None we are adjourned.

Time is 711.

All right.

We are going to reconvene into work session.

Are we going to do this in the community room?

Yes.

All right.

In the community room.

Five minutes.

Oh, okay.

Is personnel overview the same?

Is this one?

No, that's not the same.

Oh, okay.

It's it's the last one.

It's the personnel policy amendments.

And I apologize.

Is it like in the back?

It's in the back.

It's in your packet.

It's at the very end.

I apologize.

I did not print this one.

Oh, we're only in the packet.

I'm sorry.

I apologize for that.

The other one there, but this one's not.

Um okay.

So there's only five uh uh person policies that we're recommending um some adjustments to.

The first one is section three uh three point zero two compensation establishment.

So currently promotions and lateral transfers require a six-month introductory period where the employee is evaluated every 90 days.

The only uh adjustment that we're recommending adding, same thing, but just making it clear that once that employee reaches their one year mark, um, they are required to have an annual eval, where at that point they'll be eligible for a merit increase, of course, depending on budget availability.

So, why that change?

So, this is our current practice anyway, it just wasn't written in policy, so we just want to make it clear in policy so that way um there's clarity for our employees and our supervisors, and of course, consistent application.

Any questions on that?

Change.

Okay.

Okay, so the next one, the the biggest one here is overtime work section 3.11.

So currently that would adopted about a year and a half ago.

Um currently holiday leave, vacation, bereavement, military, and jury duty all counts as hours worked for the purposes of calculating overtime.

So you may have you may remember us making that change um a little over a year ago.

Um so because uh there's a few reasons why we are recommending to revert back to the original policy where only overtime was uh calculated based on actual hours worked.

The reasons for that is because um we've kind of noticed that since we've adopted this policy over time, overtime costs have exceeded what we've projected.

Um and so if we keep we realize that if we keep going in that direction, then it will cause a significant financial impact to the city.

As you can imagine with this new policy, it has um resulted in difficulty um having being able to clearly um and accurately forecast and control overtime.

Um and then for those who don't know, there is a federal mandate that went out that allows a tax deduction for overtime earnings, but only for worked hours only.

So because currently we allow overtime um to be reflected on worked and non-worked, it puts an administrative burden on the finance department to have to split that out to split to manually split out worked and non-worked.

Um so those are those are the primary the reasons why we want to make that change.

Any questions on that one?

So what is typically done with like industry-wide?

It's all across the board.

You have some cities that do that do allow um leave hours to count towards hours worked, um, and then you have some that only allow overtime uh to be calculated based on I'm sorry, yeah, overtime to be calculated based on hours, just hours worked only, no leave accrual.

So I would say it's almost 50-50.

So and you do have some, they might pull out just holiday leave, right?

We've right as an organization, we've kind of gone back and forth on that too, where we've had counted everything, uh nothing but holiday leave as counting towards your overtime.

So Chelsea hit hit on it.

Um the financial impact is much more significant than I anticipated.

Looking at the numbers um back in FY23 when this change wasn't in place.

We uh our overtime budget came in at about 482,000 that year.

Fast forward to FY25 when this policy had been in place for a full year, overtime came in at 799,000.

And so it's just not a sustainable pathway to be on.

Right.

Um, what we are doing uh also holiday leave, right?

That piece is is kind of being taken away as well because 482,000 is a significant amount in my mind as well.

So I'm trying to definitely get off that 799, but if we can if we can get some cost savings, and we're gonna talk about personnel later.

I mean, some of those numbers when you look at them, that's two or three people, depending on what positions you're trying to fill.

And so it really it it pains me to do stuff like this because I came to you guys, I asked you, hey, let's go in this direction, it's a benefit, it's not gonna cost us that much money, but it's an easy win for the employees to show show us show them how much we value them.

But when it comes down to numbers and the impacts, I mean I'm always committed to constantly evaluating and looking.

If it makes sense, let's keep doing it.

If we have to reverse course, sometimes we have to just do the hard thing and say, hey guys, we tried this, but we got a reverse course.

And I've met with all of our um all of our employees who who attended.

I held uh three town halls for employees who this would impact the most, um police and fire the most, public works in parks to um to a certain extent, and uh you know everybody's not happy about it.

I think a lot of people do understand it, um, but this is just a change that that we really need to go through.

Um I think it's it's just the right thing to do financially.

Yes, sir.

Is this affect I know in public services they're uh mandated overtime in some areas?

Does this also affect mandated overtime as well?

It does not.

So this does not eliminate overtime.

This just eliminates uh this this modifies how we calculate overtime.

So police for example and fire, they have some built-in overtime already just because of how their shifts are structured.

Um so that happens.

Our telecommunicators, they have some built-in overtime.

So folks will still we will still have an overtime impact to our budget, it just won't be as significant because we're only calculating overtime as what you actually work.

So they will employees will still get their legally obligated overtime, right?

Just what you see on the left-hand side is just it's not legally required for us to do that.

It was above and beyond what the legal mandate is.

Any other questions on this topic?

Okay, uh, the next is a donated leave program, which is section 4.07.

Um, so currently the way the program works is that employees um if there's a case that a case that where an employee needs donated leave, employees may donate and may not donate more than 40 hours of their sick leave per year.

And so what we recommend changing it to is that employees may not donate more than 40 hours of their sick leave balance per case.

Donating it for so, like say you have an employee that is on FMLA, it's only you can only use it if you're on FMLA, but they don't have enough sick leave accruals or vegan leave accruals in order to get paid.

Gotcha to carry them through their FMLA.

They can come to HR, request um a donated leave case, and then employees have the opportunity to donate their accruals, their sick leave approvals.

Okay, and so then a case is one person's FMLEA leave, right?

Situation versus if it carried on, it could do it twice, basically.

That's right.

You may have six cases in one year, and then but currently the policy, but you'll have a very tenured employee that has hundreds of hours that they'll probably never get to use.

Um currently the policy says you can only donate 40 hours in one year.

Okay, whereas if you have six cases, yeah.

Okay.

So anyway, the reason why is because um the per year limit is perceived to be a little bit restrictive, particularly for those long-tenued employees with significant sick leave um balances.

So moving to a per case limit, it creates more opportunities for employees for multiple cases to receive donated leave.

So do we have this happen a lot where people are donating?

More than I expected.

Interesting.

Okay, that's great.

Yeah.

So that's that one.

Um the second to last one is military leave for section 4.12.

Um, this one is uh this change is required by a new uh house bill 2513.

So currently, employees will be paid for military leave absences up to a maximum of 15 work days per fiscal year.

That's that's uh legal requirement.

Um and so the only thing that we have to change or specify is that for fire shift employees, their 48-hour shift, one forty-eight-hour shift counts as one work day.

So we just have to specify that um in the policy.

So that's it on that.

And then the last one is the cell phone allowance policy.

Um, so currently, if an employee um, if they have a job that requires them to um frequently use a mobile device, historically they were given a um a monthly phone allowance of $70 a month.

We changed that back in um October 1 of 2024 to now where we do city cell phones.

So this is just specifying that um any employee hired before October 1, 2024, only those employees are eligible to still receive a cell phone allowance.

Anyone hired after that, they're not eligible for a cell phone allowance, they have to get a city cell phone.

So I just wanted to make sure the policy reflected that current practice.

So that's it on that.

Any questions on that one?

Okay.

All right.

So we will return on March 3rd to request your approval of these changes.

