City of Ferndale - Headlee Override Proposal Options Presentation

Longer are we looking at a large scale recreation facility, but now restrooms, concession, some change in areas to meet the the requirements we have from the grant and also to help support the splash pad and other outdoor activities there. We're also holding off, and trying to refine the public safety headquarters facility, for a future, potential bonding proposal. So since the election, we held town hall sessions on November 28 and December 17 eighteenth of twenty twenty four. Tonight, we're holding, this special session, and then hopefully on the twenty seventh, I the mayor and council will, adopt ballot language, for a proposal for a May election. Our deadline is February 11 to be able to put something on a May election.

So before we get going, I kinda wanted to find first one, proposal a. This is a Michigan constitutional amendment that was adopted in 1994. This limits the annual growth of individual taxable value, for individual properties by lower, 5% or the rate of inflation. The Headley Amendment, also a Michigan constitutional amendment that was adopted in 1978. This limits the growth of tax revenue on existing property by capping and annually rolling back local tax rates based on, again, either inflation or 5% whichever is lower.

A headly override. This is the common term we use for the voter authorized additional millage, that's above the rolled back charter millage, that is set. So based on any ballot proposal, it could be used for a specific purpose, it could be used for general operating, just depending on how the ballot proposal is written. Charter millage, just like I mentioned. The city's millage rate is defined in the city's charter and is rolled back based on the Headley amendment.

Now some other financial terms, a surplus. When revenues exceed expenditures for a fiscal year, that's a surplus. Is a deficit. And then the last term I'm gonna define is fund balance. This is essentially the city's cash reserve.

These are used to cover unexpected emergencies. Often, you hear it referred to as a rainy day fund. The government finance officers association recommend a minimum fund balance of at least 15% that equates to about two months worth of, expenditures. So as we move in, I wanna address a couple misconceptions regarding the city's headly override. The first one, this has to do with tax breaks for developers and corporations.

If we didn't give away tax breaks to developers, we wouldn't need an override. The city utilizes, development incentives. The two main types, have to do with brownfield and then neighborhood and enterprise zones and pilots. Brownfield tax incentives, these are used typically to help eliminate environmental hazards on a particular piece of property. They're also used to help redevelop blighted or obsolete properties.

Brownfield incentives, are are handed are given to developers to help cover the eligible costs based on the based on the increase of the property's taxable value for a set number of years. These incentives help cover things like remediation, some kind of long has been just over 1 and a quarter million dollars over the last twenty years at an average of 62,000, per year. It's important to note, none of the city's general fund went for these projects. The cost has been from the city's major road fund, which is tax fund tax money that is collected at the state level and redistributed to cities for transportation projects. And now I'm freezing.

There we go. So third misconception, this is the last one I'm gonna hit on. The city's had ten years with the last override to get their house in order and get their spending under control. We shouldn't still need an override. Unfortunately, because of the mechanics of proposal a and the Headley amendment, an override is gonna be necessary for most, if not all, older communities.

Because the Headley amendment places limits on local government tax rates by linking the required decreases in millage rates to the growth in property values for existing property. Also, the override is required because in order for us to ever get above, that rolled back charter millage rate, it will require a voter authorization, also known as our Headley override. Unfortunately, in the past, had we have ever experienced some kind of property value decrease, we could have, had a what we would call a Headley roll up. So if our property value decreased, our millage rate would roll back up to offset that. In 1994 with proposal a, that linkage between property value declines and millage rate increases went away.

This creates a situation that really puts especially older communities at a disadvantage. As you can see from this graph, looking going back to 02/2002, we were on a nice steady increase of property taxable value. Conversely, our charter millage was rolling back, but because things were happening fairly, proportional to each other, we were still doing okay. The great recession hits in 02/2008, '2 thousand '9, property values crash. Our taxable value crashes.

Does our millage rate increase to cover that? No. Unfortunately, the millage rate remains at that rolled back level. So at that point then, for every mill we've collected, it was less money because of the lower taxable value. However, as taxable value has increased since we've made great strides and recovered, our charter millage continues to roll back from that that, lesser amount.

This is why an override is necessary at this point still. So a couple other items I wanna address before we get into the the options. As you know, these are old facilities that we operate. We have a lot of issues within these facilities. Facilities, even though, you know, the the Headlee proposal from November failed, these issues have not gone away.

Over the next five years, city facilities are gonna need maintenance and repairs that are estimated approximately $6,800,000. These items include plumbing and HVAC at DPW, HVAC and electrical upgrades here at City Hall, HVAC plumbing and safety upgrades at Fire Station 1, plumbing and general maintenance to park restroom facilities, just to name a couple of the of the big ticket items. What this does not include is a new public safety headquarters that we're still pushing forward on refining plans for. It also does not include, projects at Fire Station 2, which would not be in existence if we move forward with the new public safety headquarters. The only projects with with the police department that are being planned now are projects that are required because this is a joint building.

Things that will, you know, we we can't do one without the other. So these are things that will continue to need funding over the next five, ten years. So now we'll get into some of the options, and these are options that have been presented, most recently to the public at the town hall in December. So the first option, of course, is to allow the voter authorized additional operating millage to expire. In this scenario, in the first year post the Hadley exploration, our millage rate our operating millage rate would be estimated to be at about 11.2.

The city would immediately, for the first year, need to look for, $203,000 of expenditure cuts, prior to the Headley expiration. But once the Headley expires, we will need to look to cut $4,000,000 to address projected funding shortfalls. Without major structural changes, by fiscal year twenty twenty eight, the general fund balance would be depleted without, without anything in reserve. The next option is to restore the voter authorized additional millage at the current rolled back level. At this point, that is estimated next year to be 4.2.

In this scenario, we would be able to levy approximately 15.4 mills, but we would still be in that same spot. We would need to find, about a hundred $37,000 of expenditure cuts in fiscal year twenty six to address a projected deficit. However, in the next few years, this deficit would balloon to a point where we would deplete our fund balance by 2033. So even in this scenario, it will require some sort of structural change to the way we operate. Next option is to restore.

Essentially, do a redo of our 2015, Headley Override. This would, authorize the city to levy an additional 5.445 mills above the charter millage rolled back to 11.2. This would allow us to, be at a millage rate similar to fiscal year 2022. And, again, we would still need to identify efficiencies because we would be projecting a budget deficit by 2031. Next option, increasing the voter authorized operating millage.

