he retired and then we had another position where this individual is resigning and we are looking to not backfill those positions. So those three positions including the consultant for planning, those are proposal from myself and staff. Those were all internal. That did not come from the mayor. Correct. So I just want to correct that for the record. All right, Mr. Mayor. Last but at the apple, please. You can't limit how many times we talk, actually. I can't. I'm sure you heard the meeting. First of all, I don't believe that was actually your department head of planning would ever agree to that. In fact, she was distraught over these. You told her that's what you were planning on proposing. So let's not go there. I mean, not fill back filling. Let's talk about long-term ramifications of not back filling three key positions in our planning organization. By the way, we are understaffed in our planning. For town size, we are understaffed in our planning departments. If you look at operational studies, per 1,000 people, what are planning departments look like? So you're planning without even talking about the economic development position, cutting 40% of the department. So not hiring the planning manager. So the person that has oversight oversight plan reviews, customer service permitting, oversight of that admin functions as preparing quarterly and annual reports. They liaison to the BZA research assignments on planning projects or issues. Now without that planning manager, that workload will be added to summer and Jordan. Slowing down productivity and operational effectiveness and service to the town. Right now we're also going into our ability to service the five year comp plan and scope of work and will be reduced due to staff capabilities. And how are they supposed to take on that burden without a planning I'm not done. I'm planning manager. Next we have the permitting compliance department. So we had Brian and he's retiring. He's in charge of permitting. Looking at profits, issuing citations for violations, collecting illegal signs, inspections, answering citizen inquiries, data entry and maintenance. This is a very niche job that takes someone to experience and knowledge. If summer was to take this on, it would take away from her real job and long-term range planning, slow down customer service permitting and processing, and what the mayor did write in his budget plan was to streamline the town's approval process. This completely contradicts that. And then we have the economic development position, which yes, I pushed for four years, we finally got a 0.6. We are the only town of our size that doesn't have one. Love its fill has one. Middleburg has one, both are a lot smaller than us. And they have a full time staffer, at least for his three. We talk a lot about revitalizing our downtown and supporting our commercial and businesses, but why won't we invest in our own staff to help that happen and invest in the businesses that want to work with us. Businesses won't be attracted, which he also says in the mayor's thing is we want to attract new businesses, but they won't be attracted to a community that doesn't support them or care about our streetscape or collaborate with organizations like Main Street or the PBA to help make it better. And I just can't support decimating the planning departments that's already overstretched because you know where the the burden going to lie on. It's going to go on to engineering and guess what? They don't have enough people either. And so I just cannot support any recommendations to reduce people and not backfill these open positions in that. And then the senior hydrologist, I mean, I talked to Jason and Andrea about this and what she did for us, Stacy. And she, like her experience is just unmatched, but yes, we have her on contract. But what she did for us, I don't know if it's really smart of us not to have that position funded and filled. And that's something Jason could speak to. And then naturally, of course, I am against freezing. And I know they were unfunded for this year, the four police positions. Because I think now we are at a good, great position with the new leadership of our police department with Chief Liberania and Lieutenant Holman and Camp to really, holistically, look at it and with the operational assessment coming in, how we could build it up again and really make it where it should be because they are awesome with what they have and they continue to be awesome. We are the second safest town in Virginia announced yesterday. The Washington City of the how we can get back to first. So I am against all the proposed reductions in South because we just can't afford to lose any more staff members because I heard there was even more people that resigned this week and we just can't afford to lose people. May I respond to Council Member Rayna? We'll hear the discussion. Okay, Because there were some inaccuracies stated. I recognize the town manager. Yeah. So we did not take this decision lightly. Myself, our director of HR, and our assistant town manager Sat and discussed the potential for these reduction based on not backfill in those positions. So it's either tongue console. Trust that us internally can make a decision because we know of the structure of the organization. We believe all of those positions can be observed within the Tang Managers Office and also within the planning department. You indicated a member that is doing the code enforcement. One of the proposals from us collectively was to have a younger member of the staff will be able to, we will be able to train that person to do some of those jobs. So I would not get into the details because that is, and I do not expect you folks to micromanage us, but we made that decision internally that all of those positions can be observed within the planning department and also the town manager's office. And that was a decision we made. If you want us to go in another direction, again we need a direction. Council member Wright. and this brought it down. Tell me, a one voice you're saying, you need direction from us to do something without direction. I want to budget. No, no, no. I can't do it if you change and back and forth about what the proposals are. You presented your budget. It's our job to look at it now. And for you to wait to find out what we say to do, I'm going to do it. I'm going budget. It's our job to look at it now and view the way to find out what we say to do. Duretically. Because you can keep going back and forth about what we should do, what we shouldn't do. But until you have direction from us, all you're doing is wasting time, staff's time going back. I don't need to reply. Thank you very much. I'll just state my opinion in how things should be done. So you asked Mr. Mayor what direction we should be given, we recommend giving the town manager. You open the door, this would be my direction. One, we've burnt back the meals taxed 100% back to the general front. Two, look at what we could do by moving either one, a 1.5 million of the general fund reserve over to the utility fund and what benefits that could potentially have both short and long term. Two, three, excuse me, number three, with the reduction in the tax rate from the proposed budget to what we adopted, determine if the already proposed with what current vacancies in the town, current staffing vacancies in the town, how much of that would absorb that difference between what the adoptive rate was and what his proposed rate was. And then let me know what the difference is for us to generate, figure out where to make up that difference. That would be, you ask for it, that would be my direction to the town manager. Actually, could you repeat the third one that was kind of long and involved? Yeah, so if I can let me do all three to somebody you can write second. I don't need the first two I can't remember what one two and three was so either I give you all three or I don't give you any of them I mean so number one was removing the we've worked the 100-minutes tax back to the general fund to was the Moving of either one or 1.5 million both options options, to the utility fund out of the general reserve and determine what benefits can be put, put, put, zoom from that. And number three is looking at the current open vacancy positions that the town has, not eliminating the positions, the current open vacancy positions in the town that weren't already pre-budgeted in your budget What cost savings that is? And what the difference is then between what we have to make up between the adopted rate and what was in the proposed budget? Does that make sense? Between the 19 point whatever in the 20 point To what's what's the difference. And that will give us a figure that we could look at and say, where can we make up that difference? And we'd also have to, in turn, and now that I think about, we reevaluate the reduction in the if that 1.5 1.1 point whatever million dollars 1 or 1.5 out of the general reserve to the utility fund if the Commodate y'all's campaign promises If if that would pull off the reduction in any reduced rate and the utility in the what in sewer rate are not into what extent would it be better called serves using it for some other part of the utility fund. Does that make sense to you? It makes sense. I'm a little surprised that you don't already have some of the answers to those questions. Since we have a budget spreadsheet and we have a detailed cost breakdowns from the staff, we're working on it going. We've made so many changes. I got 83% of mules's tax here got a hundred percent Meele's tax here I don't know what numbers were actually looking at it's just current rate so okay. Clarification when you're saying the proposed tax rate are you talking about the real estate tax rate are you talking about when they equalized it are you talking about Meele's tax? So we have a. We voted to move 100% of the meals tax over. We turned that money back to the general fund. The third-off thing of that was look, his proposed budget was on 20 cents, 20 point, whatever cents. Correct. We adopted a 19 point. It's a small sense. So whatever cost difference is there, that's whatever that what's that 200, 279,000. 