Sep 01, 2015 City Council on 2015-09-01 9:00 AM

we need to answer any questions that you have with regard to the budget. So we're prepared to start mayor as soon as you are. >> Okay. Great. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Before Chuck's presentation, we received some information, I guess, in our status and just wanted the city attorney to go over it, what she can, in an open session about, you know, a new statute from the legislature , this last legislative session about budget, budget votes and the ramifications of such. So if you just briefly just. >> Right. Thank you, mayor. And good morning to everyone. Thank you for giving us some time to visit a little bit about the budget. >> Thank you. >> I did want to bring to the council's attention that the law has changed somewhat in this last legislative session as it concerns action on the budget. And now, in light of some legislative changes, a vote on an ordinance that sets a tax rate exceeding the effective tax rate has to be a record vote and requires a vote of 60% of the governing body. So 60% of the governing body of 70 would be, of 7 would be 5 members. So your vote on the budget will take 5 votes in order to pass this budget. Additionally, I would mention that if there is a failure to pass a budget, then the law steps in and addresses that issue as well. And what happens in that instance is then the budget is set at either last year's budget or at the effective rate, tax rate, whichever is less. And so does that make sense? Do you have any questions on that? I want to make sure you understood that as you went into your discussions. >> Yes, councilmember. >> I think if you could explain that a little bit more, that would be better for me, just the effective tax rate in last year's budget. >> Sure, and I'm sure the finance people can as well. So here's what happens again. If you cannot pass a budget, you can't get the requisite number of votes to pass it. We're just going to be five this year and see Chuck stepping up. In that instance, the law does step in and it doesn't ever allow us not to have a budget. But our budget is really set by law. We said last year's budget or the effective rate, which is going to be substantially less than last year's budget. >> Yeah, and clarification, not really vote on the budget, but just vote on the tax rate. >> Right. >> It's just vote on the tax rate. The budget could still be four to three as a majority to approve the budget. But the vote on the tax rate, the record vote on the tax rate has to be 60%. So that's five to two in terms of that. In terms of what our effective rate is, remember the proposed rate was 0.69623. The council's dropped that down to the same as last year's rate, 0.68975. At least right now, that's the direction we've gotten. The effective rate is about 6.56 cents. So it's probably about $3 million less than last year's tax rate, the 0.68975. >> So last year, did we vote on the budget and the tax rate separately? >> Yes. >> Okay, so the tax rate would possibly go first, let's say, and that passes. And then the budget could still pass at four to three, if I 'm understanding it correctly. >> I think that's right, yes. >> Okay. >> I think that's right. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Any other questions on it? So yeah, just so I'm clear, this is not, the statute requirement is not based upon the vote of the budget document. It is the vote for the tax rate, which we've got, the first public- >> Second public hearing on the tax rate is tonight. >> Okay, is there another one on the 15th? >> Two public hearings, and then we have a public hearing on the budget tonight. And then the public hearings- >> The tax rate last council meeting. >> Yes. >> Okay, all right. Okay, all right, fantastic, thank you. All right, you're on. >> I don't have a formal presentation, I know that's a disappointment. We have questions and answers, and I know it's rather lengthy, so we can go through this, Mayor, however you would like to. If we let council pick out additional questions they have, or if we go through them, we can do it either way. And then at some point, I kind of have some council action matrix on some of those items that were discussed at the last meeting. Hand that out in terms of some areas for direction to the staff on the budget. And I do have a third spreadsheet that I'll pull up at the time when the council wants to start making any changes. >> Well, how, I mean, we've certainly got a lot of issues that you've addressed in the memorandum. I'm sure everyone has had a chance to look through it. So instead of going through it one by, I just asked my colleagues, you want to go through it one by one or just see if people have questions on each one? You just want to go through it one by one or just if you have questions on the ones, still questions or suggestions or recommendations? I'm seeing heads nod. Why don't we just do start out that way and if it bogs down , then we'll just go through them. So I'm just going to start over here and we'll just work around. So if you have questions, then let's fire away. Is that okay, Council Member Oden? Just because I think everybody's going to have questions on this. So, yeah. >> Thank you. So I want to thank staff for the detailed reports that we did receive because it answered a lot of questions and really helped clarify for me what items I would support and what items I would not support. So we'll just kind of start at the beginning. Human resources, I'm just not on board for the 200,000. One is for the consultant fee of 125,000. And I know there was some concern about retention of employees and trying to analyze all that. So I got online and took a look at our average retention percentage and compared it to other locations in Texas and also other college towns around the country. And we were competitive and ultimately we're all kind of facing the same issue that baby boomers are going to retire and it's going to leave a void. But I think jobs in Texas, you know, HR would confirm that when we