 All right, Ms. Wilson, the mayor will not be here in normal, Mr. Davis, be with us today. Can you do it or does anybody else want to do the invocation? Oh, okay. We all preach a time today. All right. Barbara McDowell. What do you like to, I know you're just getting in, what do you like to do the invocation? As pittance. As pittance. Lord, we pray for patience. We pray for guidance. We pray for all of the things that are needed to enhance and grow the city of ours. Let's each one of us individually and collectively, we ask it in your name. Amen. Where are you there? She called you. Did you call him? Did he show up? Hey. We'll get started with city council discussion items and we're actually going to jump right into our fiscal year 2019-2020 budget workshop. Because there's several things in front of her. We're holding the 2020 census complete count committee update for Mayor Benjamin to be present for that. And then the comments fiscal year 2019-20 budget presentation with Mr. John Ando. Hopefully we will get to it, but he's having some travel issues. What did you take in the bus? We just had that discussion. I mean, there's plenty of room. Sounds like you might need to check the bus. I had a flatter than the bus. I think this general fund discussion and H-Tex and H-Tex with Tipper general fund is going to really center around some budget alternates to go over with you all that factor in some of the discussions that we can have with you regarding revenue generation options. Obviously, there's you all are well aware that some of those revenue generating options require some more due diligence like audits of various entities, their business license payments when they should be paying or they may not be paying. We're going to start immediately with the low hanging fruits of their businesses right now that we know through enforcement we can probably estimate an increase of $2 million. But there's some other bigger ticket items like universities that you all have directed us to look into and be very specific and purposeful and hopefully get some information where we can begin to have discussions with some of those entities and or go through an audit process. Where by January, we can then have a better feel for how much revenue could be generated. That would then take some of the burden off of all of the other entities that have always been paying taxes and these are non-taxable entities that we're talking about. The goal would be to show you a budget that is still not in balance either way that already factored in the $2 million of the low hanging fruits and business license. It's still not in balance even by doing that and this is going to go through where we come because we were kind of far out of balance. We've come down to about $3 million out of balance but obviously we're going to get in balance before it turns over to the budget. And then there's a second option that we'll show you where we factor in what we call the public safety fees that we could implement now as well. And we'll show you some of the things that we get tied to that public focus through. The difference with that fee is that it would be hard for everybody and I know the director of the council has been the really zoned in on all of the non-taxable entities. It is going to take as I just explained a little bit of diligence to do that. But at the same time we want to just show you what it would look like if it was going to rate about $2.5 million right there. They can talk up top in the head the public safety fees. If it's $5 per month, per parcel. So that's just something we're going to show you and with that we're going to also tie that to various public safety initiatives that we could do right now. And it's security cameras or several things that are clear public safety needs. And that third option will show you factors in January the audit with the business license approach as well as the non-taxable entities. That would then give us the option of factoring in some of the other, like the memo I sent you last night with co-enforcement officers. Chief Holbrook's presentation last budget workshop with the competitive pay and some of the bigger ticket personnel for the public safety. That was just trying to show you kind of a scale approach. It doesn't, you know, I've really taken into account this public safety fee that we can implement now that it would hit everybody $5 a month. But with the things that we've been talking about, I really do see y'all and the needs we have. Y'all are almost going to have to have a more before and approach which is not going right now to over-bullet that's going to address everything. So we're just trying to show you guys the possibilities. Would you go ahead and amend the business license ordinance to remove the exemption for a non-profit? Yes. Well, we can go ahead and do that, but the work still has to be done. I think we've got to audit and we've got to take a look at what other cities are doing and it may involve us. But we have to bring everybody to a level playing field. I do think that if we're looking at a user fee or whatever the terminology is that we can go to the general fund that can affect public safety, which includes, you know, not just police and fire public works and other things. I think we have to, part of that audit needs not only needs to be of business license but also property because looking at that list that we've gotten, there are a lot of questionable things that we need to update. The other thing is I think that, you know, looking at a couple different options that other communities are doing should be put into the fold. It's a flat rate business license fee that incorporates everybody and that's based on gross receipts, you know, how that would affect everybody from the university, the hospitals, but also looking at, I mean, we've got over a billion dollars in higher education off the tax rolls. We've got, you know, state government, which other state governments post city gets a check from state government to help balance. I mean, we're talking about close to, you know, four billion dollars of non-tax paying property, 100% tax paying, not partial in our city. So, you know, I do think we have to look at that. And I think the audit helps us handle that low-hanging fruit that we've talked about, you know, just making sure that, you know, things are enforced. But, you know, both on the property tax as well because we've seen a lot of properties change hands and no longer have non-profit status. And some of them may be condo where you have businesses operating out of a non-profit status where you can't run a business and be non-profit at that point, you know, when you're collecting if it's a coffee shop or if it's a school or whatever. I think we've got to look at that. But I think there's some real options out there. To me, the difference will be there is by attacking it correctly. We ought to see some significant revenue by involving everybody so everybody's invested in the service that we bring. We're not looking for money to pay for other things but for the basics. And I think it's important, you know, water and sewer is not the place for that. It's got to be one of these entities and I think we can see that historically in other communities. I think the audit is our first step until we know where everything is. I think that's our first step for sure. Let me just make sure I'm getting some clear feedback too on the ordinance question though. Because I know we don't have a plan. So are you all suggesting that as we start the audit process, go ahead and get the ordinance passed? Yeah, and I would go ahead and repeal it as a part. That's first step though, right? That's step one. And that's what the two million is coming from. You're going after some of it. No. Is it two million? That's not it. We don't know what it is. We don't know what it is yet. What is the two million? I was buying time for Missy because I'm so sorry. I forgot the other two items. My apologies too. My apologies. Because it is confusing. There's like three different things we're talking about right now. We're going to try to explain that. Let me ask this, Miss Wilson. You look at the public safety fee. $5 a month or $60 a year. That's the option that we're going to present. We can't do that. Yeah. What's the possible revenue? Two and a half. Two and a half million, right? We're going to hear some more about that as a part of the options. Missy, you're going to be doing that today. Yes, sir. Along with, I'm sure several other in the room. But that's low hanging. I shouldn't say low hanging fruit. But the $2.5 million represents revenue. Unfortunately, we're talking about $2.5 million. Yeah, you're talking about $2.5 million. But you're also talking about revenue that has, I mean, it's low hanging. I mean, it generates income. But it would be applied to everyone. And I know that wasn't initially what you all directed. But it is something based off, I think, once you see the context of what this budget is looking at, that we felt like we had to at least put on the table as well. Can we do the budget presentation and then come back in this conversation after we've seen all of the recommendations? Thank you. And again, my apologies for the tardiness. So you have a copy of the presentation in front of you and the memo was attached to the budget. Just get started right on. We're going to talk today about the general fund, the hospitality tax, accommodations tax, and then the budget schedule as we are today. For the general fund, a few notes we wanted to make sure we spell out in terms of direction when departments are preparing their budget. Of course, they are preparing their budgets with the goal of providing high quality municipal services as guided by Envision Columbia focus areas. Department, the requested budget, which is what's before you today, again, I want to stress that's the requested budget, not the proposed city manager budget, reflects the request from departments, less reductions for new or expanded programs. With that being said, what that means is that current service levels, current programming is maintained in this requested budget as we have it today. With that as well, the budget is not in balance. And we will plan to talk with you through today about where we started with the budget and then where we are to get to the point of where we are today. Starting out with general fund revenues and most of the material that you have today was presented to you in the budget memo, but do want to make sure everyone has a chance to hear what we are starting with and what we're working from. So the total proposed revenues and transfers in is $152 million, which is an increase of $4 million or about 2.7%. What makes up that number comes from revenues, which is $132 million or 2.8 million increase or 2.2. That means those are revenues, property taxes, business licenses, permit fees, other service charges. Then we have transfers in or other financing sources and uses, which total $19.9 million or an increase of $4 million or 2.7. Property taxes is the single largest source of revenue in the general fund. It's projected at $59 million, an increase of 1.6 or 2.8%. As we've talked in prior conversations, we as staff are not comfortable that revenue growth in property taxes from sources of property taxes is growing at a level to sustain the growth in the overall budget. Of course, there are a couple of things that add into those fixtures with regards to caps on millage rates on property taxes or property values. And then, of course, we have sustained property tax millage rates for 10 years. There is no proposed property tax included in this budget. 