Lewiston Council Weighs Three Budget Cut Tiers Amid Tax Concerns

[1:52] Carl L. Sheline: Hello, thank you councillors, thank you. We are kicking off our Tuesday night budget meeting. We're, we're trying to have a meeting, councillors, please, thank you. We have director Roy here joined by administrator Kainrath, administrator. [2:11] Bryan Kaenrath: Kainrath, please kick us off. All right, good evening everyone. We are back, so as we discussed that our meeting last Thursday, our plan was to come back with a few scenarios for additional amounts of savings. We had talked about doing three different levels of savings, so there's a document that's in front of you, is also emailed to you earlier today. We just finished up this analysis midday today, so there's going to be a tier one, a tier two, and a tier three savings. We're going to present, I do just want to start off by repeating again that just so you know everyone is aware and everyone watching, we have already cut 4.1 million dollars OUT OF THIS BUDGET, THESE SAVINGS WOULD BE IN ADDITION ON TOP OF THAT. SO BETWEEN 4.1 AND THEN ANOTHER MILLION OR UP TO 2 MILLION WITH WHAT YOU SEE HERE. JUST A PROGRAMMING NOTE, THERE'S BEEN OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF ATTENTION ON THE REVAL. WE DID JUST IN THE LAST HOUR OR SO GET INFORMATION BACK FROM TOWER TECHNOLOGIES ON THE PHASED-IN REVAL, WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE, ASSOCIATED COSTS, AND A LOT OF OTHER NUMBERS. So what we're going to do is we're going to have Bill Healy here on Thursday to go presentation on total overview of the phased in process, how it'll work, what it would look like, and there are a couple different options for potential costs. There are costs associated with this, so I'll just give you a small preview, it does range anywhere from 50 upwards of 400,000 to do this phase 10 approach, so we'll go through that whole analysis and all of that on Thursday. Bill will be able to join us on that night, but I think the real goal for tonight is to get through these savings proposals. So you'll see just one other note, we just today had, we got fuel bids back, there was as you can imagine a bit of an increase or a fuel bid, we are better than expected, but 298 a gallon for diesel, 249 a gallon for gas, so considering today's prices out there at the gas station, not horrible, but still an increase for us, so that is costing us another one hundred and sixteen thousand dollars on that, so we did this, we Had another one hundred sixteen thousand dollars to absorb a couple hours ago, so the figures you see, we're set back one hundred sixteen thousand dollars because of that. Okay, so the sheet you have here in front of you, there's a couple different scenarios. So we have tier one, we'll start there. This is to achieve one million dollars in savings. So in the left hand column you'll see that is without the police take home vehicles proposal. The right hand column is with the police take home vehicles proposal. So you'll see the bottom line on the left hand column is a million forty four thousand $142 in savings. So how this was achieved, you'll see at the top fixed charges, so the homeless TIF, this is $106,000 additional that was identified that could be applied toward our payment for the shelter out of TIF funds. $50,000, that's the LATC bus vehicles. They have other monies they've been able to use this year, so that's not going to impact them. The next is a worker's compensation item, gap for reserves. We reduced $150,000. The following items after that are all regarding the police take-home vehicle proposal. So those would be removed without the take-home. Below that, there were some adjustments to revenues. So the first, as we talked about at the last meeting, is state revenue sharing, booking at 100% instead of 95%. That totals $580,000. You see that there. We did also go back with Director Connor's guidance and re-examined some revenues in the codes department with inspector fees, and he is feeling comfortable that we can increase those revenues 150 000 and still be in a safe area. So you'll see with all that and then we have you see the gas but I just talked about and also adding in 10 police vehicles because we wouldn't be doing the take-home proposal. So left-hand column tier one we'd save a million and forty four thousand and the right-hand column you'll see a little bit of a different scenario. The bottom line savings is just over a million dollars, a million and twelve thousand five fifteen. I don't know if you want to go through every single one of these. Do you want me to go through every single one? I think you've had time to examine this. So that's basically where we are for tier one. Tier two is a different scenario in that as we talked about this adds layoffs. These are there are positions with current people in seats. You'll see There are three positions in the tier two as we talked about the last meeting. Our charge was to come up with a bottom line dollar figure for positions. We're not talking about which positions, we're not talking about specific names. These are people in seats right now. These are their jobs. These are LIVELIHOODS. I THINK IT WOULD BE AN EXTREMELY POOR IDEA TO SIT HERE IN PUBLIC SESSION AND DEBATE THE MERITS OF THEM LOSING THEIR JOB OR NOT LOSING THEIR JOB. THAT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. AS WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE POSITIONS LISTED WITH AN ASSOCIATED DOLLAR FIGURE. BUT JUST KNOW THAT IS THREE POSITIONS IN TIER TWO FOR SAVINGS OF $1,431,993 WITHOUT THE TAKEHOME, WITH THE TAKEHOME, a little bit less 1,308,045. So moving to tier three, without the take-home, we're adding in another five positions that would be laid off. Total savings, 1,886,475. Again, without