Lewiston council weighs phased revaluation and budget cuts

[0:00] Carl L. Sheline: Hello and welcome to our Tuesday evening, no, Thursday evening, sorry, Thursday evening budget workshop. Thank you all for being here. We have Director Roy joined by Administrator Kainrath. Thank you. First up, we want to talk about the reval. Many discussions with administration, conversations with Tyler Tuck about a plan and strategy for the reval. I'll let [0:26] Bryan Kaenrath: you take it away from here, Administrator Cain. Ra, yeah, all right, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So as I mentioned there, it looks like there will be a few options available to us, you know, on the revel. Option one, obviously, is to proceed as is, and the option two that's been discussed is to do a one year delay to allow people time to prepare for next year, and the third option that we're currently talking with Tyler on is a phased in approach where we could over a period of, you know, say two or three or even four probably three is more reasonable, years phase it in, break up that rate of increase over the three years, and you could also on top of that, to give people time to prepare, do a one-year hold delay and then do a phase that approach. So the phase that approach is extremely rare. We talked to Tyler, it was an extremely unusual request. They are gathering more information on just how it could be implemented. They don't have all that information yet. It would also involve some reconfiguration of our software on our end from units as far as tax billing, so there would obviously be probably some additional expenses incurred from Tyler to do this. There is, I guess there are some towns in Connecticut that have done this before, a phased in reval, but in the state of Maine I'm not aware of any that have, and I guess they aren't either in any recent memory. So this would be something that's very new, but to be fair, we also haven't done a rebound 38 years, so if there is a case to look at doing a phase then approach I think this is probably it so we're working with Tyler we hope to have more information back from them just on the technical pieces of how it could work the phase then approach but we can do it is a legal thing to do this process and so I think we probably should strongly look at doing a phase then approach it would lessen the burden on a number of obviously residents and families and property owners across the city and I think you're hearing a lot of feedback as well as well as we Are that we're gonna need to do something, I think, to make this a little more palatable for our residents, and so that's where we are with that. We're still talking with Tyler, hope to have more information back, but I think we are looking to get, you know, some consensus or some idea from the council of if you like the idea of a phased in approach, or you could also talk about a one year delay, or proceed as is. So I think we're looking for some feedback on that, but we are ready to pursue any of those options, but I think the phase then approach really makes a lot of [3:06] Carl L. Sheline: sense. I appreciate that, Administrator Kane Rath. We also have Director Healy in the audience, thank you for all your help, or do we, it's late in the day, I was looking at Director Star, all right, but I appreciate where, if you're out there, Director Healy, thank you for your help. Yeah, I mean, in my mind, I think we do need to give, you know, given the fact that the increase could be jarring, I think a one-year delay, a followed by, yes, a two or three year phase in makes them make some sense to allow residents to [3:47] Bryan Kaenrath: to plan. Yeah, I think I just have one more thing, Administrator, and just one more note, I mentioned this earlier, but we do have some good news in this process. So it looks like our total valuation is going to be about 5 billion, up from 4.4 billion that was originally estimated, and that's going to allow us, looking at the new numbers, to adjust the mill rate down about another two dollars, which is significant. So just looking at these are the new numbers, a house currently assessed a hundred thousand dollars would be 238 000, and the increase, and this is an average, it depends on location, it depends on quality, it depends on a lot of things, type of property, but the average would be about 780 dollars in that case, which is better. 150 000 current valuation, we go to 357, and that increase would be twelve hundred dollars. So definitely better numbers than we were talking about, but I think despite that, the phase and approach still might may make a lot of sense, but you know, if you take that, you know, say you do a three-year phase in, twelve hundred dollars over three years, much more palatable than some of the numbers we were [4:54] Carl L. Sheline: talking about before. Thank you, Mr Kenrath. It looks like we're probably are going to want to way in here, so we're just gonna start with counselor from Ward one, and then [5:03] Joshua L. Nagine: move on to. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, thank you, Administrator. This is welcome news that the mill rate's gonna drop a little bit. I do think that we actually need to know what the budget is gonna be in order to determine whether or not we want to look at a one-year block and then the phased approach, or if we accept a phased approach. I'd also like to understand the additional cost as well, because I mean, one possibility as well would be that we have a one-year non-increase and then we accept the full increase depending on all of the factors at play. It's just that ultimately I don't have all the information to make that decision. I'm very glad that we could look at a phased approach though, because I think it's INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR SOME OF OUR FOLKS ON FIXING INCUMBS AND RENTERS AND [5:58] Susan G. Longchamps: YEAH, THANK YOU COUNCILOR LONGJAMES. THANK YOU MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ONE-YEAR HOLD PERSONALLY, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE AFTER THAT A TWO TO THREE YEAR, YOU KNOW, SPAN IT OUT BETWEEN THE TWO TO THREE YEARS, WHATEVER WE CHOOSE. BUT I DEFINITELY THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN 38 YEARS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN USED TO doing things one way. Some would say, well, it was coming, everyone knew, but I think again, it's been 38 years. There are a lot of people here that live on a fixed income. I think that two to three years with the one-year hold will give people enough time to start really figuring out their new budget, so that's that's my [6:46] Michael R. Roy: thought. Counselor Roy, did you have something? Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I too, like Council Long Champs, would like to see a one-year hold and, you know, two to three year phase out. I think that gives people enough time to figure out if there are some other credits that they can go for, like a senior discount and all that stuff. I think, you know, right now I don't think we've we've tried to get it out there and people have known about it, but I think the time limit is just it's it's it's crunched and I don't like that. But what I what I wanted to say is I think in order to help the school budget along and all that stuff, if we could get the information from Tyler Technologies quicker before we have to get into that school budget and before the vote is and all that stuff, or if we can make a decision on where we're going with, you know, either a hold and a phase and all that stuff, that's going to help the school budget a lot, I think. So if we could get some of this information, Mason, quicker than that would be better. So and again, the only thing we're [7:47] Bryan Kaenrath: Still waiting for from Tyler is really just the technical aspects of implementation on their end and how much it will cost