98.1. Yeah, reassessment. Then I was going to mention reassessment this year. This year for Richland County and next year for Lexington. So yeah, so millage will change this year. But as we've done in the prior years, our historical reassessment years with whatever Richland County is doing reassessments, we roll back millage to maintain current levels. We don't roll it back and include a millage, or has not included millage increase. So just to keep that point. Business license revenues are projected at $42 million, which is a net increase of $722,000. That's a net because we have projected a decrease from the franchise fee of about $1.6 million. But we have bought, which means we would have had an overall reduction in our business license projections. However, the $2 million that we are discussing now reflected in business license is a result of enforcing or enhancing enforcement of our current business license ordinances. That's where the existing $2 million come from. I mean, I hate to interrupt, but what does that mean? I mean, we've never enforced that before, and now all of a sudden we're enforcing it? We have been enforcing them. It's a matter of being more direct to some of our enforcements, or maybe following up on some of our enforcement efforts. For instance, finding businesses that currently are not paying property taxes, business licenses, it should be. I don't know if Jeff or Jan want to add any anecdotal about some prior experiences, but usually that means of... One of the good sources of revenue that we probably are not tapping is the vendors that come into the city to service some of our industries, hospitals, and others. So if you get a list of the vendors that are operating out of... Is it Prisma? Prisma. Prisma, and check them against the ones that are licensed by the city of Columbia. You will come up with a list of those that are not licensed, and all of them are doing business in the city of Columbia. I understand that. They're actually competing with the businesses who does property-grade business license fee and everything else. My point is, why are we not addressing that before? I mean, if it was... Well, if we had told the staff to focus on searching every look and training for people that are not properly paying their business license, they might have gotten to that. But I think we have not been strong on enforcement in some of these areas that are the low hanging free. And then service charges and other revenues, there's a combination of items that make up those dollars. Those are coming in at $30 million. That is where state-shared revenue is pointed out in the materials that you were given. We have projected a slight increase in state-shared revenue, but it's very minimal compared to where we should be collecting on state-shared revenue. Can you go back to the reassessment here? Is the reassessment here going to be part of the minutes this year or the next year's? It'll be this year's, Millage. It'll be on the 2019 tax bill. This October? Well, we might need to discuss that then because we have a way to recoup back three years of millage. So if it comes up that we have six mills available to be rolled back and the reassessment says you need to roll back three mills, we could increase our millage by three mills and come up with the same 98.1 and gain additional revenue. We need to look at that as a possible revenue source rather than saying we're going to automatically roll it back to whatever the reassessment is. We agree with you. It's just historically, it's just tax. Well, this is not a historical counselor. That's why Lizzie, I think, said it the way she did. I mean, I believe it. That is, you're taxing the same people that way you're paying. And you got a whole group of people that come in here and are using all the services and not paying. And that's just, you know, you can't ride it. You can't pay your director $200,000 a year and say you have no money to share in costs. It's just, it's not right. Tell me. Well, it's also hard to fix. No, it can be fixed. The state's already giving us the avenue to do it. It's hard to get your millage back and this body has not raised taxes for over 10 years. That's my point on that. I do have to say that is not necessarily the most responsible approach to not raise taxes incrementally for years and years and years and years and years and years and years and allow it to roll back. But it's a philosophical thing. But I would argue. But I think you have to do both. I mean, absolutely. That's our first direct address but we may not have gone up on millage rate but we have gone up on everything else. We just feed people differently. We can't blind ourselves and say we haven't gone up on other fees. If you look at a tax bill from 10 years ago or 20 years ago and look at what's on it, what's included and then look at fees and everything else, we have. I mean... Yeah, but I think that's a little different. I think you ought to look at it before we say it. I mean, I think all that needs to be on the table but I agree with Howard and Theresa in that to me it's just the same thing with the water rates. When you say, okay, we're not going to raise water rates this year and then two or three years, you're realizing that you're going to be hit. With the reassessment, this is an opportunity for us to look at where we are. If we keep saying we're going to allow ourselves not to recoup our millage, then as the city grows we're uneven paleo-fields actually. The difference in the discussion is is that we have increased water rates every year since we needed to do it and we've also stopped transferring as much money and doing all the things we responsibly need to do. The problem here is that we haven't addressed is all the people, the non-profits and the non-tax paying entities. We haven't even addressed the half parcels. We're just talking about that. But nobody's disagreeing with that. My point is it would be different to roll and go back at the millage if we come up with a plan and we've addressed the others so that you have some kind of playing field. I think that all that needs to be on the table but the thing that we also have to keep in mind is our window too though. It's not like we have a reassessment every year. When that window closes it closes and we'll say, okay, we're going to be responsible. We've gone up on this and so this year we're just not going to address it and then that window closes and then we're not able to address it for another 10 years. With all of the respect of everybody's opinion I think this is, this council and every council in the past we've always gone around and dance around the subject of the non-profit not paying their share of providing services or revenue to provide services. I think there is enough council effort or will, as you say, that this is the year that you bring that to the table and bring it a reality. We can talk about millage rollback and increasing franchise fees and all that stuff but we still back to the same principle. Everybody have to pay their share whether you're a University of South Carolina whether you're a hospital, whether you're anything or government. We've got to bring you, you have to donate not donate or bring some kind of level of revenue or responsibility for us as a city government give you the services you need. We come around and we dance about the subject every year with the around budget year what we're going to do about non-profit so what we're going to do about it and we never come back to a reason we just, we balance the budget and we forget about it for another six or eight months and we bring it up again and here we are again. I just think that this is the momentum the staff has done a great job I mean it's not something you can say automatically today this is what we're going to do I mean I think the staff has spent the entire year to do the research I agree with you on it comes up to this council to finally say okay yes give them some marching orders but we have a wasted a year I think we've got some really good information I didn't mean wasted a year I'm just saying every year we talk about it we end up now I mean I remember when Steve Benjamin was running for mayor ten years ago you know that was his first thing the non-profit, 65% of the properties in the city do not pay taxes I mean everybody preaches about that let's make it a real one but Mr. McDowell then Mr. Duvall and then back to me so we can keep going so me, thank you Mo I think a part of that is you're absolutely correct I think a part of it is true I think the difference now as opposed to what it was ten years ago I think that conversation and the intentionality of this conversation as it relates now to as it relates now to let's just say churches and daycare centers and that sort of thing I think the conversation now is more intensive and intentional and I think if we sway off of that course and we get back into a laissez-faire kind of situation the rest of the year or next year or whenever I think we are more driven now to at least put those kinds of options on the table as it relates to non-profits with all due respect Reverend these options have been on the table and yes we are careful about churches we are the policy makers we can design an ordinance that we can take out churches out of it put something else in it or whatever we need to to make the reality come true the bottom is we always struggle to find ways to tax or put fees on non-profits so they can bring or contribute to the government let me say this one I think it's more deliberate in terms of our conversation this year as opposed to what we've done in the past now I can't go no further I can't go any further than three and a half years but that conversation and I think you're right it's ensued in such a both points Mr. DeVall if I can put a period on this and I'm done and I'll listen to how I'm gonna put a period I think we're right and I think the conversation is very much needed I think Daniel has raised that several of us have raised that so I think the intent now is to go forward with that whole conversation and it not be a back burner issue and my point is that the taxing of non-profits or governmental entities or the things that you want to do to make an equal playing field is a question that has been for every city council in South Carolina for decades none of them have come up with a legal they ain't as smart as we are so let me finish Daniel they have not come up with an answer because there is no answer for it and you will not find any easy answer around this town so okay Mr. DeVall I think we have the brightest and the best but there are a lot of others out there too and it can't be done you need to listen to our staff and come up with things that can be done let me address that I can't end that conversation that is not true because I'm gonna tell you right now the state opened up and gave us an avenue that more than one accountant that I've talked to in this city has agreed and actually shown me the path that we can get there so I beg to differ I can't wait to see the path it's pretty easy you've been paying it every time you fill out path or no path Columbia is a unique city unlike any other city we operate under the same laws but when you have 65% and more properties that do not contribute a dime to our tax base or our expenses to run this government I don't know I understand Missy I understand Missy the staff is gonna go through some options I'm fine with that but I am not gonna give anybody or put another $5 fee on residents who are already paying 100% of the city's expenses or revenue to operate or services I know it's $5 I know it's $60 a year but the other is you cannot keep adding more fees and more taxes to the people already paying their share thank you thank you Madam Chair this is really good it really is a good dialogue so if we get out of lack I appreciate the prayer what is it? Patience? teach us patience patience my dear friend okay just another look at our revenue streams in terms of the sources sometimes I know folks are visual I know I am to visually see how much property taxes and business licenses make up the city's revenue streams and then just demonstrating where we have some increases next we will talk a little bit about the requested budget that was provided to you the requested budget totals $155 million it's an increase of 7.3 or 5% it's still out of balance by $3.3 million it has to be in balance before we actually have first reading and public hearing it requests the department's budgets as they submitted them less new programs and increases or expanded programs this presentation does this presentation have to tell us the programs that are not included the requested are? we actually are going to provide that to you on a separate sheet it will be easier to read and so when we do that as we have this conversation I just think that that important information that we continue to get in the public domain as well is what we are doing without based on and to that Mr. Bond as well is trying to not convey that we are stopping programs right now this presents just expanding or adding new maintaining services is really what we are trying to do within the budget that we will be passing when we actually started on budget it says in excess of $10 million but you are going to see we started out with a deficit of about $13 million through combinations of some additional revenue adjustments along with expenditure reductions we brought the balance closer into $13 million so far we have made about $5.5 million reductions in new and expanded programs from departments budgets we started out with a $2 million amount in the budget for potential cost of living or merits we have scaled that back to a million in anticipation of possibly doing a mid-year implementation city council has been very gracious in supporting the city managers proposal for merits and cost of living previous years as you know from our prior compensation surveys and compensation studies it cost us to maintain if we drop below on those levels it cost us again when we try to catch back up it's just like your rates and your revenues this helps us to keep some levels of adjusting our pay scales if the cost we're at more of a $500,000 level we could put in $300,000 there are other council projects too that was one that it kind of was introduced especially in the committee had a lot of good work and it was also in the current year so it shows the reduction in proposed for next year this year we used it for, ended up using it for next year's budget I mean I didn't want to bring the quiet zone discussion or anything like that let me just continue this train of thought geo bonds what is our capacity to bottle geo bonds I don't know if we had that number I'm going to have to pull it off the top I'll have to verify the actual our capacity at the end of this pass here I think it was $15 million it's legal capacity doesn't mean we have the revenue in place to make payment on those bonds so if we issue additional bonds we will need additional revenue to make those payments but under state law we have roughly $15 million and that will increase somewhat this year entertain this idea because I think this is something that goes back to something that Ed and I and everybody else talk about station 2 my train of thought is to issue a geo bond to build up fire station on fire station 2 and then allocate maybe a million dollars to the quiet zone and maybe by then we'll get other agencies to contribute into meeting that to at least build the first phase of the quiet zone my understanding talking to the chief estimate for fire station four million I think he said somewhere around