And then if we get your approval on that March 3rd council meeting, then the effective date will be March 7th.

Okay.

That's it.

On that thank you.

Okay.

And we'll return.

And you bring the clicker back?

Yes.

Looks like lots of jobs are going through this because we're going to be the same fee.

We have a restructured IDS.

All right.

We're going to go to 16A then vehicle equipment replacement fund.

Yes, sir.

And Myrna is going to take this way.

Okay, getting married council.

So we kind of wanted to just give you a chance to see what the vehicle replacement fund has been able to do and what the future might end up looking like for fiscal year 27.

That's kind of what we're here trying to get that jump start on the budget.

But first, I wanted just to highlight the fact that we had uh you'd requested that there be a biannual.

I believe that should be biennial because we're not going to do this every six months, but um we had already gotten with um departments, we've already said what are your deeds for next year, and so that just ties back into that investment in and maintaining critical assets.

So the lease program itself has been up and running.

It's been it this is gonna be its third year in 27.

So we're currently in the second year, fiscal year 26, and just wanted to show you the replacement schedule that was planned and the total amount of vehicles that they have, just to show you that 13 were replaced in 25.

We did not receive all of those in 25, but we now have received all of 25's vehicles, and um we're working on fiscal year 26's vehicles, which we have received.

I think we're on um five as well that we have received already.

It does the lease does not start and the payments do not start until we've received the vehicle ready for city use.

So that's just the layout for the next few years that replaced all the ones that we started with.

So then the the number of vehicles for fiscal year 27 is going to be a total of 61, and then there's another option of what we'll be talking about related to personnel that could make that 62.

This is just to show you what the first year looked like.

We had 14 five AC vehicles, and then we had 10 lease vehicles for the total of 24 leases.

Um, the three on the bottom, just in that other color, or just the ones that weren't received during this fiscal year.

And then we go into our current year that we already have the eight leases received, and then um a total of the 35 leases as of January with everything also in maroon or the ones that we're still waiting on at the time that we um received put this together.

I'm not sure if we've received one of those since then.

But if you look at the timing schedule on the delivery, this was not meant for you to be able to read and memorize, it was just meant for an example of we want to know if we have an F for an F-150 and we're replacing it with a Chevy.

How long is it going to take us then for us to be able to expect that we might be able to receive it?

So when it's not a police vehicle and it doesn't have upfit, we can usually run that through the system in less than a month and have it up and ready to go once it's approved.

Um, and so then there's others that it just takes longer, and part of it is just the supply chain, and part of it is just what we have to do to the vehicle to get it ready.

So the Chevy and Paula on our police fleet, it's old school.

Is that a uh I'm sure that's a reserve.

It's a CID CID.

Yeah, they don't need it, they they don't need a file card.

They're not driving.

And so this is the second year of the actual equipment that was being purchased, just so you can see that there was rescue tools.

Um, we have the ambulance that we know that is going to be actually paid for and received next year, but at the time that we had approved it, it was expected to be received in 26.

And then there was some parks equipment where they had gotten the the Pro Gator.

And those have been ordered, and it should be received in the next few months.

Now I want to talk about this year 27.

So one of the reasons why we're bringing it to you outside of the budget year is because this doesn't relate to the property tax, right?

This is a contribution that each department is making by what they have listed in the vehicle needs.

And so anything that we could kind of move out and let you have more time to discuss is is why we thought it would work good in a work session.

These are the things that have already been approved that would be ready.

Um departments met.

And you can see the cost has already gone up from the time that we're just talking about receiving it and the time that we're um going to ready to order another one.

Excuse me, what is the SCBA replacement on fire?

That's our airtime.

That's the air, it's the air.

There, yes, it's one of those.

I'm not saying that we don't need it because we could definitely need it.

Do we it agree?

It's it's more than one.

It's it's for the department, it's multiple.

And then if we were talking about the the vehicle needs, um, the anticipation is the amount that is shown is for the full the full five years of the lease.

That is not what the current um the impact for fiscal year 27 would be.

Um, but we wanted to show you the the full total of these vehicles, knowing that this is possibly a growth vehicle, but the other ones are true replacements.

So the uh the request is to um request 13 to be replaced next year, and these are the departments that would be receiving that benefit right here.

And so for the most part, this none of these are are anything out of the ordinary from what we already received, so that's why we can kind of estimate um how long it'll take for us to get it in what those next steps would be.

And this is the normal replacement cycle for all those vehicles.

Please vehicle it is specifically this is the replacement cycle that was established when we said we wanted to do the vehicle leasing is the oldest ones first, and then these are just that third year of the next round.

So really it's in my mind it's it's the transition to the vehicle leasing plan.

We're turning over our entire fleet.

Yeah, that's what this is.

So we ask a question on this slide that you have here for the um Shivitaho's where it says a 72,000 end of life.

Is that a is that a value at the end of life, or what is that number?

No, that's just saying the vehicle is aged out, it's at its end of life.

We need to replace the amount, the cost.

So that's the concept.

The end of life, the justification, end of life is why we are replacing it in 27.

So we're replacing it in 27 because it's at its end of life.

The amount to replace it will cost 72,000.

And is that yeah, is that all in current?

So you can you can get a Tahoe fully dressed for 72.

Through our leasing right now.

Where that might be.

Yeah, that's today's cost.

We're only paying 50% of the outreach.

Yeah.

That that's total that's that's the life, right?

We don't pay that all up front.

No, I get it.

How does that compare with the new core Tesla?

Any idea of cost?

Yeah.

Is that in here?

We will talk about the number of things.

Yeah, we have we have those numbers for you.

Okay, show you the comparison.

As we move, this is just to kind of give you an idea of the history of the fuel and the maintenance and what it looked like before and what it looks like now.

Of course, these are the years that was um city paid out of pocket, and this is the 25 is the year that we have the lease that started.

And just to give you an example of the fuel so that you can see the maintenance, and then you can see what those expenses of just the vehicle purchase were for this year was 285,000 compared to last year's vehicles at 563,000, and that bought us seven, whereas this year we are in 25, I'm sorry.

And so this was the lease total of what we paid out for the vehicles that we received.

Now we did a little bit of checking into the maintenance expenses, like why did our maintenance go up?

And we believe that's just part of the um preventive maintenance and the cycle that is started on them, making sure that they've gotten in and gotten um their maintenance items taking.

I mean, they are.

I mean how many miles on a vehicle and how many big Tahoes we have.

And then when you when you calculate that into the amount of old vehicles we still have in our fleet, right?

So we get to see the cost savings with the Tesla here coming up here.

That's right.

Over time, you will over its life.

So the fiscal year projected of where we're gonna land is going to be replacement of the 12 vehicles, and then these are all projections.

We believe that the vehicle expenses may be around 583,000.

That's because now they're getting better at pulling them out faster, so we're able to pull the truck or faster when the lease can actually start um working its way through the pipeline to be able to get to us faster, which means we just pay for more leases.

The projection is considered 12 months.

We know that we're not gonna spend um all the money in the first 12 months because we're not gonna get all 12 vehicles, but that's kind of the way we have to assume it since we don't know exactly when we will receive them.

Now, this is just an idea to show you by the time we're in 3031, five years out.

20.

I'm sorry, in 2031.

It it should be.

Oh sorry, unfortunately.

Um I won't be mayor.

That is a mistake.

That is a real one.

