City of Ferndale City Council Meeting 01-27-2025

Good evening. Call this meeting to order at 7PM. If you're able, please join me in rising for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation,

under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. May we

have a

roll call, please?

Johnson?

Here. Kelly?

Here.

Mikulski?

Here.

Polica?

Here.

Leaksmae? Here.

Now approval of the agenda.

Madam mayor, I move we approve the agenda with one change. I would request that we remove item seven d from the agenda and send it back to the city manager's office for further discussion. Support. Johnson? Roll call?

Okay. I'm sorry. Could clarification. For which item? I know.

Seven d. Oh, I think you said seven g.

No. D.

Okay. Seven d. Thank you.

Johnson? Yes. Mikulski?

Yes.

Kelly?

Yes.

Polica? Yes. Leaksmae?

Yes. And now we're moving on to the presentation where we will be talking about consolidation of Ferndale's Nine precincts into six precincts. And city clerk Dean will lead the presentation.

Good evening, mayor and council. I'm just here to present on, the precinct consolidation slash reduction, that was approved by our election commission last week, to reduce the number of precincts we have in the city of Ferndale from nine precincts down to six precincts. Just to give you a little bit of background on the precinct situation here in Ferndale currently, we have 17,000 registered voters, so roughly 17,000 registered voters here in Ferndale. As you can see from this map, this is our current map, the nine precincts. You can see Precinct 1 And 4, vote just with one precinct where the other, precincts all sort of vote in clusters.

So precincts 23, and nine all vote at Ferndale High School. Five and eight vote at the library. In Precinct 6 And 7, vote at the Free Methodist Church. This will matter here in just a moment. There have been some recent changes to election laws that have sort of impacted the way in which, voters prefer to vote.

They're, they use different methods of voting such as, early voting and, mail voting, essentially. The first is proposal three of 02/2018. Voters voted this in, which is no reason absentee voting. People can request an absentee ballot, and they don't need to provide us with a reason. They don't need to be a certain age.

Anybody can request an absentee ballot, for any election. So this is sort of we started seeing an uptick of people starting to vote by mail, after this. Then proposal two of 2022, also voted in by the voters, had some major changes as well. The first is nine days of in person early voting. This law requires us to offer nine days of in person early voting for all, state and federal elections.

We have partnered with, the city of Hazel Park, Royal Oak Township, and Oakland County to, also offer this for local elections just to sort of prevent any sort of confusion, with with our voters. That proposal also, created and established the permanent absentee ballot list. This means that anybody can, essentially be put onto this list and just automatically get an absentee ballot for every election. They don't need to opt in to ballots, for, elections throughout the year like was required before, though we do still offer the permanent absentee application list at this time. That permanent absentee ballot list has about 5,400 voters on it.

Just to sort of give you reference in, the twenty twenty four presidential election, we had about 6,400, people vote by mail, so you don't have to be on this list to to still obtain an absentee ballot. And then finally, MCL one sixty eight point six five eight, machine compiled law of 2023. The state legislature passed a law that allowed for precincts, to have 29 increase twenty nine ninety nine registered voters to forty nine ninety nine registered voters, per precinct. So we can have more voters, in one precinct. Alright.

So some shifts in voting methods since 2018. As you can see from this map, this has, 14 elections since, August of twenty eighteen. You can see if you could focus mainly in that dark green line right there in the center, where that kinda leads to the center, back in August of twenty eighteen, which would have been a, midterm election for a gubernatorial race, we had about 79% of people showing up on election day, to vote and cast a ballot in person. As time has progressed, you can see that number drop down all the way to 34%, for the November. Those other two lines, the orange line there shows you the, absentee or the male voters.

You can see there's a bit an uptick in that. Folks are starting to vote by absentee male at a lot larger numbers. And then that red line on the bottom is gonna show you the, early, in person voting. This wasn't even offered until November 2023. For the first couple of elections, we were only having a one or 2% of total ballots cast, you know, actually cast at the early voting site.

Into November 2024, that number jumped up to 18%. I mean, there's a lot a lot of push from, you know, our local communications department as well as the state of Michigan to try to get people to start voting, early at the in person, site at the Hazel Park Community Center. So, again, you can see that green green bar has dropped significantly, over the last six years or so. And so, basically, it kinda suggests that, you know, folks are choosing to vote by other methods, rather than simply just voting in person on on election day. So on the need of demand to reduce the precincts, there are a few reasons why we're doing this.

One is personnel, paid downtime. So when we have nine precincts, we have to staff nine precincts. The law requires it. And throughout the day, within during these small elections, there's a lot of sitting around, just kind of, you know, twiddling their thumbs. It's not no fault of their own.

But, it's just kinda how the law works. And so by reducing the number of precincts, we have a lot less of this. We have more people essentially going to, the the same sort of locations, and, we don't need to hire as many people for that. The flow, it's a tight space at the Ferndale Library. We currently have two precincts, precincts 5 And 8 at the library.

And, to put two different tables, two tabulators, which require 10 feet of, space around those tabulators, there's a lot of space in that room. So kinda reducing it down to one precinct would be very helpful for us. And then finally, the flow of the Ferndale High School, just having a reduction of three down to two precincts at that location would be very helpful. A lot of folks will show up and not know which precinct they're in, and so just being able to channel them into two different lines rather than three different lines is very helpful. We have starting last year, we we've, brought forward, additional laptop at each one of our precincts as well.

And so we have two lines for each precinct rather than just the one line, which we've had, traditionally in the past prior to, 2024. So, big question is the projected savings. So regarding the personnel costs at, these polling locations or these precincts, we estimate and these are probably pretty conservative as well. Just the cost to, have election workers present there, gonna be a reduction about $3,300 for a small election, and then $60, 6 7 hundred dollars for a large election. Just to put this into context, we had four elections last year, so it'd be quite a bit of savings for taxpayers in the city of Ferndale.

Regarding equipment, we are set to be due to replace our electric equipment in 2027. This is the same for every municipality across the state of Michigan. We don't know at this point how much money the state's gonna offer us, to replace our equipment. We're hoping most of it, if not all of it. What was required in 2017 was that they, required this, cities and municipalities to, pay for extended warranties on all that equipment, which is about $2,500 per piece of equipment.

If it's a similar sort of setup, in 2027, it would save us roughly $7,500 for those, three fewer tabulators that would be required. And then, with the tabulators and with the voter assist terminals, there's all this miscellaneous equipment that comes along with it, extension cords, tabulator stands, voter assist tabulator stands, versus tabulator printers, and printer tables. So all this stuff, would not be required for us to purchase additional. And so, we think this is, you know, a a great way to sort of help cut down costs in our department. And then, finally, equipment testing.

So required equipment testing, we're every single election that we have, we have to test all of our election equipment prior to every single election. It's about a hundred and $80 per tabulator for us to test each pieces of equipment. So that's roughly $500 in reduction per election. Again, last year with four elections, that'd be a reduction of about $2,000. So there are some considerable savings, that we will see, just by reducing the number of precincts that we have.

So, regarding the impact of voters. So if you look at this map here, these are Precincts 78, and nine. Just to remind you, Precincts 6 And 7, currently vote at the Ferndale Free Methodist Church. Precincts 23, and nine currently vote at Ferndale High School. And then Precincts 5, 5 And 8 currently vote at the library, and Precinct 4 votes at University High School.

So what we're doing is with Precinct 7, they're gonna just be merged with Precinct 6, and I'll show you a map here in a second. So they're still voting the exact same location. The precinct number is just changing. Same thing with 239. We're splitting Precinct 9, up with, Precincts 2 And 3.

Same exact location. They're still gonna be voting at Ferndale High School. The bottom half of Precinct 8, that's South Of 9 Mile, those folks sorry. Those folks will still, be voting at the Ferndale Library. Anybody north of that line will be only voters who are impacted of the actual physical location.

Those voters will start voting at University High School. We have about 600 active voters in that, precinct. Sorry. In that, area within that precinct. This is a a map of, the new six precincts that we have now.

It'll range between 2,436 voters per precinct. Keep in mind, this isn't 3,600 people showing up on election day. You know, on a on a good election, we're looking at 76% turnout. And then of that, as we saw, only 34% of that 76% actually showing up on election day. So, a lot of folks are voting again by mail and early in person voting, and then some folks just don't vote at all.

So for the next steps for the city clerk's office, we are going to, send this information over the state. They change that information to qualified voter file, which is the state's, voter registration database. And, then we will, email or sorry, mail ID cards to all impacted voters, letting them know that either, a, your precinct has changed, or, b, your precinct and your polling location has changed, so that way, voters will be informed with all of that. We're gonna work with DPW to update signage out of polling locations. And then finally, the thanks to the communications department, Riley here has helped me, update the the website, and then she will be sending out some social media blasts actually during this meeting tonight.

So that way, voters will be informed of all the changes. So if, you know, if any voter or anybody has any questions, you can certainly email the the elections department here, elections@ferndalemi.gov, or myself at dlent@ferndalemi.gov, or call me directly at (248) 336-4366. Otherwise, if you have any questions from council. Alright. Thank you.

No suggested action for that. So we are moving on to now call to audience where I invite anyone in the audience to come to the come to the podium to speak on anything on or off the agenda and just, state your hello. Hi there. State your name, title, and or address, and, we start now.

Well, good evening, madam mayor. Pleasure to see you and, distinguished members of council, municipal staff. My name is Andy Meisner, and, had the pleasure of representing Ferndale in the state house of representatives, along with Pleasant Ridge, Hazel Park, Huntington Woods, Oak Park, and Berkeley. My mom's a mayor in Oak Park these days, so I gotta give them a little plug. And then, had the pleasure representing Oakland County as the county treasurer for twelve years.