there so if we issue a five million dollar to address two important issues that has a lot to do with safety I think that would be something that I would love council's approval or support and maybe you all can come back with some numbers whether the geo general fund can support the payment for that geo bond what would be the payment for a five million dollar geo bond that's been $500,000 it's still though additional revenue that's adding to that would be adding to our debt our geo debt capacity it's about $15,000,000 services it's just something to talk about when we get to discussion that bond was issued nine million was for bull street one million though at the time it was changed from sidewalks it was changed to demolition for out with CHA and that demolition I thought it was in addition I thought languages were solid and style and it was just well when I figure out the five million here in the second percent of my phone it'll be roughly I'll be able to figure out roughly 30 million okay so when you ask for bull street are you asking for the ball part because that was a 29 million dollar bond so that's roughly 2.6 million a year and we'll talk about that in the hospitality budget that's in the hospitality budget there is a nine million dollar or ten million dollar total was the geo bond from two years ago I don't know off the top of my head the amount but I'll get that amount because we're at 30 million we just want the bond payment is what estimated property tax income okay and then what we did not discuss it here but we did discuss in some prior budget to figure out if this might be a time or for Michael to have that conversation because he's kind of spearheading that but I think having some developers who are willing to come to the table that might not be about the money aspect of it but we were talking maybe kind of a community service housing blitz kind of thing I think that Earl would be willing to help us have that conversation with the bigger group of developers we can certainly reach out to him and do that many of those properties Lexington has been really aggressive I know at reaching out to the different nonprofits who do affordable housing and saying you know hey we've got these lots and they've also put the money in it too but they've offered that and I'm not sure if we've tried that on our actual affordable housing developers that can do this and I'm not sure who might be talking to you but I know that there are some that Lexington has been aggressively trying to get them to build and they are doing that we can certainly look at that many of the lots are actually in the opportunities on this well which adds another layer of attractiveness that we are trying to use that as well to help but again that is instead of you didn't want to help but we have forgotten the direction of the cats in the student housing in terms of that nor to make this thing that the city doesn't have other programs that we're still continuing to do and maintain like Missy's talked about with not just the development corporations but with our own programs the community development and some other means this was just that infusion there as Miss Wilson pointed out okay next external requests we did want to point out that we do have a number of external requests that are in the budget that have requested some additional increases the public defender we by proviso a few years ago municipalities using public defenders are required to fund public defenders that we allocated a hundred thousand coming up will be the third year for those funds they have requested an increase in 1920 to the amount of 225,000 which reflects the cost of two attorneys plus the fourth of another attorney the solicitor the current allocation is for 215,817 and a request for 1920 of 343 dollars this request has been considered before we've maintained them at current the same level that's what's reflected in the budget so what's reflected in the budget right now is their current allocation not their increased allocations so I make sure that's clear and we're talking about balancing the budget the budget already reflects that current year levels the Richland County detention center just to point out the current rate is 55 it does go up to 71 starting July 1 that's not the final of that increase the increase that's the capped amount of what they said in terms of setting the dollar amount after that it will then go up to be equivalent to what their cost of services are please have the county provide us the last 10 years worth of financial information on the jail because 10 years ago the rate was 25 dollars a day currently their rate we have asked I know I personally have asked for the last I don't know how many years for the financial and we haven't got it I will read that I also would like to discuss with legal contract around the detention center as well at the appropriate time that there needs to be some further discussion and I'd like to try to have a small group with some of the reasonable folks over at the county talk about it so you did say reasonable the 71 dollar is already estimating the new budget current levels of where we're funding it how much increase is that it's not actually increasing the budget because what we budget sorry I didn't mean the 55 per night to the 71 total increase in the budget so the budget we have budgeted the same amount this year as we will next year but what we've expended so far is maintaining and it has for the past two years so right now it's just holding at current levels in anticipation that the amount we are budgeting for will accommodate the 71 based on again prior year history of number of inmates per day so it's the same X amount of dollars this year the next year correct we think the dollars will sustain themselves there of course that's not our only external request but we did want to point out these in terms of external requests that are requested increases the other external request I would say would be homeless services and those aren't really external those are services that the city has either contracted or agreed to help fund those are maintained at a million dollars in the office lease so it's been discussed we in some of this information is familiar with council and just to continue making sure we're everyone's on the same page with regards to what our challenges and opportunities and this past year has been very educational for staff it has been very informative we've learned a lot we've learned a lot more information about our parcels about our business licenses there's also means there's a lot of information that we don't know and that we will need to work on getting by ways of audits or other sources of information but we do want to reiterate that we're working from the fact that nonprofits are located in Columbia and that there's a desire to shift some of the burden of our service costs to other non-paying, non-taxed entities whether they pay a business license or whether they pay a property tax our millage rate as we've reminded folks is 91.8 and it represents only 20% of a property tax owner's total tax bill property taxes generate $557 million and then we also do have a source of revenue from fire rebate that's set by the county public safety functions as we pointed out prior to actually post for next year between their operating budgets plus their capital lease expenditures are 50% of our total general fund budget so of course public safety makes up a large portion of our budget so we're trying to look for ways that we can increase our overall assessed values in order to increase revenues based on our existing millage how do we increase property values added overall tax base and then how do we generate revenues that cover the cost of operations and prepares the city for growth we wanted to remind what we've looked at with regards to tax parcels we had approximately 46,000 parcels in Richland County of those 4,300 or non-tax which is about 10% of our tax assessed value 12.8 billion of our total market value 27% of that or 3.4 billion is non-tax at all that's 100% non-taxable that doesn't include the parcels that doesn't include the partial non-tax when we also do get famed state exemption revenues from the state for a portion of that too 3.4 billion million sorry that's 3 billion that's a B it's interesting if you look if you go to your next the next one is right it's very interesting if you go in and break it down for her parcel what the average value is right I was a little shocked at the homestead the average value is $268,000 for a parcel a lot larger than I thought it would be friend-wise you know we're living longer that's just going to keep increasing right so the chart that is displayed with this information is based on the parcel numbers not necessarily the total market value numbers but it's still proportional and as you can see the largest the largest source of non-tax parcels are homeowners and homestead exemption yeah state it's about 7.7 higher education is roughly 2.6 but higher education you know you got 55,000 students between the four universities that are here and then the state government and then the hospital so the people who are using the general services of the city are bulk in about four categories it's the pump station miscellaneous trying to remember what we included in that there's 1,900 pages I think that was railroads maybe railroads and there's also there's some there's some properties some commercial properties that get state some state rebate type of things we got it by parcel to me oh yes this in itself was a very useful information and very informative the this process in itself since we have already since we have all this data what audit are you all looking for looks like you've got all the information you need here you just need to kind of think about our mind to see what we want to do let's see Mario I think there's a deeper because you know it was interesting as I went through some of the parcels and I looked at a shopping center that was owned by a church no longer a functioning church but they're renting out the spaces to other people well they're not paying property tax so doing an audit would give us a clear of what's truly non-taxable or how it's being used or do you go in and condo we've got a non-tax paying entity that's running a full pledge catering and event space out of it well if 80% of what they're doing is not religious then they ought to pay 80% property tax because they're competing against the private sector on unfair conditions so I think you have to have an audit to confirm I mean these are straight off from the auditor but I don't know when the last time it was audited I think the county and the city ought to join forces with forest acres and everybody else and go and audit all these parcels I mean out of 1300 homesteads I mean some of those somebody pointed out a parcel to me in your district that the person has passed away the grandkids have the property but they kept the name and everything somehow through documentation they're renting it out so I mean but they didn't probate the estate well, well yeah you don't have to I mean that's why we have another property to probate the estate but and if it's not owner occupied what would happen is if the house is they never probated the estate the house is still in the name of the person the person deceased that I would imagine that that's for the county to assess the net 6% if it's not owner occupied technically that's what it is it should be but I don't think obviously I don't think the county or the city will really go back and resources and that's what the audience that answers your question really is the resources just to make sure that as we forge forward we're doing it correctly and identified I feel like if you pass an ordinance and you're filmed in the bail your audit will come back automatically oh wait a minute that's not what I'm doing well we don't send the property tax though we don't send the property tax so we're talking about two audits too we're clear we're talking about two audits we have cleaned up a lot of that with the rental ordinance David and his team get reports back probably from the neighbors I know I've sent him several but there are plenty that aren't registered but I made it open where we were we've done a lot the ordinance gave few for that 900 the rental ordinance started what was that note please so those are the types of things we find the only thing I was going to know the categories that he's listed based on either the diet amount that's easy so people have to kind of look into it kind of going back and forth I just think looking at the list going after higher education in the hospitals that we know that there are nonprofits nonprofits and we know that they're not contributing much to the purposes of the revenue of the city you know I would go out at him first I said that even if from the standpoint of the university the university the university is there and I wouldn't make the same with that you know we're going to do the audit but we ought to at least start there the issues built up from how they they because they haven't had to that I think I mean it's not so simple we need to go with them with some they flat rate business license across the board nonprofit and profit again I think that's getting that because the boss point of this is still the bullet oh it's going well first of all it's going to be multiple things but we can't you know assessing a $5 fee on everybody is not the solution we have to but you know you got entity to have that but again for our staff we're going to take the work I think you need to send them a bail and let them come back with challenge into bail