So um just giving you an idea of what our ending balance is, knowing that there is a balancing act on when the money is actually leaving, so this fiscal year 26 contractual lease amount does not include the um ambulance because we know it's actually going to be paid in 87, I mean 27, and so then you'll go out to 30, you know, like that's an additional amount because there's another ambulance in either 30 or 31.

So that's just to kind of give you an estimated view of we we still believe that we're gonna be able to cycle through and request the needs and be sure that they're evaluated, and when we get down to to 31, there's still an anticipated about 1.6 million dollars that's ready to to do the next round of um equipment.

Now, the way this is being paid for, it's being paid by department contributions.

The way an internal service fund has to work is that who is using it has to pay for it.

So we're not really going to be able to use the two percent operating expenses because what I evaluate it, the two percent was still less than this.

There wouldn't be enough money that would be contributed into the fund in order to be able to make it sustainable.

Um, but the people that have the equipment in the list um are contributing from the general fund line item into that service fund, and so then just laid it out by department so you can see the equipment contribution that they're gonna be making, and then this is the lease contribution that the departments are making, so that the 98207 is what is anticipated to go into the RERF in fiscal year 27 on the budget line items.

Is the city manager's vehicle in this too?

Administration okay.

So it is included.

I know we did that as a separate lease.

Well, we before we I think had this conversation.

So I just wanted to make sure.

So we didn't do it as a separate lease, we actually purchased it outright.

Okay, and but what we're doing now, we're turning over our entire fleet, so now it is a lease vehicle.

We have sold it back, or we have sold it to Enterprise, who now kind of charges us back for having it.

Okay.

So then as we go into the third year of anticipated needs, there's going to be a conversation that we have the strategic plan of what is the right size, how many um police officers do we need, and just to kind of give you an idea, each time that we anticipate two police officers on the street, we are including they would need one growth vehicle so that we kind of have an idea of um the full perspective of what's going to be required each time we add personnel.

Now, this is the side-by-side comparison.

If we had a Tahoe compared to if you have the Tesla.

Now, this was scrutinized through our department as well as verified with police as well as verified through enterprise to try to get a really good number so that we could make the determination of if we had a Tahoe this year and we're gonna replace it in five years.

And what would that new estimated cost over time be?

Because the new lease goes up.

So the new lease would increase by about $20,000 when we triggered again in five years.

So then we said, what if we just left the same vehicle?

We anticipate a Tesla can last us for eight years, and we believe with that lease cost and with the maintenance cost and the different annual fees and charging that we believe that annual costs could be around $39,000.

And over the course of eight years, that Tesla would cost us about $103,000.

So then wanted to do the same thing with the Tahoe.

What if we kept a Tahoe for eight years instead of changing it at five?

Then the cost would still be greater than a Tesla, but it's less than if we replaced it in five years, so that its estimated lifetime cost is around 165,000.

What were we doing?

Well, what have we been doing previously as far as replacement on Tahoe's?

Replacement as needed.

Generally, it was around um seven to eight years.

It was very um budget driven, and our we didn't have a concentrated budget just for fleet.

So isn't that when we were fixing things that we're working on them?

Trying to keep them alive a little bit longer, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Which ends up adding up to cost the vehicle and to actually spend more over the life of the vehicle.

Yeah.

If I remember one thing from the enterprise change, it was that we were gonna have like rough end of life timelines for cars, but if they thought that it the right time was to sell it now because the market that they could shorten it or lengthen it based on what they were seeing in the market.

Is that yes?

Well, they'll give us recommendations, right?

Right.

Ultimately, the decision is ours to make.

But yes, they would they would kind of tell us, hey, it's a high demand for this, or no, you're starting to see a lot of maintenance issues.

It's time to kind of get from up under that to get the most value out of that vehicle.

Okay, yeah, I just was making sure I remembered that right.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, yeah, that's still in play.

That's all I have on this.

I've got one question.

Uh back to the I don't know what page one is uh summary by just back a few pages right there.

Uh down under expenditures the capital outlay.

I'm trying to follow that number across.

Uh it seems very inconvenient.

Uh maybe I I don't understand what that number represents, but it seems to bounce all over the place.

It's what it's it's going to bounce all over the place because partially it is the um upfitting that's needed on vehicles, so it's gonna be driven.

So maybe what else?

The upfitting on a vehicle of what's required to get it ready.

It's also including the equipment.

So you're gonna be seeing um you're gonna be seeing the actual needs that they have projected, possibly.

We have a list.

This is what we think is gonna be needed in 27, this is what we think is gonna be in 28.

So it includes parts lawnmowers, it includes other equipment items outside of just the vehicle leases.

Okay, and those change from year to year.

That's why you see it bouncing around.

And so this is gonna include that ambulance 2030.

And then this includes the ambulance.

Yeah, we have two charging stations for the Teslas.

We do those are those are just for the police vehicles in the South Port.

Did that help?

Okay.

You want to go through this or we can go through that.

I would I would prefer Philip to do it or all right, come on up, Philip.

Carter, can you change to oh well?

Let's go through the no, wait, let's go through this one first, and then Philip can bring bring up this.

Okay, so this is the electric vehicle charging station.

Let me call 16B presentation EV charging station reimbursement.

My apologies.

All right.

All right, so we had a one job, and you're doing it well.

Um, so this is keeping in line with um our strategic plan, building and maintaining of resilient financial practices and procedures.

Instead of coming to council and constantly asking for more funds, let's show that we can actually go and find things that make sense for the city.

Not just for ourselves as an organization, but for the community as well.

And so you'll see here they're offering an approximately 12 million dollar 12 million dollars in grant funding for the deployment of electric vehicle charging stations.

We have already received word that we've been approved for that.

Our police department with Philip and Aaron and uh Reagan as well in community development worked on this grant application.

So you'll see here where current Murphy EV charging locations are around the city.

All right, so you guys already know that we received this the two Teslas.

We have level two chargers, they've already been installed, they're in the Sally port, so they are not available to the public for public use.

And here's some definitions of the levels of charging.

So level one, you'll see there it takes up to 24 hours to charge.

As you continue to go, it gets a bit better on the charging.

Level three is the best, it's considered a fast charge.

Let's talk a little bit about the application review process.

Um again, Murphy is an approved site.

Uh NETCOG has one funded site located at the police department.

One site has been waitlisted for the community center.

Uh four level three charging stations, one will have police priority signage.

Four vehicles will be able to charge at one time.

A five-year operations and maintenance period is required.

The anticipated COG grant reimbursement funding is 411,000 over the five years.

The remaining 20% initial installation of $98,000, and then a remaining 80% of 14 seven.

The five-year OM commitment is $73,600.

The private sector's charging station vendor reimbursement expected is expected to reimburse that portion that is above and beyond the grant reimbursement piece from COG.

So all of the installation, um, any of the O and M, we do expect all of that to be reimbursed by the private sector vendor that COX COB will select to install the EV chargers.

Okay, so we would be having a third-party run these they would set the rates.

Do you want to come up here?

Is COG gonna help on setting the rate?

Yeah.

Clock is actually doing the procurement.

So COG is going to, once this gets to a certain point, COG is going to be the one that is selecting the vendor and and rolling it out for the different cities that end up needing to use them.

And so they would make all those determinations.

So if if the the vendor, if the vendor is going to be reimbursing the city of Murphy for the cost that we spent to put it in there, right?

