City of Statesville: Budget Meeting 05/21/24

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Staff again for all the work that it takes to put a
budget together and to run ourcity.
We are greatly appreciative ofthat.
Ron, are you going to kind ofintroduce it?

Speaker 2 (00:17):
Yeah, I thought I would just take five minutes.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
You do what you need to do, and then it seems as if
we ask what way you want to go,and then it just Turns into sort
of everybody asked what theywant.
So that's how we're gonna do,okay.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
So I'm just going to run through a few things that
are kind of key to this budgetand then turn it to Tim to see
if he has anything that he wantsto add, and then we need to.
There's one specific decisionthat will have to be made and
that's a decision about theCBB's budget.
I think I've said thispreviously and it's kind of a
call that the council will haveto make.

(01:15):
I didn't really.
We've proposed it, as it alwaysis, but the CBB has made a
specific ask this year that Iwant y'all to hear and Tim is
gonna walk through that andCindy is here if there are
questions.
So just by way of reminder fromthe retreat the things that

(01:36):
came out of the retreat thatwere significant, that we do
have in the budget there's a 3%COLA proposed for employees.
That was that was that rankedhighest, higher than the merit
Police tasers and body cams.
Those were.
That was $500,000 a year.

(01:57):
For the next three years we gota $400,000 grant.
So that this first year in thePD we've kind of got a buy From
the capital side.
Were the first highest rankingwas fire station number five.
That's not in here.
I think we're to the pointbuying property but we're not

(02:20):
ready to build because firestation five is, say, six
million dollars, with apparatusof at least a million and then
people.
So that's that's itsown discussion when we get there
and that's.
You know there's no media inthe room, but in my opinion
that's probably got its ownsection of the tax rate that
we're going to have to figureout how to carve out.

(02:42):
That's not a decision we haveto.
How to carve out that's not adecision we have to make today.
The second priority wasrecreation and pools, greenways
and the Housing Authority Park.
We've got some greenwayimprovements in there.
Kimbrough Park is in there, butat this point there's no bigger
capital from the recreationside to speak of because it's

(03:05):
just, it didn't rank as high.
The building standards proposeddepartment is in there.
We've allocated about $765,000from our fund balance to
establish it.
That would put it in place andwould be operational in
september of 2025.

(03:27):
So if it stays, we would moveit forward on that time frame.
And finally, the housing fundthe 190 000 to the united way to
be a partner with them andmooresville in the county to go
into the housing fund.
So that's what we pulled fromthe retreat additionally there's

(03:50):
a 7% increase proposed forwater and sewer rates.
That's directly associated withheavy capital needs in water
super.
We had that programmed in for Ibelieve it was last year.
We should have believe it waslast year.
We should have done it probablylast year, but with everything
that changed last year throughthe reappraisal week, we held

(04:11):
off till this year.
So that was a 5% scheduledincrease.
Because of all the excesscapital that we're needing and
then taking some verypreliminary steps on preparing
for the Fourth Creek wastewatertreatment plant expansion at
some point in the future.
We need to get some revenuecoming in to build a capital

(04:33):
reserve fund, get us starteddown that line.
So that's for preparationpurposes.
The police department and theDEC are both programmed into
this budget through acombination of fund balance and
borrowing from the electricutility.

(04:54):
We are getting an $8.8 millioninflux into the electric, which
basically washes that.
It's not using the money thatwe currently have fund balance
that we're going to take placefrom.
So that is what we areproposing along those two, those
two lines.

(05:15):
Uh, those are the big things Iwanted to point out.
Tim, did you have anything?

Speaker 3 (05:19):
you, I'm not saying either way is right or wrong.
They both have their merit, Iguess, to you, tim.
I've worked with a lot offinance directors.
Some of them are purposelypessimistic on the revenues and

(05:43):
purposely pessimistic on whatcosts are going to be.
Are these numbers, in youropinion, absolutes, or you've
got a little wiggle room inthere?

Speaker 5 (05:57):
I'll say they're very firm.
Okay, let's just even say plusor minus 1%.
Okay, and the county gives usguidance on property taxes.
Right, they've given us fouroutlets leading up to this.
They have always said plus orminus 1%.
So I think that's possible,okay.
And then sales tax as long aspeople keep spending money, we

(06:20):
should be on for our sales tax.
Okay, I'm not passionate aboutthis, just want to know where I
am now.

Speaker 6 (06:26):
Here's one email from you.
What it said to remind you ofthe vehicles you know money in
the vehicles you want me to findthem.

Speaker 2 (06:37):
Yeah, I'm not sure which vehicles you talked about
well, oh, was it at least.
Oh, the lease yeah so so that'sa good question.
So we, you know, a couple yearsago we were kind of trending
toward trying to lease morevehicles because we were
basically trying to get morefill holes that we had with, you

(06:58):
know, trying to go the leaseroute.
It's not been good for us.
We are pivoting back away tojust buying buying the vehicles
and Getting away from the leases.
It turned out to be a difficult.
There are certain ones we stillwill, but as a whole we're not.

Speaker 6 (07:21):
Sorry, we know contract with five years?

Speaker 2 (07:23):
Oh, we're not contract for five years?
All right, yes, for some ofthose leases.

Speaker 3 (07:28):
Be it fair about it, it got you over a hump.

Speaker 1 (07:31):
It got what.
Got you over a hump, oh yeah.

Speaker 2 (07:34):
It did and we might do some of it sporadically in
the future, but it's not goingto be the end of it.

Speaker 1 (07:45):
Okay, ron, the $20 million that the legislature got
us for the replacement of thespline Splint, whatever the
spline Not spine right.

Speaker 2 (08:00):
I thought it was started as a spine and it turned
into the spline.

Speaker 1 (08:03):
Well, anyway, do we have that money?

Speaker 2 (08:07):
Yes, that money has been going toward and I don't
know, bill, you might need tospeak to this how much.
I think we received everything.
The design has all been well.
Come on up, bill, tell themwhere it's at.

Speaker 7 (08:25):
The estimate came in like 1992 or something like that
, was it?
Well, you come on up, okay.

Speaker 1 (08:44):
That's being invested .

Speaker 5 (08:44):
We have not received the cash $20 million which has
been approved in the grant.

Speaker 1 (08:49):
So is it a reimbursement, reimbursement
grant.
Oh, okay, all right, okay,that's all.
I needed to know, okay, allright.
Well, it seems to me, ron, thatand we don't really know
anything about the CDP request,so we need to.
We know about the buildingstandards request, but I guess
we need to review the buildingstandards request and the CVB

(09:11):
request, because those are, andthen the water and sewer.
Those are the three things thatwould require monies that are
in the budget.
Well, no, the buildingstandards is in the budget, cvb
is not in the budget, water andsewer increase is not budgeted.
But those are the things thatrequire a decision as to how

(09:31):
we're going to deal with andthen and then, beyond that, if
it's in the budget and we wantto do away with it, then we'll
talk about it.
But these are these, okay.
So who's going to tell us aboutthe CVB?

Speaker 2 (09:42):
Well, I'm going to start.
I'm going to start and then I'mgoing to turn it to Tim.
I'm just going to give you somecontext on what's been going on
for the last three years withthe CBV.
So Amy, david and Kosti and I,there was a time I guess it's
been two or two plus years agowhen this was going down.

(10:05):
So we had had some conversationswith Cindy Sutton and members
of the Convention and VisitorsBureau to figure out is there a
way that they could get moremoney coming in to help them be
sustainable moving forward?
They needed an executivedirector.

(10:25):
They had they were.
You were in place, cindy, butit was Cindy was in place but
trying to make sure that theyhad somebody that's gonna be
there for the long haul andunder the cost breakdown and
structure and maybe evenarguably now that wasn't gonna
happen.
So we developed a three-yearplan and it wasn't anything

(10:49):
adopted or anything like that,but everybody kind of nodded
their heads and thought it was agood move forward.
In that plan there wasincremental additional funding
that went to the CBB over time.
Most of it was coming fromtheir, their work and in the
economy of building, theoccupancy tax funds, but also
through straight budget uh,allocations from the civic

(11:12):
center, so building building,their allocation from the city,
understanding it wasn't going tobe what they wanted or needed
moving forward.
But ultimately it went from27,000 in year one to 70,000 in
year two, plus that 27, soroughly a hundred thousand what

(11:36):
page is that wrong?

Speaker 8 (11:37):
oh, it's not in there .

Speaker 2 (11:39):
This is just this is based on our phone call earlier,
I thought I'd, and then in yearthree, so those were
incremental changes.
In year three the idea was totry to bring the Civic Center
and the CBB more together,potentially have, you know,

(12:01):
coinciding with Kenny'sretirement having a position
that kind of ran, worked with,dealt with both organizations
and essentially took the moneyoff the books of the CBB to help
with their cost structure.
And that was kind of a creativeway to try to help them out

(12:24):
without going back to thelegislature to change any
funding formula.
We have special legislation andthen there is the traditional
funding formula for CBBs andtourism.
So I wanted to tell you we'vebeen working with them for the
last going on now three years tohelp you.

(12:44):
We've been working with themfor the last now going on now
three years to help.
But now there's going to be anew, another ask, because we
haven't really followed throughon number or year three, because
we're just not there, we're notready from a personnel
standpoint to do it.
So that's a lot of words, gladto answer any questions.
What's the request?
That's what I wanted to say.
Tim's going to give you therequest.

Speaker 3 (13:06):
This is a decision-making matter in the
budget.

Speaker 2 (13:10):
Yes, we have put, we have dealt with the CVB in our
traditional way, basically basedon the formula, and that's kind
of what I walked through inyear one and two.
That's what's in the budget.
They're making a request topull from the Occupancy Tax Fund
balance to help them moredirectly, and that's what the

(13:36):
10-1.

Speaker 1 (13:36):
Okay, so in this budget as it stands now, the
money for the CDB is through theallocation of their 1, 5th of
the yes, none of these other.

Speaker 2 (13:49):
Well, and I guess some of this is in there, you're
going to explain all that.

Speaker 5 (13:54):
Yeah, fundamentally nothing has really changed year
over year how we've beenhistorically allocating things.
We're not even actually lookingto change the allocation.
The CDB continues to invest andgrow and with that they wanted
to add really three componentsnext year and I'll go through
those first three.
The destination experiencemanager right now the CBB does

(14:16):
not have any bonafide employees.
No employees, that would beabout a $70,000 ask.
That would be permanent.
Right, we're hiring somebody.
They're going to be on thebooks next year, the year after
that.
So cycle NC, mountains to coast.
Cindy mentioned this last nightat council.
You know it's going to draw inhow many.

Speaker 9 (14:38):
Five million dollars, I can't remember the exact
number A thousand bike riders,three thousand people.

Speaker 5 (14:44):
Three thousand people 3,000 people, and so, with
different marketing handouts,we're looking at about 50,000
investment there One time andI'm recurring New conference is
50,000, and then obviously withevery budget there's
inflationary items.
So the ask is 180,000 from whatwe've historically done, and so
my question to council is do wewant CDB to fund that 180,000

(15:09):
themselves out of their fundbalance, or do we want to take
some money out of the CivicCenter, which also benefits from
the advocacy tax?
And give that to the CDB.

Speaker 1 (15:22):
That 180 ask replaces the previous asks, Replaces the
25 and the.
I mean, is this going to be on?

Speaker 5 (15:31):
top of the.
It is incremental, it's on top,correct.

Speaker 1 (15:35):
But that's not in the budget.

Speaker 2 (15:36):
You said yeah, that's in the.
Everything that we've beendoing is basically coming out of
Kenny's.
Kenny's Kenny's new civicCenter is allocating those funds
.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
Okay, so what is that amount?

Speaker 5 (15:51):
It would be right.
Now the budget shows the normal$70,000 coming out of the Civic
Center.
So the question before thegroup is do we add another
$180,000 to come out of theCivic Center or just step back
and say you know what CBB, youhave your own budget, you fund
the 180s.

Speaker 8 (16:08):
Can I say something right here so?
I'm the liaison on that boardand basically what's happening
there is.
The occupancy tax has beenconsistently growing over the
last several years.
They're working really, reallyhard with the hoteliers.
They have created a system oftalking to the hoteliers to see

(16:30):
what kind of conferences anddifferent things are coming into
the community or what can comeinto the community.
They created these formularieswhere they are drawing these
people here to Statesville asopposed to surrounding areas.
With all that being said, thereis an occupancy tax.
Of course, the whole failure.
They're coming here, they'respending money here and the

(16:52):
occupancy tax, which is stateregulated.
That money goes into that fund.
But because of the way that ourcivic center was created and
this fund was set up with whenwe created it 25 years ago, the
CBV is getting a certainpercentage In their minds and

(17:12):
that is covering their marketing, which I mean they don't have
any employees, but it's coveringtheir marketing and all of the
tourism, all of the differentpeople that we've had coming in,
and they're doing it with thefunds and things that they have.
Well, they've shown us in thosemeetings last night where

(17:33):
they're incrementally increasingit at least $200,000 every
couple of years.
Long story short, they don'thave a location.
They feel like they're doinggood and valid work with the
plan of bringing more hotels toStatesville at least five, they
showed us one last night.
They have four more that theywould love to do here.
But at the same time they needmoney, and so Cindy has been

(17:57):
doing that work as a contractemployee kind of, I think and so
they're asking for thatemployee.
They're asking for dollars tohelp bring in more dollars to
say to Is there some?