post a job, we have a lot of applicants and so it means we have a lot of choice. And so the 125,000 consultant fee I still would like to remove. I would also still like to remove the 78,000 learning management software for the LEAP program because the LEAP program doesn't need it to continue. The LEAP program is still there. This is an enhancement, but I'm not sure it's a $78,000 enhancement. I really want to examine that 200,000 citywide space study that we reduced to 150. And we do have a former space study on the books and I think until we really study that, it was expensive, almost 400,000. So I would like to take, and I know what we talked last time about, taking that 150 and just setting it aside for now. I just think it sends the wrong message. I would just like to take it out for now, study what we have, and then make a decision down the line. I still have a problem with the $84,000 employee to water plants and trim trees on the square and on Hickory. And I think I keep bringing this up because my constituents keep bringing it up to me. And these are constituents across the city of Denton, and that's the fact that employees have had pay raises for three years that we're in year four now. So council's comment to me was, what message does it send to our employees? Well, they've come back to me and said, well, what message does it send to the taxpayers? And so a compromise might be to say, okay, go back to pay raises across the board. But use the inflation rate as a cap instead of a 5% as a cap because the private sector is not receiving a 5%. Social security recipients are not receiving a 5% cap. So if you come back to rate of inflation for this next calendar year, don't limit it by salary. But I think that's a fair compromise in terms of employees and a fair compromise for our taxpayers. >> Councilmember Blotting, I had a question from a colleague. You've got a pretty long list, so do we want to just talk about these individuals, you say them, and if people want to talk? I mean, this is a lot of information to get through, and so I really just ask you for some feedback on how we might want to proceed. >> Well, I asked the mayor the question just to my colleagues here. So one way to do it would be to go around the table and let everybody go through their list. Or another way to do it would be by topic, let everybody talk about that topic, give some input or make a decision or whatever. My fear was if we all go through our list, then we're going to end up going back through all the individual topics anyway. >> Yeah, and we're going to probably have to call them. >> So I agree with that. Let's just take topic by topic. And so should we just go back to page one? >> Yeah. >> Okay, go ahead. >> I have a handout that we tried to list. We've got 11. I'm not sure if we got all of them on here. But we've got a list of the ones that have been, I think, discussed in the past and covered in here. If you'd like me to hand this out, it may give a little bit of structure. >> Use that as a guide. >> Is President's Council okay with that? I mean, Kevin, we think. So let's just -- so we'll just start with number one. And whatever's not on this list, if you have something that 's not on this list, obviously we're going to address it. So I think that would probably be the easiest thing to do because we're going to be all over the map and just not arrive on the right place. And if there's any objections to that, speak now. Nobody's -- everybody's still getting their -- all right. Item number one. >> Item number one. Oops. >> Okay. Funding for Convention Center marketing fund portion, community events center improvements from the tourist and convention fund. I believe we received some information on that. And I've set for status. So, Mr. Springer, you want to -- any colleagues? >> Well, this was really just to kind of remind the council . There was a discussion of there's 150,000 within the Convention Event Services Fund that was set aside for future Convention Center marketing. And there was discussion about removing that for the upcoming fiscal year and replacing it with funding for the community event center. And so we brought that one up. In terms of the posting, we posted a couple items for closed session in case the council wants to have discussion of that in closed session. Yes. >> Do you all want to wait on that? But after the closed session discussion, if you want. Council Member Hawkins. >> Well, I guess if we're going to talk about it in closed, I don't know if my question might be answered in closed. But if we were going to go this route and we end up needing that 150, where are we going to dip into the hot fund balance? And is that probably something we're going to address in closed? >> We can talk about that. So the sort of policy -- >> Well, just chairing hot funds, you know, I'd be okay with that. I watched the tape when I was gone when you guys talked about that. And it did seem like -- is it right, John? That was more of a placeholder. So personally, chairing hot funds, I don't know what you guys think about that. I would be fine with that. >> Yeah. I would be fine with that as well. And I think what we've got to make sure of is that that's okay from a legal standpoint. But, you know, if those funds are -- if it's determined that those funds are acceptable to spend on such items, I'd be cool with that too. >> Council Member Rhoades. >> I guess in light of the direction I'm hearing, I would really like to hear a legal discussion on this topic based on what I read in our legal briefing. I have concerns as to whether or not this is the best route to go. So I'd hate to give that sort of direction without that conversation. >> Okay. All right. So we'll save that discussion for closed session. Learning management software supplement package $78,000. I'm not sure what the dash 4372 is. >> Well, Mayor, this is paid for in more than one fund. So what we've put is the total package was $78,000. The general fund portion is the $40,000 number there. >> Okay. >> So we've put kind