No, they are just doing part of the the ON the maintenance, operation and maintenance is what the private vendor is reimbursing.

So it the COG is reimbursing us for the cost of the installation.

The annual maintenance is covered by the vendor.

Right.

Who gets a cut of the rates?

Yes.

So it's mostly their funding, it's mostly their profit to make.

We will get a cut.

You want to talk about that?

Um we will have a hand in selecting the vendor.

In fact, we have a work workshop with NECOG in two weeks, and I hope to be a part of that committee, and each entity receiving a grant will be able to have a voice in either choosing one that the old netcog goes with or individual vendors.

So we're still working that part out, and um I'll talk timelines later, sir.

But um, hopefully, we will be able to get a cut into the city as well, and then work with some other things we're trying to do also for if city vehicles happen to use it, and if there will be a difference in charge between what the public pays and what we use for city vehicles.

So this sounds like a fairly large program that they're trying to roll out, right?

Yes, sir.

Uh it's it's a federal grant, and then the number of things listed there is what dog is working through, and then the 411 is what Murphy is part of now.

Do we do we know how many other cities in the area are implemented?

55 approved sites.

Um Plano has a lot of them.

I have a list, I don't have it on the slide deck because there were uh over a hundred submissions, um, but 55 different sites are approved.

We pulled in North Texas, yes, in the 16 counties in that cog.

So you said that only 55 got approved of over 100?

Yes, ma'am.

What was the so they did a rating criteria?

So the rating was and we look at your area and how many stations do you already have.

Okay.

Is your area in need?

So that they then assign a rating schedule so that then determine whether where did you fall in how many would benefit having because ultimately they're wanting to get from point A to point B and have you know places all along the way so you can pull over and you can charge, and that's why they want the level three.

So there were other ones that just already had some at a higher level, so they were below the city of it makes a lot of sense.

Thank you.

So we we duplicated some some slide deck, so I have some more on here.

Uh this talks about the criteria, but Murphy is definitely uh a suitable candidate for it.

It's it's meant to be publicly accessible charging stations, and it's it's based on, among other things, the amount of registered vehicles.

They didn't discern between electric vehicles and others because they anticipate more vehicles becoming electric.

And then they're also looking at the highways like 75 corridor, I-30, those have a lot for long distance travelers.

What do we have off the beat path?

And so they're trying to saturate other areas with this opportunity to help incentivize the use of electric vehicles.

This is what our this is the police department right here.

This is the court, the the entrance would be.

So it's actually two separate pictures here, but um the police department front would be right here.

These are the handicapped stalls that currently exist.

These five spaces would be taken right here at the front of the police department and turned into four stalls.

So in their plan, the way they have it right now, one of them will be a handicap accessible stall, and then one will be police priority.

Well, police priority means is yes, these are publicly accessible stalls.

However, if you use that particular one, you gotta stay in the car in case one of our fancy Teslas rolls up and needs a fast charge.

Um they're all accessible to anyone though.

So isn't number one uh isn't that the drop-off?

There is a ramp right here, yes, sir.

And so that's why the package is safe zone safe zone, too.

No, I'm sorry, so the safe zone is actually right over here.

Oh, okay.

And it's all on the other side of this tree.

I got you.

Well, you touch all video surveillance too.

Yes, sir.

So some of the criteria they had to wait it was video surveillance.

We have a camera right around here that's aimed over here, already in place.

The area is lit.

Uh the area is accessible to the public 24-7.

So those criteria among others were used.

We actually submitted three sites initially, and I'll get to that here in a minute, but this is the site that has been approved.

And the difference between the three chargers, the big difference is in how long it takes to charge.

Level one is what you plug in your garage on a 110 outlet, no modification needed.

You get about two to five miles of range per hour.

That that takes forever.

Uh level two is what we have in the police department right now.

It's what most of the chargers in Murphy are.

That's what the ones uh on the west side of market heights are.

That's what Walmart's initially were supposed to be, I think, and maybe still are.

Uh, but those are the ones got DC fast chargers.

They do not okay.

Yeah, uh, but most of the charges here in Murphy are level two.

DC fast charge, that'll charge our EV to about 80% in 30 minutes, 30 to 45 minutes.

That's what's projected.

So that's where if for some reason we have not been able to charge our Tesla for two or three shifts, or we're running something that is unforeseen.

We can plug it in, 30 minutes, we're good to go for another shift or two.

Um it's not meant to be our priority charging plan, but it is a good backup to have.

Our award is for approximately 411,000.

Um we already went into what the award is and what do we have to do for that money?

It's mostly in the reporting requirements.

So they they have some paperwork that they have to do on that.

That's most of what our part is.

If things break, that's what the vendor is for.

It's our job to maintain the site as mow the lawn, keep the cameras working, keep the lights on.

Um, and if anything's damaged to report that there's damage, but it we are not responsible for fixing things when they break or any kind of repairs to the site.

Uh that's what the vendor is for.

So go back to Murphy's award.

I don't know where to say this at as a as an EV driver myself.

I think that if we don't already have one in the plan, let's make sure that we've got some trash receptacles, you know, near near that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That'll be an extra 20,000.

We will, yeah, if we get the big mouse ones or whatever.

Yeah, yeah.

While he's charging this car, closing the load.

Yeah, yeah.

So council, this I I think this really comes to us.

We didn't have a lot of participation in kind of making this decision, right?

On the Teslas, and it's here, and uh or you know, I've heard a lot of uh you know excitement.

I've heard other people like you know, eye rolls through the electronic media.

Um but I guess staff is asking us if this is something that we want to move forward.

I'm not an EV driver.

What this grant?

Oh, okay.

No, we got the EVs.

We have, but we got the EVs and they'll take it all.

They are out in advance and they'll and they'll and they'll take you for a ride in one if you want.

But um no, the grant.

Do we want to take it?

Do we want this grant?

Um do we want this grant and we want to build out these public-facing chargers?

You guys have one charger right now in the Sally port, right?

Yeah, two.

Oh, you put two in, put two in the Sally part.

That's all we can handle as well.

So I I have a question.

So we've talked about will the city get a cut because I mean, whenever you have a public charger, you know, there's one of the vendors, they have a car, most of us EV have accounts on all of the vendors, and you pay.

So will we know like how much of that we will see?

My understanding is that is mostly a part of the vendor selection process and vendor bidding.

Um that is not started yet.

Um the beginnings of that will happen next month.

Okay, but that's we're five, six months off from knowing who the vendor is and what the exact deal will be.

Okay, and so the vendor, so part of their cell will contain how much of the city uh cut will be.

That's that's my understanding.

And do we have to make a decision before we know that financial detail?

The way that the way it is it has been presented to us, is it is not necessarily that each site picks a different vendor, though that might be an option.

There will be a working group that of different entities, and I hope to be on that to represent our part so that we have a voice in it, whether COG uses one vendor or multiple vendors.

Okay, that makes sense.

Um but what I meant, so us deciding tonight whether we want to proceed.

If we don't if if we feel like it's not a favorable cut to make it worth whatever expenses we're gonna have, can we huh?

We are not spending any money until one october.

There's there's no expenditure, no ground to be broken before one October.

Okay, so we can decide later.

Like we can pull out if we don't like the numbers, is what I'm asking.

We're gonna show you the numbers.

I'm gonna help you with the numbers.

And can I follow up?

