Lewiston Council debates budget amendment rules and two-year revaluation delay

[0:01] Carl L. Sheline: Hello and welcome to our Thursday evening budget workshop. So we're going to be discussing the amendment process for budget amendments with Marty Eisenstein, our city attorney. Following that, I was speaking with Administrator Kainrath and we'll probably engage in a discussion about the reval. But for right now, Mr. Eisenstein, please kick us off. [0:28] Marty Eisenstein: So I apologize for providing to you a two-page outline of the stuff we're gonna talk about, but it's fairly, you know, it's like working through a maze, if you want, if you will, because of the different provisions both of the city charter and the school and the school law, state law. So I thought we would just very briefly go through those provisions. I don't want to spend more than two to five minutes on it, and then throw the floor open for questions. I'm prepared to answer anything and everything about the budget, not about what I did last night. So section 6.07 g of the chart, all the references to section in this document are to the charter. When I refer to a statute, I refer to the MRS, main revised statute citation. Section 6.07 provides that the council, by resolution, adopts the budget honor before 5-31-26. And if it doesn't, then the city administrator has 72 hours up until 11-59 on 6-3-26 six to adopt a quote final close quote budget. The city council nevertheless has until the 30th, excuse me, the 30th of June, and again at that 11 59, to adopt its own budget, and that could be, and it could propose amendments to the city administrator's budget both before and after the 31st. You're fully free to do that, broad clause providing for amendments. The only, the biggest caveat on the budget is, as I reported in a separate email or a letter, a memo I should say, is the limitation to the CPU increase, CPI dash you, northeast region increase, so the tax levy can be no greater than 3.3 percent of last year's budget, and that includes all parts of the municipal budget, the municipal non school budget and the school budget and the contributions to the county. So it's a real, it's a real limitation on the power of the City Council that can be waived by a affirmative vote of five city counselors pursuant to section 6.07 I weighed in on that last week with a memo. Happy to talk about that as well. The school budget, which has its own special place under main law, is provided, it provided for in sections 5.04 a and 6.01b, and it basically says school committee proposes a budget, but you have to follow state law as well. So, and state law doesn't say anything about a municipal school department. It says a lot about regional school unions, and the state law, for whatever the reason, says municipalities follow regional school unions, RSU's. Only in certain cases, so you have to wait your way through reading the statutes, and it's, it's a fun exercise, I can assure you. The first step in the process, as I said, is that the school committee approves the budget for submission to the council, and that's happened already, as you know. The next step, per the statute and the Charter, is for the council to approve the school department budget, and that approval can be done separately from the municipal budget, the non school budget that could be a separate vote, and you may want to take a separate vote because of the following steps that I'm about to describe. The next step in the process under state law, and we and the city has followed that in the past, is the City Council puts the approved budget, school budget I should say, out to referendum, and per section 1486, and if the voters, should the voters reject the proposed school budget, the City Council then goes back to follow the same process as before with school committee weighing in with a proposed budget, city approving or not approving the budget, and then sending it out to the voters. That should take place between 10 and 45 days after the first vote. By some chance, the voters do not approve the school budget, what the law says, what section 1487 of the statute says, is that the budget that goes into effect is the budget that was submitted, approved by the City Council and submitted to the voters, so it's the last budget approved by the City Council and submitted to the voters for referendum, that's the guiding document, and that the assessor can use as a basis to assess tax and for property evaluations, and I think this has happened once or twice before in the past for the city of Lewiston. If the City Council rejects the school committee's recommendation, recommended budget, the practice has been to send it back to the school committee to develop an appropriate budget per the guidelines of this, of the city. So with that, i would throw the floor open for any questions you [6:41] Carl L. Sheline: May have, thank you Mr. Eisenstein. Before we take questions from the council, I would like to just ask a few clarifying questions. So can you give us a, an example of what would be an appropriate amendment for a city councilor to submit? Well, aside from [7:01] Marty Eisenstein: You mean to the school committee for the city budget? Sorry, anything and everything. If you want to say that we want to reduce the police department, or we want to increase the police department, the staffing or the resources, if we want to increase the resources for the library, any department, any program, you can increase or decrease. The language is very broad, Mr. Mayor, and the language says that the amendment to the budget may add or increase programs or amounts and may delete or decrease any programs or amounts except expenditures required by law or for debt service. So an example, you can't say we disagree with the proposed budget, Mr. Administrator, and the debt service should be X dollars less. If that debt service is required, you can't weigh in and say, we're going to reduce the debt service. That would be one off-limit item. But it's generally very, broad. [8:15] Carl L. Sheline: Okay. Thank you for that. Yes, questions, comments from the council? Councilor Herman. [8:21] Scott A. Harriman: Thank you for being here this evening. I had a question on the budget expenditure limit with the, where we're comparing it to the CPI. I, my understanding was that only applied to the municipal tax levy, which is the charter says in 6.07H, the percent increase in the municipal tax levy, correct, compared to the proceeding fiscal year budget. So I understood that to be only the city part of the budget and not the county or the school. No, it's not, it applies [8:52] Marty Eisenstein: to the entire budget because the tax levy is for the entire budget, both non-school committee municipal expenditures, municipal school committee expenditures, school budget expenditures, and county expenditures. So it applies across the board. Unfortunately, even though it specifically calls [9:11] Scott A. Harriman: out the municipal tax and not the school tax or this county tax. Well, there is no such thing as [9:16] Marty Eisenstein: A school tax, there's a municipal tax levy, I should say. Well, again, there isn't such a thing as, unfortunately, I understand the issue. And you know what's quite interesting is that very section, the following subsection does not, the following subsection, yeah, the following subsection does distinguish between non-school expenditures. So when the administrator proposes is a budget within 72 hours after May 31st, it's only for the non-municip, for the non-school committee, or only the municipal expenditure. so the charter does distinguish between those expenditures but not in terms of the tax levy okay thank you counselor long champs I [10:08] Susan G. Longchamps: WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE IF OUR DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR LOOKS A LITTLE MAYBE LIKE HE DOESN'T COMPLETELY AGREE OR HAS DONE THINGS DIFFERENTLY. COULD SOMEONE HELP US? [10:22] Carl L. Sheline: DIRECTOR ROY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? [10:25] Bryan Kaenrath: SO TECHNICALLY THE COUNTY SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED THE MUNICIPAL BUDGET BECAUSE THE COUNTY, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS COLLECTING THEIR TAXES FOR THEM AND SUBMITTING IT TO THEM. So if that other piece of the charter states that he has 72 hours to just come back and give his, not the schools, just the municipal, doesn't that just say that the municipal is city, not including the school, because he can't, if he has to get to 3.3 and can't do the school or get to the CPI and it doesn't include the school, then that to me says that is only the city. [11:09] Marty Eisenstein: I'M SORRY, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IF YOU READ 3.03H, THE PERCENT INCREASE IN THE MUNICIPAL TAX LEVY, IS THERE A SEPARATE TAX LEVY FOR SCHOOLS? [11:20] Carl L. Sheline: SORRY, ONE SECOND. I KNOW THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT HER, BUT ALSO MOVE THE MIC SO OUR FOLKS AT HOME CAN ALSO HEAR. [11:27] Marty Eisenstein: MY QUESTION IS, THERE A SEPARATE MUNICIPAL TAX LEVY FOR SCHOOLS? Is there a separate municipal tax levy for the county portion of the expenditures? [11:44] Scott A. Harriman: There is, yeah, we have, I mean, we have on our sheet here we have the proposed tax levy for the city, 39.5, I might be looking at, yeah, that's last year, 42.2 million, school 34.05, [12:01] Marty Eisenstein: 5.3 million, so but when the tax assessor assesses a tax levy, he assesses to produce total revenues so that the total revenues equal the total expenses, and there are three components as my understanding of those expenses. Component one are the non-school Municipal expenses, component two are the school expenses, and component three are the contribution by the city of Lewiston to the county assessment. So that would be my reading. I may be wrong about it. I stand corrected if I am wrong, but I would Like to see when the levy goes out, it's meant to address the property owner, and the property owner makes only one payment, and that's of a municipal tax based upon the property owner's assessed value and the actual mill rate that the assessor issues, and all of those revenues that are compared against the expenses are revenues from only one source. So whether the presentation to you is in three components or one component, it still comes down to the same bottom line as far as I understand it. Okay, I don't think that's how we've ever done it, but I'm not an attorney, so yeah, and I'm, I stand corrected, of course, if you've done it differently, but I would like to know how you've done it in the past if that's [13:52] Bryan Kaenrath: the case. So in the past it's always been off of the city portion only, which includes the overlay, because that whole section that you mentioned, he, the city administrator has 72 hours to come back with the cuts for just the city to get to the CPI, not including the school, because if we have to include the school, the city administrator doesn't have the rights to cut down their budget and make the CPI match to 3.3 percent. So that portion of the Charter kind of pulls school out of the city administrator's purview to get the budget down to the CPI. [14:40] Marty Eisenstein: But that's not what subsection, with all due respect, that's not what subsection she says. It only is that comes into play when the City Council doesn't adopt a budget by May 31. It does, has nothing to do with the subsection about the limitation to the CPI increase. He, all that he can do is manage the non school committee budget, and that's what he has to do. It's whether it's 3.3 percent or not, that's what his emergency or his final budget is, and then it's up to the city council either to decide to agree with that budget or to amend that budget and or to adopt by five affirmative votes an increase beyond the cap of 3.3 percent in this case. [15:44] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you, thank you for your guidance. Yeah, hopefully we don't get to a spot where we are not in agreement on a budget, and hopefully we can pass the budget, and hopefully all of this is a moot point. Yeah, I, do you have anything further to add, from administration at this point? Director Royal, Administrator Kane? Reth? No, please proceed. Thanks. Okay, all right, Counselor Longchamps, did I recognize you? Did you have any other further questions? No, thank you. [16:21] Joshua L. Nagine: Councilor Nagy Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Real quickly, we absolutely have the power if we decided to, for instance, defund an entire department if we so decide, decided, we could also remove specific positions if we so decided, is that [16:38] Marty Eisenstein: correct, if a position is within it, sure, yes, okay, that's one of the parts that I was a little confused on, you mean as part of the budgetary process, arrest, YES. YES. [16:50] Joshua L. Nagine: SO LET'S SAY WE PROPOSE TO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS, BUT IF WE SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN H.R. DEPARTMENT, WE COULD DEFUND IT. [17:00] Marty Eisenstein: AS LONG AS THERE'S NO STATE LAW THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN