 here present yes mr. Von is joining us remotely today mr. Davis is in route mr. Von can you hear us oh I'm sorry you there mr. Von mr. Von oh okay very good let's say I just to recognize your presence okay thank you mr. Mayor we will carry forward our fiscal year 2018 2019 budget discussions I appreciate the time you all have given me and staff you know I've called this year of budget discussions a budget of reality and I'm saying that to many of our employees and former employees who are in the room because that's where we are we are looking very closely and have labored and struggled and talked about some hard decisions and it's time for us to explain those decisions hopefully in a way that our employees our retirees and the citizens of Columbia can understand because what the city faces is no different than many other public and private entities across the country Mayor Benjamin knows and his travels has the US president of the conference of mayors um sharing some information with me this weekend on the the hard decisions that all entities are facing when it comes to health care insurance and coverage for people that have given their service to us for a long time and we don't take that lightly at all so what we want to start with Mayor Benjamin and I want to be real clear about this this is a budget workshop there are no votes made today this is a time for council to see the recommendations that I put in the city manager's budget because it is the city manager's budget the decisions the recommendations that I'm putting before council are those that I've had to come up with this staff um and so this is a presentation period we've had conversations with council but this is really their first final look at a final budget that's come together the public hearing for the budget where people can give additional input is on June 5th next Tuesday evening at six o'clock and um that's when there would be a first reading on the budget which encompasses these decisions that we have to make regarding retiree health care um insurance coverage and for our actives as well so with that we'll get started with the presentation period the first presentation explains and we want to make sure we're real clear and as we go through it if the mayor and council have questions we'll take those questions during the presentation of the employee and retiree health care program Ms. Pamela Benjamin human resources director and chief of staff let's um remind everyone we have the pre-managers conference room is open for folks who may not have seats some seats in there as well as the chambers are open as well those folks show up if you need some place to sit down go and go spaces they'll get it live Ms. Benjamin who is of no relation to me I might add who's saying that again uh no relation I'm going to ask that question again I'm very best for our dumb voice I can do we have no relation I get that question asked of me every day good afternoon as Ms. Wilson just stated I am here to give a presentation on some of the things that we've discussed during several meetings that we've had with council we have been of course having this discussion for quite some time now and we've had some recent presentations one in February one in April and this is a summation of some of that information we've also had some smaller meetings with council as well to really get a sense of what decisions we can make that are going to be viable to maintain some type of benefit and to make sure that we have coverage for our employees as well as as retirees and which decisions that we're going to make so as you all know health care costs continue to rise every year as you can see the projections they've increased every single year I've just given you some information from 2013 from fiscal year 2013 and 2014 up until 2016 2017 and we're projected at around 25 million dollars for health care costs for this particular fiscal year so that's kind of the trend you see that trend is increasing every single year and so every year we do have these discussions about what decisions need to be made in order to maintain health care for our active employees as well as our retirees so so we're here again to have that discussion as well so in some of our prior presentations you all have been given some information about what kind of decisions that you need to make we'll get to it a little bit later in the presentation but one of the major decisions that need to be made is are we going to maintain our ddb and the ddb is a defined dollar benefit that was established back in 2014 yes in 2014 and what we did was we a council voted to set a particular amount of money for each retiree and their dependent in order to try and cap the liability that we had for our op-ed liability and for those of you who don't know what op-ed is it's it's our retiree benefits includes pension and employee health care or retiree health care so we've looked at different scenarios medical not dental it's medical it's not dental it's just medical so we've looked at from one extreme to the other what do we do if we don't maintain our ddb and how does that affect the liability to maintaining it and in what mechanism we provide that defined dollar benefit to our retirees and so as we've gone through these discussions over the last couple of months we've come up with some recommendations that will go on further you'll see in the slides so to start some of the changes or some of the proposed recommendations we're talking about active employee insurance so currently we have presented to you as part of miss wilson's budget some ideas about changing employee or active employee health benefits in order to continue to maintain the benefit at a rate that is sustainable for the city of columbia so what we're proposing is a phase in increase to premiums and we have historically not at that typical 80-20 share that we started out back when daniel was first on council and they kind of recommended some some balance to the city contribute 80 percent and the active employee contribute 20 percent we're currently around 88 percent and 12 percent so the recommendation is to move that percentage closer to the 80-20 share it's looking at about 20 average per month increase in premiums for active employees we're also looking at increasing some of the deductibles the out-of-pocket maximums and the co-pay making some changes to that and also looking at the pharmaceutical tier structure and changing some of the the cost for insurance for pharmacy cost as you all know we did institute a tobacco surcharge so we're looking at increasing that from $50 to 100 and also at the concept of a spousal surcharge for spouses who have credible coverage available to them so in this example or in this situation if an employee has their spouse covered their their spouse works for an entity that provides health insurance coverage then in order for that person to remain on the coverage they'd have to pay an additional surcharge in order to be retained on that on that employee's coverage if the spouse doesn't if the spouse doesn't then we would still maintain that benefit for that spouse and they could pay at the current whatever the rates are for spousal coverage you might have any other questions about that so those were the things that we're looking at or recommending for the active employees and is that i'm sorry is that still roughly 2000 active employees yes so we're looking at we've got um 2063 employees that are covered some of our employees aren't covered because they may be on tricare or they may have coverage through their spouses so they're not covered but that's what we're looking at we're looking at about 2,600 employees that are active with us about 2063 are covered on our plane so they're roughly 500 people that have alternative health care yeah they like i said some of them are retired military so they have tricare some of them have coverage from another entity some of them are retirees from another place and they're working with us so they're different scenarios for those people so the deductible so depending on what plan you're on because the city has three different plans we have a core plan a buy-up plan and a a base plan so depending on what plan you're on your deductible varies um for example i'm trying to find a little presentation so just to give you an example if you currently have um you're on the base plan your deductible is currently um $2,000 so with the increases that we're talking about we would raise that deductible from $2,000 to $2,500 so that that's one of the examples um out of pocket maximum would go from 7,000 to 7,150 so there's some slight changes depending on what plan you you're on makes a difference of what your deductible is your co-pays and your co-insurances are to answer your question okay and i want to get coverage and our coverage has always been as robust as it is a great plan we get that um but at a time like this we're having to make such hard decisions that affect retirees and athletes and a lot everybody it to be more equitable this is a change that um that helps and create some savings because you're you're kind of putting the onus on people to make decisions um you know that affect the whole the whole group of people that we're trying to still maintain coverage for by they have the opportunity they're working they have the opportunity to get coverage out of their own employer versus the expense that is that is adding to the expense that the city is covering that for those additional defenders when they have another opportunity right i mean you know ultimately we're trying to provide insurance coverage to our active working employees and our retirees um and so it's it's not it's pretty typical for employers to charge a surcharge to allow people to stay on the coverage whenever the employee's spouse has coverage that they can get other other places so financially it is our best interest to make sure we're doing what's in the best interest of our active employees and so that's one of the things that would allow us to do that and spend those resources on those employees who work for us and those spouses who don't have coverage in other places um we see it a lot where our plan is such a great plan that a lot of people forego the coverage that they have in their current employer to be on our plan because our plan is richer we pay better um our deductibles are lower our premiums are lower than a lot of your other employers so we see that quite a bit where people are on our plan but they they work every day and they have coverage or they have the access to coverage in their current employer so that that is that is very common but it does factor into how we make these tough decisions about who gets covered and who doesn't get covered and how those resources are utilized we've looked at um a hundred dollars per month as a surcharge um that's in some of the data that some of our consultants have have used um as a proposed surcharge certainly there there's certainly a range you know you've got all kinds of employers but some of your major employers um they either don't allow spouses on the coverage or they don't supplement that spouses insurance like we do so it's pretty common um a lot of your you know your public entities they don't allow spouses on the coverage at all has questions because of the sound quality she's watching from the stream and we may have to pause and let her answer her question via text and we lay it if you have a question for her we just need to give her time we certainly will you know give more specific information about each plan and and the amounts of the changes we wanted to let you know that this is a follow-up to our previous conversation and that based on the information we've shared with you all previously that this is the direction we're going forward to recommend for active employee health benefit changes any other questions on that so as far as retiree health insurance is concerned we again like miss wilson has said have constantly looked at this I've been here seven years this has been a point of discussion ever since I've been here and I'm I'm sure it will continue to be because this is a challenge for all employers and we certainly take it very seriously and have considered a lot of the different options out there but just to give you a little scenario like I said in 2012 I think I said 2014 but actually in 2012 the ddb was established for retirees for the other post-employment benefits the liability and um it's it was about 110 million during fiscal year 2012 2013 so the ddb placed a cap on the city's contribution for pre 65 retirees and is currently at $1,130 per month and $840 per month for dependents so it's $1,130 per month for the retiree themselves and $840 per month for the dependents can you just it is $1,130 per month for the retiree and $840 per month for the dependents what is the current enrollment in the pre 65 retirement you don't ask me that I don't have my reading glasses I had two or three different numbers that's why I was curious um we're looking at 386 participants now when I say that number of course it may vary a little bit based on how many dependents a person has so we have for example we have 24 people that have full family coverage so they may have three people on their plan they may have four people they may have five people they may have 10 people so I'm looking at the number of plans that we have for those retirees and all the city covers about 5,000 lives between active and retirees so I had I had roughly the number that is given to me by one someone one of these meetings roughly 402 pre 65 coverage is that sound about right that depends on when you've got that yeah because it fluctuates because people roll off and go to post 65 people come on people we just use 400 as an average that might be a safe number um the db the ddb for post 65 retired 365 365 so there's a difference between pre 65 and post 65 right so the ddb for the post 65 and those are medicare eligible retirees is 300 for the retiree and 225 for the dependents $300 for the retiree and $225 for the dependent so that is the amount of money that the city contributes to sets aside for gap coverage essentially right so what we do for the post 65 is we do we have a supplemental plan that is offered through united health care and the post 65 retirees also have to pay a premium for medical and pharmacy even though we're contributing the ddb currently because that's the total cost of the plan um based on the fact that it's a small population and their experience is pretty high then that makes us have to pay around $400 for pharmacy and another um another almost $400 for medical so it's it's pretty expensive for us to offer that supplemental plan but again it's a supplemental plan medicare is primary united health care is a supplemental plan for the post 65 so your your real cost of supplemental is is 700 or 400 300 300 on top of the cities what the city's already paying right so you're really talking about 700 per person and the market out there is much less if it's done individually correct it absolutely according to some of the retirees who've not taken it and gone and done their own they're paying significantly less per month for supplemental that is correct because we're having to create a program specifically for that that's why the costs are so high exactly and we do from time to time we hear from our post 65 retirees who say i could get a cheaper plan out there on my own if i just go out to you know AARP or united health care i can get much a cheaper plan and we say you're you're absolutely right because you may depending on your personal situation be able to get a plan that's much cheaper so that is something that we hear quite often um and FY 18 the city is contributing more than the ddb amount as a result of not increasing retiree premiums and not making any plan changes so because we haven't increased retiree premiums and we haven't really maintained that ddb we're here facing some really significant decisions if the city fails to maintain the ddb going forward its op-ed liability could go up two to four times higher by fiscal year 2047 and we're looking at a billion dollar liability so that's why we've looked at some hard decisions you are someone's bringing it back home why why 2047 is important and how that affects our budgeting today and you have the year and maybe with that with that billion dollar liability means in terms of our annual contributions it's I mean in simple terms we won't be able to recover our active employees let alone retirees going into the future if we continue at the pace that we are I mean that that's just an unheard of liability to bear can't do it yeah it's the 30-year window of course we it's it's 30 years out and we have had actuarial studies done looking at our current population and all the the factors that they look at during the actuarial study as far as age gender um length of of um morbidity um there are all these factors that go into how they come up with the the actuarial study but 2047 is 30 years out we're looking at how that we're required to be to show those that long-term liability over 30 years of life and then we have to set aside funds each year to meet that long-term liability we have a number that shows us what what that looks like uh we're talking about a lot of money on an annual basis how much what we we're talking about an inability not just to not just to cover health care expenses but an inability to cover basic uh services right