279,000. And it increased the deficit by that line. OK, so with current job vacancies, the savings in those not filling any current openings, Not eliminating any positions, just not. What is the cost difference between the savings and those and the 279? That's 300. According to the town managers email that's 345,000 or 346,000. And cost savings for the open vacancies? Yeah, in the planning department, the 2.6 FT's in the planning department. So we have $100,000 and cost savings for the open vacancies. Yeah, in the planning department the 2.6 FT's in the planning department So we have a hundred thousand dollars surplus between that and the so the difference is about 67,000 So that's all we'd have to I have a discussion. This is the number you need. You asked for a recommendation to them. I don't need any numbers. I need that you ask for what direction should we give to the town manager. That was the recommendation. I suggest this council give to the town manager is to do those things. And what specific prior votes would you have to- We do. We'd have to redo the moving of the meals tax, 100% of the meals tax, we'd have to redo that vote. We have to do it anyways? And then we'd have to potentially, depending on what comes out of that, what possibilities that 1.5 million out of the general fund reserves could do to the utility rate, we would have to potentially look at what reduction, if any, we could make to the utility cost. Great, excuse me. But we won't know that until we have that figure back. But I do not want to have staff do all this work if the four of you are not even interested in considering those because then it's just again a waste of staff time. So either you're truly and openly and honestly willing to look at that if you're not just say so and continue down this road to long. And not burden staff with doing more work, that's just going to go to waste. I'm not. I'm sorry to J. Tana. First, I'm going to Jay, comment. Well, I would echo, I think you said you're not for it. I would not be for that either. What I'm willing to do is revisit the Meals Tax allocation from 100% to the, I said 83.6%. That would put us in line with being able to put forth a budget as the mayor is outlined. And then that would again, to your point, that would put the onus on the town manager to come up with that million plus. It's not his job to come up with the main plus. It's our job. Well, this is a collaborative effort. We're giving them the first bite of the apple. Why are we up here? Why are we getting $5,000 a year to set up here? Did you give a motion? I have a motion. I have a motion. I move that we set the FY26 budget line item for town council boards and commission salaries to zero. That will save us $80,000 a year and that is our point six. That is our economic development director. That is put towards something to save one of our positions that you want to get rid of or freeze. I heard that. Councilmember Stout, how do you vote on the motion on the table? To set to zero. I vote yes. Councilmember Colliel, how do you vote on the motion on the table. In light of a $1.6 million deficit, that's peanuts. I vote no. Councillor Member Luke, how do you vote on the motion on the table? No. Vice Mayor Net, how do you vote? No. Councillor Member Wright, how do you vote? Yes. Council member Reiner, how do you vote? Yes, and let it be known that they care more about making their money than our staff and the citizens of this town. And Mayor votes yes for the excuse me Mayor votes yes. All right. Are these the only motions? That's, Mayor, if I may, to council member Wright's point, you pointed out that he didn't have the numbers. motions. Mayor, if I may, to council member rights point, you pointed out that he didn't have the numbers in front of him, but I think he makes a very helpful counterpoint. It is a waste of all seven of our time and staff time to come up with any sort of detailed solution if four members of this body aren't going to support it. How is the facility? Do you support lowering utility rates for our residents? No, because it's just going to necessitate more dramatic rate increases five years from now. That's what I was saying 30 minutes ago. Every action we take now has to move to structural balance. I'm just asking because your wife has been addressing this council every single meeting mocking us for not raising I agree, but I'm asking the councilman because of the relationship. I do not support lowering utility rates because it will necessitate more dramatic rate increases in the future. It's a really dear response. Yes. I move that the water reserves be left at their current level of 88% do I hear a second? Wait, Hank, what? I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Can you repeat that? I move that the water reserves be left at their current level of 88%, which negates part of a prior council vote. That's what I asked about her. I would second that. Point of order. Point of order. I don't think that's the way you go about reverting a previously adopted. Am I wrong? Well, you need to move to rescind the prior vote. I mean, it can be done since all of you were here. It can be done by simply majority though. Supermajority. Simple, simple majority. No. What I'm saying is, all it's been proposed right now is a motion to do a 38%. We haven't rescinded the previous adopt. I mean, in terms of a form of motion, wanna rescind the previous vote. I can't remember what the exact wording of the prior motion. Well, I don't have it in front of me, but you need to rescind the prior vote setting 100, usually 100% of the meals tax rate and setting it to whatever other figure you want, 80. So in other words, the motion you presented may or is not correct, they will not work. Excuse me. I was even about- Mr. Cafferke, we're not talking about the meals tax. We're talking about a motion that directed replenishment of reserves on the water side to 100% and on the waste water side to 75%. It's not a physical policy. It's not a physical policy. It's not a physical policy. It's not a firm. It's not a firm. It's not a physical policy. It's not a firm. It's not a firm. It's not a physical policy. It's not a firm. It's not a firm. It's not a firm. It's not a firm. It's not a firm. It's not firm, it's gone, it's got fiscal policy, it's just a criminal policy. Okay, but it was subject to vote. But the principal will be the same. You need to, if you had a prior council vote with those numbers, you need to move to rescind that and, you know, and make an affirmative vote for whatever the new numbers you want to be. want to be. Very good. Then I move to rescind the part town council vote that directed that water reserves be increased to the 100% level and excuse me that water reserves be increased to the 100% level. Increased to the 100% level and excuse me that the water reserves be Yes, increased to the 100% level and that waste water reserves be increased to the 75% level Do I hear a second? second Yeah, that's true. It's not it. No discussion, but? I just am baffled that the four of you think you're smarter than our finance staff and our all our consultants. I mean, you two of you have been on for four years and then plus and two of you are brand new and I'm just baffled that in four years we've been told the same thing over and over again. You have to do the right thing in the utility fund and you are just collectively undoing all of it and you're creating a new problem. Yes, you're setting new fund, you're setting the water fund at 100% for the fiscal policy, 75% for the waste water. But you're creating a new problem in a giant hole in our general fund that we didn't have and don't need to have. I just don't understand why you think this is a good idea. It's not hard to do the right thing and to steer the ship right. It's really not hard. We've been told for years. Our lovely finance staff have told us what to do for years. I just don't understand why you can't listen to them. Council member right. Okay. Council member Stout. I, I, ask what is the long-term sustainable plan. Everything we're talking about right now whatever the reserves are today, tomorrow next week. What are they