In this scenario, we're looking at an increase of two mills above the current rolled the estimated rolled back 4.2. In this scenario, we would be at a rate that the the millage rate will be just higher than it was in 2018 through 2021. Again, we will still be projecting a budget deficit by 2032. The mechanics of Prop a in Headley require cities to maintain fiscal discipline, regardless. So whatever option ends up being chosen, we do have to maintain discipline, with our finances.

So a quick summary here with some long term issues that we need to talk about. Without an override, it's gonna require significant service level money. That's there will be no more funding for building capital improvements or maintenance. So, again, you know, we're looking $4,000,000 in the first full fiscal year after the headlight expires. And before I move on, I will note all of these options, we're planning that this would be a ten year, Edley override.

So in ten years, it would have to go back to voters. So next option, adding mill override. So this is about a half of a mill decrease. In this scenario, we would be looking at a hundred $37,000 of cuts in the first fiscal year, six hundred thousand dollars of cuts in the fist in the next fiscal year. This would allow us to immediately fund the, you know, the essential services.

But, again, we'd have no funding for building maintenance, and the CIP there. And we would be at a point where we're in multiple years of million dollar deficits by 2030, what I'm kind of considering a fiscal cliff. Also, you'll notice on this slide, I have, I've put what the the city's operating millage would cost the average home, with a taxable value of a hundred 35,000. I used a hundred 35,000 because that's about the ninetieth percentile of taxable value in the city, with averages being lower than that. But I wanted to make sure we had a good number of, you know, kind of aiming higher because we do have a, you know, of course, 90% of the homes are within this this range.

Through through to the chair.

So just for clarity, the second column, I'm gonna take the, the third row. You have the 14.8647 operating millage would equate to a little over $2,000 in city operating tax. That's not the full tax. That's just the city's portion of the tax. Based on a one thirty five taxable value, you'd probably be looking at a total tax bill of about 6,000?

That's probably about accurate. So the city's operating millage makes up approximately 23% of, the properties to tax bill over the course of

a year, assuming it's a non homestead. Homestead, it's gonna be a little more of a percentage because you won't have the the school millage on there, the school operating, which makes up, I believe, about 1,800 mills. So yes. This is this is just focused on the city operating. So the miller the charter millage and whatever had the override.

This doesn't include, sanitation and some of those other things. This is focused solely on this, operating millage for funding the general fund. Thank you. Of course. So the next option, the 4.2 mills, this is the the straight renewal, right?

Keep it at where it is. And I have that actually highlighted. It doesn't come through as well as I was hoping. That one's highlighted kind of in white because that's essentially where we're at right now. So again, we're looking, you know, kinda depth by a thousand paper cuts.

A lot of lot of cutting, throughout the the life of that ten year, override. It will require small cuts in various services. Also, won't be able to fund, the building maintenance CIP. And, again, that term I'm using, fiscal cliff, is in about 2031. So the next option up, the renewing with half a mil.

At this one, you're looking city operating tax on a taxable value of a hundred 35,000 at about 2100. In this scenario, we wouldn't have any immediate cuts, but we would be having to look pretty pretty close down the line to to making some cuts because we're gonna have deficits in about 2029. Again, like I say, requires fiscal restraint, but also no funding for building capital, and that potential fiscal cliff is coming at about 2033. So then the next option, the the renewal at the 2015, redo a ten year five point four four five two, headly override. This one would cost that, property about $2,200, in total.

Right? So about $700 more than just the charter millage as it is. In this one, no immediate cuts, though again, looking forward, trying to crystal ball it. We'd probably see our first deficit in about 2031. Be able to fund some, not all, of the building capital.

Probably could start spreading that out over the course of the, the ten years. And that fiscal cliff is likely to hit about the same time as the renewal. Very similar scenario as we would have been in 2015 when it was originally, approved. So then the last option, the renewal at 6.2. This is the renewal plus 2 mils.

Cost our taxable value home of $135,000, just about $800 more than it would without, approving an override. There'd be no immediate cuts. The first deficit is likely looming in 2032. We would potentially be able to fund most of the, building capital. Though, again, just like in the other option, we'll have to stretch it out over the years.

And the fiscal cliff is unlikely until after the expiration. So this one, of course, being the more expensive is gonna provide the most runway. So those are kind of the options we've been, scenarioing out at this point based on feedback, based on, millage models. And so that puts us kind of at a decision point. We'd like, you know, understanding the difficult position everybody's in.

For us to be able to get the ballot proposal in time, we need to be able to prepare and approve, ballot language on the twenty seventh ideally. This will give us time to be able to get a proposal to Oakland County, and just in case anything anything weird happens in those couple weeks before the deadline, we're able to address it. So that is the presentation I've prepared for you tonight. I do have one final slide that is essentially a duplicate of that summary that I was gonna leave up on the board for everybody to be able to reference, throughout the course of the evening. And I'm happy to answer whatever questions you have to the best of my ability.

So I have a question about the or maybe a point of clarification about the renewal at the 2015 level. So we'd be renewing at the 2015 level, but realistically, the overall tax burden for residents is is considerably lower than at 2015 because the underlying charter millage has been rolling back since 2015. So although that millage rate would be the same as 2015, the underlying charter millage rate is lower. So we're not really levying the same amount of tax that we were levying in 2015. Absolutely.

Got it. Yeah. It's about a difference of, 2.2 mills Okay.

Through through the chair. I concur with that with the caveat that these property values have been going up since 02/2015. So even though the the tax rate would be lower because it was reset with the 5.45, it was reset to 20. This would only reset it to 16.64. But the tax the property taxes I'm sorry.

The value of the homes have been going up. So it would still be less, but it wouldn't be, you know, substantially less.

Right. And but it's important to note that although property values have gone up because of Hedley and Prop a, we're not actually capturing all of the value of that increase.

Exactly. Yeah. So, okay, that's helpful

for me. Thank you. Through

through the chair, I did have a question that came up. The special events, people had a lot of concerns about, during the last election, you know, the loss of special events. In these scenarios, at what point would we potentially be dipping into cutting out special events?

Well, eventually, it would be something we'd have to talk as as a group. I don't wanna, right now, say what exactly is on the chopping block, only the numbers that we have to get to. Ultimately, it's a council decision, but special events is likely, you know, because if you looking back at the original tiered cut proposal, special events were one of the first tier. So it would certainly be something we'd have to look at pretty much

immediately. Through through the chair. I suspect that events would be cut at the point that you're gonna end up cutting anything out of police and fire, where they're not able to support

Mhmm.

Those Right. The fluff. You know, that's a fluff or events.

Well, I guess I'd like to put it to counsel's discretion. Do you want to have discussion before or after public comment?