Speaker 3 (18:14):
way we incrementally get there.
Their ask is $180,000.
Okay, that's to gear up and gofor the day one, right?
No, their ask is more than$180,000.

Speaker 8 (18:36):
Their ask is $180,000 plus what they're getting.

Speaker 6 (18:38):
They're getting $70,000.

Speaker 8 (18:44):
Right.
So I guess my question is whatis the situation with the Civic
Center?
And I guess me, coming from abigger city why have they not
ever been combined before, likenot working together?
Why is that?
Why are they kind of separated?
Because normally if you go intocities you have the visitor
bureau and you have a civiccenter.

(19:05):
Normally they kind of coincidewith one another.
So if you're asking, Iunderstand the ask, but are they
going to be city employees?
Not at this point.

Speaker 1 (19:21):
So it's still going would be a different arrangement
where they and the DSDC couldpossibly be part of the city
directly.
But we haven't gotten there yet.

Speaker 8 (19:33):
So is the Civic Center doing advertisement like
the Visitor Bureau is doing?
I guess that's my question.
What is the state of the CivicCenter compared to the Visitor
Bureau?

Speaker 2 (19:44):
Well, there's some overlap and, Kenny, we're
sending you to the police.
There's some overlap.
I think that CVB is doinghardcore marketing for the city
and to include the Civic Center,which I believe is in their
charter.
The Civic Center is doing moreof the day-to-day interactions
with customers, you know, makingsure that the experiences that

(20:07):
when they're here are good ones.
There's some marketing that'salso going on there as well.
So there's so there's someredundancy, but the bigger
marketing efforts are comingthrough the city.

Speaker 3 (20:21):
Well, I'm still feeling my way through this.
I'm not opposed to giving themmore money, but you've got the
fund balance in the city center.
That's where the big ticket outof, like a roof or a parking
lot.
Roofs and parking lots haveabout the same class.
By the time your roof wears out, you've got to repay the
parking lot.
What's the next big capitalitem?

(20:43):
I want to do something to helpthese folks and we leave the
city center strapped for somebig capital project down the
road.
Are they in pretty good shapeon all that?

Speaker 2 (20:53):
Well, parking is all.
We have another resurfacingproject, kenny, at some point
soon-ish, but that's the big oneI can think of.

Speaker 1 (21:03):
I would say expansion of the facility at some point
is a big ticket item and um isparticipation out of that fund
already included in the parkingdeck um, I don't know if tim's
got it programmed into theparking deck we had planned on
using some of it for that.

Speaker 2 (21:21):
yes, I don't know if he's got it, but he has a plan
on it.

Speaker 9 (21:29):
So who's working at the depot if they don't have an
employee?

Speaker 8 (21:34):
Police department's been in Well.

Speaker 2 (21:36):
Cindy is their contract executive director, so
she's got a spot over at thedepot now.
So she's got a spot over at thedepot now and I guess the
destination experience managerwould as well when that person
is hired.

Speaker 1 (21:50):
That's a new hire, cindy's paid out of the existing
monies that they get from theirshare of the occupancy tax fund
and the additional money wegive them.
I don't think you have any.
I think they're missing acritical part.

Speaker 9 (22:07):
So the occupancy tax legislation mandates that only
35% of total collections thattourism destination authority
gets can be used foradministration and staff, which
is why the CVV has never had anexecutive director, Because one

(22:29):
you're not gonna find anexecutive director for $40,000,
$50,000.
That's why it's out there.

Speaker 1 (22:37):
But I thought we reviewed that and there's
nothing in the state legislationthat controls it.
Your bylaws control the 35%.

Speaker 9 (22:48):
It's in the state legislation.

Speaker 1 (22:51):
I don't know, I mean I so.
So if that, if that, if youweren't handcuffed with that,
then this request wouldn't be.

Speaker 9 (23:03):
The reality is, for the past three years, I've been
doing the work myself.
Well, actually, I've beenpaying out of the pocket my
staff to help me get it done andI'm not going to do that well,
but there's no limitation onmarketing, right?

Speaker 8 (23:18):
yeah, she's paying out of her pocket.

Speaker 1 (23:19):
Huh, she's paying out of her pocket.
She's not paying out of herpocket.
What I'm saying is the 35%doesn't say that Spokology can't
be paid for services that theyprovide to the organization.

Speaker 9 (23:33):
The CBB is paying out of the marketing side to
outsource the Spokology for meto be the executive director.
But that's why I'm notemploying, that's why they
haven't hired an executivedirector, because they can't
within 35%, right.
So the ask for the staff member, the destination experience

(23:59):
manager and the original $70,000that the city has given to the
CPP is being used to supportgroups that are coming in, will
be coming in for the CivicCenter.
So the work we're doing is tobring groups, go to these
conferences, bring groups in, dothe marketing, to bring people

(24:22):
in to the Civic Center.
So we can have that.
But one person cannot be theexecutive director and then
manage.
I mean, I spent five days withthe group that was here last
week.

Speaker 2 (24:31):
You can't do that and be the executive director so
that's, that's what that one wayyou may want to look at this,
if you're, you know, if you'relooking at it from an
incremental standpoint theDestination Experience Manager.
It's needed, but it's there,it's there, it's there next year

(24:52):
and it's there next year.
The other three are these areone year.
These are one year requests.

Speaker 9 (25:00):
Not the new conferences.
The conferences we're goinginto are to bring groups, and
they're all but still those arethe site in North Carolina.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
Yeah, those could be.
I mean, if you hire a person,that person's there, I mean that
position's there and the othersare actions and well,
non-inflationary guidance.

Speaker 9 (25:22):
For this year, Ron, but we're competing with
Morrisville, who gets 100% oftheir occupancy tax and has a
$1.5 million budget.

Speaker 2 (25:29):
No, I get that.
I get that.
I'm just trying to point outthat a person is permanent and a
person is a lot easier.
It's a lot harder to becauseyou asked about incremental it's
harder to cut a person than cutactions such as you going out.
That's the only point I'mtrying to make.

Speaker 3 (25:47):
I mean, I'm trying to find a way there.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
Right, and it's not Cindy's fault.
I mean, I think we should havehad more about this request
before now and, if it's possible, well, maybe we can get it
resolved today.
We should have had more aboutthis request before now.
And if it's possible, well,maybe we can get it resolved.
I'm not opposed to getting itresolved today, but it also

(26:11):
wouldn't be the end of the worldif this got resolved over a
different date than today,because there's a lot more to
the story all the way around.
There's a lot more to the storyall the way around.

Speaker 3 (26:25):
We agree on the.
When I came to the city Ididn't fully appreciate what
went on with the hotel and youthat congenerate.
I was not aware of that, andthose are pretty impressive.
It's reasonable to assume thatif you're going to have an

(26:45):
organization, you're going tohave to have somebody that's
going to manage it At least.
Well, we're more than startingout, but she's wearing a lot of
hats.
I'm not sure we can take allthose hats away.

Speaker 1 (27:03):
We can't take any of them awayindy's doing a hell of
a job right so then let's lookat the inflationary out.

Speaker 3 (27:17):
That's a small item.
I mean, what if we did awaywith inflationary item and say,
okay, you got inflation for ayear or two, you just got to
tighten the belt and move on,and we'll try to make that
happen more than later?
What's the bottom dollar?
You think you can operateefficiently for an organization

(27:37):
and realize some growth inrevenue.
That's it.

Speaker 9 (27:41):
The budget I put together will do that.
It's a lot of work into thisbudget.
I understand.

Speaker 1 (27:47):
Well, we're using our fund balance.
The city of Statesville, notthe city of Tennessee, is using
some of its fund balance tobalance our budget.
Is that correct?
Yes, okay.

Speaker 3 (28:01):
So what's the impact if we fund the request?
Yeah, where?

Speaker 10 (28:09):
would it come from Our fund balance?

Speaker 1 (28:11):
It would come from the Civic.
Center fund balance.

Speaker 3 (28:14):
Okay, then let's look internally at that.
If we take it out of the CivicCenter fund balance, are we
going to be able to meet thecapital needs of the Civic
Center over the next three, fiveyears without working a
hardship on getting it?

Speaker 1 (28:31):
I'd say no, and the reason I say that is because, if
you look at it, unless wedidn't spend any money, I mean
serious money we are not addingto the.
From what I can tell, we arenot adding to the Civic Center
fund balance.
From what I can tell, we arenot adding to the Civic Center
fund balance.
This year's budget does notreturn any of the money we're

(28:51):
receiving from our occupancy taxto enhance the fund balance.
So we're spending all the moneythat we're taking in.

Speaker 8 (28:55):
How does this year's budget not add to what they've
increased, what they werebringing in?
No, I'm not saying we're notgetting more taxes.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
I'm saying there's not going to be any leftover
money to support.
We're not going to add to that$2.2 million.
So you can say are we going tohave the money there in three to
five years to do what we needto do?
I don't know what we need to do, but we're not going to have
more money than that, unlesssomething else changes.

Speaker 5 (29:17):
When is Kenny retiring?
When is Kenny retiring?
End of this year.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
End of retire.
But what does that?
Are we configuring?
How that looks isn't welltalked about a couple of years
ago.

Speaker 1 (29:37):
Yeah, but we have.
We see we haven't workedthrough any of that stuff
completely.
I mean we've never been aconversation.
There have been conversationsabout it.

Speaker 3 (29:42):
I'm trying to run Kitty off, but if Kitty's not
retired we're not consolidatingthose two issues I see we're
waiting for at least some ofthem.

Speaker 1 (29:54):
Yes.

Speaker 3 (29:54):
I mean she's got more responsibility.
You might have to give her moremoney.

Speaker 2 (29:59):
I would almost, if you're in favor of doing.
If you're in favor, and Iapologize, I thought that this
would be not an easierdiscussion, but I thought that
this was the time to do it.

Speaker 1 (30:13):
It is a good time to get it started.
I think some people havedifferent bits and pieces, like
what Amy just said has beentalked about but but has not
been.
You know there's been no voteof the council to how we want to
go forward on that.
What would you want to can?

Speaker 2 (30:31):
I can I can I?
Mention one thing.
The only thing I would cautionyou on is again getting back to
the 70 000.
I'd rather tim and kenny and I,or and I or Cindy, go back and
scrub Civic Center budget ratherthan take it out from balance,
if we can do that, because youdon't want to because, again,

(30:54):
it's every, potentially everyyear, but you don't want to take
that out from the process ofscrubbing that to get the thing
launched.

Speaker 3 (31:02):
so she'll have some peace of mind on what the
future's gonna look like,because the difference between
the difference between whatthey're getting now and what
they're asking for is $180,000.

(31:23):
Correct, right?
Could we fund that a portion ofthe year, the first year, then
take a look at it and see howmuch once Kenyon retires, see
how much each can screw up outof there and see what we can do
in the next year.
The only thing.
I caution about thatconversation is that we keep
talking about if he's going toretire or whatever.

(31:45):
Are we saying we, he's going toretire or whatever?
Are we saying we're not going?

Speaker 1 (31:49):
to replace that position.
Is that what we're saying?
We're saying that we're goingto.
We're saying that one of thethings that's being considered
is a restructuring, kind of likewhat lisa said.
How do you, how do you bringthese people more?

Speaker 8 (32:11):
right in concert and do we have too many?
That's all I'm trying to say.
Is there's a lot of information.

Speaker 1 (32:17):
We need to help.
We need to help Cindy, okay,and I don't think anybody's
saying we don't want to help.
I don't think anybody's sayingthat at all, and I see what
Steve's saying.
You know, is there some of thisthat can be deferred?
And I don't know whatdiscussion I don't know that
I've, even Cindy, talked to youabout, you know.
I mean, we use our fund balance.

(32:40):
Is there some contribution thecdb would make out of their um
fund balance?

Speaker 3 (32:46):
but I um because we talked about, you know,
advertisement dollars that wewere using at the civic center
could that not be the same?

Speaker 1 (32:55):
we've done some of that to help them and no, at no
harm to the civic center right.

Speaker 3 (32:59):
So, like I'm saying, why could we not say the same
for the cycle to the mountain?
So, like I'm saying, why couldwe not say the same for the
cycle to the mountain?

Speaker 1 (33:05):
for the mountain to the coast and new conferences
too.
All I'm trying to say and Itried to look at this and I may
have looked at it incorrectly itlooks like, without this in the
budget at all and with allegedincreased revenues at the Civic
Center and alleged increasedexpenses at the Civic Center,

(33:30):
that all that we generate fromthe occupancy tax, whether it's
higher or lower or whatever,there's going to be nothing left
to supplant the Civic Centerfund balance.
So we're well and maybe that'swhat you're saying here we're
gonna have to take it out unlessunless we, I mean there's not
$180,000 in the Civic Centerbudget to scrub to make room for
this 180.

