I don't still know anyway.

It's weird.

Like to call this meeting to order.

It is a regular city council meeting of Court d'Alane.

It's six PM.

And it's September second.

English.

Here.

Wood.

Here.

Here.

Evans.

Miller.

Here.

Gabriel.

Here.

Thank you, Joe.

And Mark McGorder here from Nazarene Church to do our invocation.

Mark, are you here?

Sorry, Mark.

We're moving on.

The pledge.

Kiki, please stand.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And the Republic for which it stands.

One nation.

Liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Kiki.

Any amendments to the agenda, Council?

Hearing none, moving on.

So we're getting a presentation tonight.

This is a little out of the norm, but thinking uh nine eleven is coming next week, and we won't be sitting here.

And this is a recession, recitation of President George Bush's address to the nation in remembrance of September eleventh terrorist attacks.

And from Summit Christian Academy, Colt Kingsbury is gonna do this, and I saw him do this last year, and he won some awards doing it.

So Colt, assume the position.

These acts shattered steel.

But they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.

America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.

And no one will keep that light from shining.

Today, our nation saw evil.

The very worst of human nature.

And we responded with the best of America.

With the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.

Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans.

Emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C.

to help with local rescue efforts.

Functions of our government continue without interruption.

Federal agencies in Washington, which had to be evacuated today, are reopening for essential personnel tonight and will be open for business tomorrow.

Our financial institutions remain strong.

An American economy will be open for business as well.

The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts.

I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to help find those responsible and to bring them to justice.

I will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and the ones who harbor them.

I appreciate so very much the members of Congress who have joined me in strongly condemning these attacks.

And on behalf of the American people, I thank the many world leaders who have called to offer their condolences and assistance.

America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world.

And we stand together to win the war against terrorism.

Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve.

For the children whose worlds have been shattered.

For all those whose sense of safety and security has been threatened.

And I pray that they'll be comforted by a power greater than any of us.

Spoken through the ages in Psalm 23.

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me.

Tonight is a night when all Americans from every walk of life unite in a resolve for justice and peace.

America has stood on any me America has stood on enemies before.

And we will do so this time.

None of us will ever forget this day.

Yet we go forth to defend freedom and all those good and just in our world.

Thank you.

Good night, and God bless America.

Thank you, Colt.

So uh we're moving into public comments right now, so if you want to follow Colt with a public comment.

Thank you.

Brought back some tough memories.

I've got two people signed up.

John Pilshner.

Welcome, John.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, city staff.

I want to speak tonight as a neighbor who cares deeply about this city.

Like many citizens, I believe we face big challenges, but also have clear opportunities to make progress right away.

If I were in a position of leadership, my day one priorities would be straightforward.

First, improve communication by publishing city notices in places beyond just the CDA press so more citizens can see what's happening.

Second, support first responders by creating a volunteer chaplain program that gives them and the community support in times of crisis.

Third, create a lodging tax that benefits the city, initially self-imposed by hotels with the goal of securing state legislation that allows court d'aine to collect revenue directly from overnight stays.

These are simple, achievable steps that could be started now, no need to wait for an election.

I invite this council to take action on them today.

At the same time, campaigns can sometimes feel heavy and divisive, and I believe Court Alain deserves engagement that's positive, creative, and uniting.

That's why tonight I'm introducing the better CDA challenge, a 60-day series of light hearted weekly activities that anyone in the community can join.

The first challenge is simple.

Run a mile.

I did mine this morning.

First mile I've run in I don't know, 15 years, and I push myself.

I got 11 minutes and five seconds.

I'm really proud of that.

I'm inviting my fellow candidates who are here tonight to join me.

And when you complete it, you get to choose the next challenge.

This isn't just for candidates, it's for everyone.

Families, kids, neighbors, post your mile or your own version of it with the hashtag better CDA challenge.

Because at the end of the day, we are all neighbors.

We all want to protect the institutions that make Court Olaine strong.

And we all want to find unity.

We all want to find ways to unite the community we love.

Thank you.

Thanks, John.

Roger Smith.

Roger, you're still here.

Welcome.

Good evening, Council members.

I did send most of you a letter with my thoughts, so I hope you receive that.

And but I did want to be on the record here in public comment with some of my thoughts.

On the subject of noise, vehicle noise around Court Elaine.

I know that at the last council meeting there were several public comments made.

And so I'm sort of following up on those comments.

There was even a good article, a front page headline article in the Court Lane Press, as you as you know, there's a lot of concern about noise.

Also, I've heard through the Grapevine that one of the products coming out of that was possibly a noise or a working group that as part of their charge would be to look at the noise issue.

So I'm hoping to hear more about such a working group that maybe is forming in the city.

I think that's an overdue thing.

And thank you very much for taking a step like that to start addressing the noise issue.

I live just across the street here from City Hall, and this is one of the very noise-affected neighborhoods of the city.

There's others.

And you've heard about Northwest Boulevard and some other areas, Sherman Avenue, I'm sure.

But right here in this neighborhood, we do have a problem.

We hate to complain about noise without also offering some suggestions about uh solutions.

I'm a retired engineer and I have a uh some background in acoustical and noise measurement type uh technology, uh so I certainly want to share that with you.

But uh first of all, you do have a new ordinance here, a newer ordinance, or a year old now in in Courtelain that addresses noise.

It's a very good ordinance.

I've got to compliment the staff for developing it, city staff, and the council for enacting it and approving it.

You have a very good ordinance available to you.

Uh good in the sense that it doesn't require a uh law enforcement person to be standing with a sound level meter and measuring decibels and catching somebody going by.

It's it's written from the standpoint of reasonable judgment by a law enforcement person, uh equipment modifications that are probably ready readily visible to a law enforcement person.

So it's it's an enforceable, I believe, um, ordinance that you've put together.

Now the the uh second phase of that is a campaign, I'll call it, to uh to enforce the ordinance to educate people about the ordinance, and uh that's the second part of it.

So some of my suggestions are, as I complain about noise, suggestions would be uh more police presence, not just drive by police roaming around, that that's that's nice, but I think if a if a police car had been parked here Sunday night between 10 and 11 o'clock after dark, between 10 and 11, they probably could have made five or six citations, just cars going up and down 8th Street, uh heading into the parking lot right out here outside of City Hall, where young people tend to congregate.

So parking a police car, uh having a presence, not just roaming, also the possibility of ghost cars, empty police car, an old car parked somewhere for a while, moved around as a sort of an intimidating thing to people that that want to make a lot of noise.

Um tickets, uh they're done in other areas where cars that are are stopped without a muffler, let's say, or a muffler in really bad repair, are are given a warning and a fix it ticket.

They have so many days to repair that loud car, or they get a full citation.

So fix the tickets are I don't think the city is using those.

Um electronic message signs.

I see that the two signs at the entrance to the city, out on Sherman and out on Northwest Boulevard, have been put back in place.

Great move.

I'm all in favor of that.

That warns outside people coming in that there is uh room for uh ticketing.

So uh also electronic message signs activated by loud vehicles are very uh uh effective.

Not that expensive.

They're not gonna issue a ticket, they're not gonna take a picture, they're just gonna warn people that there is a uh noise violation.

So and uh outreach and education is always important.

The more we can do of that with articles in the paper, or even communication with with muffler shops, people that are in the business of modifying and making loud mufflers.

Uh I did talk to somebody at Subaru dealership that said they won't do them anymore.

So that's a good model for what can be done.

So anyway, thank you for all your work with noise, and uh I know there's more that can be done, so just some suggestions for the council and the city.

Thanks.

Thank you, Roger, appreciate it.

All right, moving along, council announcements.