in three to five to ten years and longer? It's myopic. So it's 88, 175% doesn't really matter today. Because unless we are moving towards structural balance in the enterprise funds on a long enough time horizon, they will go bankrupt. So I don't see a sustainable plan here. And I'm glad you're talking about revitalization and economic development. I think that's very healthy for the town. So let's pursue that. But as I read from Round Hills report earlier, efficiencies and operations and additional sources of funding, EG economic development must be pursued, but neither can produce predictable outcomes. So their impact on rates should be after they have been realized, not anticipatory. So to cut rates in anticipation of increased revenue, number one is irresponsible. But number two, again, it is only going to necessitate more dramatic rate increases in the future. I'm anyone. I welcome any of the five of you to explain how this proposition is sustainable over a longer time horizon. Because all I'm hearing about is things that will solve this year, maybe next year. But how are we planning for 3, 5, 10 years from now? Vice mayor. I support the motion. No, that I don't answer. Thank you. I am legitimate. This is not politics. This is the future of our town. I'm asking a legitimate question. Someone please explain it to me because I just don't get it. I'm going to support of Stantex recommendations to this town council. They recommended that we increase the level of our reserves in wastewater and that water be at a minimum of 75 percent. It is in fact at 88 percent. This motion on the table will bring us in alignment with their recommendations. This motion is the equivalent of fixing the coffee maker on your boat when there's a huge hole in the hole. It's, again, it's myopic, until structural balance, until we are moving towards structural balance, anything else that we fix, whether it's reserves, whether it's an accordance with stand-tech recommendations or not, does not move us towards structural balance. So fix the coffee maker. The boat's still going to sink. What is the sustainable plan? We're moving on. Council member Colleen. It looks round. Do you know any discussion? You're probably here. I don't think we can get away from not continuing to transfer meals tax into the utility fund. I think that's a- I don't think we can get away from not using the Meals tax. We have a unique situation and even though Round Hill has a situation, two wrongs don't make a right. We have a unique situation here where we have to get rid of the burden of the high utility bills. You can have, I spoke with someone the other day who had a $600 bill last month. Do you know what that bill is going to be in three years? No. Okay. Anyway, we can't get away from the mail's tax and we have to do 1.6 million in cuts and keep it down keep it lean going forward. This is time for council discussion and questions. The long term solution is a recurring transfer of $1.6 million worth of meals tax out of the general fund to the enterprise funds which is going to be supported by $1.6 million worth of cuts in the general fund. Is that what I'm understanding the long term plan is? The long term plan is to continue to find efficiencies in the general fund and in the utility funds in order to provide for stability in the enterprise utility funds. Stability in enterprise utility funds is gradual, projected rate increases to handle inflation. That's stability. Stability does not mean your water bill stays the same today because 10, 20 years from now, it's going to cost the town a lot more to provide water and sewer services to the residents. So is that what you mean by stability? Okay. I think we're ready for a vote on the motion. Actually, we've gone around once. Actually, I came up with a question in the meantime. So one, right now, the motion is to rescind those. That's it. We're just rescinding a previous motion. That's it. Correct. Previous vote. Previous Excuse me. It's not all the room. Okay. Just want to confirm that's all this is. It's be sending. Yes. That's it correct previous vote previous vote. Yes, excuse me Okay, just just want to confirm that's all this is is be sending All right, let me let me restate the motion I Move to rescind the prior town council vote which directed that water reserves be increased to 100% and that wastewater reserves be increased to the 75% level. I'll second. Again, if I may, I wasn't here. We're rescinding an action that lowered them, so we are raising. We're sending an action that raised them, so we're changing policy so that we can have less money in our enterprise fund reserves. to clarify, the fiscal policy was 100% for both water and wastewater is how it stands right now or how it stood when we wrote the budget. So he's talking about rescending the vote that was taken on April 8th, I believe. Which lowered? Did it lower policy on April 8th when I was and did not lower the policy level. Oh it lowered the actual cash reserves. No it increased the cash reserves. Increased the cash reserves so you're no. No it decreased the cash reserve target in the sewer fund from 100% to 75% the way I I understand. No, that is not correct. First standstand tech. The wastewater reserves were at 62% I believe. So the motion was to increase the wastewater reserve levels from 62% 75%, which Stantec stated was an acceptable policy level should this town council in the long term decided to move in that direction and to increase the water reserves to 100% of the current policy level. I apologize. That's not how I understood that motion when it was first read in. I understood it. So those reserve levels are just fiscal policy targets. It's unusual to change a budget in a way that you're working to a bottom line that is a, not even a bottom line, just a piece of the budget that comes out of that. So I'm just kind of confused at how we can make that happen as budget guidance. It's more fiscal policy guidance is the way we look at that. And again, they're just targets. In every single budget, and you've got a lot of different variables flowing through there. Your result is your result. It's very difficult to work to that result, I guess is what I'm saying. Mayor, if I can ask a question because if I remember the vote correctly, when they moved to increase the vote was taken to increase the meal's tax to 100% beyond the 50. That was the same time this vote was taken to increase to adjust those from 100 to 100 in the same tech. Did that change that extra money out of the coming from the mill's tax accomplish those numbers at 100%. It did. I'll take finances forward forward first I thought that it achieved it by doing the meals tax transfer it got it to the levels at 100% For water, but not waste water Are you sure I'm gonna have to look though and double check it, but that we'll need to verify that Again, that's usually when you look at budget, changes you're looking for changes in the budget. Your reserve level is just what comes out at the end. And remember, we transferred reserves for the Rev I C I P as well. So there's a lot of moving parts here. Again, it's unusual to direct us to change the budget in a way that it gets to a policy number. So what are we doing is vote it all. If it's just a fiscal policy, what difference does it make what number we give right now? To clarify, from my presentation, I have assigned a cost to increasing the wastewater reserves to 75%. That cost is $466,760. In order to achieve that, which is in alignment, not with a specific policy level, but with an alignment with General Guidance from Stantach, I have to first rescind, or we as a council, have to first rescind the prior vote which was in a somewhat different direction and then separately direct that the wastewater reserves be replenished to 75% to which there is a specific cost attached. To achieve. Yes, so basically, so I understand this, what would instead of just moving a dollar amount over, you're saying, pick a dollar amount that matches 75% and move that over, correct? Is that what the purpose of this percentage is? Because if reality, if percentage is nothing but a fiscal policy, it doesn't matter how much money we move in there. One, St. text doesn't set what we have to, they just give recommendations. So our fiscal policy in the budget, if fact, budget proposal was about 100%. It's just an arbitrary number that we hope to achieve. Correct? Correct. So why not just? No, can I just cut to the chase here. Referencing the slide in front of you. I understand that. There are specific costs associated with the water and wastewater reductions by 9 and 11%. Wastewater reserves replenishment to 75%. Increasing the merit pay range for the staff within the water and wastewater funds. And all of those total $1.181 million. And that is, we increase the total ask from an initial 50% to 83.6% transfer. I understand the transfer, I understand the money. What I'm not gathering here is what difference the percentage makes in any of this, because you're moving the money no matter what the percentage is. Correct? You have a set dollar for you right there. What difference doesn't make what the percentage is from a fiscal