take-home vehicles, with take-home vehicles, slightly less, 1,762,527. At the bottom, Tracy, I don't know if want to touch on this so this is the one of the other big areas with the take-home vehicles is the bond and future principal and interest there so you'll see those numbers on the bottom of the sheet tracy do you want to add anything about that so i touched base with our bond council today and requested the current interest rate so as i mentioned below the current interest rate is 3.5 that's not to say that 's what we would receive but i just kind of wanted an estimate for you and again we don't bond until two years out so two years out we would bond this and then for three years so already those vehicles would be five years so I just wanted you to know that so the total interest to be paid on this is two hundred and seventy five thousand two ninety eight so you'll see attached this you have the associated analysis of where everything would fall depending on the tier and depending on whether we do take home vehicles or not so with tier one again we're at 6.1 percent for the city operating expenses overall increase tier two without take-home vehicles drops to 5.4 with the take-home vehicles 5.6 and then in tier three without take-home vehicles we go down to 4.5 percent city operating budget increase and with take-home vehicles 4.8 I will just say you know I mentioned we have found 4.1 million in savings we found an additional 1 million in savings with the tier one you know I think it's certainly our preferred option to go with tier one layoffs are never a fun thing obviously you know we understand that you know times are tight but we have laid out three scenarios here tiers two and three again we are talking about out people and their jobs and their livelihoods and people in seats and that's you know it's very difficult for us we haven't done in a while of course we can do, you know, whatever we need to do, but I think it's certainly our preferred option to take the 4.1 million savings we already have, add tier one, you know, which we can do without laying people off, but there are the two other options also. So I think that's in a nutshell our presentation. Happy to take QUESTIONS OR DIG FURTHER INTO THIS. [10:36] Carl L. Sheline: THANK YOU, ADMINISTRATOR KENRATH. DIRECTOR, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD AT THIS TIME? NO. OKAY. SO, YOU KNOW, IN AN EFFORT TO SORT OF, LIKE, COME TOGETHER AROUND WHAT OPTION, YOU KNOW, OR RECEIVE MAJORITY SUPPORT AROUND THE TABLE DAYS HERE, MAYBE WE'LL JUST START WITH THE COUNSELOR FORM 1-1 AND THEN WE'LL JUST SWING ON DOWN AND THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS. YEAH. [11:04] Joshua L. Nagine: WELL, FIRST, THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. FIRST ADMINISTRATOR AND DIRECTOR, I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO THE TIER THREE PROPOSAL BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WHAT I'M LOOKING AT AND I JUST WANT TO VERIFY THIS, THE TOTAL SAVINGS AS FAR AS THE BUDGET IS CONCERNED IS 1.8 MILLION, BUT THAT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, LIKE, PART OF THAT IS OFFSET BY ACCOUNTING FOR REVENUE SHARING. SO IT'S NOT 1.7 MILLION ON TOP OF THE REVENUE SHARING. [11:37] Bryan Kaenrath: NO, THAT'S INCLUDED. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CALCULATIONS ABOVE ON THE VERY FIRST TIER ONE, YOU'LL SEE THE REDUCTIONS AND EXPENSES AND THEN THE INCREASE IN THE REVENUES. AND THEN THE INCREASE IN EXPENSES THAT GIVES A SAVINGS BETWEEN THE DECREASES IN EXPENSES AND THE INCREASES IN REVENUES OF A MILLION 44. SO THESE AMOUNTS ARE ALL included so tier ones amounts are included in tier two so if you decide to do tier two it would be everything in tier one and tier two and so ultimately [12:10] Joshua L. Nagine: none of the proposals in front of us reduce the operating expense increase to three to three point five percent. It's four point eight percent is what I'm [12:17] Bryan Kaenrath: Showing correct, right, that's, that's the lowest we got, and as we talked, I think when we left the last meeting, the sort of, you know, direction was 1 million, 1.5 million, and two. You can certainly go beyond two, that's not, you know, the question, but this is what we presented here. But if there are other scenarios you want to work up, we can certainly do the same thing and come back with, you know, deeper cuts, but obviously once you go past, you know, because we're already talking about laying off eight positions at tier three, so obviously, you know, there's gonna be much deeper cuts beyond that. Well, that's another thing I [12:53] Joshua L. Nagine: I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT. THE TWO DIFFERENT COLUMNS HAVE ACTUALLY DIFFERENT CUTS, RIGHT? RIGHT. TIER ONE AND TIER TWO. I'M WONDERING WHY WE CAN CONSOLIDATE ALL OF THE CUTS INTO ONE TIER. [13:05] Bryan Kaenrath: It's the take-home vehicle proposal. If we want to keep that in or put it out? [13:10] Joshua L. Nagine: Whether we keep it in or put it out, we can take all of the same cuts, right? Because I'm showing the repairs to buildings, for instance, and the miscellaneous services for coaches and community form, those are in the salaries moved to utilities like those don't speak to the take-home vehicle expenses, correct [13:28] Bryan Kaenrath: Right, so we're just trying to get to that figure, we're trying to get to a million dollars of savings, so it's, it's different depending if we want to include the cars for the PD, the take-home or not. So that was, you know, the first piece of analysis was getting to a million, and obviously the expenses are a little bit different depending if we do the cars or not for the PD. [13:46] Joshua L. Nagine: Okay. And just as a point of, if we're reducing the