There's gonna be no cost really because the vendor is paying for the maintenance within the FY, it'll be new.

And she has the numbers more broken down.

And that's how the that's what were a lot of bullet eyes.

So there is an so we are paying an upfront cost.

It's just that it's all 100% reimbursable.

Yeah, okay.

All right, all right.

So there is money leaving our account that it's coming, but it is coming back.

So Bernard show you that a minute.

Okay, I'll wait to see the side that I really getting the money back.

Plus, you have to really roll with the times here.

Plus, we're gonna probably get a cut ongoing.

Right.

More and more rate for the people getting charges, right?

Well, that's true.

And can we at least be cutting edge on something instead of being the ones that are always like, what did our other sister cities do?

Can we be the ones that they're representing the Teslas?

You know, yeah, that too.

So I I'll I want to say a couple of things like regarding it, because we've as we already said we we have two very small sets of fast chargers.

Most EV homeowners here in Murphy are charging at their house overnight.

That's the typical way.

I I hardly ever go to a fast charger.

But there are some times where I don't have time, I'm driving a lot, long highway stuff, and I just don't have enough time to charge it, and so I have to go to a fast charger.

And that's gonna become a little bit more common as as we get, you know, that slowed down.

The I think the EV adoption right is gonna slow down without the federal incentives.

But but long term it's still gonna rise from from what it is.

The other side of that you have teenager that gets in theirs and they forget to charge it at night, and I have to remind them because I'm getting the app that says you need to go charge your car.

So this is actually the site modifications.

Try to leave no stone unturned on what is going to be required in order to be able to make sure that um we have this available for residents.

And so these are the installation requirements that we know that we would have to have.

And then these are the installation modifications that would be needed in order to be able to do those um those charging stations.

Now I will say that I went ahead and pulled the recommended sites by the applicants that you'd ask for other cities.

So City of Plano is going to have two sites that they're looking at.

We've got Quenlan with one, City of Richard Richland Hills has one.

Stephenville has one approved.

DFW Airport has one approved.

City of Lucas is one, City of Lewisville is one, City of Plano is two, City of Dallas is ten.

That's just kind of a general Dallas City of Dallas is the one with the most.

The next one is City of McKinney with five.

So Dallas.

So nothing in Wiley.

Saxy.

No Richardson.

I have Richler Hills, and I'm having Richard Hills.

So really nothing around our area.

And I don't know if they applied or not.

So I don't know if it's that they didn't get it or that they never applied.

And this was the only site that was considered, like in front of the police station.

We submitted.

So we can we considered three, and after speaking with COG on what would conceivably make it to the rankings, we submitted two.

So the other one we submitted was by the activity center.

Um the old school, the Old Murphy School.

Um we were going to put two chargers out three levels two chargers.

Um the concern there was it's out of the way, it's hidden, people can't actually see it.

We would have to install more infrastructure, like a camera and lights.

Um but it was a good viable uh site, it has been waitlisted.

It's not very probable that it that site would be selected on the back end.

The third one that we were thinking about, but would not have weighted well was it's Central Park, right by where the PSA is.

Problem is it takes away parking that is already very scarce, cameras on there being lit, our ability to make sure that it's not vandalized or anything like that, other cars parking that are aren't charging and just taking up parking space.

So based on the rank the ranking and rating criteria that COG had that that would not have been a viable site.

Um this is so close people can walk.

I mean that's it's very close.

Yes, sir.

And that's one of the rankings.

Um when I go back to my deck, I'll I'll talk about the survey and kind of why this one went for it and some of the steps we took before where we are now.

So here let's just go into the original numbers that um were submitted with the application, and then try to just walk through the total the breakout of what's in here is 387,000.

So they said eligible expenses is the 491.

So the 80% of the 491 is the 3928.

And so then this is the part that comes from COG, um, which is the um this is the vendor, and then this is the COG portion.

I can't speak to any of this over here because there's just not any detail.

So everything that's associated with um this plan right now on reimbursement and timing all comes from COG, and COG is not controlling the vendor rollout of those reimbursements.

But we can say that this is what's anticipated from COG, and they have some specific guidelines of when it should be submitted and when it could be expected.

So the total estimated grant reimbursement from them is the 411200.

And then with the reimbursement for the vendor side is expected to be around 172,000 with total expected reimbursement over the course of the five years.

Um 583,000.

So just a couple of since it is money out of um general funds, it's money out of pocket.

Um, there was just a couple things that I wanted you to think about.

Um there is some interest that was growing in the ARPA funds and had left it there, assigned it as a transfer so that it then could reduce it because we had um spent that money in a different way with the salary reimbursement.

So there's actually some money that was there that can be assigned.

It would be council resolution, it would be you actually take an action and saying yes, I'm assigning this money for this project, and it would um go into a specific line item in order to say that yes, um, we're gonna take this part of the the two 26346 would become assigned to the EV charging station, which then would require um about 265,000 to be from those one-time expenses that we have been working through as we draw down that fund balance.

Um, that would come from fund balance.

Or you have the option in 27 of just pulling the whole amount cleanly out of that and um just putting this back into the general fund to use in a different way, and then um just showing you that the potential for the reimbursement says the remaining commitment that's not reimbursed is zero, and this again this the installation piece of it.

So this is the um operations and management side of it that says we have to do this for five years, and there are pieces of it that is not going to be reimbursed.

Um there's not eligible costs for every single thing.

So there are going to be some things that will be out of pocket, but they're expected to be minimal and expect to be partly associated with the electricity and that type thing.

This is the cog timeline.

So that one of the reasons why we're bringing it to you now, and one of the reasons why we're having the discussion now is because we have to be um willing to sign an agreement to execute agreements as soon as practical now that we have been awarded it so that they know that yes, you're committed to it, and yes, this is when we're going to start building it so that they can line up their items with the the vendors themselves.

So your decisions tonight is you know, one, we're just making sure you know it's a five-year agreement for operations and maintenance.

Um it has to be an agenda item that would happen in 27, so it would come back to you as an agreement to sign in October of 27, um, fiscal year 27.

And then these are the things that is required.

The reimbursement grant has to have your as council sub-recipient remote execution, and so that has to be occurring and reimbursed within 12 months of the agreement execution, which is why again we wanted y'all's an input on it because we only have 12 months from start to finish to get those reimbursements and get them processed and get them in.

We can't decide now and then start something in October.

We will we need a full 12 months in order to get it implemented and be eligible for the reimbursement to receive those funds.

Well, the reimbursement go back to the general fund.

Yes, if that's what you so decide, that's another thing that you can decide.

Then you it can be assigned somewhere else where you'd want it to create a capital maintenance fund, or if you want to put it in the the vehicle equipment replacement fund, that's up to you.

So it wouldn't be limited.

No, you never said, yeah, you're never we just want to put that in writing so that it has that as part of the resolution.

And we can't use like MCDC funds or any any other funds.

No, it doesn't, it it doesn't really go to economic development or any of that.

Okay.

But I mean, the the the finance if you go back to the finances, Berna, with the um there you go.

Yep, no, the other one.

Yep, that one.

So if as Berna mentioned, um, we do have some interest that's been earned off of the ARPA money that we got from the federal government.

So that would be my recommendation, right?

Is to take some of it out of the fund balance, but we have other fund balance needs that we always bring to you every budget year, and then to use the remaining balance from that interest that we've earned, and that way the hit to the to the fund balance isn't as significant as it can be, even though we're getting that money back, it still has to leave at some point.