if we don't get arms right I think that's to make sure people understand we're not gravity of it we're not we're not just talking about insurance for attirees or even active employees we're talking about an inability to meet basic services if we don't get arms around yes that's that's you okay so um as we've talked through the months um the decision has been made of whether we're going to maintain that ddb or not um because that's one huge decision and then if we do what mechanism is that going to look like and then it's also been a decision or it needs to be a decision made of who will be eligible for the retiree health insurance benefits going forward um after this fiscal year on forward so when we looked at some possible decisions about what to do we looked at creating a health reimbursement account based on the current db in the amount for the 365 retirees the hra would be based on that 1130 or that 840 um for those employees who are current 365 retirees and employees higher prior to july 1st 2009 that meets eligibility requirements for retirement so we looked at how do we cap that population how do we um give some of our longer term employees the benefit of having health insurance when they retire how do we make sure that we're providing something to those long long term employees and our current retirees so um those were two of the decision points that that we're recommending based on Miss Wilson's budget we're also looking at the possibility of eliminating post-65 coverage for retirees and that would be eliminating the ddb for that population and they would no longer be receiving that 300 or 225 dollar ddb depending on whether they're retiree or dependent um we've also um looked at adding an age requirement to be 55 years of age in addition to the requirement for the 20 years of service with the city of columbia and that 20 years of service is based on those employees that were here prior to july 1st 2009 so that's the eligibility requirement for employees that are that were here prior to july 1st 2009 after july 1st 2009 it changed to 25 years for police officer's retirement and 28 years for regular time so that's where that that line was drawn it wasn't an arbitrary line that that's that's where that line was drawn what we find is our average age for our retirees our pre-65 retirees is about 57 years old so a lot of our pre-65 retirees go on and have other employment and have some of them a lot of them have the opportunity to get coverage with their current employer so we were looking at how do we balance between offering coverage to people who don't have the opportunity to have coverage and those employees or or those retirees who may have the opportunity to have coverage at other places have did you look at we're getting questions or comments online if you offered to get into your microphone or not covering your microphone so it's actually online those from tamika i'm sorry it was online so as we look at you know number two which in HR account is something we've talked about since we do have money put away and it's a way to feed that and keep it regular have you looked at you have eliminated post 65 coverage for retirees what is based on the population we have today and can we not put an hra account together for that to carry those folks who are in the system i mean they have a better opportunity to get a better quality healthcare um and to be quite honest it's it's savings on this side of the fence too because we're overpaying to cover them today and they're not getting a better coverage to create an hra account for them as well certainly still be able to to to maintain our balance because that's that's what we're looking at at this point to me that makes more sense right now we're the numbers you know staggering yeah we are these are recommendations we certainly can tweak and make adjustments to those we have looked at options because you all know we had those options one through three that were presented um i think when was that was that in april and one of those options allowed for continuing the ddb for that post 65 so that is one of the options that we presented to you all in the past we certainly can make that adjustment to this list of recommendations but we could set it up the same way we could absolutely set it up the same way based on line item two if you went in i think i figured out today that's almost about 13 and a half thousand dollars per employee 365 right so and like you said the the hra additional 10 if you had a spouse that's other you know which is a lot of money as well so you're really talking about there's an employee and a spouse together who don't have options we're contributing twenty three thousand dollars in the hra account that's correct what go ahead uh mesbenia what's the savings to the city if we eliminate spousal coverage for the active as well as the retiree you know that figure i don't know that figure off the top of my head i really mr rickland's already said it's ten thousand dollars that's just for post that's for post right so that there's a there's a totally different contribution rate for active employees that it is eliminated for active that have credible coverage elsewhere wouldn't that not be a substantial savings in itself we certainly it would eliminate a group of a population of of covered participants for those that have creditable coverage elsewhere but you mean and don't do the surcharge don't do the surcharge just eliminate eliminate the coverage eliminate the coverage if you have creditable coverage elsewhere and i'm sure mrs didon is probably going to chime in here as well um what's what's a threshold for credible coverage elsewhere how do we how do we determine that it there's a um an aca and an irs um threshold for for determining what credible coverage is it it's based it's based on how much it costs um and how much of your income that coverage will cost you to have that um it doesn't matter if it's good or bad it's it's a it's an income ratio not i'd have to get that you would objectively subject surcharge doesn't there is a there is a definition for you'll be back here in 12 months having to change it again it just doesn't work i'll i will look at that for you i don't i don't you would have a you'll have a model for us when we can look at certain um you know one of the things that um we can look at it yeah we can look at the definition of what credible coverage is um it is it is certainly a recruiting tool and a retention tool for us to be able to offer health insurance for our active employees spouses that's a that's a really significant thing for us and so we really hadn't considered eliminating that but we certainly will look at the numbers but if they had credible coverage elsewhere that wouldn't be such a big recruiting tool it would be a critical recruiting tool if they didn't have that coming coming in the door i mean coming in coming in we will certainly look at it i mean there are um employers who do that don't offer coverage to employee spouses who have credible coverage and they're active so that is something that that we certainly can look at i think we need to look at that seriously i think that will be the last question when you get chance yes ma'am stavon go ahead um okay just two things um this is part of my delay so go back to the retirees and their coverage um so if a retiree has the option of coverage somewhere else um how do we know that and the reason i'm asking is i know in the past we've had retirees that have had other jobs that has option to be covered somewhere else but because our coverage is so good that declines the coverage other somewhere else it would be in affidavit i mean i know that we could you know there's only so much we can do to dig into that actually but i mean certainly we would expect people to be honest and and there's a process that the human resources department would go through um you know to seek that information but once we've asked and we get an answer and it's on an affidavit i mean that's what we would have to go by essentially i think there's some other steps but to you know that's about as far as probably we would so to determine that and for the spouses we would have um everybody who has a spouse submit us a letter from the from the hr department of their spouses employer saying that they don't have credible coverage so we get the affidavit and we get the letter that first question was really it was about the retiree's employees so not that yeah they they would have to just we would have to submit our coverage and then my my second question and comment along the lines of of the spouse and you know i think the third charge is fair um you know and maybe part of that is looking at um you know what that third charge is so that you know it is it is fair and compensates us a little bit but you know i would reiterate what i said before i think that we we do have um that concern as far as recruitment and retention of our heard employees we talked about this in the past where someone can leave the city and make much more in the private sector especially when you're talking about engineering or um you know folks with the the skill sets that we need and and part of the the allure of the city is i think that we have a good health care coverage and if you consider adjusting it to the point where that doesn't encourage them to stay anymore i think that we're running into a risk so i think we need to look at all options as far as as families but when you're looking at people with younger families and i know we can't exclude uh children but when you think about spouses we have folks who have spouses who may not work or we have spouses that don't have uh coverage other places and i think that a third charge is probably the best is a fair option for us to look at as far as keeping those folks and as a recruitment and retention solution we'd have we'd be required to to get to offer them insurance anyway to make if they didn't have other insurance we could right just deny right right if they don't have credit it it will turn on the credible coverage well no i'm i meant to go up to mr devolve comment i mean i i don't know what his comment or what what his suggestions require us even if they didn't have credible because we keep telling us there's two different things here we're talking about credible coverage somewhere else and then we're talking about eliminating them all together and i think those are two different conversations and i'm they are and my my suggestion would be if they have credible coverage elsewhere to eliminate them from both active employees and retired employees and furthermore what i would like to do is look at the savings that we could accumulate especially if we eliminate spousal coverage with credible coverage in the active ranks that's going to be several million dollars and put that back into employee benefits that would that would help all two thousand of our employees rather than the small percentage that would fit the criteria of having a spouse or a family that needs coverage um a lot of employers if they do that they those spouses that don't have access to coverage would either pay the full amount um they would pay our portion city's portion and the premium portion so that's that's what a lot of employers do if their spouses don't have credible coverage they may charge them the total cost for that coverage so there there are ways to kind of work around it apparently i'm getting calls so it's difficult for people here online so all of us let's see if we can lean up a little more into the microphones as we speak all right thank you so let's talk let's talk a little bit about what this hra looks like what how it would how it would um provide some benefit to our retirees um what an hra is essentially the health reimbursement account that would go into that amount that we set aside right now for the ddb the 1130 and the 840 will go on and into an hra account that hra account would be used by the retiree because in this situation we're talking about the pre and potentially the post 65 that would go into an account and what they would do with that those funds is they could use it to pay their health insurance premiums health plan deductibles costs for doctor's office visits prescriptions x-rays any other irs approved medical expenses so what in essence it would be instead of us having a retiree health insurance plan we would give each individual retiree their ddb and then they would be able to go out and shop for their own plan so for some of our retirees it would certainly be a cheaper situation than for others so for example we've got one here this is an example of pre medicare retiree an individual that's 60 years old in richland county because what we've already done is one of our consultants and we gave this to you in a prior presentation they did an analysis of the plans that are offered out there and as you can see the plans are broken down into bronze silver or gold and depending on which plan the person chooses would depend on their deductibles out of pocket maximums and then what their monthly premiums would be so for example if you look down at the bottom where it says retiree pays some retirees could pay nothing for their coverage our ddb could cover the entire cost of their coverage others may have to pay more depending on which level of coverage they choose and it also depends on where you are located geographically but there are definitely plans available out there that the retiree would be able to take advantage of and if we did that for the post 65 there are even more plans that are available for that population because of um there there's just more there's more activity in the market or post 65 retirees and I didn't I don't think I included a slide for that because I didn't think that was one of our options but we certainly have researched and looked at what those plans look like how they're tiered and what that will look like for the retiree so it's it's really a replacement of the benefit and again they would have the opportunity to go out search the market and find a plan that's available for them we certainly would not be it be forcing them to do that by themselves we would hire a navigator who would sit down with the retiree each of them because they each have different medical and different personal situations and help them navigate and choose which plan is best for them so it would be based on what their current health is what kind of prescriptions they take those types of things in order to make the decision of which plan is most suitable for them and then they would use that money on the hra to pay for their premiums and they would also use it for any other medical irs approved medical expenses that they may have any questions about that such as Pam maybe talk about irs approved medical expenses so for example it would be like like co pays prescriptions um you know any kind of fees that you're charged in your doctor's office um it would be um you know insulin or or any type of things like that things that um wouldn't be covered would be like plastic surgery like botox like things that are elective they may not be covered um that varies the irs changes what's covered and what's not covered um each year seems like it because you used to could buy um over-the-counter medications now that's you can't do that as much anymore or at all for for most of them so it would just depend on what the irs regulations are but it's going to be most of your high dollar or your routine medical expenses that you be paying now with your coverage now your co-pay your co-insurances your out-of-pocket charges you know if you go to the doctor and they give you a bill because you got an x-ray you could pay for that using your hra funds um so it's it's going to be most of your standard medical expenses and if it if it doesn't run out on a year and during the course of one year what happens to it it depends on how we set up our hra accounts um depends on if we set a maximum some of them it just continues to roll over no matter what others have caps it would depend on how we design our hra account to to what would happen with those funds some of them if you don't use it by the end of the year then the funds go away others allow you to carry over some of it or all of it it would depend on how we structured it can can you possibly just give me a little background because i'm struggling with just the number a little bit you know from an employee standpoint we have a dba and that could continue to grow we're using this 1130 for the db yeah for the retiree right but the spousal number seems kind of high to me that we're contributing 75 percent but the employee is our responsibility i mean have we looked at changing those numbers where you you could call it a shift or whatever but seems to me our responsibility is to the employee first and foremost in long term than it is to to an individual that didn't work at the city spouse or whatever i mean i don't know everybody's situation differently i'm just sitting here looking at the numbers and going you know there's there's different ways to to attack this and you know is the obligation that we need to be putting forward to the individual that it worked here and and that was their contribution because it's hard to rationalize it you're you're you're paying 75 percent of somebody's cost that didn't work it well instead of paying a hundred percent of the cost of the person who did just throwing out food for thought as you're looking at these numbers