I left county government a couple years ago and started a project, that's really focused on, building out the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Oakland County. So what does that mean? When somebody gets the idea that they wanna start a small business, whether it's a a business or even social entrepreneurship, they have to have access to capital. And, you know, sometimes the larger financial institutions, are less willing to look at some of those smaller loans. And so I started to study the model of a community bank, which I like to say kinda has the heart of the of a credit union, but the, lending savvy, of a financial institution that's a little bit more traditional.

Back in June of twenty twenty three, Community Unity Bank or CUB, was approved as only the second new bank in Michigan. We service Oakland County. We're located a little bit up the road, on Woodward Avenue, and we wanna be a resource to the residents of Ferndale. If they're looking for a commercial loan or really any kind of financial literacy assistance, or just kind of consultation, we're available and we wanna be a part of that ecosystem. You know, in addition, a number of governments, work with financial institutions.

When I was county treasurer, I managed funds about a billion and a half dollars for the county. When I became treasurer, I opened up our investment policy to include credit unions, which I think can be a a great option. We were the first county to, do deposits with credit unions, and we offer those depository services. Had the pleasure of meeting with, mister Whitfield, your very capable, finance director, and also wanted to kind of introduce Cub, that's what we go by, Cub, Community Unity Bank, as a potential partner, to help serve some of the depository needs, of the city. And, with that, I wanna thank each of you for your service.

Wanna thank Ferndale for being awesome. I still own a house at, East on East Drayton, and, this is a a really special place. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Sandy.

Good evening, council members. My name is Mara Lipsey. I've been a resident and homeowner of Ferndale since 2019, and I recently joined the Ferndale Inclusion Network. And so I'm here today because I know that you have upcoming a vote on the flock cameras, and I want you to consider limiting or, best case scenario, not renewing, the flock cameras in our city. My most recent concern is the way that the federal government and the Trump administration could use the data that we collect, because this data isn't just in our community.

It's sent to flock and stored there for some time. Right? And so we know that the Trump administration has prioritized rescinding executive orders such as those promoting racial equity, those supporting underserved communities, preventing gender and sexual orientation based discrimination. And we also know that ICE raids are starting nationwide. And so I want us to consider how some of these federal level things might impact us here if we're collecting this type of data in our community.

And I wanna ask you to do what you can proactively to prevent this in our community so that our neighbors aren't impacted negatively by their data being connected collected by these cameras. And I wanna just point out one thing that the vice president of external affairs of Flock is quoted as saying in the Guardian article. So he said, Flock's mission as a business is to eliminate crime. So if, for example, a national abortion ban is enacted or if gender affirming care is criminalized, these will be crimes. Right?

And so flock data could be used against people seeking these types of care. So please protect our rights as Frindallians and vote not to renew flock. Thank you for listening.

Good evening to council and everyone here. My name is Prasad Birigopal. I live at 1425 West Troy Street. I'm here also to speak, on behalf of the Ferndale Inclusion Network on the question of flock safety and the license plate cameras read license plate readers. The thing about an immigration raid is that when the ICE agents go into a workplace or as we are expecting to see schools, hospitals, and churches, They actually have no idea.

They cannot distinguish between a citizen, a legal immigrant, or an undocumented immigrant. Because as it turns out, none of us really carry anything more than our driver's licenses, which are insufficient evidence of our immigration status. So what happens and what immigrant rights communities have been saying organizations have been saying is that there will be mass arrests of people who get caught up in that dragnet that ICE is now expanding across the country. When I was a student, for the longest time, I didn't have any evidence of my legality. If I had been caught, pulled over, interrogated, I would have to prove a negative that I was not an illegal or undocumented immigrant.

What's different this time is that apart from what the Trump administration is planning to do with their mass deportations and so on is that they have a tech arsenal that could help power their immigration crackdown. And part of that tech arsenal are the license plate readers. I have brought with me two articles. I've made copies of it. I actually hope that you read it.

I'll hand it out. It talks about license plate readers and it talks about some of the people and individuals and organizations behind the violation of our privacy rights. People like Peter Thiel who helped fund and found who helped fund flock safety and who helped found Palantir, which is another organization that does that. So let me end by asking this question. You all took a note at the beginning of this meeting to defend the constitution of The United States.

As an immigrant, I have constitutional rights that are likely to be violated by the use of flock safeties data and the use of license plate readers to track immigrants all across this country. So I ask you, how will you protect and defend the rights of immigrants like me? How will you stop the violation of my constitutional rights that these license plate readers are complicit in? And I'll hand these out.

Okay. Hi. Dave Cottrell. Sixteen ten Beaufield. Two different items.

What are basically regarding Hedley. I'll probably be in the minority, but I'm kind of in favor of 5.4 mil. Some other friends are in favor of 4.2 mil. I sat next to Evelyn Elster at the first Peddly meeting. Did not appreciate deputy chief.

Police chief David Stommen intimidating threatening Evelyn with expulsion. She's not saying that for every few minutes or at all as as he said when he threatened her. You will not get a Headley override new without her questions about financing being addressed. I asked Evelyn to apply for the former mayor's Headlee group. Evelyn goes through the all the to the expenses really thoroughly.

I agree that we need to have a better salary for the Ferndale police so we can get a better quality of police. I'd like them to have better interviewing skills. I've talked to police chief about this or through a letter, which he kinda brushed off. Changing people with the correct crime or no crime and not lying to cooperative witnesses or citizens. I'm not cooperative with the police anymore.

Screw you. Many police do not like working all the festival overtime. They'd rather work their shift and go home to the family. We get the people who are willing right now to work where we pay them. Okay.

Since Evelyn's not here, I'm gonna read what she would have sent. It's like I'm always encouraging people to, well, just maybe have their message into the for Ferndale Forum, come here, or, or speak to council so the messages get loud louder and not just within a small group. So I'm moving with Evelyn Post said this evening. I won't be saying be saying what I won't be saying is call to audience at counsel tonight because there's no point. They don't have the skill set to make them think it is their ideas I'm proposing.

Headly override in spending on 01/27/2025. We have a recent fleet policy, which replaces city vehicles every five years. Our tax sellers are paying close to as much as to lease them as we would if we purchased those vehicles. But in the end of those five years, we'll have absolutely nothing to show for it. Home while, a large percentage residents can't even afford to put a muffler on their cars.

Some drunk runs into one light pole, so now we have to replace them all. Your CIP wish list, process and PBV budget is a joke. Food transmitters failed, so we have to drop 3,200,000.0 to replace every ten year old water meter in the city, which was only half of their expected life. Okay. You dropped well over budget, 20,000,000 on the dot monolith money pit, which may never produce anything but a deficit every year.

That same mono dot monolith, we do not have the opportunity to vote on. I question the, vote the the requirements for any other future parking structure, which has the same sort of skin. This looks appear to me like the same requirements, that we don't make any profit on the dot, and we're not wouldn't I don't think we're gonna make any profit in the 180 Vester parking lot. And so we'll probably end up finding oh, sorry. We can't finances don't won't make it out, but we have the 141 apartments here.

So I've hit some length, and she has a few more things, but thank you.

Hello, mayor and also city council members. My name is Christopher Hall. I live on 1845 Symes Street. I am possibly the appointee for the Parks and Rec Commission Board. I just wanna be very lighthearted.

So my dog, is in the top 15 for America's Best Pet. He is representing the state of Michigan. I'm very excited about that. He's beaten out so far, over 40 dogs. So I just wanna come up and say that and just let everyone know about it.

So just keeping it light.

Also, mister Hall, I believe you are on the parks and rec.

It's

not you were, appointed, I believe, the last council meeting. So you're in.

Alright. Sweet. Alright. Thanks.

Alright. Congratulations. Yeah.

Still opened up. Still open for call to audience if anyone wants to speak on anything on or off the agenda. With that being said, I'm closing call to audience at 07:25, and I will move to the consent agenda. Seven a, approval of the 01/13/2025 and 01/21/2025 meeting minutes. Seven b, approval of the annual preventative maintenance and inspection at the Hilton Road pump station by Kennedy Industries for up to $6,000 with the expense charged to the water and sewer fund.

Contractual may contractual maintenance, 592Dash000Dash818Dot000, and approved director of public works to sign contract documents. Seven c, approval to backfill one DPW labor position. Seven d, approval of the interlocal agreement between the city of Ferndale and Oakland County to implement m MIDC standard seven. Seven wait then. Got confused.

Okay. E, approval of deficit elimination plan resolution for the auto parking fund. Seven f, approval of the listed and appointments and reappointments to the city boards and commissions. Seven g, approval of bills and payrolls as submitted by the finance director and subject to review by this council finance committee. We'll make a motion to receive the consent agenda.

Make a motion to receive the consent agenda as presented. Support.

Kelly?

Yes.

Migulski?

Yes.

Johnson? Yes. Polica? Yes. Leaksmae?

Yes. Now we are moving on to the regular agenda. One item tonight, item eight a, consideration of the approval of the ballot language and resolution for renewal of the voter authorized operating millage. Durham City Manager will be presenting.

Yes. Thank you, mayor. Just give me one second here. Alright. So I've prepared a, a brief presentation based on the conversation that was had last Tuesday night.