H.R. DEPARTMENT. WHICH I'M SURE THERE IS. BUT, YEAH. [17:06] Joshua L. Nagine: OKAY. OKAY. THAT WAS, I THINK, MY BIG POINT. [17:14] David B. Chittim: COUNCILOR CHIDDUM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION OF MUNICIPAL LEVY. I APPRECIATE YOUR GUIDANCE CERTAINLY, BUT I'M, I'M BELIEVING THAT THE MUNICIPAL TAX LEVY SHOULD CONSIST OF THE OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE CITY, THE COUNTY TAX, AND OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE OPERATING BUDGET OF THE CITY IS THE DEBT SERVICE. FROM A practical standpoint, there is no way that this council can reduce the operating expenses, the county tax, and the debt service to only 3.3% over last year. Last year was 67 million, this year were in the, in the neighborhood of 73 million. In order to do that, we would be wiping out entire departments. So given IN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY TO PASS A BUDGET THAT EXCEEDS 3.3 PERCENT, I THINK IT IS INCUMBENT ON US TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS BUDGET, THE MUNICIPAL BUDGET, INCLUDES THE COUNTY TAX, IT EXCLUDES THE SCHOOL BUDGET, BECAUSE THAT IN MY OPINION, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY UP HERE TO INTERPRET, DESPITE ADVICE FROM OUR ATTORNEY, WE have the authority to interpret the charter as we see it. Now, we want to go to the experts and ask for their opinions, but their opinions aren't the law that we have to follow. We're going to have to make that decision ourselves, and i don't see that poorly worded as this charter is, the percent increase in the municipal tax levy can be interpreted to include the schools. So esteemed council and i disagree on this, and i think but he will agree, i believe that we have the authority to make this interpretation ourselves, not withstanding advice from expert counsel, is that correct? Which part, the fact that we can interpret this charter ourselves? [19:25] Marty Eisenstein: You can interpret the charter, but what is it that bears interpreting about the term tax levy? [19:37] David B. Chittim: Municipal tax levy, your interpretation, if I'm not mistaken, says that this includes the school budget. My [19:47] Marty Eisenstein: interpretation is as follows: a tax levy is made by the city for a fiscal year, and that tax levy, by charter and by state law, should produce enough revenue to pay all of the expenses of the city. The expenses of the city include both the non-school committee expenses as well as the school department expenses. How else is the school committee funded other than by the municipal tax levy? If [20:27] David B. Chittim: we could gauge in a little bit of dialogue here, Mr. Mayor, if I may. [20:32] Carl L. Sheline: Counselor, so yeah, I mean, we can certainly go back and forth all evening. I guess what I was trying to say before is I recognize that our council has provided his interpretation, and I understand there's disagreement among the council what these terms mean, and I guess, you know, in, and also if we're obliged to follow his counsel, I guess if, and don't take this the wrong way, Mr. Eisenstein, if we are unwilling to accept his counsel on this, we could perhaps, you know, get a second opinion from the MMA attorneys. Would that be possible, Administrator Kane? Ref, we can get an opinion wherever, absolutely. Yeah, so rather than, I guess, have a legal argument and debate ad nauseum this evening, you know, recognize that, and also hoping that we don't get to that spot, and we have a, we're able to pass a budget with, with the super majority, I would like to, yeah, and if I would like to kind of table that discussion, and if we need, if we need, if we're, if we need further guidance, we could, get a second opinion from another municipal attorney. But, yes, Councilor, I recognize you again, Councilor Chiddom. [21:57] David B. Chittim: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess my point is, in reality here, if we include the school budget, we're looking at a 12% increase. We have no control over the school budget. Therefore, we've got to make up nine points in those areas over which we do have control, which is the municipal operating expenses. We cannot control the county. We cannot control the debt service. There is not enough money in the operating cost to get us to the consumer price index. So from a practical standpoint this year, we have no choice. If we cannot get a super majority to pass this 12 increase as currently laid out, we default to the administrator's budget, and we go into the mechanisms that are spelled out in state law on in the charter. So my argument is that we can get all of the advice that we want, and we listen to that advice, but we are not Compelled to adhere to that advice, so it's our decision here, in my view, as to whether or not the wording in the charter municipal tax levy includes or excludes the school budget. Only by excluding the school budget do we even stand a prayer of getting down to the three point three percent and avoiding the requirement for five of us to come to agreement. I'd love to have five of us come to agreement, but unfortunately that means we're agreeing that we want to assess more taxes on the taxpayer, so That's where I see it falling out. Good point of clarification, really [23:42] Joshua L. Nagine: Quickly, yes, counselor in aging, the documents that are in front of us show 8.1 percent increase in the municipal and the total tax levy, not a 12 percent increase. So if you look at the paper that was handed out today, it's 8.1 percent is what we're looking at total. I just want to clarify that we're not talking about 12 percent, we're talking about 8.1. Well [24:13] Carl L. Sheline: What, were you finished [24:15] Joshua L. Nagine: Counseling aging, I just want that, I want that point clarified before we move [24:19] Carl L. Sheline: forward understood all right counselor and then to our council i 'm i am swimming in [24:26] David B. Chittim: Numbers here. We've had so many different budgets pushed at us and we've discussed so many. We have take home, we have tier one through three with and without take home vehicles. I apologize if I'm misquoting. I'm looking at a spreadsheet that I have that recognizes an 11 percent City, eleven and a half percent school, and nineteen percent County Increases, and that on this spreadsheet comes up to twelve percent. I've seen others that have it down, it at ten percent. So whatever the number is, it is, in my view, unattainable [25:00] Carl L. Sheline: Mr. Mayor, just for our occasion one second, administrative gain wrath, councilor Chittum, please finish [25:08] David B. Chittim: I'm, I'm accepting responsibility for my misstatement if it's true of a 12%. My point is that we are so far from 3.3 that we're not going to make it no matter what the [25:20] Joshua L. Nagine: Percentage is. Understood. I think the point of counselor on the administrator, I'm sorry, I think the point I'm looking for, the point of clarification, and so [25:29] Carl L. Sheline: Can, we're gonna get to administration in a second. Thank You councillor Eugene. I would encourage the council to only speak when recognized. Did you want to say SOMETHING? UH MR EISENSTEIN, IT'S PROBABLY IN LINE WITH WHAT COUNCILOR NEGINE WANTS IS I WOULD LIKE [25:44] Marty Eisenstein: CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THAT 8.1 PERCENT REPRESENTS. DOES THAT INCLUDE, IS THAT THE TAX LEVY AS FAR AS [25:52] Joshua L. Nagine: YOU UNDERSTAND THE DOCUMENT THAT I'M SHOWING, IT WOULD BE THE ENTIRE TAX PASSED ON TO INCLUDING [25:57] Marty Eisenstein: All sections right, thank you. And my follow-up question, does that include all three, city, school, and county? Looks like it does. So I hate to oppose what the City Council president has said, but the proof is in the pudding. Your own budget shows that the tax levy includes city, county, and school. I'm not making it up. That's the way, that's the way it is. So that's their interpretation. Thank you, administrator. [26:37] Carl L. Sheline: One second, Counselor Herman. Administrator Kenroth, please. No, my only point was the document [26:45] Bryan Kaenrath: we're referring to is the one you should have, tier one with take home vehicles updated, school budget numbers 4 29 26. You'll see under total tax only 8.1 percent, just so we're all in the same [26:56] Carl L. Sheline: document. Thank you. The one that was, on our days when we walked in. Okay, thank you. Councilor [27:03] Joshua L. Nagine: Nagine, did you have anything further? No, now that the point's been clarified, I'm fine, thank you. [27:08] Scott A. Harriman: I appreciate that, Councilor Herman. Yes, I just wanted to clarify also on this document, the total tax levy proposed increase is 8.1 percent. The municipal part of that is 6.8 percent as proposed right now, and that's what I was referring to when I was referring to the charter, talking about the municipal tax levy. The total on this document is 8.1, but not the municipal part. Councilor Long, [27:34] Susan G. Longchamps: Champs, did you have something? I can't really remember, except for I want to thank you for being here, and I feel like there have been some things that have said, that have been said this evening that lead me to believe that maybe if they're not going to take your advice, why the hell are we wasting taxpayers money? Right? Councilor, decorum, please. so what I'm saying is, thank you for being here. I just feel like, you know, just because we don't like your answers doesn't mean that they're not right, OR SO I 'M GOING TO BE QUIET FOR NOW THANK YOU UH COUNCILORS I IF [28:19] Carl L. Sheline: you will allow me to propose that we are likely done with that part of the discussion, and I'd like to recognize questions, comments about the amendment process or anything further while we have our attorney here. Yes, Counselor Harriman. So I guess I [28:39] Scott A. Harriman: think it was asked before, but I just wanted to clarify that we as the council have discretion in each piece of the budget, and including that isn't only depart, at the department level, that's within departments, so programs, positions, things like that. We have the authority as a council to either add or delete those things as we see fit, because that hasn't been, that's not [29:10] Marty Eisenstein: What's been communicated to us I can't answer what's been communicated to you, but my reading of the Charter is that you can change, increase, or decrease. Change which means increase or decrease, but you can change amounts, programs, and by its very nature positions, because a position is part of the program. So yes, I read that as broadly. Okay, thank you. One quick question in terms of potential [29:47] Carl L. Sheline: liability, so if a staff member feels like they have been unfairly targeted by and you know the council ends up removing their position, would all of, would they have recourse or things different because it's a council amendment versus, yeah, well I would hope that the [30:08] Marty Eisenstein: council doesn't get into names, it gets into positions, and the council can decide in its discretion of course what positions it wants to fund or not fund, and that's independent of an individual. There's no, there's no nobody standing at a courthouse steps to say you can't sue or you can sue, but it's a pretty strong argument that you have the power, as long as you don't center on any individual employee, that you have the power to eliminate a position. You know, you may not know who is filling that position, but you certainly do in the same way that you can eliminate or reduce a department. Thank you. Councilor Nagine, back to you. and we have [30:58] Joshua L. Nagine: some pretty wide discretion there as well. For instance, we could look at any of the line items within a particular department and say we want to reduce this line item. Let's say it's I don't know, pencils or supplies, right? Let's say we're going to reduce it by 10. We have the ability to do that, or we have the ability to remove entire line items. The [31:19] Marty Eisenstein: things that are off bounds, off limits, our debt service, yep, or things required by law. And I don't know that there's any law requiring a minimum number of pencils, maybe pens, but not pencils. And you have the ability to, you know, there may be laws on, it's not in your, what you'd really be looking at, but special education for example, you have to fund it to a certain level, or for instance OSHA requirements. That's [31:53] Joshua L. Nagine: great, thank you. Exactly, thank you. Okay. [31:57] Carl L. Sheline: councillor chittum did i see your hand [32:01] David B. Chittim: I think the question was answered whether we have a line by line authority. Understood. Further [32:08] Carl L. Sheline: comments about the amendment process. While we have our council heirman, yes. [32:16] Scott A. Harriman: YEAH, I GUESS I DID WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, BECAUSE THE CHARTER SPEAKS TO, USES THE WORD AMENDMENT. IN THE PAST, WHAT WE'VE DONE DURING BUDGET PROCESSES IS WE WORK KIND OF COLLABORATIVELY THROUGH WORKSHOPS AND DETERMINE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE IN THE BUDGET, WHAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO INCLUDE IN THE BUDGET. THIS YEAR HAS BEEN VERY DIFFERENT, AND IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT'S BEEN TOLD TO US IS THAT WE HAVE TO WRITE OUT A FORMAL AMENDMENT AND THEN PRESENT THAT ON THE FINAL NIGHT THAT WE'RE PASSING THE BUDGET, AND THEN HAVE THAT GO TO AN UP OR DOWN VOTE AS A FORMAL AMENDMENT TO THE BUDGET. AND THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S EVER BEEN DONE IN MY EXPERIENCE, AND I JUST WONDERED IF THAT IS WHAT, I MEAN, I JUST CAN'T QUITE CONCEPTUALIZE IT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE. SO I THOUGHT THAT THE PROCESS OF AMENDING THE BUDGET WAS WHAT WE DO DURING THESE WORKSHOPS AND WE COME TO A CONSENSUS AND SOMETIMES WE MIGHT TAKE A STRAW POLL OR SOMETHING. SO I JUST WONDER IF THAT IS, THAT HOW WE ACTUALLY HAVE [33:21] Marty Eisenstein: TO DO IT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT BEFORE? I MEAN, ARE YOU, IF YOU, I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK OR NOT OR WHATEVER, BUT I DON'T THINK, COUNCILOR HERRAMAN, THAT YOU HAVE TO GO through a formal process. I think the idea of a workshop is to try to reach consensus. You may not take a vote because you're not allowed to take a vote, but if you throw out things and discuss things, there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean that's where you're going to land, and that's not the amendment. You would have a formal amendment by resolution, which is what the, I think, which is what it says is you can adopt amendments by resolution. So that's what you do. However, you would adopt a [34:12] Scott A. Harriman: resolution. Yeah, I guess if I could follow up, it's been in past practice that if a majority of the council comes to a decision on a particular item, then that is put into the budget or taken out of the budget, and that's just in the budget that we vote on finally at the, you know, when we vote, which would typically be May 5th, but I guess we have postponed it to a little bit later. So I'm just, I'm a little confused by the process that's been communicated to us is that we have to write a formal amendment and, put that on the floor, debate it, and then take a up or down vote on it at the night of final passage OF THE BUDGET, WHICH IS VERY NEW TO ME. [34:56] Marty Eisenstein: So, if I may answer by asking a question, please. And I think it would be appropriate for the administrator to weigh in on what he envisioned was the process, if, again, with all due respect and understanding [35:13] Carl L. Sheline: protocol. Administrator Kaenerath, yes. Yeah, thank you. [35:16] Bryan Kaenrath: And my only point earlier in bringing this up, it is a power of the council and individual counselors to offer amendments, so if there are amendments, they by charter are allowed to be offered. I think the workshop process as you've been doing it does work if you can arrive at decisions by consensus, that's fine, but it also doesn't, you know, exclude individual counselors from having the authority by charter to introduce amendments to the budget. That is the process in most of their places, how it does work. It doesn't all need to be on the final night on budget passage. There could be a number of meetings where you consider amendments. So I think that the process that, you know, you've been using, I think, works fine. You know, my only point bringing this up the other evening was it is a charter power of councilors and of the council to be able to offer amendments if you so choose. I don't think you have to, but if there is a council that wants to offer an amendment, you do have the authority to do that. So that was my only, point. [36:15] Carl L. Sheline: Anything further? Councilor Herman? No, thank you. Councilor [36:19] Joshua L. Nagine: Naging? Just to further expound on that, I think this budget season is particularly a contentious one, and I think it would be, we would be remiss if we, I think everyone has some ideas about how to reduce the budget, and ultimately if our names are attached to it comes forward in council, we have the, we have the ability to make friendly amendments, we have the ability to shoot up or shoot down anything, when it's put forward, but it's clear, what we're trying to aim for, and I think the amendment process is probably, in a budget year where we may even still be looking at eliminating a position or two, the way to go forward, so [37:08] Carl L. Sheline: one quick question here, Mr. Rosenstein. So the budget requires a super majority. Would each amendment require just a simple majority to get added to the budget, or what are your thoughts on that? I think an amendment would [37:25] Marty Eisenstein: require a simple majority, but the overall budget, if it's going to go, if it goes beyond the 3.3, does need a super majority. Yes, so the answer is yes and no, or no and yes, I should say. [37:41] Carl L. Sheline: UNDERSTOOD THANK YOU UH FURTHER UH FURTHER QUESTIONS UH AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT PROCESS UH ADMINISTRATOR KANE RATH WHAT DID OR SORRY DID WE HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS COUNCILORS ADMINISTRATOR, I GUESS WHAT, I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU TO TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE DISCUSSED IT A LITTLE BIT THE OTHER NIGHT, WE WOULD HAVE A DEADLINE TO SUBMIT AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD THEN GIVE STAFF TIME TO REVIEW THEM AND PREPARE THEM. WHAT WERE YOU ENVISIONING? RIGHT. [38:16] Bryan Kaenrath: SO HOW IT NORMALLY WORKS IN OTHER PLACES, THERE IS A DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED TO ADMINISTRATION ON the finance office those amendments would be worked up and they would be printed on the agenda for the meeting when they're going to be considered so they're not offered randomly from the floor although city attorney correct me if i'm wrong i think a counselor still has the ability to offer an amendment from the floor if they so choose but we would like to have all amendments and want to respond to that marty yeah i fully agree with the administrator that [38:48] Marty Eisenstein: that an amendment can be made from the floor using proper protocol, of course, in the city council, but yes, absolutely. [39:00] Bryan Kaenrath: But I think for good and clean procedure, it would be appropriate on how it works best, as I've seen in other places. There's a deadline for amendments, so I think in this case, we would be envisioning probably towards the end of next week, if we're gonna consider them on May 19th, that all amendments have to be into our office. IT GIVES THE CORPS OFFICE PLENTY OF TIME TO PUT THE AGENDA TOGETHER, ALL THE AMENDMENTS TO BE LISTED ON THE AGENDA, THEN THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED AT THAT FOLLOWING MEETING. NOW, AGAIN, THEY DON'T ALL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN ONE MEETING. YOU COULD CONSIDER THEM IN MULTIPLE MEETINGS IF THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ON THE FINAL EVENING. SO ANYWAY, JUST FOR GOOD PROCESS, I THINK WE'D LIKE TO SET A DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENTS. IT GIVES STAFF TIME TO PREPARE, GIVES THE CORPS OFFICE TIME TO GET THEM ALL ON THE AGENDA. and then it's also clear to the public what amendments may be considered and there's no surprises on that evening although again as city attorneys agreed with it doesn't exclude a council from offering an amendment from the floor and [39:59] Carl L. Sheline: Working through the process well. Just one point of clarification, Administrator Kenrith, you mentioned to that amendments wouldn't need to be considered on the 19th, but we would only be able to vote on amendments in a meeting, and that is our last meeting unless we called a special meeting to go over amendments. [40:17] Bryan Kaenrath: You could have additional meetings, correct? Right, okay. [40:21] Carl L. Sheline: is the, I saw Madam Clerk, who's, is our clerk still here? Madam Clerk, could you give us the latest we could submit amendments, you know, understanding that we can submit amendments on the floor during the meeting, I trust that we're all working together here in good faith and we'll come up with amendments, you know, by a deadline, but what would be the latest that you could accept our amendments and then, you know, in time to prepare [40:53] Bryan Kaenrath: for everything to have them in the May 19th agenda packet? Correct, it'd be the Wednesday before [40:58] Carl L. Sheline: at noon. What date would that be? Someone looking at the calendar, May [41:07] Bryan Kaenrath: 13th, right? So but if we could just have a quick discussion on that, Mr. Mayor, that's the deadline that the rules state that counselors have to submit items for the agenda. But I believe what the administrator was referring to was having the amendments in earlier to allow the finance director time to review those numbers, determine the impact of those amendments. I mean, there's some calculations and figuring she probably has to do to determine the impact of those proposed amendments. So I think that's what he was indicating was an earlier time frame to allow that time, but I'll certainly have him answer that. All right. [41:40] Carl L. Sheline: Yes, either Director O'Reilly or Administrator Kinrav. [41:43] Bryan Kaenrath: So we were discussing, because we're looking at a meeting on the 19th in order to give staff time to prepare, get this all together, and it would give us councilors a week. We were thinking one week from today, a Thursday, the 7th, end of business that day for amendments, and it gives the following week for finance, corps office, all staff to prepare. Then they would be considered at our meeting the following Tuesday the 19th, if that would acceptable, so it gives you basically one week from this evening to have amendments prepared and in. [42:15] Carl L. Sheline: Okay, we will comment on that. Thank you, and thank you Madam Clerk. Counselor, yes, your [42:21] David B. Chittim: thoughts? Thank you. Yes, given that Fridays are typically not open days, would it be feasible or understandable or acceptable to say that the deadline would be the close of business on [42:35] Bryan Kaenrath: Thursday or that's what I just said, but Friday would work too if you'd like. [42:39] David B. Chittim: Close of business on Thursday the 7th of correct, one week from this evening. Okay, I just, I'd like all of us to understand that is the hard deadline. That would be 4 30 p.m. on May 7th. I 'm, I'm proposing that and I'd like to see us all adhere to that. [43:00] Carl L. Sheline: right, and that's what I meant was, you know, we're all acting, you know, while recognizing amendments could be made on the floor, you know, I'd hope that we'd all work in good faith and submit amendments at that time. Councillor Nijin, yes, I just wanted to comment that [43:14] Joshua L. Nagine: would give us at least a day or two to absorb public feedback after the public hearing on the on the fifth, so further [43:27] Carl L. Sheline: comments or questions from counselors about that it appear here and it sounds like we're all mostly okay with that. I think we're, we're set with that deadline. Further questions, comments regarding this for our, for either administration or Mr. Eisenstein. Mr. Eisenstein, do you have [43:52] Marty Eisenstein: any other comments or questions just on the school budget portion? Do you have a meeting scheduled to approve the school budget? Yeah, [44:05] Carl L. Sheline: I believe that's next [44:07] Marty Eisenstein: Tuesday the 5th. Okay, thank you. Yes, and then the referendum if it is approved would be there after I May something 12, May 12th. I'm hearing yes. Madam Clerk, is [44:22] Bryan Kaenrath: there something you'd like to know? I'm just gonna, if there was any other questions that, yes, so the City Attorney is correct. On May 5th on Tuesday night will be is on the agenda for the adoption of the school budget and then the school referendum will be the following Tuesday, May 12th. Questions [44:38] Carl L. Sheline: comments from the from the council? Yes, Councillor Herman. Yeah, I guess this is [44:44] Scott A. Harriman: as good a time as any. I was just going to provide a quick update on the school budget. So we got an email Tuesday afternoon from the superintendent with the updated budget that the school committee passed. It passed unanimously and the increase on the local side is eight point one percent, eight point zero six percent. So I had heard on Tuesday night, I had heard numbers like twelve percent. I just wanted to correct the record that it currently as it stands as it was passed by the committee is eight point one percent increase on the local [45:17] Carl L. Sheline: side Thank you councillor Herman did I see someone else who had their hand up councillor chittum did you have something no administrator kane rath you know from administration side is there any questions or do you have everything that you need yes we're good thank you madam clerk thumbs up for madam clerk you can look at that all right anything else counselors mr eisenstein yes don't want to beat that dead [45:56] Marty Eisenstein: horse but i do want to ask the administrator when his reference his reference to total tax levy is that a reference to municipal tax levy or