Anyone?

Christy.

Mr.

Mayor, I just wanted to clarify I appreciated Roger, I appreciated everything you said.

Is he still here?

Yeah.

Thank you.

I the lights are really bright.

Um but I we spoke about this at the last council meeting without it being on the agenda.

We talked quite a bit, and then Councilman Miller was wise to tell us, hey people, this is not on the agenda.

So I thought we left it with it was going to come back and be on an agenda.

I don't know about a working group.

I think that was one of the suggestions, but it hasn't been put on an agenda yet.

So I just wanted to clarify, to my knowledge, we haven't done that yet, right?

Correct.

So it'll come forward on a on a future agenda.

Thank you for your suggestions.

Mr.

English.

Um I wanted to actually make some comments on something we dealt with, I don't know, it seems like six, eight weeks ago or something.

Um, and I happen to be driving by today at second and uh Harrison, and we had an issue come by where somebody wanted to there was a house there and a neighbor was concerned about, you know, if it was going to be used for commercial, whatever, but also about the state of affairs of you know, wasn't kept up and stuff.

And today it happened to catch my eye, and I actually turned around and kind of went down there, and I can see at least a couple of violations that give me concern.

One that it's either the weeds or trees or something that has grown up so high that that's I mean, a fire hazard.

The other thing is it would be the obstruction that's you know, when you're at a corner intersection where I was, I wouldn't have been able to look down the other way.

So I don't know where that whole thing went, but there was a neighbor up the street.

It seemed like there was concern.

So that's one, you know, with our you know, code enforcement that I'd put on their uh list to go check that out, and just so folks know that yeah, we we do get back to some of these things and take it serious.

So that was enough.

Okay.

Anything else, folks?

Mr.

Gugger.

Oh no, I well, I saw the same thing that Dan saw.

I think those are large trees that are trying to grow in the front yard.

So still in blood.

Yeah, that's it's it's it needs to be taken care of, yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

Hearing no more announcements, I just have an appointment.

I would like to appoint Corey Keller to the design review commission, please.

Mr.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to appoint Corey Keller to the design review commission.

Second.

And move and second.

Discussion.

Hearing none, roll call, please.

Wood.

Yes.

Evans.

Yes.

Miller, yes.

Gabriel.

Yes.

Gook in.

Yep.

English.

Yes.

Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented, including resolution number 25-046.

Second.

Move and second it, consent calendar discussion.

Hearing none, roll call, please.

Evans.

Yes.

Miller.

Hi.

Gibrill.

Yes.

Gook in.

Yeah.

English.

Yes.

Wood?

Yes.

All right.

Next on the up is Council Bill 251016 amending municipal code entitled Cruelty to Animals to Prohibit or can of confining animals in any unattended vehicles.

Chief White, welcome and thank you.

Good evening, Mary Council.

I come to you tonight as a lead dog catcher for the city.

What I'm requesting is an amendment to the municipal code 6.15.110 by adding a new subsection F that reads as follows.

As the staff report reads, uh last year during a six-month period, we received approximately 110 calls for service for animals left unattended in vehicles.

It's probably a little timely that uh we're doing this on a day when the temperature outside is, you know, over a hundred degrees.

Um the problem we have with the current Idaho code is that it lacks clarity, uh, and then a different section, it requires a veteran's determination that the animal was improperly cared for.

Uh this just goes back to the reasonableness standard.

So if a reasonable animal control officer or citizen would think that the animal was left inappropriately long in a vehicle with the you know inappropriate ventilation or something like that, we could take some sort of action.

With that, I'll stand for any questions.

Questions for the chief.

Mr.

Gukin.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh Chief, someone mentioned online that there might be some ambiguity in this code, and I want to know how you would address it.

So it talks about adequate ventilation, lack of food or water, other circumstances that could be reasonably.

There's my favorite legal word reasonable.

Be exposed to cause suffering disability.

I mean, how is an officer going to determine adequate ventilation, lack of food or water, or other circumstances?

Well, as you said, the the reasonableness standard is one that's commonly used in um our line of work.

Um if uh if you may have let me put it to you this way.

Um we're not looking to be citation heavy.

It's not like we're going to go out and cite everyone who happens to leave an animal in a car.

Um as the staff report reads, the majority of these instances are already fixed or solved through education.

There is occasionally a citation that is written, but generally the person just doesn't realize how hot, how fast a har a car can get that hot and cause the uh animal to be in danger.

Um I would tell you that on a day like today, if the windows are rolled up and the dogs left in the vehicle even for 15 minutes, I would think that would be unreasonable, and I think our animal control officers will come to the same conclusion.

Um I've also asked uh that the sergeant in charge of that unit provide some additional training to our animal control officers so they better understand the reasonable standard, um, so we're not inappropriately issuing citations, but uh, I think by and large, the our best success comes through education and uh try to get the the word out to the public that you can't leave your your animals unattended in the vehicle when the when the weather is warm.

So, in in your experience and knowing our department the way it is set up, what is your opinion on um the spirit of this law versus the letter of this law?

Is that going to be an issue?

I don't think so.

Uh our folks are they're very good at what they do.

Like I said, we're not out to just write a whole bunch of citations.

Um I think uh during those circumstances though, when um there might be some disagreement as to whether or not the um animal was inappropriately left for a duration of time that most people would think was too long when the weather is too warm, uh the officers then could take action and have it be uh more easily prosecuted in court.

And this is a citation.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions?

Christy.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh Chief, thanks for bringing this forward.

I think it's long overdue.

I it's hard to imagine that someone would leave their animal in the car, but they do.

Um with this though, and it I don't think we can weave it into this ordinance, but I'd like you to give it some thought and our city attorney to give it some thought.

Some of the same complaints that come forward about animals being neglected are when they come down to the our major events downtown and it's really hot and they're dragging their pets through downtown.

Um I don't know if there's a possibility of just not allowing pets during special events.

I don't know if you get a lot of calls on that, but I I hear from the public on it, and they are concerned.

And when we see these dogs that are obviously very hot, um it is concerning.

So I don't know if you have any feedback on that.

I can't speak to the number of calls we receive regarding just that one specific issue.

I would tell you that occasionally we get calls about a dog that might have got aggressive with another uh pedestrian downtown or something of that nature.

Um, but as to the number of calls where someone thought that the you know the dog hadn't had water in some period of time or something like that.

I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to speak to that tonight.

Okay, thank you.

Um just for future conversation though, I'd maybe like to come back with this and see if there are other ordin cities with ordinances that would address special events, and maybe it's something we'd want to consider.

Thank you.

Mr.

English.

Well, just I noticed the other interesting bookend on this.

I mean, we're talking about heat, and that's the most obvious, but also cold.

And um, you know, on one hand, we think you know uh dogs aren't gonna get too cold, but I mean certain dogs, certain conditions.

Um is that kind of standard to have the hot or cold conditions in there?

Well, not in Arizona where I'm from, but I think here uh it's probably a good provision to have them there.

It may be on a February day when it's you know 10 degrees outside all day long to have a dog that's left in there for hours on end is probably unreasonable.

Yeah, yeah, it's good to have it in there.

It's better to have a lot of people.

Even if you put water in there, it's gonna freeze right up.

So thanks.

Any other questions for the chief?

Look for a motion.

Well, I would start by making a motion to to dispense with a rule and read council bill number 251016 once by title only.

Second.

Miller.

Hi.

Gabriel Gook in.

Yep.

English.

Yes.

Wood, yes, evans.

Yes.

All right.

Can you read the title, please?