us to do this process instead of just the current process. So I mean as far as other impacts on the budget I'm not sure that's what we're really waiting for so we can do it, but they need to give us the mechanics of just how it would work because it's extremely rare and where we believe me we put absolutely ASAP on them for getting this information. So we're hoping to have it as soon as possible and we'll share it as soon [8:16] Michael R. Roy: as we can. Yeah thank you sorry go ahead i was just saying i appreciate that thank you because [8:23] Carl L. Sheline: we need to get that out. Yeah i mean already director Healy has had many conversations with Tyler Tech but the takeaway tonight is that we can do it technically and it is legal to do [8:36] Chrissy Noble: director counselor Noble did you have something. I definitely like a phased-in idea [8:45] Bret Martel: but i want to get some feedback from the people in my ward first before i make a definite decision [8:52] Chrissy Noble: on that and want them to have some feedback. Counselor Chittum thank you Mr. Mayor i don't [9:01] David B. Chittim: know enough about a phased-in approach. I'm assuming that would be if we're targeting 100 percent then we would say we're going to target one third of the difference 40 to 60 percent for the first year 80 percent okay the one year delay i have some concerns about that. I wonder about the liability that the city might be exposed to if the new assessments are put out and those folks who are going to be seeing a reduction in their share of the local tax burden do not see that reduction. Does that expose the city to any action or [9:36] Bryan Kaenrath: liability. Yeah it's a fair question and just you know on that point so the average residential homeowner is seeing I think the average numbers I got 178 percent increase in assessed value over the current but the commercial properties are only 140 percent so you can see and the average I think in total was 173 three percent increase so you can see the difference there between the commercial side and the residential side and where that burden is shifting. So it's a fair question because you can have a number of you know commercial industrial property owners out there that only rose 140 percent and the average 173 so obviously that difference is you know on them so that would be an [10:19] David B. Chittim: Argument against a delay but not necessarily against a phasing approach because that phasing approach would apply equally across the board to all tax classes. So for that reason I would favor a phased approach over a delay and we can get some [10:37] Bryan Kaenrath: Legal guidance on that also. That is an important question I think we should thank you. We do have [10:45] Carl L. Sheline: A couple of counselors absent but you know while we're waiting for final details from director Healy it sounds like at least some of us are in favor of a delay and or a phase to an approach. I guess we'll revisit this when we have more details. Yeah we will proceed. It seems like [11:05] Bryan Kaenrath: There is consensus that there's interest in a phased in approach so we will continue to pursue [11:10] Carl L. Sheline: That and have more information as soon as we can. Excellent okay well there's that and I want talk about two things tonight. We're going to be talking about the city budget and then the school budget and i want to remind counselors that really for both budgets well with the school budget it's very clear we only have control over the bottom line number. So i think discussions about what departments should be affected at the school budget are not appropriate here. If we want to see cuts of the school Budget we need to be talking about just simply numbers rather than where those cuts should take place and then here we need to have a discussion about where we're headed with the city budget and I also wanted to remind the council that you know while we do set policy and direction for the city it's our city administrator who we have here administrator King wrath who decides the day-to-day operations. So what would be most appropriate for us to like come to some conclusion do are we okay with the Budgets out do we want cuts what you know how much do we want to cut and then you know whatever that number is or isn't we will be giving to administration to figure out where those cuts should come from to you know in an effort to lessen the impact on residents. So let's start first with the city budget. How are we feeling about the city budget and where it's at counselor [12:38] David B. Chittim: The city budget is regrettably and unfortunately too high. I believe we need to make further cuts in that, and those cuts obviously are going to be painful. I think that the administration has done what it can and taken all of the fat out of the budget. There are a few drippings left, but I think we need to see a reduction in the budget. Previously the council has targeted a percentage increase. That's not in our toolbox this time around because we don't have enough information to say we want to hold the taxes at three percent, so we really can't do it that way. However, we can, based on the information we do have, say that either we're happy with the budget, which I'm not, or, well, I wouldn't be happy anyway, but that we like to see reductions. I don't know that any counselors want to see increases, but I would certainly vote for or approve or encourage further reductions. The mayor's comments notwithstanding, I have some suggestions which I'll get into upon request, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, and then comes from aging. [13:45] Bryan Kaenrath: Yeah, just briefly, and just so everyone knows, general public watching, we did pass out some updated summary sheets here, and so the city budget currently stands at a six point six percent increase over last year. That's incorporating some of the changes that Director Really talked about in our last meeting, so just for everyone's information, we're currently at six point six percent over last year, county twenty percent, debt service thirteen point three, and the school budget eleven percent of the last year. [14:15] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you for that, and yeah, sorry, is there anything else either Administrator Kenrith or Dr. Roy you want to say about this sheet before we continue? You'll notice [14:23] Bryan Kaenrath: the assessment value is at the five billion. That was also changed from the 4.4. Okay, thank you. [14:31] Carl L. Sheline: counselor in aging yes thank you mr. mayor I also encourage us to do further [14:39] Joshua L. Nagine: cuts. I do want to point out that the increase in the county tax of 1.3 million dollars and also the reduction in revenue sharing of a hundred thousand, which I'm not quite sure how that happened, but I'm wondering if that's still the case. Have we gone back to the state to say why is our revenue share dropped? They [15:00] Bryan Kaenrath: put the estimate out early. Can you move the mic closer to you? Early March they put the estimate out. There should be another one coming out. I don't know if there'll be any changes to that. As I said, I did only budget 95 to be on the conservative side because of course this isn't the final number. As we get closer to the end, we'll have a better estimate. [15:27] Joshua L. Nagine: Okay thank you. So if those numbers stand, that's 2.1 million dollars that we don't really have a way to make up for, one from revenue and one from an increased tax that is just present, and I just want to point that out. So cutting to like a 0% increase would mean that we would be cutting services that we are currently offering to compensate for both the county tax and the lack of revenue sharing. But I do think that we can do a lot better as far as the finished product. I do realize that much of what we're putting forward is staff time and costs