(33:51):
Right, and there's not going tobe.
It doesn't appear until we getnew hotels, or I mean it seems
as if Cindy's done everythingshe can to get the occupancy of
the civic, I mean of the hotels.
Probably they're maxing out atsome at some times, so it's not
as if there's going to be a huge.
There will be additionalrevenues available to the CBB

(34:12):
from increased revenues fromhotel occupancy, but not up, not
a big number.
I mean, you know, if it goes up, two hundred thousand dollars
total for this year.
That'll be forty thousanddollars for them, and maybe
that's already budgeted in there, I don't know.
But I just want to do thisright and I don't want to do it

(34:34):
hastily, and I just wonder Imean well, you're advertising
for your position right now.

Speaker 9 (34:38):
But for the destination person Now the
conversation is going to bebigger because, a year from now
you're going to be approaching ajob for the new president
director, because she can't keepdoing it by herself.

Speaker 1 (34:52):
Well, the other thing is we should.
There are some things you cango back to the legislature and
change without problems.
There are some things you can't.
One that maybe we could changeif Cindy says it's an impediment
is that 35% can only go toadministrative.
You know, if that, if thathelps in any way and we can do

(35:14):
that, or if it's not as firm asit appears to be and I don't
know that, but anyway, we canprobably get some help there.
So there are several things wecan do, but we just need to.
How, oh you were, if the citycouncil said no, you were going

(35:42):
to play for the destinationmanager out of fund balance for
this year and try to.
That would have been okay.
Well, um, I mean, you knowwhatever y'all want to do I mean
, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm the biggestsupporter of cindy and what
she's trying to do, but I justwant us to be careful that we
have.
I'm hearing I've got someknowledge, you've got some

(36:02):
knowledge, everybody's got someknowledge, but nobody seems to
have all the knowledge and Idon't think it would take that
long to have all that knowledgeand figure out what we can do,
what we can't do, and make adecision.
Or if you want to do something,if you want to do something on
it, I mean I don't know, I don't, I don't.
If you want to do the wholething, I'm not gonna say no, but
I mean it would seem at aminimum we would maybe want to

(36:24):
say we'll find a way to supportthe destination experience
manager today and pay for that,and give us a month or give us
till, whatever you want to do.
I have a question.
It seems like it's not acomplete discussion to say, yeah
, you're doing a great job,we're going to give you $180,000
.

Speaker 3 (36:43):
Have a nice day.
So in advertising alone in theCivic Center in 23 we spent
$42,000.
We're budgeting this year$106,000.
So the two items up there is$100,000.
Is any of that advertising thatwe could use some of those

(37:04):
funds for?
And, to your point, can we findseventy thousand dollars in the
general fund to compensate forthe?

Speaker 1 (37:14):
maybe, maybe, Jim, maybe you ought to turn to the
Civic Center budget.

Speaker 10 (37:34):
So that's the 70,000 that you've got in here.

Speaker 3 (37:38):
We need to get this claim back.
I agree, I'm assuming that the70 is the Civic Center because
it's under your line, but you'resaying that's what we're saying
is the money that's been goingto him is coming out of his.

Speaker 2 (37:51):
Yeah, let's get this cleaned up.
Well, but that's Understand.
We've been kind of cobbling.
Costi's mentioned thelegislation a couple times.
We've been trying to cobblesomething together.
It's not easy because they're amoney loser.
We've been trying to cobblesomething together.
It's not easy because they're amoney loser.
No offense, kenny, it's notmeant to make.
It wasn't built to make money.
They're losers, they're a moneyloser.

(38:14):
So we're trying to figure outways to shift from a facility
that can't cover its own coststo help cover CBBs without
getting lots of new revenue.
So it's been a struggle to getto where we're at, but they're
losing a lot of money.

Speaker 8 (38:34):
I mean, we haven't addressed it and these are
things that we told them twoyears ago that we haven't fixed
Now.

Speaker 5 (38:40):
I'm saying two years ago, that was before me.

Speaker 8 (38:42):
What exactly does?
That mean Well that we weregoing to phase in some of these
things.
Oh, we did.
That's what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (38:49):
So, we've done that because that money is now going
to them, plus free rent at thedepot and what was at the Civic
Center.
So we're trying to be goodpartners but again we're limited
because the Civic Center onlybrings in so much and we have to
augment that to run it with theoccupancy tax.

(39:11):
I mean, we're trying to be goodpartners.
I hope that Cindy would agreewith that.

Speaker 10 (39:16):
Well.
I say it almost every day.
What's that I said?
I say it almost every day.

Speaker 9 (39:21):
I said it a lot of times.

Speaker 3 (39:21):
So of the 106, you're saying that 70,000 CDB, correct
?

Speaker 7 (39:27):
And how's that reflected up there, Cindy?

Speaker 1 (39:31):
It's not in our budget.

Speaker 9 (39:33):
It's in the top line on the separate line item.

Speaker 1 (39:35):
It's not in that.
That's new money on top of allthat.

Speaker 9 (39:38):
Okay, yeah so Kenny would show advertising as an
expense is fine, while Cindywould show that $70,000 revenue
and that $70,000 is being usedpurely to promote the Civic
Center, to bring groups here.
So all we're doing is doing themarketing for them, because it

(40:00):
wasn't being done previously.

Speaker 8 (40:03):
Which explains why they're losing money, which
we've got gotta fix that too,Because I mean, I understand
losing money.

Speaker 1 (40:11):
It's going to lose money, but it could lose less.
And it's gonna lose less, butstill it's more complicated
because it's not an unlimitedand that was the only point I
was trying to make.
There's nothing left over whenwe fund all the things that we
have to do, which is support theCivic Center, support the CVB.
There's one other little thing.

(40:32):
That was 26,000.
I forgot what that is.
It's all gone.

Speaker 8 (40:35):
And I understand that .
But when we're losing, theamount that we're losing it's
substantial.
It's three quarters of amillion dollars and it's not but
it's.
We're not to wake up one dayand that's only going to be two
hundred thousand dollars.
But when we have people thatare working and they've proven
that they can build a civiccenter and we can put people in
it and we can make money, we'vegot to encourage that.

Speaker 1 (40:57):
We can't, we're not discouraging that.

Speaker 8 (40:59):
But but there's the civic center, it's, we're not
discour hurting it, but we'renot fixing it either, and it's
okay, I don't disagree well,we've known about it a long time
and nothing.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
I mean, I agree, nothing.
Some things can't be done, butI think we're pretty much full
on the weekends, which are theprimary times to make money.
So you can.
So you can.
We couldn't have anybody betterthan Cindy.
Cindy can work as hard as shecan to fill the Civic Center and

(41:34):
it will only make a certainamount of difference because the
premier times are alreadybooked and the only way to
change that is to make thepremier times considerably more
expensive.
I mean, the combination wouldbe to make those considerably
more expensive than they are now.

Speaker 8 (41:49):
And the weekly rates Utilization is up.
Why can't we be up?

Speaker 2 (41:52):
We have been going up and we have a fee increase in
this budget as well, so we'vebeen going up.
We've gone up what?
Four times, kenny.

Speaker 8 (42:01):
And so again, but it still doesn't fix the issue.
That's at the bottom of it.
It's sucking up a lot of moneyand then, when we have these
things that we want to do and weneed to be able to do, we can't
do them because we're spending$700,000 on something that's not
working.
And I love the Civic Center.
I mean, I use it all the timeand that's a ridiculous number

(42:27):
to me in any business and I'msorry so how can we work to get
it under at least?
$300,000?
You're talking about theumbrella.
Yeah because to me it's likewe've got two separate entities,

(42:50):
Right?

Speaker 1 (42:50):
so you've got two separate entities.
That is not going to getresolved today, but let me
assure you that's been talkedabout for a couple years and
it's just.
I mean, if you know how to snapyour fingers and get it done,
we're listening, but it's notgoing to happen today.
It is in process and we'retrying to make it happen, but
and it's certainly better thanit was two years ago but it's

(43:11):
not as much as we'd like.
But don't, don't get thisnotion that we're gonna walk in
one day in the next year, twoyears, five years, ten years and
we're gonna say you know, theCivic Center took in as much as
it's been.
It's just this.
I mean, as much as we'd likethat to happen, it's not going
to happen.
And if it were going to happenor could happen, then somebody
else would come to us and sayyou know, I'd like to buy your
Civic Center for fair marketvalue because I think I can make

(43:32):
a profit.

Speaker 8 (43:34):
Well, like you said, nobody puts a Civic Center up
and expects it to be aprofitable thing.
That's never been the case.

Speaker 1 (43:49):
And Jap and I were here when we built it and I
think I would say that it hasserved the purposes that I would
like.
Kim, you and I've been toevents this weekend that are
exactly Cindy, the one we wentto this week.
It's a local person who'sresponsible for hosting a big
event doesn't have a venue likethat.
It could have 350 people thereon.
Was it Thursday night or Fridaynight?
Beautiful event, fantasticevent, but still, I mean they're

(44:13):
not and that's what we want.
We want our people to use itfor their events and we're going
to do that and we're going tocontinue to do that and we're
going to try to do it assuccessfully.
I mean, I'm with you all 100%.
So what is it?
We need to do that and we'regoing to continue to do that and
we're going to try to do itsuccessfully.
I mean, I'm with you all 100%.

Speaker 8 (44:28):
So what is it we need to do today?
Can I float something?

Speaker 1 (44:31):
Yes, sir.

Speaker 2 (44:34):
So we're trying to take money from a fund, an
enterprise fund, that can'tprovide enough revenue to cover
itself, which is absolutely whatwe shouldn't be doing.
What and this is the, this isthe what if?
Would you consider the 70 000coming from the general fund,

(44:57):
with the thought being that thatis a recreation, is specific
center is now part of recreationand that maybe through that,
that that might be an optionthat is a more sustainable
option because the general fundcould, I mean it's.
We would have to find thatmoney.
I mean, at this point, findinganything is tight, but you can

(45:18):
potentially fund the 70 000because it would be a year over
year, from fund balance or fromgeneral fund.
And if you chose to take therest of it from civic center
fund balance, if that's what youchoose, because it would be
year over year from general fund, and if you chose to take the
rest of it from civic centerfund balance, if that's what you
choose to do, or part of it orwhatever that is, to me that's a
little more sustainable.
If that's the route we want togo to help support the civic
center, we're muddy in the waterbecause we're going from an

(45:42):
enterprise that generally hassupported the CBB and vice versa
to general fund.
It's just a question.

Speaker 8 (45:51):
Taking $180,000 out of $2.2 million is not going to
break the bank.

Speaker 2 (45:58):
But you got to take $70,000 out next year.

Speaker 8 (46:02):
And they're going to make that.
They've proven that that yearover year is incremental.

Speaker 3 (46:08):
Taking that money out .
Will that be your revenuestream?
Replace it.

Speaker 11 (46:12):
Replace it, so no later than well over the trial,
when this budget was puttogether and Sandy did the work
and Ron you, your staff was puttogether and Cindy did the work
and Ron you, your staff none ofthese options come up.
None of these.
The concerns at this table nowdid not come up when she was

(46:34):
working diligently to bring us abudget that would keep the
Civic Center afloat.
We know Civic Center's notgoing to make money like what we
think it's going to makebecause it's not designed for
that.
We understand that let's it'sgoing to make because it's not
designed for that.
We understand that.
Let's get that straight.
So, since it's not designed forthat, it's designed for it to
be a place where people can goand have something to balance

(46:57):
out, some recreation.
And if you're going to changethat whole atmosphere, then we
talk about another way offunding it and raises and things
like that, but to keep it as wewant it to be, for the citizens
to have a place to go.
Then what are we?
We all, everybody's sayingsomething, this part here, this

(47:17):
part there.
How are we going to put thispart together?
And then come back with theconcerns that we have?
Because, right, kim has a point.
These have a point with themoney.
You said where's the moneycoming from?
We need to find that fact first.
What would be the best place?
If we're going to say generalfund, then it would be general

(47:37):
fund.
If we're not going to take itfrom the other fund balance,
then let's not do that.
But going from here to here,switching back and forth, we're
just going back and forth fromsomething that we don't even go
back and forth on.

Speaker 3 (48:07):
I'm going to throw this out and I'll dive under the
table.

Speaker 11 (48:10):
If I have to Quid, no Right now you're shouting
Before time?

Speaker 6 (48:14):
What if we agreed to go back?

Speaker 3 (48:16):
on the baseline budget and find the same thing.
You found $70,000.
You can scrub out this page,civic Center or General General.
I don't think you're going toget there any other way that we
fund the $70,000 I don't know.

(48:42):
We'll make a commitment overthe next couple of years to try
to come up with the rest thatthey're willing to match out of
their fund balance until we canget the break even for them.

Speaker 2 (48:58):
So 110 would come out of their 400?
Or would we increase?

Speaker 3 (49:04):
it the first year 110 would come out of there 400,
and or would we?
Are you saying the first year110 would come out of there 400?
Then we would.
We would increase thatincrementally.
And I mean I'm I'm not tryingto be difficult, I'm not real
crazy about the inflationaryitems.
I don't have a line item in mybudget says inflationary I'm

(49:25):
just gonna go up.