TIF that we're giving to Alter 207, how does that actually affect our bottom line for the tax base since that is money that is set aside anyways? Sorry, which TIF? The homeless TIF that's mentioned, the fixed charges, the 106, 666, that's coming from TIF funds that don't affect, I mean, they do affect our tax rate, but they're not. Reducing that money does not reduce the tax rate, correct? [14:21] Bryan Kaenrath: That expense is in the miscellaneous expense. So on your very last page, I think on page 70, you'll see we had the homeless shelter in there for $425. so we've reduced that 106 from the prior and then we can reduce it another 106 looking at the cmp tiff so we can take 206. so in your actual original budget we had budgeted the full 400 so we're going to reduce that line we're going to put it in the tiff so it reduces the tax [14:57] Joshua L. Nagine: Right, okay, so what you're saying is that the amount that we're warning to alter to the seven is not reduced, but we're shifting where it's coming from, is [15:09] Bryan Kaenrath: that correct? We're still gonna give them the four [15:11] Joshua L. Nagine: hundred thousand, correct? We're just shifting it from two tips so it doesn't [15:14] Bryan Kaenrath: work because it can be cut covered by tips. Gotcha, okay, those are my [15:19] Carl L. Sheline: preliminary questions, thank you Councillor Najee. And so at this point, I guess what tier are you inclined to support at this point? I wanted to see a [15:34] Joshua L. Nagine: reduction in operating expenses to hold to three to three and a half percent. My expectation was that we would cut the budget by 1.7 million, not accounting for the for the full oh revenue sharing, right? Yeah, and so for me personally I'm not happy with any of these, and so that's my personal position, but I don't want everybody to have a [15:59] Carl L. Sheline: chance to go around and we can see if we can find any common ground anywhere, and we will. Yes, thank you Counselor Longchamps, what are your thoughts? Thank you Mayor. Yeah, sorry, can you THANK YOU. [16:18] Susan G. Longchamps: THE MONEY THAT WE ARE GIVING TO NONPROFITS, CAN WE TAKE THAT OUT ALSO OR IS THAT NOT? [16:32] Bryan Kaenrath: SO THE NONPROFITS WHO CAME AND PRESENTED IN FRONT OF YOU ARE NOT IN YOUR BUDGET. THERE IS ONLY LIBERTY FESTIVAL FOR $10,000. AND I BELIEVE ONE OTHER IS The Balloon Festival for 10, the Balloon Festival for 10,000. The rest of them are not in the budget. The ones that you had approved last year were removed when we did the budget this year. Okay. Thank you [17:00] Susan G. Longchamps: and then How many frozen positions do we have not within the police department? Do we have any? Yes [17:11] Bryan Kaenrath: Believe it's true. We have a number of frozen positions. So what Public Works we have one two, there are nine in public works, is that correct? There [17:32] Michael R. Roy: are nine positions, two in police, that would make that eleven, and then there's one unfunded in the fire department. So how many [17:42] Susan G. Longchamps: not in the police? Seven, ten, oh ten, nine public works and one fire, is that correct? Yes, could we do anything with those to help the budget? You mean freeze additional open positions? Right. [18:14] Bryan Kaenrath: Yes, we could. So what we have, you know, available to us is at this point, I'm going to say freezing additional positions of public works is really going to lead to operational challenges. They have nine frozen positions already. I think it's incredibly difficult to freeze more for public works. Police, we have a few more open. We've talked about one of our top priorities, though, is recruiting police officers and dealing with public safety challenges. So I think it's exceedingly difficult to freeze all the positions. We do have, we may have more obviously opening up, but and then we could potentially freeze one more and fire, but fire departments also really critical service to the city. So there's not a lot of room there. So really the options are we could potentially freeze a few more in police or potentially one more in the fire department? [19:12] Susan G. Longchamps: I don't think that's smart to do to our fire department or our police department, as they are critical and lifesavers. So we're gonna have a tough time with this, but we're up for the challenge and I think we just have to be very careful how we do it, but cuts clearly, we have to continue making them. I would like to just touch upon the take-home vehicles again. Most of you know I'm very passionate about the police department, my daughter is a police officer, but for this, for the police cars, the take-home vehicles, what I'm hearing from a lot of officers and police officers that recruit other officers is Lewiston is a very challenging city, it's a great city, but it's very challenging and has a lot of crime, so we have to do something to really entice people to come here to want to work as a police officer, because quite honestly they can go to other cities with way less crime and make a lot more money. So most of our officers are either from here, you know, it's very personal for them to work and protect our city, so I do hope that we can pass, at least put in those take-home vehicles, because it is definitely going to attract officers to come. We have to have some sort of tool that says that sets us aside, because right now we have positions people aren't applying for Lewiston Police Department for many reasons. It's a large city. There's a lot of crime, the pay is not the best. So the take-home vehicles, I think would be really attractive, so I don't have much to say anymore. I really don't know which tier I would love to just go with tier one. I think that's an extra million dollars that you have managed to save