So some of this stuff is probably gonna look quite familiar, but there's some additional information as well. So just a quick timeline, since the November election, we've held two actual town hall sessions, November and December. Last Tuesday, we held a special council session, and then tonight, hopefully, the decision will be made on the ballot language and the proposal to move forward. Just a reminder, our deadline for the May election is 4PM on February 11. So after last Tuesday night, we're focused now on three options.

The first one is to restore the rotor authorized additional operating millage at the current level. And as a side note, due to timing, we are likely only going to be able to, levy the new millage on tax day '20 '20 '6. So we wouldn't be able to do it this year. It'll be, next year just because of the timing of the election, getting the state form, the l forty twenty nine in, which is what authorizes our tax levy annually. So all of the figures have been updated a little bit, mostly the same as they were, but just to reflect, anticipated changes in property values and other rollbacks by 2026.

So the first one, this is to restore the voter authorized additional operating millage at the current level. As we've been talking about, this would be about a 4.2 mil levy. This will you know, if this is what we go forward with all three of these proposals, there will be a rollback at the end of, at the end of this year. So we'll have to take that into account as well, and we have in most of these models. So for this one in 2026, we would have a total of 15.1043 mils estimated.

This would actually be a decrease because of rollbacks of about point five mils, over this last tax year. Again, we would need to immediately find about a hundred 37,000 in an expenditure cuts this year, and this is gonna be true with all three, due to levy and the tax, the new millage in 2026 and not this year. And by fiscal year twenty seven, we'd be looking at about 321,000. By 2033, the deficits would be at a point that would without, you know, structural changes, we would deplete the fund balance by 2033. So the second, second option we've been looking at now is to add half a mil on the currently rolled back 4.2 mils, so a total of 4.7 mils.

We anticipate if this is rolled back, it would be about 4.61 in tax year 2026, which would be the first year of levy. A total of 15.59 mils, It would be levied in 2026. This includes the charter, operating millage, which would work out to about an increase of point three mills over this last tax year, 2024. We would see significant deficit spending, in about fiscal year 2029, and we would be looking at depleting fund balance by 2034 without structural cuts to address those deficits. Now to restore to the voter authorized operating millage, at the 2015 level, this one would be the four point the 5.4452.

This would roll back to approximately 05/1945. This would set, the operating millage for tax year 2026 at an estimated 16.6425 mills. Again, you know, first year, hundred 37,000 in, expenditure cuts we need to be looking at, and then we would need to identify other efficiencies to address projected deficits, beginning in 2031. This one, the biggest issue will be coming up towards the end. The expiration will start being in about the same kind of spot we're in now where moving forward, we're we'll be needing to either renew or find different cuts to make.

So those are the three options, based on council feedback last Tuesday. A quick summary, and I have this, as our summary at the end of the last meeting as well. Basically, the biggest thing is the first two, the 4.2 and the 4.7 mils, you know, both act as a very short term band aid. We would not be able to make any kind of real building capital improvement needs. The, 5.4452 definitely provides more runway and would be a give us the opportunity to fund some of our building capital needs, though not fully funded, and we'd be looking at, you know, fiscal issues towards the end of the renewal.

I was asked to kinda do a little bit of a dive into what the impact would be on the overall taxing for, a property. So I estimated summer tax bills, for homes with a taxable value of a hundred 30 5 thousand. As I said, last Tuesday, that works out to about the ninetieth percentile of properties in the city. And then the average is about 78,000, so I ran those as well. So these numbers here not only include the city operating, city millage, it also includes sanitation.

It includes, all of the the school school millages that are not included in the operating because that's not paid for by by homesteaded properties. So this does not include those 18 mills. So a non principal residential exemption home would actually be more than this by about 18 mills. But so I ran the numbers with, a 4.2 mill override, a 4.7 override, and the 5.4452. The difference on a home with a hundred 35,000, is a total of about a hundred $70, between all of the, you know, all of the taxes that are collected in the summer.

This includes also county, and drain taxes. For a home with a taxable value of 78,000, the difference works out to just about a hundred dollars a year, on the summer taxes. Total generate total general fund revenue that's generated from this millage, at the low end of the 4.2, this is $4,000,000 of the budget. This is what we've been talking about for approximately a year now is that $4,000,000 that we would need to find in the budget if we don't do an override. The 4.7 mills should generate an estimated of an estimated $4,500,000 in that first year, and then the five five and change mills would be at 5,200,000.0 in the first year.

So with that, we have prepared a resolution that was in the packet, that would authorize the ballot language. Currently, the ballot language is is left blank. It is for the council to decide, what millage rate they would like to pursue as well as any expiration time frame. But that is the the presentation I've got for you tonight, and I'm happy to kind of thumb around in it for you if you if you like as you debate. With that

Can you go back to the previous screen so that we can have that up again?

Absolutely. Yep. So this one's the more general summary, as far as the impact of the city.

Alright. It is opened up to council. I know that we've all had some sort of conversation with community members over the past week, so I'm opening it up to council for discussion.

Through the chair, did you wanna offer anybody from the audience first? You wanna specifically talk about this? I mean, I don't know if people knew that they could have talked about it during call the audience.

Well, I did say anything on her off the agenda. Okay.

Through the chair, I I do have a question. So, James, I have the old presentation from the last council meeting on my laptop, and I'm just gonna verify to him that I have the right one. When I look at the table that was presented to us previously, at 4.7 mils, renewal plus half mil, immediate cuts needed, It says no cuts required immediately, first deficits in fiscal year '20 '20 '9. When I look at this one, it says a hundred 30 7 thousand. Which one is it?

Well, so this is, one of the adjustments that's been made because of the now known fact that we won't be able to levy the 4.7 in 2025.

We'll have to Okay.

So, essentially, every So, basically, we have to make a hundred $37,000 worth of immediate cuts this

year. Over yeah. Over this last year's budget. Yep.

Okay. Great.

On the '20 in the '26 budget that we're preparing now.

Yes. Absolutely. That's what we're kinda targeting right now.

Is that it? I'm sure I've got more of it. Okay.

So I guess I'll start through the chair then. So I spent the weekend talking to many, different residents, some friends, some neighbors, some business owners, just trying to get a feel for where everyone is at. And, you know, I personally, I like the five four. I think it puts us in a much better position and able to fund some of our building capital. But upon talking to people, there was people, you know, going all different directions, I think, but I could get the four two to agree on four seven.

And, you know, a lot of discussions about what winning what success looks like for us and, you know, just getting this across the finish line. And, there's just so much uncertainty with a very, you know, a lot of people in fear of what the future is gonna look like and a lot of unknowns. And I think for me, I am leaning towards the four seven because I just think that's a reasonable compromise for us. And, you know, personally, in my household, I've had to assess my situation and my finances and make some sacrifices, like not seeing my partner for this month. I've been flying back and forth, you know, to see my take care of my mother-in-law and, you know, just there's I think the city is gonna we're gonna have to make some sacrifices as well, you know, and, find some common ground to get this across the finish line.

So that's where I'm at with that.

Right. I'll I'll go next. I know you all have seen that I put out that informal poll originally that had all the the different options. I put out a secondary informal social poll with three choices of three choices that we're facing tonight. The results were interesting.

And on one forum, the the no override actually won out by 47%. The the second option was the 5.4 mills. On another forum, the 5.4 mills was the top option at 46%, and the no's were the secondary option at 33%. And I spent the weekend, as well as part of last week, mulling it over thinking about what does that mean for us because operationally, 5.4 mils make sense. Right?

I think we can all agree 5.4 is going to do us better as a as an entity, and a service provider. But the reality of just somebody who's going to vote no or vote for a 4.2 is probably not going to vote for a 5.4. But a 5.4 person is likely to vote for a 4.7 or a 4.2. And I wonder if a 4.7 would be just a better option. I've I've thought it since we first came through with these solutions.

It gives us enough of a runway, in my opinion. Obviously, we have to make a hundred $37,000 worth of cuts no matter what no matter what option we pick tonight. But with the first significant deficits beginning in 2029, That gives us time to be smart about it and strategic about it and thoughtful and do it in a way that doesn't cut services. I don't think anybody wants to see services go go downhill. We're we're and that's, again, that's that's another thing that I've heard from people.

They don't wanna see this impact their services, and that's that's why they have leaned towards what they've leaned towards. That's why I'm leaning towards what I'm leaning towards. Otherwise, in a perfect world, those folks who, you know, wanted a 4.2, I feel like we could satisfy them and capture the the folks that were voting for a 4.7 and a 5.4. That's the biggest lump sum that we could get. But at 4.2, I just don't know that we're not going to have to make service cuts that will impact our residents.

So, you know, I think 4.2 is a nonstarter for me. It just it sets us up for I mean, we're I we won't be in a good place almost immediately. I mean, it's just especially with the delay in timing and the fact that we're never none of these millages were we're not gonna ever levy the mill that's being authorized. That's the other thing we have to remember is we're gonna pick a number and we're never actually gonna get to levy that number because a rollback will happen before we're able to to do the first levy. And so, you know, 4.2 is I just I can't get on board with that because it would be even lower when we finally did the tax, you know, when we finally did the levy.

You know? Yeah. Five point four, that's gonna be the one that sets us up for the best success. You know? Four point seven you know, my concern with four point seven is that well, you know, again, I'm I'm open.

I'm flexible. So I'm I'm willing to compromise. I'm open, to

to, you

know, to go for something like four point seven. But I think it just if we do, we have to be really clear with folks that, like, we're gonna do this, but right now, James' model is showing us that we start to run into a problem in in fiscal twenty nine. Well, we're about to enter fiscal twenty six. That's not a lot of years. We're not getting ten years out of this millage.