Speaker 1 (49:25):
I just got to suck it up, but you said, find it in
the general fund budget.
It's up to 70,000.

Speaker 3 (49:36):
So I understand what you're saying.
You're saying we fund out ofthe general fund the 70,000, and
then the CBB is going to eatthe other $110,000 out of their
fund.
Is that what you're saying?
The first year and then wewould increase in income
annually over the next two tothree years to make them whole.

(49:58):
After that going after us?
And I think maybe to Kim andLisa's point.
I want to make sure I canarticulate what they're saying.
Are y'all saying long term isto bring the CBB into the civic
fund?
I thought that was the idea.
Say that again.

Speaker 1 (50:14):
It sounded like that.
What did you say, David?

Speaker 3 (50:16):
For y'all's idea was to bring the CBB into the civic
Well, that Long term, because,if not, we're going to talk
about this.
We've been talking about thisbefore, no.

Speaker 6 (50:34):
I mean, it's just such a.

Speaker 1 (50:36):
I mean, I guess explain to us why does it have
to be separate?

Speaker 8 (50:39):
Well, we.
Huh, what did you say, sandy?
Okay, let me ask Cindy, isthere a problem with you being a
part of the Civic Center?
As far as legislature, no, okay, there are tourism destination
authorities that are insidemunicipal government.

Speaker 9 (51:03):
You cannot without having a TDA you cannot collect,
you cannot get Okay thank you.
You can't close the TDA, butthere are other municipalities
that are operating with the TDAunder the city department.
Okay, thank you, but not inwith the Civic Center

(51:24):
necessarily.
I think it's two different jobs.

Speaker 8 (51:29):
Okay, I just wanted to see what you thought about it
.
I mean, we don't want tooverstep you.
We've been working to that endfor some time.
Okay.

Speaker 1 (51:36):
Okay.

Speaker 8 (51:37):
Well, I'm not trying to be smart I just want to know.
No, no, no.

Speaker 1 (51:41):
There's nothing on you, okay.
Part of it hinges on Kenny'sretirement.
We want to wish him well inDecember, but we're not trying
to run him off tomorrow morning.

Speaker 8 (51:51):
I thought, he was like.
Y'all said it one more time I'mgoing to get up here.

Speaker 1 (52:07):
And so, quite honestly, quite honestly, the
model that Cindy has I mean thejob that she's done has shown us
that there is a way that thecity and the CBP.
I mean, we haven't tried to notwork together, but it's at a
different level than it's beenin the past and it's been
constructive and instructive onhow we should go forward.
So much so that when theexecutive director of the DSDC
resigned or retired or whateverwe said, maybe that's another

(52:30):
one that can come under ourumbrella as well.
But you don't just snap yourfingers and say we're taking you
all in we don't need yourboards anymore.
The boards are going to beconstructed this way, and so
it's not as if there's anything.
Cindy's role with the CBB hasmade us more cognizant of the

(52:51):
fact that it is possible to worktogether even more harmoniously
than we have in the past, sothat's a good thing.

Speaker 8 (52:59):
And the only thing that I think is in question here
today is we know it works, weknow that they're bringing in
money.

Speaker 1 (53:10):
They're not bringing in this much money.

Speaker 8 (53:13):
They're not bringing in $180,000?
.
Correct A year.
Correct the CBV.

Speaker 1 (53:20):
That they're part of it Is that correct.

Speaker 11 (53:23):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 8 (53:25):
We're not bringing in $180,000.
There's just not a rich unclein the family.

Speaker 3 (53:29):
Wait a minute.
Say it again, sandy, wait aminute.

Speaker 11 (53:31):
She's saying something.
Let's hear what she had to say.
Now, what did you say?
What are we bringing in?
What are you all bringing in?

Speaker 1 (53:38):
Are you saying?

Speaker 8 (53:39):
the hoteliers are.

Speaker 1 (53:42):
Yeah, but that's not a problem.
They don't control theoccupancy tax.
It doesn't cost them a penny tobring it in, but she
contributes to it.
No, I'm not a problem, theydon't control the occupancy tax.
It doesn't cost them a penny tobring it in.
But she contributes to it.
No, I'm not saying that it'sthe same way like the sales tax.
The guy that operates SteveJohnson doesn't come in and say
I'm generating $80,000 worth ofsales tax or whatever it is in a

(54:04):
year.
I want $80,000 worth ofsomething for me.

Speaker 8 (54:07):
That's not what they're asking for.
They're just asking for aportion of it to be able to
self-sustain, because if sheleaves, they're not
self-sustaining.

Speaker 1 (54:18):
I'm appearing that I'm on the opposite side.
I am more on the side ofhelping them than anybody in
this room.
That's why I'd like for us tojust figure out.
I don't mind what Steve'ssaying.
I think the destination manageris the most important thing
that we can help them with rightnow.
And if we can find a way to helpthem with that, but not
necessarily discard the rest ofit immediately, but just say I

(54:41):
think I go back to what I saidabout 20 minutes ago we were not
prepared to have thisdiscussion today.
In my opinion, if we can getthrough it, then I'm fine with
that.
But we don't make gooddecisions when I've got an idea
and you've got an idea, andCindy's got an idea and Tim's
got an idea.
We need it all on one piece ofpaper so we can understand the
history of what we're doing.

Speaker 11 (55:00):
The guidelines.
If we're going to take the$70,000 that we just said out of
the general fund, if that'swhat we're going to do, then
let's do it.
You know, let's do it and thenleave the other part to whatever
need to be done in the future.
Let's say this is what we planon doing, this is what council

(55:21):
has agreed with, and then takeit from there.

Speaker 1 (55:24):
But going back and forth back, to the four fields,
if that's what Steve said yeah,I.

Speaker 11 (55:28):
I mean regardless of who he said Make a motion of
some kind.
I'll make a motion that we takethe 70.

Speaker 1 (55:34):
Out of the general fund.
Out of the general fund To helpto pay for a destination
experience manager for the CVV.

Speaker 3 (55:42):
And if they want to go ahead and ramp up to do the
rest of it immediately, they cantake it out of their fund
balance for the commitment.
For us we'll try to ramp upover two or three years to help
resolve something.
I think in that motion I wouldagree with that and I agree with
the 70 000 coming out of thegeneral fund for for a year.

(56:06):
But I believe that we need tohave a strategy that moves us
forward, that addresses thisissue, because I mean, I think
we've talked about this I know Ican only say for the last five
budget cycles.

Speaker 10 (56:23):
Well.

Speaker 1 (56:26):
I'm beating up on the staff a little bit and I don't
mean to do that.
Well, I do mean a little bit,but in their defense there is a
strategy.
They've been working on thestaff a little bit.
I don't mean to do that.
Well, I do mean a little bit,but.
But but in their defense theythere is a strategy.
They've been working on thestrategy they have.
Richard Ron has put the CivicCenter under the rec department
as part of that strategy andthere'll be some.
There'll be some restructuringor reconfiguring or resumption

(56:48):
at some point.
And I mean again, like I say infairness, we're trying to plan
with Kenny and not around Kenny.
And I would say that's a.
I mean, if you're saying what'sthe impediment to getting this
done, it's nothing more thanwe're.
You know he announced some timeago when he was going to retire
.
We have no reason to, you know,not appreciate him for his

(57:10):
service and respect his decision.
But we don't want to give theimpression that we're, like I
said, saying if you leavetomorrow it would be a better
deal for us.
So I mean, isn't that fair?
That's part of the strategy too.
So we're not.
I mean, I'm glad that everybodyhere I hope this is uplifting
to Cindy even though she's notgetting $180,000 that she has a

(57:33):
council that appreciates whatshe's done and how she's handled
the CVB in a way that, in myopinion, has never in its
history been at this level, soso at the next retreat.

Speaker 8 (57:46):
Can we ask staff to kind of?

Speaker 1 (57:48):
that'll be a good time to talk.

Speaker 8 (57:49):
Yeah, yeah, let's bring this back to the table.

Speaker 3 (57:51):
We got all have some time that increase in the

(58:11):
baseline, all right they want tobe that quick.

Speaker 1 (58:15):
Everybody understands that part.

Speaker 8 (58:18):
Okay, yeah, and I'll second.

Speaker 10 (58:22):
Did you finish your motion?
Doris made the motion.
No, she made it.

Speaker 11 (58:25):
He just interrupted me, that's all.

Speaker 3 (58:28):
I was articulating, he was explaining let's get it
over with All right.

Speaker 8 (58:35):
interrupted me to sound.
I was articulating okay, goodmotion.

Speaker 1 (58:39):
Motion to give the CVB $70,000 out of the operating
budget to fund a destinationexperience manager for the next
budget year and I think theadditional.
Are you okay with saying thatwe'll find $70,000 that we can
eliminate from the general fund?

Speaker 11 (58:55):
Also, I'd like to put in what Lisa said that we
addressed at the retreat Fallretreat.

Speaker 1 (59:03):
Okay, you're alright with that, kim.
Okay, any discussion.
We've discussed it pretty good.
I hope the discussion has beenhelpful.
Alright, all in favor.
Please say aye Aye.
Okay, any discussion.
We've discussed it pretty good.
I hope the discussion has beenhelpful.
All right, all in favor.
Please say aye Aye, any opposed.
And that was the easy one.

(59:24):
Okay, so now.

Speaker 2 (59:24):
Well, you said it was going to be easy.
Somebody better order some food.
I thought it was going to beeasier than that.
Okay, all right.

Speaker 1 (59:30):
The next big one is the building standards thing,
because I know there's somedifference of opinion as to what
to do.
So can you revisit that and letus yes, and Scott's got a
detailed breakdown.

Speaker 2 (59:43):
But essentially at the retreat the request was
brought forth and we talkedabout putting basically shifting
building inspections fromIredell County to the city of
Statesville.
That would include everythingfrom plans review, to the
inspectors, to you know all thestaff and I think on the top end

(01:00:05):
we were looking at, I think, 10staff people.
First year probably six, butultimately in that range so, so,
but.
But it was meant to build intoit incrementally and give it
what would effectively be a yearand a few months to hire, hire
the main person to organize it,get everything bought up, go

(01:00:28):
through all of the approvalprocesses, give the county a
year's notice and then it wouldbe up and operational in
September of 2025.
We've included $765,000,roughly in there.
Is that right?
Yes, that's right.
In the budget for this comingyear.
We have pulled it out of fundbalance.

(01:00:51):
Uh, to do it?
probably not the most optimumway to do it but, eventually,
what we expect is that if, onceit starts generating money, it
will help to replenish back tothe, to the, to the fund balance
.
So I can't guarantee that, butthat's based on the model that I
owe County and Morrisville hasso you have that in the budget,

(01:01:15):
and what you would ask us to dowas put it in there, with the
final decision being throughwhat you're going to do.
Well, if it doesn't, then wejust won't.
You know, we will have takenthat 765 out without putting it
back in, and that's just youknow, and it also was, it was in

(01:01:40):
this year's budget.
It was a little tighter than wethought it was going to be, so,
um, you know, that was also aplace that we could take it, we
can get it fully funded.

Speaker 6 (01:01:51):
To be back to the city, what is the annual budget
estimated to be?

Speaker 2 (01:02:00):
The annualized budget .
What's this up and running?

Speaker 10 (01:02:06):
Before we run there was, I think it's a 1.4 million.
So again this the 1.4 million,Again the 1.4 million, and
that's driven by roads andworkloads.
So within that 1.5 millionrange, and that's what we're
estimating.

Speaker 2 (01:02:20):
It's hard to know for sure.
Can you say that again?

Speaker 6 (01:02:22):
It's hard to know for sure, there's just no way that
I'm, because we paid the county$200,000 to take it.
Give them all of our vehiclesand equipment, give them all
over here, give my furniture,everything to take it because we
couldn't make ends meet.

(01:02:43):
And now we're going to take itback and we're going to come
back with just like we did, butthe little vehicle for the lease
vehicle.
We're gonna make anothermistake.

Speaker 3 (01:03:10):
What's the limitation for it?
What's broken?
What road is it on?
Do I need to reinvest the?

Speaker 2 (01:03:13):
wheat.
Well, it was a council.
It was a council, ask we, we,it wasn't a staff ask what did
council ask Hang?

Speaker 3 (01:03:23):
on.
I'm through what with all theother commitments that we had,
and we got the police stationthat we've got to find, we've
got the garage and the warehouse.
What third, fourth, and thosethat we've got to find.
That's a good job.

(01:03:44):
And I'll still say this.
I still say this In return.
In regard to residential growthand I'm going to include myself
in this number we have no ideawhat's coming our way and really

(01:04:06):
no idea how we're going totechnically deal with it.
Our league is pretty full offolks.
I differ with my friend Jeffhere a little bit.
Really no idea how we're goingto technically deal with it.
I believe it's pretty cool.
Now, I differ with my friendjeff here a little bit of fire
station five.
I'm not sure we're gonna needfire station five as soon as
some people say.
I think we're gonna need itsooner than the lady jeff thinks
we're gonna need, so thatthat's another thing.