Council Bill number 251016, an ordinance of the City of Court Lane Kutney County, Idaho, amending Credit Lane Municipal Code Section 6 1511 entitled Cruelty to Animals, repealing all ordinances and parts of ordinances in Gonzic Herewith, providing us several BIT claws providing for the publication of a summary of this ordinance in an effective date thereof.

Motion.

Oh, so let's make a motion to adopt council bill number 251016.

Second.

Hearing none, roll call, please.

Miller.

Hi.

Gabriel.

Yes.

Yeah.

English?

Yes.

Wood.

Yes.

Evans.

Yes.

Thanks, Chief.

Moving on.

We have a presentation from the Cordelaine Police Association negotiation proposal.

And the presentation is Officer Daniel Haley, association president.

Welcome, Dan.

Thank you very much, Mayor and City Council.

I appreciate the chance to get on the agenda and speak to you tonight.

So there's two reasons for us to be on the agenda tonight.

The first is uh to cure a potential issue that uh was brought up uh by the city attorney uh regarding an email that I sent with some information uh to all of you.

Uh there was a concern that there would be a potential open meetings violation by me providing that and then speaking with any of you members about that.

So, in order to cure that, uh one of the remedies we spoke about was me speaking in front of council.

So I appreciate you getting me on the agenda so we can take care of that and then also talk about the issue at hand.

So specifically the issue at hand regarding what we have going on and where we are kind of stuck with our negotiations is the difference in proposals on supervisory pay for the quarterlane police department, sergeants and lieutenants specifically.

The reason this is an issue is and uh it listed out here gives you a couple of different examples of people.

So you take a 15-year employee that's been a field training officer, but that's all they've chosen to do.

They've chosen not to do a second specialty.

Um just maybe that's a personal choice due to time commitments or whatever.

But they've given 15 years, they train our brand new officers.

They are not in a senior status.

That's a choice they've made.

Um, and then you could take a two-year employee that was a six-year uh or a four-year um law enforcement officer in another agency transferring over, much like myself.

And they could then both promote at the same time.

And that two-year employee being a senior officer, say they're a phlebotomist and a DRE, and they've obtained senior officer pay.

The POA's proposal is that those would both be promoted at the same pay rate, which seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Um we put a specific number on this.

And the reason we chose to increase it is because there are officers that when they promote, they take a pay cut hourly to take on more responsibility and to be in charge of a team.

And that is a hindrance to many of our officers that want to promote.

You see a lot of officers, as good cops do sitting in the back here tonight.

Many of them are not sergeants.

And so the opportunity has been there to promote, but officers are not chosen so because it's not incentivized.

And so that's what we're trying to do with this proposal is to incentivize the promotion.

We could have one of the examples that specifically I want to get into is a school resource officer.

They are a senior officer, they are being paid with their school stipend as well, as well as their investigation stipend.

And they are would be taking a pay cut of 216 per hour currently per hour.

That's not going to get them a strong desire to promote.

Now many of these people do want to lead a team and be in charge of those, but when they have to look at the financial situation that their family has to face and choosing whether or not to promote and to further their career, that shouldn't be the decision factor for them.

They should be adequately compensated at the sergeant level in order for them to promote without a pay cut.

Now, when you look at the the difference in proposals, the POA's proposal specifically we are asking for an increase of 3.16% of the sergeant pay.

Now that's a great round number that I know is loved by all.

We looked at what is their total compensation package that they will end up with at the end of the year.

And yes, this is still an hourly cut for that school resource officer, but it's 64 cents as opposed to 216.

And so we're trying to be fiscally responsible with our request.

We don't want to just all of a sudden say every sergeant should then be paid above what a school resource officer is.

We are asking for this incremental increase to the entire range.

So that is why that is why we are here for this is to encourage these officers to promote.

And let me just briefly talk about what these sergeants and lieutenants do, uh, just to make it very clear.

They are not just paper pushers, they are not report checkers only, they are leading teams that are your community action team going after drug dealers, going after the violent criminals.

They are leading SWAT teams, they are the ones in the bear cap making the decisions in June, they were the ones making the decisions.

A lieutenant was leading the SWAT response in June.

So that's what these officers that were requesting this pay increase for doing on a day-to-day basis.

Okay.

So as we look at it, I want to compare just what we're our proposal to what the city's proposal is.

And this is why we're we're at a sticking point.

And I I know you have been um likely presented the this based upon the information and negotiations.

On paper, I will say the city's proposal looks great.

I'll I'll say that on paper, but in practicality, it does not work.

So the city's proposal is that a senior officer would then be brought in 10% above what they are currently at, which would put them mid-range of a sergeant right now.

But if you are not a senior officer, you'll be brought in at the lower rate at the minimum.

This will create a discrepancy on people that are promoted in the exact same day doing the exact same job.

You could have a sergeant that's been a sergeant for 11 months, has not reached their one-year mark where they would get that 5% increase, and they could be having to train a new sergeant that is now making $2 an hour more than them, having never done the job, and that's untenable for us.

And that is where the POA has said we cannot accept this, and where we struggle with this with this proposal on paper, it looks great 10% for all senior officers.

But in practicality, what you're creating is division among the sergeants, and that's not something that we're agreeable to.

So that does make the city's proposal an indeterminate cost, whereas our has had a cost of approximately $90,000.

Because if you move the sergeant range, you have to correspondingly move the lieutenant range.

And we did that math again and took all those factors into account, and we're asking for a 2.57% increase for the lieutenants.

So all of it told, and when you fat I did the factor for they include the benefits, so times by approximately 1.3, that's where we get your the 89859 for that total cost.

There is a cost to our proposal.

There's a cost of doing the work that these gentlemen and ladies do back there too.

So in the end, what we are seeking to do is to have our next sergeant promotional exam have more than three people test for it.

We had three out of the department of 100.

It's not because they're not capable.

It's not because they don't have the wherewithal to do it and are s or are scared of the test.

It's because it's not fiscally responsible for them and their family.

In order to promote and take on that greater responsibility, which they are trying to do for the other officers in this department and for this city and the citizens that they serve.

So that is why we are here tonight.

That is why I specifically requested to be on this, you know, the second part of the twofold.

One to cure the the concern of the city attorney, and then two to present this to you because I know it can be complicated to understand and and it takes a couple times explaining it to um to people to before it's fully understood and grasped.

So at this point I just stand for questions on it.

Questions, counsel.

Mr.

Guggen.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um Sir Haley, when uh when you presented this plan to the city negotiators, what was the response?

Um it has not been one that they have accepted.

We have presented this from um the second meeting.

Because the first meeting was just for um a quick one-year contract for that.

Um and so we have presented for multiple meetings and has not been uh received for that.

At this point, at the end of this um meeting, uh it was declared as an impasse.

So that's currently where we sit in our negotiations.

Who declared it as an impasse?

Um the city administrator, Mr.

Thomason.

Okay, Mr.

Mayor, do you remember when the uh council authorized the administrator to declare an impasse in this negotiations?

He did it after the meeting with them.

Okay.

Christy.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I'm one of the people trying to understand it.

So this the um the city's proposal we're familiar with, and and I was hopeful that that did cure the compression in the department.

It does sound good.

Um because compression's been an issue for quite some time.

And um, so right now you're saying as it stands that the compression is still there.

What will happen with your proposal moving forward with compression when people change or get promoted, or what will happen?

Certainly.

So what it will do is create the space now, and then they will all continue to be at getting the same pay raises at that point.

Um part of the issue that we are here was there was an interpretation, and this is before I be joined the uh e-board, so I've been spoken to by past presidents about this, um, that there was an interpretation of the contract at that time that lowered the amount that that the sergeants were making um based upon the combination of it was their um yearly increase at the same time as the cola, and it wasn't calculated in a certain way, and that actually decompressed the pay.