like our steps and COLAs, and the employees that we have consume a good portion of our budget, so we have small pieces to move around further. [16:21] Carl L. Sheline: The comments from counselors, Counselor Longchamps. Yes, thank you, Mayor. Sorry, Counselor Longchamps. [16:32] Susan G. Longchamps: I think you guys have done, you know, a great job with doing the best you could, you know, with this budget that you have presented. I do think we have to make, you know, lower it. I don't know how you'll do that or if it's possible. I think now it's going to be positions, and I hate to say that, but I would like to see it lowered a little bit more. Thank you. [17:03] Michael R. Roy: Yes, Counselor Roy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I too am going to jump on that bandwagon. I don't like the word cuts. I don't like positions going away. I don't like that, but I at this point I also know like, you know, everything's going up, and yeah, I'm just on board with everybody else. I think I don't know where it's going to come from, but we do have to really maybe have to go line by line. I don't, I don't know. [17:34] Carl L. Sheline: Yeah, I mean, I do not think it's within our purview to go line by line. That is the administrator's discretion. I think we need to come up with a bottom line number, either percentage or just an absolute number to cut, and then, you know, our administration will work towards achieving that while, you know, affecting residents and services to residents the least. Counselor Noble, do you have anything to say at this point? It does sound like we will be at least discussing laughs, and unfortunately so, if that is the, if that is the case, we do need to recognize a revenue sharing a hundred percent. This is being booked at 100 at other municipalities like Portland, and we cannot be leaving money on the table and then at this while simultaneously making staff cuts. That's like, I cannot support that at all. [18:35] David B. Chittim: counselor chidam thank you to that point mr mayor do we do you have at hand the actual revenue sharing versus projected i know in prior years we have bumped up more closer to the 100 percent than you had recommended but if memory serves the final numbers have come in even higher than the initial estimates so that 's an area that we need to explore and one of the decisions i think the council can make as to whether to accept the finance director's recommendation of budgeting to 95 it was right Of expected state revenue sharing versus 97, 100, or even perhaps 110 based on historical values. So that's an area of consideration. When I said earlier about 3%, I was meeting the entire tax burden, which includes obviously the county and the school. County at 20%, school at, I'm sorry, county at 20% of our budget right now. The increase looks like 8.3 percent according to the information that was just handed out to us. If we were to target four-way, for example, limiting the increase of the total tax. Burden on our taxpayers to the cost of living, let's say 3%, we would be taking such massive cuts in the municipal side, which is the only area we have control over, that it would render the city essentially non-functional. So I don't think it's reasonable to look at a 3%. We are going to have to absorb the 20.4 percent increase. That's just under a million dollars according to this sheet. There's nothing we can do about that. We've done everything that we can. So that's, that's a cost that's going to. Have to be absorbed, and the only way we can do that here on this council is to either direct the school department to lower its bottom line or, in the mayor's view, direct the administrator to lower the city's line. In my view, make suggestions as to where those cuts, painful as they may be, should be made. [20:47] Susan G. Longchamps: Counselor Longchamps, thank you. If we were to leave this budget as is, how much dollar amount would the taxes go up? How much would that be? [21:02] Bryan Kaenrath: And you just be talking about on average for right median valued home, and I mean, so using the new numbers, and I don't know what the bill would help us to give us the actual average valuation for the city, but as I said, 150,000 currently valued house would go to 357. This is the new numbers. I know we want to talk about the old numbers too, but that's, this is the current budget. That's 1200 now. I don't know if 150, that's probably somewhere around our median. It might be a little bit high, but we get the exact numbers from assessing. Sorry. [21:44] Carl L. Sheline: I'm acknowledging that you'll be next, but counselor. [21:50] Susan G. Longchamps: That's okay, still thinking. So at this point, if we lower this number that you have presented us [21:59] Bryan Kaenrath: with, it's jobs, right? Yes, further cuts will almost undoubtedly involve layoffs of current personnel. [22:09] Susan G. Longchamps: Know in positions, how long has that been since we've done that? I [22:16] Bryan Kaenrath: believe we did it in 2008. I'm looking around the room for someone's been here almost as long as, I think 2008 was last time we had to do major layoffs of people who were actually employed over the, in the past we have, as we're doing this year, you know, open positions were frozen or we haven't filled them, but if the cuts that you folks are talking about are going to be bodies and it will affect the services that we're able to provide to the citizens of Lawson and I feel like I [22:47] Susan G. Longchamps: know i just said that 's what we'd have to do because it seems like that's our only option but i think for me as a counselor sitting up here the last two and a half years we worked really hard to fill positions to make departments more desirable so I'm not sure that we should really be cutting jobs I don't I don't think there's anything else we can do but I 'll take back what I said originally I mean you're probably gonna have to do it anyway but I don't think it's a good idea it is going to definitely cut services and things are already difficult enough to meet needs. I just don't think it's a good idea for the city of Williston, so I just want to share that. [23:43] Joshua L. Nagine: Councillor Nagy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just doing some math here. Am I, okay, so I realized that we're not supposed to go line by line through the budget, but I am going to point out some areas in which I think that we should consider before we [24:01] Carl L. Sheline: consider cutting positions. One thing that I, so can I, yeah, can I just speak to that for a quick second? Sure. So I, yeah, I don't know, I think we need to have a conversation about like if we're gonna, I, yeah, I mean, do I have ideas about where the budget can be cut? Sure, absolutely, you know. Is that my role as a member of the council? It is not. We have an administrator to do that work for us. I think that's kind of getting into the weeds. And I think when we're talking about potentially cutting positions, I think us politicizing it up here is going to be counterproductive. And it's going to be bad for the council. It's going to be bad for administration. It's just gonna create all kinds of like unnecessary expectations and I just, I'm very hesitant to, you know, to allow us to do that up here. I appreciate [25:02] Joshua L. Nagine: That Mr. Mayor, two years ago we went through the budget line by line. I'm going to just mention some places where I think that we have some issues, and it has nothing to do with departments. It is suggestions that I think we should book at, and so one piece is 2.8 of our budget is our new, is our new Casella contract. I don't know if we've gone back to figure out what cost we could get if we changed it back to the old, the old system, which the new system isn't even in place right now, but that was a, that was a 100 increase on the new contract, that again 2.8 of our