(01:04:30):
If we had 800,000, they won'tbuild a fire station, they won't
build a garage or a warehouse.
We live short, over a couple orthree years, short of using the
amount of your debt service andsaving you some money down the
road.
Why don't we focus on thethings that we're already
committed to and let'saccomplish them?

(01:04:50):
And the third thing is how muchmore load are we gonna put on
our folks?
I feel sorry for Sherry Ashleyand her staff.
They're being hammered.
It's gonna get worse.
How are we gonna attend to allthat do a good job on those

(01:05:11):
things if we're in the processof that?
We're expanding the role ofgovernment, we're creating a
whole new department trying toget it up and running.
How are we going to handle allthat?
I'd like to counter thosepoints.
Well, please, do'm gonna countthem All right.
So to the counterpoint that JABwas making about 50 years of

(01:05:37):
growth in Statesville.
Yes, it probably was the rightdecision to move the inspection
department to the county, butthe growth is not the same.
You look at 50 years of growthat 3% over 50 years.
You look at 50 years of growthat 3% over 50 years.
Well, last year our growth was1.8, almost 1.9.
It was higher than Charlotte's.

(01:05:57):
So if the thought process isthat we're going to grow which,
if you look at the last twoyears worth of minutes, we got
growth If you look at the modelthat Moris did, that's a profit
center.
So we're not talking aboutlosing money by doing an
inspection department.
We're probably talking aboutputting money back into the

(01:06:19):
general fund specifically frominspections.
That is tied to growth.
So why would we not do that forfiscal responsibility?
Why would we not want that Forfiscal responsibility?
Why would we not want to addmore money to the general fund?
We don't know that we will beadding money back.
If we just look at the modelthat Morseville has, I'm not

(01:06:40):
going to say the growth's goingto be the same, but we already
see that we've got good growthcoming.
Why would we not want to dothat?

Speaker 6 (01:06:46):
But to start with, it just don't even seem fair that
the county took it andnegotiated it at $200,000.

Speaker 3 (01:06:57):
And I think now we could make a few dollars.
I don't disagree.
I agree that that decision backthen was right.
I don't disagree with that.
That thought process was rightbecause the growth in
Statesville for 50 years wasnothing.
Now you look at the last two orthree years, we have
significant growth.
Why would we not want tocapitalize on that?

Speaker 11 (01:07:19):
That's my point, and the growth is going to continue
.
And when we say something about, I say we don't need a fire
station, people say we need afire station one.
But when you talk to the peoplethat actually the firefighters,
the fire station, the firechief I want to hear what they
have to say, because they're theones that make these decisions.
They're the ones that know what.

(01:07:40):
They out there every dayworking and figuring out what is
safe for our community.
We building houses are comingfrom all over the city.
So what are we going to do then?
So we can't just take like I'mgoing to take this off the
ballot because X amount ofdollars, because we're going to
be stuck again.
We may not be around this table, but somebody else is going to

(01:08:00):
be around this table.
And we was horse and buggies,but now we drive T-model Fords.
So what happened back then andthe relationship that we had
with people back then is onething, but what we have now is
what we have to deal with and Iwant to hear what we're going to
do now.
And we had all those things andwe had everything done.
We had everything planned.
You want to go back and talkabout it?

(01:08:20):
Well, what about the plan thatwe had down on Amity Hill when
we could have had these thingsand then we could have moved
forward?
We make decisions every day,but when we make the decision,
we got to look back at thethings that we say didn't work.
And they have worked and thiscouncil body has done a doggone
good job and moving and staff tomove us forward with the
population after 50 years.

(01:08:43):
So what I'm saying is this righthere, we deal with the reality
of what we have to deal with.
We're gonna deal with ourfuture and we're gonna do all
what we have to deal with.
We're going to deal with ourfuture and we're going to do all
that we can to be prepared forthe impossible, because ain't
nobody in here is a genie or canbe able to articulate what's
going to happen in the future.

(01:09:03):
We never thought we'd be righthere, but look what we did.
We don't wait what?
Two years without even raisingtaxes.
That's some credibility onsomebody.
We made some solid decisions.
Staff worked hard.
So all I'm saying and mind you,there ain't no speech, there
ain't nothing but reality on thetable we're gonna need a five
station fire, we're gonna needit.

(01:09:25):
How we get it what we're gonnado.
We cannot take it off the tableand say that's not an important
factor, so everything else thatwe're gonna talk about.
We cannot take it off the tableand say that it's not an
important factor, so everythingelse that we're going to talk
about.
You know I'm tired.
Now I'm going to let it go.

Speaker 8 (01:09:36):
I have two points.
One I agree with David that wedidn't have any growth, so there
was no reason for us to keepsomething that was losing money.
But it's a basic businessdecision that now we have growth
, and why would we not take itback?
Because it's obviously makingmoney.
We saw all those numbers at theretreat.
That's what we're talking aboutagain.
And then on the other side ofthat, you know, when we're

(01:09:59):
talking about the firedepartment, we talked about that
too at the retreat, so we knewthat the fire department was a
little bit down the road, whichis not on our priority list
anymore.
And then I'm going gonna throwin a ranch, because we did talk
about our pool and ourrecreation facilities that we
have not talked about, and someof those have been moved out and
I think we need to put themback in because that's what our
community asked for.
So, yeah, I think that's a gooddeal, but I think we've got

(01:10:21):
other things that we need toconsider too.

Speaker 3 (01:10:23):
I didn't mean for the discussion to focus on the fire
department.

(01:10:44):
No, it wasn't, and I thinkwe're going to have enough hard
time with planning and zoning,much less trying to develop a
building inspection for themiddle of all that planning, can
I?

Speaker 1 (01:11:02):
somewhat agree with that too.
Okay, the issue that's on thetable right now is whether we
want to get back in the buildingstandards business, and the
money is something less than$800,000, which will come out of
the fund balance for thatpurpose and over the course of

(01:11:24):
12 months we'll ramp up and Ithink it was 12 to 15 employees
or something, and the projectionis that in year two, 12 to 15
employees or something and theprojection is that in year two,
it it could, based on the growththat we're seeing now become
profitable and continue that way?
again, no guarantees are.
Is there?
Is there a motion one way orthe other about them, about

(01:11:45):
whether you want to leave itlike that and move forward?

Speaker 8 (01:11:49):
Are we talking about bringing the?

Speaker 3 (01:11:50):
inspection back.
Oh, that's right.
Okay, that's right, okay,that's right.

Speaker 8 (01:11:59):
It's in the budget when we get to the final budget
we'll take it.

Speaker 1 (01:12:02):
Okay, that's right.
I appreciate it.
I'd say, I mean well the only'sneeded is if you want to take
it out.

Speaker 3 (01:12:13):
Well, I'll make the motion.
We exclude it from the motion.

Speaker 6 (01:12:18):
Okay all right Is there a?

Speaker 1 (01:12:19):
second, second, second to that motion Okay, is
there anyone else that would?
I mean we've had discussion.
Would anyone else like todiscuss that motion?
Well, those in favor of themotion which is to take the
building standards departmentout of the budget, please raise
your hand.
Those opposed Okay, so we willleave the building standards in.

(01:12:41):
I had those exactly backwards.
I thought that would take anhour and a half at the Civic
Center.
I mean, you thought the samething.
Right, you thought it would be,or you anyway.
Anyway, you thought that take alot of time.
Okay, all right.
And I think the third don't youthink we should talk about the
water and sewer rates?

Speaker 2 (01:12:59):
Yeah, that's definitely what I'm talking
about.
I've gotten at least one.
You don't get a lot of calls.
I don't get a lot of calls onbudgets.

Speaker 1 (01:13:13):
The only comment.

Speaker 8 (01:13:13):
I've gotten so far is on water sewer rates.

Speaker 1 (01:13:14):
Me too.
So I mean can you tell themwhat you told me while we got
going and tell?

Speaker 2 (01:13:23):
them.
What's the value?
Yeah, Good.
So if you look at your, look atpage seven, if you can or I'll

(01:13:49):
just read them out.
It's in the budget message, soI'll take you back.
For those of you that were herewhen Chris Tucker was the
finance director, chris had donea water sewer rate study and in
that water sewer rate study,water sewer rate study, and in

(01:14:13):
that water sewer rate study, thefirst year showed that we
needed to raise rates 20%.
You all remember that big ratesbecause we, and when you, when
we did comparisons of it andlooked at it, we were woefully
behind where we should be.
So so so in that first year wehad a 20% increase and that was

(01:14:37):
a huge increase.
But there were scheduled 5%increases along the way, which
is pretty standard because, youknow, as costs go up, you have
to.
I mean water and sewer is abusiness you have to adjust your
rates to cover it.
We have seen increases in thefund because of growth.
But if you look at page sevenat the top, these are some of

(01:14:59):
the big projects that we arelooking at in water and sewer
Fourth Creek WastewaterTreatment Plant, equalization
Basin, Interstate Lift Station,basin Aerators, an elevated
water tank, generators.
These are all majorexpenditures.

(01:15:19):
The elevated water tank alonewas over $6 million.
So because of growth, but, alsofor the strength and the health
of our systems.
We have to make theseimprovements over time.
What this is doing?
In conjunction with that $3million South Yadkin water fix

(01:15:42):
that was just approved, it'scausing us to pull from our fund
balance, which we use forcapital projects.
It's getting it down to a pointwhere I'm personally not
comfortable with going that low.
So the only way that you can getnew revenues in your water
sewer fund is to raise thoserates.
So what we're proposing or whatI guess I'm proposing is that

(01:16:05):
we go the 5% and because of that$3 million that was unexpected
going from the 5% and because ofthat $3 million that was
unexpected going from the 5%that was programmed, moving it
to 7% to help us cover that andmake sure that we keep the fund
healthy and move forward, y'allwhen we get to the point you all

(01:16:25):
heard the other day at thegrowth meeting, forth Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant isnot at a level that we need to
start worrying about it, butwe're about a step or two away
from that and we need to startprogramming and planning for
that expansion because thatcould be $100 million.
That money comes from the watersewer plant.

(01:16:46):
So this is one preliminary stepof getting us toward investing
in our capital.

Speaker 3 (01:16:56):
Well now, when those water rates were done forward
and we had that increase, wewere right about the median of
the whole fact.
We were just about to smackdown in the middle on the rates.
About as many people werehigher than us.

Speaker 2 (01:17:17):
Yeah, after the anchors.

Speaker 3 (01:17:20):
And that was also a conversation before we had the
$20 million.

Speaker 2 (01:17:25):
Well, keep in mind that $20 million it was money in
, money out, so it was it wascovered.
It was, it was covering thehuge project that we had
identified.
We were fortunate to get thatto cover how much that 20
million do we have?

Speaker 11 (01:17:42):
is it all gone?

Speaker 2 (01:17:43):
well it's.
We don't have it in hand.

Speaker 11 (01:17:46):
The grant is allocated we know what we are
spending it on.

Speaker 2 (01:17:50):
Okay, you already know what's going to be, so
being such a large project we'vebeen working on for how long a
year and a half to get to thepoint where we can spend so it
building?

Speaker 1 (01:18:02):
you confirm that?
I mean, we're the contractprices within that, but we're
within that budget.
So we're not going to have it,we're going to be okay.

Speaker 7 (01:18:11):
The cost that the A&E has given us is within that
budget, but who knows whathappens when we go to bid in the
next two months?
That's why we said the OPC wasaround 19.2,.
But we went back to the stateand said let's keep the whole
$20 million because we mightneed that elbow room.
So we're on line for the $million dollar grant so, ron?

Speaker 3 (01:18:35):
well, if we do this increase, where does that put us
with our surroundingcommunities?
On?

Speaker 7 (01:18:42):
average, I would have to pull up.

Speaker 2 (01:18:44):
There's a dashboard.
We can probably pull that upnow.

Speaker 3 (01:18:49):
Okay, well, we're talking, I'll have some Also,
just sidebar.
Where do we need an elevatedstorage tank?
Where's the next?

Speaker 7 (01:18:56):
unit.
Y'all remember the big firedown there in Ebony Hill in 21?
.

Speaker 6 (01:19:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (01:19:02):
You remember what happened when the fire trucks
hooked on and all the lines gotsucked off and the spaghetti
down there at that intersection,the whole southwest, southwest
side of town.
If you look at our haze in 2019model and water structure thing
, the fire hydrants are all downthere.
We can't make the drive flow onthe hydrants.
So with all the developmentcoming around Wallace Springs
Road, area road coming online.

(01:19:23):
We've got giant Oaks one andtwo.
It looks like the best placefor fire towers probably be
somewhere in the vicinity of OldAirport and Buffalo Shoals.
Right now the modeling is beingdone through the Timmons
contract that you all awardedand Hayden is doing that with
them in conjunction.
They're going to figure out ifwe can get by without the water

(01:19:44):
tower for a while, if the linesthat we're going to put in on
the Airy Road loop, which willbecome the Elm Approval soon,
will give us enough temporarysupply down there for the next
year or two.
But it may show that when theother growth comes that we need
that elevated tower, notnecessarily the pressure but for
volume to be able to get to thefire.

Speaker 2 (01:20:02):
So we're waiting to see what comes.