It's not gonna happen. And what's gonna happen then is we will start cutting services. Because one thing I won't get on board with with council is, if I'm here, is deficit spending. We're not using the fund balance for operating costs because when you do that, that's your first red flag that you're in financial distress. That's when the state takes notice.

That's when your creditors start to downgrade your credit because they know you're spending your reserves for your ongoing recurring costs, and that means that you're in a death spiral. So, you know, so long as I'm on the council, I will never agree to a budget that uses fund balance to to to maintain operating services, which means that by fiscal twenty nine, we are cutting major services. That will happen. We will begin to cut real services unless we go back to the voters much earlier than we expect. And the hope is maybe, hey.

Maybe by then, things have things have changed. Maybe maybe the globe isn't on fire. Seems unlikely, but who knows? And so I just think, you know, we can go with this if it's something that we think is, you know, the best path to success, but I think we just have to be really transparent with residents that doing this may feel like relief in the short term, but we will have a major problem in far less than ten years. And, you know, that's the reality is we will likely have to come back and have a discussion and likely have to take something to the voters sooner than the term of the millage.

Because if we're running out by fiscal twenty nine, you know, that's too many years to try to bridge the gap. I mean, we are we're bankrupt before the end of the millage term. Like, we're that's it. We're in receivership because we can't do the core services. That's the problem.

So but the reality is and, again, I'm not pushing back on 04/07 either for the reason that 5.45 doesn't buy us that. I mean, it gets us a couple more years, and it it gives us a little more breathing room, but the problem is still the same problem. And the other reality is something that, you know, council member Kelly was talking about is cost inflation is not gonna get better. This since even since our last our special session, the the federal administration has done some pretty chaotic things that have really upset the global markets. I don't see that costs are gonna go down.

And so even if we were to go to 54454452, I don't think it would actually bias as much as we even hope because I don't think I don't think four seven is I don't think any of these millages, to be honest with you. I mean, hell, if we did a whole override back to 20 and we got approval for that, that's not gonna last as long as we would have even hoped for that because I think things are gonna get so expensive and uncertain. And so, you know, all that being said, if it's more palatable to the voters, I'm fine with four seven. I'll get on board with four seven as long as we continue to be very clear to voters that to residents that we're gonna be back a lot sooner than you think to have this conversation all over again, you know, that for better or worse. But we'd be back, you know, maybe even just one year later for five four.

You know, it's it's not like we're not gonna have to go back early and have this conversation. Sorry. That was very downbeat. Sorry for the pessimism in that, but I just think that's the reality.

Through the chair. So I too talked to, friends and, received a number of emails from folks over the weekend. Most of the people that I interact with, because I've been on council now for twelve years, they're very like minded people. None of us wanna pay more in taxes, obviously. But at the same time, they know the importance of investing in city services.

And someone that I talked to shared with me something interesting that I I never I mean, from a council person, I've I've looked at it, but I've never looked at it really as a a property owner. But property owners aren't just investors in the city. You're not just investing in your property. You're investing in the city. Your employees, you know, your I'm sorry.

Your employers of the city staff, the the taxes you pay go to salaries over 70 percent of the general fund. This fund pays, pays the employees. And over 80% of those are police, fire, and DPW, the essential services. Your taxes are paying those salaries, those employees. People, you know, are talking about tightening their belts.

Our employ employees are tightening their belts too at home. They have children that they're supporting. They're putting food on the table, clothes on their back. They deserve a living wage just as you do. And so, you know, the people that I've been talking to are like, yeah.

If I have to pay $10 more a a month, you know, to guarantee that I'm gonna have, you know, good services, you know, services that I've had. I'm willing to do that. I'm willing to give a little bit of something up to pay for good services. In my mind, the only option is the 5.445. And that's what most of the people that I talk to supported.

They don't wanna have to pay more, but, again, they understand the the value of of, investing in in our city. I don't think I can support anything under 5.445, unless it was a five year and not a ten year. Because in five years, we're gonna be coming back to the table on a 4.7.

Mhmm.

It makes no sense to go for a ten year knowing that in five years, you're gonna be depleted. And and I honestly think that a five year is a waste of time and energy. So I will be supporting the four 5.445.

Through the chair, I would like to clarify that, you know, I think, many folks have the understanding that they're investing in their city and they care about their city as well, and it looks different for them. And it it's not wrong or right. It's, you know, we represent a wide range of folks here in the city and many different voices. And our job is to find consensus and find something that's gonna get across the finish line and get a yes vote in the end so we can continue to employ, these folks. Or if it doesn't pass, then what happens?

Right? So I it's about more than just our like minded friends.

Oh, I I agree with that. I agree with that. But no. I mean, the people that reached out to me via email, there were a few people that were very against the 5.45. But the people that I interact with, those are the people that are supporting this, you know, because I'm not on social media in those groups.

So I know that there are people out there that are very anti everything. They're, you know, cave people, citizens against virtually everything. You know, you know, I don't interact with those individuals. If they wanna reach out to me, I'm willing to interact with them.

I'm I'm open to talk to many different folks. So I have spoke to them and along with many different people not just my friends. And that's what I'm looking for is what the consensus is to get it across the finish line so we can effectively run our city and keep our employees employed. Through the chair,

on a personal note, I just survived a round of layoffs today. And feeling the bite of potentially losing my job on the backs of GM folks losing their jobs on Friday as well as today and potentially more coming, I am hesitant because as much as I agree with what you're saying, Greg, I, you know, I do believe our employees deserve cost of living increases. I do believe that, you know, we wanna make sure that we are providing for them. We are an employer, and they are providing us services. And I think everybody in this town knows and feels that same way, but we lost the last election.

And I don't wanna lose this one. Because if I lose this one and I have to cut 34 jobs, it's not gonna be it's not gonna be great. And it's gonna impact our services, and it's gonna impact those people in a far far more real way. So I'm I'm very hesitant to go high despite knowing that that would be very comfortable for us. Well, very comfortable is a stretch.

It would be more comfortable for us. But I'm looking at that 4.7 saying, look, can I bridge the gap? Can I bridge the gap between the people that are saying, just do a flat increase if you're doing an increase at all versus the people that are supporting the 5.4? At least with the 4.7, with a half mil increase, we can fund some of the capital improvements, which I think we need to go through with a fine tooth comb as is, while still potentially satisfying the people who just wanna keep things flat and keep it as is, and have us look for cuts proactively.

Through the chair to something that just sort of occurs to me as well is, you know, one thing I think we're gonna have to also be realistic about in all of this is regardless of which millage rate we have, one of the things we're gonna really have trouble with is our, like, our grant funding. So we're gonna have a real reduction in federal funding for a lot of the programs that we've taken for granted for a while. And, you know, those are gonna be kind the kinds of things that, like, the general fund just can't pick up, and then there's gonna be things like the lead line replacement. You know, I'm I'm pretty certain that the EPA rule is gonna get repealed within the next month or so, but the state rule still exists and it still has this mandate that we, you know, replace our lead lines. We're really not gonna be any place to do that without a massive increase to the water rate, which is, you know, also gonna get us the same kind of, frankly, heat that we're gonna have over this millage.

So, you know, the other reality is whatever millage rate we choose, there's still gonna be things we're probably going to have to downsize by virtue of the fact that our funding was really a match to some other type of funding. Right? And it's going to if that's not there, then we're not spending the money on that. Then maybe that's a, you know, a consideration as well.

True. But almost all of that funding was project specific. It was purchasing an item or creating something for a one time investment where we got a match. It wasn't necessarily, you know, hiring three police officers for two years on a grant,

and

then we would have to pick it up.

Well, we do have that. So we, you know, we have the mental health core response, which is partially grant funded. And then we, you know yes. You're right. No.

You're not yes. You're right. We do have some sort of CDBG. Mhmm. That's what's doing our, you know, the amazing program that, you know, CED, you know, worked out.

But, you know, those are very small in the scheme of our things. Yes. You're right. These are big ticket things, but that was sort of how we were able to cover some of the bigger ticket capital needs. You know?

We got a grant that helped us purchase a new fire engine with, like, all these other things. If those grants don't exist, we're not in a position to buy a whole fire engine on our own, not in any of these scenarios.

You know what

I mean? And so, you know, there are considerations outside of just the millage rate that I think we also have to grapple with.

Well and there's you know, you're looking at non non employee costs that come out of the general fund. You know, everybody thinks that, you know, that 30% differ I shouldn't say everyone. There are some people that think that that 30% difference is just fluff. You know, we have a half a million dollar electric bill that we pay every year for street lighting, parking lots, buildings, facilities, parks, you know, everything that you're not paying on a on your electricity bill is being covered by the city. We have water bills.

We pay a a fee to use water for our watering of of lawns, our lawns, the downtown flower watering, the splash pad. You know, those are all coming out of the general fund. All of those services, telephone, Internet.

Yeah. You're nondiscretionary.

Yeah.

You know? And so a lot of those things are gonna have to be looked at, you know. Do we close down the splash pad? Because we can't afford to keep it. We can't afford the maintenance.

We can't afford the water. So just mothball it until a time when you can afford it. You know? When cracks come up on the the, skate park, just put caution tape around it, and we'll go on from there. Because the last thing I wanna do is is lay off fire, police, or DPW, which again make up 80% of the staff in the in the, in the general fund.

Thank you.

And, you know, you you sort of are helping reinforce one of my earlier points, Greg, which is that, you know, a lot of our nondiscretionary costs are experiencing inflation. DTE just got authorization for their rate case.