well and the ddb that's set up now was established in 2012 so we were just in an effort to maintain that current ddb that's what the recommendations are based on you know an actuarial study was done and those were the recommendations made by the consultant at that time we can certainly look at adjusting that ddb to give more to the retiree and less to the spouse um in our obligation would be to the employee or or retiree first and foremost we can certainly look at that but we were just maintaining what and that's what all of you know all of our projected cost and all of our projected liability is based on that current ddb that was established back in 2012 and so that's kind of you know what we've used as a guidepost for for the data that you all have seen previously but we can certainly look at that yeah it's still to me it still becomes a question of your first and foremost responsibilities have been to the employee who worked here saying that he's seeing that gets a bad drop of as you're doing math here some employees maybe not ever having to come out of pocket because it's having to come out of pocket actually having to meet those employees needs first before you extend obligations to the spouses so it's just a well it's from a contribution standpoint let me just it doesn't make it that the math just doesn't make sense it seems like it seems that much again like missy said but it was based on the 8020 and the premiums at the time because we were we were looking at all those figures back in 2012 and we did we haven't recalculated that ddb haven't increased it for inflation anything like that it may be worth it doing take a look at what that number would do today reflective of today based on the employee 365 or post 65 it's it's clear that the better deal and the better coverage is to do it individually question question on that um we have that formula now as you said because that was the standard of the mark of the mark model in 12 if we go back when you research different models looking at spouse not contributing at all um we would or could come up with a with a model that maybe not contributing that much to a spouse that's not contributing but not totally limited I think I mean for us I think we have a multitude of options yeah I think we want to figure out what the best option that the realistically that is sustainable and where we are today is not sustainable as you've seen the number right it's just not possible we can sit here and try to light everybody everything can maintain the way it is but it wouldn't five years you won't have health care so the reality is we we have to make some changes here we need to figure out what's best but I think there's an obligation first and foremost to one group over another I think we need to look at it that way just food for thought no but until we put numbers on the board you can't I mean you just you can't do that but it's just it seems interesting that the percentages are done that way I think it probably goes to also just more the philosophical discussion of it all as well and some of the points maybe miss divine was raising I mean that is that has been the model that the city has done for many many years when I came to the city I always tell the story I was shocked because I came from a different institution of private industry and I was in my first paycheck and notice I didn't pay have to pay for my health care insurance I was shocked I was like where's the money taken out of my check so over time there's just there's been a wonderful system here at the city that to do everything we could to take care of the employees and the spouse and children or still live by law we have to take care of children independent the spouses I think it goes to is it a recruitment tool is it something that has been a recruitment tool and now we can't really maintain that anymore I think it's the what we presented was based off kind of where we've been and not going away from that philosophical well I think it could overall the systems change you can go to Greenville you go to Charleston they all have different you know a lot of them are eliminated post 65 other people are paying in this they don't take spouses I mean it's it's it's constantly changing I think recruitment has changed I don't think you have as many people who come and work for 2025 it's like you used to I mean things have changed the opportunities people are more mobile today they don't stay in communities as long I mean there are all these factors that we could look at but the reality is is 2008 our health care was 14 15 million dollars and now we're at double you know and that wasn't that long ago so making those challenges but still being able to provide for those folks who who work here and served here you know I think that's our we've got to try to come up with a good balance on that and you know just just can't have everything so we've got to figure out what's where's our priority the best recruiting to would be to get our starting pay and follow on pay up by using the savings we're going to have some health care to that note to everybody that works for the city going pay is the best recruiter you'd have to have some savings pay to pay pay it's uh the protocol is no but but the questions I do want I do want to make sure that ask the question I am I did have a question concerning when we got to the 2009 and when we were backing up the 2009 and it was on the second page now okay so there are two different things going on here right so one of them is their their eligibility to retire through the through the South Carolina retirement system so a person could potentially retire because they have the use of service with the South Carolina retirement system then there's the eligibility for our retiree health insurance so there are two separate eligibility requirements so so current retirees would be eligible for the benefit it would be going forward for 2019 forward you'd have to be 55 years that's new hires or if you're an retirement eligible with your years and there's so many Pam will have to help me with this and I'll mess it up there's so many um ways now that you have to count your retirement eligibility the rule of 90 applies starting in 2014 correct Pam went through the state retirement system um if you were with the city prior to 2009 then if we at that point in time you only had to have 20 years with the city um and you wouldn't have had to get to the 25 or 28 years so it's all going to depend on the individual but assuming you you could retire before January 1 of 2019 then you would be able to go ahead and retire and take advantage of this system and not be and not be 55 no no so up to this point we've had no age requirement potentially if this if all you know if that's one of the recommendations that accept not if you were hired before 2009 not if you were hired before 2009 yes ma'am you would have to be retired now or retired by January 1 of 2019 in order to not have to meet the 55 year requirements you'd have to be an active retiree now or a person who retired by 12 31 of 2018 in order to be under 55 after January 1st 2019 you'd have to be 55 years of age in addition to meeting the other requirement yeah that's what we're doing right now I mean so so it'd be it'd be easier now listen no I don't know we won't question it's not a speech okay so main main main main reason to ask some questions actually ask a question get an answer so we so that's that's the only rule of asking questions you actually have to ask a question it's not post-speech but this is an opportunity typically work sessions don't have Q&A but I know a lot of questions they're gonna help inform us as we as we move forward we got a question yeah please come and do it and it it's probably easy to do it from where you are but I wonder if an answer it's just a posterity to do more at the microphone I don't know we don't have a walk around might do yeah so um so let's uh let's go ahead is that okay with y'all let's yeah yeah I don't have a problem yeah yeah it's good yeah let's go ahead and um I'm asking um don't we don't have to go raise your hand but we got everybody's chance to ask some questions okay I'm sorry are you done I think she's in the question section yeah yeah I'm gonna try to get a walk around Mike if not the time being let's let's we're gonna try to find a walk around Mike y'all but only because folks who weren't able to be here also watching online and want to be able to probably have questions asked that they can't ask from where they are so um if you don't mind coming up front and asking a question that'd be appreciated yes ma'am yeah actually it's your name for the record and questions uh Matthew Husser I work for the fire department yes sir just some things to consider I got hired when I was 18 years old as of January 1st 2019 if that 55 year old age went into effect you have multiple firemen having to do 36 years in the fire service to maintain that coverage it's just some things to consider for guys who got in at a earlier age let's say a long time in the fire service or police service and so and so let me counter a little bit with that which I understand what you're saying and I think that's still a recommendation we're looking at but I guess you would also have to understand that because of that age and the ability for you to continue to work and work another job which you also do at a very young age that also is a factor with you being able to have coverage somewhere else potentially where you can get insurance and still be getting the insurance from the city so there's you got to look at both sides of it but that's that's a fairly unique concern thank you thank you for raising that thank you and we looked at that because of course we can we know the age and the demographics of our workforce so definitely um I was curious as to why have we explored the state health care plan thank oh I'm sorry investigate a mostella police department have we explored the state health care plan yes yes because I was looking at it that y'all currently pay eight thousand dollars in a year and it's three five hundred dollars less I'm just curious if it's not apples and oranges compares you need to talk in the mic thing um you know insurance is a numbers game and the state health plan is a whole lot more covered people than we do they have like five hundred thousand right five hundred thousand people so when you talk about getting the premiums in for five hundred thousand people that's a big difference between 2600 employees that we have the coverage is not comparable it isn't as good a coverage no but it'll be better than what y'all I'd have to argue with you on that one yeah um and I also have a concern about the 55 when I came here you told me I had to work 20 years you promised that to all people that were hired before too long that we only had to work 20 years I understand it not being free but you're telling me I'm gonna have to work 15 more years to take my take my interest I'm not very pleased with that and a lot of us are not because I have given my time in for 25 years but I will still have to work eight more years just to take my interest that I should be entitled to because I'm an employee of the city yes we understand that concern just so people who are some people don't know so currently what the cutoff date so you have to be you have to do 25 years in order to get retirement right it depends depends on when you are hired right because if people who are currently here who just got hired they have to work the rule of 90 so they have to work 30 years and be 60 years old whatever that age and and retirement years equal state law that's the state law right something we should look into is how do we just match it to the same way because that way it gives you it gives people the opportunity who have been in one segment in another well you did do that in 20 in 2009 we met I mean we did we matched it for what it was at that time it's changed again right because it was 25 and 28 right and when we made that change what is it now it's the rule of 90 rule of 90 mm-hmm right 25 you're still subject to the rule of 90 everybody's subject to the rule of 90 so that's the other we understand exactly what you're saying but mm-hmm what if we didn't add that caveat about before 2009 and the 20 years then you would have been following the 25 or the rule of 90 we are grandfathering you in by adding employees hired before July 1st 2009 because that wasn't originally when you just looked at what the consultant presented to us to do they didn't even do that so this is an additional thing that we've come back and done and and we did that because you're right in 2009 there was a set of rules for the city to get insurance work in 20 years right and employees even employees after 2009 have to work 25 or 28 years those employed after 2014 have to work the rule of 90 so it just the eligibility changes can you just clarify because i'm having a hard time following it to me if the employee was hired between before 2000 and not over then whenever they're set that time frame what did we say 25 years is that what under the 20 years before 2009 so whenever that segment is in that's what this should be said correct so that means that if i was hired in 2000 much yeah if that's what i'm saying it it so you're not retirement eligible you will be a retirement elbow it didn't make you talk about maintaining insurance all right after leaving two years not retiring i'm a gentleman i'm never gonna ask your age okay well i'm trying to keep up with the numbers here okay all right okay all right but the way i'm understanding it is if this goes when did you start with the city and it will depend on you know how old you were when you started as to you know if if we did institute that age requirement you'll start working when you you're not gonna go work anywhere else when you start work with the city at that age 46 years hi i'm deba martin also known as dk i retired in 2012 from the police department i was a lieutenant with them my question is uh under the hra uh you're uh saying that we would have to uh if that's what's going on then we would have to uh with the use of a navigator get our own insurance is that what i'm understanding my question is if you have pre-existing conditions how is that going to impact you being able to get insurance you know i've been insured by the city of columbia since 1987 so my insurance and i understand i you know i appreciated that i didn't have to pay i was a single person i am a single person but when i go to look at i've had some health issues that have cropped up in the last couple years so if i go and look for new insurance how is that gonna impact me with my you know i have pre-existing conditions so that's that's something i would like to have answer if you can answer that question so uh currently under the aca there are no pre-existing condition exclusions or or that that's that doesn't factor into whether or not you get coverage or not certainly no things can change and they certainly do but currently under the aca regulations for existing conditions can't be used to not provide somebody with insurance coverage okay i'm talk about the talk about the network in in this area well or someone in in their situation or any of our retirees who would be using the navigator i mean there's it's not like we're florida as you've often said in south carolina um there's gonna be the blues and other um groups that would probably be where they would be getting their coverage from i don't know and this is a question being that you know whatever our work and relationships are through the navigator with those potential um coverage is for these folks if that's something we could inquire about on their behalf about pre-existing conditions and that sort of thing i mean we'll do our best to again the aca prohibits people from i understand that but it's her concern that if that were to go away and now we you know sending them out to the market is there anything any considerations that we can discuss with the providers um i don't know we'd have to look at that i'm not sure i mean they would be they would be looking at coverages on the open market so whatever those coverages were providing is what would be out there i don't know that we could you know have any influence over that because if that was the case we'd be creating our own plan again and kind of getting back to where we are now so i don't i don't i don't know that we could influence that in any way thank you my name is dan beaten ball um i'm from the private sector my wife is a retiree here at the city and it sounds like to me a lot of this is based on a defined dollar benefit which is set up in 2012 and basically my whole understanding of insurance is the young helped pay for the old and y'all have never had two insurances one for employees and one for retirees in this whole meeting i think most of the retirees are missing it is now there's going to be two insurances it sounds like y'all are trying to balance your budget by putting a lot of the cost on the retirees not that you have numbers up here at this time but that's my question is why not have one insurance that covers retirees and employees that's that's what we have that's what we have that's what we've been doing for that's why it's costing so much because it cost us seven hundred dollars for a retiree when the open market is roughly 200 in a supplement we're having to create a program in ourselves that's that's part of that and that's