and say this is what we make this is what we do and show me how you calculated this bail and we'll go from there I just don't think that that's number one it all needs to be done we are agreeing with you and I think to the point of earlier that this year we've met a lot like that and it's more purposeful like the record y'all don't do figure it out but to say that we just right now the day you have some don't take six months we're looking at stuff being able to assess whatever comes out of it it's going to be January it's going to take us this fall and all the way from now the fall to really do it so that we do have the research and the basis to to assess but yes I mean everybody is going to contribute we got a level of playing field and all the reasons and I think like that that is that is something that we've been trying to do as well as if you wanted to those are things that state law-wide figuring it out those are doable things that we're just trying to get everything out of this it's not that we're kind of focused to be there so so and just to being sure we're talking to to make sure we're trying to keep our minds clear the non-tax parcels the audit on that as Mr. Rickman pointed out would either take some kind of collaborative at least with the county if not the county and others is not whether the city wants to do it I think there's some conversations about who we would actually do it and how we would go about doing it the audit on the business license is another another story well not just for you but I think for all of us because now we keep talking we can use ourselves we talk back and forth and then the two million from current ordinances is also adds to that mix as well so I know that we are already talking a little bit about the public safety fee and so what we wanted to talk about was this was to address part of what council asked us for and that was helping us to address our public safety costs and being able to help support some of the public safety initiatives and efforts that we know our departments are needing that are definitely helping in terms of providing those services to the community on a daily basis so what we have proposed or what we are considering is a five dollar per month fee that would be used only for public safety equipment and technology and that would be new services or new expenditures we have projected that if we were to do five dollars a month starting July it would be a generating 2.5 million should we not move forward with that or if we look at another date or later we would have to adjust that amount collected for this coming fiscal year this would actually be on our water and sewer bill just the same as like a straw motor fee would be a water bill so with the USC for example they get one water bill it's parcels and we would do storm water fees right now so how much that's for USC complex between all the managers we didn't look at specific parcels we applied that across and yes we understand about the USC ought to be paying us five to seven million dollars I appreciate I just that if you start proposing a five dollar fee on the water bill you're never going to be able to get to the level or use the public safety to get to where we really want to get which is bringing some level playing field I think this is an option that needs to be just left on the table but until we've explored the other I think if you go down this path we're not going to get to where we need to be and we're basically you know the majority of the bulk of the people who will be paying it are the people who are paying for it again they're paying for it already we're double tax saving our own folks can I just can I just make throw in an idea or just and I know if this does this before for some reason it never really so the storm water fee that we give every resident or every one year or whatever it's calculated so it's calculated one flat fee for residential and then it's calculated for square footage for commercial for impervious for impervious area for commercial work so why can we use that same formula to do the public safety fee because I mean if you're going to impose or you're suggesting five dollars for household for residential that's only $1.50 less than what you would pay for the storm water so I think if you can figure it out it's still five dollars for household but use that same formula to do for square footage or whatever you do for the storm drainage you're going to generate at least eight million dollars because we're generating 10 million right now with the storm drain formula correct and it is based on a unit of measure on even yourself for my residents for taxpayers because that way you're really forcing people who's not paying anything to agree with this rather than just five dollar a meter everybody pays it because I don't think we've already determined legally you can't just do a public safety fee on some people or not but if you can do a public safety fee based on the same formula or similar formula to the storm drainage fee that we imposed on all of everybody in the city I think that would probably get us close to eight million what he's saying is if you you set a residential equivalent of five dollars and then if the business has a storm water fee that's ten times the residential equivalent which is five dollars they would be paying fifty dollars and that's on all businesses all of them including USC I won't support that because those commercial guys are paying six percent they're paying the top of the rate plus all the storm water but they're imposing the public fee public safety fee but this is just an idea I mean we have to vote on this this is to me it doesn't get us where we're going we're not generating eight to ten million dollars based on what we already know what the numbers and everything else say we're not going to be able to address the things that we need in the general fund we do want to be able to get through the presentation we kind of show you the thought process on even with the budget still out of balance three million including the two million of the low-hanging group enforcement we included that two million of revenue we're going to talk to the next column let's vote for that it's only handed out I don't have it on the slides but some of these new and enhanced programs things that we don't do some things this is the park at bull street what's the maintenance cost on that the staffing was about 200,000 that's just for the staffing staffing why are we why are we staffing bull street park it would be a city park handed over to us that's always been we are not staffing friendly park that is our premier park and it looks awful awful we've given 67 million dollars to bull street and I was told that that park was a low maintenance non-man park January of whenever I got back here and now I'm being told that we have to have park rangers nothing is non-man low maintenance low maintenance that was I mean I've heard that 100 times I am not willing to vote to spend one dime on park rangers or anything else until we have fixed the parks that we are responsible for first and foremost this is this is an entity we talk about shortage in budget we're spending three million dollars a year paying the debt over there we ain't making a quarter million dollars worth of tax revenue I think we would flex these rangers that's what I recommend because this also agree ways we've got there's every time we have these discussions this city is going it's moving we are not but you're making my case for me we are growing and we are still trying to use our own money and our own people who are paying for everything you are in some way in some ways or not I'm not saying I disagree 100% on what you're saying a lot of what you're saying is true but the other reality and this is the point I was making more when we talked about the other parks and stuff is that the reality is if it is a city part it will be a city just like what will happen at the zoo as we're growing people like to be out they like to be walking running someone gets hurt on a city green way someone gets raped someone gets murdered that is on us I mean we had issue when someone was in family park floating in the water people were looking at us like I agree family park needs our attention and I think the majority of us are willing to do what we need to do for family but we can't neglect the other things that are going to be our responsibility just because they happen to be located at bull street my point is that the budget that I know of are seeing a budget for the maintenance of that and for us to do bull street the reality set for me again when we went down there the other day and I hadn't been down there in months and I'm walking around there and we're talking about investing money well how are we going to maintain it I mean even if we redo family park right now for 2 million dollars or 5 million or you know 25 million how are we going to maintain it we don't have any maintenance money you know I mean I guess that's where I'm struggling is that you know we just we just we're spending a lot of money in an area and the questions been asked multiple times and I think at the end of the day I think we we need to know who's contributing over there because we're contributing everything what's the dollar amount for for bull street park maintenance do we have a budget I'll get Randy to pull it while we're in here we do I don't think in this upcoming fiscal year it's going to be something we couldn't handle while reflecting that we're bringing it along I know it's this year but do we have it going along when is that going to that is happening we've got to understand really what our ongoing maintenance is going to be in these different areas we're five years six years into a deal over there at bull street the roads are going to have to start being fixed again curving gutters are going to have to be fixed and replaced all of these things we need to know what those numbers are going to be due and we're going to have to budget for it because we're not going to generate it I mean not going to generate enough revenue out of it $25,000 a year maybe Howard can answer that what are the I know we talked about this long time ago about imposing a med at the bull street what are the legal part of that for the city to do that it had to be a voluntary thing with a huge corporation we can't impose it without them and we probably need to have that conversation can we finish the presentation so any more discussion on the so the public safety fee what we want to make sure we're clear of is that the fee that we are talking about generating the revenues would be used for a number of items currently not in the budget so I did have a question on that so looking at the list we have on here that are public safety related you have on here security camera upgrade, shop spotter competitiveness as far as the police this amount you have on here is 1.9 right so that the 2.5 would cover these things in here is that our anticipation those would be some of the items we would consider of course those are more than what the 2.5 would generate in one year but those would be the type of expenditures and costs that we're looking at covering through a public safety fee I just want to know if we have that discussion we need to be very specific on what it's going to cover we don't need people that anticipate that it's going to cover cameras and it doesn't if we were to implement any of these options we try to be more transparent I think the way that honestly citizens would agree to a fee or whatever whichever option you go with is that they know the specificity of what it's paying for at least I think that's what I've heard from some of you and we wanted to try to make sure what we're clear on with regards to the public safety fee is that it's technology and equipment not necessarily the personnel because in order to try to meet what the personnel and the source legally the way you justify the public safety fee is because of the new expenses new and expanded services that's correct yes sir okay next is the just another thing for us to consider as we talked about this and Mr. Rickerman brought this up equating it like with the gas tech maybe we need to also look at the numbers like if we were to do maybe a higher dollar amount but then everything for current property tax owners and just see what the numbers give us I would like to add just for clarification as well so we will be advertising sending that the budget public hearing notice to advertise tomorrow a public safety fee will require its own public hearing which means without so it sounds like there's not a decision to move forward to advertise this on Wednesday for June 11th second but I think we need to I couldn't vote not right now with that for the conversation before we leave today yes or no because just because you advertise it doesn't mean you're going to implement it right so if that's something that we're going to talk about we need to well I don't think you ought to list what's up there I don't think you want to talk about a fee but I think you're creating a problem for us moving forward by saying a $5 per parcel public safety fee I think you're under I think we're we're leaving this a mistake so that's really I think where we're looking for some direction as to what to consider in terms of the schedule that we have before us that doesn't mean you couldn't look at other dates but to meet the June 11th that we need to be sent to the paper tomorrow you know I'm going to say it again because it's just that until we've addressed other folks I can't think you keep going back to the homeowners and the people who have been paying and paying