policy, very fiscal policy? What differences that make? If we either over or under that number, they're unrelated. Then so the motion then don't point to that if they're unrelated. Tell me why we're doing what difference does setting the percentage due to the budget at all? Mr. Mayor, just to make you feel that you think you've stabilized the utility fund, but you're decimating the general fund at the same time. So you're making one look good to make the other one look bad. It doesn't make any fiscal sense. Even Liz is sitting there confused why you're even going at a policy level. I'm assigning a dollar value to the policy level. The policy level is only for reference. Any more clarification? I would request that we have time to verify these numbers because we aren't fully aligning with these numbers and it could just be confusion on our part. But again, once we understand this a little bit more. For instance, the one thing that we wonder about is, is the general fund deficit is actually something every 3 million correct. And I think what you're saying is, we're willing to take, or you're willing to take, 1.6 million from reserves, if we find the difference in cuts. Is that correct? Just want to understand the philosophy of this. That is correct. So I'm willing to take this year 1.6 million from the General Fund reserves which are over the policy limit. And if the town can find 1.6 million in cuts, which are not inclusive of some of the figures that were in the town manager's email from I believe that was Friday. Yes, Senator Towne Council of 3 34555341 And I think Linda just would like to verify some of those numbers because we're having difficulty just coming back to that exact number It's it very well be correct So I think what would help us tonight if we understood what changes you'd like to see to the budget itself. Or if you want to, Linda is also able to run some scenarios if you'd like to see how that changes the bottom line. For example, if it was 100% meals tax, the general fund deficit for the year becomes 3.6 million instead of 3 million. And I put in council member rights scenarios too to come up with what those are pluses and deficits began. So I could do that for each of those if I understood what the request was. And we are making the request by a motion that's on the table with the town council. So that will tell you the dollar amounts that we're discussing for changes to the budget. And you can verify those on the side. Not with the reserve level, the 75%, that's backing into something else. I'm just talking about what I did for the high level model was I could tell you your new surplus or deficit based upon changes. For example, with 345,000. If you wanted that to become a line item and you did the vote, I could put that in the scenario. Because it starts with the proposed budget. It walks all the changes I've known to date. Okay. Then we're talking about the meals tax revenue again. It depends what scenario you want me to run. You want me to run one for each of you. Do you want to agree with a swap hold boat and then I put those in. The examples would be things like the 354,000 or 345, whatever it was for the personnel. If you agree to that, I'll just plug that number and here it's by fund. I'll tell you the news or plus or deficit. And if you don't want to 9 and 11% change, you want to took it down 5% and 5% I could plug that in. If you... I can plug that in. I think the fastest way to get clarity for the staff is to to rescind the motion made at the April 8th town council meeting that 100% of the meals tax revenue collected by the town be allocated by policy effective July 1 2025 to the enterprise utility fund and replace it with a motion that 83.6% or $1,181,292 additional over and above the 50% level be allocated to the utility enterprise fund effective July 1, 2025. So just to clarify, those are two motions, right? One to rescind the 100% and then a second motion to add 83. Yeah, point of order. You can't meals tax revenue collected by the town, allocated by policy, effective July 1, 2025 to the utility enterprise fund. Do I hear a second? I want to rescind it. Point of order. Point of order here. We had a motion. We had a second on the floor. You've done change the motion to something totally different in second. We need to either you pull back your original motion and then start from scratch. We won't have to run it if you'd like me to because I'm going to run it. I table my previous motion. I didn't hear you table it. So let me repeat. I move that the town council rescind the motion of April 8th, 2025, which directed the 100% of the meal stacks revenue collected by the town be allocated by policy effective July 1, 2025 to the utility enterprise fund. Do I hear a second? Yes, you do. I'll second that. Okay. Council member Rainer, how do you vote? Yes. Council member Wright, how do you vote? Yes. Vice mayor, how do you vote? Yes. Council member Luke, how do you vote? Yes. Council member Khalil, how do you vote? Yes. Council member Stout, how do you vote? Yes. Mayor votes yes. That's just wrong, but we don't follow that. I now move that, Councillor Direct, that I now move that 83.6% of the meals tax revenue collected by the town be allocated by policy effective July 1, 2025 to the utility enterprise fund. Second. Council members, stout, how do you vote? Are we gonna discuss? 83% that's 2.6 83.6 83.6 I apologize 2.67 million I'm still playing catch up forgive me I Just read it against 3.2. I'm not sure if that's the most accurate number. Do you have a preference on how you want it split water versus wastewater? Or do you want to stop demise it? What was the second part of what you said? Or do you want us to optimize it? What was the second part of what you said? Or do you want us to just take a look at it and optimize it when we look at what the surplus and deficit fall out to be? Optimize. Okay. Thank you. And is that, am I right? Is it 2.6 million? I'm not saying that what is the original number? Or if anyone up here has it, I just did the math on my phone. 3 5 1 7 2 2 7 is the full amount. Just one. Yeah,940. I get $2,940. I get $2,940. I get $2,940. I get $2,940. I get $2,940. I get $2,940. I get $2,940. I get $2,940. I get $2,940. I get $2,940. I get $2,940. I get 2,940 401. Roughly, after I got your 3.5 number, I used 3.2 the first time. So 3.517227. 2,940,000 to be transferred on a recurring basis from the general fund. To the enterprise fund, is that the motion? Is that yes? Not on a recurring basis. By policy. The motion is stipulated by policy, which means that on a recurring basis, policy. You say the policy? Motion stipulated by policy, which means that on a recurring basis, you're going to transfer $2.9 million from general enterprise, which means that we can now only do this for one year because we only have 4 million over policy in general fund reserves. But it'd be clear it's a percentage, not a set dollar amounts that it could change here. So now instead of 1.6 million in cuts, we need to find 2.9. No. I have to find out why I'm referring to it as a percentage because it can change year over year. It's still going to be several millions of dollars, which we don't have over policy and our general fund reserves except for one year's worth. We're four million over policy and general fund reserves. This is going to deplete it by 2.9. Unless there's 2.9 million dollars worth of cuts that I'm unaware of. No, the figure $2.9 million is the amount of meals tax transfer that by policy we wish to place into the enterprise utility fund. Right. It's on a recurring basis, but it's only loosely linked to the general fund reserves. Well, the question I have is where's this 2.9 coming from? Is it coming from general fund reserves? Are we making $2.9 million worth of cuts? It's coming from revenue. It's not in the reserves until we get it as revenue. without cuts this motion creates a 2.94 million dollar hole in the general fund so my question is how are we making that up in the general fund budget? Is it via cuts or transfers from general fund reserves? Because it has to come from somewhere. It's both. And how much of each is it? Can we just finish with emotion? It's on the table. We've already discussed this. Walk through it in detail. No, we're on there. Did I see 2.9 million? So it's not clear to me where this 2.9 million is coming from 2.9 million is And I understand that's just this year but talking about this year 2.9 million is 83.6% of the meals tax revenue projected for this year, which is $3.517 million. Correct. Okay. I got that. Why do you win? Thank you for confirming what he said. That's what I just said. The question is, where is that coming from? Because it's being pulled from the general fund budget to the utility funds. It's coming from the general fund. It's going to the enterprise utility funds. to make up what will then be a $2.94 million deficit in the general fund budget, are we enacting $2.9 million of cuts or transferring $2.9 million from reserves? You said both, so- No, no. Yes, you did. It will be partially funded by money from the general fund reserves, which are right now well in excess of the fiscal policy limit for that fund. And partially. from the general fund reserves, which are right now well in excess of the fiscal policy limit for that fund and partially funded by cuts. And how much of each is that what the 1.6 is? 1.6 million for cuts and 1.3 then from reserves. Or thereabouts. Because 2.9 minus 1.6 is 1.3. That's not how the math works because there's also equalized tax rate to account for increases in merit pay for the employees both in the general fund and in the water and waste water funds. And water wastewater reductions 9 and 11 percent. So it's more from reserves than 1.3. 