Speaker 7 (01:20:03):
So that's why we mumped that out a little bit by
putting the waterline loop inand then, when we need it in a
couple years or three, go forthe tower okay thank you yeah,
that idea one one day.
I knew we were going to be outthat way we're going to help us

(01:20:24):
with the water needs in thesouthwest section of the city.
No sir, I'm not a firedepartment, but I'll give them
the water they need, if I can.

Speaker 1 (01:20:45):
Okay, I want to say to you One second, kim, I want
to say to you One second.

Speaker 3 (01:20:49):
Kevin, sarah, uh-huh.
If we're going to have adequatefire protection for that, we're
going to have to do something.
We're not going to have water.
How much does those towerstypically run?
Six million is what they'rebudgeting.

Speaker 7 (01:21:07):
If you go out and do an online check of the estimates
we're looking at in the $6million range for an elevated
steel water tower.
They're expensive, so that'swhy we're kind of looking at
possibly phasing the project toget the 12-inch distribution
line in and when we really pushfrom the shove a couple, three
years out and go for the toweras part of the overall plan,
programmatically.

Speaker 2 (01:21:25):
And he's right.

Speaker 7 (01:21:27):
As the airport develops too we've got to get
water out there.
It's going to be a volume, it'snot necessarily pressure.

Speaker 3 (01:21:36):
Maybe it's just when the fire happens.
You can't get enough to it intime.

Speaker 6 (01:21:39):
So within the four years you look to add a tower.
Is that six million todaydollars?
Yes, three years, maybe nine.
It could mean, we don't know,that's another decision point.

Speaker 7 (01:21:50):
If you want to bet, yeah, if you want to take a
chance to say you know, we knowthe price is going to go up to
three million in three years.
Benefit cost analysis of moneymight say do it now.

Speaker 8 (01:22:09):
I guess I just want to say right now that when you
start talking about any increase, guys and devil's after we have
talked about we're going to dothis growth, we're going to
build these houses, we're goingto do these things, we're going
to grow.
We're going to grow the airport.
Now we're coming back to thecitizens of our current city of
Statesville and saying we wantto increase your water and sewer

(01:22:32):
rates, when we have repeatedlytold them that we have water and
sewer.

Speaker 1 (01:22:37):
We haven't told them we wouldn't raise the rates.
We actually told them we'draise it 20% a year, and we
didn't do that.

Speaker 2 (01:22:44):
What you have to remember is that these
enterprise funds are run like abusiness.
People complain aboutgovernment not running like
government.
Like a business the generalfund is not, it can't be, but on
these others it really is, andthe only way of generating

(01:23:05):
revenue is to increase isthrough those rates and some
other system development feesand things like that.
But to cover these bigexpenditures you've got to
figure out how to fund them.

Speaker 8 (01:23:21):
And so do we if we quit growing.
What's that?
If we quit growing as fast aswe are, do the expenditures come
as fast?
I think?

Speaker 6 (01:23:28):
I would say most of you.

Speaker 3 (01:23:29):
I mean I'm the same, so Kim when we had this
conversation conversation backto what Steve was talking about
when we had a three or fouryears ago we were budgeting and
we were talking about a waterincrease, a significant water
increase and that was because wewere having to replace some
existing lines and some existingsewer lines.
Had we not gotten that twentymillion dollars, we'd be hurt.

Speaker 8 (01:23:50):
I agree with that I understand that.

Speaker 3 (01:23:52):
We'd be hurt had we not gotten that twenty million
dollars.
However, I do believe we'regonna have to have an increase
just to build the fund up so wecan replace what we already got.
Not because of new.

Speaker 11 (01:24:09):
How much of an increase are we talking about?

Speaker 3 (01:24:13):
seven percent, you know I'm not judging those in
the past, but they were reticentfor years and years to ever
raise water rates.
I mean we had 13 water ratesfor 20 years did y'all get a?

Speaker 1 (01:24:29):
did you look at the dashboard on that, or was that
it?

Speaker 10 (01:24:32):
Just so.
This is the school ofgovernment.
There's utilities to breakevery year.
Ms Scott is still out.
So what we've done is the reddot is states where we fixed
states full of water and superbill and compared it to
providers within 25 miles.
So these dark blue dots, that'swho it would be compared to in
this current graph, what it does.
It takes, just as an example,5,000 gallon water use a month,

(01:24:57):
what your bill would be.
You do that upper amount ofwater and how that compares to
the folks within 25 miles.
So within that 25 miles thelowest utility provider for the
same water usage would be a $57bill and the highest would be
$160.
We're at $78.
That's with the 20% increasethat went into effect two or
three years ago and you can playaround with it with different

(01:25:20):
distances or differentsuggestions.
So what Emerson and Allisonproduced proposed a 7% increase.
There you go.
This guy sits there, so you cansee the dollar doesn't really
move that much.
This is about $81.
So if you do a 7% increase,this is still where we fall

(01:25:43):
compared to other folks.

Speaker 3 (01:25:44):
That's the same.
When they leave their rate'sthe same, exactly when they
leave theirs is the same.

Speaker 10 (01:25:49):
But if they increase theirs, the dollar will come
back right let me ask.

Speaker 3 (01:25:56):
Can I ask yes, sir, this seven percent raise, given
everything you know you got todo wrong, how long does that
stick?
Any idea?

Speaker 2 (01:26:05):
I.
I would expect we'd be comingback in the next couple, maybe
three years, with another five.
If we don't do it now.
At least 5%, even if it's notseven.
But if we don't do it now,we're going to ask next year and
the next year.
I mean, it's everything else.

(01:26:26):
I'll put it this way tooEverything else in the world is
going up, and this one is partof that so would you say, if you
do the 5% it would be lesseryears coming back.

Speaker 11 (01:26:39):
if we did 5% it would be less of you you saying
like two or three years.
So if we tell the public thatwe're gonna do 7%, but it will
be that to three years, so wecan give them a date on the time
that it won't be next yearcoming back, it'll be an 8%, I
don't know that I'd want to givesomebody a definite time,
because things change you knowlike, for instance, we did not

(01:27:02):
expect to have to pay this $3million for the South Yadkin
intake.

Speaker 2 (01:27:08):
We hope to get reimbursed.
We're not guaranteed of gettingreimbursed.
Those things happen and whatthat does is that means that
kills our fund balance,contributes to killing our fund
balance in water sewer.
If we have one majorcatastrophe with water and we're
down in two, three, fourmillion dollars in that fund

(01:27:29):
balance, that is a bad day forus.

Speaker 11 (01:27:31):
Well, what about if we do the 5%?
If we do the 5%, since wecannot give, we don't know what
the future holds.
We don't know.
I think now the recipient wasprobably a little bit more
receptacle.
I mean, if we do seven, theygot to deal with the seven, but
but if they deal with the five,how would that affect?
Would that?

Speaker 5 (01:27:57):
I'd recommend still going with the seven.
Okay, and recently the 17million.
That first line of water andsewer, that's your primary
revenue.
That's it.
The system.
Development fees those canfluctuate right, those
eventually could go away.
It's just sloping downInvestment income.
The Federal Reserve's it.
The system development fees,those can fluctuate right, it
could go away.
It's sloping down Investmentincome.
The Federal Reserve isoverrated.
All of a sudden, $610,000disappears for us.

(01:28:18):
We only make $17 million ofrevenue every year.

Speaker 4 (01:28:26):
We know a water tower is going to cost $7 million.

Speaker 5 (01:28:30):
That's more than half your revenue for one year and
right now the business it's not.
Our businesses are kind of likebreak-even businesses.
Right now there's not muchprofitability to be had.

Speaker 11 (01:28:42):
You said something about the water tower.
Are we saying it's going to besomething that we're going to
have to do in the future, or isit something that we're saying
is a possibility that we have todo?
We're planning on doing it Okay,so that makes sense too.
If you're going to raise it,the people need to know why
you're raising it.
If you're going to do a 7%raise with that, they need to

(01:29:02):
know the reason why we're doingit.
We're around this table, youknow we get it, but the public
needs to know that.

Speaker 5 (01:29:08):
Yeah, okay, so great get it, but the public needs to
know that that.
Yeah, okay, so great.
Here's a great example fundbalance, available fund balance.
And the last year in water andsewer round numbers was 18
million.
At the end of next year will beabout seven, so we're going to
go through about 11 milliondollars.
So we got to ask ourselvesseven million dollars in our
fund balance by the end of nextyear, is that adequate when big

(01:29:32):
investments are three, five,seven million dollars?
I'd say no.
You'll probably need to startshoring that thing up a little
more, just to be safe.
I mean, the good thing is, ifwe go a little too high, what?
does that mean you don't have todo another one for several
years.
I mean it's just kind of.
You guys know the constituentswould they rather have 2% every?
Year perpetually, or hit mewith a 7%, wait three or four

(01:29:54):
years, and then we kind ofrevisit it.

Speaker 11 (01:29:57):
I'm just Ron.
I'm just saying that we getthis information out.
The public needs to know whywe're doing it.
We're around this table and itsounds good.
We understand it, but thepublic needs to understand it as
well.
That's all I'm saying.
I said if you're going to raiseit, you're going to give me the
reason why you're doing it.

Speaker 2 (01:30:15):
That's a fair point, and that's something that we can
do Once we settle on what thisbudget's going to look like.
We can provide that too.
We've actually looked at someplaces that go way overboard
with it, but we can give youtalking points.

Speaker 8 (01:30:31):
That's not a problem, and I guess I go back to the
concern that, regardless of howyou look at it, people took a
big hit with the taxreevaluation last year.
Granted, that wasn't our fault,but it is what it is.
All I'm saying is we need toget them again.

Speaker 1 (01:30:48):
Well, it's not good, but I'll tell you what if you're
going to have anything raised,if you're gonna have anything
raised, you'd rather have yourwater to raise rather than
electric or your that's truepercentage on the other ones.
I mean it's not good either way.
The other thing that scares meabout this and it's it's totally
sort of unrelated, but it's thesame fun we don't have.
But I think 2.4 million in oursystem development fees, for I

(01:31:11):
mean, you know, all this moneythat we're collecting that's
going to help us build the newplants in the future.
We just have a very Modestamount of that.
So when that happens, as wecontinue to grow and use more
water and all that, it's not asif we're going to fund a new
expansion of Third or FourthCreek by the money we have in

(01:31:35):
our system.

Speaker 5 (01:31:36):
Right, If anything, you'd only be able to fund an
annual debt payment.

Speaker 1 (01:31:40):
Correct.

Speaker 5 (01:31:41):
But not actually build it with cash.

Speaker 2 (01:31:44):
We're still paying the debt on Third Creek, I
believe.
Debt on Third Creek, I believe.
And Third Creek you can look atit a lot of different ways but
Third Creek has still got a debtpayment on it, but it's
underutilized.
So in my mind, we need morecustomers using the Third Creek
to pay for it.
So that's something that we'repaying for and it's very much an

(01:32:05):
underutilized system.
It's going to be great for thefuture, for sure, but it is
underutilized.

Speaker 8 (01:32:11):
So again, when we're talking about planning, that's
where we need to be pushingpeople to.
When we're talking about thesehousing developments and those
kinds of things, they're coming.
I mean I got it.

Speaker 2 (01:32:21):
But I'm just saying people here, they don't care,
all they know is their billswent up, and then we keep saying
oh, no the new development isnot going to affect you, but it
kind of is Well, I would arguethat if it's affecting it, it's
not causing this type of thing.
I mean again, south Yadkin isfresh in my mind.
That's a $3 million unexpectedcapital expenditure.

Speaker 3 (01:32:44):
It's kind of like compared to all the parts of
this.
Your fixed costs don't increaseevery time you get a new
customer.
They just pretty much stay thesame.
It's only when you get 100 newcustomers your fixed operational
costs tend to escalate, becausethen you've got to hire new,
you've got to buy new computersRight, but we're getting

(01:33:06):
thousands of new customers.

Speaker 1 (01:33:08):
But not all ours.
A lot of them are not ours.

Speaker 8 (01:33:11):
No, a lot of them are ours, the ones that we're
approving.

Speaker 1 (01:33:14):
I'm just saying it's going right back to.

Speaker 8 (01:33:15):
If Iowa Water is doing it, it's not.

Speaker 1 (01:33:17):
It affects the sewer rate but not the water that can
be in the discussion too, butwe're not.

Speaker 8 (01:33:22):
We haven't talked about it.
We're every day improving andapproving these things.

Speaker 1 (01:33:31):
And and approving these things, and I'm just
saying Well, arguably, if weprice things right, we should
make a little bit on the spreadof every customer that we get.
Okay, well, again, I'll ask fora motion that's in the budget
at 7%.
Again, if you want to leave itat 7%, you don't need to change
it, but if you want to modifythe 7%, then we would need a
motion to modify that in thebudget.

Speaker 3 (01:33:55):
I don't like paying more money than anything.

Speaker 6 (01:33:59):
You go ahead.

Speaker 3 (01:34:01):
Well, let's make the motion.
How can I say this?
On one side of Washington,they're borrowing $3 million
every 140 days and the otherside they're raising the
interest rate to slow inflation.
That's the economic environmentwe're in.
Inflation's not going anywhere.