So that's why we're that's from my understanding what uh what made this occur.

What the goal is now is to create the gap and then continue to make maintain that.

So when I put these numbers together that are in front of you, that is pre-any wage increase or colour or whatever um you want to call it, those are the numbers that it would need to be currently prior to any increase at that point.

Um so it would create that separation and then continue to maintain it as the percentages go.

So that would be adopted into the salary schedule?

It what we're requesting is that an update of the supervisory range um to literally move the supervisory range up by that 3.16% the entire range.

Um and so that that was another um idea that was thrown out by the city was to can we just bring everyone in at that mid-range.

Uh well, then your range of sergeant is three dollars for the entire pay range, which is significantly lower than any other pay range within the entire city.

Um so the ability to move within that pay range is also important to to sergeants as they gain that experience, you want to um reward that with that pay as well.

So if that kind of answers your questions, we're just trying to create a separation right now that will be maintained by future increases.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

English?

Um well just some comments.

Um, everybody on the counter, we are you know strong on supporting public safety.

Also, I mean, the negotiation process is always can be kind of a tricky process because you still can't do everything for everybody, but but in terms of the kind of the top and pyramid, you know, public safety is and we've met in our times, and uh also, you know, have given our, you know, we've come to some different consensus and kind of given our negotiating teams um, you know, some kind of marching orders, and sometimes probably wasn't easy for them.

And so, you know, kind of trying to balance between you know, kind of where we're at and uh, you know, supporting kind of supporting all angles and of course the taxpayers and stuff.

Um, but in your presentation, having done this in a lot of different positions and all of that.

I mean, to me, the most the biggest thing that jumped out at me what you said if that was accurate if I heard it right, is in the last like testing opportunity, you only had three people willing to even be tested, is that sir?

And um I appreciate the way that Coralane Police does it.

Uh my the previous department that I worked for, I'm in another state, and that shall be remained nameless.

Um that uh they everybody that tested got on the list.

Court lane does not do it that way.

If you don't pass, you don't pass.

And you don't make the list.

So we had three tests and two that moved on at the end of testing.

Uh so we hold our sergeants to a high standard, the same is done with the lieutenant test, but yes, for three people to be willing to put in, that's that's a significant issue to us.

Um and that has been the I think the last three testing processes have been very similar numbers.

Um anyway, yeah.

Some soak time one did this, make sure I'm getting that right.

Thanks.

That is correct.

Kenny.

So you're gonna you're trying to fix the compression.

Yes.

Correct?

And the difference between an officer and the sergeant, the leadership role.

From what I'm used to, it's everything's 10 percent.

Right.

So does that cause a problem for the officers who are not in supervisor role, is that going to cause an issue for them down the road?

Because that the bottom range for sergeant lieutenant is going to be higher.

So it's I I think I see where you're we're you're going from there.

The current range um is basically 10 percent from the maximum right, regular officer to the minimum sergeant.

That is 10 percent.

The issue we run into is when we run into the senior officer side of it.

Um so increasing that gap, it's either 10 percent or to the minimum.

Um so it's the so getting them up to that minimum is going to be the key, which has been the standard practice is moving all the sergeants to the minimum.

So if that standard practice continues to hold, um it shouldn't create an issue even during our um negotiations.

It was mentioned that some of the officers that have not achieved that usually they don't promote sergeant within those first five years, but occasionally those things can happen.

Um they would be receiving more than a 10 percent raise up to that minimum.

So by raising the minimum, um there will be some officers that receive a larger than a 10 percent increase based upon that.

Um but what the issue that we're finding is it's our more senior officers that cannot fiscally promote is what it comes down to.

So we're trying to fix that issue on the senior end, um, whereas it's not necessarily been an issue for the the lower end.

Great job, by the way.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I have a couple of questions for you.

So if if this went through on the sergeant level, what's the total impact on the budget?

Because that's been mostly our focus is the big pile of money.

Certainly, and I can understand I understand that.

Um so the sergeants specifically is sixty-seven thousand three hundred and nineteen, just to move, and that's prior to, and I'll make that clarification prior to whatever cost of living would come out of it.

The lieutenant side of it is twenty-two thousand five hundred forty.

So the total cost is eighty-nine eight five nine.

I know it's a specific number.

I think I've been pretty close on all of our numbers uh with what the city's come up with.

So uh I feel confident it's right in that range.

So that's a new dollar that we need to do to suffice this.

Yes, sir.

It is a new dollar request.

Yes, besides what we're already offering for everybody.

Correct, Mayor.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor, follow up question.

Um well, I'm not sure where this goes from here.

I councilman Gukin has said that there's an impasse.

And I guess maybe our administration would tell us.

Is there an impasse?

Are we able to keep negotiating?

I think we're gonna still go forward.

I think tonight when we do it'll come up in executive session so we can kind of get clear on where we've been to finish this year's budget going in and then work on this one.

See where you guys are at, because the last time they negotiated, if I recall, we had set some limitations, and that's what kind of made the impasse because we didn't want to get there.

So I think it's still workable and there's still time for it.

I appreciate that.

I'm what I'm getting is I hope that there's not a declared impasse and we're done.

It sounds like we can still keep working on this.

I agree.

We are certainly still open to being at the table.

Any other questions?

We appreciate you taking the time.

Mayor Council, thank you very much for your time tonight.

Thank you.

All right, we're gonna open our public hearing.

This is an exciting one.

This is approving the annual appropriations for fiscal year two.

And twenty-six, and the use of one percent foregone taxes for maintenance and operations.

And it looks from our finance director, Katie Ebner.

Welcome.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, council.

Um, we are here.

We've spent so much time together this summer talking about the budget and our workshops.

And um this is the point where you all have the legislative task of appropriating the funds through the ordinance tonight.

Uh, my presentation should contain no surprises going from our budget workshops.

We've done a lot of work.

Um I've I've received a number of great questions from council members, and hopefully I do not have any questions out there, any big questions out there hanging.

Um, but yeah, mostly these budget hearings, it's going to be pretty redundant from what we've talked about.

And this is for the public.

This is um, you know, we see a lot of feedback out there.

We do not like tax increases.

Nobody here supports that as a concept.

However, we do need to inform the public of how property taxes work in Idaho and the justification for why this is presented in our budget tonight.

Just a quick overview of what I will go through.

We will talk about general fund revenue sources, property taxes, we'll talk a little bit about growth in property taxes, lots of misconceptions out there, and then property tax impacts that are projected with this budget that is uh presented tonight.

We will do a high-level overview of expenditures, and then we'll talk about recommended rationale, the recommendations that we've discussed in those workshops, and a little bit of rationale, uh quick overview for for the public.

Here is a breakdown of our operational revenue.

So we're focusing on the general fund.

That is where the decisions are made.

And as you can see, property taxes is a very large part of that pie.

We have licenses and permits.

Mainly a lot of those are coming from building inspections, permits, planning.

Um and then we have intergovernmental receipts.

The big ones in that category would be our sales tax revenue from the state, our liquor revenue from the state, and our highway user tax revenue from the state.

And then we have a few, the the largest part of this, you know, smaller slice of the pie is going to be our interfund transfers.

That is what we charge to our utilities as overhead for the services that the city provides for those utilities.

Here is an overview of revenue changes going from prior year adopted budget to the projected budget.

And you see that we do have an increase in property tax revenue, and we'll talk some more about that number.

We are projecting an increase in our licenses and permits.

We have a lot going on in our permitting departments, and we are seeing the revenues come in there.

Intergovernmental receipts have reduced, have gone down, and that is mainly due to spending down the final ARPA funds from that COVID relief package.