Through the chair, I believe there's an item on the regular agenda. So, in my opinion, I think council discussion should probably take place during that that topic when we get to the regular agenda.

So then open it up to audience. Sure.

I think we're at call to audience.

Alright. That's what we're gonna do. Alright. So at this time, I'd like to open up to anyone who'd like to speak on the proposals that we have presented before you. But I'd also like to just remind everyone that there are some people in the audience who have never spoken and are coming will be coming up to the podium for the first time.

And I noticed that sometimes in some previous meetings, we've had, some, I guess, some disruption from the audience. And I just would like us to be able to discuss this without, you know, any sort of discussions or any sort of, arguing coming from the audience. I wanna hear what we wanna hear what everyone has to say and then, come to a decision as a council as to what we're going to put on the ballot, if we're going to put something on the ballot. So I'm opening it up now. If you want to speak, you're welcome to come up to the podium to do so.

We ask that you, that you state your name and your address, and, I open it up for call to audience.

And, mayor, just just, for clarity, it can be on any item that they wish, not just

on the president.

Be on just the headlight. You can speak on anything. Correct? Good evening.

You're a pretty nice guy. I really am. James, on the I'm sorry. I know that's my three minutes. The immediate cuts, long term issues, is that assuming we're we're funding the, $6,800,000 in repairs?

Some of that where it says no funding for building capital improvements, we're not funding any of that 6.8.

Right? I just wanted you to state your name and your address.

Excuse me. Mike Thompson. 1415 West Troy. I'm gonna got this down to two minutes. So, alright.

I've stated my name and my address. So none of us know what will happen in the next three to twelve months. But almost twelve months ago, I predicted the future for our little town. I knew how people were feeling about the economy. I knew interest rates had shaken people's optimism about their ability to find and upgrade housing.

I knew the auto industry was slowing down, and I knew business owners were struggling to survive post COVID. I also knew uncertainty would grow, especially in this town, if major changes occurred in Washington. All of those facts are still relevant today, likely more so than in November. I stand before you as a compassionate human being, not only advocating for what I believe to be a majority of residents, but also the employees of this town. As a small business owner, I pride myself on having no to very little turnover.

I feel strongly that my employees and their families should experience the best work environment I can possibly provide. Sometimes that involves sacrifice, but ultimately our bills stay paid and our freezers are full. I am humbly asking you to decide on victory tonight or defeat in May. Given the many conversations I have had with residents, many very pro police and fire, they will be voting no on any override. I can't emphasize this enough.

People are struggling, and any inner increase will be perceived as out of touch and cruel. I do not believe there will be enough goodwill to carry even a modest increase over the line in May, not to mention what it will do to your chances of passing bond in November. I ask you to please put your version of the future aside and embrace the future of surviving this moment together. Let's start this next chapter on the same page in the same trench embracing our same struggles. Let's make sure that we can all fill our freezers this year.

I am asking you to trust us, the voters, to know what is best for this moment so that we can trust you going forward. This is an opportunity for all of us to come together at a time when we need to be united, not divided. Thank you.

Good evening. Dave Cottrell from sixteen ten Beaufield. I just generally wanting more efficiency, a lot more transparency than previous mayor, where we sold a lot of gimmickry. And one of them was the quick, fix thing on the website, which never really worked. And it's easier to just call DPW, and they listen to it, and they get take care of the problem.

Some concern I'm kind of me, I'm wanting efficiency, good use of the money, and I'd like to make sure that you maintain your buildings. I'm probably an exception. I probably would want maybe the 6.2, renewal. But I wanna see efficiency, transparency, no gimmickry, and not lying to me as I was consistently at the previous mayor. A few items well, with the bike lanes, yeah, it's you get your funding for the bike lanes from from grants, but the operating expenses to maintain the roads, it actually increases, and the DPW has less time to maintain your roads and get the snowfall off.

And, also, the speed bumps, which were more we needed the speed bumps because of the speeding through the neighborhoods, but we were told that wouldn't happen because we'd have this because we were lied to. And the speed bumps just make the DPW take a longer time to do shoveling and then the previous DPW manager would say, he would just love to have the speed bumps away. So it's just like so many lies and so much so much dismissing as a citizen. So if it's a really efficient system and you're really spending your money wisely and you're maintaining your buildings and not lying to us by omission and saying, oh, everything's wonderful, and then we find out all the buildings need to be replaced is, like, not what I want. I want efficiency in maintaining your buildings.

Thank you. And the police really need to be improved because some of them are lousy.

Hello. Jim McLuckie. Nine zero three Emerald Street. So I've lived in Ferndale for seventeen and a half years, first as a renter and then as a homeowner for the past thirteen and a half years. I set down roots in Ferndale because of the community, the walkable downtown, and the central location in Metro Detroit.

The time I've been here, I've only seen the city grow and improve as any highly desirable walkable city should. We've seen improved infrastructure, replaced water lines, still, you know, still in progress, roads replaced, sidewalks replaced, new bike lanes. You guys missed Livernois on your presentation. I'm very ashamed. Improved parks.

We see the skate park, the dog park. It got a splash pad. Much needed parking structure, major increase in living space downtown, improved library, brand new lower elementary school, more festivals and events, increased retail and service businesses along Livernois, and number of new thriving bars and restaurants downtown. All this is possible because we've chosen to invest in the city. It's been a positive feedback loop, and Ferndale is thriving with more growth on the way.

Some people don't see it that way. Some people think all of this or some of this is unnecessary waste and mismanagement by the people who run the city, and they wanna punish and defund the city over their negative perception. At the bare minimum, I'm interested in renewing the current override to continue supporting and investing in the city. I'm not interested in defunding the city and kicking off into a negative feedback loop of disinvestment. I think that's shortsighted and malicious, and I do not wanna go down that path.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Quinn Zigler, seven zero five West Camborne, and I served as the chair of the resident led finance review committee. And so we learned a lot of what's been shared here tonight in our group. And as I continue to think about things, and look at these options here, My concern is that if we renew at our current level or even just a little bit up, we create a problem where we have to cut things that are genuinely important. So things like downtown maintenance that supports our small businesses, parks and rec that support our community being able to connect with one another, special events that make our Ferndale funky.

And we do this in order to do other important things like paying our first responders appropriately. And then we have to keep cutting because it's death by a thousand cuts as we heard today, and there's no way out until the state someday fixes the problem. If residents vote for a plus two mills, council gets the ability to choose to make thoughtful cuts instead to gets the option to make thoughtful cuts, to be really thoughtful about what you do. And remember you have the option not to levy those full two mills. Make cuts now, be really thoughtful about what those efficiencies are, and use that option not to levy those mills.