is that a reference to some other tax levy [46:14] Carl L. Sheline: Administrator Kainrath, please. [46:15] Bryan Kaenrath: That's a good question. What we've been working off of when it says total tax levy is city, school, and county. [46:27] Marty Eisenstein: If I could ask another question. When you're comparing that tax levy to the section of the charter that limits it to 3.3%, do you compare the 8.1 percent to the 3.3 percent or what have you been using as a comparison? [46:49] Bryan Kaenrath: We had been working up off of just the city portion or city county it had not been we had not been factoring in the school when discussing getting down to 3.3 percent at least in our discussion so far thank you anything [47:08] Carl L. Sheline: further from anybody i think i think we're good mr einstein we appreciate your service to our city thank you very much thank you okay that concludes the discussion about amendments i would like to have a discussion about the reval if administrator cainrath could join us here so i had a discussion with administrator at cainrath what was that I feel like that was today or yesterday it was today a lot's been happening and you know we've heard from many people about the proposed reval and I guess I wanted to and I yeah I guess it doesn't matter what happened at the at the last budget workshop meeting where we talked about the reval I think that was like a week or two ago a week and a half ago but I guess if there was consensus for a delay and then and or a phased in approach to determine if there is a majority consensus for that and then perhaps have our administrator draft a letter to the chief assessor expressing that interest yeah that might be helpful administrator Kinrath did I miss something or no and [48:43] Bryan Kaenrath: And just so you know, I think it was discussed at the last or a few meetings ago about doing some form of delay and or phase in. There was discussion at that time about a one year. [48:54] Carl L. Sheline: Can you just move the mic closer to you, please? [48:56] Bryan Kaenrath: A one year delay for implementation. Chief Assessor Healy has agreed to a one year delay for implementation. But I know there are some other views on the council of what they would like to see for implementation. Implementation, so I think maybe now is a timely discussion on the implementation again, but our chief assessor has indicated he's comfortable with a one-year delay. As you know, by main law he does technically have the call, but certainly this group is friggin able to weigh in I? [49:30] Carl L. Sheline: Guess if we're my plan is just to go on down the line starting with counselor from Ward one. If we're okay with a with a one-year delay say so. If we feel we need more than a year delay and or phased in approach you could say so at this time and we'll just wrap around Councillor Nagy. So I had originally [49:50] Joshua L. Nagine: really wanted to see a phased in approach and I understand that there's a lot of expense associated with the phased in approach as well as the fact that it's very confusing. I supported the one week one year delay. I would be also be completely comfortable with a two-year delay at this point. The only concern that I have is that something happens in the housing market the drug drives down housing costs and then we lose the five hundred eighty thousand dollars that we put in for the investment. I think another point that I want to bring up right now is Tyler tech is giving until the 15th of May to have dialogue about the revalves. I think that needs to be extended. I don't know if we can go back to tyler tech and ask them how much it's going to cost to extend that period for informal hearings, but people are still trying to get their heads around what this reeval even means for them and so i think leaving a window to have these this dialogue is super important and again we need to get everybody that we possibly can in this city on the homestead exemption if they qualify on any tax abatement program that is available. So I would ask that the city it leads on that and also partners with others in order to make sure that we're we're getting people [51:08] Bryan Kaenrath: door-to-door literally. Yeah thank you and we can pose the question that I were about extending the May 15th deadline. There could be additional costs but we can pose the question and see what options are there. So again I would be [51:21] Joshua L. Nagine: SUPPORTIVE OF A TWO-YEAR DELAY IF THAT WAS THE FAVOR OF THE OF THE COUNCIL UH THANK YOU COUNCILOR [51:29] Susan G. Longchamps: NAGINE COUNCIL LONGCHAMPS YES THANK YOU MAYOR UM I TOO WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF UM EXTENDING ASKING IF WE CAN THAT DATE AND ALSO UH PUSHING IT TO TWO YEARS I THINK YES WE'VE GONE A LONG TIME IT DOES FEEL LIKE WE'VE KICKED THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE TECHNICALLY WE HAVE UM BUT FOLKS JUST OVER THE LAST WEEK, THEIR ASSESSMENTS. PEOPLE NEED TIME TO DIGEST, FIGURE OUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BUDGET THIS. AND QUITE HONESTLY, JUST TO EDUCATE PEOPLE ON EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE OPENING THEIR MAIL, AND THEY'VE JUST DOUBLED OR TRIPLED THEIR HOUSES, THEIR ASSESSMENTS. SO I WOULD GO FOR THE TWO YEARS. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR CITIZENS OF LOUISTON. THANK YOU. [52:14] Carl L. Sheline: THANK YOU. COUNCILOR HERRMAN, YES. [52:16] Scott A. Harriman: THANKS. YEAH, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE ONE-year delay and I'm still in favor of a phased in approach because even if we delay it one year it's still a large increase for a lot of people I'd like to see more information about the complications and expenses involved with a phased in approach because it's I know for a lot of people it will be a very large increase and doing that at one time isn't going to be very feasible I MEAN, MY ASSESSMENT WENT UP OVER 400% MYSELF. I FEEL LIKE DELAYING IT BY A YEAR AND THEN PHASING IT IN OVER MAYBE THREE YEARS WILL GIVE PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT, IT WILL STILL BE HARD TO HANDLE, BUT GIVING THEM A LITTLE BIT OF A BREAK. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW. [53:05] Carl L. Sheline: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR HARAMAN. COUNCILOR ROY, YES. THANK YOU. [53:10] Michael R. Roy: WELL, FOR ME, I WOULD BE IN favor of a two-year delay I do think it's very important now that we have the numbers we haven't had the numbers we've been talking about it for three years haven't had the numbers nobody really knew what it was about you know and when you get smacked in the face with the numbers that we got right now I mean to be honest with you I mean that's enough to give a lot of people a heartache so I would be in favor of a two-year delay I would also be in favor of the phased APPROACH. I MEAN, THE OTHER WAY THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IS, ALL RIGHT, WE'VE WAITED 38 YEARS. YOU COULD HAVE PUT 10% ON THIS BILL THIS YEAR, 10% ON THE NEXT BILL NEXT YEAR. YOU COULD DO THAT AND STILL ACHIEVE THAT, THE SAME GOAL, BUT IT WOULD BE A PHASED-IN APPROACH OVER THE NEXT. BUT RIGHT NOW, AS WE SIT TONIGHT, MY CHOICES ARE TWO-YEAR DELAY AND A PHASED-IN APPROACH AFTERWARDS. THANK YOU. [54:11] Chrissy Noble: Councillor Noble. I definitely want a phased-in approach with a delay so people have time to save and to build it into their budgets. Everybody that I'm talking to, all the emails I'm getting, people are looking at selling their homes. They don't want to be here anymore. I feel that too. You know, I'm on a single income and it's a lot for me to have to come up with that and worry about how I'm gonna pay it to. I'm for a phased in approach over like two or three years and I, you know, I'm willing to wait the year and then start the phase and approach or however that would look like, I don't know, but I'm with Councillor Harriman and Councillor Roy. I'd like to look more into that and see what we could do. [55:09] David B. Chittim: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The lone voice up here, I am not in favor of delay or phase-in. I think this assessment is conflated very much with the budget process and there needs to be some understanding, better understanding about that. My concern principally is that we know because we've had this revaluation and there are such dramatic differences in the increases of individual assessments, we know that the old assessments are inequitable. We know that they're unfair. And if we delay this for a year and use the old assessments, we are knowingly using an unfair and not level playing field process. So I would argue that rather than delay the implementation, we develop systems wherein people who can apply for or who need assistance in dealing with unexpectedly large tax bills, which result primarily from the budget but also secondarily from the revaluation, that we have systems in place that we can address those concerns. I think delaying the revaluation for a year assumes that we will not have the nearly double-digit increases that we're looking at in our tax levies and our costs of operations next year and I don't think that's a good assumption. I think we're going to be in the same place next year with all of the costs that are beyond our control, and we're going to be looking at, gee, this is a big hit with the tax levy increase and now implementing the one-year-old revaluation. Let's kick it off another year. So we've been accused, and prior councils have been accused of kicking the can down the road. This is precisely what we would be doing if we delayed the implementation of a process that we started three years ago. I'm going to recognize that we have been less than stellar in educating the public about what a mill rate is, how assessments and levees operate. We could have done a better job at that. But to delay it for a year, I'm opposed to that. I recognize. I'm a very small minority. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. [57:24] Carl L. Sheline: Thank You councillor Chittum I appreciate everyone's input counselor Martel Thank You mr. mayor so I'm gonna [57:33] Bret Martel: Point out once again that our assessor's advice was not to do this. It sounds like he's now on board with it, probably because he's been encouraged to do so. This council and other councils before have had a habit of saying trust the experts until we decide that we don't like it with the experts tell us. Now we're looking at professionals that the city pays to do a certain job, to give us certain advice, and if we don't like it, we're just going to tell them, oh well, we're going to do what we want. And I. Feel like I'm going to resonate with a lot of the council president's words. I believe I'm going to lose this vote and be on the minority end of it, but I would also be against kicking this can down the road further because I'm not necessarily convinced that this, that the group of us sitting up here are going to do any better in the next year or two than what we've failed to do in the last three, knowing this was coming. And while I don't want to sit here and assign blame, I think it's important. That we have some accountability for the failures and the lack of communication. I've gone back and I've seen the Sun Journal articles and other articles where we were promising to communicate and to make sure that we were going to roll this out in a manner that inform the public. And to say doing so was an epic failure, or failing to do so was an epic failure, might be an understatement. I'm not going to deny that. I feel like there's a political aspect to this. Kicking the can down the road gets us. Past next November, which has a lot of implications for certain people sitting up here. And so while I believe that I'm going to be on the losing end of this vote, I will continue to advocate for cutting of the budget, because it's our spending and our spending alone that drives up the tax burden for our citizens. So that's what I've got on that. I intend to vote against delaying this, but I expect to lose in [59:33] Carl L. Sheline: that vote. Thank you, Counselor Martel. Okay, so it looks like there is Counselor Herman. You were, you're okay with, you wanted a, just to clarify, Counselor, you wanted a one year and then a phased in, would you, yeah, correct, if we didn't have, so right now we have a supermajority want some sort of delay in phase in, and so looking at my little notes that I've made here, either you know perhaps you need to come to two years or somebody else needs to come to a phased in. Yeah, that's, that's where we're at. [1:00:16] Scott A. Harriman: Councilman, did you want to say something? I guess I would be okay with two years. I feel like if we were to phase it in, then a one-year pause would probably be enough time to allow people to prepare for a slight increase, and then if that could happen over three years, maybe four years, I feel like that would be enough. But I would, I'd be okay with two years for a delay. My only concern is that the longer we delay the implementation, that means the longer that our mill rate stays high, which is discouraging for investment in the city. So that's, that's my, that's where I'm [1:01:01] Carl L. Sheline: conflicted on that understood thank you councillor long champs and then [1:01:05] Susan G. Longchamps: Counselor Niji. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. It appears as though our administrator definitely needs some sort of direction on what to write, Mr. Healy, correct? If I could, yeah, just clarify, I [1:01:23] Bryan Kaenrath: think what we're doing here is so that our city assessor has already sort of rendered his opinion of what he intends to do. He is able to do that by law. I think we're having a discussion here of if there are still strong sentiments on the council, I think what the mayor said earlier is perhaps, you know, a letter could be drafted on behalf of the council to our assessor of your opinions and, you know, of your desires on the implementation, but his latest position is, I think, as we discussed a couple meetings ago, just a straight one-year delay, no phasing, if I [1:02:01] Susan G. Longchamps: am correct, or remembering correctly, the phase and approach would cost, correct, over or around eight hundred thousand dollars, at least four hundred, but potentially eight hundred, depending [1:02:13] Bryan Kaenrath: On there were a couple different scenarios or options there, but it was at minimum four hundred [1:02:17] Susan G. Longchamps: thousand, but also was there something with the programming that, if I remember correctly, that they didn't have the programming for that because that wasn't right, part of the expense would have [1:02:31] Bryan Kaenrath: INVOLVE SOME SOFTWARE MODIFICATIONS I THINK TO ALLOW US TO DO THIS I MEAN A PHASED IN APPROACH IS EXTREMELY RARE AS WE TALKED ABOUT IT CAN BE DONE BUT IT'S VERY RARE SO THEY HAVE TO DO I THINK SOME THINGS UNIQUE FOR US IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT FOR EXAMPLE A THREE-YEAR PHASED IN APPROACH I'M [1:02:51] Susan G. Longchamps: wondering if this is worth, like, us having Mr. Haley come back and actually sit with us again. I know we've already done this, but there does seem to be the majority of counselors that are very con, not that other counselors aren't concerned, so I shouldn't say that, but are considering the fact that a lot of constituents are very worried about this new assessment. Would it be okay if we asked him to come back to council? Let's talk to the professional about this, the expert, and you know, revisit the phase in, exactly how that would look. I think we need to have that done again, personally, but yeah, I think he will [1:03:39] Bryan Kaenrath: will probably stick to his initial device, which is to just implement now. He did move a bit and talk about doing it now, one year delay in implementation, but I don't, I'm not sure how much that's gonna move. If you have him back, he's not here this evening, obviously, but if you're looking for more general information on the process with Tyler for the phasen, we can, we can get questions answered and get that information back, even just, you know, via email. I don't know if we need another workshop, but I think, again, if there is a majority of the council or a super majority of the council that has a certain position, and I, if you'd like to express that position, I think, as the mayor said, that's what I think [1:04:22] Carl L. Sheline: some of the purpose of this conversation was. Anything else comes from long terms? [1:04:30] Susan G. Longchamps: This is really hard for us, you know, and I feel partially to blame because, you know, we were the sitting council that said yes, we know this needs to be done. It hasn't been done in 38 years, and it's something that should have been done a while ago, or decades ago, when this did come up. The best way I can explain it, and to my knowledge, is we were going to have new assessments done, people were going to be educated on that, and I just feel like we have failed the citizens of Lewiston. I don't feel like We did that, and although we are to blame, myself, I do think it's our responsibility with the new counselors that are here, responsibility to help ease some of that financial burden that is now put upon our citizens. So I feel like it is our responsibility, whether it's our fault or not. I'll own my part, but I also know that we need to do the right thing by the folks that are on fixed incomes that are really afraid we will be responsible for some people moving, getting very sick because of this. We have a lot of very proud older elderly people that live, that were born in Lewiston, that live here, that if their income, if they cannot pay their tax bill and they don't know about all the resources that are there, they would rather be homeless than not pay their bills. We still have those people here in Lewiston, and it is our responsibility and the right thing. I'm not saying that this shouldn't have happened, because you're, it absolutely should have, but we dropped the ball and we didn't do a good job relaying it to the, to our communities, so it's now our responsibility to make sure that we do our best to make it affordable for everyone. [1:06:44] Carl L. Sheline: That is it. If I may, counselors, I would rather not rehash the past or assign blame but talk about how we are going to move forward. Counselor Najee. [1:06:59] Joshua L. Nagine: Again, from the presentation that was brought forward, I know the phased approach is one that will cost us $800,000, especially if you do it over the three years with a one-year delay. $800,000 is eight jobs. So in a tight budget here, so let's not have, let's, the phased in approach would be great, but I think it's, it's not possible. I don't think the assessor will approve it, and I also think that the added expense is huge. So again, I was in favor of the one year delay. I will support a two-year delay, and we just need to get a consensus here to figure that out. I don't think that the phased in approach is going to pass, so two years for me. thank you, councilors. [1:07:46] Michael R. Roy: Councilor Roy, did you have something? Thank you. Could we gather all the information of all the ways that, or all the services out there that we could apply for, like homestead reduction, all these [1:08:31] Bryan Kaenrath: one is the homestead that, you know, we want to make sure people are using if it's their primary residence and get that out there as much as possible too, so absolutely, can we do like, can we [1:08:43] Michael R. Roy: Have directions on how to do that because we have a lot of people that are going to be challenged to do these things whether they're being at home or whatever. I mean, I don't have the time to sit there on a computer with everybody door-to-door, but if there's a way to get a step-by-step thing for some of these, I would really appreciate that because again, like our older population, we really [1:09:02] Bryan Kaenrath: need to educate everybody, right? And we could even do, you know, because obviously not everyone is on, we can even do direct mail pieces. We've already done inserts in tax bills, in water bills about the reval to educate, so we can certainly do more of that too where it's direct, you know, something in the mail to every property taxpayer as well as other things. So absolutely, and again, I don't [1:09:26] Michael R. Roy: want to incur any more costs, right? So if I have to hand carry them to a lot of places, I'll do that too. I don't have a [1:09:32] Bryan Kaenrath: problem. Well, that's why I think some of the inserts are great. We did that with the property tax bills as well as the water bills. We had an additional page printed, inserted into bills that were already going out, so there wasn't the additional [1:09:44] Carl L. Sheline: postage cost. Awesome, thank you. yeah, I understand Councilor Nagine's point about the increased cost for for phased in and yeah, an extra eight hundred thousand dollars that we don't currently have that could be problematic. I know Brunswick did three years, I think that might be a bridge too far in this case, but it sounds like there's at least consensus among a supermajority for two years. Is that what I'm hearing? And understood. I think we're, we do have at least, sorry, Councilor Harriman, is there something you would [1:10:27] Scott A. Harriman: like to say? Yeah, just regarding the phased in approach, I was just wondering if we could get more information on the, what are the complications and what are the costs and just how, just so we can balance or so we can make a decision on that. Because I agree, I don't want to, I don't want to, I don't want to, I don't want to get incur another 800 000 in cost, but it would be, it would be interesting to see the breakdown [1:10:49] Bryan Kaenrath: of those things. We can get more overall information in the process. If you do have specific questions, let me know and we can pose those also in addition. Thank you. Yeah, I think [1:10:58] Scott A. Harriman: it's just the overall, like what is the breakdown of those costs, why is it so expensive to do that over a period of time, and if there are any other positive or negative benefits of doing that. [1:11:14] David B. Chittim: Councillor Chittim. Thank you, mr. Mayor, it seems as though Assessor Healey has already agreed to a one-year delay. We have enough complications before us right now with dealing with the budget. I'm wondering if the question about whether a phased approach is appropriate or even extending to a two-year approach is appropriate now. Can we not do that after we've gotten through this budget, given that my understanding is Assessor Haley has already agreed to stay this revaluation for an entire year? So do we need to make that decision now? Do we need to get that information on phased cost approaches now? Can't we make that decision after the budget has been resolved? Thank you. [1:12:04] Carl L. Sheline: Councillor Long Champs, did you have something? No, but since you called me if [1:12:09] Susan G. Longchamps: you don't mind I will say that people want to know, right? People are really nervous, so I do think it's important that we come up with some, you know, and I don't think you have the clear direction, do you, on what you're asking? Well, we're well again, I don't think there's so [1:12:27] Bryan Kaenrath: I think where we are is our chief assessor has in effect made a decision, right? I think we're looking for feedback from this council because there are differing views on how to implement it, and I think I agree with what your prior statement was in that I think for us, I think, you know, I think I speak for all the staff, it's important I think for us to get information to the public out sooner rather than later of what's going to be happening. I think there is extreme interest in knowing how exactly this is going to be implemented, and I think the sooner we get that information out to the public, the more we could just have some clarity, and depending on what it is, potentially I think alleviate some of the fears that are out there right now. But again, I think getting something out to the public, some sort of clarity, this is how it's going to work, this is what's going to happen, sooner rather [1:13:21] Susan G. Longchamps: than later would be a good idea. Yes, Councillor Longchamps. Thank you again, I would just ask that YOU WOULD GO BACK AND ASK HIM IF WE COULD DO THE TWO YEARS. COUNSELOR NAJIN. IT SOUNDS LIKE COUNSELOR ROY IS IN FAVOR OF THAT. AND COUNSELOR NOBLE. [1:13:42] Carl L. Sheline: THANK YOU. COUNSELOR LONGCHAMPS. COUNSELOR NAJIN, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING BEFORE I WEIGH IN? [1:13:49] Joshua L. Nagine: JUST REALLY BRIEFLY, THE ONE YEAR DELAY HAS BEEN AGREED TO, SO WE'RE ASKING POSSIBLY FOR A TWO-YEAR DELAY, WHICH YOU'LL EITHER GRANT OR NOT GRANT. UM, THE, I THINK THAT AGAIN, I JUST REALLY WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS, THE WINDOWS IN WHICH WE HAVE TO FILE OUR INFORMAL REVIEWS ARE ONLY UNTIL THE 15TH OF MAY, SO WE REALLY NEED TO FIND OUT IF WE CAN EXTEND THAT. 'S ONE PIECE And then two, we don't have a mill rate yet, and Councillor Chittim's right about that. So without a mill rate, it's going to be very difficult for people to understand even what their new valuations mean as well. And so, yeah, I just ultimately I'm feeling like we have to do a lot more in order to make sure that people understand what's going to happen to their taxes. [1:14:48] Carl L. Sheline: That's all, so thank you. Comes from our tell, did you want to add something? [1:14:53] Bret Martel: Before I weigh in, I did. Thank You mr. mayor, I have gotten, this is kind of a specific question, I've gotten multiple emails from constituents concerning the homestead exemption. Is that still something that can be applied for this year, or have we passed that deadline, because it was tax day now that there was a lot of confusion about it passing and no longer being the case? I believe LEAVE LAST YEAR. IT IS AVAILABLE AGAIN THIS YEAR, BUT SOME PEOPLE FEEL AS THOUGH THEY MISSED THAT DEADLINE. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON HOW SOMEONE WOULD GO ABOUT ADDRESSING THAT WITH THIS NEW TAX BILL AND THE EVALUATION. I IMAGINE THERE WOULD BE COMPLICATIONS IF THIS IS BEING DELAYED, BUT THAT'S A QUESTION I'VE GOTTEN MANY TIMES, AND I JUST WANT TO ASK IT ON THE RECORD AND SEE IF I CAN GET AN ANSWER FROM THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR ANYONE THAT MIGHT KNOW. [1:15:45] Bryan Kaenrath: If they have not applied by April 1st, that's considered a waiver. But if you've applied once and you haven't moved, it's it's in effect. So you don't have to apply every year, but if you've never applied and you haven't applied by April 1st, That's considered a waiver for the year. [1:16:01] Bret Martel: Thank You DPA Mally. [1:16:04] Carl L. Sheline: Okay, so counselors if I may, I know we had councilor Armin, you had questions about the more questions about the phased-in approach, but that does not appear to be a majority support for council on that. So at this point I, there does appear to be majority super majority support, five counselors who would advocate for two years, so and then realizing time is of the essence and our property owners, you know we've all seen there's a lot of anxiety and fear, and so I, yeah, at this point, given that five. Of us are in favor of a two-year delay, you know, allowing our administrator or directing, politely asking our administrator to draft such a letter that could then be forwarded on to a chief assessor Healy, I think would be most appropriate at this time. Yes, Councilor Najin. [1:17:05] Joshua L. Nagine: So the one thing I do want to bring up that I think is important to is if there is a two-year delay, right? Things can change in the market, right? And generally speaking, most communities are updating their evaluations every three to five years, and so it does get tight. I see a reason for this and I want to support it. Absolutely, but I am also saying that there are complications that could occur and I hope that does not, that is not the case, because then we'll be an even bigger mess than we're in right now, so [1:17:39] Carl L. Sheline: My sense is our assessing department would be up to that challenge. Councilor Chiddum, yes, thank you. [1:17:49] David B. Chittim: Mr. Mayor, I want to clarify that when people call me, we can say with absolute certainty that the mill rate this year will be based on your old assessment. It will be on the order of 36 dollars per thousand. Yes, we can say that with absolute certainty, so again, assessor Healy has already agreed to a one [1:18:09] Bryan Kaenrath: year delay, so that means yes to your question, and there's potential for two years, yes to your [1:18:15] David B. Chittim: question okay that 's not a question that i'm prepared to answer to my constituents they want to know what their bill is going to be in september i can tell them use your old assessment and whatever the council decides for a budget that will determine the mill rate but expect it to be around 36 correct thank you counselor in aging yes this is another point of clarification but [1:18:38] Joshua L. Nagine: right now we're looking at 35 14 before any further cuts, so it's a moving target depending [1:18:43] Carl L. Sheline: on what happens here in the next couple weeks yes i think we all understand that counselor [1:18:50] Scott A. Harriman: Herman, yes, just a couple points of information so people can file the homestead exemption anytime, time, but if it's after April 1st it won't affect this year's taxes, it will be the following year's taxes, and then also it's since we have staggered terms now every year is an election year, so everyone's gonna be up for election at some point each year. [1:19:15] Carl L. Sheline: All right, thank you, Administrator Keener. At, do you have what you need from us as far as the reval and your sentiments, direction? Yes, so you will draft such a letter, and then I assume you will forward it to us? Yes. Okay, excellent. Counselors, I think we're, I think we're set. Administration, did you have anything else? We're good, I think. Anything else? Thank you. All right, I think we're, I think we're good. Yes, thank you everyone, appreciate. Are we not going to [1:19:51] Joshua L. Nagine: DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT THE BUDGET? [1:19:53] Carl L. Sheline: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? COUNCILOR NAJEN, WHAT DID YOU HAVE? [1:20:01] Joshua L. Nagine: JUST GOING OVER A FEW THINGS, WE HAVEN'T REALLY DELVED INTO THE LCIP AT ALL, AS FAR AS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT OR NOT GOING TO ACCEPT. ALSO, JUST COMING BACK TO SOME POINTS ON FIXED COST IN THE BUDGET, AND I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO MAKE ME, WHAT'S [1:20:20] Speaker N (unidentified): THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? Not popular. Not popular. [1:20:23] Joshua L. Nagine: Yes, exactly. In certain circles, anyways. Can we have some conversations about our intermunicipal agreements? Right now, we have a set cost of $205,000 to the Auburn-Lewiston Airport. That is an annual cost. From my understanding, there is at least some desire for Lewiston to relinquish our rights to the airport. I KNOW THAT THE ENTERPRISE ZONE SHARE FUNDING ENDS IN 2029. AND SO IF WE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT AND POSSIBLY GIVE SOME DIRECTION TO THE ADMINISTRATION IN ORDER TO HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH AUBURN, I WOULD ALSO UNFORTUNATELY LIKE TO BRING UP THE 911 CALL CENTER. NOW THAT THE COUNTY TAX HAS INCREASED 14% LAST YEAR AND 20% THIS YEAR, AND WE'RE paying for that service, there is a cost savings in, switching over to the county. I think we'll save about 500,000 a year. There are jobs involved in that, though, so I want to point that out, but I think these are two areas where we need to have some discussions and would like to have them now if that's possible. I also had mentioned on the revenue side changing the MONTHLY FEES FOR THE PARKING GARAGES TO EITHER $65 OR $70 A MONTH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE EFFECTED DEPARTMENTS OR MAYBE GET A CONSENSUS NOW. ALSO, I KNOW THAT WE ARE PAYING $250,000 FOR TRASH REMOVAL FROM MWAC who's supposed to be burning the trash, but unfortunately, they're not able to burn it all. And so I want to find out in the next meeting. I don't think we'll have this information immediately but in the next meeting whether or not we can raise the tip fees for the other communities that participate in the In the MWAC trash burning program so that we could possibly raise some revenues there to offset our additional costs with MWAC So that 's another piece And there are more, but maybe we just start with the Auburn-Lilliston Airport and the 911 call center [1:22:52] Carl L. Sheline: Director Rory, you position to join us here at the table, I think that would be most appropriate at this time, unless you have strong objections. Otherwise, oh No, laptop. So there's that None nonetheless if you I'm glad you brought all your books. I DON'T KNOW WHO'S, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS, YEAH, ADMINISTRATOR KAINRETH, DIRECTOR ROY, DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE AIRPORT AND THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE AT THIS POINT? [1:23:44] Bryan Kaenrath: SO THE CITY'S PORTION IS AUBURN PAYS $205,000. [1:23:51] Carl L. Sheline: MAYBE JUST MOVE THE MIC A LITTLE CLOSER. [1:23:53] Bryan Kaenrath: LEWISTON PAYS $205,000. THAT CANNOT BE REDUCED PER THE AGREEMENT. COUNCIL CHIDDOM IS AWARE OF THIS, TOO, BECAUSE HE IS ON THE LEWISTON AIRPORT BOARD. SO THAT PORTION CANNOT BE REDUCED ANY LOWER. IT CAN GO HIGHER, BUT IT CAN'T GO ANY LOWER PER THE MOU. [1:24:15] Joshua L. Nagine: I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. ONE, IF WE HAD APPROACHED AUBURN AND ASKED TO NO LONGER BE PART OF THE AIRPORT BECAUSE ultimately the comprehensive plan for the airport really doesn't involve a lot of the Lewiston side planning at all, it seems to be mostly an Auburn project, and they're asking for more funding in order to make that happen, and we're the entity that is not providing the fund. I know that we've funded certain portions through LC IP in the past, all of these other pieces. Auburn has a goal of making the airport functional. Lewiston does not have the funds to make that happen, and I think there is a conversation to be had about removing an mou and removing lewiston's [1:24:58] Speaker N (unidentified): interest from the airport. am i not correct about this? you could you could get together with the [1:25:05] Bryan Kaenrath: auburn council and you guys would have to go over the mou and see if they're willing to basically because we would lose our revenue, we would have to lose that tax revenue. That's out there till 2029. I would imagine that would be on the table. We do pay them a portion for The Tax sharing for I don't know if it was the Mountie. I can't remember off the top of my head. [1:25:39] Carl L. Sheline: I think it was money hundred. Yeah, so we paid them a portion. [1:25:42] Bryan Kaenrath: So you would have to meet with the city of Auburn and you would have to discuss that in order to [1:25:50] Joshua L. Nagine: TO REMOVE THE MOU. AS FAR AS THE ENTERPRISE ZONE THAT WE CREATED IN 1979, I BELIEVE IT WAS, WE ACTUALLY LOSE REVENUES FROM THAT IN 2029. THAT IS BOUND UP IN THE MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT OR DOES THAT FUNCTION AS A SEPARATE PIECE? [1:26:08] Bryan Kaenrath: THAT I BELIEVE IS IN THE MOU. ALL OF THAT INFORMATION I BELIEVE YOU HAVE and have received in your packets I believe it was a couple years ago the counselors asked for the MOU and received it I can pull that out and resend it to all of you it would have all of the information on there and what [1:26:31] Joshua L. Nagine: revenues are we seeing from the airport each year we see a tax revenue sharing [1:26:35] Bryan Kaenrath: so it's in your budget under the revenues I [1:26:41] Joshua L. Nagine: just want to state for the record the dollar amount if we can find it so [1:26:56] Bryan Kaenrath: we have 186 000 budgeted to receive we received 123 810 last year so no sorry we received 205 121 last year okay [1:27:15] Joshua L. Nagine: Okay. So that's actually a break-even, I guess, at least for the moment. But by 2029, we will no longer be receiving any revenues, correct? [1:27:26] Bryan Kaenrath: Correct, unless you and the Auburn City Council go through and do another MOU. [1:27:33] Joshua L. Nagine: But we'll still be on the hook for maintenance costs forever, unless we make an arrangement to leave that agreement. Correct. Okay. [1:27:43] Carl L. Sheline: IF I MAY, COUNSELOR, I THINK DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DISSOLVING OUR JOINT OPERATIONS THROUGH THE AIRPORT ARE FOR ANOTHER MEETING AND NOT FOR A BUDGET WORKSHOP AND PROBABLY WOULD BE BEST ACCOMPLISHED BY A RESOLUTION PASSED BY A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL TO ENGAGE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH [1:28:05] Joshua L. Nagine: AUBURN. I'M JUST EXPLORING THE OPTIONS OF REDUCING COST, THAT'S ALL. UNDERSTOOD. [1:28:11] Carl L. Sheline: YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN? I THINK YOU'VE TAKEN MY [David B. Chittim: THUNDER, MR. MAYOR.] IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE WHEN THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT ARE IN AGREEMENT. COUNCILOR, LET'S TALK ABOUT PARKING GARAGES NEXT. OR 911. 911, PLEASE. IF YOU COULD RESTATE, YOU WANTED TO PERHAPS CONSOLIDATE 911. [1:28:37] Joshua L. Nagine: WE'VE EXPLORED IT IN THE PAST. I KNOW THERE WAS A COST SAVINGS INVOLVED THAT SAT SOMEWHERE AROUND $500,000 BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE OUTSOURCING TO, WELL, WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR 911 SERVICES FOR THE COUNTY, BUT I BELIEVE THAT DUE TO THE CALLS WE'RE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY ANOTHER $800,000, $900,000 IN [1:28:58] Speaker N (unidentified): CONTRACTED SERVICES. SO THE PORTION THAT YOU PAY [1:29:01] Bryan Kaenrath: OUT OF THE COUNTY IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT WE RECEIVE FROM 911. So it's it's a different Service and we don't pay like the larger proportions. The only people that pay the larger portions of the 911 out of the county are the counties and cities and towns that use Interscoggin County we do not pay that portion. I know a lot of people think we do we do not so when they do the percentage and that's something we could get from them and break out of their budget you'll see that in that portion we do not pay what the other cities and towns that are using them that don't have their own 911 center we don't pay the same portion of that we don't we're not included in [1:29:53] Joshua L. Nagine: that piece so just as a start if i could get the difference between what it would cost a contract just from andrew scotland county sheriffs versus what we're paying in for the [1:30:05] Speaker N (unidentified): municipal inter-municipal agreement just so we have that number correct i can ask but i will [1:30:11] Bryan Kaenrath: let you know when they are i believe the county is down i can't remember if they said five individual employees for that department so i can contact the sheriff and talk to the sheriff and get those numbers for you so you're aware but even if you wanted to dissolve and not have the 911 i don't believe the county could take on our services but i will i will talk [1:30:42] Joshua L. Nagine: to the sheriff and find out i would i would