taxpayers, but I'm not completely sold on that one at this moment. Thank you. [21:41] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you. Counselor Roy, we're up to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [21:45] Michael R. Roy: First off, thank you for doing all this hard work. It's really awesome. It's sad in a lot of ways that we actually had to come here. I do think if you are looking at tier one, the difference is like 32,000. That is like one penny on the mill rate if you keep the cars in. If we were going to go with tier one, I would be inclined to keep the cars in. My struggle here is this. I really want to give the fire department, the police department all the tools they need to get their cars in. Job done and to protect everybody, that is my goal here. I've always tried to do that, but at the at the expense of cutting positions, that's where I have a hard time with, and if you move down to tier two where you're looking at cutting three positions and you keep the cars in, that's 123,000 about, and that right there is one position. So this is a hard decision for me because again, like I said, I wouldn't, I yeah, and as far as going all the way down to, you know, tier three, you're talking, that's that's still one position, but for the cars, but yet you're cutting five positions. I mean, if I had to make a decision right now, I mean, we just got handed this afternoon. So it's not like I've had a whole lot of time to look at this and really kind of see where we could maybe make more cuts. I mean, I myself would be looking at tier one right now because that means that there are no positions cut. But I am not opposed to looking at maybe tier two. I don't think I can go to tier three because I do not want to discuss five positions. There's just no way in my brain that I can wrap my head around that. But at this point, I also do owe the taxpayers the relief, and I mean, I think we've discussed that with trying to maybe talk about the re-evaluation, to talk about a lot of things like that. So again, we're trying to put other things in here for relief for the taxpayers. I just, you know, and if that comes into fruition, then I'm looking at, you know, staying with tier one and then redoing everything else. So for right now, I'd be more inclined to do tier one and then maybe talk about a tier two if we really absolutely have to. I am also inclined to say that I do want to keep the cars in here if possible, but again, I don't want to cut positions over it. That's my goal here. Mr. Mayor? [25:13] Carl L. Sheline: Yes, Deputy Administrator O'Malley. [25:14] Joshua L. Nagine: If you did go to tier three, that's eight positions over [25:18] Michael R. Roy: total, it's three from tier two and five, and yeah, that's eight. Thank you for that. Yeah, there's just, I can't wrap my brain around that. [25:27] Carl L. Sheline: counselor noble i [25:34] Susan G. Longchamps: I'm gonna have to move them like a lot closer than deciding. I'm sorry, I'm unsure. That's why I'm citing more with Mike. I don't want to cut any jobs. I definitely want the take-home vehicles for the officers. It doesn't seem like there's a big difference there as far as the money goes, but I want to be able to think about it and I want to look more into it, talk to my peers, and just to be clear, there's not a [26:05] Bryan Kaenrath: decision point tonight. So this is hot off the press. We just finished this analysis, so I don't think we're asking for a decision right now. I think we're just in discussion mode, so okay, all [26:15] Susan G. Longchamps: right, so yeah, if I had to pick right now, I guess it would be tier one with the take-home [26:21] Carl L. Sheline: vehicles yes thank you and to administrator came last point we are yes not voting on anything tonight we won't be for a little bit here but we are you know trying to gauge if we provide any more direction to staff other than what they've already done counselor chittum [26:44] David B. Chittim: thank you mr mayor a couple of questions we have about 370 city employees full time okay WHILE THE OTHER COUNCILORS HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THE BUDGET, I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THE TOTAL TAX LEVY. THE WORST CASE WITH NO TAKEHOME AND WITH TIER 3 CUTS, WE STILL ARE LOOKING AT AN 11.3% INCREASE IN THE TAXES THAT EVERY HOMEOWNER IN THE CITY AND PRESUMABLY ALL RENTERS WILL BE FACING. SO I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM A LITTLE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. I am not eager to cut any positions, but if you look at eight positions cut for a tier three, that's a little over 2% of our workforce. That's eight people versus 12, well, 8,000 homes, 8,000 taxpayers or thereabouts. And I'm looking at the revenues that these taxpayers, many of whom like myself are on fixed income, who had a relatively small cost of living increase in our pensions, it's certainly nowhere near 11%. So my perspective, as much as I regret and do not want or don't advocate for removing positions, I think we have to trim the budget. I have, I think we have to give a lot of credence to the burden that we're asking the taxpayers of Lewiston to pay. And when I look at an 11%, and this is by the way, I assume with no reference at all to the revaluation. This is the overall tax burden, and bear in mind the general knowledge is that the tax burden is going to shift from industrial and commercial slightly to residential people. So the homeowners, the folks who can least afford to pay out of that group of three entities, are going to be hit with presumably more than eleven point whatever, 11.3 percent, which is the stripped-down leanest model that you presented to us. And I do want to reiterate that I appreciate very much the pairing