So

they didn't get their full rate case, but they did get half of it, so tariffs are gonna go up. Well, guess what? Ferndale, like you just said, has electric bills. Not only the kind that are these lights, but the street lights, which are a separate tariff. This is one type of tariff.

That's a different type of tariff. And the street lighting tariff also went up. So municipalities are gonna pay a lot more to keep the street lights on, every year. So, you know, these are the realities. You know, I think, frankly, you know, any of these things are a band aid on a bullet wound, and they're gonna stanch the bleeding for a little bit, but they're not going to treat the underlying problem.

And a lot of the underlying problem is not ours. One, it's circumstances out of our control. I can't control what the president of The United States does with trade policy. You know, I can't even control what the state government does about revenue sharing, you know, and these are all things. It's just death by a thousand cuts, at the local level.

And I know that what we're seeing here at this table and what residents are probably, you know, frankly, really freaking tired of hearing us talk about is this, but every city in Michigan is now beginning to have these types of council or commission or board settings where they're saying, what the heck are we gonna do? We're all starting to hit this wall where voters are getting tapped out. You know, residents are getting tapped out, and, the state's not stepping in to fill the gap. I like to hear from the mayor.

Alright. So I've heard everything that everyone had to say, and I've heard the conversations. I think that hearing from our police particularly, at one of the other at one of the recent meetings about how they are stretched to the they have already stretched their resources. I'm sure that's the same with fire. I'm sure that's the same with DPW.

And what we're saying is that we want them to stretch a little more. Now I don't know about anyone else here, but I am constantly getting emails regarding, services and how DPW, has to put people on lists in order to get out to their homes to help with services, projects that we have in the city. I feel like they are stretched already. And to be able to to have them stretch even more, I think, would have a grave impact on the services that we're accustomed to having. And even still, we're on wait list right now with using what we use right now.

Four point 5.4, I think, the way I the way I look at it is giving us the bare minimum to maintain city services. It is up to us how many mills we levy every year, and I was very comforted in the fact that the finance committee is coming up with ways or would like to have ways for more transparency to be able to review, the spending in each department, asking each department head to really essentially state what they're spending things on and what can they what can they absolutely absolutely do without. I've also witnessed our departments making cuts, making those efforts right now. We just heard from the city clerk, the savings there, and every little bit of savings helps. I had a conversation with our interim city manager, over the weekend regarding, the mills that we've used up to this point.

And I think you said we were at I don't know if you have it up there, but I'm just gonna say, I think you said we were at 15.6952. I think you said that. We also so and I think that was roughly about utilizing I think you said maybe 16.9 mils. Forgive me if I'm getting this wrong, but I'm trying to just weigh these options. And with the 5.4, we would be at 16.6425.

I think that is fairly close to the bare minimum. I I was also questioning, council member Pawlika's concerns regarding being able to stretch that to ten years. And upon our conversation, James, I think that we could with being smart and being fiscally responsible through the course of this time. I also think that doing something in five years is with this uncertainty with what we're dealing with right now with the, climate our political climate right now. I just think that coming back in five years to ask residents for another Headley is just doesn't make any sense to me.

Five years goes pretty quickly, and we don't know where we're going to be at that point. We don't know where we're going to be economically at that point. And I think, coming back in five years has the potential to definitely fail because it's too soon. So I'm definitely in support of 10, because I think that gives us time to stretch. I think that gives us time for us to utilize our city services, and that gives us time to think about other ways in which to cut costs like we're doing right now.

We're thinking about those things right now. I'm was between the 5.4 and the 4.7. I think that the 5.4 gives us a little more stability and is able to provide the services that we are used to. However, And I also think that it when we had the failed millage proposal just a few months ago, the residents spoke and said that this was too much. They were tired of the spending.

They were tired of they didn't want their taxes to go up, and they wanted us I think I the commonality that I heard was come back with something better. And I think this is less, and I think this is better. I think this can still get us the services that we need, and I think this can still help support our police and fire and DPW. When we had the election just recently, we astronomically, we saw that the community supports these types of services. So I don't think that we should cut back on that.

I don't think that we should mess with those services because I can tell you right now, when I talk to other people in other communities, they kinda like the services that we have. And I don't know about you all, but I like the services that we have, even if we have to go on wait lists, even if we have to wait until, DPW can get out to us. I mean, they're stretched to where they're at. And I think we like our services that provided by our police and fire. I I'm always hearing how the community values our police and fire.

And I think that we'll be sending the wrong message if we say, okay. Yes. We value you, but we're gonna go with this. You all have your families to take care of like we do too. And I'm not thinking I'm not saying this lightly.

I'm a resident of this community. I'm a single mom. I've got a child that's about to graduate. I've got a daughter in college. I am a mother of a child with special needs, so I know about having to stretch.

And I know about having to work at the bare minimum, but I also like our services. I like to be able to put my my my trash out. I also like I like that we can have that picked up, and I don't have to carry that somewhere. I like that I can call our police and our fire and they can be here in record time. I like that.

I I think that we did compromise. The groups that did not want to see a Headley override, we did compromise, and I think we came up with something better. I think we came up with what you asked for. When I've spoken to people, their support has been for the five point four saying they can go with that, whether I received it via text, via email, via phone call. And I just, I am after thinking about it a lot, I just think that 5.4 is the way to go, and it maybe it has the potential to fund some building capital.

Maybe we won't be able to do that. I don't know. Maybe we'll have to forego that in order to stretch this to the ten years. I don't know what it looks like. But I know that this gives us some leeway to do that and it's less of a millage a mill that we less of a millage that we operating millage that we've asked for in the in the past.

I think it's a good compromise. I thought about it long and hard, and I am in support of to be clear, I'm in support of the 5.4. I'm in support of it being at ten years, not five. I think that's too soon to come back and ask the residents to to help with this. And I think that over the course of that time, we will have our police, our fire, and our DPW will continue to find ways to be able to fund certain services, to work out, any grants that they receive, and to really start thinking about what we can do to not put so much of a burden on the taxpayers, but still be able to provide them with services that they deserve.

That's just where I'm at, and, again, I had a lot of time to think about it. Many meetings. So I still open it up to counsel to, if you have any comments or any questions. Otherwise, we are going to have to decide what kind of ballot language we wanna put on the resolution.

Through the chair. Yes. I I think that it's really important that council have unity on this.

Mhmm.

And based on the conversations, I I know that mayor Pro Tem Mikulski and councilwoman, Kelly. Kelly. Thank you. My mind went blank. I know that they're not as in favor of the 5.45, And I understand that.

I appreciate that. I mentioned at the last council meeting that the first time we did this in 02/2011, we, the language stated that, it would be a 5.45 mil, but that the first year, it would be reduced. Would you think it would be favorable if we went for the 5.45, but the first year it'd be set at 4.7? And then after, council has the ability to increase it to the 5.45. Maybe we don't increase it to the whole 5.45 in 2027.

Maybe it only goes up to five instead of 4.7. But the first year, it would start at 4.7. And council has the ability to raise it after that to the 5.45.

Would it be an automatic raise to the 5.45?

Council has to approve it.

We have to approve our tax.

We approve it, when we approve the budget.

So through the chair, I've got a couple thoughts on this. I 4.7 is great. Clearly, I'm on board with that, And I like the idea of it saying 4.7 on the ballot language. But I think we have an issue of trust, and I think people are going to see are they gonna see a 4.7 and a 5.4 on the ballot language?

Yes. It would it would read, so I'll read what what the 02/2011 term has. Shall the city of Ferndale, County Of Oakland, Michigan be permitted to increase its authority millage rate in 02/2011 for a term of five years ending in December 2015 by an additional 5.4552 mills, on each dollar of the taxable value of all real estate personal property in the city of Ferndale, which will restore the city, to the city, the charter authorized millage amount for general purposes, which has been reduced by section 31 of article nine of the state constitution in 1963. All of which tax revenues would be dispersed to the city of Ferndale provided that the city shall not be authorized to levy more than. In that case, it was three mills, in 02/2011.

The charter authorized millage amount has been reduced by required millage rollbacks and weeks and years to 14.5448. If approved, the initial three mills authorized for levy would be raised approximately 1.681, $806 in 02/2011. So it would read something very similar to that.

That feels convoluted.

That's that's kind of my concern is, like, we we we did something complicated in November and

it it no. You did two items, and I think that was the complicated I think people were thinking, well, yeah, I'm gonna vote for the police and fire one, but I'm not gonna vote for this huge eight mil.

Well, the whole thing was complicated. I've heard from a lot of folks about it, and it's definitely was convoluted, and they didn't like it. So my concern with that is that this is going to that would feel convoluted to them. And and a confused resident or someone who doesn't fully understand it is more likely to just say, I don't get that. I don't I'm not supporting it.

Because it's what happened to us in November. Because that is what I would I would support something like that. My worry is we're in a position now that's very different from then. You know, there's just the vibes are bad to, you know, to use what the kids say. You know, the vibes are bad.

I mean, it's people are not feeling supportive. And my concern my worry about five four is that it's not that it's actually that much more than $4.07. It's not. If you look at this, it's a hundred and, what, $41 more per year. That's, I mean, that's not a lot.

I mean, by anyone's metric. That's just over the course of twelve months, that's not a lot.

Well, and that's the ninetieth percentile. Most people don't have a taxable value of a hundred and 35,000.

Exactly. I would like to say through the chair that a hundred and $21 is a lot through the year to some folks.

Yes. Well

to some folks it is. When you are a single mom or whatever your scenario is, that's a lot of money. Sure.