budget. One thought that I had was whether or not we could ask all the departments to extend their vehicle replacement out like maybe 15, 20. I think also when we're looking at the vehicle replacement for the police department, currently they're looking at Tahoe's. I think the Explorers are about 25, 35,000 cheaper. These are just things that like I've come across. What I would like is to have the administration team go back to the different departments and be like, you know, at the end of the day we possibly will lose bodies. Can everybody look at their budgets and figure out if there's any place that we can make sharper cuts in places that don't affect bodies? And that would be, you know, my suggestion and hope, you know. I know that usually collective bargaining agreements are not reopened, but when we start talking about losing people, is it possible to ask different unions to consider adjustments on Cola's, especially for this year where it's going to be tough, and so those are my, those are my general suggestions. I have other ones that I will, I guess, share in private time, and also to not upset the [27:02] Bryan Kaenrath: mayor. Yeah, if I could just respond quickly, no, thank you for that. I absolutely appreciate that, and depending on what the target number is for cuts from the council, we are going to absolutely look at everything and pull out all the stops before we start cutting people in positions. That's, you know, absolutely one of the case, that's the commitment we've made to our employees, that we're going to look for any and all areas of savings before going to positions, so 100 agree on that. Will absolutely be What we do, and depending on what the target number is and how significant the cuts are, we are still hopeful that we can avoid layoffs. But it's going to depend on what that bottom line number and that directive looks like. You know, we'll see where it lands. But so your point is well taken, and we are going to be looking at any and all areas for other potential savings, no matter how small, across all departments in order to avoid layoffs. And you know, we'll see if we can get there, but it's going to depend on [27:59] Carl L. Sheline: how much we're talking about for sure. I appreciate your consideration, counselor, and Aging, enjoy working with you and the rest of the council as we work through these difficult [28:09] Michael R. Roy: times. Counselor Roy, did you have your hand up? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, we don't want to cut people. We're sitting here saying we don't want to, so I think, you know, letting a counselor say, hey, I think there's an area that we should really look at before we even consider, nobody wants to take anybody's job, you know. So I think, you know, when counselor Neijin said that he had some things, I know you kind of got nervous, but let him talk, man. He's, he's not going to say anything bad. So I really, I would really appreciate that, and I thank you guys, because you know, nobody wants to take anybody's job. That's not what we want. But if we can first consider like if we say we want, you know, a bottom line of like maybe a 3.5 percent before we cut any jobs, come back and say this is, this is it, we can only get to 4.2 before we start cutting people, I would like to have that buffer there because I don't want to cut people's jobs. [29:06] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you, councillor Roy. [29:08] David B. Chittim: Counselor, should you have your hand up? Yes, I did, virtually. I agree the last resort is laying people off. Does this budget contemplate people who are retiring over the course of the next year? If so, while the position isn't frozen now, if an individual retires this year, could the end of, could that position be frozen, and would that have any significant effect on the budget, the largest component of which is salaries? I grant that, so I've been looking for high hanging fruit as opposed to salaries, and in deference to the mayor, again, I do have a number of suggestions which I can share in private or in public. They are not department specific, but there are areas where it would be painful, but less painful than saying goodbye to fellow workers and cutting our services in terms of personnel resources. [30:10] Carl L. Sheline: Now that we've all, you know, had a chance to speak on this, and nobody has really offered a bottom line number, the suggestion has been made that perhaps you go back to department heads and, you know, trying to, you know, squeeze some more dollars from budgets that don't involve staff, and then come back to us after that. What do you [30:36] Bryan Kaenrath: think about that, Administrator? I think it would be helpful for us to have, you know, a target. You know, we're basically, and Director Roy can speak to this also, we are just about there as far as cuts and positions there are. Yes, there are some small areas to kind of, you know, find some small savings, but I think we need to get a general idea of, you know, what is the target. You know, we can do some math right now. You know, a penny on the mill rate is 37,500. You know, we can, if we have some ideas of where we'd like to end up with this budget, that may be helpful for us when going back and figuring out, you know, what else can we sort of cobble together. You know, we can certainly do another look through and come up with, I think, some very small areas of savings, but we just don't want this to be a fuel exercise. If we're gonna come back and we found another sixty thousand dollars and that's, that's gonna be two cents on the mill rate and does nothing for us, I think we need to understand, you know, where we want to end up, and it also involves, you know, the school budget also and the city and where overall we want to end up. But so again, thirty seven five is one penny on the mill rate. We can do some math here. So if there's, if there's some general consensus or general desire of where we like to see the, you know, the budget come in, city and school side, or at least give us some direction on the city side, I think that would be generally helpful. I mean, we can, we can certainly go back and look for a and all you know, quarters and the couch cushions we can, we can fund for sure, but if we're going to go through this exercise, I think we need to have a goal in mind of where we're [32:12] Carl L. Sheline: where we're going. Understood. I guess to that end, counselors, I guess if we can, and I'd rather than complain to two, I'd rather just talk about city budget right this second. What kind of decrease from where we're already at do we want to see for the city budget? Numbers or percentages? If it's a percentage, we can have to work to right turn that into a number. [32:35] Joshua L. Nagine: Councilor Nijin. Yes, so looking at the city's expenses. We're looking at an increase of three point six. Three million six hundred seventy two thousand for operating expenses, County taxes, and creating increasing, actually nine oh three five fifty four, which is non-negotiable, and debt service is most probably non-negotiable as well. There's no way to renegotiate our interest or balance owed. So really, we're talking about $3,672,590. I'd like to see that reduced down. Myself, personally, somewhere between $2 million and $2.25 million. [33:20] Bryan Kaenrath: So we can get about another $1.1 million or so for you, $1.2. [33:25] Joshua L. Nagine: Mean I would be really happy if we could take, let's say, 1.7 million dollars off of that. If we could do that, would be low. I realize that. Okay, so 1.7 is kind of your vote. That's my goal. [33:40] Carl L. Sheline: Good, we're just gonna go down the row, I guess, with numbers. Counselor Longchamps, what [33:46] Susan G. Longchamps: are your thoughts? We did the 1.7. Can you move the mic closer to you? We did the 1.7 and it just seems like a lot of positions that would