because you're covering 88 percent of 2000 people when you should be covering 80 percent and you have a lot of retirees only 300 who are of course costing you more because these people have served the city 30 years as firemen and everything else have a lot of health issues and so retiree is going to cost you more they're older they're sicker in all fairness it's not it's not just that you have to look at it globally in that question because we've also been supplementing spouses families and everything else so you can't just say it's just one individual and that this group is carrying this group because that's that's not true we've got individuals who have never or a family let's use a family of four who've never cost the city anything really other than their their their premium but then we got individuals who've cost the city five times what the rest of the groups cost so it's you're saying that the there's not two separate groups less so that's why they're having a separate no that's not at all what we're saying what we're saying is is that we have one we've had one insurance the whole time but we've created a program to carry when there's better options that we should be looking at that provide better coverage and care we're spending extra money just to cover which doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense as long as like i say my money may turn into a retiree who have served the city for so long yet a fair plan that is afforded and that's that's that's exactly what we're trying to do we're trying to make it sustainable and i and i promise you that's our concern too that's the reason we're sitting here we're looking at afford affordability whether they're with us or they are in the private sector let me say this y'all and i and i know i know um this is always a tough issue to discuss and i i tell myself i'm gonna listen more than i talk today uh because i really want to if we have more questions i want people to ask their questions too and hopefully what we'll we'll get some more concern uh some more concerns address uh this is a a great deal different than than what our consultants brought back to us this is not an exercise in balancing the budget and i and i always hate when it's when it's characterized as something that's just as simple as that this is not balancing the budget this is indeed an exercise in just pure sustainability how do we make sure that people have access to health insurance courage coverage as long as we possibly can and make sure it's affordable whereas many of our folks car employees retirees and if we can their families as well as long as we possibly can cities all across this country are eliminating health insurance companies eliminating it not reducing it eliminating it cities counties and states so i i don't want you to think that that we're going through some callous uh um a penciling of a budget process here that seeks to deny someone anything i mean it believe me if we could if we could have universal coverage for everybody uh with within within the the our reach whether to be city employees the dependents or anyone else we would do that it is not sustainable it's not sustainable so this is an exercise in fiscal responsibility and fiscal courage and just pure sustainability how do we make sure that not only that we provide health insurance coverage but how we make sure that we're actually able to provide fire protection coverage for the people of the city police protection coverage basic services i mean that's what this discussion is about it is not sustainable to look at 30 years down the line to have a billion dollar non-pensionally the long-term liability it's just not it's just not and it would be it would be not just imprudent but irresponsible for us to not go through this process and figure out how we can do this in as thoughtful in as fair way possible i promise you that's where our heads are that's where our hearts are that's who we're trying to get to it is a tough process it's a tough process not not just for you all but for each and every one of us for the people in this room that many of whom you may know and you love they've worked side by side with for years but this is not easy and i don't want anyone to think it's just us figure out how to balance our budget here that's not what this is we work side by side with you i will tell you that people in this room including several our employees that interface with every single day would be adversely affected by this and i love them i mean i love them i love them like brothers and sisters so i mean just like i love you so i don't i don't want you to think it's it's that's not the process we're trying to work through this in somewhere that makes sense but stills allow the city to to to continue to provide services to everyone who's either here long term as well as meeting to buy employees it's a tough one we're going to work through it together but it's not it's not the sampling of a penciling exercise and so you've had to hand up a couple times you might come to the microphone raise his hand back there if he comes back up he can he can go third yes sir rusty smith retired assistant chief from a fire department 34 years did you see you again a lot of people are forgetting i've heard and i've tried to catch what everybody's been saying a lot of people are forgetting the retirees that are extremely ill you cannot go out and get another job you're talking about eliminating post 65 coverage for all retirees i got a couple good friends right now that they can't go out and so here you can go eliminate that and their spouse they go have some problems i'm done i'm speaking up for them and i've heard what this uh young lady has been saying about as far as post 65 going out and getting the coverage because there's cheap coverage out there where it is i'd like to know where it's at because my wife will be 70 next year and believe me we've called around and you're looking at four to six hundred dollars difference higher we call three four different companies so that's what you know how much how much is that it was like four to six hundred dollars higher we even call united healthcare and from what you know with the city contributing what she's paying i think she's paying 245 or some odd dollars like that it was almost five hundred dollars you know that i'm sorry that presents a burden and uh it's eliminating that's going to affect a lot of retirees and a lot of their families you know wives if they got any families left i got a wife but you go put a real burden and i don't understand the city's got a burden and i've met mr rickham and before years ago we didn't agree then we don't we don't agree now i'm sorry you know i mean that's unfair i think that's kind of unfair to say to say that well i'm sorry because you you you don't know where we're at we're working really hard yes and i'm the one i think who brought up the fact that we ought to be looking at not eliminating post 65 yes you did let me let's be fair let's be fair you're right i apologize for you with you on that but let's also think about the retirees who cannot get out there and go to work who have illnesses okay and there are quite a few if you eliminate that post 65 curse for our retirees you're going to present them with a big problem that's all i got so it's united health care that we have can that be renegotiated any because i find that united health care does not pay much of the benefit or the money so if i'm wrong on that y'all tell me but i get very little out of united health care i try not to be too expensive i was to go through really rehabilitation and those people over there was over 1200 dollars to start off with i said no because i could see where it was going well i just have to go home and do it mistake you know because i don't want to be that kind of expenditure on the city or nobody else it's not my nature to take care of your neighbor but anyway is it can you renegotiate anything with uh united health care and maybe get us a little better situation there or eliminate those folks and put it on the policy i love my attitude by father i'm ready to die we do thank you we do look at our post 65 coverage and try and work with the carriers to get us cheaper coverage but the reality is we have a very small number of people that we're covering and they have very high expenses so the insurance companies really don't want to take on that that responsibility i don't know if it's about liking you i think it's about the dollars and cents of it all because we have a really small population and when you have a small number it's more expensive because you have less people you know no offense here who's an insurance guy but um you know it's it's all about getting in the most participants and that typically is your cheaper coverage when you have more participants that are in your coverage and in in that kind of the advantage that we've heard from some other folks about getting into the platform that the i don't know if it's arp whoever that has the platform with all there's like i think there's like 27 different styles of supplement because that's what we're talking about here right it's a supplemental yeah because they medicare is first of all most to get a gap but you know if there is issues with that program we need to know about that as well yeah but it does supplement medicare mm-hmm yeah good afternoon uh my name is david china with the fire department um i just have a quick question of with the insurance plan set in place right here how are we going to recruit how is this a good means of recruiting and retaining because a lot of people it might come to see this you know it won't be beneficial to me i give the city 25 30 years of my life at the end of that while i retire it's i'm just going to the week to the wayside how is this a good insurance plan to retain these good employees on all aspect with you given that much service then you should probably be grandfathered into that prior to july 1 2009 i think you're exactly respect you need respect i think it's and well that's what i was about to say but you're exactly right um and it's that's probably the biggest concern i was listening to mere benjamin and listening to all of the great comments in here but the people that are truly impacted by what we're having to do or working right now they're not in this room able to you know necessarily comment with us right here right now because they're working but the fact of the matter is your retirement eligibility still comes into play too so that's also what we looked at trying to balance all this the reality of it is you're going to have to meet that rule of 90 if you so will you which you realistically be working for the city 30 years 25 years i don't know maybe and i completely understand it is a numbers game but going into i'm just going to speak or excuse me speaking biasly but with the fire and police and other departments in the city you put your body through a different strain than anyone else you know i've i've had friends who fell through floors had ceilings on the top of them police officers go through a strain you know 25 you know you might start out um like my co-worker earlier mr. hofsa said started out at 18 but in 10 15 years your body is to a 70 year old just about and i just you know i know is just want you all just to reconsider that oh and i will tell you we asked we're asking ourselves those very same questions uh not just in recruiting the best but also retaining the best and then balancing that against against just real fiscal realities but we asked those same questions and that never eats an answer thank you thank you my name is jeff dickie i retired from the police department last year i'm probably one of the luckier ones because i'm younger and i don't have to do that so this is actually i could probably take enough i have two questions if your defined benefit was set in 2012 and the insurance cost saw the chart have gone up shouldn't the defined benefit yes well that's the way it was um the way it was um voted on was that defined benefit would stay the same and that the retiree's premiums would be adjusted to increase to keep that ddb the same which we have not increased retiree um premiums to the rate that the cost has increased so the ddb was set and we've been supplementing the difference between what the retirees are paying and what the ddb is and we haven't been maintaining the ddb actually we've been paying more than the ddb the whole time well we we looked we talked about maybe looking at adjusting the ddb i don't know that might be something that we'll consider and my other question is going back to the 20 years with the city 25 with the the eligible retirement what if somebody has their 20 with the city they're not 55 but they can retire under say they get disabled they're 52 they've got 20 with the city haven't met the years total years of the state but they can because of the disability different though wouldn't it well honestly that's a dilemma that we face that people face right now there everybody who works for the city doesn't necessarily meet the eligibility for insurance if they go out they could have worked here 19 years and get injured and they got to go out on disability retirement they're a year short so we have to make that call every single day so there are some people who work here who've worked here 19 20 years and they don't get the insurance depending on when they came in and when they when they leave my question is they meet the 20 years of the city and they meet the 55 but they can retire disabled but they don't have the 28 with state programs if their retirement eligible with the state whether that's through disability or regular retirement eligible they'll still be eligible for the insurance yeah they just have to be retirement eligible so if they if they meet all the other requirements then they could be eligible I hate to make promises because the Lord knows y'all will hold me to them so I'm speaking trying to speak in broad terms because everybody's situation is different so I don't want to I don't want to make a promise that I can't keep and bring it with the fire department retired I've got a couple small questions up first of all I appreciate all the hard work y'all doing and and obviously we're frustrated and and it's very understandably why we we now have some tighter budgets on the retiree side we're down to 53 percent I heard your note I've been watching you and you got your numbers right half of them but on the normal percentage when we're working another year that comes out to be an average what we've averaged about about 50 to 65 dollars a month for the average employee depending on where you're at but I just worked some numbers before I left that's that's not enough so far to pay for these expenditures if if I have a expense right now if I lower my wife if I drop her off her coverage right now because she gets a job I can't add her own I can't add her back on in two years and so that's thinking the idea that hey if my wife has coverage or my dependents have coverage with Amy my wife will we be able to add her back on if she doesn't have that good job maybe in two years I think that's something we we've not talked about yet but as of right now if I drop her we cannot add her back on if I go to a lower coverage I can never get the higher coverage am I right so far good so we want to exit we want to see if we can get all that so if we're talking about being fair and you want to reward me for being a good maybe a healthier employee or post employee you know as a retiree I think it would be responsible to add that whichever the initials were to carry over if you're going to give me a thousand dollars or fifteen hundred dollars we were talking about would it would it go over would there be a cap would it get put back in the big fund okay it would only be responsible to because I didn't get kidney stones this year but I'm going to get them next year you know what I mean and so we're only it's it's a rush from your let game and I think but if we're if we're saying hey part of the new budget is to give him this amount of money I think it would be responsible to let me keep it out of balance to to move forward roll it over we're going to take that that retiree's wife or or spouse and put him or her out because they have suitable coverage whatever that suitable coverage is you've got to be able to allow them back in if those they lose their job or with the state if they lose their job it's got to be a little bit more of a better system here's the last thing I want to say because again y'all got a tough job now I really do appreciate it I've been watching you for my whole career and the number one word he has always said is yours constituents your constituents the constituents and now that's exactly who we are we're not employees of the city we're y'all's constituents and so we're actually the people y'all are going to work for and it's more than just a numbers game and it's not just as easy because the whole time when the rates were going up with insurance that same eight years we weren't getting raises in the city there was a huge amount of time and so so that's just where we were and that's not the throw stones there's a lot of things that's that's eight years that we weren't able to contribute more to the 401 or the 457 to get to a point where we can handle these the last thing is is I don't know what it costs to operate some of the different departments or just train them in their positions