Under It

just takes cuts.

I understand, council member Kelly. I do understand that. But $10 a month to keep our staff employed for more than three years is kind of not a lot to ask. It just isn't because we have to do the whole city. Remember?

Everybody. It's what you keep reiterating. It's for everybody. Right?

It's for everyone. Yeah.

And so, like, that's our that's our job. So my concern and I'm not saying that I'm I'm not making a decision right now because, clearly, I'm the swing vote on this. Right? It's very clear. I'm the swing.

So, I my concern with five four is regardless of it being not very much because it objectively is not $10 a month. It is that it is just the numbers themselves on the ballot, the way people feel right now. There's an instinctive reaction to say that's just too much. And if that's what happens, we're in the worst scenario. Because if this fails again, we don't get another bite at the apple.

That's it. No. We aren't. No. We are not.

That's it because the voters will have made it clear. We are going to let that ride for a while. We're not doing multiple over we can't just keep going back every election and asking for something. It's not gonna work. Politically, it will not work.

And so if this doesn't pass in May, regardless of the result, that's

that's it for

a while. There's gonna be a cooling off period that we're gonna take, and then we will begin making the cuts that need to be made. And then we'll revisit what we need to do. But that's my that's my whole situation. I don't think we'd get another bite at the apple for a while because I don't think the political will would be there.

And so that's my concern is you all know I'm not necessarily the most gun shy person. I'm pretty, you know, blunt. But I'm feeling very gun shy after November. I'm worried about taking the risk of putting us in a position where we don't get anything as opposed to getting something. And I know it's not ideal.

I'm fully aware of what the result of the, you know, what this will be. I can run the numbers too. I look at the millage models in Excel just like anybody else, this council and and in the city manager's office. And I know that 4.7, we're gonna be in trouble sooner than everyone thinks. We're really gonna be making some cuts.

We won't touch police, fire, and DPW first, but we will start cutting sooner rather than later. And then what's gonna happen is we're gonna start getting this inundation of emails of people very angry that we've begun cutting services that they value. The recreation summer camp, these sorts of because those aren't those aren't mission critical. Right? Those aren't core services.

Police, fire, DPW, those are core services. We have to preserve those to the last. And so we're gonna start cutting things that are nice to have, but they're things that, as the mayor indicated, people really like having. The first fall when we don't pick up leads, and in fact, we ticket people for putting their leads in the street because we'll put out notices and people won't realize it, and then we ticket them for obstructing the streets, that's we're gonna be inundated with emails. And I'm willing to put that off.

Right? Okay. We'll wait for three years for that to happen, but it will start to happen. We're not gonna make it ten years. Not and we're not gonna make it ten years at either realistically with cost inflation, you know, because we have to pay those things, water bills, electric bills.

Those things are going up. So, you know, I'm torn. Personally, I want five four. That gives us the breathing room. It lets us do what we need to do, maintain services for even just a little bit longer.

But then I'm worried what happens if it fails again. Well You know, then we're in a bad situation.

I I you say that it gives us breathing room. I really don't. I mean, the 4.7 is gonna, once it passes in in 26 sorry. If it passes and it gets initiated in '26

Mhmm.

We're already gonna be starting at at even. It just goes down from there. Mhmm. At least with 5.445, you at least have a chance to be able to give our our emergency services a decent wage for the next three years and protect the important city services, but you're still gonna end up having to make cuts.

Through the chair, I just wanna say, me personally, I would vote for the five four. Okay? I think it's great. I think it's what we need to do. I've talked to many friends who would also vote with that, but I've also talked to a lot of other folks and when I'm leaning on the four seven, it's not my personal opinion.

It's what I think is going to give us success in the long run. So we can do the doom and gloom. It's one way or the other, but it you know, we just gotta figure out what is the best path forward.

And and I understand that. I mean, I know that there you know, there's gonna be people that will not support any millage. And then you have people that will not support anything over the 4.2, and you have people that will not support anything over the 4.7, it's our responsibility to explain to them why they should support it and what their investment is gonna cover. The money that they have to pay, that additional difference of whether it be $60 a year or a hundred dollars a year, you know, what is that gonna cover? You know, the last election was different because we asked for more than what we needed because we were gonna build new facilities.

We were gonna invest in all these things. There were all of these big grand plans, and that's what people didn't like. But if we can narrow this down to exactly what they're investing in and what they're gonna lose if this 5.45 doesn't pass, I think a lot of those people will be on board. They won't like it. Again, nobody likes paying more taxes.

No one likes to get that bill and see, oh, my bill you know, my tax bill just went off. But, again, I think I think as a unified council, it's our responsibility to explain to the residents and the voters and the property investors why this millage is necessary and why four point seven won't cut it.

So through the chair, I'm gonna do some final thoughts here. I think we all, as a council body, know that I'm the most tied into the no votes. Right? Like, we can all agree on that. After but I will say the vast majority of the people that I talked to are were no votes in the past election.

Mhmm. And so, clearly, I am biased one way that is different than the bias of your friends that are biased the other way. And I have heard repeatedly since we started this discussion, they are fine with a 4.2. They could maybe get on board with a 4.7. They draw the line at a 5.4 because of economic uncertainty, potential job losses, feelings of distrust, and feeling that we're not going to really start making cuts, which they'd said that they wanted to see, if we go with a 5.4.

And I keep coming back to what's my path of least resistance, where do I succeed? And I keep seeing the 4.7 as that option. It sucks for us. We can all agree with that. It it sucks for us, and you can sit there and talk about, like, we're not going to to have wage increases for our staff, but the reality is it's wage increases or it's layoffs.

We've got two options. And I don't want layoffs. Having that having that little bite today and feeling the taste of it, and I've gone through downturns before, and I've gone through downsizing before. It's coming for a lot of people. We all know it.

We can all sense the shift in the air. The vibes are bad. Mhmm. And with the vibes being bad, I am trying my darnedest I'm trying not to swear tonight too. Trying my darnedest to find the path forward where we can protect our services.

And I know, again, at four point seven, we gotta do some cuts. But can we survive with our core services for a time period, maybe until 2029? If we can, that gives us some breathing room to right to right what I don't wanna say is the wrong, because it's not a wrong, but write the feelings and the perceptions of our residents that things are not right for them. And if we have that time period and we can talk to people and we can get them on board with this, I feel like the next time that we come back with transparency, with accountability, with a list of cuts that we've made, we're gonna be in a better spot. So those are those are my final thoughts.

I'm I'm still I'm still really leaning into that 4.7, and I haven't heard anything that's really making me lean elsewhere tonight.

So, you know, I guess the question that I have, I guess, for you, mayor Pro Tem, is, you know, if if we survive through '29, for example, and then we begin to hit our significant deficits, meaning essentially we're starting to pull draw into the reserve, to keep things afloat, and we have to go back and have a conversation with residents. What does that look like to you? Does it do you does that mean we have to go back and say we need to talk about an earlier renewal of the millage? I mean, like, you know, it's I worry then, like, that we also have a problem with saying that this was gonna be for ten years and then we go back early.

Yeah. You

know, that's kind of a, you know, like, couldn't that possibly bite us too?

It could. Yeah. I did have some conversations regarding that, you know, if we put a ten year and we had to revisit it in four or five, and I just got a lot of consensus that would be the way to go and to clearly state that. I mean, you know, just based on how folks are feeling.

Yes.

And I have one more question just to probe Mayor Pro Tem's mind and and council member Kelly. You know, from a practical standpoint, you know, I think one of the realities of this vote is that there were a lot of people who voted no who were fairly on the fence. I think, you know, I think a lot I think the majority of the no votes were not necessarily the, like, hardcore no's. I think a lot of them were the I'm not a % clear what this is or this feels like just a little too much. And I'm wondering, like, you know, with 5.4, are there enough residents who maybe were known last time who they're really not interested in the in seeing the city, like, have a you know, this huge cut that would happen at the $4,000,000 cut.

Are there enough of do we think there are enough votes, people who would say that's more reasonable and it's straightforward because there's not a bunch of stuff in here? It's just one straightforward question. Who would become yes votes? Yes. There are still gonna be people who are no votes.

Like, for sure. Like, that's that's true. But I think there there's a possibility that there are also enough residents who don't want the alternative. They don't want that super negative outcome, and they see would see this as fine. It's reasonable.

I'll go with this even if I don't love it. The sort of I'll hold my nose and go for this kind of thing. That to me doesn't seem like a completely far fetched scenario where, like, this would still be seen by a lot of folks who were right there in the middle. You know, they voted no for sort of, you know, any number of reasons, but they're not super, like, dyed in the wool, anti anything people.

I

also wanna state that there were quite a few residents that absolutely did not understand the ballot language last time. And when in doubt, you vote no. I mean, we we all know that when in doubt, vote no. So I wonder with clear cut language and the steps that we're that I see departments taking and with, again, the transparency of the finance department, I think that we're moving in the right direction. We're already making cuts right now that weren't even factored in yet.

So I just wonder if this I just I I think that this is more palatable than what we've had before. I think the language has to be very clear. So just to know what that looks like is going to be the interesting thing. Language has to be very cleared clear, but I've not seen any or anything that makes me move away from hearing about the 5.4. I I think it's less.

I I think that it will maintain services that we're used to. I think that even though I've heard things about the trust, I think that the fact that we're coming up with suggestions and trying to make moves right now should have some should bear some weight, regarding what we're trying to do. I don't know. I I I just I I I haven't heard anything that sways me from the five point four ten years.