happen. [33:56] Bryan Kaenrath: There will be significant stop cuts. [33:58] Susan G. Longchamps: Yeah, that seems almost impossible. I'd love that number, but I don't think, I don't know, a lot of people would lose their job. Yeah, that doesn't sound like a doable number to me. I don't want to see people lose their jobs. I think you guys have cut in all the areas that you possibly could. I know before you brought this to us we've had discussion before regarding how tight this budget was going to be. I do think if we can delay or phase out the property taxes that is going to take a big burden off taxpayers, so it'll lessen the fear of this going up and having to increase those taxes as well. So I think maybe you could squeeze out a little more as far as not bodies but other things. I think you couldn't do exactly what you're going to do and go back to every line and see if there's anything else that you can do away with. I have confidence in that. So I don't see how we can change the number to be honest at this point without letting go of people. [35:25] Carl L. Sheline: Is that, does that make sense? Yes it does. Just sorry, once I get administrated. So counselor Longchamps, just to be clear, you're declining to provide a number to cut at this point in time. [35:37] Susan G. Longchamps: Yeah, I think I just don't see how we go any lower without bodies leaving and I'm just not comfortable doing that. Yeah, if I could just respond, there are [35:51] Bryan Kaenrath: Please continue. One is we talked about the state revenue sharing earlier, so I believe the difference between ninety five and a hundred percent is approximately six hundred thousand dollars. That's significant, $580,000. So if we were to book 100, that's 580 thousand dollars right there, and that would bring our mill rate down to 17 15. Yep, so that is one area we can look at. That's significant money when in the position we're in. Five hundred eight thousand dollars is significant money. If we're trying to get to say a goal of a million, that's more than halfway there, but not without cutting any bodies, which is you know a positive. So there is that, and there are a couple other you know small areas we can we can find some savings. I would say generally, you know, Director Royden correct me if I'm wrong, if we're talking about more than a million dollars from here, I think we're certainly talking about positions and current positions, bodies and seats. Correct, unless again just a reminder, and I know it's it's your decision on the take-home vehicles, that was one area we did not touch. All the others we looked at, like I said, we removed a lot of capital out of everybody's budget. So besides the take-home vehicles, I think at that point it would be looking [37:18] Carl L. Sheline: at positions. How much is that adding to the budget, the take-home vehicles, four [37:24] Bryan Kaenrath: hundred and ninety thousand nine forty eight. So if we didn't, if we recognize all revenue sharing [37:30] Carl L. Sheline: and didn't do take home vehicles, we'd be at nearly a million at this point. Okay, all right, I wasn't [37:36] Susan G. Longchamps: finished, sorry. Oh sorry, please continue, my apologies. That's good. So you could probably get to six hundred thousand, fair to say, without it being too critical. I would just like to ship to say as far as the take-home vehicles, we have heard several times that is going to be a key tool to filling positions. I know that there was just a some sort of fair at one of the colleges with the police officers trying to recruit officers to our great city. And we have a lot of issues here. We need police presence everywhere. And one of the things that was shared with me was the take-home cars. As a real, we'd love to go there. So as much as I think that would be a large cost off our budget, I just don't think it's a smart idea in the time that we're living in as far as recruiting tools. So I guess I would like to see 600,000 shaved off. I think that's much more doable, and I would really hate to see those take-home cars eliminated from this budget, as I think it is a great tool to fill the positions that are needed. [39:11] Michael R. Roy: It thank you, Councillor Roy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I think Council Nation had some good ideas about re-looking at some contracts. I think, you know, the Casella contract is a good one to look at. I think maybe start there. I think that could shave some money off of, you know, our burden right there. I also think like I was willing to sit here and vote for those take-home cars because I really want to, but at the cost of cutting positions, I can't. So with that being said, I mean, if it comes up next year and if I'm here, I don't know, whatever, but I would definitely vote for that because I think that is a great tool. But for right now, if we can come up with almost 1.1 million dollars with those take-home cars and what you just said, I mean, I'm happy to go down, you know, at least a million. If you can get lower without cutting positions, great. But I'm looking at, you know, at least a million, which would be good. I think we can get to a million without cutting positions. Okay, so and is, I mean, I'd even if I'd push that and go 1.25 if you could do that without kind of positions that's where i would go okay counselor noble so i don't have any numbers [40:27] Bret Martel: but what I will say is I'm with Susan. My ward specifically has a lot of crime and a lot of safety issues where people are not feeling safe in their own homes. They're dealing with unhoused sleeping on their porches, they're being assaulted. I agree that the cars are important for us to be able to recruit good officers, and I want, what I would like to see is for you to go as low as you can go before you have to start having people cut positions, because it's really, difficult in the job market right now. I know this personally. And it's taking people, like, at least, what I was told is eight months to a year to get back into the workforce after losing their jobs. So I don't have a number, but that's where I'm at. I'll accept anything that doesn't involve, you know, people being put out of work, and that also includes the vehicles for the police officers to take home. [41:41] David B. Chittim: Councillor Chittim, thank you. I'd just like to remind council that we can form the budget by removing six hundred thousand dollars by increasing the anticipated state revenue, sherry $580,000. That's a nice piece of change. However, that's just paperwork. That's just playing with the numbers, because the final number is going to be the final number. It's it's a gamble. It really is a gamble if we if we decide to book a hundred percent of the anticipated and it actually comes in at ninety five percent. We're right back where we started, because that money is not going to suddenly appear. It will not appear. So I think Director Roy is being prudent and conservative and cautious in recommending a 95% booking. I just want us to be aware that we're playing we're playing some cards that we don't really know. There's a whole card we don't see. So be aware of that. We simply can't take that money away without understanding what the risk is. As far as numbers, I would prefer to look at a net increase in the. In the tax burden. I appreciate the sentiment that's been raised about not cutting positions. I truly do, and I don't want to do that. It would be the last resort for me. However, against that has to be weighed the cost of keeping those positions on to the taxpayer. We've learned tonight that we might be able to phase these tax increases or faith, I'm sorry, phase the revaluation in. Unless I'm sadly mistaken, that's not going to have one iota of effect on the budget. What it will do is instead of giving. Us a 17 mil tax rate, it will give us a 22 mil tax rate. The burden on the individual taxpayer won't change. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but if we say we're only going to assess at 70% this first year, then the mill rates got to go up, because that's the city is going to collect or needs to collect at this current budget the money it needs to operate. So our decision up here isn't really whether to phase it in or not. Our decision is whether to assess the full or to levy the full 45 million. Dollars that's listed here for taxpayer burden on the cost of operating the city. The other number, the other point I'd like to make, is that this total levy, including those things over which we have no control, the county and minimal control over the school, represents a 13.7 increase in the amount of revenue that is collected from the taxpayers. Now some taxpayers are going to pay 20 50 80 100 more than they did last year, others may end up actually paying less, but the total amount of revenue. collected from the city has under this budget will grow by close to 14 average salaries and income if you look at the consumer price index are hovering around three and a half percent so there's the stone and we're trying to get blood from it our options are protect all jobs in the city at the cost of burdening the taxpayer or protect the taxpayer by keeping the tax rate as low as possible I'm not suggesting this is an easy decision, but I think it's wrong to say, I will not cut jobs. I think the proper approach is to say, I will cut jobs only as a last resort. I think there's an important distinction there. We need to decide how much pain we want to inflict on the taxpayer. That's our primary goal. And that pain can come in the course of what they pay in April and September. It also can come in the form of not being able to drive on the roads in the winter because they're not plowed, not having a police force that can address the crime, which is principally in the downtown area, not having a fire department that can go out to College Street and put out a fire that's roaring at the moment or I guess it's out at the moment I hope so those are the kinds of things the taxpayer is going to feel pain our job is to say is that going to be a financial pain or is it going to be a loss in services pain [46:46] Carl L. Sheline: thank you counselor Chinum did you have a final number that you wanted to provide administration [46:53] David B. Chittim: I don't I will be happy to provide it I'm looking at 13.7 percent and I've just said that it would be ideal if we could make that cost a living 3.5 but that's that's undoable I think with the increases that we've had in the school in the county if somebody wants to do the math quickly by the way I'm going to put a plug in here I brought my laptop for one of the first times to this council meeting and when I turned it on just now it told me for the first time in 27 months that I have to change my password so I have no laptop I had a lot of this stuff all figured out if someone can tell me what effect reducing 13.7 to 3.5 would have on the city tax levy of 45 million dollars that would help well and [47:47] Bryan Kaenrath: obviously the county can't be touched about twenty point four percent so the 13.7 will be coming off of the city and school [47:58] Carl L. Sheline: yeah okay we're kind of going back around but look counselor Neijing and then counselor Longchamps okay one piece is if we [48:14] Joshua L. Nagine: Don't know what the revenue sharing formula, what the actual number is going to be. That is a hard part. We just basically said, hey Shazam, we created six hundred thousand dollars or five hundred and eighty thousand dollars, which changes my cut number to two point two million. Ultimately, what I would like to see is to hold the operating expenses budget to somewhere between three and three and a half percent increase. And I realize that people are saying that this is going to be jobs that we're cutting, but I don't necessarily agree with that. I think that going back to the directors to say, how can you figure out ways to save? I'm thinking about, even when we talk about the LCIP, we have a bunch of bond spending that we never ever spend in a given year. And it just falls into these categories that, and so instead of borrowing from, writing new bond funds to fund some of the things in the LCIP, do we talk about making sure that all the money that we allocated previously is actually spent from the LCIP accounts? The challenge that I'm seeing here is that like we've run a government a particular way as far as both the way that we account and the way that we perform services and I think like If we can get leaner and slimmer and more efficient on a department level then that saves overall I'm comfortable with saying that six point six percent becomes three point three point zero or three point five That 's my position [49:48] Susan G. Longchamps: COUNSELOR LONGCHAMPS. YEAH, FINAL THOUGHT. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I DO CARE ABOUT THE TAXPAYERS. AND I'M NOT JUST THINKING ABOUT CITY STAFF, ALTHOUGH A LOT OF OUR CITY STAFF DO LIVE AND PAY TAXES HERE IN LOUISSTON. SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. [50:10] Carl L. Sheline: BASED ON ALL THE FEEDBACK FROM US, DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED FOR THE CITY BUDGET ADMINISTRATOR? [50:16] Bryan Kaenrath: Kane, yeah, I think we have some general framework and I think we can come back next week maybe with a couple scenarios of this is what it looks like with a million cut, this is what it looks like with a million five, is what it looks like with two million, and these are the potential impacts at those, at those levels, and then we can go from there if that sounds reasonable. Sounds good. [50:36] Carl L. Sheline: Now for the school budget, what guidance we want to give the school budget and give the school committee in terms of and just a number of further cuts and yeah if any councillor Neji so I am going to speak to something quickly [51:01] Joshua L. Nagine: I am reticent to lose student facing positions. That is, that is absolutely the case. I am reticent to lose student facing positions, especially in some of the burden school buildings. I know the dean of students is very important. I know the middle school health mental health counselor is very important. I do think that some cuts should be made. I trust that the school committee knows what those are, and I would, I would ask that, I'm not going to say, I'm not going to assign a number. I'm very nervous about losing student facing positions. If there's places that can be cut otherwise that don't affect the function in the schools, then that's what they should do. And obviously because it's voted, these tax increases are going to be very hard, I think, for the community, and we know how much they struggle already through the referendums, and so I'm not gonna pile on to that in way should perform. I support the school budget that was put forward with the exception of losing [52:16] Carl L. Sheline: those student facing positions. Anything you want to do, you want to chime [52:22] Susan G. Longchamps: in on this, counselor Longchamps? Sure, thank you. I'm not for losing teachers. We have a lot of kids in our schools. We have a lot of kids with different unique challenges. I think, I think our school committee does a great job. They've come up with their budget. I hope it's passed, and I really am not going to tell them where [52:53] Carl L. Sheline: they should cut. Thank you. Yeah, and just for you know, I guess all of us and the public, we cannot tell them where they should cut, but we do have say over the final, the final number. In fact, we vote on it, and then the public gets to vote on it. Councillor Roy, did you have any thoughts? [53:14] Michael R. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My thoughts are exactly what the other councillors have said. I do not want to lose any student facing positions at this point. I think the cuts that are proposed, some of those schools cannot absorb the cuts that are going to be happening, and I am not in favor of that. I am in favor of education, and I think in the long run that is best for our city, is educating our kids, and we need to continue doing that. As far as a number and all that stuff, obviously I'm not a, I'm, I'm not a professional in that area. I don't know what numbers I would be throwing out there, but I would say like the other counselors before me, save the positions and go with that number and try to find other things that can be cut other than student facing positions. That's, that's the way I [54:04] Chrissy Noble: look at that. Thank you, counselor Noble. Same, I got a lot of [54:11] Bret Martel: Emails talking about the Dean of Students and a truancy officer too. I don't remember exactly what the position was. I trust that the city of Lewiston will be able to vote and figure that out. [54:29] Carl L. Sheline: Counselor Chinem, do you have any thoughts? [54:32] David B. Chittim: Thank you. Yes, I do. I hold out very little hope that this referendum, the school budget referendum, will pass on the first ballot because of circumstances beyond the school committee's control, partially because the county has imposed a significant burden on us this year, partially because we have assumed a burden ourselves in the payroll and the costs and the salaries and expenses beyond our control. One thing to look at, and I'm playing with these numbers here in my head, if the city and the school both suffer the same pain, that might seem to be an equitable solution, and I guess I would measure that pain by keeping the percentage increase in both organizations identical. There has been a huge cry, or a cry, for the city to absorb the excess school costs, which are as much under the city, the school committee's control, as our budget is under ours. But if we make that equitable so that both the school department and, I am not an advocate at all of cutting school budgets, I am not an advocate of cutting student-facing positions, but the hard reality is that if we want our cake, we have to pay for it, and the concerns I have are we're growing increasingly unable to pay for that. So one solution would be to say let the school and the city suffer the same pain and equalize that so that each budget is increased by the same amount, and that amount be as low as possible. I know that's already been done by the school committee, by the superintendent, by administration here, excuse me, on the city side, but if we can equalize those, that will take away a lot of the argument that this is an unfair situation, and it, I think in my mind, will increase the chances that the school budget would pass on the first or second referendum. Now bear in mind that every time we have another one of these referendums, it costs us what, six, eight thousand, ten thousand dollars in polling costs, so if we don't get it passed on the first one, we're just adding to our own financial burdens. [57:18] Carl L. Sheline: I'm not sure I'm quite on board with our arbitrary goal, but I absolutely agree with you that where the school budget is at right now, it will not pass referendum. And so, yeah, they have some work to do. I definitely do not want to see positions cut, but yeah, I just have a hard time believing it's, it's passing in its current form. Yeah, final thoughts about the school budget. [57:46] Joshua L. Nagine: counselor and agent i just wanted to point her out point out the differences too right now the school budget we're looking at this one number is 100 and sorry give me just one second am i reading this correct that 's that's we're looking at can you point to me on the on the school budget line where the total expenses are the 122 million 98 right school operating expenses which does not show the municipal side right which is only 37 million is that correct [58:23] Bryan Kaenrath: I thought it was 39, but yeah, or 39. For the municipal side, if you look up top, is 59, 139, 305. [58:33] Joshua L. Nagine: Right, but the, but the city portion of the of the school budget is not reflected here. [58:39] Bryan Kaenrath: That's the total budget correct for the tax levy is, so down is the proposed tax levy school 35 million force. [58:46] Joshua L. Nagine: So it's only 35 million for that support 17. Okay, but their total budget is the hundred and twenty two million. Right, and also we're not using any fund balance this year. They're applying nine million dollars of their fund balance to their budget. If we, if we ask a significant reduction on the school budget on the school side, that is all staff, that's all that it's, they have six hundred, six hundred plus employees within the school. I mean, possibly they could, I think it's more like a hundred, twelve hundred, sorry, twelve hundred, yes, twelve. hundred so like when we're talking about these reductions like I want the budgets to be as tight and clean as they possibly can that 's what i want to see and at the end of the day i think on the city side if we cannot get to a three percent or two or three and a half percent increase then we need and that's on the operating expenses then we need to consider whether or not we are going to let people go that but i'm not going to make that decision for the schools [59:58] Carl L. Sheline: Unless our final thoughts, I think the school committee has some feedback from. [1:00:02] Bryan Kaenrath: The council, any final thoughts from you too? So for that number to get down to 3.5, we would have to cut seven, 7.8 million dollars to get to 3.5 of the tax that's on the operating budget for the city, that's on the tax levy, because you would mention you wanted 3.5 for the tax levy because it's currently at that 13.7 between city and school, about 7.8 million. Okay. [1:00:39] David B. Chittim: thank you that 's a good number to have but not necessarily a target thank you any [1:00:47] Carl L. Sheline: final thoughts from Councillor Chittim? Yes, I have a [1:00:52] David B. Chittim: specific question, not a wrap-up or a final thought, and that pertains to the water increases. As I was going through the budget, I noticed that the hydrant rental has increased significantly, and again, without my laptop, the number that appeared in the budget appeared to be different than the number that was proposed as a ten percent increase in water of our hydrant [1:01:20] Bryan Kaenrath: RENDALL'S. And can you address that? So when the budget was put together originally, there was going to be no water increase until we put together the water budget and noticed that it would be, if you look at on your sheet, it would bring way down leave in therefore no fund balance if there was some major issue that happened. So we then decided to do the 10 increase. Therefore increase in the hydrants, it doesn't automatically increase it ten percent because there's a, the way it is increased, it's like a partial of three quarters. So that's why it didn't go up a full ten percent. It seems to me it went up more than ten [1:02:09] David B. Chittim: percent if i can get my photographic memory back we're paying 108 000 a year for hydrant rental now and the increase would take it to i'm sorry 1.08 million is what we're paying for hydrant rental it's proposed in the budget that go to 1.3 million or i'm sorry 130 000 again i 'm i'm missing a decimal point here but the increase that was shown in the budget is a great deal more than 10 percent the main point i'm trying to get to is that this is simply a transfer from the taxpayer to the rate payer. The taxpayers are paying the hydrant rental bill, everybody, all the folks out ward six who have about 27 hydrants in their entire ward are paying for this hydrant rental, and that money is being transferred into the account that benefits, it's the rate payer, the water user. So my question is, does the PUC