that administration has done, administrator Cain, Rath, director Roy, deputy director, deputy administrator O'Malley, you've all done yeoman's work and it's a very difficult process, but again my perspective is I was asked earlier which tier do you prefer and my off-the-cuff answer was tier six so that's where I'm coming FROM. [29:34] Bret Martel: COUNCILOR MARTELL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, THANK YOU, ADMINISTRATOR, DIRECTOR. YEAH, I AGREE. I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT SOME STAFFED POSITIONS, AS UNFORTUNATE AS THAT IS, AND I WOULDN'T WANT THAT TO BE MY POSITION IF I WAS WORKING HERE, but we've got thousands and thousands of homeowners and I fear that more than eight homeowners could be put out of their homes with this, with this tax burden, it's, it just feels like, so there's not a lot of fat left to cut. I think you've done a great job with that. I don't think there was a whole lot there to begin with. I think we're into ugly but necessary territory. I am kind TAKEHOME CARS BECAUSE WE NEED PUBLIC SAFETY. PUBLIC SAFETY IS A STATED PRIORITY OF THIS COUNCIL AND THE ADMINISTRATOR. AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE FOR THE TAXPAYERS AND THE PEOPLE AT HOME. WE ARE NOT SITTING UP HERE LIKE OPRAH SAYING YOU GET A CAR, YOU GET A CAR, YOU GET A CAR. THERE'S REASONS FOR THIS AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. please director Roy, but I believe if we do the take-home cars it's less on the budget this year, it's less on the budget next year, and over the term of the five years it actually saves the city money, not a lot. I believe the last number I saw was a hundred grand a year and somewhere between five and six hundred grand on the whole spread, and then when we put in the debt financing of about 300,000 we still come out a couple hundred grand ahead, and that is if recruiting wasn't an issue, which it is that does that sound somewhat close [31:34] Bryan Kaenrath: so just a reminder the maintenance is unknown, the insurances could go up due to if there's a lot of accidents, so there's a lot of unknowns on that piece, and then how long the cars will last, because like I said we don't bond for two years and then you got a three-year bond so by then the vehicles of five years what's the [32:01] Bret Martel: Current life of a cruiser right now, doing it the way that we are, only three years, I believe. [32:08] Carl L. Sheline: The chief is here. Yeah, I mean, I think it, sorry, are these questions better directed, yeah, at this point, if we're talking about police cars, and I mean right now the cars are driven 24 7, right? [32:21] Bret Martel: Right, that's what I'm saying is with less use, we'd like to think they'd last longer. [32:25] Carl L. Sheline: Theoretically, yes. Sorry, no,, no, after you. [32:29] Bret Martel: When you say maintenance, shouldn't these cars be under warranty if they're brand new? So is maintenance like oil changes and tires, brake pads, stuff like that, wouldn't be covered under the manufacturer's warranty for all these new vehicles? [32:42] Bryan Kaenrath: We would have to find out how long of a maintenance contract that they usually go with. [32:52] Carl L. Sheline: Yeah, Councillor Martel, I think at this point we'll have Police Chief Connolly speak [32:57] Bryan Kaenrath: to some of these questions. I can answer some of those questions for you. In the original proposal that we submitted for this, it breaks down pretty much everything where it comes down to maintenance, like a cruiser lasts typically, and I might have Joey step in because he handles our fleet, two to three years. What we're looking at the studies we've seen we're seeing vehicles go Seven to sometimes ten years depending on like if they're a CID car That lasts a lot longer than a typical patrol car. So the lifespan of the vehicle is largely increased with this [33:35] Bret Martel: Do we know the warranty on these new cars that we're getting in? Is it like a 560 or 336? [33:41] Speaker K (unidentified): six he's done all the research on this so it does depend on which vehicles obviously the Fords is what we're looking at Ford warranties are five years mileage wise I'm not a hundred percent sure I think it's 75 I think that comes off GM which is Chevy's are three year 36 Dodge three year 36 so that's where we run into a lot of issues with our Dodges they don't make them anymore but the ones we do have now they're obviously they stopped making them in 2023 we're in 2026 a lot of them are out of warranty motors drive trains transmissions are going like crazy and they're costing us a lot of money we just fixed one that was 40 200 and that came out [34:31] Bret Martel: of our maintenance budget. So let's just, for example's sake, say we go with Fords, say we go with Fords, and we end up at the 565 75 that you were talking about. How long do you expect with these take-home cruisers being used less often before we would surpass that, say, bumper-to-bumper warranty where we're accountable for more than tires and oil changes and wear and tear? I think you would see the [34:57] Speaker K (unidentified): majority of that five years before that mileage becomes an issue. And that's kind of on the extreme side of things. That's if somebody lives, let's say, outside of the city or outside of the county, and they're driving into work, and they happen to work a outside beat, so the areas of outer Lisbon Street, out of Sabata Street, so they're putting on a significant amount of miles between traveling to and from work and driving the outside of the city, which uses a lot more miles on vehicles that those that cover those areas. However, we can also rotate, you know, somebody that lives in the city that is working at downtown town beat that puts