and paying what I don't want to happen if we do the audit we get to be in the area because of just historically and legally we're not able to do that for that of the other reason and so we're just trying to put everything on the table whether you go with it now or not maybe especially with what we haven't had if we have to drop back different these items aren't going to change that are relevant to public safety we want it to make sure we give you a little bit of foundation for the fact that I could go out and make the case that any of your public neighborhood meetings or any one of these items all day long is very strongly that is necessary and I think that an example of that is the memo that if I want to think of a pass out on my special electronics company but it's code enforcement and the quality of life element that is a part of public safety Robert has piloted a program that y'all don't even know about that we've been doing in some of our most talented areas and they've just been doing it off the top just with no added resources but it's quite a strange and David references it and his memo these are two really well put together brief notes that are worthy of a close look at if you haven't had an opportunity but it goes exactly to the point Robert if you rock off another since we're throwing ideas because we're still 3.3 million dollars out of balance can we not use the balance fund we have from general fund last year's budget since we have 4 million dollars surplus we've already counted it was in the audit it was in the audit and just to make sure it was in the audit 4 million dollars we were proud of that so we also want to make sure we're clear to the public safety fee would not be used to balance this budget so this yeah so the sheet that we've handed out to you talks about what revenues we're using to help us get to where we are in the budget and what expenditure reductions that's the first column that says C.M. reductions you can see we started out at 13.8 we're now at 3.3 in terms of shortfall still with balancing this year's next year's budget request moving over to the right the public safety fee that shows a revenue source of the 2.5 if that was a worth of collections and then possible expenditures that would be used or utilized for those revenues those funds would not be used to balance this 3.3 they are separate just to make sure we're clear on that and we'll come back to all these I just want to demonstrate to you what each column is the column that says non-profit business license that's the one that would be based on the ordinance changes to the business license to allow for non-profit entities we do not have an estimate on what those revenues are because we don't know what we don't know to be able to make this kind of estimates in terms of the revenues or even who would be filing so with that we can now go through what makes up the text or part of the documents and as pointed out we've increased current year budget we've used we were if you recall last year this time we were making efforts to try to reduce our reliance on the use of fund balance and we were able to reduce what we had been budgeting of 3 million in fund balance down to 1.7 right at 1.8 because of where we are today we have proposed next year to take that back to 3 million so that reflects an increase of 1.2 in fund balance, use of fund balance we're at 3 million total of 3 million use of fund balance 19-20 budget then the enhanced business license enforcements as we've discussed that doesn't require any ordinance changes but would require help use of an auditing firm to assist us with some things we're forecasting about a 2 million revenue from that effort as stated the business license non-profit fee is not determined then the public safety fee would be 2.5 based on a 4 year worth of collection at 5 dollars which I know we've talked today about different rate tiers, rate structures based on entity type and then also different rates so that those 2 efforts with the revenue adjustments gave us 3.2 million additional in revenue does that any questions about the revenues that we're talking through then next will be the expenditure reductions that we've made in terms of reducing departments budgets we'll go through those in detail starting with the that's the budget program management office it's time for a new citizen survey so we've opted to postpone that citizen survey public relations had requested an increased we've not used a lot of the feedback we got from the Columbia Compass there's a lot of information it is a lot of information which would help in that sense but you're correct public relations had added in some additional requests for some things that had been asked for them regarding council communications and website upgrades so they had asked for about $50,000 in increases so we scaled them back by about $25,000 office of business opportunities had requested funds I know we've talked they've talked a couple of times about it's time to redo a renew the disparity study the facade which is no longer called the facade it's actually now called the commercial retention and redevelopment program proposed a lot of a micro loan and a DBE capacity study we've scaled back some of those this isn't the total reduction there is still funds added to their budget for some additional projects within the commercial retention and redevelopment program and of course the standing there existing programs for small business outreach managing and the MBE program thinking of options I suspect that it is fair to study and I don't even know if there's still a desire willingness from the county's part but a few years ago there was a meeting where it came up as to whether or not we did a joint one and it would cost less so I mean that might be something just to think about and then maybe even if the university is part of it the university is part of it more conductive community development they've asked for a van for some additional staff and they have for DR we've actually shifted that van to our capital lease program which at this point is still reflected in the budget for 8 million planning and development services these were increases that they had requested for apart from some of the envision Columbia corridor plan some efforts for corridor planning B-PAC traffic study the B-PAC there are still B-PAC related activities the traffic study has been deferred annexation election those are small dollar amounts some of these may be able to be picked up within their existing budgets but streamlined design guidelines as mentioned they do still have funding for B-PAC and then retain funding about 60,000 66,000 that was needed for the complete count and census almost between annexation and election when a community elects for annexation yes, yes sorry it's not more clear and then there's a grant match for historic resources that's actually retained within their budget as well the annexation election we may be eliminating a chance to get our population up for our next decade and I'm not certain they would have completely eliminated I think these are some additional increases some things that may be able to it's not a very expensive process so there were some funds added that they would be able to retain so the court had requested four new positions so this would allow them to retain two of their new requested and then we also reduced one of their two requested vehicles police department security camera upgrades another technology and equipment upgrades that's the 1.9 that we suggested we would shift over to the public safety fee coming through these were the competitive and operating equipment that was presented to you at the last council meeting the 2.8 we would look at funding from when we were able to adopt or generate the revenues from the nonprofit fees same is true with the commercial code enforcement the code enforcement is not just for staff it's also for staff for operating costs and some costs for commercial demolitions so that would not be just staff cost but that would be for there were six code enforcement officers proposed there's actually two that the police department has already added in the current year so this would help fund their full four new additional ones plus return the two positions that were reassigned for code enforcement emergency management had requested a mobile command trailer, some bollards and then a surveillance tower the next item is to complete the build out we would also look at the public safety fee to help complete the build out of the emergency operation center in the new location fire department requested a CSA position community safety officer for their headquarters and then two additional deputy fire marshals we would look at second they've asked for one of their top funding priorities is for a second turnout or bunker gear for their firefighters we would look at also with public safety fees parks and recreation reduced four park rangers for bull street it's mentioned but it's also reflected that they would be utilized for some of the greenway activities as well they should create their own HLA funding for various maintenance and repair projects and equipment there's a number of items that they've asked for that they are not capital items because so they would be reflected in their operating budget but then again as pointed out we have not proposed any funding at this point for our annual or any requested capital improvement programs as a part of the general fund which would include things like our park upgrades or park park projects that are capital public works have requested two positions for construction administrators we've actually scaled that back to one and then we've also proposed some funding for some reductions for vacancy savings IT had asked for an additional system administrator for 9-1-1 services and the growth in some of the programs that 9-1-1 is being asked to do with regards to special call areas or call desks so those totaled about 5.6 million in reductions in new request is pointing out some things were retained maybe not fully and then of course the budget at this point does reflect continuation of existing programs moving on to non-departmental the capital replacement lease this would be right now what's reflected in the budget would be the or what was requested in the budget would be a full year of the cost so we scaled it back in terms of when we would actually issue it part of the reason why we budget for a full year is so that the hit next year when it is back in the budget it's not as much of a hit but we've had to do this in prior years as well so that's why you see on the budget for the capital lease as we've shifted to the capital lease program for our vehicle replacement and technology upgrades that's where their funding is from we've already explained the cost of living in merit adjustments, affordable housing and care requests so those reductions it's a little over $7 million in reductions plus an additional $3 million that's brought us to a $3.3 million shortfall that we're still considering so let me be clear $3.3 million shortfall includes the when we were talking about funding options enhanced business license $2 million that's already been done so that's not an option we included that just when we did our options we really need to take that out because we've already done that so that wouldn't give us any additional money but the 2.5 was the second $5 but we would still have the 3.3 but it would give you those items that were on there so if you funding everything you add to $5.6 million and the $1.7 million $7.3 you need $7.3 million to fund the department to fund the budget for requests we need $10 million reality is what we need would you like me to tell you where I'm going to suggest it yeah go ahead Damien's here I would suggest that we re-institute the water transfer it takes into consideration that 75% of the water fees are paid from people outside the city limits it is included in everybody's non-profit all-profit homes everybody pays the water bill we could do it without having to end detrimental effects on the water and sewer fund it can be done by our legal team by just adding a line to the budget you can spend it this thing from now and you're not going to find a legal way to do what you want to do to specifically target the parcels that are not paying we are going through a futile exercise if we expect our staff to come up with a miracle that no other staff in the state of South Carolina has been able to do I appreciate your thing I'd be glad to suggest we put it on the agenda and we vote for it publicly I'm not voting for a water and sewer thing because it is, it doesn't solve an issue you're still paying it is not generating enough money that you can afford when we're going out for bonding going for increases to then pay for the things and still it doesn't hit the non-tax paying entities at any level like property tax both commercial and residential are paying so you know I respect that you're willing to move it forward I'm glad for you to put it on the agenda I won't be voting for it because until we've gone after the other entities that are using the general services because this isn't just water and sewer this is general I don't think it's fair I think if this was on the back end and we were still short we'd be having a whole different discussion but I disagree with you I disagree with you because we haven't tried and there is a solution and the legislators gave us the gateway and when if you talk to people that are accountants and CPAs who study the tax law and understand what other people do they have a lot of knowledge it's amazing when you sit down with them what