permit a municipality to give itself free hydrant rentals from its own utility? I believe [1:03:34] Bryan Kaenrath: not. I believe it's, it's the law, and I can look that up and email you all of [1:03:39] David B. Chittim: That information on the hydrant rentals, oh, okay, thank you. I'd appreciate that. I can do that myself too. And in fact, Director Roy, why don't you let me do that, because you certainly have enough on your plate right now. Director Kanye is here and, yeah, I think, thank you, Councillor Chittim, yes. [1:04:00] Carl L. Sheline: We have Director Kanye here, our hygiene rental expert, Director of Public Works, please enlighten. [1:04:07] Bryan Kaenrath: Necessary, thank you. To add on to what Director Roy said, the reason why there's an equation that you're required to use for hydrant rental and hydro fees is for the explicit reason that there needs to be a shared burden in a city that the hydrants are in. So if we were a district that puts the burden on the city that's being served by the district to pay for fire protection, so there's no waivers that we can get to be able to, of all years. We've been doing rate fees. That's the equation that's used, and there's no allotment to say you get a pass. [1:04:45] David B. Chittim: Thank you, Director. Sorry for the bad news. Just to put a pin in that, what that is doing is taking the taxes from Ward six and applying them towards one through five and seven, because we have very few hydrants in Ward six. [1:05:03] Bryan Kaenrath: So the equation actually isn't based on the number of hydrants. If we add 100 hydrants, our rate is not going up to that. Our rate is based, and I do not know the equation that is done by our finance staff that do that equation. It is based on the amount of protection in the city, and it's not based on the amount of hydrants in a ward or in an area. [1:05:28] David B. Chittim: Okay. I appreciate that. I will do my homework. [1:05:32] Bryan Kaenrath: and I will get additional details on what that equation is, but I know in talking with Deputy Len festy that 's that's how the equation works because I've heard from the fire department in the past Stop putting in new fire hydrants. It's not based on the number of fire hydrants that are in the city It's it's based on a different equation. I [1:05:50] David B. Chittim: Understand that. My point being that a vast section of the city that does not benefit from hydrants is being charged for hydrants. [1:05:58] Bryan Kaenrath: Duly noted. I think it's accurate. [1:06:00] Carl L. Sheline: It is. There anything else that you need from us, Administrator Kenneth, Director Roy? At this point, no, I think we'll be back next week, appreciate it. Sounds good. All right, counselors, are we good? [1:06:12] Joshua L. Nagine: Counselor and Agent, did you have something just really quickly? This is the third budget that I've gone through, and this one is vastly different in the process that we've taken than either of the other two, which were both also different from each other. I'm, I'm fine with some of this. I'm, I'm not fine with having conversations about where I think that I should make adjustments in private. And so, you know, it's just one of those things that at the end of the day, I think that like there's an expectation from the public that as protectors of the, of the purse strings, we're accountable to the public in a public way. And so I appreciate that we're putting our faith and trust in our paid staff, which I don't have a problem with, but at the same time, there is an expectation that we perform our duties as well. That's all, and I just wanted to point that out. [1:07:08] Carl L. Sheline: I appreciate that. You know, I do not think that it's appropriate for us to be providing that input to our administrator either here publicly or privately. Like the details of the budget and the weeds of, you know, getting into the weeds about, you know, where cuts need to happen are most certainly what we pay our city administrator for, and I think we should leave that to him while we set policy and determine the final number. Yes, Councillor Chittim. So if I could [1:07:41] David B. Chittim: summarize your argument, Mr. Mayor, we have the same amount of control over the city budget that we do [1:07:47] Carl L. Sheline: the school budget. That's one, I mean, that's one way to look at it. Like we can certainly provide feedback, but I, as I, you know, without, you know, continuing to repeat myself, I think it'll be counterproductive to start to name positions that we feel that we should cut. While we all have ideas, I think we can let our administration team come back to us with their ideas. There can prevent, they're going to present, it sounds like, several proposals [1:08:14] Bryan Kaenrath: Administrator Camera. Yeah, some different dollar amounts, and I'll just say, you know, this is not the comment on your process here, but whatever we bring back will be itemized as to what the savings are at this number. It will not include specific positions and names, of course. We don't want to be doing that. If it DOES INVOLVE POSITIONS AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL SAVINGS ACHIEVED WITH A NUMBER OF POSITIONS, BUT WILL NOT INCLUDE THE PEOPLE'S NAMES CERTAINLY OR WHAT THE ACTUAL POSITIONS ARE FOR OBVIOUS Reasons, but we'll, we'll plan on providing that. But again, whatever process you use is fine with us, we'll comply with. But I just want to be clear that we're going to be coming back with an itemized list of where all these cuts are and, associated dollar figures. [1:09:04] David B. Chittim: Yes, counselor should have. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Could I ask, pursuant to my earlier question, whether or not the department heads or HR can provide a list of people who are anticipating retiring over the course of the next fiscal year? And again, to follow that up, was that anticipation factored into the budget? So I think the short answer is no, we don't. [1:09:31] Bryan Kaenrath: Know they're retired, potential retirement dates, they're obviously mid year, so I don't think we could, you know, budget for just, you know, they're gonna be over for only four months of the year, so I think that becomes difficult. I'm sure we have, you know, some knowledge of some anticipated retirements, but others we don't. People don't always give six months or a year notice, and when they intend to retire, sometimes it's relatively short. So I think that's a much more, you know, nebulous target. just based on potential retirement dates, we certainly wouldn't want to give a actual list of names, again, as we, as we talked about. So I think undoubtedly there will be retirements over the next year, when they're occurring and what departments, I think that's, you know, pretty murky. Thank [1:10:19] Carl L. Sheline: you. Yes, concern aging, thank you. So one of those [1:10:25] Joshua L. Nagine: things, and I believe we have quite a few employees in the city who are at or past retirement age at this point. And so when we're having discussions with department heads, I think it might have some value to say, you know, I don't know if I'm not, I'm not suggesting that the city do this, but in certain cases I know that other municipalities have offered some type of retirement package in order to get that position vacated and then not fill it. And I don't know if that's a possibility, but I just wanted to put it forward. Any [1:11:02] Carl L. Sheline: further thoughts from director Royer, administrator Cane Wrath? Thank you. Okay, deputy administrator O'Malley, appreciate you being here, and all the department heads, appreciate you being here. I think we're calling it a night. We're going to be back here Tuesday at 6 p.m. Is that correct, administrator Kenra? That's correct. Okay, you all have a wonderful weekend. Thank you, thank you. [1:11:29] Michael R. Roy: Thank you everybody, sorry.