3.1.6, which is what was in the town manager's original proposed budget from March? No, because since then we've cut water race voice water rates by 9 and 11, which is 660,000, along with all these other cuts. And addition, the rate. I'm sorry. I've already answered your question. No, you have not Mr. Mayor. You have not even your finance department is saying these numbers don't make any sense to us. I'm a pretty smart guy, but I am not following this train of thought at all. I don't see any numbers that add up and it is still unclear to me. Go from the slide and you can add them up. I did. I found it. It does not. And nowhere does that reach $2.9 million. So it's not 1.6 from General Fund Reserves. It is much, much more than that. And that's what I'm trying to understand with clarity before we vote on this motion. And it would never be 2.9 million from the general funders. That. vote on this motion. And it would never be 2.9 million from the General Funders' Errors. It is 1.6 million from the General Funders' Errors. All in me so far? Yep. That was already voted in as policy. Okay. Thanks for helping them out there. I appreciate it. I'm completely lost. All yield to floor. This is a fool's errand. I'm never right. So you're stating that this is not meant to be a one-year one-time motion correct? Well, we're setting by policy so it'll be that percentage of 83.6% every year until a town council changes the policy. So then it is year after year after year, 83.6% is a percentage. Yes. So that is a reoccurring thing because you said at first it wasn't but so now it is. Okay. Because if you don't want it, if you want to be able to review this every year, my friendly amendment would be instead of pulling the 2.6 million in meals tax, that's what it was, 86.3, 2.0, whatever it is. Just moved out of general fund, if we're moving money out of the general reserve funds anyway, just use that instead of the meals tax if this is meant to be a one time thing, I'll leave the meals tax in the general fund. But if you're meant to do this year after year, it doesn't make a difference because we're going to go work either way. No, that's specifically against the recommendations of our financial advisors. But it has to be by policy. But we're not replacing it and that is detrimental. We're not replacing it. Yes. I mean, you're taking bits and pieces of what our consultant said and trying to, that's not 100% of what was stated. So I just want clarification. The vote is to make this reoccurring until we send it by a percentage of the Meal stacks at 86.3 every year until it's rescinded. Yes. Okay. Council Member Stout, how do you vote? No. Council Member Colliel, how do you vote? Yes. Council member Luke, how do you vote? Yes. Vice Mayor Net, how do you vote? Yes. Council member Wright, how do you vote? No, no, no, no. Council member Braer, how do you vote? No. And Mayor votes yes. I'll put you in order for the other. Yes, please. I move that the Council direct the town manager to find $1,624,709 in additional cuts to create a balanced budget with the changes town council has approved to date. Do I hear a second? Second. Discussion? Yes. Let's go ahead and look at that chart again. That was at the end of my presentation. The changes to the or the proposed budget. Thank you, Kimberly. The last slide. Go down to where those arrows are. Let's zoom on in on those. Utility tax rate needed to balance the budgets. That's including going with the 83% in the general 114 cent raise and then for water and wastewater 8 and 10. That's what it would take to balance our budget. I don't understand how like this is being proposed to us. Our experts are saying this. This is the town manager proposed budget to us. He's recommending this. How could you still go against these recommendations? Council member right. I find it quite cowardly that you're more than willing to make the deficit and pawn off the fix to somebody else. We should be the ones fixing the problem, the H, not pawning it off on somebody else. So be nice for us to do our job, which apparently the majority of you think our job is just to pass on the buck and kick the can, but our job is to sit up here and make the hard decisions, not the town manager, and sit here and determine what we need to do to address the cuts of the deficit in the general fund that you created. I know you're not listening to me, so I'm just wasting my voice here, but I have nothing better to do because the budget is not in any of our minds to deal with right now because we're just going to pass the buck and see what he comes up with. He presented a budget. It's right here. It came. He presented a budget. Okay? We take that and we go through it and decide, yeah, you're an A. We don't turn it back over to him and say, oh, we don't like it. Present another one. Present another one. What if we don't like what he brings to the table? We're going to say, go back and do it again. So what is the final outcome here? If he says he wants to cut stuff that you don't support, which I'm sure that won't happen, because I'm sure this conversation's going to take place on before we get presented here. But if that happens, what we're going to do, just try and say, no, we don't like that one. Go present something else. What is the end game in this? We are the ones that have to make the final determination. We are the ones that should be determining what comes out of the budget to offset the deficit, not him. He runs the operation, he runs what we give him. He doesn't say, hey, give me this, and I'll make it work. No, we give him that until we want it to go. How it's to be used, how it's to be spent. That's what this body is supposed to do. give specific direction to the town manager, what services to pride, what level to do it, and what cost to do. Give specific direction to the town manager what services deprived, what level to do it, and what costs to do it at. It's not for him to come back to us and say, eh, I'll cut these services and make it work. No. That's not how it works. In no government form, does that how that works? Vice mayor I Had just love talking to myself Council members stout Is it not the Vice Mayor? deferred Okay, so if I understand the I defer. I defer. I defer. Okay. So if I understand the motion correctly, it actually answers my previous question, which is what is the deficit we have to make up in light of the say 3.6% meal tax transfer and there's in fact 1.6 million. Is that the number that was cited in the motion? Is that the 1.624? 1624, right, right. Okay, okay. So we have to find, no, not us, our town manager, according to the motion, now has to find $1.6 million worth of cuts to our general fund budget so we can make this pipe dream work. That's what we're directing to the town manager. Town manager brought us a budget. He brought it to us two months ago. Here's actually the question. If there are $1.6 million worth of cuts to be made in the budget, why weren't they brought two months ago? And at the budget work session a few weeks after that, and at the the one after that and after one after that. It is May. It is May 13th and we have a 1.6 million dollar hole in our budget. We are walking backwards. We're starting with conclusions and working backwards to actions. The conclusion is we will achieve $1.6 million worth of cuts to our general fund budget. That's the conclusion we're starting with. And now, not only have we not provided steps to get there, started with the conclusion, no action steps to get there, we're going to pawn it off on someone else who already brought us a budget two months ago. There is not $1.6 million worth of fat to trim in this budget. We are understaffed relative to comparable municipalities in our area and in the region. The general fund is lean. That's why our reserves over there are doing pretty well. So we are starting with a foregone conclusion which is there's $1.6 million worth of cuts that we can make. So one of two things is going to happen because that's it there are not $1.6 million worth of cuts to make. So one of two things is going to happen. It's not going to not going to be there and we're just going to backstop it with reserves, which we did in the utility funds for years, which is why they're app policy and not over policy. So now we're switching to the general fund reserves and we're going to do the same thing there. And we're going to bring it down to policy in just probably two short years. Then will be at policy in all funds. I don't think that's a sustainable solution and it doesn't move us towards structural balance. Or, backed into a corner