but I know how much it costs to train a firefighter I know how much it costs after four months in a recruit school to train a placement and some of the higher or your architect that mr. vine mr. vine was talking about or your engineers and when we potentially have a mass exodus of the employees that you have right now because they're saying hey this stinks this is not what I was in for you're not it's not going to happen to the 20 year employee this only got eight to go but the guys from zero to ten whatever that is I think that should be part of your study how much extra is it going to cost chief Jenkins in his budget that he don't have already in the five-year planet he just tried to add last week saying hey we're going to be the best in the city we're going to be the best over the next five years but I'm staying lower here because it's costing me so much in my budget and I need more money which we don't have because we're spending on health care there's a lot more parts of the moving part that we got to see and I think there's more stuff parts of the study because there's going to be a mass exodus I'm telling you it's coming that's all they're talking about on Facebook that's all the young guys are talking about you know and I was that smart that they leave I'm not saying I didn't I'm not agreeing with you because I want them to have that vision of a pension one day we don't have a lot of pensions out there but for the ones that he said it very clear that can go to the private sector especially some of the mechanics and some of the engineers and the architects and make more money you can't sell them on the idea because this is why we're here the whole time when we love it and it was a good job for good benefit nobody ever got rich with any of the jobs including y'alls in the city ever but we always talk about the benefits and it stinks now because when we get to this age we can't do as much I think a lot of that out of play into it but when we're talking about how much money is going to cost the town the people that are leaving because of this new plan and it's not just I know in the first part we said hey these guys are not getting towards as much but they're seeing hey in 25 years I need to go make me more money so I can invest properly if they do all right but I'm going to invest more money so I can handle my health care because this is coming again in two years I mean that's we're going to be sitting back at the table but I ask you that if considered to try to maybe keep one of the lower statuses or some of the lower stuff and there's some great questions in here what we do with our spouse what we do with that hra money or you know the accounts um I mean it's it's coming it's coming and depending on what decisions y'all make now y'all gotta make decisions I get tough job I appreciate the hard work I really do I mean that sincerely but the decisions that are made next Tuesday night over this budget concern of this insurance is gonna thank how much your budget is about to get busted I think the train that's coming down the track is just we're getting off but I appreciate it thank you I'll say hey I'm CEO Clark I've been here since 1982 and when I came when of course the big pitch was I'd never had to pay for insurance in my life well I can understand that the world as it changes as as it's going on today everything gets nothing but more expensive when y'all are sitting down and thinking about how we want to proceed for the employees that come in the future and us that's I just turned 62 so I'm a pre uh 65 but in three years I will be post 65 so of course I'm a little interested uh in the uh things that we're that you're looking at with the hca and hra excuse me and uh things will the ha hra will y'all be doing a yearly update on that to reflect the actual cost of any increases uh as your year whether it be good or bad you know inflation sometimes will go up sometimes goes down will y'all be adjusting that figure on a yearly basis or is it like the db uh what is the dbb that hasn't changed since 2012 then the hra will be with what the db is whatever that's determined to be well I want to get that if it's 1130 bucks for today if 20 years insurance doubles with the h uh ra still state the same or will you reflect national income from the increases uh for the health care we can't raise that or else it would raise our hope and liability the numbers would take no that it would not adjust just as we established the fine dollar benefit to keep down those long-term liability numbers however just as we're discussing here this council or future councils can determine otherwise and that but but but but theoretically the answer would be no because if you did if you did then you would obviously be increasing that long-term liability but that's not that this council may change its mind in the future and future councils may as well um not any of you at all thank you afternoon like many have said before my name is vicar temper like many have said before are the most terrible decisions I mean it affects all of our lives what to do with your wives and their health insurance and things as well and I understand that but um I encourage you to councilman bickham talked about an obligation to continue to think about that obligation uh for these guys who have come in and fought fire for 20 years ago and now their bodies are breaking down um there's gotta be a way to find a way to fund health care for them even if that means um finding revenue streams that we talked about in the past and I know that um I don't know how that would work that's your guys tell you that as it stands and it was right that um if you do change it for active employees or retirees you'll find that many employees leave they'll have no reason to stay fire employees um and police have the opportunity to work for a different department and without having those 25 years here or uh the reason to stay for 25 years um they can go wherever uh the prison or anything like that same with the fire department throughout the midlands and encourage you to look at those things and think hard we're the ones who've protected the city for years and we hope to continue to do so but we have to pick our feelings for the questions I think too is that I would tell you those questions and answers are very helpful as well too they were very helpful and um you know we are constantly doing our homework we'll go back and do some more and you know I I would say though that the city is not that much different from other agencies I mean you're gonna find a gamut of how people are handling um post employment benefits and active and we can write up there with the best of the best um so I hope and pray we don't see a mass exodus I would venture to say that agencies generally situated to us are not necessarily going to be the splethora of health care benefits because everybody's facing the same issues we are um but we we we hope that's and sometimes the salary is better for people that live in Charleston but they live in Charleston for the cost of living is higher in Charleston so everything is relative with that I'm talking about the health care costs so that's what the issue was about if you leave to get the health care that's it regardless We're just costing the city money in another area where we're trying to pay for it. It doesn't matter why they're bought off their smaller, their big, what they're doing. That's the way it is. And what do we do to retain them? And your plan says, hey, I'm going out and I'm going to do this. I'm going to do this. Oh, by the way, you got a lot of money. So you talk to them. And I'm telling you that's a tough thing. Especially when they say, hey, I'm going to do all this for this vote. I'm going to be broke at the end. I just think it should play into your thing. So part of it is state law rules, too. And again, we said earlier, we're looking at the population and trying to balance it based off who's really going to be impacted because the state law would say now you're going to have to stay. So are people really going to do that if you're going to meet the rule of 90, for example? Oh, I mean, there's lots of things that play your other than just because we're going to make this whatever decisions we make right now. It's also about other's decisions that we have to follow to be retiree, retirement eligible. Unless we say you don't have to be retirement eligible. Yeah. And again, you know, retirement eligibility has changed significantly. Correct. I just want to encourage you all that we're all having those same conversations. I mean, I mean, recruitment, play your attention about obligations to retirees, about quality of life, about families. I mean, these are not black and white numbers on a sheet. We're discussing all those things. And I will tell you, even the presentation here today is a far stretch from the different plans that have been presented over time. We're trying our best to take into account all these concerns. We've had some of the long-term concerns regarding pensions or the possibility of writing pensions. A lot of young employees don't think about that. They should be a lot more focused on that. But just again, I want to make sure you all know that this is a living, breathing discussion. We're trying to balance some very challenging global fiscal issues that others have decided just from punal. And this is a little bit different. No, absolutely. And it's helped us. I mean, and we've had a, I will tell you, we've had a vigorous dialogue amongst council members individually and collectively. And my guess is what we're going to continue to do. It's been helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. The next part of the presentation is regarding the proposed budget. Mr. Mayor and Missy Kaufman, Budget and Program Management Director have come forward to present the fiscal year 2018-2019 proposed budget. It's what I'm trying to say. Yeah? I'm not going to tell you all. Miss Elton, she got me some love all around the country. That was the most fun. Anybody? Please do. Okay. Oh, no. Based on what they... Pick out a lot of that all. Let's see. You know, we've got years of... That's a big deal. We want to be talking about more magic. That's a big deal. But, you know, that was her choice. It was good. You know, there you go. It's okay. But, you know, I hear today, I'll end the call tomorrow, too. Yeah, all three of y'all have come to say that to me, I'll be off. I should have done it at the beginning. I could have started from the beginning. Not in my office, but I'll get them for you. I did not. I did have some of those filters at the tonal. I was thinking about that myself. I was thinking about the same thing. The question comes is, do you agree with me that this amount is possible or this amount is possible? That's going to make a difference. I didn't realize how much we were suffering. I don't know. I think if we look at that, I bet we could take care of all of them. 100%. Mm-hmm. Do we expect that? I think we do. Are we able to say to them, or are you? These are obviously completed in the private sector. We don't want to run and go work with somebody else. I mean, the private sector is not providing health care. Oh, something. I mean, you know, there's no offense. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. No, you might see this. We'll call anything. Yeah. Now, your microphone's just gone. No. Oh, thank you. What's going on? Yes, sir. Hello, sir. How are you doing? I'm doing what I would say. OK. Well, we were going to put you this. I've always got some questions going out there. Matt, when I passed home out there earlier, he said a little bit of water, so I can get it on, but at least you said you're telling me it's a little bit of a charge-in-line. I don't think there's any activity right now. I don't think anybody has a— we've been doing it. I think it's a hell of a lot. I don't want to sit there. We can't let him run. I think we're doing a lot. He said we want to run, too. Yeah. Well, we don't. I think we can work out. I think we can work out. Yeah? I think we can find a way to. I'll bet you, we'll find a way to. That's what I was talking about. It's something that you can really do. The number is... ...you know what I mean? You can do it. We're going to honor all of you. So, let's look at the little idea about the B. If we don't make a stop, we'll do it. And you're going to be there. 1140, I've got my money. That's that money. We started a conversation. Man, are we, uh, we know. We're just talking. We're just talking. I'm talking to this. Talk to us. Have fun. I know. Who's meeting? Oh, we're tired. I can't complain. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, but he comes first. I love the district red. He doesn't understand this. It makes me... I love it. Yeah. That's gonna end. We're gonna stay at the city for a day. I love it. I love it. I mean, they don't hold you guys responsible. They hold us responsible. I lost the audience for this conversation today is our final budget workshop before we had the public hearing the budget has been advertised both the budget as well as the water and sewer rate ordinance has been advertised and then it's the whole ordinance so today we're going to talk about the proposed budget we'll be talking about the general fund then we also have our enterprise funds which is water sewer stormwater and parking each three separate funds our special revenues include hospitality tax and accommodation tax we do not have CIP with us today but we'll present you all the capital improvement program which we have a cap improvement program for water and sewer and stormwater those will be ready for you during the public budget public hearing for next week so just to refresh everybody where we have landed with our budget is the total operating budget of the city of Columbia is proposed at 346,956,771 dollars of course general fund and water and sewer make up general fund and water and sewer make up the largest portion of that budget water and sewer is now exceeding the general fund in terms of the largest piece of the pie as already has been mentioned this budget has been met with a dose of reality we're also trying to seek some resiliency in terms of what we're doing going forward and some sustainability so a number of the decisions and other actions in terms of balances budget are meeting in both of these areas starting with of course the general fund and what we are really doing today is just sort of highlight for you those things that have happened since the last budget discussions this isn't intended to be a complete overview of the entire budget which we'll be preparing for the public hearing for next week so the general fund budget is in balance at this point it was advertised at 148,101,152 dollars a total of increase of 5.4 million about four percent I want to point out that the largest portion of that five million dollar increase four million of that is for the capital improvement program the capital improvement program is in originally targeted at eight million dollars per year so we borrow eight million and then we spend eight million in the current year 1718 it was only four million so when we adjust it back up to the eight million that accounts for that four per four million if it weren't for that increase in the capital improvement program the general fund budget would only be increased in one point four million dollars that's less than one percent over the current year budget the reduction I guess you know do we will we know what what in the capital area so the general so you mean well a capital that the program then referring to as a capital replacement program and that's for our rolling stock and occasionally also doing capital some technology upgrades like when we have to replace our refresh our desktops or major heavy equipment so this in this case what we're referring to for the eight million is our fire trucks police cars garbage trucks our our traffic engineering boom trucks heavy it's heavy equipment it's also some investigator cars so it's the things that it's and it's just replacement of existing occasionally maybe some new equipment in there but pretty much is just to help us retain and be able to replace our our an upgrade our keep our fleet refreshed yeah so this is capital replacement yes sir thank you of course the budget was balanced without a property tax increase proposed it reflects funding to maintain our current minimum service levels in other words we are maintaining existing operations this does not take into account reducing operations nor really expanding upon or adding new services growth is limited to increase cost for operations and actually it's even less than what the cost would be in the sense of the CPI if you've taken to account as mentioned the formula that the budget increased less than 1% over the current year but the budget development goals are resiliency sustainability and being able to provide quality services that we provide on a daily basis to our citizens residential customer get into this trap all the time no proposed tax increase but we are having increases yes yes that's right so the increase what what accounts for the in other words the increase is being covered within the event increase of the revenues that we have or by decreasing costs in other areas where where are we on attacking the 4000 actually we have a little bit about that where we're going to talk about towards the end of the general fund piece but we can go ahead