(01:34:21):
Higher interest rates aren'tgoing anywhere, so you better do
it.
Why is it?

Speaker 1 (01:34:29):
you Okay, we'll leave that.

Speaker 3 (01:34:37):
I make a motion.

Speaker 1 (01:34:39):
I support the budget increase on the water rate, we
can do that.
But if you say, leave it as itis, we really don't need it,
we'll do that when we approvethe whole thing.
Okay, All right, I think that'sthe housing fund is in there,
right?

Speaker 2 (01:34:56):
Housing fund is in there, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:34:57):
Yes, All right Now.
What I would say is let's go tothe.
What questions do any of youall have about the budget
Concerns?

Speaker 8 (01:35:07):
I want to go back to our priority list, that we kind
of skimmed over police and thenwe moved fire station.
We talked about our bring-awaysand recreations.
Well, we did not talk aboutbring-aways and recreations.

Speaker 2 (01:35:27):
I think Ron did a little bit of it we have so
starting at the top.
So the police and the parkingdeck are programmed into this
budget.
That was a previously rankedpriority.
So when we met at the retreat,the next priority, the next
highest priority was firestation five, and then there was
a jumble after that.

(01:35:47):
The next priority, the nexthighest priority was fire
station five, and then there wasa jumble.
After that it was poolgreenways, the state's housing
authority part, so that was allkind of together.
But we don't have I mean atthis point we can't jump out and
build that fire station unlessyou're which is the number one

(01:36:11):
priority based on the retreat.
We can't build that firestation right now until we get
through the police departmentbecause we've got the warehouse.
So we're kind of to our max.
I'll put it that way Once weget beyond fire station five,
that's when the next prioritieswould kick in, being a pool hole

(01:36:31):
and any other big things.
There is greenway money in toconnect under 21, which will
actually link our.
What is it, sherry?
Six miles now, so six.
We'll have a continuous sixmile stretch of greenways from
one side of town to the other,and that's over $300,000 that's
in there for Greenwayimprovement.

(01:36:53):
There's also other money thatgoes into recreation that's used
for Greenway upgrades andmaintenance, things like that
and opportunities, opportunitiesto go out in Spain.

Speaker 1 (01:37:06):
What am I missing from that?
Well, it seems to me, kim.
Obviously we can't doeverything at one time.
The only thing that we could dodifferently in my mind is you
could raise money to fund areserve, so that we're not
talking about $5 million to dothis all at one time.

(01:37:28):
Agreed, not talking about fivemillion dollars to do this all
at one time.
But if you do that, thensomebody's got a fund that and
it's one penny on the tax ratefor every five hundred and two
thousand dollars that we raise.

Speaker 11 (01:37:38):
So what is the status on the police?

Speaker 2 (01:37:45):
department.
It's in the planning stages anddemolition is going to happen
for two of the buildingsimminently.
Yeah, soon, Sorry, I meant andso we're.
The planning stages are there.
They're actually going to DRC,the Design Review Committee,

(01:38:08):
soon.

Speaker 6 (01:38:10):
Have we hooked from the table of water for the
parking deck yet the water youknow?
We haven't studied it.

Speaker 2 (01:38:19):
Oh um Boring's.
On the Paris site we even hadParis, I think.
Paris, Paris.
Yes, Ed, you can Paris Paris.
Is it in Paris?
Yes, it is in the department.
Yeah, just only at the policedepartment, part of it.

Speaker 6 (01:38:38):
That's not for the department yet.
No, because there'd be much.
Yeah, and that's that's on theDelco folks.

Speaker 2 (01:38:48):
So that's gonna be on there's.
Am I right on that?

Speaker 6 (01:38:52):
What about the study for Sullivan Road near the lake
Study there you go across toBrookdale, right?
What were we doing?
We were having a study there.
Oh for the dam.
Yeah, sherry, you want to comeup?
We're having a study to.
Oh for the dam.

Speaker 2 (01:39:08):
Yeah, sherry, you want to come up.

Speaker 9 (01:39:12):
I may need some assistance from Scott.
We have Jerry Meade working onthat contract to see if we can
get that dam improved.

Speaker 3 (01:39:21):
It's proven to be a daunting task.

Speaker 2 (01:39:23):
We don't have a resolution yet.
Jeff the dam.
They told us we were good onthat dam a couple years ago and
then they decided they werewrong.
It's kind of like leasedvehicles and now we had to go
through another review process.

Speaker 6 (01:39:42):
I believe it was $70,000 or something like that.

Speaker 2 (01:39:46):
Oh, I don't remember how much the study was, but the
improvement's going to be a lot,a lot.

Speaker 6 (01:39:53):
It may even kill it.

Speaker 2 (01:39:54):
It's possible.

Speaker 6 (01:39:57):
It might be more of the power.

Speaker 11 (01:39:59):
Excuse me, but are we still moving forward?
Are we through?

Speaker 2 (01:40:03):
Well, you asked about the police department.

Speaker 11 (01:40:05):
I did, I did, so that's in the process.

Speaker 2 (01:40:07):
Okay, on the police department I did so that's in
the process.
On the fire department, we arestill looking for property.
We kind of have held, based onthe budget, when we wanted to
get through this and I said thisearlier and I know that this is
not going to be a popularstatement when it comes to

(01:40:31):
building that fire department, Imean, I think we're going to be
.
Unless we get serious goodrevenue, we're going to either
I'm going to probably be comingto you with a recommended tax
increase to fund the station,the apparatus, because you gotta
remember it's a three-prongedprocess and that's gonna be, if

(01:40:54):
you move forward with it, that'sgonna hurt because you're gonna
, at the end of the day, you'recarrying, glenn, what?
Million million and a halfMillion and a half.
The first of the houseApparatus is probably two
million.
That'll purchase it in aboutthree years.
So you've got heavy carryingcosts.
So that being your firstpriority, that's a big one.
That's a heavy lift for us andwe certainly couldn't do it in

(01:41:19):
this year's budget.

Speaker 8 (01:41:21):
I had a quick question about the police.
There were like nine newvehicles in there.
Police yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:41:29):
Yeah, we have a nine vehicle replacement um uh
schedule.
So we've been doing that forwhat?
Six, seven years now that I'llmove over to that, yeah it could
be, but that was just somethingthat was put in place some
years back to keep the fleetrolling.

(01:41:50):
That's the number that waschanged.
It has not grown as the forcehas grown.

Speaker 11 (01:41:57):
We said nine.
How many have we completed inthat we?

Speaker 1 (01:42:00):
got all nine of them, nine every year.

Speaker 11 (01:42:03):
Nine every year.
Yes, ma'am, oh, okay.
That's what's budgeted.

Speaker 3 (01:42:07):
Budgeted okay, these are good questions.
Every man, every year.
Okay, that's what's budget.

Speaker 1 (01:42:15):
But that's right, that's one tenth of our fleet.
Every year I might want.

Speaker 3 (01:42:17):
Evan, okay, going through the budget, I mean I've
got one thing.
We've been back and forth onthis.

Speaker 10 (01:42:23):
With the credit card charges that we're absorbing
this year are expected to be$600,000.

Speaker 1 (01:42:27):
And that's a lot, that's 1.2 cents on the tax rate
and I must be patronizing thewrong places because everywhere
I go, you pay more than $600,000.
And I'm be patronizing thewrong places because everywhere
I go, you pay more to use yourcredit card than if you pay cash

(01:42:54):
and I just don't know what'swrong with.
I don't, I mean, unless it'smore cumbersome than the amount
that we're charging.
That just seems like a lot ofmoney that we're eating.

Speaker 8 (01:43:09):
It is.

Speaker 1 (01:43:11):
And that number keeps going up and up.
I guess the other thing is,more and more places decline to
take cash because I guessthere's the theft risk and all
that kind of stuff.
But I mean, even if you goonline and make a gift to a
charity, they say do you want togross it up by 4% to cover the

(01:43:31):
credit card charge?
So I just don't understand whatthe heresy is to charge the
users of their credit cards touse them.
And if you use cash or if youwrite a check, then you don't
pay it, but if you use creditcard, then online.
I mean that's all I'm sayingthat that's a lot of money.
I mean that's you know.
You start talking about whatcould you do with another six

(01:43:54):
hundred thousand bucks or partof that, it just seems.
It seems like something toconsider well and we get, we're
getting it back working, butit's we're not getting.
I mean, we're we're getting itback, but we're're getting it
back, but we're getting it backfrom an enterprise fund.
So what Ron just shared with usis that the enterprise funds
have to make it on their own.

(01:44:14):
It's harder for them to make iton their own because the
electric department and thewater department are all having
to reimburse.
The general fund are beingimpacted in the way that.
Maybe, doris, it would haveallowed us to have only a 5 or
6% in the water, because wewould have.
We were having to use some ofthe water to replace the general

(01:44:37):
fund because we had got creditcard charges.
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:44:41):
Do other municipalities charge a
conveniency fee for processingpayment of credit cards?

Speaker 1 (01:44:46):
Are you asking or are you saying yeah, I'm asking,
fee for processing payment ofcredit cards.
Are you asking or are you?

Speaker 3 (01:44:47):
saying yeah, I'm asking Because I know industries
do all type of retailindustries do.

Speaker 2 (01:44:54):
I'm sure they do.
Trying to think back to whenthis came up with council, we
were trying to compel people touse it and that was at least
part of the conversation was totake on those demands.
It is higher than we thought itwas going to be.

Speaker 8 (01:45:17):
All we have to do is just add it right.

Speaker 2 (01:45:20):
Then people will go back to coming in the office
$600,000, half a million dollars.
Eventually, what you'll see isthat number will be offset
somewhat not entirely by a newstaff as we grow.
If you have more people comingin the office to customer
service but I mean, I'm notgoing to that may not be much at

(01:45:43):
all.
So what you're?

Speaker 1 (01:45:44):
saying yeah, because if you go in and pay your bill
with a credit card, you don't Imean they can't.
They can't, they can onlycharge it for, like online or
whatever.
For some reason, People knowthat.
But what?
Yeah, but what Rob?
What Rob is saying is that theybelieve that more people will
come into the office to usetheir credit card to pay and
then it will take more stafftime.

Speaker 2 (01:46:10):
But I don't think well, you know, it's a whole
heck of a lot less than sixhundred thousand dollars.
Right and just so you.
Just so you know.
I think the mayor kind ofalluded to it we it's not a
general fund hit directly, so itdoesn't hit us directly.
It's kind of a pastor we getreimbursed back us directly.
It's kind of a pass-through.
We get reimbursed back throughthe enterprise times, water,

(01:46:31):
sewer later.
But to the mayor's point youknow that does impact rates on a
small, small school.

Speaker 8 (01:46:36):
I think before we had asked well, I had asked one
time if we have a way ofrewarding staff for coming up
with incentives that save money.
That's a lot of money, and Iguess I'm just speechless when
we sit here and act like in oneregard.
We'll ask for $170,000, andthat's a big deal.

(01:46:59):
But over here, $600,000 is nota big deal, it's the same money.

Speaker 1 (01:47:03):
Well, I mean, look at what we've done today.

Speaker 8 (01:47:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:47:06):
We agreed to pay almost Between seven and eight
hundred thousand dollars tostart building standards.
It could almost, it couldalmost be funded by this in one
year agree, and it's a choice.

Speaker 8 (01:47:19):
If somebody wants to pay their bill online because
they're rushing, I do it all thetime I don't have a problem
paying five more dollars for it.
If I want to go in, well, I'mnever gonna come in.
I don't have a problem payingfive more dollars for it.
If I want to go in, well, I'mnever going to come in.
I'm always going to pay mineonline.
But that was a new thing.
It was a good thing.
It's going to hit themsomewhere down the road anyway.
So if it's something that I havea choice to make.

(01:47:40):
I'd much rather be able to makethe choice to say hey, today, I
can't get by there.

Speaker 2 (01:47:52):
I'm just gonna pay it online or I'm gonna link my
bank account to it, and itdidn't make me pay it on.
I mean, that's a choice, whatwe could do.
If you want us to do this, wecan.
We can, I mean, you can stay,you can stay, it can stay in,
but we can come back to you withwhat's it going to look like if
it gets changed.
I don't know that, we can flipthe switch in a couple days, but

(01:48:13):
what's this going to look likeas far as a policy change, and
then you decide what you want todo from there.

Speaker 11 (01:48:19):
I want to make sure I hear this because I'm halfway
asleep and I apologize.
When we decide to go onlinewith people paying their utility
bills, okay, some people likeit, some people don't, and some
companies are going now theywon't even take cash and we
might end up having to gothrough that process somewhere
down the line.

(01:48:39):
How has it affected us?
Our research?
How has it affected us in theprocess?
You know how we have in what weinvested in.
How have we, what type ofincrease that we have?
What type has it benefited usas a city To have this in place?