they can say and I think until you can disprove that this is the only solution if I can we've got some other things we need to discuss too we're almost at 4 o'clock I know that the next one is the non-profit let's finish the whole presentation and then we can have that the debate that everybody wants to have and see what gets me through the non-profit business licensee this is separate and apart this is from some discussions we had previously so just some background about 10,000 business license issued in 2018 of those right at about 6,000 or 5,900 are in city businesses and there's about 3,800 out of city businesses that are issued that's of course the ones that we know of and that are that have filed how much does that generate I don't have an amount by those categories I just know just in general total revenues from business license is 42 million and so based on that what kind of percentage of that on average that's licenses and permits based on gross receipts gross receipts 10 to 12 percent of that 40 million probably 13 million which is probably 12 million is the insurance some others come in there purely just from the business license if that's what you're asking for our business out of the 42 we got 13 so is that what you're asking yeah I'm trying to get down to the nuts and bolts I think it's important as we talk forward on the option that we understand really what the net number is what that could increase because by changing the fundamental process we may see other funding but you gotta break it down cause 42 million is not just really business license franchise fees franchise fees that's what I'm saying so we gotta get down to the net building permits is also part of the building permits aren't in those numbers there but this part of the 42 million but they're small it'd be good to see do we have an indication of where we are this year versus last year on those categories of permits we get that I think it'd be good to compare to because that might play into our overall discussion as well thank you so nonprofit options part of what we've talked about is whether it's going out for like a letter of agreement for services which we've discussed possibly with the hospitals or the university there's four entities that pay they collect about one million total Greenville or Greenwood Greenville Greenwood Greenwood Greenville was the Greenville was the I've been just asking because since it's now Prisma Greenville was the one that they were paying I think it's 540 540 and what's that based on it's an agreement they would ship to a mental city about 540 I don't know if it's based on anything other than that's the amount of money they agree on I think on that I feel like there was a because initially they were either city or town or hospital or something else that occurred all in fact it was an agreement and then it turned into an agreement they gave they left too much on the table if that happened so other topics that have been discussed or has been requested or for consideration is a payment and lieu of tax possibly with higher ed hospital medical services it's also been discussed as about a bid on the higher education campus and areas and of course the business license to be charged a fee to business type activities that currently receive a no-fee business license or in addition to that charging a fee to businesses that are non-profit that don't issue a business license and it's come up a couple times so I did verify a business license fee to West Columbia based on I don't think I didn't ask on hospitality I don't think they do hospitality yeah they do that's how they're paying for that parking and all that that they're building yeah just understanding they're paying in that category and we can double chat I mean there's some of our churches that are paying voluntarily doing it that's the point that's the key the key is you need to use those examples to make everybody else pay like first batch is cafe they pay business license and I showed this with Mr. Rickman and Mr. Wilson earlier just I know the concerns other folks have raised none of their time here but I was actually on the gospel station yesterday and I talked about this as an option for those who came in they were they didn't feel like that was unreasonable to charge for the business part of it not the sanctuary but you know just so we know that there probably is as we talked about once we lay out I think even some of the churches would recognize that there's a share that needs to be paid so this conversation obviously will be continued and so is that the revised ordinance changes will come before council so nothing that is reflected in the budget with regards to revenues here as we do get through the process and determine a revenue amount we can collect then we can of course associate expenses with that any other discussions about general fund before I move on to our special revenues and we appreciate it and I think we just got to make some hard decisions and there is no easy path but we have to forward forward we just need to realize that there are options and the goal is to create some level playing fields for everybody who is fully invested for everybody who is doing in this forward decision moving on hospitality tax so hospitality tax we have proposed next year to remain flat we're looking at $12.1 million which is no change from the current year in terms of the base budget right now revenues are not keeping up with what we've projected for this year we're hoping to think in between now and June 30th of course if there are I think part of it is part of it is too we've had for every new restaurant we've had few close so we've had some some turnovers going on a lot lately just looking relatively I think we're seeing a lot of things down I think we'll see that our building permits are down by probably I'm guessing $200,000 to $300,000 this year I think we're seeing business license stuff down I mean there is a general and it goes back to what we've been preaching about is that everybody's going around us we've got to figure out why we're not taxing obviously at some point we've got to have a discussion with schools I think that they're fun I've tried to kind of let them know where we are because they we're probably the county too we need to let entities know as well they did not budget an increase in water but now they are at least I don't respect and make sure that they know but I think we can have those conversations there's probably a willingness the reality for them is they're similar to us that at 388 and other things they're not I will say I did bring it I did see the comment you made about the money going into the classroom I think the 82% I didn't I haven't gotten rich one too yet all the new bonding is not but that was my point in the context of the conversation that half a billion and rich on two is going to have a really adverse effect in the city the millage rate is going to peak close to 700 plus mills which is going to affect affordability it's going to affect resale it's going to affect businesses I mean I think we have to keep an eye on it we're unfortunately we're two 300 mills different in education costs between the upstate and the low country we need to which is the conversation that we had that we are unique and it's not just us the city is accounting the school districts so when we have those conversations with a legislative delegation of others that needs to be part of the conversation I think you're exactly right in original one honestly they like us we want the body cameras for the state mandated in original one they've actually given increases to their teachers of others before the state decides that hurts their budget and then when something happens statewide it doesn't take an effect that we've already tried to put those things in our budget so we need to have those conversations sooner rather than later so we've talked about the two different types of audits that we're going to do one of the other additional studies we want to do this year is take a look at the effects of Act 388 how much has been capped at the 15% how much if everything wasn't capped and what's been the effect on us the county and the school districts with all the assessments and everything if they took it away now nobody could afford to pay their taxes well now one thought on that would be you then roll everything back you really think that's going to happen? no I don't if there's a plan to be put out that's how you're going to work they did it in 1980 when the chamber of commerce sued them and they had to equalize the assessments all over the state and they worked fine for about 10 years and they started tinkering with it well you know that's a whole other discussion when they got close to what half a billion dollars of reoccurring money coming in over there and surplus and they ought to be refunding it not spending it so with regards to hospitality tax as we continue to look we do want to make sure so the budget what was provided to you shows both the approved budget and the amended budget so that you can see there were allocations made in the current year from fund balance we're not projecting any fund balance at this point so as you talk with folks or as folks are listening or are expecting current allocations based on the amended budget it's not the same as what we're basing in terms of what the base budget is can you read the line I give us a break now of the 12 million yes so the 12 million there is what we're showing here currently reflects what's in the budget now I do want to point out that the line item agencies there are several of the line item agencies not all have requested increases those amounts were reflected in your budget memo they are not reflected in the budget currently we just want to make sure that's clear of course what actually happens here is based on what council directs us to do within the budget so this is just reflecting and keeping it flat pending any other additional allocations or instructions from city council so what makes up the budget the 12.1 million dollar budget 2.1 million is for the committee their meeting now that's maintaining at current year levels of allocation 2.1 2.1 that reflects actual that's from some prior years and that makes up some funding that may have been coming from fund balance from some other prior allocations fund balance allocations and then 2 if that group if there was a group in the committee that also got funding from city council it may not be reflected we're trying to reflect those differently now and that's included in your pie chart under allocations correct correct so hospitality allocations reflect all the external allocations which is 5.4 million roughly so what's included in that 45 2.1 2.7 is for council line item agencies which also includes some special projects of those line item agencies and then the council allocations what we've reflected there are those things that have been committed to in prior years council's made several commitments that are multi-year commitments 2.7 and then 609,000 where does that go so right now there is reflected in the budget as it is today in fact flat there's about 42,000 that's not allocated 100,000 for continuation of the gateway to the army which is the 1920 will be the final year of that commitment how much is that per year 100,000 this was the 119th one the final year it was a three-year commitment gateways to the army actually that was a four or five year it was a four or five right yeah they were I saw them advertising today on WMS that is what that's going to cost my mind I think that may have been actually a three or four year year three year commitment also on here it reflects there was a commitment a future commitment for Congre Vista of 115 and again these are council allocations these may be over and above what the committee would be considering under the transfer to debt service 24% 2.9 what does that go to 2.9 goes to the two hospitality tax bonds one is for the multi-purpose venue and one was for the original bond that was issued when we first established hospitality tax in 2003 I can get that to you I'm just wondering where the original when it's coming down I mean it's been there for quite a while right so the 2000 I think it was 2003 was the first bond and then we refined it 2012-13 I think it pays off in 2023 I think it's a year after the convention so it's 2023 so what we did is we only issued for the venue we tried to keep a level of payments all the way across so when I estimated around 2.6 million we're paying both so when the one bond pays off in 2023 then the payments on the venue accelerate so we'll still be at roughly 2.6 to 2.7 and also included in there is roughly 150 will that be in there for the H tax bond for the interest for that's on tonight so that's a second reading 150 actually I've gotten some numbers so it'll actually end up being we put 150 since our estimates really going to be I don't know if all closing costs are included but I think it's going to be closer to about 130 but I just got that email about an hour ago that's correct so but that wouldn't be in this budget if it what we do with Finley comes up during the year then that would be a new to adjust and then the general fund breakdown general fund breakdown is 3.7 million and that is reflected for cost of services provided by the general fund that would be qualified or could be considered for hospitality tax funding that number has been for several years now 55% of our creation goes back thank you did you want me to finish going through the list of allocations from council which ones are rolling off you got 100,000 more on the centennial part but it in the