And then the last one there, we have interfund transfers.

Um to make that transfer.

So Cordelaine is growing.

That is not news to anyone.

Our tax revenues from new construction have decreased over 70% since 2016.

So 2016 was probably the start of the really impactful growth.

And we used to the formula worked in such a way that when we saw that growth, we would receive revenue automatically through the formula in order to serve that growth.

And currently, well, actually, the entire formula is based on a preliminary levy rate.

And so what happens is when our assessed values increase, that preliminary levy rate drops.

We do not receive more money when assessed values increase for existing property.

It actually affects the formula negative neg negatively, excuse me.

And in the way that when we have this growth, which is another misconception that these you know, we have some large buildings coming in, we have uh new new neighborhoods being built, we should be seeing new revenue from that, and that is a misconception.

We are still receiving some revenue, but it is a fraction of what is needed in order to address the population growth.

And um we we can't control our population growth legally.

Um, you know, it's it's something that it we the city and almost every city in Idaho has found themselves in this situation because the of the way the property tax formula works, and because of the way that assessed values have gone up, especially post-COVID.

And the legislature implemented another restriction on this revenue that can come from new growth, and we are only allowed to include 90% of that new growth in our property tax formula.

So growth paying for growth, we we really would like to see that be to be the case.

We had 93 million dollars in valuation come on the property tax rules reported by the county this summer, and based on the new construction and the property tax formula would add 202,000 in revenue.

So that's a lot of money to the average person, right?

But our our budget is that that's a very small fraction of our budget, and when you think of how the city must serve this growth, streets, public safety, and then the cost to retain our staff in this um economy.

It is not going to cut it when we're adding nearly a million dollars in new construction, which brings residents and people to serve.

So our revenue loss from these limits in the past, we could cover those um rising costs to serve our new residents using revenue for new growth, um, but that's just not available anymore with the formula.

So the city has one other mechanism in order to increase revenues to address this growth, and that is through a budget budgeted increase to our property tax levy.

And previously it wasn't necessary because the way the formula worked, the growth paid for itself.

Now that this is really the only option for a city to address growth.

So the solution is what I am recommending in this budget and have been recommending in our workshop is to take the allowable 3% increase in our levy revenue, and then also recapture 1% of previously foregone taxes.

So these are taxes that the city was able to raise the budget in the past, but the city did not increase taxes in those years.

So this would be recapturing some of those taxes that were not captured in a prior year through the allowable increases.

But previous prior to these limitations, it was somewhere in the 800 to a million dollar range.

Yeah, so I put together a number of slides last year.

I probably could have included another one which showed prior years how much the increase was in new construction and what the city received, and that gap I think that year where the city received $800,000, the new construction was a bit higher.

But if you total up the years since this has happened, the these losses have compounded.

Is off the top of my head, it would be in the ballpark there.

So not to mention last year, we probably missed out on another half a million.

So that would just those those are permanent parts of our budget.

So we would have been able to keep up much better.

I think that draws the gap between what we're getting with these limitations versus what if we had been able to continue on that projected recapture, we wouldn't be going in a hole.

Yes.

Alright, so another misconception is that we're going to increase property if we were to increase property taxes by 4% our property tax revenue.

I would imagine our residents are going to look at their previous property tax budget and increase it by 4% and think that is what a council's vote tonight would happen.

And so here is another way to show it.

The new construction would adding that as part of the market, the new construction typically will make an increase like this relatively flat.

And so when I say an individual tax taxpayer's valuation, I want to remind that because a taxpayer's valuation went up, doesn't mean we capture an additional amount of revenue.

We levy an amount.

But this is the operational if we were to increase our property tax budget by 4%.

So that's not 4% of an increase from their uh city budget there.

And as you go up, if you look at a larger million dollar home, they would see $2.13 a month more.

So this is not so simple to just look at your prior tax bill and you know multiply by 0.04.

All right.

I will jump into a high overview of our expenditures, and um this is broken down by department, and I am going to address uh those major differences, what has caused these differences.

But if you look at it, bottom line, our expenditures are going down by 2.1 million.

That is planned as part of a one-time project finishing.

So we are not cutting um, for example, police department by 4.3 million.

That is the reduction in the budget to reflect a construction project that was in prior year is no longer in the budget.

So just to further show the effect here, wages and benefits are up from prior year, services and supplies are mostly flat, and then you see that dramatic drop in capital outlay.

So that um the explanation behind that large overview of changes between prior year and FY26 is that wages and benefits are budgeted to increase 2.1 million dollars.

And so we have a few things happening there.

First of all, um when we build a flat budget with staffing, we have staff that are scheduled to move up with merit increases, so those are accounted for in the budget process, but we also do have some wage increases factored into this budget.

So 0% for mayor and city council as was voted at the last workshop.

And a 3.5% wage increase for fire department, and that is from a prior year contract.

We have um sounds like a tentative agreement with Lake City Employees Association for 3.5% wage increase, and along with that, 3.5% wage increase for non-exempt, so our non-bargaining employees.

And um we have an offer of three and a half percent wage increase to the police officers association.

Question in a oh, good question.

The um three and a half percent wage increase for exempt non-bargaining employees is based on the three percent and a half percent wage increase for LCEA.

Uh is that in city code somewhere?

I don't know.

It sounds like it's been a practice um for probably many years.

I I don't know of a deviation from that.

Um it's not not in code, there's no policy, it's just what they do.

Yeah, it's been going on for a while.

Melissa, is that in the personnel rules?

Sorry about that.

Uh the increase for exempt employees is just approved by council.

That's in the personnel rules.

Uh, there was a resolution, I don't know how many years ago, uh, quite a few years ago.

We have a group of unrepresented employees that don't fall under that aren't exempt that don't fall under one of our bargaining groups.

Um that there is a resolution that says the same uh negotiated items under Late Lake City employees association would be given to that and a represented group as well.

So that's in personnel rules.

Uh that was approved by a resolution um quite a few years ago.

So the personnel rules, so there's a lot of different groups of employees.

The personnel rules for the exempt staff, um, the increases says as approved by council.

Which means it just happens through the budgeting process.

And so the three and a half is taken.

So there used to be a three percent uh amount in the personnels, and we remove that and just said as per approved by council.

So when the LCA does the negotiations for their own group, are they aware that they're also negotiating for the other groups?

Uh they are not negotiating for the other groups.

The city is just responsible for that cost.

But in a way they are, because if they want 3.5% for their own people, then the city just automatically gives the 3.5% to the exempt employees.

No, not to the exempt employees, the unrepresented employees.

Those are two different groups.

But it it carries over.

To the unrepresented, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions.

And just one other item that we see throughout the budget is a three percent increase in health benefit premiums.

This is um in my history of budgeting a pretty good increase.

I think um, yeah, I've seen I've seen a lot, a lot worse in my past budgeting.

So a few other changes are some full-time equivalency changes.

So we call these FTE, that would be adding staff.

And one FTE change we will see is three new custodians in our building maintenance department, and this is to replace some uh contracted services, so it was determined that it would be highly beneficial for the city to have our own employees and so that is in the budget from the conversation at the last um workshop.

I have added two new firefighter FTE, and this is the intent here is to lower the constant manning overages, so we would see a little bit of savings because the constant manning, those um we are required to have a certain uh number of staff on each shift, and um a lot of times if we don't have the staff if they're out due to injury illness, um we would have overtime, which is actually is much more expensive compared to having straight time employees, and so adding these two new firefighter FTEs is going to hopefully alleviate a little bit of that constant manning, and always the the hope is is that we have our staff well and back to work.

So let's see.