Speaker 2 (01:48:58):
well, it has kept a lot of the walk-in traffic from
walking in, so a lot of peopleare utilizing it, as the bees
will show you.
That allows the staff atcustomer service to focus on new
accounts.
One of the ideas was you havepeople coming in and paying
their bills and it was taking upall this time and the new

(01:49:21):
accounts which take more time toestablish were getting pushed
behind and we were gettingbehind on that so that's one
benefit, one's an ease for the,for the, for the folks using it.
And then, if you remember, wewere, we had a, not a
subscription, but we had one ofour software vendors was
basically going to go up theircharges.

(01:49:42):
Right, you've changed.
There's a little bit of a deltain there that I'd have to look
back to see that we were goingto have to pay more anyway.
Now I don't think it's anywhereclose to the $600,000.

Speaker 1 (01:49:56):
I could get you that information and I think it was
just and maybe the policy thatwe imposed worked extremely well
.
But I think when we talkedabout this last, the number was
more like in the 200 feet.
I mean it's astronomicallyhigher than it was when we went
one or two years where wecharged the fee right.
Or did we ever?

(01:50:18):
We imposed this, whatever youcall it, what do you call?

Speaker 8 (01:50:22):
it Convenience fee.
Convenience fee.

Speaker 2 (01:50:23):
Convenience fee.
Well, I know that.

Speaker 11 (01:50:25):
Yeah, previous to this.
Yes, conveniently, convenientlyWell, I know that.
Yeah, previous to this.
Yes, the IT when she made that,she made the recommendation
that we switch from the servicethat we did have because of the
higher rates and this was abetter.
So I'm just wondering now howeffective this is.
Now, you know, when you comparesomebody to one thing and it

(01:50:45):
may not work out as good as youthought it was, I want to know
the difference in that.
How much are we saving?
Are we still benefiting from?

Speaker 2 (01:50:52):
this, we're benefiting from it.
We're paying more money.
I think that's the whole cruxof this.

Speaker 8 (01:50:58):
Yeah, the system is working.
I love the system, but I justthink we just need to edit that
part.

Speaker 2 (01:51:07):
And we were not able.
There was some issue and againI've got to go back and look at
my notes on the details of itbut there was some issue that
was not going to allow us to dothis online and we were trying
to make it more convenient forpeople which it has done, but
it's costly and Kosti's right.

Speaker 8 (01:51:28):
It was somewhere in the $200,000 to $300 hundred
thousand dollar range what wethought it was going to.
Well, when I go back to,there's all these little things
that cost us a whole lot ofmoney that we're talking about
and we make really light of themand act like, oh, half a
million dollars is not that's alot of money, unless a lot of
taxpayers dollars, and then onthe flip side, you're asking
them to pay more money forsomething else, when the people

(01:51:48):
that want to make a choice tocome in or pay their credit card
bill a lot, that's a choice.
It's just different to me.
So, when we're considering whatwe're doing for our
constituents, to me it wouldjust be easier for us to just
make good decisions, save moneyin every department that we can
and go back to working with ourstaff and department heads.

(01:52:08):
Guys, if you can save money, ifyou see cost savings, give them
good Lord.
I mean $600,000?
.
I'm pretty sure they know thattoo, because when these things
come up in their departmentsthey have to review this thing
every month.
If they can come up with somecost savings, let's put it on
our staff and give themsomething back.
Come up with some cost savings?
Let's put it on our staff andgive them something back.
If they're saving us money as agroup, as a council, as a city,

(01:52:31):
give them some reward for, say,six hundred thousand dollars.
That if it's not benefitingthem and they're just like, oh
well, we're used to it, oh well,we're gonna eat it.

Speaker 1 (01:52:39):
Or oh well, we're gonna get something back, we're
gonna get rewarded as adepartment, let's do something
to kind of help fix some of thisstuff, because it sounds like
we've got a lot of little teenytiny thing and if we need if we
need a lot of need to hire aperson who's, yeah, only job is
to do new accounts, I meanthat's, if that's, if that's the
best, if that's the bestargument you can throw them, I'd
rather spend whatever ourpackage is to have a new

(01:53:01):
accounts officer or whateverit's.
It's gonna be a heck of a lotless than this amount I'll give
you all some, it wasn't just.

Speaker 2 (01:53:09):
I'll give you all a summary of the whole decision.
If you remember, there werelike four or five different
aspects, ladies to it.
We had an extension policywhere people were riding every
single month.
We had One software system wasgoing away with fees going up on
.
It was.
It was pretty complicated.

Speaker 8 (01:53:27):
And I'm not that concerned about what we did.
I think we did good.
I'm just saying that goingforward.
I don't think that I want tosee this again next year.
Well, I don't know that.
The fees are the means.
No, that's what I'm saying.
So if we can give, let thecustomer eat the fee when they
use their credit card.
Why can't we just make that?

Speaker 11 (01:53:46):
decision, right to let them right so I make a
motion that we just add in thecredit card fee if they want to
use the credit card fee what'dyou say, doris you?

Speaker 8 (01:53:56):
say customers eat the fee yeah, if they want to use
their credit card, they pay afive dollar credit card fee.
That's a choice, or?
Whatever that fee is, or theycan put their account on with
the bank, which is no fee orthey can go take it.

Speaker 1 (01:54:18):
I'll second that the question is to let the customer
pay a convenience fee if theyuse their credit card to pay
their bills, if they use theircredit card to pay their bills?

Speaker 6 (01:54:28):
It don't matter.

Speaker 1 (01:54:30):
We're getting ready to vote All that are in favor of
doing that.

Speaker 9 (01:54:35):
Can I say that one of the big pushes with electric
utility payments was the creditcard fees and when we changed
our system we advertised thepayout of that, so there's no
credit card fees.

Speaker 1 (01:54:44):
There aren't right now, I ain't voting for that,
we're going to keep it.

Speaker 11 (01:54:47):
No credit card fees there aren't no right now.
Hey, I ain't both for that,we're gonna keep it no credit
card fee.

Speaker 9 (01:54:59):
We was not.
What was she saying?

Speaker 8 (01:55:02):
What was she saying?
No credit card fee.

Speaker 4 (01:55:09):
She's saying that we said that we would charge the
customer the credit card fee.

Speaker 8 (01:55:12):
We'd eat the fee.
We'd eat the fee.
We also didn't know it wasgoing to be $600,000 a year.
Yeah, but that was the push tobring some interest.

Speaker 2 (01:55:20):
What is your problem with that?
Or did that reach justadvertising?
That was a big push for us.

Speaker 1 (01:55:25):
That's a big push or that we just advertised.
That was a big push for us.
That's a big push.
But the idea has been choice.
You've got other choices, iswhat we're saying.
It's not as if that's the onlychoice that you've got.

Speaker 8 (01:55:36):
How long has that been?
That was just implemented.
If it hadn't been a year, Iwouldn't necessarily be setting
myself up.
What'd you say?
I ain't voting for it?
Yeah, you're setting yourselfup.
What'd you say?
I'll set something up.
Yeah, you're setting yourselfup.
Is there something that we canwork out with the vendor?
Let me do this.

Speaker 2 (01:56:02):
Let us get back with you with better information.
I think that'd be best.
If we're going to walk throughthe whole thing, it's probably
better to walk through the wholething back with you.

Speaker 6 (01:56:22):
Yeah, I'll withdraw the motion how do you want to do
that?

Speaker 1 (01:56:25):
when do you want to do that?

Speaker 2 (01:56:26):
we'll get on it tomorrow and um, the time is
yeah, we'll get on it tomorrow,I'll just.
I'll either send something outor we'll have it at the uh six
three okay, so what?

Speaker 1 (01:56:41):
what other?
What other items or concernsthat people have?
Uh, we've got to talk about thehousing fund.

Speaker 8 (01:56:49):
That was the fourth one.

Speaker 1 (01:56:51):
Well, I mean it's in there.
So if we don't have rejection,it stays in.

Speaker 8 (01:56:59):
Okay, so we added that in there, but you do know
that next year, by the time itcomes around again, we're going
to have to figure it out again,so do we not need to add it in
twice?
This year covers this year.
This year, when the fund is dueagain, was in January.

Speaker 1 (01:57:15):
No, it's, uh it's.
We haven't paid anything yet.

Speaker 8 (01:57:18):
No, we haven't.

Speaker 1 (01:57:18):
I know that yeah so we're we're just saying for the
next fifth, for the over thenext 12 months, we need the 190.
And that's what we said.
We already said we do that andthey were able to budget that.
So we will have to look at itagain next year.
Will there be a good time atthe?

Speaker 11 (01:57:32):
retreat.

Speaker 3 (01:57:34):
That's not a problem.
What's it going to look likefive years from now?

Speaker 1 (01:57:40):
Well, when we made the commitment this is our
commitment that we made One year, one year, and so this time
next year we can.
We can have the conversationabout whether it has worked for
us and whether we should go forit there's an expectation, by
united way, that it'll bereviewed again for next year,
not?
Other other people committed tothree years, but we only said

(01:58:00):
one and it won't make sense,yeah it makes sense, I mean we
and it won't be great.

Speaker 11 (01:58:04):
Does that make sense , kevin?
Yeah, it makes sense, I mean we.

Speaker 1 (01:58:10):
if you think we can renege on credit card fee, then
we certainly.
If we can't renege on somethingwe put out that we won't charge
the fee, we sure can't renegeon that.
Okay, all right, good point.
Floor's open.
Anything in the budget thatneeds to be discussed, it's

(01:58:38):
usually well, we don't have, um,we don't have to make a motion.
Well, I mean not today, if youwere to leave here today.

Speaker 2 (01:58:48):
everybody agrees basically in concept with what
we have if you would tell me andTim to develop a budget
ordinance.
We would develop a budgetordinance which is the official
document that adopts it, and wewould bring to you in the June
3rd.
I agree with that?

Speaker 11 (01:59:10):
Yeah, I think so.
You need a second.

Speaker 1 (01:59:19):
I think the only thing we have to look at
immediately, I guess, is I mean,we've resolved everything,
resolved everything else there,either in or out, but is the
credit card charges?
I think take a motion.
Or you want us to just nod andsay we're, we're agreeing.
I mean, we took votes on otherthings, we took some things out.

(01:59:41):
We said this water series staythe same.
We said we would join.

Speaker 4 (01:59:45):
I mean capture the building standards.
We would give 70,000 out of thegeneral fund of the.

Speaker 1 (01:59:51):
CBB yeah, that's it.
So it looks like the only thingthat we're left to look at is
what we want to do about thecredit card yeah, in that we'll
get on it as soon as possible.

Speaker 2 (02:00:05):
We'll get on it as soon as possible?

Speaker 5 (02:00:10):
Maybe we can.
I do want to have aconversation to see how much of
that is simply technology.
We had it deployed, the dollaramount, how much was the vendor
increase?
And then how much is the actualcredit card transaction fee?
Because now we're going to growthat If we carve that out, it
turns out to be to be.
Well, out of the 600, only 200is the credit card fee.
I think council should want toknow how much that is.

Speaker 1 (02:00:33):
Also.
I mean, but it's listed in here.
I forgot.
I wrote down the page but Iforgot what page it is.
It says credit card fee, butyou're saying it may incorporate
other components associatedwith going to that credit card.
All right, well, and the thingis, if we're that close, uh, I
mean I wouldn't drop everythingto find that out tomorrow
morning.
I mean, if we don't, if wedon't get it, you know we, just

(02:00:56):
as long as we do it in June,we're okay.
Yeah, I think so.
So, uh, I mean, and I knowpeople had we had a split vote
on one or two things, but I mean, and I know people had we had a
split vote on one or two things, but I mean, but for that, are
people ready?
Would be ready to vote for abudget based on what we've
talked about today?
Anything else that has come up?

(02:01:16):
Is that fair?
Yes, okay, I don't think wevote on the budget in this
county.
No, we do that.
Okay, thank you, okay.
Can I make you a prayer?
Thank you, yes, for my buddyJohn Ferguson.

Speaker 4 (02:01:26):
I know he was talking about the school bus at the
airport and Ron kind of skippedon it.

Speaker 1 (02:01:28):
If our fuel sales continue to go up a little this
year.

Speaker 3 (02:01:32):
He's going to need another guy, a person from the
fire.
I don't know if he's going tobe able to get a job, I don't
know.
Continue to go up a little bitthis year.
He's gonna need another guy, aperson from the financial school

(02:01:53):
in point.

Speaker 1 (02:01:53):
Our people say that and a part-time restaurant
manager.
Part-time.

Speaker 2 (02:01:58):
No, not, and usually with John we'll talk through
those things.
The good thing again about anenterprise is you adjust.
You know we can be easier thana gentleman.

Speaker 5 (02:02:11):
We'll probably be better here without asking for a
question, and Steve with John,our conversations are more of
volumes that are driving thesales, not just price increases.
Just in case you get a price,it doesn't mean you need to add
headcount Y'all.

Speaker 2 (02:02:31):
I'm sorry CBB got a little sideways, I
underestimated it.
That's on me.

Speaker 1 (02:02:39):
Very good, thank you, I don't think we need to Do.
We need a motion to adjourn,okay.

Speaker 6 (02:02:44):
So moved Second.

Speaker 1 (02:02:46):
Motion is seconded by Joe and David.

Speaker 7 (02:04:06):
All in favor please say aye, aye, thank you.

(02:04:34):
Well, thank you.