And that gives us the community the flexibility to say, do we wanna keep service x y z because it's in line with our values even though it costs a little bit of money, or, do we cut it to save that money? That we'd be able to be a little bit more flexible in that way. My fear is that if we renew at our current level, we back ourselves into a corner where the numbers are the numbers and you have to make the cut and doesn't matter what our values are. So my preference is giving the community the flexibility to say we wanna keep something because it's in line with our values. Thank you.

Hello. Spencer Lair from 1055 Alberta Street. My comment's less about the amount. And one thing, James, that you said at the very end of her in the middle that seemed kinda like a side comment. One thing for me in the November voting was, is this gonna be a permanent headly override, or do we get to address it again?

So, regardless of what we do, I think making that less of a side comment and more, forefront in the comments on the ballot proposal would be a go a long way for me as a resident here.

Could you stay there for a minute? Yeah. Could I just ask for some clarity? So you mean whether or not it's a ten year, five year, what you wanna know exactly what it is.

Is that Correct. Yep. Alright. Putting the length of the override.

Thank you.

Okay.

Alright. Alright. The audience ending at 06:38. Alright. That's up to us for discussion.

So I guess what we need to know and discuss is, one, what proposal we'd like to see, and two, the timeline for that proposal. So I know that we've all had discussions, two on one with the city man interim city manager, and we've all had some ideas as to what we'd like to see. So if you'd like to anyone would like to start with sharing their their option here.

So through the chair, when we originally planned this, discussion, I was not under the impression that we were gonna make a solid decision tonight. I was under the impression that we were going to present the ideas, the options, allow people here to, share their thoughts and opinions, and then over the next several days, allow us to interact and reach out to, the people within the city, get their thoughts and opinions before making a solid decision on what the language and and which option we should put on the ballot. I can share that I'm comfortable with laying out the language of what the ballot should read, but leaving the amounts, the the the rates, and all of that open and have that discussion and decision on Monday.

So tonight's the reason why we have tonight is to, one, to go over the options. Mhmm. And two, to have some sort of direction as to where we're going what where we're going as far as the meeting that comes on Monday. I think it's important because I know all of us have had something that we were more comfortable with and maybe our reasoning behind it. Doesn't mean that it's clear and concrete tonight, but I think it's important to kinda get it out there so that we can kind of gauge what the language would be and whether or not it is something that is acceptable to the community and something that we would actually propose to put on the ballot.

So it's just really to discuss it. So I know that, me personally, I was between the 5.4 and the 6.2. Based on some conversations had, I know that a lot of us have pointed out this the 5.4 and and also the 4.7. So can we agree that we are at that level, or is there something else that we need I need that needs to be considered here?

I think we need to chair, I'm not I'm leaning towards the 54. I like that for the facility upgrades. I think that's important. Mhmm. But I also am torn on just a straight renewal due to the economy out there, and it's hard.

It's hard for a lot of people. So I'm torn between either one.

So I might understand you're between you're at the

I'm not above five four for sure.

You're not above five four. No.

Through the chair, I I feel like I'm in that same boat. So, you were in the meeting with myself and James. You heard me lean towards four point two and four point seven. Mhmm. And I don't know what's going to be the most palatable to the public.

I I feel like going going low, while very difficult for us and setting ourselves up for really hard conversations about budget cuts, is it's gonna be difficult, but I feel like that's one way that we start potentially gaining the trust back that I feel like we're struggling with right now. 4.7 was kind of a sweet spot for me to to kinda split the difference. I I understand 5.4, and that gives us the most flexibility. 6.2, I just crossed off the list. I don't think that that's feasible right now.

And going under a straight renewal feels like that is going to be more problematic than good. A like, going with the 3.88 overrides to the half mil decrease, I feel like that's when we're gonna start really cutting into services that are upset and and get them to a point where they're not gonna wanna support anything because now their services are cut, plus they voted in more millage.

So

Oh, do you you haven't?

Oh. Go ahead, please.

Go ahead.

No. No. You you were gonna follow-up.

I was just going to say that so from what I'm hearing is that we are between 4.2 and the 5.4. That what I'm hearing so far based on what I've heard so far.

Well, through I'm sorry. Donna, you haven't had a chance

to

speak, so I have some things I'd like to add.

So, you know, I, well, to your question, mayor, yes. I think I I wouldn't go below 4.2, and I don't support 4.22. I think it's too low. Mhmm. But, you know, to, mayor Pro Tem Mikulski's point, you know, I also wanna build back trust with the public, but I'm not sure and I know that feels like the way to do it, but I worry that the trust doesn't get improved as we've been as we begin cutting.

And so I think that that's a feedback loop we have to think about that simply slashing the government might build trust with a vocal minority of the community, but it will not build trust with the broader community that is looking for these baseline services that they value. And I think that's a a line we have to walk. That, yes, there are always gonna be people who don't support any of this. They they want no override. They wanna, I mean, really watch the thing the house burned down.

We're not doing that. That's not an option because the vast majority of community doesn't want that. But at the same time, I get it. We don't wanna do a giant increase either. So, you know, anything that's gonna set us up for, you know, I think a straight renewal without any kind of increase, even a modest increase, it's gonna set us up for you know, we're not maintaining the buildings that are already in bad shape.

We're not essentially going to maintain services. I mean, we are going to cut some kind of service within the next fiscal year. I mean, three hundred and twenty one thousand dollars doesn't seem like a lot, but that's that's enough to cancel the summer camp program in the recreation department. It's enough to, you know, eliminate, you know, leaf pickup, in the fall. You know, that's it's not a small it's small in the grand scheme, but it's not small when it comes to having to find a service that we have to reduce in order to absorb that.

And so I'm wary about setting us up for doing something that feels like we reached a compromise that actually sets us up for failure relatively quickly. You know, we've compromised, but I think people will I do think the broader public will regret that compromise very quickly once things begin to take a turn. And if prices go up further, we're gonna have to make those cuts far quicker. Mhmm.

And

that's the issue is, you know, I I hear, you know, Mike and I hear others and what they're saying about cost of living for residents, but the government has a cost of living too Sure. In order to do what we do. And, you know, with we have 25% tariffs now effectively with Canada and Mexico, that's going to raise the cost of the inputs to our services. So the timeline that James modeled out modeled a certain assumption, We this model is essentially void as of this morning because these costs are gonna go up. Our inputs to government are gonna go up.

We're gonna lose our runway faster than we think because things are gonna cost more. That's my worry too. Is, you know, if we thought we were in a better shape of, you know, if cost inflation was getting under control or that, you know, something like that, I just worry that our runway is shorter than we think it is based on everything that's going on.