hope that any of these conversations if they actually proceed on any level we would be considering placing some of the 911 call center people are currently employed with andrew scotland county sheriffs if they have open spots [1:30:59] Bryan Kaenrath: we have employees so i believe a couple of them have come over from andrew scotland county to 9-1-1 [1:31:08] Carl L. Sheline: consolidated in 9-1-1 services has been discussed a lot unfortunately there's been strong religious objection to it i'm not sure exactly why i think consulting both 9-1-1 centers would you know save everyone quite a bit of money but once again I think that's for another time councillor Chittum thank you I also [1:31:35] David B. Chittim: said on the 9-1-1 committee there are also technological and technical reasons that consolidation is not as easy as let's do it this would be a long-term project to either move the county dispatching to the existing la 9-1-1 or vice versa it's not something that will affect this year's budget no matter how hard we try this year's budget has been fixed so if that's a discussion pertaining to next year's budget by all means let's bring it on and have it but I suspect that the answer is going to Be the same that there are technological reasons that we cannot do it and the funding is not as clear-cut as people seem to think it is. So let's let's postpone this until after this budget season. [1:32:22] Joshua L. Nagine: Parking garages yeah so my proposal would be and I mean we could we could look at all the revenue lines but ultimately anywhere where we can get a little bit extra money I think would be important right now the parking garages if we if we raise the fee to like let's say 65 or 70 per month and then possibly CONSIDER RIGHT NOW IT'S FIVE DOLLARS A DAY I THINK TO PARK IN THE PARKING GARAGE I THINK THAT'S THE TOTAL IF WE INCREASE THOSE A LITTLE BIT I THINK THAT THOSE REVENUES WOULD BENEFIT THE CITY AND SO I'M NOT SURE WHY THERE WOULD BE AN OBJECTION TO CHARGING LIKE A FAIR AMOUNT FOR PARKING IN COMPARISON TO dollar communities [1:33:13] Carl L. Sheline: Or sorry oh are you done okay all right so yeah I'll quickly I will just to confirm is it 55 a month right now I will have to okay yeah I think I remember 55 but you know I understand and we definitely need more revenue recognize that absolutely I don't want to create any either real or PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO COMING DOWNTOWN USING OUR PARKING GARAGES AND SO I'M AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE BUSINESSES THAT HAVE PURCHASED SPOTS AT PARKING GARAGES AND THAT WILL ALSO AFFECT THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS I IMAGINE THAT ABSOLUTELY NOBODY WILL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS AND I AM NOT CURRENTLY COMMENTS QUESTIONS FROM OTHER COUNCILORS COUNCILOR [1:34:06] Scott A. Harriman: HERMAN YEAH I JUST PULLED UP THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND IT'S 55 A MONTH 42 A MONTH FOR DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS OR FOR DOWNTOWN SMALL BUSINESSES AND THEN IT SAYS NON DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS IT'S UH 600 AND THEN BUSINESS ANNUAL 50 PLUS I ASSUME THAT MEANS THEY GET 50 OR THEY PAY FOR 50 OR MORE SPOTS THAT SAYS 540 DOLLARS UH [1:34:36] Carl L. Sheline: COUNCILOR UM CHINNAM THANK YOU [1:34:40] David B. Chittim: Mr Mayor I'm all for looking at parking revenues. One of the possibilities that occurs to me is to create a an enterprise fund for parking so that the revenues for parking are used exclusively for the maintenance of the parking garages and the costs associated with them and that takes it off the general fund. So that's worthy of looking at. I don't know whether that would drive parking costs to 100 a month I just don't have the numbers but it would seem to me that if we created an enterprise fund For parking that would offload from the general fund. [1:35:14] Carl L. Sheline: Back to you counselor. [1:35:15] Joshua L. Nagine: And aging, one of the things that the parking garages have not been successfully done is generate enough revenues to keep the maintenance on the parking garages up. And so this is, this is one of the reasons why I bring this up, because it becomes LCIP or general fund costs when we defer major maintenance, and then it's more expensive. I have no problem with, the set tiers for businesses and downtown residents. I just want to see that, and you still get two hours of free parking no matter what. Right, like you always get two hours of free parking, and it's free parking past six. And so I'm talking about raising those costs a little bit, and it's not a huge amount of money, but at the end of the day, all of the things that are affecting the budget right now were not huge amounts of money when they started, right? And then they grew and grew and grew. And so we need to look at the same, the same process I think for revenues. That would be my argument. [1:36:08] Carl L. Sheline: Further comments on parking garage prices? [1:36:13] Susan G. Longchamps: Yes, sorry, Councilman Longchamps. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I too would be in favor of increasing that, and that's basically all I want to say. Thank you. I'm [1:36:30] Carl L. Sheline: choking on our higher, potentially higher garage prices. I guess, Director Roy, if you could, I guess, what are we asking administration to do at this point? Perhaps prepare numbers or? [1:36:48] Joshua L. Nagine: Well, I think we could make a proposal for the monthly rate increase, the daily rate increase, and the hourly increase is what I would suggest, but they would need to check it against the prevailing rate in other communities, I would believe, you know, just to make sure that we're not charging too much. But I know that we're under selling our parking. So Councilor Herman, yes, I don't really [1:37:16] Scott A. Harriman: have strong feelings either way. I just wanted to point out that we did just recently, it was either last year or maybe the year before, we just recently revamped the parking, the fee structure in order to, in part, encourage people to, you know, to use the garages for longer term parking, use the on-street parking for shorter term. So we did just revisit this recently, but I don't really have strong feelings either way about raising the fees. That was June of last year when the city council [1:37:44] Bryan Kaenrath: At the time, made all these changes to encourage people to use the parking garages. Once TD Bank and several other businesses closed, we weren't having the use of the parking garages. So this was economic development had brought it forward to the last council to encourage people to park in the in the parking garages. We've removed the parking meters from the streets to try to encourage more short-term parking with parking enforcement. But we've heard from the businesses downtown that we, you know, we Haven't done enough right now for people not to, you know, to park on the parking garages. So that was a way to get them to end there. If we raise the prices, that's up to you folks, but I will let you know it was June when last year when we made all these changes and lowered the prices. [1:38:28] Carl L. Sheline: Well, and you're starting to read my mind there. Would it be okay with the council if we asked economic development their thoughts on it, and then and then go from there? I would be amenable to that, Director Roy. Administrator Kainrath will let you check in with our [1:38:47] Bryan Kaenrath: Economic Development Department right and just have no any change about to be approved at a [1:38:51] Carl L. Sheline: Regular council meeting by vote. Understood. yes, Councilor Neijean, did we go through all [1:38:58] Joshua L. Nagine: Your items? No, is it right if I direct this to Director Gania? please, Director Gania, concerning the 250 thousand dollars in overfill costs for UMWAC, do we have a clear understanding of when that will stop, and also are you familiar enough with the contract with the inter-municipal agreement for using the landfill to advise on whether or not we could [1:39:22] Bryan Kaenrath: Actually raise the tip fees? So I just read through that contract again this afternoon. It's a 10-year agreement with MWAC or MWE. We're three years into it, so there's three years left, seven years left, so June 30th of 2032 would be when it would expire. Some of the provisions in there allow for mutual discussion upon efficiencies in the ash and reducing cost, but not increases or escalators. Our current what we charge for ash is $58 a ton, and what we're charged for municipal waste when we bring it There is 81 a ton, so that is already a mismatch there, plus we're now being charged for [1:40:12] Joshua L. Nagine: The fact that they can't burn all of the trash, correct, like that 250,000 overrun is for them to get rid of trash that we're sending to AMWAC, is that correct? [1:40:26] Bryan Kaenrath: We'll look at that item and have Deputy Director Bates. I think we added some revenue in there to separate what we were, we're charging MWAC and those revenues coming back and what we were being charged as an expense item. So I think you're seeing a $90,000 gap between revenues and expenses. I don't think it's as high as you see. So that's a new account where we're showing revenues coming in from ash receiving and tipping fees for ash and we're showing expenditure for us being charged for municipal waste going to MWAC. So there is a difference and it's ninety thousand dollars. Okay Director Bates did [1:41:08] Carl L. Sheline: you have Deputy Director Bates? Yeah, this I can tell you, but we can get you more [1:41:13] Speaker P (unidentified): information. We have our, the trash that we bring over, we have that's our first priority. They are burning seven days a week, 365, and again what we bring over there gets burned first. If they take in too much, they have to ship it, so that fee is not coming back to us right now. The fee for them shipping to like Juniper Ridge, absolutely not. [1:41:40] Joshua L. Nagine: Okay, thank you. [1:41:46] Carl L. Sheline: Councilor Najin, did we work through your items? I think we covered everything except for the LCIP. Director Roy, when will we be talking about LCIP? Any time you would like if [1:41:59] Bryan Kaenrath: you'd like to talk about LC IP now. We've been going over it when we had the departments in front of you so that if you had any questions on those projects or those items that they were looking to put in the LC IP and bond, they were here [1:42:17] Carl L. Sheline: to answer those questions when that's, thank you for that reminder. When will we [1:42:24] Bryan Kaenrath: need to pass the LCIP again? We usually, I believe, pass it in June, I believe the first of June. Just finally if [1:42:42] Carl L. Sheline: counselors, I guess, have questions about LCIP or if we want to, you know, perhaps now it's appropriate or we can set up a time where we specifically discuss LCI P in that way everyone can be ready. Yeah, [1:42:59] Joshua L. Nagine: concert Nagin, I think that would be fair. I just want to like emphasize that I believe that we're going to exceed the 80% rule and so we need to really focus on only the essential things in the LC IP and so yeah, I would recommend [1:43:17] Carl L. Sheline: that we set up a time to discuss those safety to give everyone a chance to gear up for that. Yes, Councilor Harriman, your [1:43:24] Scott A. Harriman: thoughts. I just had a question on the process. I believe anything that we pass in this LCIP, it won't get bonded for I think it's two years? Two years. Okay. So the decisions we make on this aren't going to affect this year's budget and this year's tax rate, but they will affect it starting two years from now? [1:43:46] Joshua L. Nagine: CORRECTLY. OKAY. THANKS. COUNCILOR NAJING. AND WHEN WE DO HAVE THE discussion on the lcip could we also have a breakdown of any of the unspent bonds that we have [1:43:55] Bryan Kaenrath: for discontinued projects at that time correct i have currently i currently updated that and will for those to you it has the city and school because unfortunately we just did i haven't done up the memo to you all we just did the arbitrage calculations for the 2020 bond and unfortunately, we have to pay back to the IRS because we exceeded the interest amount that was allowed. So we just sent back a check for $208,000 in funds to the IRS because projects were not complete. So I do have that list of everything that's open for LCIP by the years, and that will be going out to you. i was just trying to get the memo done to inform you of that 208 000 and i was going to [1:44:51] Joshua L. Nagine: send along the updated list i appreciate that 208 000 comes out of funds that were sitting in [1:44:57] Speaker N (unidentified): lci lcip bond accounts correct so it came out of the interest that was accrued okay thank [1:45:03] Carl L. Sheline: you perhaps administrator kane rath you could work with director roy to propose it's time to TALK ABOUT LCIP AND THEN MY GUESS IS A WORKING LAPTOP WOULD ALSO BE USEFUL AT THAT TIME AS WELL UH OKAY COUNCILOR NAJIN DID WE WORK THROUGH ALL YOUR ITEMS UH THAT'S IT FOR THE MOMENT OKAY UH ANY SINCE WE HAVE OUR ADMINISTRATION TEAM AND DIRECTOR ROY