of the full package. But because it crosses employees, it's paid for by other funds also based on number of employees. >> Any thoughts on that? I mean, we've got to also figure out how we want -- what does silence represent? Silence represents either approval or disapproval. So if we're saying it's in the budget right now, that is in the budget. >> That's correct. >> So unless there's a consensus otherwise, then that's where it will stay. Yes. >> Well, and that's what I brought up. It's the $78,000 for the HR learning management software and also the consultant fee of $125,000. So combined for HR is $200,000. And I'm not convinced it's $200,000 that I want to spend in this budget. >> Okay. Any other comments on that? >> Well -- >> Yes. >> I need someone to remind me again of the learning management software, what the purpose of it is. >> I can summarize and then maybe -- I think John Whitmore is here that's probably a little bit more of an expert than me from HR. So if it's okay, I'll let John come up. >> There was information on this in your packet that you've got in front of you too. >> Mayor and council members. The LMS package is -- has two major portions of it. There's a section for tracking information about employees, such as the types of different learning that they've had, any outside certifications that they may have taken. Anything that is for regulatory compliance is also tracked through there. And even the basics for tracking the driver's certificates and so on, the defensive driving are all listed inside these different -- tracking for the supervisors. Right now we track some, supervisors track some, different areas in safety and some of the utility areas track some. And this would allow for being able to track in one particular area for all these. There's also employee development tracking, and so any of the inside classes and workshops that we provide through training and development in HR would be tracked. And then supervisors have the ability to go into that record and then see where the competencies that each one of the different employees have currently that they're strong in, which areas that they're weak in, in areas of succession management, such as is this person that's working promot able. And what would they need to be able to get up there. The software helps to coordinate what those competencies are, suggests the training that we currently offer in our workshops to be able to do that. And then we also have a library that's associated with it that they can take both online and/or in person to be able to do it, such as if somebody is in a remote access area, like at one of the water plants, they often can't leave there because of the restrictions in staffing or they may even have an overnight type of shift. They can take that and be able to develop those kind of competencies. We don't have that capability at all right now. On the record tracking piece of it, there are some complications with it. The technology that we're using, and I'm embarrassed to say , is Access 2000. It was written in 1998, and when I actually put in the notes saying it was written for the last century and it was true, it's on a very old server, and they tell us the server could actually go at any particular time. And so we would lose a lot of our own records that we currently are tracking. So the idea is to be able to, first of all, update our record keeping, provide all that record keeping access to all the supervisors, and be able to help develop employees into the future by being able to schedule and be able to take all this different training for them. Yes, ma'am. But a good manager, when he sits down for the annual review , is going to know in discussing with his employee what classes and certifications he either has or has not accomplished. And if it has to do with another department, and I'm a manager of department A, I am not going to keep track of the employees in department B. So if you came and said gosh, this software is 15 or 20,000 , but it's 78,000. So my point is I just don't see the reward associated with such an expense. And yes, we have a few employees that are in remote locations, but I think that's truly an exception and not the rule. Okay. And then, so the conversation is to Sultan is the next one. Yes, I'm sorry, go ahead. I'm sorry, Councilmember Rhoads. So the training, oversight of training and keeping track of certifications is a responsibility of HR? As far as tracking all the types of training that they do through us, we do that. We also control the employee records, and so we have most of the employee records on laser fish. We may not have a lot of the different trainings such as first aid training, some of the other compliance training, because it may be over in the safety trainings like in DME or there's a complete database of things that fire department has. Or even the other, of course, PD has their own special kind of database. What we're talking about is literally all of those can centralize theirs for their employees, be able to see where people are at by looking at the dashboard of where their competencies are, and then to be able to coach them along. The idea is to try to get it away from once a year type of meeting with an employee. So something that can be an ongoing coaching and developing , which helps people be more motivated overall and then be better employees. So the 20th century model that you're now pursuing is kept track on some sort of spreadsheet housed at HR. And if I'm a supervisor trying to get some sense of the data of competencies, certifications of the 100 folks maybe under my charge, the only way to do that currently under the 20th century model is to do what? >> Is to call us up, ask us about that employee. We can give them a print out of the types of certifications and the types of training that they've already currently taken that we've tracked. Then they have to reference their own records based on that . Or they'll have to go, let's say, to the safety training area and to be able to access those. They may have to go to three or four places to be able to get their information. >> So it sounds like this gives our supervisors and employees a greater efficiency tool to be able to not only do their jobs, to get training, but also to get a more comprehensive view of where the competencies are of my staff so I know kind of how to kind of push things forward. Yeah, I think $78,000 for a city of our size for a software system doesn't seem out of line. I'm hearing kind of how out of date the current system is. I'm surely comfortable with this expense. >> And that is that $78,000 is the first year cost and it goes down about one third for the next few years on that. Part of that is the installation training, converting of our old data into the new. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor. Do you feel like the software will encourage employees to get certification on different things faster? Will they be able to access it or is it kind of just right now at the end of the year, where am I at? You kind of forget where you're at or? >> I think as far as employee development, it's going to be crucial for most of the average employees because they don 't have access to that information. Such as in succession planning, you want to be able to identify what kind of training and what kind of certification somebody needs to get to that next level. In the system, it helps to identify the competencies that are needed for being doing to do that. Taking that access, our training catalog that we currently provide, sign up for either a training track or those particular pieces and then get that. So if there's an outside certification, they know then that they will need to be able to work out with their supervisor to be able to find access to that on the outside that we don't currently provide. And we don't do the professional level certifications such as the NERC compliance types of pieces. Those are very, very specialized type in DME area. >> Okay, thank you. Yes, Council Member Johnson. >> Well, when you see it on the surface, you see 78,000 for software. It seems like a lot of money. I'm shocked to hear we haven't updated it in 15 years. So if we're going to update to new technology every 15 years, we better buy the best, which I understand that. But I just heard you talk about the training involved, the upstart and the training and so on. So what I hear you saying is we're not buying something for 78,000 and receiving it via FedEx. This includes the implementation, the training. >> The version of data, yes. >> And then so the thing that's important to me is I want to make sure I'm understanding you right, is that the employee can take charge, if you will, by seeing where they stand, what training is available to them, they can complete it on their own time. And then they can see, can they see where they are versus their peers? Kind of, I wonder if there's tracking to see where do I stand versus. The reason I'm asking is that employee development, going into my past life, but employee development really only works if the employee takes charge of it and they drive it. And once a year, a once a year review with their supervisor really doesn't get to that. So in light of the fact that we haven't updated it in 15 years and in light of the fact that 78 involves a lot of training and implementation. But most importantly to me, it's going to allow the employee to take charge of their own personal development. >> Right. >> I'm okay with it. On the surface, it sounded like a lot of money to me in the beginning. But as I hear all the different things it offers, but also the fact that we can load, transfer all of our existing information that is certainly at risk if it's sitting on an Access 2000 platform. So I'm okay with it. >> And, back to the question. Okay. Yeah, and I think given the age of the technology that we currently have, and what I thought I heard you say was that right now somebody may have to make two or three different phone calls, engage two or three different people to perform two or three different tasks. Like they may have to call HR, get you guys to do something . They're going to have to call somebody else, get them to do something, call somebody else to get them to do something. >> Right. >> And so I want to make sure I understand this. This software, first of all, will update, but it will allow that to be done by, if the manager's sitting in the office, instead of making all these phone calls, to get this data, they're able to access that data right there from their desktop. Is that- >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> The addition is if somebody goes to a conference and that they've attended sessions at a conference, they can enter that in there as background for that employee that they've had that additional training or those particular conferences that they've gone to. And that does help then increase their competency level, knowledge or skill, their ability to be able to be moved up or at least being able to rate it as far as their professional development. >> And notice there's two numbers here. One is for the general fund and then there's funding coming from somewhere else. Where's that somewhere else? I'm sure it's on that supplemental spreadsheet, but I don't have it in front of me. >> Well, the total cost is 78,000. The amount from the general fund in the first year is the 40,000 number. Because this covers all employees who are charging it across other funds. >> You're transferring it out. I mean, bringing in transfer. >> Yeah, it's part of our indirect cost charges. >> Sure. >> So the electric fund and wastewater that have employees and supervisors or use it will pay a portion of it. >> Okay. And apparently there's an ongoing cost that you said maybe a third less or something like that. >> Yeah, it's around 48, I believe, per year. It's listed. >> Well, that's okay. But the same methodology of payment will apply to that. There's a percentage here and a percentage there. >> And usually our ongoing costs for software is paid out of the technology