And I think that's fair. It's very fair to to look at it from that perspective. The the other perspective is if we go too high because we're covered,

Mhmm.

Because we wanna cover ourselves and people vote it down Mhmm. Now we're in a real tight spot. Yep. Understood.

So I there's there's a little bit of complexity that we really haven't discussed. If we go with a lower amount, so, you know, 4.2 has been thrown out,

4.7

has been thrown out, I would not feel comfortable voting a ten year millage for those low amounts. We're shooting ourselves in the foot. I don't even know if I would wanna do a a a ten year for the the reset to 2015 at the 5.445.

Meaning sorry. The clarification. Meaning you would wanna, like, a a shorter term?

Yeah. If we're gonna go with a 5.45 four or the four point seven, four point two, I would suggest doing a five year because you'll never stretch it out to ten. Mhmm.

We're you

know, it's already showing in 2029, 2027 for 04/2002, '20 '20 '9. You're already looking at you know, you're you're starting to to make some major cuts to the budget. You're falling off the cliff in 3031 and 3033. We haven't reached this point yet. You know?

If we had done this in '15 as a fifteen year that ended in '30 2030, we'd probably be hitting a cliff for us in 2028 if this continued on for five more years. So we have that we need to consider. The other thing that we could also consider is what we did in 02/1011. I'm sorry. Eleven when we originally did the 05/1945 or the '4 the original millage reset to '20.

We started out well, I don't know if it was a guarantee. In the language, we wrote it so that we promised the first two years would only be, a percentage of that. So I think it was 3.35 mills for the first year or two, and then we would go up to four point so, you know, such for that next year and then eventually cap it at 5.45. That's another option that you could do. Now we did that as a five year, which was a lot easier because you were only dealing with a few number of years with a few different levels that you could adjust it to.

One of those years, I remember that we didn't even increase it to the maximum because we didn't require it. So we just kept it at the year rate from the year before. So that's another option. You could request the 6.2 with the caveat that, you know, counsel would only raise it to, you know, 4.5 or five point o, you know, the first year or two and then increase it as the years progressed.

So like a like a phase in?

A phase. Yeah.

Like a phase in. And then that would in fear in theory, that would almost it it almost be set up such that as the charter millage rolls back, this would essentially kind of

And that's what we were doing hold

it flat on on net overall.

That's what we were doing to 02/2011.

I guess my question on that would go to James and Dan maybe. How is there a way that we would can we legally bind ourselves to that? I see you squint and I'm thinking through it too and I I don't know how

And but it was a resolution.

It it wasn't in the ballot language. It was a resolution.

Understood. Got it.

And and that didn't necessarily You know,

those people held us to that.

Resolution can be changed.

Of course. That's the

yeah. Got it. Yeah.

But then you risk pitchforks and torches.

Sure. Of course. Rightfully so, if we don't keep our promise.

Well, so in that case, they would be voting maximum amount that would have been phased in. Right?

Well, the ballot would read whatever that number is, but then with that I believe it was on the same day. I I think when we passed it, we also have passed a resolution. The resolution that said that, you know, council promises that, you know, the first year we would only, we would only implement, you know, three point three three three point three five seems to be the number that I recall, was what it would start out at and then phase it gradually phase it over the next four years.

I I don't recall it saying promise. I might I think there was a statement of intent that was identified in the resolution. And I think they pick up the language of that resolution.

Interesting.

Through the chair, that's it's an interesting option. But, again, if if we're talking about what's gonna pass with the voting public, I just don't know that the higher millage amount is going to pass.

To add on to that, I think the issue is I think as we learned in November, the more nuance we add to an issue, the more complicate you know, the more complex it is, it's hard for folks to understand what we're asking them.

Well, I definitely would not put two items on the agenda again around the ballot.

Yeah. We're certainly not doing that. Interesting. So I think one thing I would like to note, really, for the benefit of, my colleagues here on council, but also for the public, is that, you know, the finance committee for the council, consists of me and mayor Pro Tem Mikulski. And as sorry.

I have a hair. As we move toward Ferndale's budget cycle for the fiscal twenty six budget process, we have instructed James that the mission of the departments is to identify some cuts to their budget for fiscal twenty six. Everyone is supposed to identify, cuts to their budget so that we can, produce a budget that is fiscally responsible but doesn't sacrifice core services and doesn't do anything completely wild. But it kind of sets the tone for us kind of resetting, let's call it, our budget baseline down a little bit. That also would go a ways toward essentially extending the runway as we keep calling it.

So, you know, if we do a ten year millage, by finding these kinds of efficiencies upfront, one, we're honoring the intent that has been clearly stated by residents across all spectrums of belief about Headlee, which is that they would like us to make some kind of meaningful reductions in our budget upfront, without sacrificing the most important services, and also buys us the runway. It essentially it means that we don't our expenses aren't as high to start when we start the clock, and that means that whatever millage we set at, we get another year or two squeaked out of it as close you know, the the plan is always to try to, you know, as council member Pawlika was saying, the plan is always to try to get all ten of your years. You don't want your mill you don't wanna hit a split a place where you're you've already started to essentially be bankrupt. I mean, the thing that the word that no one is saying in the room that James avoided saying is when you've spent your fund balance and your expenses outpaced your revenues, you're bankrupt. And at that point, the state steps in and takes over your city.

And one thing I can assure you is that you don't want that. If you think your city services are gonna be bad under a cut scenario, they will be even worse under state administration. So, you know, what we are trying to do, what you try to do is, and what what Laura and I are trying to do is find a sweet spot with the proposed budget that is a reduction over the current year's budget on net on whole, but and then that sets us up to get the full ten years out of whatever, you know, or a best attempt we can to, you know, try to make sure this thing lasts all the way to the renewal date. You know, nothing stops us from coming back earlier. So if things start to go pear shaped and things are, you know, not great, we can always say, like, we're not gonna make it to ten years.

And the options are either drastic cuts or we go with an early renewal. I mean, that's always an option for some kind of reset. So I wanna make sure the public's aware of that too. Like, we're gonna try to make it to ten years, but if something were to radically change, you know, we may very well come back and have town halls and community meetings to say this is the situation, but is the will of the, you know, what does it feel like the will of the residences? How would you like us to address this issue?

So in terms of the logistics regarding the finance committee that you and the mayor of Rotem serve on Mhmm. Are we looking to have something concrete that kind of shows what we need to show for the next coming budget. What what's the timeline for this?