on very minimal miles. We can do an assessment after a couple of years and say, hey, this vehicles got no issues, it's got less miles, let's swap it out with the person that's putting on miles, and that way we're kind of even throughout the whole process. And the same thing goes for patrol vehicles. If they've been in patrol for, let's say, five years and they're starting to get towards the end or the truck get a little more expensive, we can transition that to an administrative vehicle, put that into to CID, take a CID car that's going to be brand new that may have 10,000 miles on it, and outfit that into a patrol vehicle with maybe a couple of days downtime for our fleet manager to swap it over. Because the majority of the lights, sirens, the guts of the vehicle will be in there. It's just a matter of changing out the cages and the camera systems and maybe putting a computer in there. [36:28] Bret Martel: When you first brought us that proposal, I think you were using numbers that you put together from like-sized municipalities and stuff. Didn't we send you back to get more like, say, case sensitive numbers here in Lewiston, and you brought those back to us? Okay, I don't have those numbers on the top of my head, but I do think it's important to highlight that the numbers have been gone through for a case specific basis here for Lewiston, and thank you for all the work that you've done answering our questions and supplying that for us. I know I was at a meeting earlier today and I had someone point out that we have these beautiful wide crosswalks that have in ways and stuff like that, and the individual just joked that they saw like five or six different people jaywalking, and they say you've got these wonderful crossings with these signs, and they made a joke about you know where are your police to police this jaywalking, and I couldn't help but chuckle that you know we would love to have enough officers out there to police parking and moving violations and jaywalking type crimes, but we're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to satisfy the public safety concerns and demands of this community if we don't have staffing and the officers to answer those calls, and I think that this program independently looked at on its own aside from recruitment stands as at least neutral if not a cost benefit to the taxpayer in the long run, and when you add in the recruitment it just seems like something that we really need to leave in, especially with the nominal differences between savings on each of the tiers. I just see too much of a value add there, and I don't want to see people's jobs cut either, but you know people need public safety and taxpayers are going to be taxed out of their homes. If we've got to find places to cut, I would hate to see it be for these cruisers. That's what I've got [38:29] Speaker K (unidentified): for you right now, thank you. I just have one more quick thing to add, and that is the under the with take home under the tier one and tier two where it says add in ten vehicles minus trade in, I don't know if it's a typo but it says three $367,000. That's not the number. It's actually $526,336 for a difference of approximately $159,000, which puts the savings under the without take-home, under Tier 1, at $885,106. dollars and under tier two without take home 1.272 657. thank you sergeant dr roy do you [39:20] Bryan Kaenrath: have any so those numbers came off of the very first sheet that we received from pd where they had the savings that was sent to you, so those calculations came off of the very first sheet that was given. So there was a memo that went out to you from the chief the very first time when there were questions asked, and they talked about if i can find it 's in here somewhere they talked about trade-ins, the trade-ins were at 89 000 for 10 trade-ins vehicles director I believe numbers is what I calculated that from [40:13] Speaker K (unidentified): Yeah, I believe the number you're referring to is probably the 14 car Fleet upgrade, the original one we sent on Monday. I was asked to put together a 10 car budget, and that was the number on the 10 car budget. I believe the 14 car budget was around 630,000 total, and that had the 10 trade-ins at 80 [40:46] Bryan Kaenrath: something thousand. So were they different trade-ins than what you had on the original 10 trade-ins? Well, would they be the same vehicle? No, because we [40:54] Speaker K (unidentified): can't trade in, we don't have enough cars as it stands, so I can't afford to trade in 10 cars and only get 10 cars. So I had to whittle it down to only trading in eight cars, which, again, the less cars I trade in, that means they're on the road for another year, which means the cost of maintenance is going to go up, so I have to account for that, as well as some of the cars that we're trading in are Dodges. They don't make Dodges anymore, so I have to go either buy Fords or Tahos. I'm going to probably go with the Fords because they're cheaper, and I have to upfit those Fords with all new equipment. [41:33] Carl L. Sheline: Equipment. All right, perhaps at this point staff could, between the police station and finance, we'll sort out the discrepancy, confer at not this meeting, and then we can go from [41:46] Bret Martel: there. Just answer, or sorry, yeah, sorry, one more question. I think I've touched on this before, but it takes roughly 18 months to get from application to like a dispatchable officer, and that's if there's only two classes a year that we can get them into. So if we had visit applicants for all these positions, we're looking at 18 months from now before they're dispatchable officers. Okay, and conservatively, how many blue pin ready to serve day one, experienced, ready to go officers can we expect