services fund and charged out from the technology services fund across the other city funds when it comes to the maintenance dollars. >> Okay, all right. Any other comments on that? All right. Go ahead. >> So we've had one that's wanting us not to do that. Three that say that they do. Do you want to go around the table? >> No, as I said. Yeah, I think unless there's a, I mean, if you want to specifically affirm it, that's great. But obviously, Council Member Wozni, you were pretty definitive in your no on that. And I think that's how I would like to do this instead of having to poll everything. That if you're really, if you want to say you're for it, and just to ratify that, but if you're really opposed to it , really would ask that we speak up so that we can have that kind of consensus or direction. Is that fair enough? Okay, all right. Okay, compensation consultant, 125,000. This seems to be sort of the same kind of funding mechanism as the previous one, 65,000 coming out of the general fund. And the rest coming from transfers from the different types of communities. I believe you had mentioned this one as well. >> And this one is just to reference question 11, but we can also have anyone come up and someone come up and speak regarding this package. >> Okay, I'm sorry. >> On the question and answer. >> So I'm already on the record saying I don't want to spend this $125,000 for the consultant fee. >> Can you just really brief background on this request? I mean, I think it's going to be important just to get some background on the request. >> Do you like me to? >> Okay, Carla, would you? In a lot of detail, there was a long response to this in your packet of information. But Carla, if you can summarize it in ten words or less. >> Ten words or less? Good morning, Mayor and members of the city council. >> That's ten words. See you later. >> I'm done. >> No, I'm kidding. >> No, go ahead, I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Our current pay plan, we implemented in 2007 and we do kind of spot checks on them to see if we are keeping pace with the market. But experts recommend that you look at your pay plan from time to time and ensure that it really is structured the way you want to. You have your comp policies in place. We have limited opportunities to, we have what we call lad ders on our pay plan and there's only so many levels on those ladders. So we have limited classifications and so it's a chance to ensure that our classification are all of our different positions that we have them slotted. Where they need to be slotted, ensuring the internal equity within our organization. So this plan, excuse me, this package would let us hire a compensation consultant to review our entire structure. And ensure it's exactly where we want it and we have our comp policies the way that we feel that we need to have them to be competitive for future. >> And I read that it was 2007 and I do understand that you need to revisit this every so often. But we had a recession in there that kind of gobbled up three or four years. So it kind of took that and threw it out. So we're really, if you fast forward, we're kind of looking between 2011, 12 to now. So again, I think we're best served just tucking this money aside for now and bringing it back out later for a compensation review, which is what this consultant fee is for. Just because we did lose three or four years in terms of compensation and budget. And it was a hard time there. >> Any questions? Yes. >> I think I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this is. So we're going to hire a consultant, outside consultant, to help us figure out how to move forward with compensating, moving raises to employees compared to other cities around our area, something like that? >> Cities and organizations. >> Okay. >> For DME, we use several different organizations to look at the electric utility industry. Technology services, sometimes you'll look at some different industries. Water waste water, we'll look at some different organizations as well. So it's a variety of organizations that we would survey. But again, in addition to surveying, they would actually look at our entire structure and make sure that we have positions classified the way we would like them classified. Do we have the internal equity? So it's an entire review of our structure. >> Okay. >> If I could, Mayor. I mean, having a well designed compensation plan is an integral part of the merit system that we try to implement. I mean, it's very difficult to effectively manage a merit pay plan if we don't know with certainty based on some expertise and some objective look periodically. That the job classifications are relative to each other. That the job descriptions justify the pay ranges that we have. And those change as the market changes as demand for those various professions and change then we need to make adjustments in those in order to effectively manage the whole compensation plan. So it's an integral part and it's difficult sometimes when you're looking at individual pieces. The pay raises, the surveys which are different than the study that Carl was talking about having done and brought up to date. So it all kind of works together, but it's a critical part of the compensation system that we have. >> George, do you think we would have the data from this study if we did do this prior to next year's budget or how does it? >> Yeah, I think it would be done during the fiscal year and we'd have it as we were considering the compensation that's needed and the classifications and if we needed to make any kind of equity adjustments. Just because of market demands on those positions. >> Okay, thanks. >> One other point I'd like to make is that some of the private companies, they don't like to release data directly to us. That's the benefit of having a consultant. They usually can kind of sign a confidentiality agreement and they will release the data to them. And so we're getting better data that we can compare our jobs to. >> I guess I have a question on, and