Nickelodeon this over here Nickelodeon this is the current year is the last year for the Nickelodeons 110 and how much is that? 110 but you've picked up Congaree Vista you've picked up five points what was the current year? you added 125 for five points for next year at the last council meeting and let me add when we talk about these that are falling off I would highly encourage to think about what we're going to do in Finley Park over the next couple years so we've talked about growth helping to pay for that but the last 18 months growth hasn't been spectacular so anything that's paying off as well we need to keep that as a consideration to assisting Finley Park along with maybe more modest growth than we initially anticipated well we're going to whatever we do we're going to have maintenance money so there's no reason to do anything until we have maintenance money you need to institute HOA at Bull Street your next commission meeting we met yesterday with what's on our agenda so we've retained the transfer of the hot to the general fund at 3.7 again those allocations are subject to city council's considerations we just want to make sure you understand about in terms of what budget there is to work with there are some items that council will still need to take up in consideration accommodations tax it's looking a little rosier we do see some continued growth in those revenues we're proposing a $2.6 million budget which is an increase of about 90,000 or about 3.5% of our current year state law of course determines how much you can where and what you allocate accommodations tax for city council has gone further and designated that the experience Columbia CVP gets 85% of those funds and then 15% goes to Lake Murray combined those are 95% of the hospitality tax budget less the 25,000 that is directly transferred to the general fund per state law the other 5% is used for general purposes or in other words you could be used like general fund we have funded usually some community promotion activities out of there that's also where we are currently funding together we can read and one Columbia where is one Columbia split between general their allocation split between hospitality tax and general purpose accommodations tax allocation general purpose is the ones that we were told weren't eligible hospitality we probably need to get a review on they are one of the items that I believe has requested an increase in next year in terms of line items from the line agencies out of hospitality tax did they ever fix the laser project actually they are still showing at what $823,000 I don't know if they have requested an increase above that $838,000 that is in the hospitality tax we probably need to put them in the discussion category any questions about accommodations tax the final item is to talk about our budget calendar and sort of assess where we are today and then what we are going to be doing going forward with advertising the budget along with the dates we do appreciate city council accommodating an additional meeting in June for the budget public hearing and first reading so that we could accommodate additional discussions today before we advertise the budget we will advertise the budget tomorrow for June 11th what will be advertised will be the amount of revenues that we have projected that means the expenditure that we have allocated that we have shown so far will have to be in balance with what we have in terms of revenues so that $3.3 million short call at this point we don't have any other projections or estimates or changes to what we have projected on it we can advertise it because we will be in balance by the public hearing for sure there is an extra Tuesday there is an extra Tuesday and June June 11th is the short meeting for just a reading 6 o'clock June 4th is just continued budget discussions June 11th will be public hearing and first reading and the only thing is at this point playing on the agenda would be this topic absolutely we will be advertising for both the general fund budget along with the water and sewer proposed rates what I'm hearing is we're not proceeding with advertising the public hearing tomorrow for the public safety fees or are we advertising as we are or not at all or just looking for I just I don't believe that $5 I think we're hurting our chances on getting to the place we need to be by selling short doesn't mean we can't add it we've got time we can add it the day of the public hearing if we needed to we can because we can have a third meeting in June we have plenty of weeks that's the additional date that's fine I mean that's fine what can we do just balance it and be short from and then amend the budget in a couple of months until we get to audit and everything else that we're looking for to increase the revenue I guess what you could do is you could advertise it we don't have to do it that's what I was saying what's the harm in advertising it for discussion I just when you put a dollar amount on it the reality is how do you we need to be if that becomes the user fee that you put together ultimately that's just my question it's a perception question I think part of that is that we would have to advertise the actual fee in itself but yes we would amend the budget even if we were to postpone it we would have to amend the budget to reflect those costs now let's keep in mind this year which is rare we will have to do an amendment anyhow in August because of the rollback for reassessment in years past we were very good at estimating that we didn't end up having to do one because we had already estimated the rollback due to the timing of getting the information from the counting on assessments we can't possibly have it before June's over so we're still going to have to come back to do that so that could be a time that we could do an amendment as well so why can't we do the same thing budget back in August I mean not back but in August and you just lose those months we're just mostly looking to make sure we're all on the same page with regards to what the expectations are with our time frame I don't want to sell ourselves short on that that fee at this point I think we can have some further discussion and I think two and a half million it's not going to bail us out every year it's just something that we need to figure out and solve the problem in my shot spot or camera and I think that in the scheme of things I'm here with Daniel saying it won't get us where we need to be so we've got to do those other things but if that's something we know that we can do that it will certainly pay for some of the needs of DCV and fire department I'm just ending your list but why not put it out there and say this is what we're discussing this is a fee and this is specifically what it paid for we listed out shots by our cameras whatever it is but Tameka what if we have to use that in conjunction as a user fee which has been recommended for public safety you've already advertised $5 but the reality is what we're doing is not $5 it's a fee it's much larger based on it could be property it could be business it could be this or that and do you then have handcuffed yourself to that number because it's hard to go from $5 to $2500 or whatever the number is I don't disagree with that so we would have that number today but that's why ASS is what I'm wondering what if we would have that I think we have to do a fee specifically I mean we've got a lot of these and others but I think we certainly have to address the law enforcement and I just hate to throw out a number and a fee until we kind of nail down some things and I think we're approaching a two step or thing well that's the only problem is to me let's say that we imposed a user fee and it's focused on public safety which is not just fire and police but also public works but yet if you're advertising that then you can't go back and do the additional fee I think what he's saying is for the perceptions of public handle it all at the same time if that's what you were saying the difference with the third that's the column that's based off the one that's changed in the audit and it would impact non-tactual entities and it would not impact everybody but it is too totally different for me I don't know if I agree I don't know if I agree with your outlook on it I'm not saying that one goes away if we do alternate one now alternate one will remain unless y'all throw it back because you didn't see that alternate two I would take on this at this point with where we are is because I don't necessarily think right now alternate two is going to generate what we're hoping it will just be personal so I was suggesting that we go ahead and implement an alternate one and push really hard to get to alternate two and it's not challenging and all those things and you have that on top of alternate one it's beautiful you know it's the world it's beautiful I don't think that with alternate one it'll do the five dollars so you're still it's still 3.3 short I was taking the two and a half off of the 3.3 seven something so they give you the three points it's adding on these two columns keep adding on top of each other but I would say if you did the two I made well because I know you've got the other budget I'm not talking about the general budget I'm saying if we did the two and a half or public safety fee that five dollars two and a half that would pay for those things underneath them right so that's what I was looking at those things should add up to 2.5 those things total 3.1 for now we would only do 2.5 work why not oh because I didn't I mean if you're saying this I agree with you but I think Mr. Rickin was preferring to that we were locking ourselves into a lower fee than what we ought to do and a ten dollar fee well I still have heartburn that we're asking the same people who are already paying for it to pay for it that's for me is the biggest thing but at the same time I think I mean when's the last time that we can advertise to do it I just don't want to make a decision right now because I think we're we're going to and let me say this to you that's why I'm saying we can wait and amend the budget in August after we get the data that we needed that way we'll determine if we're going to do a public safety fee we'll just do it then and amend the budget and I mean I know you're going to lose a couple of months of revenue but there's no more data that we'll get that would apply to that public safety public tax exam you're losing again losing a window over public safety fee I hear what Daniel said I agree with Daniel I'm not sure what Mo is proposing if it gets us it's just pushing it down the thing and we're not really getting right information but I understand what Daniel is saying if maybe between now and the next meeting we can look at these numbers a little bit more and get a little bit more clear on if we were able to give a fee and are you still talking about some kind of rebate to property owners what would the fee need to be for a parcel in order to give the 4% owner some kind of rebate on it but still get the money that we need and I think it's something we can talk about too with council there's an avenue when we need to talk about it and then two I think fairness you don't have the ordinance actually in front of you that we would be advertising and so I think there's probably a desire to we'll look at it but you won't be here we'll talk about it before you I'm in a conference that I can call in at a certain point if we need to but we can have further discussion yet because we still need to talk about a couple legal issues around that but I think there's an avenue that's been put together at the legislature which is set up exactly the same way and so that eliminates the override I can tell you if you can put it on the water I can't wait to see that avenue so I know we have had a great discussion I've had four professionals pointed out I think they know what they're talking about we still have a lot of executive session items or I know that some of the executive session items pertain to support that so are we at a good place to I think you don't want to do one in Syracuse Texas has got Syracuse Mr. Rick, Mr. Rick Tripple in the churches Mr. President you all meet on the second I mean the third I'm not going he said he can call in well I wouldn't want us to to be too restrictive on our schedule because right oh it's just it's just a public meeting the regular public hearing first reading we will be giving first reading but what June will learn about the Daniel is making a decision ready to go in executive session that's just like is yours a tax incentive now John, about how long is your presentation okay gotcha thank you can we draw up for the wedding I'm going to get some people who know the word yes and they're not going to cry are you joining us good afternoon thank you for taking the time to chat with me John Ando, Executive Director of the Comet this is probably the first time we've done this before but in compliance with state law as a regional transportation authority we need each of our member governments to approve our proposed operating and capital budget and this is section 582570 of Chapter 25 of the Regional Transportation Authority so going forward every fiscal year will come before each of our member agencies to ask for approval of our operating budget before our board can adopt an operating and capital budget and as you're aware we're the Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority we're a governmental agency that provides public transit services in Richland and Lexington counties member agencies include City of Columbia City of Forest Acres Richland County, Lexington County