by unrealistic campaign promises, drastic measures will be taken such as eliminating the police department. And I don't know what you think the next police department is, but there just is not $1.6 million worth of cuts in our general fund. It's not there. And it is irrational to start with a conclusion and work backwards, which is what we're now doing. Not to mention what Council Member Wright said about pawning off responsibility onto the town manager. The buck stops with the seven of us, and we are letting the town down. And I don't know where $1.6 million of cuts are supposed to come from, and I don't know when, but it is May 13th. And I'll stop talking because I don't think I'm being heard anyway. Mr. Mayor, I have one more comment. I haven't gone round once. Kim, can you go back a slide? Can I? Do you have any comments? Well, we have not gone round once, please. We have not gone round once please once. We know what everyone thinks. Go down a little bit more. Pardon me. I have not yielded the floor. Excuse me, sir. Please give us your wisdom. Council member Caleon. Once again, a reality check. If any of you have ever dealt with budgets and supervisors, how many, okay, how many, how many have gotten a budget approval first submission, okay? Doesn't happen. There's always fine tuning. There's always fine tuning that happens, and that's what we're doing right now. Secondly, secondly, I voted for that gentleman at the other end. I voted for that gentleman at the other end because I felt he was more than competent of running this town. He is more than I did not expect to micromanage this gentleman and I'm not going to. And I will not micromanage the department heads because nobody knows better than the department heads where certain things can possibly be cut. I would not disrespect them and have my inexperience with finance, with engineering, with all of the departments to say that I can cut their departments. It is up to our town manager and the department heads to take a look and see where cuts can happen. That's what they're there for. Thank you. But you're finding the key to budget that you're saying is lucky. You might put everything in question. I have to remember who. I still want to get a rating. I guess what we could say is it's not a community project with you all. These people, that's right. These people will be addressing it and we will all be addressing it to come to the right conclusions. Any problem? You don't want to work with all seven of you. You don't want to work and listen to what these people are saying. Councilmember Rayner, how do you vote on the measure on the measure? No, I have one more thing to say. Let's look at this. This is, in all my conversations with our finance director, she brings back this piece of wisdom at the bottom from one of her finance conferences she's went to. That good fiscal policy at municipalities should never be working towards a line item number, but look at what is the understand the cost of the services the citizens expect and put that forth on your budget. And this budget, as presented, is decimating our general fund. Was it two years ago, Mayor Bertot, you were there, and so was Luke. We went line by line looking for this fat, this so-called fat. What did we find? We found nothing. So 1.6, yeah, we're making drastic cuts, and don't you think our department heads every year go through and see what they need and what they don't need? And have already made those cuts? Yes, they have. And we did in that line-by-line two years ago that you were present for and didn't find any fat. There is no fat. what you're going to be cutting is major services to our town, which the people have already spoken and saying, do not cut the place. And if you go after any of the other major services like cutting trash that still won't a cut it and be and you're just passing on a higher cost to the citizens but this is not the right path and our department heads have already cut the fat so to speak and there's nothing else to do. So that is really, really sad that you're putting the onus on them and you're going to put the blame on them, but this is really comes down to you're not addressing the real issue here, and you are making a bigger problem for the long term for this town. Nobody wants to worry about the issues. Let's see. Okay. here and you are making a bigger problem for the long term for this town. I need some clarification on the motion. So, and this might be from legal council and everything. So, is the town manager able to come back with recommendations to cut council and committee salivates since we've voted no one of $80,000. We voted no one so could he technically come back and say that that is part of his recommendation? I mean, you'll have the ability to approve it or not. So from the council perspective, since we've already turned that down, do we want to take that off the table for him? I need to know what, so he's not wasting his time and not on you anymore on the council. So he's not wasting his time. We've already said that we were not willing to do the salaries so do we instruct him on the part of that that's not an option because that's $80,000 of that 1.6 and he's a fine because we've already voted no. So since you voted no one so you've basically taken that off the table. This is for the council. I think that the existing vote takes it off the table. I need the direct answer. One saying no. It's a practical matter. The council has spoken on that. So in the absence of something that would suggest that that's going to be something other than an odd starter. So, from this cap from the motion then the direction ought to be to the town manager that anything that's already been voted on is off the table for his recommendations. Wait a minute, these are didn't. The mayor is saying it is off the table because you just said by virtue of vote it's off the table. So every motion that we've voted on, the direction to the town manager to come back with a 1.6 million dollar savings needs to be off the table for his recommendations. Remember, that's to you because you made the motion, not to the town attorney because he's saying one thing What's your direction? He's as his body? So he's not wasting his time and staff's time is every motion we've already voted on Off the table for him to bring as part of a call savings back That I need a verbal answer so he has a verbal answer so he knows the direction. That would be a yes. You want to stand up? So everything that's been voted on cannot be on the table. Okay. All right. Council member Rayner, how do you vote? No. Councillor Member Stout, how do you vote? No. Councillor Member Colliel, how do you vote? Yes. Vice Mayor Net, how do you vote? Yes. Council member Wright, how do you vote? Nope. Council member Luke, how do you vote? Yes. Mayor votes, yes. I move to adjourn. It's not even next on the agenda. Okay, we have a motion on the floor to go to adjournment. Councilmember Rainer, how do you go? Legally didn't you say we have to talk about the short term because we're on a deadline, even though it's informational. Yes, it's recommended. I'm there. But not necessary. I'm staff. Then we will not meet the timeline of staff. Give them a brief on item 12b. Sure. I mean, I can't. We have a motion on floor though. I'll table my motion. Okay. Councilmember Rainer, how do you vote? Table to motion. Table to motion, motion, Mr. Mayor. Okay, sorry. All right, moving on to item 12b, short term equipment rental property tax. I'm going to be very, very brief. So, apologies first that it wasn't in the staff report. It's because we scheduled for the next meeting to put it in the staff report because I didn't have an ordinance yet. I just got an ordinance from the town attorney. We will put all that package together and get it to you while in advance. The timeline right now is that we're trying to get this adopted by the end before June 30th. That is just so that we can retroactively post the tax back as an effective date of April 1st. That will allow the new business in that this tax will be applicable to to be able to file a clean quarter with the town. If we do not impose this tax it's a short-term equipment rental tax of 1%, it's basically similar to a meal tax it's consumer paid tax they collect it when they rent equipment they collect it and they have to admit it quarterly. If we do not get this done by July 1st, this second quarter will just go to the county. And then we can do this effect of July 1st. That's but we were trying to get it done for everyone's sake, the businesses and the counties and ours not to do something as you know, trying to get the fix in permanently rather than having to do this. We basically need to have This discussion you can have tonight, again, May 27th. The public hearing can't happen because of the notification requirements with a new tax. We basically need to have this discussion. You can have tonight, again, May 27th. The public hearing can't happen because of the notification requirements with a new tax that has to publish twice in paper. And then we have to have a public hearing. So the soonest we can do a public hearing is June 10th. And you could vote that