Our timeline is essentially synced up with the regular city budget development timeline. So so, generally, James and James already has sent out the directive to the departments to begin preparing

Mhmm.

Their draft budgets. They're due Right. And the part that I'm adding in is that you will have justification hearings of the city manager state. You will also have justification hearings with the council finance committee. So you'll have two rounds of justification meetings, meeting with Laura and I, the department heads, you and James.

And we will also probe into the requests and what James is recommending as the as the city manager assistant interim city manager and, and then us saying, are you sure we can't do a little better on this? Could we carve a little bit here? What efficiencies could we get here? So, you know, we will be doing that, and then that means that we would be ready still on we're trying to stay on the schedule such that the city manager then presents that final, you know, with the finance committee recommending a budget to the full council on the same timeline as the budget normally. Wouldn't change you know, we're not trying to expand or change the timeline too bad too much.

Well, and through the chair, I I feel like the one thing that we haven't really touched on is could we make that finance committee meeting a little bit more open to the public potentially? And, my in my mind, you know, we have our budget season. That's great. And we can be very active then. But on an ongoing basis, rather than just using it as a internal touch point, using that as a a conduit for us to discuss various potential cost efficiencies and analyze software as a service.

That was something that our previous city manager had wanted to elevate in terms of, you know, priority. Going through those motions publicly and analyzing things, I think, is going to be it's it's a no brainer, and it's a given, no matter what we do with the ballot initiative.

Yeah. So my intent is for yes. Definitely for us to do that. I think the department head meetings with us, those are not. I don't I wanna be able to speak freely with department heads, because the committee is not a quorum, so we're not required to meet publicly.

But I think after when we have those meetings, having the bigger discussion with James, Phil, and and, you know, potentially any others that may be supportive in that more you know, then talking about what we've learned and kind of broader things. Absolutely. That is that is my intent. I know you share, obviously, that intent. So, yes, we'll you know, we will have noticed finance committee meetings even though it's not a quorum.

We will still have them, and we'll be here, and we'll talk about what's going on with the budget development. And then I think moving forward, I think even just on a routine basis, having the periodic finance committee meeting that is public, that is not a council meeting. Because, again, the benefit of not being quorum is we can be a little bit more free. We can talk a little bit more free. We don't have to worry about votes and procedure and and orders of motions and things like that.

And we can kind of do update meetings where essentially we're talking about, okay, what is the current state of things? How are things going? How are things looking? How are revenue collections, etcetera, etcetera. Yes.

That is part of the ongoing plan, you know, as as I know Dave said in his remarks, transparency, and I think that's something that we're gonna really double down on, with this. So, anyway, so to bring it back to a rate, I am you know, my my personal preference as a resident, basically, is the 5.4. I'm open to 4.7 or something in between. So, basically, the 4.7 to 5.4 in that, let's just say, that range, somewhere in there, I think I'm I'm willing to I can be comfortable with that. I don't think I could be comfortable with anything less than four.

I think it leaves us I think it leaves us in a position that really it's it's it's just not gonna work out in the long run. I think it's I think we're not gonna make it as far as we'd think with just a straight renewal. It's just a half mil. I mean, in the public meetings we had, and I know part of the presentation that we had, you know, when there was the the last, town hall meeting, I know they did do the, the Mentimeter of the residents. Obviously, that's not a scientific poll, and it's not representative of the whole city.

But, you know, it it did feel like as the crowd was weighing in on the various proposals, it seemed like the 5.4 is where we started to that's where things started to shift toward the, you know, 4.7 to 5.4. That's where things started to split to be a little even across the too much, too little, just right kinda categories. So I think somewhere in in that is why I'm thinking.

You did a Facebook poll. How did that I kinda leaned more towards 5.42. I thought

see if I can pull that out.

Looking at it today.

Let's see. So I did two Facebook polls, one on Ferndale Forum, one on the fabulous Ferndale Forum. The Ferndale Forum had 221 votes. 22% went for 5.4. 10 percent went for renewal at 6.2, five percent at 4.7, 19 per 19% at 4.2, which is straight renewal, 4% at the 3.8, and then 40% at no override.

And then in the fabulous Ferndale forum let's take a look. Just to find it. Some reason, I can't find my own post on for a new forum, but I wanna say it was relatively similar where we were seeing about 40% of people saying that they did not support an override. Let me try one last time to see if I can manage to get to it. Yep.

There we go. So no override was at 45%. Three point eight mil override was at 8%. Four point two was at 8%. Four point seven was at 6%, and 5.4 was at 24%.

And then 6.2 was at 7%. So on aggregate, if we tally up everything that would vote for some sort of level of an override, you know, it might be a fifty fifty split at that point.

Yeah. I'd I'd I'd also you know, those those polls are great on social media. The problem is is that there's a lot of people in those groups that aren't even Ferndale voters. People who, you know, used to live here years ago are now enjoying their retirement on a yacht in, Florida or, you know, living in in Ohio, you know, that's all great. But, you know, their their opinion doesn't matter to me.

They're not paying their taxes here. To be

fair, the the the poll that we had at city hall as well was open to the public Yeah. Through YouTube, and I don't know who those voters were.

Absolutely. Absolutely. And that's why I'd like the next several days for me to have the ability to reach out to people that I know, those those that that quiet majority, and, allow people to reach out to me. And that's why I don't wanna really make a solid decision on what millage rate I wanna put in language, you know. I I think just creating the language tonight, agreeing on that language, and filling in the the figures on Monday, after we've had, you know, robust conversations on what we've talked about, you know, with our constituents and and going from there.

Well, I'd like to say, first of all, thank you, the opportunity for the whole it gives us a baseline no matter who voted for it. We have a little bit of a baseline. Ultimately, it's going to be a decision that we make and that, we vote on a Monday. So, thank you for making that effort because it was helpful. It was helpful to kinda get a little bit more than just 20 people Mhmm.

And from the last meeting that we had in person. Well, I keep seeing hearing a number that we keep coming back to. I keep hearing 5.4 is what we keep coming back to based on polls, based on us up here. Although I don't think I heard 5.4 from you.

I have not heard 5.4.

I don't think I heard it from you. Yeah.

You're my wife. Again, I I skewed lower than the rest of you. And I, in my defense, when I look at the 4.2 mil straight renewal and I look at Joe's proposal, which, you know, his his budget cut proposal I have my own thoughts about it. I feel like there were some flawed things in there, that don't really tally up to the the total that he gave us. But his tier one cuts were at 802,000.