HERE DID WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS [1:45:30] Michael R. Roy: ABOUT THE BUDGET UH COUNCILOR ROY ARE YOU RAISING YOUR HAND THANK YOU UM WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE I'VE HEARD THE PHRASE, YOU KNOW, REAL CUTS AND ALL THIS STUFF ONLINE, AROUND. COULD WE HAVE A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT CITY SERVICES WE'D BE LACKING IF WE WENT AND TOOK THE BUDGET DOWN TO 3.3%? I TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME. SO I WANT TO SEE, I WANT TO EDUCATE PEOPLE, LIKE, IF WE NEED TO GET DOWN TO 3.3, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FOR THE CITY AND WHAT THAT, WHAT SERVICES WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT CUTTING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. [1:46:07] Bryan Kaenrath: Yeah, I mean there are a number of scenarios that also depend at that point What positions are being cut and aware of what potential services could be impacted by that? So, I mean there are there are a lot of different scenarios we can certainly put out You know the dollar figure is needed to get down to three point three or get down to zero But as far as what particular services may be cut or lost that it would really depend on what? People you're cutting at that point and where? [1:46:34] Michael R. Roy: I just want people to understand, like, to make those cuts, what that means for our city. Is it like shutting down, you know, departments for three days out of the five? You know, I just, I want, I want people to understand, like, these cuts are really big, right? And then I put down, you know, what does it look like at zero percent? Does that mean, like, we're cutting 28 jobs, you know? [1:47:01] Bryan Kaenrath: Something like that, yeah. There are a number of different scenarios, but if we're talking about going to zero, just at 28 jobs, that's probably, you know, best case scenario there. So yes, won't we be talking about significant employee layoffs at that point? But again, depending on what particular scenarios are approved by the council, it could look in a number of different ways as far as actual custom program services that the public may see on a daily basis. But it is safe to say if we're talking about going down to zero, for example, we're talking about significant [1:47:35] Michael R. Roy: layoffs of staff here, right? And I mean, even after, if we'd use 1.9 from the fund balance, right, I mean, 1.9 million from the fund balance, right, what would it look like in terms of, like, maybe positions or departments or whatever to get down to 3.3? I mean, we don't have to go to zero because I don't really feel like, I, yeah, so [1:48:01] Bryan Kaenrath: basically in a nutshell, from tier one, you incorporate the 1.95, to get us the 9 fund balance. Beyond that, to get to 3.3 is, 1 million 42 thousand dollars of additional [1:48:14] Michael R. Roy: reductions, right? That's the 3.3 CPI number. So if we were to maybe look at, like, how many, how many departments do we have in the city right now? Do we know? [Bryan Kaenrath: 15 or 16.] Okay. So if we were to say, you know, we don't want to cut positions, but if we would look at maybe doing a 10% reduction in each department of cost, whether that's overtime, whether that's paper, whether that's, you know, certain things, I mean, that would probably generate close [1:48:50] Bryan Kaenrath: to that one point. So we've actually, we've discussed the idea because, you know, it's, it's often, you know, thrown around that why don't you just ask all departments for a 10% across the board cut and that's it. There are departments, particular are smaller ones, that honestly cannot absorb. We were, we were considering 5% of the time, they cannot absorb a 5% cut. Some of the larger departments, yes, but most of our departments are smaller. Police, fire, our public works, obviously bigger, finance, you know, large to mid but the clerk's office, the assessing, planning, I mean, we have some smaller departments also. So even looking through some of those budgets and trying to find five percent between personnel, supplies, and other things they absolutely need to do their functions is challenging. So I think it would be difficult to do an across the board cut even at like five percent. Higher than that is exceedingly difficult. So as far as supplies, we actually are looking at supplies today. It's it's quite a bit leaner than you may think if we're thinking about, I mean, every, I know we're looking at every little, you know, bit helps here, that sort of mindset. So that is that is true, but if we're looking, you know, for another, you know, say million dollars to get to that 1,042,000, it's about the 3.3 or to go beyond that, we do need to be looking at more than just [1:50:14] Michael R. Roy: paper clips and paper. No, I understand. I'm just trying to look at every aspect of trying to see what we can do to do to load with us. So again, I appreciate that. Thank you. Councilor Chiddum. [1:50:29] David B. Chittim: Yes, thank you. I'd like to go back to the discussion we had with our attorney and understanding fully that we're all talking about the same number when we're looking at 3.3. I've just heard written down that if in addition to reducing the fund balance against Director Roy's recommendations from 10 to 9 percent, we still need 1.04 million dollars in cuts to reach 3.3. Correct? Is that 3.3 on the city operating expenses, on the city operating expenses plus debt service, on the city operating plus county plus debt service plus school? What is that three percent? That to attain, we would need to cut an additional million dollars from the city operating expenses. We were not discussing the schools being included. [Speaker N (unidentified): There. Correct. So] to get us to a three point three percent on the area that city attorney does not feel, I'm gonna, I gotta start that sentence again. The city attorney feels that the three point three percent applies to everything. I think there's some differences of opinion up here. The three point three percent, the million cut that you're talking about that gets us to three point three percent in which budget or budgets? The city including county and debt service, or just operating expenses? [1:52:04] Bryan Kaenrath: Just the cities operating minus the revenue. SO IF I BELIEVE THIS CPI WAS PUT IN THE CHARTER IN 2022, AND IF YOU LOOK AT PAST, MYSELF AND DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR ARE LOOKING AT THE PAST INFORMATION ON ALL THE SLIDE SHOWS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL, IT SAID CITY ONLY RIGHT ON THE slideshow i believe when you're looking at i looked at the assessors documents it says municipal says school says county assessed on when you're looking at the certification so i think when they put the charter together they were saying municipal only as the city only as he mentioned when it said that if it, if you all do not agree and it goes back to the city administrator, he cannot look at its non-school budget. So I believe when they were doing the charter, I don't think that they were including everything. And as I mentioned, county, we are only collecting the taxes for the county and from our citizens and sending the county the exact amount back to them. So I think when the city put the charter together, I believe it was just for the city. And there's verbiage on May Municipal that states city, municipal, I don't know if Deputy Administrator O'Malley has that still up, but we were looking at that, and it stated city only, school separate, county separate, is how the wording was on the state. So I think when they put it together in 2022, I think that was their ultimate goal was for to bring the city down to 3.3 or the CPI when [1:54:04] David B. Chittim: you say city do you include debt service [1:54:08] Bryan Kaenrath: the city operating debt is together yes okay there are three lines on this sheet that we are [1:54:15] David B. Chittim: looking at for the city operating expenses, county tax, and debt service. And what I'm hearing you say, Director Roy, is that the 3.3 percent target, the 1.0204 million that we would have to cut, that would get us on operating expenses and debt service to a 3.3 increase over last year [1:54:36] Bryan Kaenrath: So if you look at the tax rate sheet that you have in front of you, it is split out up top, but when you get down to the city portion, the proposed tax levy, that amount is your operating expense, your debt expense for the city, minus your city revenue, gives you that number. [1:54:58] David B. Chittim: Okay. And is this, I've got to find the one that has today's date on it. [1:55:04] Carl L. Sheline: Are you talking about the 6.8%? [1:55:09] David B. Chittim: Yes. The proposed tax levy on the tier one with take-home vehicle updated school budget numbers 42926 shows a 6.8% proposed tax levy. That is operating expense for plus debt service if we is that correct. So if we take 1.9 or 1.8 6 million dollars out of the fund balance, that reduces the differential to just around a little under a million dollars, which is pretty close to the 1.04 that I'd heard earlier today that would get that line to 3.3 percent in the past. [1:55:52] Bryan Kaenrath: It's always been the actual, if you look at every single presentation, every single memo. [1:56:01] Carl L. Sheline: Can you move the mic closer to you for our folks at home? [1:56:03] Bryan Kaenrath: Every single presentation, every single memo, the CPI has always gone off of the proposed tax rate city. So that, it would be 5.8% minus the 3.3. So that number would go down to 3.3 when you minus out the million 42. [1:56:25] David B. Chittim: Okay thank you and that's not the advice of our corporate council. [1:56:31] Bryan Kaenrath: Correct he's [1:56:33] Carl L. Sheline: stating that it's all three correct thank you thank you Councilor Herman yes I just wanted [1:56:40] Scott A. Harriman: to clarify when we're looking at the number that we should be comparing to this 3.3 percent we're looking at this proposed tax levy just below the halfway mark of the of this page no it's [1:56:54] Bryan Kaenrath: always been on the actual proposed tax rate down here this number right here is how it's always been calculated if you go back and look at everything since 2022 that's the number that's [1:57:06] Scott A. Harriman: always been looked at okay thank you so that's currently at 5.8 percent on the city correct and that's the number we should be comparing to the goal of 3.3 correct okay thank you [1:57:21] Carl L. Sheline: Counselor Hairman. Thank you, Counselor Hairman. [1:57:24] Joshua L. Nagine: Counselor Najing. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Right now, this is all calculated on a 10% fund balance, or is this calculated on a 9% fund balance? 9%. This is on 9%. [1:57:38] Bryan Kaenrath: Correct. That amount of the 1,000,095, you'll see midway down under where it says less non-tax revenues that amount has been put in to the use of fund balance could you just [1:57:54] Joshua L. Nagine: speak again to our bond rating and what happens to it historically we've been at a double-a negative right correct and that's very normal for the financial is well financial responsibility for municipalities of our size and also [1:58:09] Bryan Kaenrath: Economic activity correct if we were the issue we have every time we have the rating as I had mentioned is that we are not being bumped up to a better grading due to the fact of the income in the city. So what individuals make in the city is the hard push for us not going to a better rating. So it's very important to show that we're financially secure along with our plans. So that's why it's it's looked at as the fund balance and in the past we've been able to use fund balance for Capital items which are one-time purchases which is as long as we didn't go below that amount did not affect us. But starting to use fund balance for operating expenses I don't know if it'll affect us if we continue to do it may down the road affect [1:59:14] Joshua L. Nagine: Our rating. Fair enough thank you for that. I think one of the things that you're bringing up the average am I of a family in Androscoggin County and Lewiston in particular and all of the things that we're struggling right now with right now it all comes back to economic development bringing in good jobs into the community bringing in a higher tax base that doesn't necessarily displace the residents. It's it's an augmentation and we've struggled with that for a long time we have not successfully Increased the tax base. I would just say for like my final comments any projects that are scheduled this year that any of the departments do not think that they're going to finish should not be put in the LC IP. Ultimately we should not be bonding for projects that will not be finished. So yeah that's it further questions about the budget [2:00:14] Carl L. Sheline: From the rest of the council we might be calling it a night administrator Cain rat Dr Roy did you have anything further at this time? No also thank you deputy administrator O'Malley I DON'T WANT YOU TO FEEL LEFT OUT HE'S GOOD I THINK WE'RE I THINK WE'RE GOOD THANK YOU EVERYONE THANK YOU DEPARTMENT HEADS FOR BEING HERE HAVE A WONDERFUL EVENING