we also have delegation members from the Richland County delegation that serves as our voting board and then we also have jurisdictions that financially contribute but do not vote from the cities of West Columbia Casey, Town of Springsdale and then Lexington County and Lexington County delegation also appoint non-voting board members our brand is the Comet we provide fixed route and paratransit services on 34 routes with two reflex services and a van pool program that just recently started we also have a subsidy program with Lyft and Uber we're funding 10 bike share stations in the City of Columbia and we transport about 2.8 million passenger trips a year on 81 buses we run 7 days a week 363 days a year our organization is 12 employees under myself I have a director of finance CFO and director of administration operations, COO a director of regulatory compliance and civil rights officer and then a grants and regional coordination manager a fairly lean organization and then this is the voting structure of our board we do contract out our transit operations to a company called Transdev they're based out of Lombard, Illinois they're a large line share of our overall operating budget we pay approximately $15 million of our budget to them and then our mission statement, vision statement and core values is here these were adopted by our board back in 2015 as part of the strategic plan process some future things we're trying to do with the comment we want to be more of a mobility manager we're getting ready to study the transit system it hasn't been studied since 2009 we're taking a different approach and studying the system we're going to look at it from a complete redesign basis to determine if the current route system makes sense and if it doesn't look at how can we make the bus system more fast, fun frequent and friendly for our community and that's what our short range transit plan comes into play we're getting aggressive to add more passenger amenities throughout the service area more shelters, more benches making more comforting for our riders and then for the next couple of years we're going to be educating the community about the value of the comment we want to make sure that the bus system is making financial sense to the community and making sure that we're right sizing the services to meet the needs of our service area because we are projecting that we will utilize our entire penny funding 300 million 991,000 by 2029 so we have about nine more years left we need to start determining a future strategy for funding the comment beyond that our revenues we're projecting to be a $29 million budget this year about a 13% change 23 million of that is our operating budget 6 million of that is our capital budget so in the operating can you walk us through that sure you got 15 million in contract so what's covered in your contract so in our contracts we have the transdiv that's our line share professional services includes like legal services, marketing public relations accounting services did you guys have a copy of our budget that would be on page 11 where we show our detailed expenditures page 11 shows our detailed expenditures which also shows the professional services she's going to print it we don't have it so you're like wanting the total cost of our professional services well I want to know what each line item is to understand right now it looks like your proposed budget is $30 million which is an increase of $3.4 million from previous year trying to understand what those expenses are so I can summarize briefly looking at the document that I have in front of me salaries is about $892,000 marketing so that is for for your 11 folks for my 11 folks yes common admin marketing we budgeted at $256,000 and that is about a 15% increase so we can be more aggressive in promoting our services I have questions about the revenue but can you since you're talking about the expenses now the expenses isn't shown on yeah I thought that's why I'm kind of just summarizing while the document is being printed and the income revenue you lose in this coming year yeah so we continue what is based off of the city of Columbia providing the transit center and the assembly street bus shelter but we since learned that since those are federally funded you can't use you can't use that as an in kind so we had to subtract that so while we're waiting on that let me ask the questions I had about revenue this looks like so as far as passenger fare revenue you're proposing an increase or a projecting increase of over $200,000 I'm just wondering is that and then an advertising revenue of $32,000 I mean it seems like those increases are big where are you basing those that hang on we did a fair increase effective January we have an increased fare since 2007 so the revenues today are coming in higher than we anticipated and our ridership continues to increase so that's where we projected the increase in passenger fares the advertising revenue for about three years we have an advertise on the comment the board has adopted a new advertising policy which allows us to start advertising on the interior exterior of our buses as well as our bus shelters and is that for the bus to be wrapped or not necessarily wrapped but we built we developed a design so that it can be incorporated into our existing brand without distracting from the brand and still generate some revenue so we are getting aggressive with selling ads on those assets which can help offset some of the revenues other revenue streams that we receive that is in their budget last week I did a presentation to lexington county council on the same budget and they with that number and they included that historically lexington counties figure was capped I've started to talk with our contractual partners as well as the lexington county increasing their shares in accordance with cpi since the trans def contract increases with cpi we the board did adopt the service equity policy to ensure that whatever jurisdictions are paying into the comment are getting the services that's appropriate with that jurisdiction so that we don't have counties subsidizing other counties for services and we actually have even gone as far as when you'll see in the budget document calculating route miles by jurisdiction and matching the revenues with that and then we have interest income that is increased because we transferred a lot of our funds to the local government investment fund that is managed by the state and we're getting a higher percent interest rate with the state than we were with optis and well spargo bank the richland county penny we're keeping flat state mass transit from scdot is declining and it's declining to that operators across the state we recently received some hospitality tax funding from the city of casey and we're also pursuing funding from the city of west columbia and the city of columbia to support soda cap connector my math is correct remind me the original twenty nineteen budget fairs is two point four five that's a dollar fifty a rider or two dollars that's at a dollar fifty so that means there's about forty four hundred riders that's my right day average if you average it based off the three sixty three yes generally is higher on weekdays yeah and then we're also we've received cdbg funds from richland county and lexington county to support bus shelters and we're starting a low income pass program to sell bus passes at fifty percent off for those that meet the department of health and housing poverty guidelines and then federal revenues is increasing significantly we're putting some federal funds into operations since we've run less than a hundred peak buses and we also have some capital projects that are utilizing the federal funds and that's really the lion share of why you get to that thirteen percent increase is because of the additional capital projects that we're doing such as getting more aggressive with passenger shelters and and continuing to improve our assets and then miscellaneous income such as surplus in equipment selling tokens toy buses and various items that we can generate revenue from so going back I'm just trying to do some math and trying to understand all these numbers so fringe benefit in salaries for your eleven folks is roughly one point two million dollars that's about right yes so that's an average salary of one hundred nine for each one of your folks no I wouldn't say no well I'm just dividing eleven into one point two and that's the number I get you're doing the eight hundred and ninety two thousand eighty seven plus the two seventy seven eight eighty two no no our average salaries are the only person that's over a hundred thousand myself the math doesn't add up to that John so I guess we need to figure it out I mean you got eleven people and then I noticed the marketing advertising promotion that's increased by a hundred and fifty six can you tell us who that is that contracted what does that include so the marketing includes basically all of our advertising and promotions and printed materials that we're going to and promotional items that we're going to procure in order to promote the comment so that includes like billboard ads, new paper ads, television ads normally as a standard transit agencies should be budgeting one to two percent of their operating budget for our marketing activities alright but I mean that just the one I'm reading is increased a hundred and fifty six percent and that's marketing but the printing underneath that's a whole separate line item that's another eighty five and the printing so the marketing and the printing portion is for printing timetables and system maps whereas the marketing printing is like specialty flyers and promotional like for instance as we promote the uber lift program and the blue bike program that's going to fall into the marketing budget our general timetables our system apps that falls under the printing budget we also have the consultant talking rally that's included also in the marketing and they're going to be managing the marketing plan and its implementation you have reserved for service enhancements which you didn't have before what is that so that's the federal funds that we've added into the operation our goal of adding federal funds into operations is to start reducing the dependency of the penny and start storing penny revenues in a reserve account so that one it can help us extend out to twenty twenty nine and two so that we have an emergency and an operating reserve historically the comment did not have a reserve account I noticed so you had nine hundred and eighty thousand dollars for professional contracted services this year and that's reduced by fifty two percent what was the change there in the contracts that have not been that have not been procured in years so by us going out to bid drastically reduce the cost and then as part of our recent reorganization we are stop utilizing consultants and we've shifted those duties back to either trans dev or common staff what I one thing I've learned for the past years that there's a lot of duplication of effort going on so that's one thing that we've stopped for a long time I have a question I pulled up the detail on the salaries the average salary when I add up the eleven including temporary staff and interns is about sixty eight thousand six twenty two and then on the fringe benefits our lion share a hundred and thirty eight thousand eight oh nine is going to peba for the south carolina and medicare sixty five hundred is unemployment twelve hundred is workers compensation sixty three thousand one twenty nine is health insurance for eleven employees and one thousand nine hundred and eighty is for dental and then there's also another line for sixty one thousand one forty nine for health as well and this is going along further than the five minutes and we've got a lot of stuff on our Executive Committee and John will be invited back in another meeting to finish this up yeah, when does your board have to approve your budget and John will you come on June 4? I'm actually going to be out on June 4 and then I come to your following meeting I didn't know what your timeframe was for your board you said we have to approve it for your board yeah we our board is having a meeting on Wednesday and then the next time they'll meet again will be the last Wednesday in June what about June 11? I can do that what time? this goes before your board goes before my board Wednesday yes and the action will be conditional upon receiving approval from all of the member governments no it's actually we have to get approval from all the member agencies now that everybody has we just have that budget approved by July 1st so the board of directors will meet again on June 27 and I have yeah, when the initial email yeah he cited it maybe yes Chapter 25 Section 582570 but I'll send that to you guys I'll give me back a quick so June 11 okay thank you so much alright thank you John we will go into executive session for discussion of employment of an employee pursuant to hold all of items discussion of negotiation proposed contractual arrangement pursuant to 30-4-7-8-2 greenway easements capital city study in the town of east over vertical construction project proceed of legal advice related to matters covered by attorney client privilege pursuant to 30-4-7-8-2 receptacle requirements and law richman sewer discussions of matters related to the location of our expansion of services to encourage location or expansion of industries or other businesses pursuant to 30-4-7-8-2 development incentives thank you Mr. Ball is there a second move to second yes I yes sir get food quickly and try to at least be sitting down