So that would be my recommendation tonight.

So the first question on the table is is this we have been approved, but we have not accepted anything.

Is this something you want us to continue going down the path to accept?

And then we'll bring all the necessary approvals back to you all at a at a later meeting or action.

So money's gonna go somewhere, and this will come to Murphy.

Right.

I vote yes.

The staff have the like capability of answering all the grant type of because grants are not easy a lot of times, so I just want to make sure that we can do everything in-house without going and getting consultants.

Yeah, we are not getting a grant consultant.

Um our finance department is handling our our grants right now.

Maybe at some point we'll have someone else who helps with grants just in our staffing plan.

Um, but right now we do we will not be going out and getting third-party consultants to manage this grant.

Okay, but you said earlier the grant has been approved, correct?

We have been we are an approved site.

We have gotten approved that we are on the list for as an approved site, yes.

But until there's an agreement executed, and until that part of it happens, then they just would assign it to someone else.

They're just letting us know that we're an approved site.

Yeah, because it sounds like there's a wait list.

So if we turned it down, they'd go to the next item on the list.

That's the that's also that's the importance on the timing.

So although that makes a lot of sense.

We don't spin anything until October 1.

We have to let them know that we're gonna spend the Right if we do.

Okay.

So what we're committing today is just to this with the condition that we are approved.

So what we're committing today is just to this with the condition that we are approved that the we are approved by the grant.

Yes.

Well, I'm sorry, no.

We've already we are approved for the grant, so that's not conditional.

What you're doing tonight is saying, yes, continue down this path, bring us something to actually take action on.

This is a discussion tonight to answer any of your questions, but to also get some direction.

Are we heading in the way that you want us to?

Do you want us to accept this grant?

And then we can bring something back to you for formal action to do that.

I think it goes with our strategic plan that we've discussed, sustainability, you know.

And so I think to me, we've approved site, knowing that the other cities, our sister cities have not been approved for a site.

I think makes it a very viable option for Murphy.

Brings traffic into the city too that will use the chargers.

I'm not the only one doing.

All right, I've heard from at least three of you.

I'm good to go.

Okay, so you're good to call.

Okay.

You want to you want to weigh in?

Okay.

I'm good.

All right.

I made my decision 45 minutes ago.

Sorry.

Well, you can call the next item, sir.

Thank you, Philip.

Item 16C, personnel summaries FY26 and 27.

Too much choice out there.

All right.

Okay, so there are a few things I want to talk to you all when it comes to personnel.

We're gonna go over the review of FY26 mid-year personnel adjustments, and we'll talk about why we do that and why why that has to be done mid-year sometimes.

Then I'll present to you the FY27 personnel requests that the departments have submitted to me.

Again, we've started the budget process really early this year.

It's almost been no-break.

Um, in an attempt to get some of the more routine things out of the way, things that we know we're going to need.

We want to go ahead and talk to you about those so that as we come back to you for these budget work sessions, we really have a budget that is kind of firmed up and looks how we know it really should look, and then we're just talking about a tax rate and how we're paying for all of it.

Okay, and then we will discuss the cost impacts and the strategic alignment.

So the why behind why do we do the mid-years?

What is it addressing, what is it aligning with, and the same for why am I recommending certain staffing changes for FY27?

The goal is to provide you with information needed to make a policy decision regarding the workforce investment.

So let's talk a little bit about the strategic plan because as you guys have noticed over the last year, everything we bring before you, we try to show you that it is aligned with the plan that you guys set forth last February.

Uh, and so this goes to sustainable operations, uh, maintaining the quality of infrastructure systems, maintaining a high performing city team, building and maintaining resilient financial practices and procedures, and uh it goes to the safety strategic goal of right sizing our public safety organizations to meet the needs of the community.

So, first let's talk about mid-year reclassifications and why they occur.

So there's typically an operational necessity when workloads start to evolve, demands start to increase a bit, or sometimes it's because of regulatory requirements.

Uh sometimes it's next necessary to restructure a role following employee turnovers.

So sometimes once someone leaves, we determine you know what, that department could have been better aligned, better structured, and then we take care of it at that time.

Cost avoidance as well, or efficiency opportunities that would be lost by postponing action until the next budget cycle.

And then an opportunity sometimes presents itself to promptly align the organization with council-driven directives, including the strategic plan.

So those are some of the whys behind why we do mid-year reclassifications.

Let's talk about what we have reclassified in FY26.

So we'll look first at the old positions, what departments it relates to, and then the new position that it's been reclassified to, and then we'll talk about some cost impact as well.

So for the first one, you'll see we had an engineering and CIP manager uh in the public works department.

That position has been reclassified downward to a project manager.

Um, and we did this.

This is a case of employee turnover and recognizing that we needed to restructuring restructure.

We were kind of overqualifying that position a bit much, and it wasn't necessary.

We don't need a PE or a city engineer on our staff.

Uh, when I got here, I felt very strongly that we did, and over time, um, the knowledge and the expertise that we have on staff says that we do not need that.

And so by reclassifying that position, we did save the organization $40,000.

If you go down to the next position, director of HR in the human resources department, that position has been reclassified to director of administrative services, and that's just to more uh again that was a restructuring that took place to capture what that department does now.

So communications has moved from the city manager's office to the department of administrative services, and so with that, the title of administrative services made more sense as opposed to keeping it at the HR.

That is no cost impact.

It's still a director, she is still doing director level work, so there was no justification to increase the cost of her salary.

Can you tell me how many employees that we have under that umbrella?

We have three and a half.

So we have a we have a public affairs officer, we have an uh the director, we have an HR manager, and then we have a people coordinator, experienced coordinator.

Don't make me so the HR manager manages a manager manage people, or is that just a title for so they're managing uh uh a div a program?

So they're managing programs.

Um so no one report I don't know if Nicole Nicole doesn't report to Anisha, does she?

She does.

She does, okay.

So she's managing a half person right now, but it's really about the programming that she's managing.

She's help she's kind of helping on the payroll process side of things from the HR perspective on our benefits and our compensation review, things like that.

All right, so going down to the HR analyst, the HR analyst in the human uh in the administrative services department has been reclassified to HR manager because as our director of human resources expanded her umbrella, the HR that HR analyst position took on more of a role as well.

The impact to the budget is ten thousand five hundred dollars.

That was the reclass on that position.

The HR assistant, which is a part-time position position, was also reclassified to really capture more of what she actually does.

So her title now is people experience coordinator.

I like that title.

I like that change.

Yeah.

Um, and it but it but that really is what she does.

She kind of coordinates all of our employee events, um, and that position is also helping out the public affairs officer in the duties that go under that umbrella as well.

The cost impact for that reclassification was $2,500.

The budget officer in finance, that position was dissolved, and that happened as a result of employee turnover.

And talking with the finance director and doing some analysis of that department, it was determined that they didn't need a separate position just for budget officer.

Um the department, the finance department is pretty robust.

Berna has a very deep knowledge, so she works more intimately with the budget in uh with me on that.

So we did not need to pay that position to fulfill a role that we are already having fulfilled by our finance director and some of her other team.

So that position was actually pulled out and reclassified to assistant to the city manager.

That position has not been filled yet, and we're still kind of making sure that we're crafting that job description in a way that's going to be most beneficial for the organization.