this is maybe more general, but we'll use this specifically. So when we have a budget item of a consultation or consultant's fee, how do we determine that? I mean, I guess my thought is, if you budget 125, when you send out your whatever it is, RFP, RFQ, by golly, I bet you $5 is going to come in pretty close to that. So that's really, I mean, I don't know if I have an issue with doing a compensation. I was involved with one of those with TNPA when we did one. I certainly understand that there was a recession that it's almost like a king's ex. Sometimes it's difficult to include that. But my thought is, because we will see on here several things that include consultants, but we have. How do we, I mean, I guess I'm just trying to think, how do we ensure that we're trying to get the best job for the most efficient price? So let's say if it was 100,000, are we going to get so much of a less quality? I mean, if you tell somebody you got this much money to spend, how in the world do they not spend it? I mean. >> I think what you're describing is just a problem of working in the public sector. Because our budgets are public. And if you were in the private sector and you put out an RF P, they wouldn't know how much you had in your budget. But you'd probably in the private sector still have a budget for what you're doing. And I think my guess is that we would ensure quality by the way that we structure the RFP. What we're asking for them to do, the services. And then we let the free market determine. There are people out there that are hungry for work. And so they're going to try to, while they're going to try to get as much money as they can, they're also going to try to get the business. And that may mean trying to have a very competitive bid in order to win the contract from someone else. And we've had times when we've had RFPs come in and they're all over what we had anticipated. And we rewrite the RFP because we realize that we're not going to get. We're not going to be able to demand this much work from the consultant and get it at the price that we have available to us. >> Right. >> Yes. >> I'm okay putting this one off on this budget. >> I'm sorry, I didn't understand. >> I am okay with not doing it this budget. >> Okay. >> All right. Yes, Council Member Rhoads. >> So I guess my question for my colleagues who are asking that this be pooled, both of you have mentioned that it needs to be done, but it needs to be done at some future time at some other expense. What is that future time and what's the reason for putting it off if we're going to have to spend this? Sounds like you're in agreement that it needs to be done, but you just don't want to pay for it this year. >> Because I've watched other city governments, state governments, and if you do it every ten years, that's a rotation. Because we lost four years with the recession, we're not at that ten year mark. And if I can come back to your comment, the city is never truly going to be in competition with the private sector. because if we try to achieve that goal, we're going to go broke quickly. We're in competition with other city governments in terms of people that hired into the city system, they want to keep their benefits in retirement. Occasionally, there'll be a private sector person who we will go after because it's an area of expertise. I'm thinking IT, but back to your question, I just don't think it's so an answer to your question. 2017 would be a ten year mark, and even that includes the four years from the recession. >> To follow up on that, I don't get the connection between the fact that we were in a recession and how does that impact the 2007 study? If they're, in fact, it probably complicates how we look at compensation because there was such strange dips in the economy and there's a lot of hiring freezes and things like that. But what does the fact of the recession mean that we can back this up even further? So if you have a ten year cycle on compensation review, and compensation reviews are primarily city to city to city to city to city. So that we take a look at the city of Denton and say, okay, what does Grapevine pay for this? What does Arlington pay for this? What does City of Dallas pay for this? Because if you're going to stay competitive, you want to be in a competitive pay structure with other cities. So the four years of the recession took four years out of that ten year. So it's four years that is not part of the matrix, so we're premature in pulling the trigger right now in trying to figure out compensation. How do you understand the effect of the recession on the 2007 compensation plan and whether or not that means we can delay it for another three or four years? Well, I think with the recession, a lot of the cities were not moving their pay plan. They weren't, there was a lot of freezes and they weren't giving increases, which we took that in consideration as we were budgeting each fiscal year during that recession. But since the recession has lifted, we are seeing some movement in the market. And I know that I've had several directors talk to me about compensation. And while we may be getting a lot of applicants, they're not always qualified applicants. I mentioned a few of the markets in my response to the question, like engineering and DME and technology services, they've been struggling trying to ensure that we are competitive. And we've had to kind of piecemeal how we handle those situations. So I don't know if I have a specific answer to that, but you're right, it did complicate it. And again, a lot of the cities didn't do much during that time, but we are seeing some movement now. >> I mean, with 70% of our budget being towards salaries, it seems like, what is this, 120,000? Again, it's one of those things that just separated out of context seems like a lot of money, but 70% would be around 700,000, 70 million. >> 70 million, yeah, to our total budget. So I think it behooves us as a city to make sure we're on pace with this stuff. And I understand the perception of consultants and I