Through the chair, we have a budget that will be approved at the April. We'll be doing reviews in March, so that will give residents a clear sign as to what we're really doing. So before they even vote, they'll know whether or not we've done our due diligence. I I don't think that it would matter if it's a 4.7 or a 5.45 at that point. I think if people think that we're not doing what we said we were gonna do, they're just not gonna vote to support it.

Budget would be before the vote.

We start reviewing it in March. Council starts reviewing into March and then we vote for it usually. The first meeting? Well, we have a review at the first meeting in April and then we vote on it in the second meeting in April.

Yeah. That sounds about accurate. I think we have to have it voted on by the first meeting in May.

Yeah. So we always make sure that we do it before May.

And we will have had our finance committee processes that are new, where we're doing what we're going to be doing, me and you and Phil and James, and then the department directors. And so we would have something to publicly report on that. Probably some of our meetings will you know, we've talked about them being public, you know, and having people be able to observe them and comment.

I don't know. We need to come up with a decision, and we need to make a motion as to where we're going.

No one

said this job was easy. Can you sorry. Can you flip to the next slide? Because I think that has the financial numbers in it that would need to be implemented in the

That one? I think so. This is the tax bills.

No. But it's the total. Because according to this, we have to say in the the reading of it, may increase by x. And then in parentheses, it's x per 1,000. But then at the bottom, it says it is estimated that blank mills would raise approximately x amount of dollars in 2026.

And I don't have those numbers to make for any of these options. I don't have those numbers to make those.

Well, I think those are those that number.

Well, that is, but That's the estimate.

I don't The approximate estimate of the of the first levy. That's the

number. Not the through the chair. That's that's not the increase. Right? Like, the increase would be whatever the dollar amount is at the 4.2 line plus whatever the mills are above that.

So, like, if No.

No? No. You you give the estimate of the dollars for the the thing that they're voting on, the specific amount that they're

So the full taxable value, like

The full

value of it? The full value of it. Yeah. Yeah. It would be in so for example, it would be increased by 4.2 mils.

I'm saying that because that's not an option. Be increased by 4.2 mils, but then there's in parentheses, x number per 1,000. I don't know what that number is.

Well, a mill is the Mhmm. One mill it needs.

Right. Yeah. It'll be whichever, whichever millage you go with. So if it is, the 4.2, it would be $44 and 20¢. Yeah.

I'm just not

gonna read that number then. Yeah. For okay. And then it says, it is estimated that 4.2 mils would raise approximately that number? Yes.

In 2026? Yes. Okay.

Where are we going? Probably first need.

When someone needs to make a motion. Right.

We wanna start low and see if we have consensus there and then go up, or do you wanna go in the reverse?

Well, if I start, you know which way I'm

gonna go. If you start,

I know which way you're gonna go. Yeah.

Let me scroll backwards. Oh, so the the current ballot language this is another thing to point out. The current ballot language is already written for 5.4, and I didn't realize that. So if you go into the section about whereas

Oh. The Oh, but this That was the 2015, though.

That's the 2015? Mhmm.

Are you

Yeah. 04/05/1952? Yeah. No.

That's oh, yeah.

That's 2025.

In 2035. Stating when the last mill The last the 5 4 5

5 2.

Fourth whereas whereas the city council has determined that it's necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the city to restore the voter authorized

Oh.

Separate operating millage in its 5.4452 mills in order to provide necessary funds for general operating purposes.

Yeah. That was for 2035.

No. The fourth whereas.

It says, whereas, the city has determined that the millage restoration shall submit qualified

That's not the way it reads.

That should've that should've been blank.

You're right. But that wasn't what I was gonna read. I was gonna read the ballot language, which is on the last page, exhibit a, which

That's not the motion. The motion is to accept the whole thing. Right?

Yeah. That was intended to be, blank. That was just a typo, the 5.4. When when we were originally doing this, we had put together three different, resolutions. However, legal counsel told us we only needed to have one, so that was just a

Okay.

Just a missed edit.

Alright. Well, then I make a motion to consider the approval of ballot language at a 4.7 mil rate and resolution for renewal of the voter authorized operating millage.

At ten years, four seven years? At ten years. Support.

Nikolski?

Yes. Kelly?

Yes. Johnson?

They come back to me.

I know. Come back to me.

Policar?

No. No.

Leaksman? No. Johnson? This is like ordering dinner at a restaurant. No.

So we need change the number and go through it again.

I'm looking for where you said that that language was.

It's the fourth whereas in the under the resolution submitting the liquor restoration proposal.

Where it says it has determined that it's necessary for the health and safety.

Mhmm.

I'm not used to reading it like this. This is weird.

Just make the motion however you want. State the number of minutes.

I I move to approve the ballot language and resolution for renewal of the voter authorized operating millage, that city council has deemed necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the city to restore the voter authorized separate operating millage in its original 5.4452 mills in order to provide necessary funds for general operating purposes.

Oh, I guess I have to support that. Support.

Through the charity you want for the number of years as well.

Oh, to be levied through 02/2016. I'm sorry. To be levied through '2 2026 through 2035.

Support.

Polka? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Kelly?

Yes. With explanation.

Mikulski?

Yes. With explanation.

Thanks, May.

Yes.

So through the chair, I just wanna say I hope this does go through. I know it's the best option. My points up here were to build consensus and get it across the finish line. So, you know, I hope it goes through.

And I was about to vote no. I understand that you want consensus. I if I was doing this in a vacuum, could I do 5.4 easily? Sure. I am very worried, and we'll see where this goes.

I think that if I may, madam mayor, I think that at the end of the day, it's my responsibility and our response collective responsibility to now do our level best to explain to the residents what this is and what it's for. And I hope that we will all, five of us, put energy into explaining what this is, how it will work, the impact on voters, and why we think this is the path forward even if we all weren't in consensus on it. There are gonna be people who are gonna be unhappy, and maybe I'm the council member that doomed our next effort at the millage. But if I'm going to go for it, I'd rather go for something that means we don't have to come back with our hat in our hand in three to four years because I think that's just gonna be as as bad as this. I mean, they're gonna say, well, you didn't make this.

I just don't think we can make the kind of cuts we need to make to keep it going. I think at that point, we really are doing worst case scenario cuts very early, especially if costs keep increasing. Really, neither scenario is ideal. This at least gives us a fighting chance to make it as far into a ten year period as we can get.

And council member, Johnson, you kinda stated what I was thinking that although we've had lots of conversations and everyone was in kind of different directions, the fact that we've come to a consensus now with explanations or not, I think it's really important for us to be clear to the residents that

that

we will support this even when we're out there on our own time talking with residents, educating them. I I I none of us can waiver from it because we know what's at stake. We need to come together and we need to get that message out to everyone with no doubt. So I'm just putting that out there. I think that's going to be quite helpful, if we're all on board with it.

And the vote says that we are. So now we just have to put it to action.

Through the chair, if I may make one more comment. Yes. I hope that instead of me talking to the no voters, it's all of us.

Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely.

Don't call them cave people, Greg. Pardon? Don't call them cave people. I don't know what you said earlier.

It's insulting.

Right. Okay. So with that being said, we have our vote. Moving on to call to council, where, I defer to the city interim city manager to, provide department head updates.

Yes. Thank you, mayor. We're gonna start in the finance department tonight, for an update on some water billing issues and the budget process.

Good evening, mayor and council. I am happy to report that we have adjusted all of the bills that went out, a couple of weeks ago. And on top of that, every residence in Section 1 and Section 4 received either a email confirmation that their bill had been adjusted or a phone call from one of my staff telling them that their bill has been adjusted. So going forward, we, definitely will be, making sure that when we get these, corrupt downloads from Neptune that they're vetted before they actually go up to the printer. Because that's that's kind of in a small nutshell kind of what happened this time around.

Also, we are closing the budget, preparation process for the directors, this Friday. From that, I will be putting together a a budget template that I'll be look you're looking at to analyze, as we get ready for the February budget hearings. As, some of you have already mentioned, we will, actually add add a additional layer this year, to kind of, increase the transparency of our overall budget process, by reimplementing the finance committee and their involvement in our budget process. I've already told the directors and put them on notice, that we that's definitely have to, tighten our belts. And the thing that I think, not only the public but the council as well will notice when we go through that process is that we're already running kinda lean.

And so we've, you know, anticipating this a couple years ago. Actually, under Joe, I started looking at these things. And so, we've already started to try to identify efficiencies. And so I told the directors that we need to to cut a little more. And so, that's what you'll be seeing when we start presenting in March for the budget workshop and then for the subsequent, finance committee, review as well.

So everybody is on board as far as what we have to do. So like you guys said, we just have to do it now. Are there any questions?

No. Thank you, Phil.

Thank you for your time.

Alright. And next up, our, new father back there, Emmanuel Johnson, to come, give some updates on parks and rec programming.

What is sleep? Good evening, mayor and council. Just a few updates from, Parks and Recreation. So this Saturday, we have our little princess dance that is upcoming, at Ferndale High School. It'll take place on Saturday from six to 8PM.

Our special guest this time around will be Moana. She'll be coming to visit with the kids and interact and play and everything. And, we'll have food, DJs, photos, carnations available, and some goodie bags for the kids to take home as well. There are tickets still available for them. They are $15 if you, per $15 per person if you purchase them by the end of the day tomorrow, after which they will become, $20 per person.

And we are also still seeking volunteers for, the dance as well to help pass out food, to help oversee some things. So if you're interested in that, please, reach out to our department. We also have the Mackinac Grand, like, experience trip that's coming up. We still have 10 spots available for that. That is a, senior driven trip that, takes them up to Mackinac Island to stay at the Grand Hotel, to take part in a variety of different games and activities and experiences over the course of a three day trip.