And there's zero cost impact because the cost of that position is much less than the cost of the budget officer, so there will be no additional cost to the organization for that position.

The controller in the finance department has been reclassified to assistant uh director of finance, as you all remember.

We have talked at length about sustainability, secession planning, and I still have a couple key departments that don't have second in commands, and we are trying to work through that slowly.

So this was to address that.

Um they have one, two, three, four, five, five, four and a half.

Four and a half people.

All right, so the cost impact to that was 17,000.

And then we'll go down to the finance technician position, which was reclassified to finance and purchasing specialist.

This is also a result of the restructuring that's taken place once we uh had the turnover with the budget officer position.

The impact to the budget for that was $9,500.

As you go down to the juvenile case manager in courts, that has been reclassified down to a juvenile case manager part-time.

This is another situation where we had turnover in the position.

Our court administrator retired, and our juvenile case manager and our deputy court clerk was actually promoted to fill that position.

After doing some analysis of that department, it was determined that the workload did not justify full-time juvenile case manager position.

So the cost impact on that reclassification actually saves the city $13,000.

Does the police department not need more case managers?

I thought that was the police department.

That's not a police department.

That's courts.

Okay.

Yeah.

Could the police department use more case managers?

They don't need anything else.

I'll talk to you about what they need.

Okay, and then the juvenile uh case manager position in courts, have the half of that, so we we reclassified down to part-time.

The remaining half of that is uh what went into creating an accounts payable specialist part-time for the finance department.

And so by doing that, the savings was $18,000 to the organization.

So you find that people apply for part-time jobs.

I was very shocked because I didn't think so either.

I kind of talked to Chelsea about this and and during some of her recommendations, and I'm like, we're not gonna get anybody, and if we do, you know, are they gonna are they gonna stay?

Um, are they gonna be valuable?

But we I've been pleasantly surprised at the number of applicants we've gotten.

I mean, when you the person that we ended up hiring had had a whole nother life, you know, they had retired, but this is what they wanted to do.

Okay, and even with Candy's position, she had when she when she got the part-time position, there's been quite a bit of interest of people who want to be able to pick up their kids or people who are kind of doing their second act in retirement.

Um, so I've been pleasantly surprised by it.

I was shocking if I didn't want us to be like reclassifying to make things cheaper, but then not actually be able to get people.

And that's not why we've reclassified.

It wasn't it wasn't to capture these savings, that's just kind of the benefit that happened as a result, right?

So the total cost impact of these reclassifications, uh, mid-year FY26 is $31,500 to the good.

All right, and so now let's talk about the utility fund.

We just talked about general fund.

We have reclassified two uh maintenance worker twos.

If you'll remember last year, we talked about career ladders and making sure that certain positions, as they got licenses or training and hit milestones, that we actually gave them somewhere to grow in advance in this organization.

That goes to sustainability as well, and this is what that addressed.

Um, when our new public works director came in, he uh assessed the department and said a lot of what we had heard before that we needed some restructuring in that department.

Um we had we didn't have a crew leader model, and so you have a supervisor who's going around to these different job sites, but there's no true leader on each job site until the supervisor gets there.

So this is intended to address safety, address uh sustainability through advancement and growth opportunities, and this did impact the organization $12,000 on the utility fund side again.

So just a little bit more uh justification for you guys on the project manager piece.

It aligns position funding with actual work being performed by maintaining our service levels, and then we're putting down here to just again show you that direct line from the changes that we've made and the recommendations that we're making to our strategic plan that you all have laid out for us.

The director of administrative services to enhance the continuity of communications operations without adding new positions.

That's where the PAO gets some assistance through being in a department with additional staff, and then maximizing uh existing leadership resources, the HR manager, the people experience coordinator, the assistant to the administration uh city manager position.

So we've gone through some of the justification, but we just want to show you what strategic plan element we're trying to hit by doing this as well, and then we continue with the justifications here.

So let's um if we don't have do you have any questions on the mid-year changes we've made for FY26?

Okay, so let's go to the personnel request for FY27.

Again, we asked departments early this year to get in all of their personnel requests for FY27, and this is what I received.

Um, so for from the police department, they requested four new police officers, and you'll see the cost impacts over there to the right.

Um, five hundred that would cost us five hundred and sixty thousand dollars.

Uh, they also requested the position of assistant police chief.

This is a department that does not have a second in command.

This is this is one of those departments that does not have a firm secession plan in place.

It is concerning.

So this would be really rounding out the structure that would work best for that department.

And then also a reclassification of our public work superintendent to an assistant director of public works, because that is another key department that does not have a number two or a firm secession plan in place.

And the cost impact for utility fund total, those uh requests equal 194,000.

And then I'm sorry, if we do a reclassification, does that automatically mean we're keeping the same person in the position?

When you're doing a reclassification, if that position is currently filled, that's what it means.

So it sometimes we reclassify after a vacancy, right?

Like with like with the budget officer.

So that's not a that's nobody's automatically getting that.

But in the example of public works, if we were to reclassify that superintendent position, someone's in that position.

So if that position was reclassed, that person would be promoted.

Okay.

And then on the VERF side, um, based on the request that police uh bought for with the police officers with the four police officers, that would trigger two vehicles.

So as Bernard mentioned earlier, for every two new police officers, it's one vehicle that we have to add to the fleet.

So again, the the total request impact on the verse side is 144,000.

Okay, so back to the police officers.

Uh-huh.

So what does that mean?

Does that mean one more officer per shift?

Yep.

They have four ships.

And we'll have HB coming online, which probably will help necessitate the need for that and bring in more sales tax revenue.

That's what we're praying for.

Okay.

Yep.

All right.

So we'll get these are the requests, and we'll get into uh kind of how I review.

So again, always trying to look at the alignment with the strategic plan, making sure that there's always a connection there.

Um, the operational necessity, the impact to the service levels, and can this be supported with our financial constraints.

I mean, we've been talking about that cliff for a couple of years now.

We keep pushing it out every year, thankfully.

Um, but in order to do that, we have to continue to be prudent and mindful of how we're spending these dollars.

Um, but I do want to say that I do believe that every single request that I received is necessary for this organization.

Doesn't mean we can fulfill them, doesn't mean that I'm going to recommend them to you here in a minute.

Um, but I do believe that every department took the exercise seriously.

They looked at not just today, but they looked at the future for what their departments need.

So they're all legitimate operational needs and requests, just unfortunately, finances don't let us approve all of those.

And so that leads me to my recommendations tonight.

So, what I am recommending is two of the four requested police officers for a cost impact of $280,000 to the organization.

And I am also recommending that we go ahead and reclassify reclassify those uh two police lieutenants, two police captains.

Um, when we talk about overtime costs, those are two positions that do accumulate quite a bit of overtime because by law there's there's case law and precedent.

Um tenants have to be eligible for overtime and police departments.

However, captains do not, they become exempt employees at that point.

And not just we're not just doing it for the cost savings, but to really align with what they're actually doing.

They're doing the duties of police captains already according to all of the comparisons that have taken place.

And so we really where's that gonna put them in the um in the uh the pay range, right?

Are we going to be coming back in year two that they're way down uh way below midpoint need to be adjusted up?

No.

So what we're doing at in reclassifying this, we're addressing their market right now.

So they they will be reclassified at market value, and they'll get a raise with that, but that raise will be less than their total current total compensation.

Yes.

We will we'll net somewhere around it a thousand dollars.