understand the price tag of 120,000. But I think it has the potential to make sure we're staying on the right track with what is our largest investment as a city budget. So if it's something that she as a professional in HR is seeing or hearing from the other supervisors, I'm comfortable with that. >> Mayor Perkins. >> Well, I'm comfortable with it also. Occasionally, what you find is you have an employee or maybe several employees that are actually overpaid. I mean, these studies reveal that. That certainly has happened in the school district when I worked in the school district that we discovered that. There's the fact that the city has a number of enterprise funds, such as Denton Municipal Electric, where we are competing directly in the private sector for employees. And not only there, but with our engineers in water and those areas. So it seems to me an appropriate time to do it and it does not seem to be an inappropriate amount of money, so I'm for it. >> Yes, Councilmember Johnson. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I did see you. >> I just wanted to ask you what Councilman Gregory said, or Mayor Perkins. Gregory said, is that true? Do they ever come and say this is too much? >> Yes, we've had some anomalies where there have been employees that have been identified as being overpaid. But that doesn't happen as often as we're on par with market or under. >> I'm sorry, go ahead. >> Well, I'm okay with it, but I would like to make sure that I get my input on this is, I'd like to challenge our thinking a little bit to, we want to make sure that we're doing the same thing that other cities are doing. I mean, because I don't want to send a mixed message to our leadership either in that, we're talking about culture change, we're talking about customer service, we're talking about all these things we want to improve. Which may mean that we need to look at roles and responsibilities and the type of people that we recruit. So for example, if customer service, providing great customer service is a goal that we have stated over and over and over. Then maybe hiring somebody from the private sector who has an expertise in customer service to lead a given department or group would be a good idea. I don't want us to think in terms of we're government so we have to compare ourselves only to government. And we have to compare ourselves only to this employee versus this employee in this city or this city. I mean, to me, I don't think we can say Denton is different . And we want to provide this fantastic experience for our citizens and our visitors and all that stuff. And so send that message to staff. Here's how you got to get better in all these areas. But we don't necessarily want you to have the tools. So I don't mean the tool is just throw money at it. But I would like to have as a part of any study that we do to not just compare it to say what are other cities doing. Certainly in certain jobs, you only have options to compare to other cities. But I would like us to think about shaking up our thinking a little bit too in terms of I want our customers when they come to get their power turned on, I want them to have an even Marcus experience with our city. Okay. Well, obviously, we probably don't get to that level. But let's don't compare ourselves just to cities either. Because I think that's how we differentiate ourselves as a city and how we recruit great companies to locate here and so on. So I think we have to spend this kind of money. I mean, obviously, you get the best bang for the buck that you can. But I don't want to do a study just to make sure that our people are equally paid to each other and to other cities and all that stuff. I'd like for us to make sure we include as a part of that what our stated goals have been as a council. And what from a staffing standpoint, because it shouldn't just be about pay, right? I mean, it's pretty simple. If you don't have anybody leaving, you're paying too much. And if everybody's leaving, you're not paying enough. So it's not just about pay. It needs to be more about development and roles and responsibilities and recruitment and all that. So I'm good with the spend because as a percentage of our total, I mean, our people are our greatest asset. And so we need to invest in them. I just want to make sure we do a study that gives us data, not just to say where we stand versus others, but how we need to invest in the people that we have as well. >> I guess I would just issue an observation and a request that we really work on honing down these consulting budgetary fees, these items. Say, hey, you know, like if you moved it to $75,000 or $100 ,000. We can always, but people will, because it is public information. And I just think it's pretty good. And when you think about $125,000, if you're paying somebody $200 an hour, I mean, what is that? 600 hours, that's almost a little bit close to half a year almost of somebody working on this full time. So I just really would encourage staff to, let's try to not give so much opportunity to, because it's a free market out there and I think that people will come in. Because they want to be able to get some income and have a job and have some references. So I'm okay with the compensation consultant study. I sure would like to see it less than that though, but that 's just me. And so I would, yes. >> Mayor, if I could just address that and I can assure the council. This is our best estimate based on what we see these studies have cost in the past and what normally. We don't expect this to be the exact amount that's paid and we'll write the RFP. We do an evaluation process when those come back in and have grading points of what's most important. Price is a part of it, but it's not all of it. It's addressing some of these. So then obviously if we have a contract that's over $100, 000, council is going to see it before it's awarded anyway. And we can talk about how it was evaluated. But our intent is not to, we just don't know the exact amount until we do the RFP. >> So then the intent