This year's trip is scheduled for May 13, to May 16. And, anyone interested in that can check our website for more information to register, or they can contact our, senior coordinator, Alicia, Pardo, and our parks and rec parks and rec department. We have youth soccer registration that is going to be opening up on February 12. We've had a lot of calls, from residents that have been trying to figure out when that is actually gonna open up. We had a little bit of a delayed start this time around, but February 12 is the date that we're targeting to open new registration.

The leagues with that program are available for ages three to 14, and the games are played on Saturdays and are slate, slated to begin in April. More information on that is available on our website as well. We have our aquatics programs that are starting up on February 8 at Ferndale High School. These programs include Saturday lap swim sessions as well as two water aerobics, sessions. Those water aerobics sessions sold out in a day, each time that we open up one of them up, but there are still available, spots for the drop in sessions for the lap swim.

So anybody that's interested in that can check the website for that as well. And then, finally, we are currently seeking sponsorships for our Geary Park Skate Jam, which is scheduled to take place on June 7 and includes skate park competitions, family events, food, music, and more. Anybody that any businesses or anybody that's interested in, becoming a sponsor for any of the activities that we have going on out there, should contact our department, specifically me. And that's it.

And then chief Robinson is gonna give us an update on the new ambulance.

Good evening, mayor and council. So as the community may remember, we purchased new AMOS with ARPA funds. It was ordered in March or spring of twenty twenty two. A lot of delays because of supply chain recalls, on and on and on. We went down last I sent a crew down last Wednesday to file inspection with the intention of picking it up and bringing it home.

But when we went down there, we do a very thorough inspection because when we're spending that money, we wanna do diligence, ensure it's right. They found a couple things that they wanted addressed. So the manufacturers addressed them, no additional cost to the city to make it right to our specifications. So it will delay us getting the ambulance by a couple weeks. Estimated about three week delay right now for us to get it, but then we will be they will be delivering it to us so we don't have to go down there again.

We were gonna be the ones driving it back, but now they will do the delivery to us. So I'll keep you posted as far as that, but we wanted to make sure it's right. Before we took the delivery, we weren't didn't wanna accept anything less. So, there's that. So it's good news that it's done finally, but a little delayed because we wanted them to make it absolutely right.

And the other thing I wanna point out is, more and more residents are starting to use our virtual home safety inspection, and some residents had requested smoke detectors. They realized they needed some. We received our shipment from the state last week, and so we are able to, catch up the installs for people that were waiting. So those are theirs. We have them there.

So if anybody else realizes or wants to request smoke detectors, we do have them now. We can't come in and install those into your home. So they are just smoke detector. They are not carbon monoxide detector. At this time, we don't have any, sponsorship for those, but we'd be happy to help you with those.

And,

another election update from our city clerk.

I know there's been a lot of discussion about the May, tonight, but, because it was an odd number election year, we do have an election in November as well, on November 4. So on that ballot will be, the position for mayor, which is a two year term, and there'll be two city council positions, for four years. So if you're interested in running for office, we do have candidate packets that are ready, at the city clerk's office. And if you have questions about running, you can give me a call. My number is (248) 336-4366.

As part of that process, you do need to collect a hundred to a 50 signatures, from Ferndale voters.

And then lastly, our human resources director, Dan Jaci, will provide a recruitment update.

Good evening, mayor and council. I wanna let the residents know that a week from Thursday on February sixth, we will be holding a city manager candidate meet and greet between five and, 05:45. Residents will get to meet the finalists, which are Vester Davis from the city of Springfield, Michigan, James Krizan from the city of, Ferndale, Michigan, and Colleen O'Toole from the city of Saline, Michigan. We're encouraging feedback from the residents that will be, used and available for our council to make their decision. From 05:00 I'm sorry.

At 06:00 that night, the city council members will be interviewing each of the three candidates here in an open public meeting, and they will be making their final decision on the city council meeting on February 10. So

thank you.

And with that, mayor, we'll turn it back over to you guys.

Where did I start last time? Okay. Then I'm going over here. Alright. Mayor Pro Tem, you're up.

I have nothing further tonight. Council member Kelly?

Just wanna say welcome back, Emmanuel. Congrats on the new addition to your family, and, thank you, chief Robinson. Good catch. You're always keeping everyone on their toes, and you're all about those efficiencies. And, we see you, and we appreciate you.

Thank you.

Johnson and Repolica.

I have

nothing this evening.

Johnson. Also wanna welcome back Manuel Mazeltov. Hope you are getting some sleep. I think, you know, the only thing that I would, you know, reiterate is, you know, I'm looking forward to going out, talking to residents, and, you know, explaining what's going on and, you know, just, you know, doing the thing, getting it done, getting over the finish line.

Yes. Congratulations, Emmanuel. Don't leave without showing me a picture of that baby. I just, before I actually, I'll start with, we've all heard it, the giggle pickles. I am going to state say state it again.

They're so excited about going to the, championship. And I just want you to know that there will be a fundraiser for the Ferndale Middle School robotics team giggle pickles, February 13, '4 to '8 PM at Treat Dreams. And then four to 7PM, the store the the business also sharing that space with Treat Dreams Heroes and Villains. Their special will be a Giggle Pickle sandwich chips and pineapple pickle sorbet. I don't know what that looks like or what that is, but you know, you have to mention Giga Pickles at the checkout, but, go out and support them.

I think that it's really exciting that the middle school, is is in that championship. And I just I I just wanna push, and I wanna push supporting them. Also, I want to congratulate the seniors, at Ferndale High School because last Thursday marked their kickoff for the four month journey between now and graduation, with the senior pinning ceremony. So it was really nice to see the seniors get pinned. I got to pin my own senior, that night.

So, four more months to go before they head on to a new endeavor. I wanna thank counsel for your thoughtful and diligent conversations. We all are up here for the same reason. We're trying to do the best for the community, and I appreciate every one of you for fighting for what you believe in. And, I'm glad that we don't have to take any of this personally.

We know, you stand for what you believe in. That's what the voters voted you in for us in for, and, we now need to move forward to continue doing the best work possible that we can for our residents. I just also wanna state something that I saw on social media, and I'm not on it much. But I just wanted to add some clarity because I think it's really important, especially now, that there be some, clarity as far as information that's sent out. I think there was a a comment regarding, the city not providing its due diligence as far as focusing on and and advocating for and lobbying for statutory revenue statutory revenue sharing.

And I want you to know for a fact, it's been happening from all areas. I know for a fact that mayor Pro Temakoski has worked with different council municipalities, with resolutions, to stress the importance of statutory revenue sharing and has generated support from I don't remember how many, but I'm sure it was quite a few. Yeah. And from that, from her lead, I know that at our last SACMA dinner, I was able to, gather about 13 mayors, South Oakland County mayors, to write a sign up a petition saying that we sent to the governor and to our legislatures regarding supporting statutory revenue sharing as well. We're not sitting here doing nothing, but it's going to take our legislators to make that move.

Now, also, I sit on the board of trustees with the Michigan Municipal League, and I can tell you that they are always lobbying for statutory revenue sharing and always pulling us in to reach out to our legislatures in order to do that. In fact, there was a whole campaign at the last, at the the time before last, at the last convention where we had all kinds of, cards that we filled out that that our lobbyists from, the Michigan Municipal League, that team, what they were all just kinda gathered everything, all the cards that we filled out, and they submitted those to, our legislators on our behalf. So I want you to know that we are still working on it, and I will continue working on it because we need it.

I wanna add to that that even I was on the phone texting, you know, our state reps and senators on the last day of Mhmm. The session Yeah. Last year. I mean, asking them to please get that over the finish line. And I think many of us know what happened, but nothing got over the finish line.

That's it.

So that was very unfortunate. But, you know, I was working closely till the very last moment that I could trying to get something passed.

And you were also updating us as far as what you were hearing.

I was sending them screenshots of what I was getting. It just

And I think, madam mayor, I think you've hit on something really important just for the public to understand is a lot of what we do isn't visible. Right? Like, a lot of our day to day council responsibilities, those aren't in the public eye. We're each individually talking to colleagues on other councils, in other cities. We're, you know, talking to colleagues at the county government, our state legislators.

You know? I might have a thirty minute text back and forth with senator McMorrow, but that's not a public activity. Right? Like, you don't know that I'm doing that, but I'm doing that. And that's because that's what we're here to do.

Right? So, you know, stressing that a lot of our day to day council work isn't it's just it this is only a small this is like the council sessions are a tip of the iceberg. Right? This is when you see it. This is what you see sticking out of the water.

The whole rest of the week, a lot of our free time is spent emailing and drafting ordinances and all this stuff that just doesn't happen in the public eye, and that includes advocacy. It includes talking to the state legislature. It includes talking to people in the governor's office and saying, you've gotta help us. You've gotta do something. You can't leave us in this, you know, in this position.

You know, we you need to help. So a lot of what we just isn't visible, but it is being done. You know? Believe it or not, it is being done.

Absolutely. It's being done. And I think we all have relationships with all of our legislatures, and I I know if I for a fact that I can they can they reach out to me via text, via phone call, or on any given day. So, we we have access to them. So we're we're gonna continue trying, and we've we've we're trying to work hard.

And as council member, Johnson stated, it's not always visible to you, but we are out there working. I know you all are tired. It's 09:00. So with that being said, I'm going to call this meeting, adjourned at 09:00. Thank you.