A follow-up on that just to clarify for the three custodial um, which I highly support.

I mean that we have our own people, then we get to determine, you know, who knows what a future contract comes in, it's hard to get them, and and they can be cross-trained, but but basically that's just a wash, is it whatever the amount that it's gonna cost for our own actual employees with benefits and all of that, it's about a wash with the contract or how close or so the current year contract is less than what it would cost to add those custodial FTEs.

The problem was going into the next year, the contract was going to be significantly higher in order to have um you know what what we want out of having you know clean safe facilities, and so it you will see in the budget that it is an increase to the building services department, however, it was a wash between the increase in the contracts.

That that's a really tough um tough thing to have um filled right now as far as custodial work, contracted services.

Um you can struggle a lot with um consistency and that sort of thing.

So actually our church has the same problem.

So yep, I know.

And the last new FTE we added was um building inspection, and that would be a permit tech.

And if you look back at the revenues that have increased in um those services or the um permitting area, that more than pays for this ask, and we have uh Idaho code that we have to follow that give us deadlines on when you how long it takes until we respond to these permit applications.

So uh that is direly needed in that department.

Excuse me, Ms.

Mayor.

So Katie, that code is new this last it it was this year.

Yeah, yes.

So they came the legislature said you have to review these pit permits in a certain period of time.

Right.

So there isn't enough staffing to get that done by that deadline.

Right.

So we wouldn't have any control over that.

Right.

Okay.

And then again, capital outlay decreased 4.4 million.

Uh the majority of that was funded through ARPA funds.

So you see on the other side the revenues went down and intergovernmental, and we also see our capital outlay decreasing uh significantly.

All right.

Just to talk a little bit more about the ongoing deficit in our budget.

So this budget includes a 1.8 million dollar use of fund balance to supplement revenues and afford ongoing operations.

So fund balance, we think of that as one-time money.

It is the reserves of the of the city.

And we're getting closer to the sort of unhealthy levels of fund balance if we follow this trajectory.

So the 1.8 million dollars in fund balance, there's always hope that we could have savings throughout the year that could alleviate that.

But we this budget is committing funds that could bring us up to a dip of 1.8 million dollars in fund balance.

So that is a huge priority for me to look at ways to get that down to zero.

And in my opinion, the city isn't a bank.

This was requested in one of the budget workshops.

So this these are some scenarios, and it's it's so hard to look at future years.

Sometimes we are just dealt with some expenditure increases that we have to absorb, but I tried to run things that would just some pretty big assumptions that I don't expect to be able to project at this moment in any way.

But this the assumption here is that we would increase property taxes 4%, and we would have an annual increase of 2% in expenditures.

So that trajectory is not sustainable.

And then we have a projection of a 4% property tax increase with no increase in expenditures.

Of course, this is a fairy tale right here.

Um after uh FYA 27.

And then to try and make something a little more realistic is a 1% annual increase in expenditures.

That is where we can finally get to that leveling off.

Um, but notice these include a 4% property and tax property tax increase, and that has to do with what I said about not being able to access revenue to address growth moving into the recommendation, and that is to approve the budget as presented with the 3% property tax revenue increase and 1% use of foregone taxes, and um, you know, I get to have my soapbox moment of plan for future fruit future fiscal years with constraints on spending.

So we're at this point where we can't really control our revenues beyond this, and so what can we control is our expenditures.

And um just just a way to show you hear a lot of oh, you know, balance the budget, don't increase revenues, um, live within your means, that sort of rhetoric.

But when we look at where the city was in 2010, uh we've had of course the population growth, but we have become more efficient serving the community.

Most of our uh general government departments have not added staff since 2010.

I looked through our FTE reports back to 2010 and it was very minimal.

Um, a number of departments lost FTEs, so and um, you know, we have we again we have this restriction on revenues.

This was kind of interesting.

So if you look at population, I I went back to 2019 because that was prior to COVID.

Um, you know, we we had been growing quite a bit leading up to 2019, but if you looked at the total city FTE, so that's employees, so when you see a fraction of an employee, that means a part-time employee, and when you look at FTEs per 10,000 citizens in 2019 compared to now, we it's it's lower, and we've had this um, you know, doing more with less is has been the trend.

And when you look at FTEs per 10,000 citizens in 2019 compared to now, we it's it's lower, and we've had this um, you know, doing more with less is has been the trend.

And we don't have updated numbers for population growth.

I would I would guess that it's quite a bit higher, but I didn't want to make an assumption and have someone kind of disregard this.

So even keeping that population, I didn't want to take anything that wasn't actual census information.

Um we we are um doing more with less.

So that's all I have.

Kenny.

So would you go back one slide, please?

That is incredibly telling to me because the amount of work that our folks are doing is exponentially higher in just about every department.

So I mean the city of Quarter Lane was doge when doge wasn't cool because we've been doing the official thing for a long time, and I know as a fact that when even with firefighters that are contracted, we had to justify the need for any new positions.

I think that's a big reason that we are where we are when it comes to that number right there.

And I'm just every time I see that it just really drives home that you know people might say something about a three and a half percent cola, but we're doing more with less, and keeping those employees are so vitally important because without them, I mean I don't want to state the obvious, but the knowledge they have and the training we don't have to do for people that have been for here for a long time is a wonderful investment in this community.

So, you know, for me the tax increase is incredibly tough, and I don't want to do it at all.

But what aren't we going to do that people are used to for $15 a year?

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Anyone else?

Questions for Katie?

So public.

No.

Thanks, Katie.

We'll do the uh open the and I have a list of people.

Public hearing?

Sorry.

Oh, that's good.

I didn't work on Mr.

Thomason.

Casper.

The friendly ghost.

I'm gonna open the public hearing and no one is signed up.

Mr.

Mayor, I did receive an email from uh Susie Snedeker who wanted me to read it in.

All right.

If we're permission.

Uh if you haven't uh been to any of our budget hearings in the past, Susie was always here.

She says for 25 years, she would stand at the uh lectern and tell us what's what.

So she has sent an email.

She also has a whole list of things that she went over with me in the budget.

She is diligent about going through this budget line item by line item, and I fired off a bunch of emails today uh to clarify some stuff for her.

Here is here are the words of Susie Snedeker.

Good uh evening, Mayor and Council.

Because I'm unable to attend the meeting, Councilman Guken has graciously offered to read my comments into the record.

This is the annual preliminary financial plan hearing, the 25th year in which I reviewed every page, every item line by line of the 79-page document making notes and preparing my comments, as I'm sure all of you did.

As a citizen of the city, I expect not only transparency, but also your critical review of each and every transaction.

I hope not to be disappointed.

However, please remember fiduciary responsibility is born with each of you.

Um and she would like to see uh true accounting.

This is this her request that she would normally make.

I she would like to see a true accounting of the fire expenditures and reimbursements, and she will do a ro uh public records request for that.

And she forgot to comment on what was called the employee assistance program, which was in the 23 budget for $9,720, and she can't find it.

So I guess that would be a question of staff.

Is there an employee assistance program or was that retired?

Thanks, Susie.

Well, let's get the points to Melissa.

To Melissa.

We have one.

Yeah.

Yes.

Uh we are on the second year of a employee assistance program that was kind of a increased benefit other than just EAP.

There's a telehealth side.

So the city funds a portion of it, and then the city's medical trust funds a portion of it because it helps alleviate some of the more simple calls on our region's plan.

So our LI Health EAP pays for some of that, and the trust does as well.

Excellent.

Well, on behalf of Miss Nedaker, thank you.

And wherever you are, Susie, I hope you feel better.

Thank you.

And it's well worth the investment in that throws her.

Yep.