night if you set aside your rules, or you can wait till the next meeting and vote. You could choose not to vote. You could choose not to put the tax in. But that's sort of the timeline. I think that's why Mayor Bertot was putting it just in front of you. I sent an email to you guys last week. You should have the quick fact sheet again at the dias tonight. So if you have any questions, you wanna ask them tonight or if you'd prefer to send them later, if there's any clarifications you need. But basically it's attacks that the business has to collect. And they're either going to have to remit it to the county or to us. If I could just add three quick things, well, one of them was what I was gonna say, it's either gonna be collected by us or by the county. The second thing is this would be a new tax for the town and it would require the super majority of two thirds, which would be five votes. And the third thing was we actually can, in our discussions with the county, the county has no objection to this. We did have to look to see whether we would be able adopting at this point in the quarter to make it retroactive to April 1st, I said four things to say. And we can indeed do that. So you'll see an effective date earlier than adoption. And the fourth thing is the draft ordinance that you'll see is basically modeled on the short term equipment rental of tax scheme. Council member Stout. Any motion for us tonight or is this just for awareness? New guys are proceeding. Just share awareness and we'll proceed and we'll go ahead and publish if it's, if I was going to say less the mayor unless you need to clarify that I need to clarify that do you not need direction from the town council in order to set the dates for the public hearing and to achieve your advertising deadlines yes we do need that and yes so I guess I to correct that. I need direction for me tonight if you want to give a motion to set the public hearing date. June 10th. June 10th is the soonest we could do it. Okay. You can push it out further, but that wouldn't change the effective date. Are there any additional questions? Can I make a motion. Please make a motion. I move that, Councillor Direct staff, to set the public hearing date for this issue on June 10th. I'll second it. Council Member Stout, how do you vote? Yes. Council Member Colliel, how do you vote? Yes. Council Member Luke, how do you vote? Yes. Mayor votes yes. Vice Mayor, how do you vote? Yes. Council Member Wright, how do you vote? Yes. And Council Member Rainer, how do you vote? Yes. Very good. Thank you. I move to adjourn. Thank you. I move to adjourn. Caleb, we respect what we just get the Virginia main street. They made their decision if they're going to do it or not. Can we please just have this vote? Oh, time machine. We have to vote to extend for 30 seconds. 30 minutes. Yeah, I'll table. Make a motion. We extend the meeting for 10 minutes. I'll second that. I don't want to be here to 11 o'clock. the the It is the last issue and we take 10 minutes and we want. It's most on the table. Second. A discussion. Second was Aaron. I would say no to the arbitrary ten minutes. It's just going to do. Do you have a friendly amendment? A friendly amendment? No. No. No. If you use the Friendly amendment, 10 minutes. I hope we drag this thing out too long. Councillor Member Rainer, how do you vote? Yes. Councillor Member Wright, how do you vote? Yes. I just want to hear how you vote. No. That is what I was saying. Councillor Mellon. Council Member Liu, how do you a little difficult. Council Member Luke, how do you vote? Yes. Council Member Colliel, how do you vote? Yes. Council Member Stout, how do you vote? Yes. Mayor votes, yes. All right. 943. Let's go. to point out that you're out of order, sir. Oh, please. Councilmember Rainer. It's not my agenda, I am. You have no comments then. You haven't even discussed or brought it up yet or introduced it. Remember, Khalil, can you start us out? Sure. Regarding Main Street. for Dingo Main Street for Jenga Main Street, these are my feelings. Perseville's fortunate to have an engaged community and a longstanding commitment to thoughtful, well-managed growth. That's why it's important to be clear about why I don't support participation in the Virginia Main Street Program. The intention of the VMS program is to boost downtown development. Joining the VMS family of towns will create for Perseville a significant amount of redundancy between the efforts of the VMS program and the efforts of our staff and town committees that are already in place. It is not wise for us to create another silo that separates the efforts of our limited human resources. Now is not the time to separate efforts. With all of the passion that has been recently demonstrated by our residents and business owners, the time is ripe for boosting up the committees we already have in place, already have in place and utilizing the resources we have spent time and tax dollars cultivating. By studying all that the VMS program has to offer and comparing it to the structure, we already have in place by way of our existing departments and committees. I have developed an entirely new appreciation for all that our town already does through all of our various committees. Our parks and recs, our arts council, our tree and environment sustainability committee, our EDAC committee to name a few. The efforts put forth by these committees have been so instrumental in drawing people to our town. We need to capitalize on the foundation we have built to date. I now call your attention to pages 199-203 of the budget that outlines the mission of the Park Simmerickicks Committee. I also call your attention to pages 185 to 187 of the budget that outlines the mission for our community development department. The redundancies between these mission statements and those of the VMS program are more than apparent. Combined, the funding in the proposed FY26 budgets for these two departments, and I will say that this was the original proposed. I'm sure it's down now, but you get the idea. Combined, the two departments. It's been budgeted $1,661,599. This amount truly demonstrates the desire our current town government has for providing our current and future residents and businesses the best environment in which to live and work. Thank you. I think we got a need more, make sure you stand up. Council Member Luke. I'm pleased at the attempts for revitalization of the 21st street and a restort downtown. Businesses like Be a Kitchen, Catacletan Distillery, and Enhance Beauty have done an amazing job breathing new life into an area through thoughtful renovations and investments. Their efforts show what's possible when business owners are committed to preserving and enhancing our small town, our small town's unique character. Nothing produces other businesses. Nothing precludes other businesses from doing the same. And we hope that all of the businesses on 21st Street will take that lead. We have the town council, our planning commission and our staff that can assist in facilitating the vision for this development, which is in line with our 2030 comprehensive plan and our zoning, which was just passed. We need to look to the planning commission to ascertain if the zoning and design characteristics correspond with our 2030 comprehensive plan. And if not how, as it down, we can assist in making sure that adequate direction is available. I think there is a lot of exciting, excitement being generated by the businesses that are working on 21st Street rehabilitation. And I think it is all a good thing and we stand on the precipice of our property owners and the town creating a beautiful and vibrant 21st Main Street. We need to work together and make our meetings concerning Main Street open to all and involve our residents and our leaders together. Oh my God. I would like to make sure that our everything we do on 21st Street and in town complies with our new zoning ordinance and the 2030 comprehensive plan. Okay. Council member Renner. Your two statements just literally outlined your complete misunderstanding around the entire program and all the falsehoods around that. What is parks and rec have to do with Virginia Main Street? In fact, half the Main Street people getting involved are on our EDAC working together. You said, oh, I hope they comply with our zoning and they all work together. This is us as the Main Street program trying to work together with you and you're just showing your unwillingness to work with the business communities. You mentioned businesses on 21st Street and Hans Beauty is sitting right here. She is the president of Virginia Main Street leading the effort trying to work with the town. She's also on EDAC trying to build this program that would get grants to help revitalization. Board members of the Virgin Main Street street are a lot of the business owners on 21st Street. I just don't understand it costs the town nothing. It's not creating redundancy. It's adding more community. It's adding more availability for us to get grants to invest in the town. But do you know what you're doing? You're creating a bigger divide now. You're showing your lack of respect and support of the