and jump to there I think it's important is we're talking about sure funding and cost right so I'm going to just jump to that slide and we can come back so what we have been talking about we've proposed a couple of different things with with you all in terms of new fees and some other options what we have found through our discussions is that several of these fees in order to meet the requirements to be a new a new fee and not just a tax replacement as it really needs bottom line is it needs to cover those things for new for new costs and new services so what we are looking at more is a newer is some new programs and new activities that we have talked about with you all with regards to our smart city initiatives some of the public safety enhancements some of the expansions of our emergency operations as well as our general capital improvements in our investments in the in city city infrastructure so what city manager is proposing is to be able to develop with you a schedule for those continued conversations so that we can bring to you a program that would help us to utilize resources to both for either new resources or reprogramming existing resources to be able to implement some of the programs we talked about smart city initiatives to be is one example or some of the public safety enhancements that's what we're talking about that's the goal that's the goal as you go on these slides of your reference and by numbers that you can follow yes I'm sorry so now we are on the slide numbers have jumped off slides of missing so now we've jumped to the slide that says future discussions on identifying funding let me see if I can vote number real quick numbers are going now so back to my initial question how are we handling those I think we need to handle those in this budget well it won't be in this budget because part of that's to get to what Mr. DeViles also saying is that those would be for new cost and new expenses so as we put together existing 4,000 right and also not paying an equal on that cost it is not fair to continue to carry that burden on the homeowner businesses our commercial districts that are are non-profits are struggling you look at a triple net lease today what it's costing somebody because the way the tax structure is and we're continuing to allow this non-tax paying base growth so what are we doing about it we have no real growth we have no real growth so I mean our plan this year we need to overhaul the way we do business and I'm talking about DDRC and all these impediments that are continuing to get complaints about but we also need to attack and we're a government city and we're drowning by non-profits and so they need to pay a fair share we need to address it needs to happen now not later so I would love to have included that in the budget a couple of the items we looked at we've also got some of your advice on so I think the approach we were taking so that we can do it how we do it and what we presented to you was to take it sort of under advisement and work it into the discussion that you've asked for with your upcoming budget work well they're not budget workshops but economic development type workshops and see how we can roll it in if we do it that way though it would be working towards that in the 1920 budget but now unless we're able to get a different answer and it's I got a great one enhanced water that was discussed last time you pay a premium that's really a favorite way to do it last time we had it what was that I'm sorry was that something to do with the answer so enhanced water services the non-tech thing so we we we absolutely agree we based on the direction that we have and the information we were given in terms of looking at these fees to be able to cover new costs and new programs how we structure them is really what we're getting into some of these would be some of the discussions Wilson's addressed so we've talked about the street light fee we talked about some profit type of these impact fee or we're struggling we don't disagree especially in terms of we're struggling please we're getting drowned and you know we got so everything from Bailey build us have we looked at a bunch of properties come off Bailey build sometime soon to us we hope even mine there's no hope so the staff as relates to Dana's question have we come up with some different formulae as to how we might calculate that going forward we have we have formulas for one of them at least as we've investigated one of the other ones more for the nonprofit pieces we've looked at two different options and so it's really a matter of having just more discussions with you all so some service area some is basically particular types of services particular types of services particular types of areas to be able to do most of those you have to have a pretty calculated cost of that service and how that service is getting a higher level service and what's being paid right now so it's just meant the different factors that we're looking at and then in terms of which direction we go is a matter of talking with city council more directly in terms of the directions like earlier when we've had conversation there was maybe not as much of an interest to putting a fee on our water bill but if it's not on our water bill to be able to look at something more about that bill not on our water bill their water bill sure let's specify that you're right that's exactly right so none of these kind of conversations as we've come through I think the idea to this argument is to not stop I mean I don't think we're going down at all on it continue to do the research with all the input we need from legal and everyone else but to move forward with something in place you know say that over so that you're educating the public you know if we were to do it now I think that's fine it would you know what I don't want to do is wait till next fiscal year because I'm telling you our constituency are they're stopped in these guys I mean the commercial you guys don't like to talk we don't like when we talk about whether it's student housing tax abatement other tax abatements reality is that is that our our commercial taxes because there's a residential property taxes by the ability to affect them cap I radiate and the disproportionate amount of property not on the tax rolls here and these would be probably every other city in the state has led to a significant disproportionate amount of tax burden being borne by our commercial citizens it's just real and that grows every time the University of the hospitals take something off the tax rolls or church with that matter taking a shopping center shopping center yeah I mean it's just real and I mean it's not it's not subjective it's objective it's math and we've got to be thoughtful and I think honestly even the previous discussion this underscores this one it's being very deliberate and intentional and coming up with a formula that makes sense it's fair so all parties involved and we'll start discussing it as a body we will do that I mean we've already been working on it but I don't want you to think just because it's not in this budget it isn't going to slow down at all and continue to have these discussions with some workshops with you all economic development matters etc and probably buy over time frame you know have some recommendations in place that we can actually implement within the next budget cycle and that was prepared that's what was highlighted in in your cover memo miss wilson in terms of evaluating both revenue just resources in general whether it's new revenue streams or existing revenue existing you know reallocations of cost in terms of being able to put forth some of these new initiatives obviously our goal in terms of being able to sustain this budget is being able to maintain the services we have but obviously there's a desire an equal desire to add and grow some of our services in our programs and being able to identify the resources to do that with and that's going to take a joint conversation with you all for certain for certain if somebody could help me out with miss divan in terms of the page numbers i'ma back up to the revenue slides i don't know what slide number that is in terms of the complete package because it included the memo as well as a other attachment of erica can see it on the you see it on the actual pdf of the screen okay this is f1 1819 general fund and it's the revenue slide it's got a bar chart it's page 22 of the packet so revenue totals for the general fund are proposed at 129.3 million that's an increase of 2.6 million or right at two percent and of course the largest increase is in property tax revenues which are projected at 1.7 million which is about three percent increase over current year budget you can see in the terms of the way we've stacked our revenues um general fund revenue sources the primary sources are property taxes and then of course from permits and licenses transfers in the capitalist proceeds is eight million which increases um which is the increase as we mentioned from the four million to the two million the eight million for the capitalist program which is our capital replacement program then we also have um the use of fund balance we've reduced that from three million to 1.7 million and that was also in order to help sustain our goals sustainability and be able to be able to use less of our fund balance um which we are also need to make sure that we have the fund bay fund balance be able to meet that through that um our targeted projection 15 percent pardon well we have a fund balance for for for 18 yeah several months once we can get to the audits yeah so we've already we bit into last year the already bit into set us out last year we didn't access that's right yeah it's in the package it's in the budget package that you have it's in the budget that you have in your package so with that as well um and then two of course our 15 target you know is based on revenue so that that 15 target increases every year that our budget increases so going forward on general fund again looking at the expense side department budgets total 123 million um of course as you all know as we were bringing the budget forward to you balancing the budget um the budget the 123 million reflects a reduction of 6.7 million in health care costs that's both from plan design changes as well as um liability changes and from also the credit we are anticipating to receive from state retirement for the increase in the state retirement system rates right now the department budgets that are before you do not reflect that reduction depending upon final um sort of actions on that decision and so we will adjust department's budget accordingly we've also eliminated funding and from the but the department requested budget that was has been presented to you over the past several months we've eliminated 3.5 million a new request for department programs and services as well as an additional 1.5 and requested budgets so those were primarily the items used that were helping us to balance this budget on top of some of the revenue um increases that were projected earlier this does include continuation of the city's pay for performance right pay for performance um merit program of 1 million in the general funds portion that's for the employees in the general foreign fund of course the other funds have funds in there as well for those employees question what is the uh are we doing a cola this year or what so the proposal is for merit merit I was I was looking at the uh salary ranges and differences on the department budget seems like it's relatively modern so that's correct right and those numbers what every department every department's budget will actually end up going down from what's on your list right now because we once we reflect the changes for health care but otherwise um and health care was primarily the only increase in the department's budget um they their cost of living was included in the current year budget so looking at the jail detention did we ever get the numbers that we requested last October which number from from the county which we get monthly information or million dollar director it promised us numbers because if they're charging us thirty dollars a day they're saying that we put 20 000 people it's not no it's the no it's per day per person so if you're in there for five days you get that 25 dollars per person right we can give you thirty dollars we get a listing every year it's anywhere from as high as low as 900 to 1500 I guess my struggle is is we've never gotten the paperwork to show what they're charging each entity because they should be charging themselves the same amount because we're all paying equally into it for the jail we pay for the jail with bond that the city employees pay I mean the city constituents taxpayer and we are continuing I want to see the numbers before we pay them any more money every contract that we've had with them we've had been scrutinized and gone painfully through a discussion with them and never once can we get the jail numbers even when Kit Smith was on council and we never could get them Howard you might get them from the rest of us so we don't just say we don't know what they're charging themselves well I'm curious are they charging or are they just charging the other municipalities in it and you know that's double taxation I mean we just it's five years ago seven years ago it wasn't $230,000 it's 600 today I don't know who you ask but well that that would be good information she'll send us the bill we can share some information that we get to so non-departmentals total want 6.3 million of that 1.2 million increase 23 percent the large of the of that being the proposed increase for the debt service payment or the payment for the capital lease program the current year the we've maintained current funding levels for external agencies which includes the albin escaline detention center at 600,000 that's current amount in this year's budget we increased it in the current year to reflect they're increased in the per inmate per day rate I'm in the current year and so far we're able to sustain that amount public defender is 100,000 the solicitor is in at 215,000 and then the homeless services maintained at 1 million which of course that includes four different contracts that the city reports with it with those funds transfers out total 17.8 million that includes 3.2 million increase again 4 million of that is for the or 8 million of that is for the capital replacement program it also includes our debt service payments and transfers to the component units I do want to point out that again this year in the budget there is no funding for capital improvement program for the general capital project we've already discussed the additional resources next is talking about affordable housing city council in january adopted affordable housing program it was estimated that about 350,000 would be from the general fund what we're proposing is that we would use a portion of yet to be determined savings from this fiscal year should there be any for that towards that funding in the interim there are funds being used from other grants to help fund we do an SSR credit for housing I mean we keep talking about putting money in these things why aren't we creating that same atmosphere oh I I think we should I think the exact same approach we're taking this for student housing we should take to affordable housing we ought to be able to give folks yeah absolutely it's so it's going off our back because obviously we're talking about you know 100% nothing versus a portion of something that's that was included in that was included in the memo I was sitting everybody last year okay well that's why that's why we have we need to figure out how we can do that like you do a multi-county where it's just the county we're not getting that discussion they pay the full rate and then we credit them back and then that way it's it's an easy clean deal and everybody understands it the thought the thought the proposal before was to incentivize mixed use mixed income housing and we did this commercial and yeah we qualify for whatever tax payment we attached to it it was a 50% for 10 years or we're happy but try to really aggressively go after you know what we want not what people give us I think you create the environment I think you'll see the same type of uh because especially if you make them pay the six percent and you credit it back then they actually got to deliver and then they'll also get the potentially the four percent you know program through state housing I mean it you could really this is let's just create a tool and just put out this and see what happens we wind up yeah this is what we can do yeah yeah I mean again it's no money out of out of our pockets we just create the environment and see what the market will bear I think people rush in with with with housing we can incentivize the 60 percent of 60 percent to 120 20 percent AMI if we want to I mean so you so you got capturing the working families all the way up to you know to you know ambitious young professionals have you again that was that that was in the mix last year and the goal the thought then was let's let's see if we can incentivize it heavily and all across the city I mean that's so not so we're not concentrating in in one district let's see if we can find four areas and all across the town and if you tell people what you want and what you will incentivize not just what they want to bring then I think you wind