All right, I'm gonna close the public hearing and look for a motion, please.

Mr.

Mayor.

I'm I'm gonna make a motion.

It's probably not gonna be very popular, but I'm gonna make a motion.

I would like to table council bill number 25-1017 till the last meeting of the month or a special call meeting before the end of the month.

Um it is well, that's my motion.

Yeah.

I seconded so you could tell us more.

Did you say discussion?

Discussion.

Thank you.

Uh well I'm not I'm not opposed.

I'm not going to um I'm not going to try to make an issue about the request for the three and a half percent.

I fully understand the loss of revenue, the the limitations that have been placed on us from the state, and uh council working so hard for years trying not to do a tax increase, and so we find ourselves in a deficit.

And so I fully understand that.

Um but but I do have reasons for wanting to table this till the end of the month or a special call.

And the first one is we have two bargaining units that we do not have a sign contract with.

We haven't settled with them, and I I don't like the message of adopting the budget.

We still have almost a month to try to resolve that.

Um so I'd rather we resolved it before we adopted the budget.

Um the other one is I did send a proposal.

Thank you, Katie, so much for your work on that to get back to me on um employee retirement incentives.

I went through it a lot.

My math is different from yours because I looked at some of those positions with four months open rather than two months, and I mean it the difference was a half a million dollars.

Some of them would be department heads, and it takes a long time to do a search anyway.

So that that's one that's another one.

Um I don't feel that we've looked for every dime, but that's not your entire responsibility, it's all of ours.

Uh the other one is the council has repeatedly asked for items to be placed on the agenda to discuss so to figure out if they belong in the budget.

I've asked for it.

Councilman English has asked, I've lost track of how many times, to have a meeting with the URD and the hospital district.

Now you reminded me again.

Okay, yeah.

So that we could actually have that discussion, and and maybe it results in in no money, or maybe it results in some money, but it doesn't get placed on the budget or excuse me, on the agenda, so we don't get the discussion.

We we will never know.

Um finally, I to me the budget's not complete, it's not fully baked.

I support that we have to take an increase.

I completely totally do.

But I want to be able to do it knowing that we looked at everything, every possibility, because this is a big deal.

We're probably gonna be the only entity around that would ask for the foregone because we need to.

We have to.

But I want to make sure that we've done our homework.

So I would like to, in the meantime, while we wait to the end of the month, I'd like another workshop that focuses on um employee incentives for retirement, and at that workshop the URD and um and the compensation salary study.

Thank you to our HR director for sending that to me.

I wanted it on the agenda so we could all talk about it and figure out if that was the best avenue for us.

It's not that I question the HR director, I don't.

I know she's doing the best she can.

Um, but we have we can't talk about it because it's not on the agenda, it's deep in a budget.

So I want to have I want to have further discussion, and then at the end of the month we move forward feeling like we've we've really looked at everything.

Mr.

Mayor, may I respond to one um item?

So um if the ordinance is not approved uh before our L2, our levying paperwork is due to the county, which then goes to the state tax commission.

That deadline is next week, I believe.

We cannot levy anything.

So that's the issue is we have to have an ordinance approved by council.

And I understand that there may be other items which I fully support as the finance director.

We we have to look at expenditures.

This is what we can control and I don't think I don't think it's we're done um talking about the budget as far as next year's budget or um you know subsequent years.

So but I do want to make that clear that um if we do not approve the ordinance.

Um I I believe that we even need a week before because we have to notice.

I'm not sure if we could even delay it one more week, but we we have to have that um we I have to include an approved ordinance with our levying paperwork.

Ms.

Evans.

Well, that was my that was my question, um Katie.

So I just want to be clear.

Do you know what that exact date is?

I know you said next week, is it?

It is the putting you on the spot.

I know.

Yeah, I I getting to this point has been the goal, and then tomorrow is when the paperwork is done.

So I don't want to say off the top of my head that we would even have a week.

I I'm concerned that if this doesn't um go through tonight, we we would you know turn our 1.8 million dollar deficit into a almost $30 million deficit by not not being able to levy.

So yeah, I appreciate you sharing that.

Thank you.

Kiki.

Um I just wanted to clear up that I um I agree with all of these items that we should talk about them.

I think that the URD meeting conversation is pending.

They had talked about putting all of that data together, but there there wasn't enough turnaround time to do it in time.

So they are planning that meeting to come to council to say here's what it would look like.

I know Katie did some numbers on kind of preliminary numbers on what that would look like, but there was a lot of moving parts with what's happening at the hospital with their new leadership and all of that.

So there wasn't enough time to get that put together.

So it's not that it's not coming to the agenda.

It definitely is.

And I think that there were other things that we talked about that can come to the agenda, just not in this short a period of time for this budget deadline date.

So I I I'm feeling like I have some notes too that I am tracking to say I want to make sure this comes to the agenda and we follow up so that we we're prepared in advance for our next cycle.

Kenny.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Christy, I agree completely.

That incentive program has worked well in the past.

I don't see a reason that it wouldn't again.

But Katie, we can amend, right?

And do anyway, correct?

So there's not an enormous reason to not go forward when we know we can still amend the budget.

And I think that the budget process should be something we do all year long anyway.

I think we should look at that and continue it just because this week's done.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking at those great ideas that you have.

Well, may I Mr.

English?

Just that yeah, I think we need to pass this tonight.

And you know, the former auditor and all of that and the primary yeah, we gotta do this.

And then we can come back.

We don't have to wait month.

I mean, we could come back next month.

I mean, once we have some of that information and the employee incentive, you know, what better time for them to get ready to go out at Christmas time, you know, who knows whatever, but I mean we can take a look at that because we know uh our budget, I mean it's a waypoint in time, but at this point it's a very significant one that we don't want to mess with that.

So, you know, I would not be in favor of tabling waiting, we could need to do this and then be prepared to, you know, work on some amendments in the very near future.

Christy.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh Katie, thank you.

I was not a I thought we had to the end of the month, or I wouldn't have made the motion.

I've been trying to add, and all of us have.

Trying to have this budget discussion every chance we get.

Um I don't want to let go of the thank you, Kenny.

I don't want to let go of the idea of employee retirement incentives.

I'd like to see us I'll withdraw my motion because obviously it doesn't make any sense, but I would like to see a workshop just entirely on that, like within the next month.

I would like to see what about the second token.

Okay, so I'm still looking for a motion.

Mr.

Guken.

I think it was right.

So we have a motion and a second.

That would be a good question.

Did you withdraw it?

Well, I have to.

They said that.

Sorry about it.

How about making a motion just to make sure this happens?

And I don't know if that's something we can do to make a motion to make it happen so that we're sure that it's not.

I mean, Mr.

English has been asking for quite some time for a meeting.

Should we just set a date certainly?

I'd uh yeah.

I have I don't know if I can do that.

Randy, can I do that?

Fingers poised on the button.

On the button.

It's my legal opinion that it's not on the agenda.

You can't make a motion.

Okay.

But the agenda, the motion, the issues for council meetings, special council meetings.

Those are addressed in statute.

The mayor can call it.

You guys can call it.

You just follow the procedure.

So it should happen if you if a majority of council wants to have wants it to happen.

I'll make a request to the mayor tomorrow.

Thank you.

So we we close the public hearing ready.

Yep.

We're moving on.

We're still looking for a motion for Council Bill 251017.

Well, I'm I could just make a motion right now to dispense with a rule to read the Council Bill 251017 once by title only and put off some pain for a few minutes.

You better move and second discussion.

Hearing none.

Roll call, please.

Gook in.

Yes, on this one.

English.

Yes.

Wood.

Yes.

Evans.

Yes.

Miller.