And I look at that and then look at that straight renewal, and I say just from a pure math standpoint, if I need a hundred 37,000 upfront plus 321,000 in budget cuts by fiscal year twenty twenty seven, that's still under my 802,000. So that gives me a little bit of breathing room, a little bit of flexibility that could potentially be used to fund either some CIP or potentially go to our first responders and their salary increases. Now is that tight? Yes. Incredibly so.

And without knowing the impact of the tariffs and, you know, current administration and everything that's going to happen, is it feasible? I don't know. I I don't know if that's possible or not, but I can tell you when we start getting into the tier two budget cuts, the tier two budget cuts and the, you know, IT help desk contract reduced by 50%, just as an example. The dollar value that Joe had put out there for tier two was, just for that item alone, 293,000. And I know that we're already looking at some potential, cost reductions with our IT contract.

So that's a big chunk of money, and I wonder if there are ways that we can piecemeal from that list because I know that list isn't concrete. It's not set in stone, and it was just a a first attempt. I look at that, and I wonder, could we could we find a way by just piecemealing it like that? And, again, I don't know. I don't know the answer for that.

And I know for whatever reasons, we don't really wanna talk about the actual cuts right now. We just wanna find the, like Mhmm. The millage the operating millage that we work with or work around.

I think I think madam mayor for me. I think the thing I think the way the way I would frame that is we don't wanna get into, like, specific details of the cuts. We know we had a proposed cut plan that's, you know, likely still gonna be, like, 60% accurate, but there may be tweaking that we would do to shuffle around priorities in those cut cases. But the fact remains there will be cuts. Like, there will be cuts.

It's there's no scenario in which we don't hit a year where we haven't begun cutting. What those cuts are is something like this counsel will decide or potentially a future counsel, depending on how far out it is when it starts to happen, kind of when it happens, you know, evaluating what our priorities are at that time.

We're not going into details. Would it be fair to say that we actually, there are some reductions right now in the budget because of positions that we've not yet filled? Mhmm.

Yes. So that is a conversation that both Pro Tem Mikulski and I have been having with James. Mhmm. The cuts that we're looking to make would not just be in '26. They would be immediate, effective the current fiscal year.

So trying to find efficiencies, looking at our budget versus actuals reports, seeing where we're sort of running hot versus running cold, and determining what the drivers of that are and if if that's something that we can talk about. If we can essentially pull it down, you know, draw it down now, reduce it now, let's just do so. Let's get it done, and then it's not part of the next budget either. It's not part of the wrangle for that. So, yes, we are looking for current year effective immediately type reductions, and that wouldn't be things that, again, would be noticeable to the public.

Like, these are gonna be, like, back end efficiencies and sort of internal ops type stuff. You know, we we're not talking about terminating a contract for a a public facing service. That's that's not what we're doing in the current year. But, yes, looking at vacancies, what our current vacancy rate is in various departments, and what the headcount realistically needs to be. You know, if you're still delivering services with two vacancies in your department, can you keep living without those positions?

Because you've been able to do it for a year now. You know, that kind of question. And doesn't mean the answer is yes. The answer could still be no, but, you know, we're gonna be asking that question. Yeah.

Alright. Well, the purpose for tonight is to, ideally, come up with a number, think about it, and vote for it vote on it on Monday. So I guess that's where we are.

So there's no action. Is there no way that we can prepare the ballot language and then plug and play the numbers?

Yeah. So the motion for tonight was the the requested action from the city manager's office was we would pass a motion to direct staff to prepare ballot language for a 05/06/2025 election for a headly override of blank mills Mhmm. Over the current operating millage for a length of blank years. So, you know, we can direct them to prepare the ballot language for what seems to be a number that a majority of us wanna go for, but that doesn't mean that the conversations don't continue throughout the week and that we don't come back on Monday, and, you know, change our minds or whatever. Because at that point, we really are just changing the numbers in a word doc.

I mean, essentially.

And I don't think we've actually come to the, conclusion as to the number of years yet, have we? Can you talk about that?

We do.

Can you talk about that? Because it it's my understanding that although we've done ten years in the past, and in my opinion, provides the most consistency, there is no limit to ten years based on what you've shared with us, James.

You're right. The the council can set whatever, time frame they so choose.

Five years.

Seven years.

Seven years. And we could set ten and come back in six and realize that wasn't

And go for an early renewal. Yeah. I mean, I personally my preference is ten years, just because I think that does it gives us a, let's say,

a

goal, in terms of constraining spending as best we can and, you know, staying on top of it. It it essentially sets us the the the task of you gotta make it ten years. So make it ten it's like the Oregon Trail. I have this much of supplies. Now I have to make it last till I get to to get to Oregon.

So you're motivated then? So you're you're motivated to kind of say,

I gotta

hit that ten years. Yeah. I I wanna hit that ten years. I have to go back to the voters early. You know?

I'm gonna have to do a lot of explanation and and lift, and and maybe it's easy. Maybe the whole global economy is in the toilet, and it's easy to say, like, alright. Everything's a mess. But I think ten years gives us the goal, and it gives us that longer term consistency. We know what to expect for a longer period of time.

So then I'll ask this of the, legal counsel. The language that we propose, could it have a range of the millage proposal right now, or do we have to have an actual concrete number? Because, again, I think it's something we wanna discuss further. So could it, for for example, be, between 4.7 between five four point seven and five point four for the ballot for the language temporarily and then for so many years tonight? Can we do that?

Or do we need to have

Pretty sure you don't have to. I mean, you could do it that way, but it but if if there seems to be a consensus on the ten years that's contemplated or proposed. You could direct, that the ballot language, for the May, for Headley override, be brought back with the bill amount, left blank, but for a period of ten years. And that gives direction to staff to go ahead and prepare it. It will be a plug in, which would need consideration and input from counsel on a motion on Monday.

That gives, I think that gives staff enough to proceed forward with working on development of the language that you would consider. And it you know, I guess, further to the extent that I think James has heard some of the comments with respect to to some of the likely mill amounts that are being talked about by counsel. He can have input and develop, materials that will show you what, you know, what those mill amounts would raise, for further discussion on Monday.

Through the chair, it would also be helpful, for that money discussion to have what the average increase is to a a voter. I know you had the full value of it, but kind of like the calculator tool that we had, where it was, you know, if if we're doing a half mill increase, this is how much it impacts your tax bill, your current tax bill, something like that. That would be very helpful to visualize.

Incremental. Yes.

Yeah. If you're talking about the calculator that was done through the campaign, that's not owned by the city, and the city can't direct anybody to that website.

But we could theoretically do that calculation for those different models. Correct?

Yeah. We could do something.

Okay.

We could we could show the increase or impact.