up with with much nicer product and it'll be borne by the private sector and that's the difference between doing the student housing abatement versus what you're talking about us coming up with areas that we won't develop and I could develop what we want and incentivize that I can go with that I can't go with that well that wasn't I'll put it back on the table again I don't mind let's let's refresh that memo but the it's important to note that the first round of student housing we did a couple years ago while it may not have been location specific it was very specific and we were willing to incentivize in terms of not invested in terms of design review and the like and I mean it was very specific it was not location specific but but no I think I think again it's it's telling people what you want and not making it overly restrictive so that there's no opportunity to profit there so obviously I didn't want to come there but let's let's build a build a mousetrap and get the heck out of the way and let's see what the private sector bear yeah um I had a guy that called me last week that he's got I think a federal dollar affordable housing and I think also they were looking at single family marvel the mix include rent to buy that's kind of if he sometimes sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't but everything else I'm I'm seeing out there on the internet a lot of these cities are in fact looking at affordable housing mixes come and also they're using it as as one of the launching pads for redevelopment it's really tied in not just housing but a redevelopment plan a redevelopment strategy for parts of cities that's the way to go that's kind of what we're hearing out there um people don't say it to us going back to the some of our weaknesses oh and I was struggling they don't they don't say it but they say see it if they recognize it and they kind of wish you that you do this on your slide there you talked about taking the 350 that we don't have available in the general fund but maybe the funding you come at just that 350 with savings on the health plan or are you talking about all the savings on the health plan all savings on the general fund budget at the end of the year not just health care savings like once we complete the year fund balance use of fund balance come with an incentive and you sunset it on day one and it's a good incentive because we are 17.9 percent uh total tax money we really need the county school district to be pardoned so we're gonna have to have a discussion with them because housing it's a pen you know you talk affordable housing with them they have said recently that's a big priority of theirs but when we just had discussion a year ago talk about something similar to this that included parking with the the feedback we received was that they weren't interested in doing this with housing they're interested in doing it once it's commercial so is that change I don't know brain living would indicate at least it's changed for someone but those in this position so those are we're going to have to start this conversation well I don't think it's fair to use that as an example because we all know that there's another incentive behind that what are you going to do with the savings on health care both for the 17-18 budget there are no savings in the 17-18 budget the changes we're making now don't go into effect until January 2019 yeah okay 18-19 that would be this that's what help balance remember we had the budget was $15 million shortfall combinations of the healthcare reductions to department's budgets and revenue adjustments okay so so the savings in the health care have already been programmed into this budget yeah both costs we're not reducing healthcare yeah we're not reducing healthcare savings in the cost any other questions on the general fund all right so next we have our enterprise funds starting with the water and sewer budget water and sewer budget is 100 and six the revenues are 160 million 167 the actual total water and sewer budget is 161 million but those are the actual revenues for operating revenues and it does include a rate adjustment of set 9.76 percent in terms of our department budgets 71 percent of the budget is for our utility operations that includes our water and wastewater crews that includes our plan operations both what both water plants both wastewater treatment plants and as well as the activities spent on those services outside of our department budgets the next largest item would be our debt service which is 22 percent so the total the out of the total budget 58 percent is for our utility operations our total department operations and the next would be debt service on the capital improve on the bonds for the water and sewer capital improvement program again the budget is proposed in 161.9 million as the increase of nine million or six percent over the current year does reflect a rate adjustment of nine point seven six percent it maintains the f the capital improvement program for water and sewer as 120 million that includes 21.5 million that would be funded from cash out of this budget the remainder would be coming from bond proceeds of the capital improvement program 80 million is programmed for wastewater improvements and 40 million is programmed for water improvements what's left on the water improvements what's left yeah from the descent decree you mean the waste water yeah i could know what water you know water was 150 million in the balance of it from the descent decree understanding your question Greg you're asking how much more investment we need to to get out of our consent decree so um the latest projection we've got the 750 million dollar figure that was ballpark when we got into it is about where consent decree driven that's where we're projecting to end up now we're do making other investments as we need to above and we have to set decree requirements are so um i don't have the figure of how much is left but but that outlook over the 10-year projection is looking like it's going to be in the ballpark in relatively correct we're about to embark on a fairly aggressive even more aggressive program of capital improvements in our collection system that's where our next big spend is going to be we're in construction with some big projects at the wastewater treatment plant digest the upgrade stream of narration yes permit compliance type um but a lot of our major assets we have done the condition assessment and inventory we're developing that list of priorities we're going to be rolling those projects out in our early cost estimate for those in the spin moving forward is over the next five years 80 million a year on the wastewater side and then reducing down i think we showed that last time does that answer your question moving on to our stormwater program the stormwater budget is of course the revenues from the stormwater system are funded from the stormwater fee the expenditure um for that is public works makes up 30 of the budget engineering is 22 percent we now have in this budget um debt service and reserve since the new program to invest in um in the capital improvement program of 93 million over the next several years with engineering 100 percent based on our stormwater plan 22 percent 22 percent of our of the of the department in the engineering department 22 percent on the budget funds is is the engineering department staff is the program from the engineering budget that includes the our engineering department that houses our stormwater compliance our ms4 compliance so that stormwater group okay so the budget for stormwater is 13.4 million an increase of 836 or 6.6 percent over the current year um the capital improvement program for this year is 10.3 million with a total projected cip of 93 million over the next three to five years um as you are aware the stormwater program manager was um contracted for in march and the bottom ordinance was approved in April of 50 million so this program is helping to fund that program moving forward the stormwater fee that was adopted last year will increase 74 cents per eru which is the equivalent residential unit so the rate will go from 1180 per month to 12 dollars and 50 cents per month that's for typical residential unit of course commercial is on a er is eru based on their um impervious area next is our parking fund budget um the total parking fund budget majority of those revenues come in from street meters um i actually garages a lot makes up 39 percent and then our street meters makes up 34 percent and then non-moving violations are 25 percent of that budget expenditure wise it's split about that 37 percent for parking services and 30 percent is debt service and then parking facilities is seven 17 percent of that budget the total budget is proposed at 8.6 million which is an increase of six hundred eight six hundred and eighty four thousand or nine percent over the current year budget um revenues from parking garage and lots of course make up the majority um there will be included some scheduled paintings of the garage some barrages as well as continued improvements um and customer service and continue to partner with our economic development areas to attract businesses to downtime next we have our special revenues um starting with our hospitality tax budget hospitality tax is proposed at 12.1 million which is an increase of approximately 557 thousand or 4.8 percent over the current year um revenues projection revenue collections are in line with current year projections so we are feeling pretty confident about that 4.8 percent increase proposed for next year the budget that is given to you right now just reflects the current amounts by each of those different categories of the amount that's funded for the hospitality tax committee the amount to the line item agencies and then the amount to previously already previously approved um allocations from city council we've not made any indications about how much you may want to move around within that budget for those areas other than of course debt service and then the transfer to the general fund of 3.7 million and again some of those allocations are already pre-approved they were approved by council earlier but at this point it's just matter of the budget allocation um there's good meaning in some directions in city council with regards to how we actually disperse those funds or how you actually want to disperse those funds the committee recommendation are we having a follow-up discussion about age tax so well i mean you know i got questions let's don't have a deciding yeah some of these and it's just simple audits but i mean i think that you know i think before we we move forward i know there's a push to try to do but i mean i think we really got to decide on how this money is spent you know what those groups i mean i i've looked through and i've highlighted some reimbursables that are questionable and that we've paid um most of the 990s aren't up today and we're allowing them to get money i just i we've got to change the system well did he spend more trouble with her through the committee process and as she worked through that i think she found even more recommendations so i was trying to give her time to get through that but all the recommendations together would have a work session discussion on it so timing was you know obviously some of the bigger discussions around these line items agencies you know they're all going to be lined up here january at july 2nd looking for a check would your preference be to have the discussion or suit me suits me i mean i'm gonna ask you to pull some more stuff because i just think as we have this discussion we've got to decide what the guidelines are because it seems to be a little loose you know and if we're gonna make changes i think howard has some suggestions if you would like to implement and i think we also got to decide i mean if this become the clean and safety fund you know or is it become you know we're pushing to grow and what are the accountabilities that we're holding people to not just only reimbursable but delivery i mean they're supposed to help increase the pot and the reason the pot's increasing now is because we're having more restaurants than it i guess my question for you all then just for the sake of direction we can we can pull together the presentations and then you said we're about to talk about the summer calendar but you could either put them on or the evening meeting meeting recommendations if you're trying to do that that quickly or we get to the i was going to push your work session on h pack more into the august time frame and just let you make your recommendations you know how do we do that for funding because they all look for funding i mean once july that's what i was saying you i wasn't necessarily going to assume you were going to factor in any changes for this round of approvals yeah i think we have to discuss if you're if you're talking about this doesn't it before you approve the i'm not going to vote for the age tax away by just funding a group that we haven't really set out some guidelines on um you've been sitting with the committee from where what about the um the outline of the recommended structure that we discussed whitehead just to recommend has different opinions of that and i think we need to have a work session to let us debate where the council is going um well between the two of you i would i'd like for us to do that a little sooner than later because you know i'm right here anytime we we're approaching the point where dollars are going to be recommended or divvied out on both sides yeah and so i some of those um concerns i still have and i would be interested in seeing which again on entities of honestly getting what they requested and those that are requested and getting nothing but i think the council needs to there's a difference of opinion on the administration of the age tax and we probably need to have a work session right and so my only question was do you have that work session before you vote on the committee recommendations that are before about to be before you or do you make your just make your way through the committee recommendations that are about to be before you so that they're not held up until august time frame and then have your work session in august i think everybody wants to have them before we okay grant so if that's the case then we're looking at probably the next council meeting realistically because we're about to talk about the summer schedule but you don't want to okay well i'm a little guidance then on how you want to handle that so if you want to meet in if you want to have your work session on age tax and perhaps you can have that as your work session in july for your committee recommendations i know that a lot of people don't want to meet in july but if we can get four people together and have a meeting that maybe does a consent agenda and whatever routine things that we can do that night just to meet the requirements of the law i'm sure there's four of us on being there well i've got a lot of different feedback on that as far as your schedules go so that that's next on your agenda so i don't want to jump ahead um but i guess if you want us to move forward with your work session item we can squeeze it into the june 5th work session if the june 5th work session's gotten pretty tight but i can maybe move something off and i'll be fine and then well let's don't do when you come in you need to be sitting at the table for that i'm out i'm here the 19th i'm here the level i just out the fifth about the 19th and that's fine i thought what i was hearing is that you wanted to vote on the recommendations too so is it realistic to think you would work through your discussion of guidelines and all that during the work session and then vote on the spreadsheet that evening while we're cutting i mean i think part of the questions i have maybe it creates an internal you know how do how do we approve $1,400 worth of gift gift cards on a reimbursement to me i don't understand how that happened no how how are we dishing out this money and i think we need to have that conversation grind it out if you want next week it'd be nice to have eight stacks not before us for the part of july august like it has in the past and it's been done and it's in certainty it's difficult to be going to grind it out i'm not sure how to do that and also make this require some is there a possibility of having another meeting like today's meeting where we just have a work session in the afternoon and then it's gonna be around i will say june's a lot both very difficult and most people it is i mean i don't mind being on the phone that doesn't bother me i think we can push through it if y'all have the i just think we've got to dedicate the time on the 19th we've got to create a clear line of how this money's supposed to be spent and what we expect of it from people and that's not necessarily going to impact your and it may or may not your decision you should make it on the committee recommendation may not at all absolutely but it may it may i don't know but your guidelines that you talk about so you do it on the 19th and we have the committee recommendations on their agenda that evening but i think it's important that we don't give any or even committee money out if their paperwork's not up to date you can't be two years behind on not when you're getting out of June 19th that's our way over here i'm in two hours earlier thanks for coming in thanks for saying thank