if we implement this program, say in the first 12 months, coming to the [42:25] Bryan Kaenrath: the city? So we're told internally that there's at least four or five, but again, that's, that's what, you know, I don't want to say rumor mill, but that's, that's the word that we're getting, that there are a lot of officers that are watching this, and if this comes to fruition, that they'll be coming over. It could be more. [42:48] Bret Martel: but you're confident that's a conservative number four or five I think we could at least see four okay i appreciate that thank you my other question administrator cainrath is this was just one line item that i remember we were discussing with the library's security they wanted to leave in 50k and that security might not be necessary due to the warming shelter and it being frequented less i remember them suggesting that it 's too soon to pull that and it'd be nice to keep it in the budget i'd like to visit that and see if we could take that off the roll and maybe add it back next year should it become necessary. We're just looking to claw every penny we can right now. And then are there any repairs or upgrades anywhere that we've looked at that we could potentially postpone that might be non-mission critical, which I know kicking the can is never ideal, but you know we're trying to solve problems creatively here. Yeah. [43:51] Bryan Kaenrath: Director Roy, you can chime in also, but I think we've done a pretty thorough job of scraping through this budget and finding any in all areas in that regard. You know, I think some of it is up to opinion, interpretation whether it's absolutely necessary now or later, but there's we've looked through everything. We kept the critical stuff in, like the library that needs the fire under the stairwell. We kept this the stuff that was critical that needed to [44:22] Bret Martel: be done. Okay, that's what I've got for right now. Again, thank you guys for all the work you've you've been doing. As a new counselor, all the work you've done, counselor, Director Roy has been super helpful and I really appreciate it. [44:37] Carl L. Sheline: Thank You council Martel. So which tier are you inclined to support at this [44:42] Bret Martel: moment? I hate to say this and it's not going to make me upon a popular counselor, but three and maybe more with leaving the cruisers in. Okay, thank you. [44:55] Carl L. Sheline: So at this point, you know, it's kind of split evenly between cuts that three or more and then at one. You know, we can go round and round all night. I'm not sure whether that is anyone's mind is gonna change tonight. We're planning to meet on [45:13] Bryan Kaenrath: Thursday, correct? So he'll yeah, we're gonna have a presentation from Director Healy on the phase then retail process. Okay, and then sorry, one second, and then [45:23] Carl L. Sheline: My thinking too is that, you know, this budget passes with a simple majority, correct, councillors? And so at that point, hopefully we will, Scott, councillor chairman, an excused absence this evening. I'm hoping that perhaps we can see him on Thursday and get his thoughts, and then at that point we would have, you know, at least one way or the other, figure out where we should send staff or what direction to provide stuff. [45:55] Bryan Kaenrath: Yeah, go ahead. I think we're, you know, we're happy to work up, you know, whatever scenarios you'd like to see. These were the three we discussed last time. Obviously others could be, could be presented. You know, I will say, you know, if you just look at tier three, I know we talked about the tax levy, that's a very important number, but as far as us scraping through this budget again, you know, right now the city is up, if you look at tier three, that's 4.8 percent on the city side, 20 on the county side, 13 on the school side. So I guess I am saying we don't have a lot more to give. You know, everything else we have to give is people in positions, and you know, I will say we've been combing through this and we're trying to minimize certainly impacts to the taxpayers and to services, but the deeper we go, there's no way around that. So you know, we're certainly gonna put together whatever scenarios like to see, but I think from beyond tier three, we're really getting into an area where we're talking about significant cuts, curtailment of services, and things the taxpayers will definitely see on a daily basis. And that's, you know, that's a policy decision, you know, for the, for the budget, but I guess I'm just saying is, you know, this budget is pretty lean. We don't have a lot to give. You'll even notice up in, you know, in the tier one, we've cut, you know, so coaching, that's, that's staff development and training, so we're eating at, you know, training for our staff, the 10,000 for community forum that was for us to put on these community mixers and forms that we're doing with the public. So we're even chipping in 10,000 and eliminating that. So we're really getting into territory where we're not having a lot left to offer for our staff or for some of these other initiatives. So it is what it is. We're certainly gonna do the best we can. We're gonna put together a budget that's responsible for the taxpayers of Lewiston. But I think beyond tier three, we don't have a lot more to give. It is just people, and you know, when you look at all the totals, obviously we can't, you know, do anything with the county, and obviously the school department, there's a lot of strong opinions on, but they're still sitting at 13.3 percent also. So you know, we have some challenges ahead of us for sure, but we appreciate it, and yeah, so at this point [48:22] Carl L. Sheline: I recommend that we, you know, kind of hold tight until Thursday, then see where councillor Harriman is. That I'm hesitant to, I'm hesitant to ask you to do more work that may or may not be necessary without a Majority of the council behind it, and whereas right now we're kind of split kind of evenly. Additional thoughts from councillors concern aging. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor. I just want to [48:51] Joshua L. Nagine: cover a few things. I'm wondering if it has ever been done where we institute a hiring freeze as of today, for instance. We said any position that becomes available, we freeze that position unless you have a council approval to replace it. Is that something that is done? [49:09] Bryan Kaenrath: I think it could be, but going back to the list of open positions, it's police, it's fire, we have an economic development director, and we have a few in Public Works, and Public Works is already in tough shape with the nine frozen positions already. So the areas to maneuver there are not great. Certainly we could, you know, freeze hiring and not hire some of these positions, but it's, those are the areas we have to work with. Well, the economic [49:41] Joshua L. Nagine: development director, his salary or her salary, their salary would be covered by tip funds, correct, and also if we had said don't freeze the police positions but freeze anything else that is either available right now or becomes available before this budget goes into [49:56] Bryan Kaenrath: place, that's something that we do have the power to do. Yes, we could freeze those positions, but again, that's fire and public works at that point. Okay, one of the things I just want to [50:08] Joshua L. Nagine: comment on quickly with the take-home cars. When I had suggested that we extend our vehicle Replacement schedule out by 20%, this proposal actually extends it out by 40 to 50 percent for the police. If we, if we get the take-home cars, I am hesitant to support vehicles outside of chrome patrol. Simply because that's the feedback. I've gotten from my constituency, but at the same time, if this is, if it's an all-or-nothing model and it's going to actually reduce costs, I think that's okay. I'd just like to say also that our pay scale is actually pretty decent, so you know, in comparing communities of size for the police department, yeah, the steps one through five are under what we pay in other communities, but certainly when I look at the numbers for staffing that is seven years and over, it is in line with every other community. [51:08] Bryan Kaenrath: So do you want to speak to that at all? I would just say we just recently did a wage study and we're on average probably four dollars an hour below several. [51:20] Joshua L. Nagine: Communities near us, do you mind sending me that please? Okay, I appreciate it. The information I get is just public information and who knows if it's, yeah, you know this, the simple fact is when we're looking at a for like just on the operational budget alone, right, if we looked at tier three with a 4.8 increase, it's just not, it's not sustainable, it's not sustainable short-term or long-term without expanding the tax base. Ultimately we have to, we can't keep going back to the same pool of people and. Being like it's four percent more, it's eight percent more, it's, it's in this case when we come to the end of it, 11 more, right, it's, we need to be able to expand that tax base or we need to reduce the size of the city government. That's it, those are the only two choices. And so I just want to, I just want to paint that because it's desperate at this point. We put some investment in new positions over the past couple of years hoping that we would see a return on investment and it hasn't materialized at. This point in time, and I'm not criticizing anyone for it, I'm just simply saying this is the situation we're in. So it's concerning to me because we have like no matter what happens, we're going to see a fiscal cliff every year, especially when we're giving COLAs that don't even align with that, with the rate of inflation, without reducing staff, it's a serious problem. And so we need to figure out how to expand that tax base or reduce the cost of government, it, so you know, and I appreciate everything. You all are doing, like I know that you're doing everything you can, I'm just porting that out because that is the message that almost. [53:02] Bryan Kaenrath: Universally, I'm being told by the constituency, thank you. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I think the single biggest thing we have before us is we need more revenue, and that requires investment in the city, requires the expansion of our tax base. It's our single biggest challenge, absolutely. [53:19] Joshua L. Nagine: Absolutely. And it does absolutely feel like chicken and egg, because we know that if we invest in one space, it's more spending that doesn't necessarily return an investment immediately. But we have to get to a place where we're either, again, reducing the overall cost of government, which means less services for everybody, or expand that tax base. There's no option C. [53:47] Carl L. Sheline: Further thoughts from counselors before we call it a night? Anything further from either Administrator Kenrath or Director Roy? [53:58] Bryan Kaenrath: No. So we're going to move back here to discuss the phased and reval process and costs with Director Healy, then I think we'll take it from there. Of course, any other questions in the interim, please feel free to reach out to one or both of us. We're here, and hopefully we can revisit some of this again on Thursday, on the following week, and get some clear direction. [54:20] Carl L. Sheline: Sounds great. Thank you both. Thank you for all the department heads and staff for being here. Have a wonderful evening, Lucid.