Okay. So let me let me pose this question to my colleagues. I think maybe the thing I think maybe the move tonight is to select essentially the the range or the the rough numbers. Because then when we go back to talk to people, we can say we're going to be proposing some a smaller set of options and then weigh the opinion on the smaller set of options. Because, you know, the poll's a good example.

Things are spread in various ways, mostly a bell curve. But, you know, if we go back and say, alright, here's the deal. The options we're gonna be bringing to the table would be 4.7 or 5.4 or, you know, four point two, four point seven, five point four. Of those three, you know, what could you get on board with? And here's the pros and cons, and here's what we get with each and, you know, what this table tells us.

So at least that gives us something to sort of narrow the conversation we have with people, because realistic I mean, I I I know I don't wanna speak for I can't speak for any of you, but I I no override is not an option. There's no will on this council to do that. That's not going to happen. You know, no council is going to cut their city government by $4,000,000 year over year. It's not gonna happen.

And any kind of decrease is off the table. I I certainly won't support that. And, and I just don't think that we have the desire to do that. So I think knowing the rough that where we kind of are in one or one, two, or maybe even three rates and then taking that narrow. Because I I wouldn't meet with a resident and talk about a no override option because I'm I'm not going to support that.

I wouldn't do it.

So then it sounds like if we're if we're able to have three rates that we can discuss, the 4.2, four point seven, and 5.4 would be

it. Right? Or we could just go four seven and five four.

You're comfortable with four seven right now. I'm comfortable with four seven. Do we wanna discuss 4.2?

You can from you can say that. I mean Through

the chair. From my perspective, 4.2 is where we are today. So if you do 4.2, you're just continuing on what we have today, and you're looking at a cliff. That says 2031. I I have to believe that it's gonna be a lot quicker than that because that rate is just gonna continue to drop as it has.

You know, you're gonna have the fifteen point three six nine drop as well as the 4.2 because that 4.2 started at 5.4, so we've already lost 1.2 mills in the past ten years. You're just gonna continue to lose that over the next five years along with dropping the 15.369.

I'm comfortable moving to four seven.

Yeah. My conversations that I'll have with people will be between the 4.7 and the 5.4 and pointing out, you know, this is what we would get if we reset it at the 15 twenty fifteen level, and this is what you're gonna lose if you go less than

that. K.

So am I before we take a vote, I'm just wondering if we have a general comfort comfort level with the five four to four seven.

I always prefer more options, but Well we can get on board with

Well well, and I wanna stress, you know, Laura, that we can talk to people about whatever we want. Yeah.

That's true.

I mean Yeah. That's we we're not binding our individual conversations. I'm just saying, you know, if I'm sitting down and talking to someone in advance of Monday's vote, I'm not gonna spend a lot of time talking about, like, the 3.88 because I know that there is not a that is not a vote that's going to happen on this.

Right. I if we had to cross things off the list, 3.88 can be crossed off, 6.2 can be crossed off. It feels like we've our discussion has centered right in the middle. Mhmm. And I wouldn't be against having all three options for us to discuss.

But, again, that's if there's consensus around that, that's great. If if not, then I I keep on going back to 4 Point 7 as a nice middle road. But, again, it's it's up to you all as well.

And we still haven't talked about the number of years.

No. I think we agreed on 10.

Right? Yeah. We agreed on 10? I don't I don't know.

Greg, you were leaning towards five. How are you feeling?

I'll I'll do either. It it's really the the comfort of the voter. You know? If they if they feel strong about wanting to come back in five years, But, honestly, I don't think any of these really set us up for success for beyond five years.

Through the chair, I know we're not talking about the bond tonight, but we we will have bond discussions about the police and fire facility. And I I know I spoke to you a little bit, James, about some of those CIP needs, and is it possible to get that in a bond? And could you could you fill me in just a little bit more one more time if any of those could be bucketed into a bond?

Is it possible? Sure. Is it, fiscally prudent? Probably not. Considering a lot of those things are things that, probably don't have the service life that you typically would bond a project for.

You don't wanna be bonding projects that are gonna expire before the end of the bond. And it's 6,800,000.0. I think you're probably looking at a total cost over fifteen years of about 9,000,000. So it it wouldn't be fiscally prudent, and you're still looking at an annual, pet service of somewhere between 6 and and 7 a hundred thousand dollars.

Sounds like

But at the $5.04 I'm sorry. Through the chair, we will be able to do some of the improvements. Correct?

Right. At the $5.04 without having to bond. Yes.

It sounds like so right now based on our discussion, it sounds like what we need to agree on or kinda put in the recommend suggested action is the I'm suggesting, but, you know, we'll all vote on it, is the the three numbers, 4.2 to 5.4 and for ten years. So we would need someone to make a motion regarding that, and then we would vote on it.

So okay. So I'm gonna make the motion, and I'm gonna make it in a way that I think James and and Dan and Phil can work with. So I move that we direct staff to prepare ballot language for a May 20 a 05/06/2025 election for a headly override of a millage rate between four point two and five point four four five two over the current operating millage for a length of ten years.

Support.

Johnson? Yes. Mikulski?

Yes. Oh, I'm sorry.

I just Wait. Before you call the question, I just wanna make sure there's no discussion on the motion.

Okay. No. I I I think we I

think we're

I think we're discussed out. Okay. Johnson? Yes. Sikolsky?

Yes.

Kelly?

Yes.

Polica? Yes. Leaksmae?

Yes.

Alright. Alright.

With that being said, that motion carries, and we are now on to call to counsel. I don't know if there's any updates.

I I think the only department heads first. Oh, I know. I yeah. I guess. Right.

Sorry.

Now as this customary during the special meeting, we'll, forego for for Monday night.

Alright. Then I'm going to go to my left here with, council member Pawlika.

I don't have

anything. Council member Johnson?

So, you know, we have proposed a range of numbers. Now is the time to start thinking about those numbers and sending us your input and feedback. I've gotten emails from a lot of folks. Some of them are in the room right now. And so, you know, email again, between of these numbers, which do you think is gonna be the most palatable for you?

And, you know, let us know, what you think. That's it. Okay.

Alright. Mayor Pro Temakulski.

I have nothing additional.

Nothing here.

And I just want to, thank this interim city manager and for coming up with the numbers, to having the conversations. I wanna thank the audience for coming out to some of the meetings that we and for being present tonight. Please feel free to reach out with your suggestions regarding, the numbers that you've heard tonight, and, we will be having a vote on this at the Monday council meeting on January 27. With that being said, this meeting concludes at 07:26. Thank you.