you definitely can do it i guess i was trying to make sure i wasn't understanding you to say that based off whatever guidelines you came up with in the work session we would need to have been gone through the committee backup material to see if those decisions you know the recommendations are impacted uh if you're saying and someone has done that they would not go literally have the time to I mean we committee recommendations I think you could be clear because I mean I think that then it becomes part of our role in the reimbursement we shouldn't be paying for workers dream that's the same thing the penny tech sales tax people are trying to stand that's that's not you know we're not buying mountain dew and water for your workers for toilet paper well that would be the going forward on the reimbursement again if you all the recommendations and what you normally do and decide that you're going to fund things or not that's I think we could do it going forward on how we the funding is yeah the funding is only based on what they actually the amount they the what they are allocated is different than what they may get reimbursed based on what's submitted we have to be eligible we have to agree one way or another because how are the parameters are yes recommendation is different from that so yes we need to agree on what the parameters are before so is going to grow obviously you're always being applicants okay so final final budget we have for you is the accommodations tax and this proposed at two point five almost two point six million it's approximately three hundred sixty nine thousand or sixteen percent increase over the current year the accommodations tax of course the majority of the hospital the accommodations tax ninety five percent of it is allocated 30 percent is allocated for advertising promotion of tourism 65 percent is allocated for tourism related expenditures we've not of course made recommendations specifically how those funds would be expended to the two groups that typically receive those funds as far as the five percent general fund purposes our general purpose funds which you you have used previously to find one columbia a portion of one columbia as well as the together we can read program and of course twenty five thousand dollars is an automatic transfer to the general fund and that's based on that's the first allocation straight out of the state law any questions about accommodations the last item is just mentioning the budget as discussed next week is the budget public hearing first reading and of course our open house where we will have departments presenting information about their services and programs that they provide that would be June the fifth public hearing is scheduled for 6 p.m the 6 p.m meeting rather second reading June 19th in which you've just now added additional items for discussion June 19th would be the second and final reading thank you all for your patience and diligence and amendment to this process Pam got you've got your list of things to review looking at the possibility of removing a in the current workforce if they have credit and I think the captain of the chief retired chief had a good question about spouse coverage if a spouse has creditable coverage and then for some reason loses credit or creditable coverage can we bring them back right then we last year we change yeah last year we changed it the start of this yes so starting in 2017 we we made a change that you all voted on that would once they go off once they leave here you have to keep the plan that they have and they can go lower but they can't go higher and they have to the people that are on their coverage when they leave then that's those are the people that they can keep they can't add we were the reason why we were doing that is because a lot of people were getting married and they were adding people after they were retired some of them adding them people because they were sick and they were seriously so we were like you can't just add people kind of willy-nilly so they had a spouse when they left and they got a new spouse I guess you could switch your spouses but that's the reason why we made that change I mean if you all want to make change it again they can they can I mean I think the question the question comes down to is if the spouse leaves unless saying five years she's worked somewhere she's having sure they don't she doesn't have any more she gets laid off let's say she works at a big utility because I in the middle I mean you know let's say everything I mean really honestly because it gets down to eligibility rules and everybody's there's always a circumstance I deal with it every single day of my life somebody's got some circumstance that we have to be careful that we do something consistently what would be our general rule on that but you can't come back again when when you all made the change in 2017 it was that whatever coverage level they left with they could go lower but they couldn't go higher and that they could not add any additional dependents after they left so hypothetically any anything can happen I mean I'd love to create a rule for everybody but you know it gets to where we have to kind of manage this whole thing well the big one for me would be to see what impact removing spouse coverage you know it's just so interesting which are several sidebars that have been here and it's usually precipitates a pretty easy back and forth between Mr. DeVall and Mr. Dine they're talking about you know we I appreciated first of all appreciate the work that's done with our consultants and appreciate the discussions that the Council has had and also sales that are running the publisher so I really appreciate the input of our employees and priorities that I found it edifying and passionate but still helpful you know and I've thought even better that all of the situations that were brought up to us we contemplated in our in our own discussions as well and we usually have no well-rounded discussion but we do need to spend a lot of time looking at the consistently evolving nature of health care coverage constantly shifting sands of exactly how you provide long-term benefits to the employees and again continue to refocus our efforts on our employees and our retirees let's look at the entire package but obviously our long-term responsibility rests with the people and I don't it's not on us to ask a spouse if you have optional coverage somewhere else to help to use that coverage as opposed to it's not it's not even it's not even just the coverage it's that we have been supplementing a spouse to almost the level of what we supplement employees and that's part of what's not sustainable and had you know the gentleman who spoke earlier his wife has been able to do that for 40 years if we had all of that funding back in we may not be having something to think about but our obligation is to them you're right not to and I think this the process that we've gone through has shown that that's our focus thank you well are there any other items that that we need to research I need to make sure that my list the other items that I noted for applications are if the if the account can carry over the funds that that's a decision we have to make for us look at the numbers and I mean and maybe and maybe they yes they can carry over maybe maybe for a period of time maybe year-to-year maybe whatever happens to be um I think that ought to be some some the ability that the heads that liability if I'm not sick this year but I'm sick next year but but not nothing perpetuity was the consensus regarding post-65 coverage to move forward with HRI account for that group and to keep the DDD for the post-65 I know we'd look at HRI so you have to draw the line I mean we can't we can't provide benefits for the future at this point new new hires would not have that opportunity and but those are the questions we have to answer when council's here I mean not everybody's here that's the discussion point so the population we talked about now then it did not include a post-65 coverage right so now we're saying post-65 would continue for existing entirely in the plan obviously new enrollment rock right you're not enrolled by the same currently in the plan yep those HRI correct that's my understanding what about the um age requirement I'm sorry age requirement the 55 is that something that that just reflects an American marriage that state law rule 90 right no that's just our own yeah that's the rule in 90 right 55 35 will be the rule 90 we have a I mean we have several folks or folks that we've at we were basically saying we're gonna honor the if you were here prior to 2009 but then we're adding another caveat on top of it I mean back then when when we said that you would get retiree insurance to the city prior to 2009 there was no age requirement as long as it was available I mean we were You were retirement eligible as well. I mean you had to be retirement Right you had to be retirement. Yes, that's right. Yeah, but any of this you have to be retirement eligible It didn't make any sense to me that we would make lifetime obligations to someone. They would have to be retirement Right they have to be retirement But there are some people but there are some people Certainly, absolutely. Yeah, there are some people who are really young when they're retirement That goes back to the question is is if they can get credible insurance from their other thing because I mean in today's world Nobody's gonna retire at 47 and never I work another day. How do I work? There's no way That was A year You have the opportunity to get insurance you don't get it if you don't have it That's what all of us that goes without saying was everything we're talking about but I think We're adding on the age requirement the age requirement that them was there wasn't an age requirement No, I was just trying to explain to y'all How much is that population? That we'd guess we'd guess we would fall into that number of those who were here three 29 would not be retirement eligible by state standards, but would also Still potentially exceed the 20-year So Yeah, I don't know see I mean we can look at what covered we can look at the time Right and we can look at time people have with us, but we we may not Be able to capture all of their other eligibility because they could have worked for a state agency. They could work anywhere else People meet eligibility at different points. There's so many different points. Everybody's situation is different Made a change before Exactly if I had to be here the day before But I guess what the council is asking though Is it enough of a I mean, is it 18 something to be that much of a deal? I mean because it wasn't a requirement It wasn't before 2009 So if we add that on what are we accomplishing by doing that? Was it something to add to the future for future? By changing it to 55 because he also had us change if he bumped up one of the options Yeah, but he did that before we went back and changed and added the I mean the age thing wasn't We came up with this age thing was before the 2008 right because we had already he Eric had already one of the one of the um options 3b well 223 and 3b added the age requirement and it added an additional two years Of eligibility requirement Which we didn't add that so if you had to have 25 years you'd have to have 27 if you had to have 28 you'd have to have 30 So we didn't We didn't add that plus the When they're free Really got lots Here Yeah, I guess all I'm saying is if doesn't make that much of a difference being that he had factored that in And then we went back and tweaked and said But in the whole three 2009 I haven't gotten back any numbers from him on the 2009 and it might not but you know The age and the The age and the years of service make a difference for how long the person stays on the plane So if they Are 40 they're gonna stay on it Longer than they will at their 55. So that was the whole point of that Is it all the same? Yeah One person will get more and one person will get less if you keep the same But my question is my overall question goes to Why are we supplementing a spouse? They didn't work for the city And in this scenario what you showed in numbers is is that we're supplementing close to 75 of their thing and to me Our obligation is to the person who worked here If they want to have coverage, there's a cost to that coverage And that's what it is and we had this discussion in 2008 and everybody was like no, no, no, but the reality is Had we just done that formula Then we wouldn't be having this health care discussion Well, this is one of the gentlemen I talked to you before I mean his wife been on the city plan for 60 years And we've been supplementing that and that's what I don't think's fair because it actually really hurts the employees Because the employees now and into the future the ones you know I mean $800 a month. That's 10 grand a year So we have that and what look at calculating Just in the ddd So anyway, I mean, I think collectively we all want the same thing. We want to get to Making sure that we can take care of I was just gonna say I think what Daniel was saying is really the same as the surcharge. I think the question is What's there of the surcharge? I think there's a difference between saying You're not going to allow spouses to be covered at all or saying, okay Yes, we need coverage but there's a there's a cost and then the employee itself can figure out whether or not that cost is Makes more sense with the city or you know or for something else I think that's the difference $100 a month sounds a little low And I think there'll probably be a lot of people who will be willing to pay more than that The question is what is the right amount? Well, I mean what I was saying really was is that your spouse can get insurance But whatever the cost is it is the cost We're supplementing that right now And we shouldn't be Yeah That's what it is Are we running numbers on I mean the spousal coverage Whatever it is are we taking are we saying no spousal coverage or are we doing our charge? Well, you can't you can't you can't do that Well, you have no supplement Is what we're looking at That's what I'm asking You could just we could not do any spousal coverage I mean not offer it I mean that's an option too Well, they didn't have credible coverage You'd have to we'd have to offer it to them at a full price We don't have we don't have to subsidize it, but we could offer it to them at the full price or Well, there's some places though that you don't you don't have to offer I think we ought to I think we just got to look at all the numbers because the end of the day The reason we're here is to try to figure out a plan that gets us a sustainable plan for the employees from now on It wouldn't matter because the budget would go down not up as long as the top line number doesn't change it doesn't matter Oh January 1st 19 Oh pre and post December by December 31st 2018 They may choose to still work Well, I can't be because Right Okay She was We can First How are we gonna make that decision if we don't know what the numbers are and what that affects in long term thing, I mean no offense, but I mean you're asking me Why I thought we had well my my idea was I thought we were going to get That was my understanding of why we wrote down all these little stuff So maybe I misunderstood So we probably why don't we Uh, well, why don't we kind of Think about this study this a little more until Well I'm gonna make a decision. I want to be able to say I'm making this decision because of this if I just make a decision on a motion So I don't know that anon May not have all the numbers To be able to ballpark it They've they've had enough information from us. They come up with a lot of recommendations Hey, we sat in this room and we were able to do it With tower watches that they're moving that needle around. They know what our basis is so if you make the changes What does that look like? See I thought I thought the needle was always said at 2009 That's what I've been basing off of everything that we had here Because if you looked at our population based on that you've got Really there's only about 700 people We fit that category. Everybody else is all way under So we know how much of a cost But are we using current numbers are we at the 80 20? There's no longer review. I mean I also make something clear Based upon current actually That number if you look at the numbers that are out there We're still going to see so many You're assuming there's nobody going to come out But well, you know if you act The actuarial they'll tell you they have built in right but you know more ability to realistically So this is the break out they gave us in the present the last presentation Yeah, but again, you see that's but that's assuming the full population Y'all have already capped off some right by drawing the line This is this is this is not see. I thought that's what we're using as our basis for all That was And I'm just making this up didn't we have this conversation about that that population That would stay in the system We add back 1d.76 Yeah Is About to lose a form y'all, so any other questions you have to staff So Yes, well, I don't think it counts Then the summer schedule I won't be sent to jail Not for this anyway Like the summer schedule Let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's approve the summer schedule with Revisit the issue Okay, move we adjourned Say hi Howard All right, move is a second Thank you