It's it's natural neutral.

What are we gonna do?

Right, it's pretty neutral.

What do we do?

So the lieutenants become captain, so do we are we still going to maintain a lieutenant's position?

No, sir.

That will go away.

That will go away.

Classification?

They do.

Okay.

This was this was a request from police.

Okay.

Making sure it was a request from the, you know.

Yes, it was their request.

Okay.

What is the formula that is used to determine how many police officers you need based upon your power if you're police they have this standard formula.

A lot of times it is um population, square mileage.

Do you want to talk more to that?

So we developed a five-year strategic plan two years ago, and many times it was done based upon population, but that population formula does not work.

So, what we've adopted is a policy or a formula, if you will, that has been adopted by the International Association of City Managers, and it has a multitude of different formulas in there in addition to population.

So it takes calls for service.

Uh, it takes what is the percentage of those officers' time spent on, because community relations is a big part of what we do.

And if our officers are constantly tied up on calls, then they're not able to do that.

What is the typical response to calls for service?

Right now, about 85 to 90 percent of our calls require two officers.

So if there are three officers on the street, we we we we have a challenge because two are tied up.

Uh I can go, I can give you that that formula, but it's it's I'm I'm explaining it a very simplistic way, but it's very complex.

Uh, but it is tried and true, and that is the formula that I use to provide Miss Adams a five-year FTE uh strategic plan as it applies to the global effect of the police department.

It accounts for more of the uniqueness of your city too, instead of just having that blanket well, you need 2.5 people per you know, thousand.

It it allows you to really look at what's happening in your city to make sure that you're not inflating your needs.

How many Walmarks do you have in your city?

But I mean, there's a lot more to what's happening in your city than how many people live next to it.

I think it's important for the public to know, you know, like how we come up with what we need as far as you know how many police officers we need, or sure how many you know, fire people we need.

Um so if you got the four, which I'm not advocating for, I'm just is that a step to get to where you want to be in the five-year plan, or is that get you to the formula right now?

No, that is a step.

Okay, thanks.

We we we can't address that five-year plan in five years.

That's right.

Okay, right.

So I understand.

But we're we're trying to take small steps forward as far as we can until we can.

Okay.

Okay, so the total cost to the general fund um in from my recommendations would be 279,000 on the utility fund side.

I am recommending uh both the requests that were brought forward, both to um add the two crew leaders and to reclassify the public work superintendent to an assistant director of public works to get us um in a more sustainable position for that department.

That impact to the utility fund would be 194,000, and then the VERF, because I'm recommending only two officers and not four, that would take the impact down to 72,000 for one vehicle.

Now we might want to talk about whether or not that one vehicle will remain a Tahoe or Tesla, depending on how this goes, and if we can save more money by doing that.

So those are right my uh recommendations for personnel, and again, here's some justification on why we're doing those.

We've kind of talked through those already.

Um, but you can see more justification in how it's tied again to our strategic plan.

So what I'm really looking for, of course, any questions, any discussion that you all have, but what we're trying to do is make sure that when we start having our budget workshops and bringing things to you, we are framing it in a realistic way.

We're putting in personnel that you kind of buy into already.

We know what our financial constraints are.

Um, we know that we have to account for the 279,000 dollars on the general fund side.

Um so I really just want to hear from you all.

Do you have concerns?

Are there um you saw what the requests were?

You saw what my recommendations were.

Do you do you have any um feedback concerns, direction that you want to provide on where we're headed?

What does the crossing guard supervisor do?

Like, what is there other than what types of things other than managing them, but what other duties do they have?

Scheduling.

Scheduling.

Yeah, so we're allotted 15 part-time crossing guards.

We on average uh have about five lieutenant critics on, which means we're supplementing those with law enforcement officers to ensure that our kiddos are getting safely.

And we're also uh transferring some from one location to another because schools started start at different times.

Um right now, this is a very cumbersome task because it's it's done by Lieutenant Bartlett.

Uh so what we're asking is to for that middle uh mid-level manager that could could really focus on ensuring we don't have a crisis uh and and that all those checkbox are checked because I know sometimes we have trouble getting school crossing guards, like we've had that before.

So that's a challenge.

So I'll just but I will tell you that this this position is not uncommon.

In fact, it's very common if you do an analysis comparative, uh uh, especially with our comparative cities that that Chelsea uses for our compensation study, uh it is almost across the board.

Does that person still a crossing guard?

So they do that, they schedule themselves for whenever they're gonna go and then do all the other administrative tasks.

Okay.

Okay, so the records management specialist.

When did we first start having a part-time records management management specialist?

Like FY25.

So before that, we've never that position didn't exist.

Yeah, department of one.

And was that created during the transition between our city?

Yeah, we okay.

That I brought that to you all in the FY25 budget at the request of the city secretary.

Um, and it and so she had already been in place.

So, how many the part-time person?

How many hours is that right now?

20 hours.

I'm just looking at the it's fifty thousand dollars more in addition.

Because it adds a benefit.

Yeah, it adds benefits, TMRS, it's it's a full FTE.

So we get a lot of cost savings by not having to pay some of those things by keeping them at the 20 hours a week.

She's right out.

We haven't any other discussion.

So what is it is it too like what is a small smoke over here not still working?

Not not including the benefits.

What would a salary look like for a full-time records management specialist?

How much were that to Chelsea?

Maybe 50 grand.

Just 50, yeah, around 50, 55 for a full-time.

So part-time, she's making around 30.

And what kind of experience would somebody need to be a records management specialist?

Just previous uh, I mean, preferred experience in the city secretary's office, but if we're talking about minimum requirements, um administrative experience in another municipality.

So is this basically assistant city secretary?

Is that the same thing?

It's not the same thing.

Now she'll back up and and do some of those things, but it's not at the level of an assisted city secretary.

And our organization does not need an assistant city secretary.

Now Candy might not agree with me either.

The current one doesn't have enough to keep her busy, so is the the own to the approved plan.

Yes, sir.

Where you're showing two officers.

I mean that that is entry-level.

It is.

Yeah, the numbers reflect the entry.

Yeah, that's what I was not sure about that reflect.

Okay.

And that's a uh and just uh just to be fully transparent, it's really challenging, it's really difficult to give you a lateral because we have to look at their years of experience in with a eight-step plan.

With that they they would never come in above step five.

So step five would be the max a lateral would come in at.

Uh but you you really can't budget if they're a two-year officer that come in at step two, or they're three or four or five or more years.

They may, they may come in at step five if they have the experience.

But if they've been in a law enforcement agency that maybe not is comparable to the city of Murphy, we're not lateral and then at five because they don't have that experience.

In recruitment of officers, is this cost include any uh education school or anything to get their close license?

Uh no, sir.

So that would be uh separate to uh no, I I'm sorry, we did actually on on the uh on the new FTEs, that includes the cost of the academy.

I I am very apologetic.

Sorry.

Yes.

So if I don't hear any opposition, when we move forward to the our budget work session um in June, this will be built in to those numbers.

It will be working under the assumption that you are all are okay with us moving forward with the conditions.

We're okay today.

Might not be able to know that we're gonna be working hard building numbers based on this.

I think that's fine.

Yeah.

All right.

I'll be interested to see where you take it from.

You gonna do your job?

No.

Uh are we at the time?

All right.

Very good.

Uh there's nothing else from city staff.

Time is 849 over journey.