business community of our historic downtown. And they are not gonna wanna work with you. They are not going to want to comply and do things or invest in our restoring of our downtown. Cause this is 12 years ago, over and over again. The town is building a wall in between the business community and the town and their unwillingness to work together. And this is just incredibly sad. I just, this is, it costs nothing. And how are we supposed to invest in economic development and read when you are firing our economic development director and overburdening our planning staff by cutting 40% of their staff Hard me you do not have the floor She had the opportunity during public business commerce Councilmember Wright She had the opportunity during public business commerce. Council member, right? I like what you all speak about. Enjoy the way you all speak out of both sides of your mouth. One side, it's costing us money because town staff, we don't want to spend town staff time, on the other side of your mouth to say, well, it can be made up by using town staff can help you do it. So either you're willing to, and that's out of your mouth, I don't want to pay the extra money to have town staff help them, the Main Street program, but on this side, oh, we got town staff that can help you in place of them. So which is it? Which is it? Yeah, secondly, in the mayor's proposal, we need to, in budget, is generate more revenue through assisting town businesses. How best to assist town businesses by saying, hey, we'll give you our name to put behind this committee. That's all we're asking for. Is the town's support, verbal support. They're not asking for a dime. They are not asking for a dime of time. All they want is the town to say we support them doing that. That's it. You can make up in your mind that there's some other alternative and money is going to be spent. It's not because, beyond this with you, the way you destroyed the budget day and a dime, do we spend anywhere else? So I wouldn't worry about any money going towards that. But, and just to think that you are sitting there and telling the town, the town businesses that, on one side, we want to support you. And on the other side, and now, we really don't want to support you. We don't even be affiliated with you. Don't even, that's fact that all these, again, using Parks and Rec and EDAC, you make it up stuff. You're just making up stuff to justify your irrational thought and procedure. I don't know, again. You're worried about citizens moving out because the utility rates are too high. What about the businesses that are going to move out because they don't have any support from the town council? That is more worrisome than me that we have business to say, hey, I'm not getting any support whatsoever from the town council. So one way to just take my business somewhere else to a town that supports me. Think about that alternative. Think about what vacant buildings look like on 21st Street. More and more vacant buildings on 21st Street. And believe me, that would dominate right on down Main Street. Don't think it won't. Businesses outside of 21st Street are going to look at this and say, well, hey, you're not supporting the businesses on 21st Street, you're not going to support me either. So you can smile all you want about thinking, that's not going to happen, but it is. It is. You're setting a bad precedent. You're making it very clear to the businesses currently in town, and then anybody think about opening up a business in town that the perseve is not business friendly. We are not supportive of our businesses. In the least, we're not even willing to be affiliated with you by name only. Take away the money part because it ain't costing us a dime, not a single dime. And you can't show me anywhere that a single dime is costing us. You want to vote for the single vote of the program? Yeah, and you're going against what every single voter that's got up here hasn't been a single speaker, a single email, not a single one that's voiced their opposition to this. Show me a single email that didn't come out of your own email address that didn't support this. So you're not doing what the citizens in the community want. You're doing what you personally want. You're doing what you personally want. Thank you. Thank you. I've read a great deal on the Virginia Main Street program and looked into a number of communities here in Virginia that have implemented it. Some with more success, some with less. I think it, like any other program, it depends on how much you're willing to put into it. I think there's a lot of merit to the Virginia Main Street program. I think that there's one thing, if there's one thing that I think is lacking in the implementation that we've set up so far, and that is transparency. So we have a... That would be pretty much right there. We have... Right there. We have... I have the floor, thank you. They bring out the sign. You only have three hours with your phone. You can get the transparency. We have a private 501 C3 who is steering all the efforts on this. And I think that the best way to interject some transparency into this, the activities of this group is to send it down to the Planning commission to see what their recommendations are on this. Is there any support from the planning commission? I mean from town council members? Maybe you should have come to our general meeting and actually use one member. So is there any support here on the town council for referring this to the planning commission for their recommendations? Are you proposing we don't vote on any action by town council and we set a planning commission for their consideration? Is that the proposal? I would support that absolutely. I would support moving on the plan. Yep, let's do it. Okay, please make that motion. I move that town council direct the planning commission to at their earliest convenience conduct a discussion surrounding the merits of first of all participation in the Virginia the Main Street Program and return to Council to present the results of their discussions and conclusions. Friendly amendment. I think the direction that the Planning Commission needs is for the town council to prioritize this particular initiative and to bring in members specifically stakeholders with Virginia Main Street both at the state level if possible and to talk to the planning commission. Okay, but specifically it has to be prioritized for them by the town council. So we're giving the planning commission a priority task. Correct. How's that? Over top the comprehensive plan. We're giving this a priority. Oh my god. They have five years to complete their review of the comprehensive plan. No, this is the- Ideally they'll finish it in one or two but- This is the mid- This is not a heavy lift for them. I love that you're over burdening and making over complicating. You're putting it to the point that the EDAQ is already unilateral or univirously supported this. We've brought in Virginia Main Street multiple times to do open to the public meetings. In fact, your Valerie Kerry attended it. And you could have attended. No one stopped you from attending the public meeting, transparent meeting that was opened advertised to the public. No one stopped you from attending. In fact, the first one was recorded. I don't understand how you say it's not transparent. You don't have the information. Now, go to waste planning commission time, send it down a planning commission and say, oh, you take a look at it, which I'm perfectly happy for them to do because the vice chair of the planning commission is actually a member and comes to the main street from is very supportive of it. Absolutely have them bring it and present it to planning commission. But just again talking on a both sides of your mouth saying oh we need to respect staff time with this side and it's going to cost staff money we can't have that but now you are. This cost the town zero money. It just is a resolution we have passed that says we support them having this program. If you're concerned about viability, let us fail. Let us do it. The general meetings are open to the public and you're very welcome to attend. Now did you have any specific comments concerning the motion that was on the table? So mayor and Tom Councilor. We got no hold on we got a motion on the floor. We got discussion on the table. So Mayor and Tom Council. We got no hold on we got a motion on the floor. We got discussion on the floor. Further discussion? Did he accept the friendly amendment or not? I did not. Nice second. Okay. Right. Council member right, how do you vote? Yes. Council member Stout, how do you vote? Consummember Khalil, how do you? Yes Council members stout how do you vote yes council member Khalil how do you vote now council member Luke how do you vote? Council member Rainer how do youmember Rainer, how do you vote? Yes. Vice mayor, how do you vote? I abstain. And mayor votes no because I don't think it's sufficient direction. And just by the way, we've been over our 10 minutes. Move to adjourn. Second. No. Sorry. Come on. Four. Two. One. Four, two, one, abstention. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. Thank you.