Gabriel.

Yes.

All right.

Motion carried.

Could you read the title, please?

Council Bill 251017.

An ordinance entitled the annual appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025, appropriating the sum of 151 million 945, 475 dollars to defrayed expenses and liabilities of the city of Cordelaine for said year levying a sufficient tax upon the taxable property within said city for general revenue purposes for which such appropriations is made, levying special taxes upon the taxable property with said city for special revenue purposes within the limits of said city of Cordelaine, Idaho, providing for several D and providing an effective date here of.

Very good.

So now I will make a motion to adopt Council Bill 251017.

Second.

Very good.

And Mr.

Mayor, so I will uh I will explain why I'm voting against this motion.

Um, I can do that.

Um everything Katie said about our predicament regarding the legislature is absolutely correct.

In their efforts for property tax relief, they have created a nightmare for us where we have millions of dollars in new growth and the benefit to our taxpayers is 200,000.

That's pitiful.

That's not property tax relief.

That's it's disgusting.

Um the council did offer uh cuts.

We had a workshop and I offered some cuts.

I know Christy offered some cuts.

Other people suggested items.

I mean you saw it here tonight.

We're we're constantly working.

I think one of the one of the great things we did was to take zero percent ourselves.

So we are getting no pay increase.

And I I think that's great.

That's a that's a good uh it's a good message to give to the public.

Um I do want to see that we have uh, and I don't know if it's in the budget, but is there a line item for the apparatus for the fire department?

I asked just for a line item unfunded.

Just want to make sure that's that was put in there.

Um also we had discussed there's a a couple of things that we discussed that that uh just didn't come to fruition.

As Christie mentioned, there's a lot of stuff we can still discuss, which is why I think uh um a workshop would be great.

We have the fees on our utility bills, which we had discussed a year ago, having the utilities absorb those fees, so we didn't have to pay the extra dollar for our utility bills.

Um there was an issue brought up by former mayor Widmeyer to lease the um the facilities, the land that the water district uses our water uh utility uses back to the city, get some revenue that way.

That'd be nice.

Um but with uh with a lot of people out there who are on Social Security on a fixed income, about 40 percent or more of the city is on fixed income.

Um I can't support a huge increase.

I realize with the legislature the way that they are increases are necessary in the future, but I think we could do more to cut, and that's where I'm coming from.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I just want to take this opportunity to thank Katie for all of our work.

I'm preparing for our workshops, preparing our various emails that you receive in the response to them and helping us work through this.

Um your presentation was very comprehensive and hopefully educational for all the entire community on the situation that we're faced with tonight in um presenting this budget.

So thank you for all the work you've done.

Christy.

Oh, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I s I still don't like the idea of adopting a budget when we haven't finished up negotiating with with two entities, but I am not one to do a protest vote on one item.

So I will I will support the budget.

I do appreciate that council has agreed to do a workshop and we can continually focus on some of these issues that we want to keep talking about.

The whole council does.

I I agree, Kenny, once a year a season of a couple of months is not enough.

We just have to keep after it.

Mr.

English.

Um I mean, I don't mind being on the record that I mean I support this.

The some years, you know, we need to do the three percent.

We probably should have done it some other years, but but this year, I mean we need to with the obligations we have, and I also have no problem with the one percent foregone.

I remember back when I was at the county, and at that point, Commissioner Compton, who then later Senator Compton, but in talking about the foregone, I mean that's something that you know at the time, way back when we could have been taking the different foregones because we had authority to do that, but he said, but we left it in the taxpayers pocket.

They got to use it, they got to invest it and all of that, but we still, in a sense, kind of had a lien, and now we've got to do that, and it's like now we've got to use what's there, and um, and we're probably gonna be in that boat for maybe a couple of years because we've got to do these different things.

But um, you know, I'm not saying I'm wild about supporting them, but but I don't have I don't apologize whatsoever for supporting the three percent and one percent the sure.

Um sorry.

That's okay.

Um I just wanted to bring this up.

I nobody wants to raise taxes, nobody wants to do that.

It's just something that when you look at this and you look at the reality of the D of the data there, there there aren't options.

Um that's frustrating me a little bit, and I don't know how to resolve this, but Christy, you may have some ideas, is I'm fully supportive of doing another workshop and or looking at this every month.

But it seems to me we had a collective set of input that um you Katie kind of collated and said, here's all of our ideas, things that we wanted to talk about.

We talked about those at the workshop.

We came through with some got incorporated, others did not.

And then there's new ideas that come up, and then there's another one, and I feel like um I I would really like to find a way to consolidate what these are so we're not going, did we drop this one?

Did this one get incorporated?

Did council agree that that's one we wanted to incorporate, or is it one council member who wanted this one and one council member who wanted that one?

So I'd really like to see if we can review some of that and say, well, some of these we already addressed, but they just didn't fly.

These were added after the workshop.

So we can be a little more efficient in continually reviewing this.

And I know I have some that we're still in in in my idea, and the the URD conversation I know is one that that board has talked about, and it is pending, it is gonna come up, it is gonna be addressed.

So it didn't fall off the table.

It didn't not come to an agenda.

It's just that there's not a running list of where all of these new ideas are so that we can you know efficiently look at it and add to it and you know check them off when we get when we have the opportunity to get the right data in front of us.

So I'm I'm just feeling that um that would be great to be able to move forward into the next year like that.

We good.

So we need a roll call, please.

Gook in.

No.

English?

Yes.

Wood, yes.

Evans, yes, Miller.

Aye, Gabriel.

Yes.

Resolution two five oh four seven certifying the amount of foregone increase to be budgeted for fiscal year 25-26, specifically in the amount of 290, 146.

I'll make that motion.

Second.

Been moved and seconded.

Discussion.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Um Kiki's already said it.

We've all said it.

Dan's said it.

It's it's not something that we're enjoying, but uh clearly we're dealing with a deficit and we're going to have to move forward.

Um I just want to follow up on Kiki's ideas.

I like that.

Let's consolidate everything because ideas are coming at all times.

And those of us that are studying the budget non-stop think we have the latest greatest idea.

But maybe it's not.

And so if we can um streamline some of that, maybe to like make Katie's life a little easier too.

And I'm one of the guilty parties.

But uh I think we're all trying very hard to just look for every dollar so that we don't have to impose uh uh an additional tax increase.

But I like that.

Have a central record of those things.

And they either fell off or they got approved or something.

So, or there was some stalled them for some reason that we didn't know.

So Mr.

Gugger.

Yeah, thank you.

Um so when uh the city council makes a decision, of course, it's a decision that we all support, eventually, even the rogue who votes no.

Uh but I did want to just make an observation that um the city as a whole, city council makes a decision.

We seems like we don't really have a problem with foregone taking foregone taxes, but we do have an issue with taking foregone rent.

Just gonna let that hang out there.

Foregone what?

Rent.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

That one, okay.

Discussion.

Uh roll call, please.

English.

Yes.

Would yes?

Evans.

Yes.

Miller.

Hi.

Gabriel.

Yes.

Gook in.

No.

All right.

Look for a motion for executive session, please.

We'll move.

I'll read that.

Second.

Excuse me, we cannot so move an emission to executive session.

We must read it out into the record.

So I will move to enter into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code.

Sections 742061J and 74206A 1 sub A.

To deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counter offer.

Discussion.

Second.

All second.

Thank you for that, Mr.

Gukin.

Oh man, I have to change everything here.

Discussion.

Roll call, please.

Would yes.

Evans.

Yes.

Miller.

I Gabriel.

Yes.

Gook in.

I'm gonna vote no on this one too.

Yes.

Thank you all.

We are into executive session.