of this would be to do this and take it and this would get us through what, how many years? I mean, council member, you'd said that the rotations, it's ten years. We read in the report that it's five, of course consultants are going to recommend five years. Obviously. So what are we thinking here? Is this going to get us through another seven years? I mean, what's the- >> Well, my guess, Carla might have a different answer and we need to share that. Would be that this comprehensive study would be probably good for five to seven years. Unless we started seeing an erosion of our workforce for some reason. Unless we started seeing that the economy or the development in the city or the growth of the city on the number of employees we had and the number and different job classifications we had wasn't working. Then we might try to reevaluate that. I would certainly think that a good study right now could give us the foundation that would last five to seven years. >> Okay, all right, any other comments on that? Okay, number four, website redesign. Looks like the general fund is 120,000. I think we had some discussion about that. Any comments on that? If, I mean, the default is it's in, but yes, council member Johnson. >> I just think that's a crazy amount of money for a website redesign. And so I'm not in that business, I don't know, but to your point earlier, Mayor, I mean, we don't have to completely revamp every single thing at one time. So, I mean, we're gonna have some needs for some savings in here somewhere. As we go through and we talk about what things are available to use from restricted funds versus general funds and so on. So to me, I was just gonna throw out that if our current trend continues, there's going to be a surplus every month based on what we budget versus what's actually coming in the door. So there's gonna be extra money unless we have a complete economic collapse, in which case we're gonna have to adjust anyway. So one thing to consider here would be as we budget to do things like compensation consultant, you budget $75,000. That's what's in the budget. If you do your RFP and nobody's willing to do the work that you want done for that, and it really comes back and it's really gonna cost 125, you're probably gonna have an extra 50 grand based on what our sales tax collections are trending. So I'm gonna throw out that we look at things like budget 100,000 for website redesign and go see if you can get it done for that . And if you can't get it done for that, get what you want done for that, you come back to council and say, hey, we're gonna need an adjustment here. It's gonna cost us 140 or whatever it is. But based on what the revenues are doing every month right now and what the trend is, we're probably gonna have some extra money as those things happen, but I would 100% agree with you. If we have 200,000 in our budget, while people are gonna try to compete for the business, they're not gonna compete real hard. I mean, they're all gonna be pretty close to that number. So I would just throw out that we consider 75,000 on the compensation consultant and 100,000 on the website as a budget. And understand that if staff works hard to try to get the work that they want out of those and they can't get it done for that number, they can come back to council and have a conversation about here's what we can get for 100, but we really need to do this and this is gonna cost us 140 or whatever it is and then talk about where the extra money comes from. I don't know if that's probably contrary to how we would ever think about budgeting, but what I don't wanna have happen is that we start eliminating things because we've got large placeholders on other things where we might be able to get it done for less, then something gets cut that we don't really wanna cut because we're trying to get balanced. >> Thank you, Mayor. This too seems like a lot of money to me, but I don't think that I fully understand what a website designed for a city our size would take and I don't know if there's a way just to break down. We guess it's gonna take X amount of hours and it's this much an hour or something like that, just kind of a little bit more basic for somebody like myself to understand. >> Sure, I can talk a little bit about what the project entails and then how we came at the $200,000 figure. It's listed as a website redesign, but I mentioned in the last meeting that it's really more of developing a new website and one that has some additional functionality so that would include migrating our current pages into a new design, but also some application development to meet needs that we've seen from departments and from citizens that includes functionality that's not currently on our website. So that's some of what that would entail. It also would entail including some basic customer relationship management functionality where citizens can go in and have a self- service option to request services and that's a piece of it. So it's more than just changing the look of the website, it 's changing the architecture of the website, it's migrating data and it's making it a better customer service experience. And so that's why maybe it seems like a lot of money, but there's a lot of work that goes into that. >> Well, I'm not saying I'm either for or against it, it's just trying to understand it fully for somebody who isn't very familiar with that side. That's all I'm asking. >> Yeah, absolutely. We came about the $200,000 figure. We visited with several vendors that provide that service to other cities at a similar scope. So not necessarily like a smaller city that just has three or four departments or three or four functions, but more someone on the order of like the city of Arlington who has a similar scope of services in the city. The city of Arlington recently relaunched their website and was a little bit over, I think $200,000 was the total project cost for that. And so that's what we looked at as we talked for vendors. We asked actually for numbers from vendors, from our current vendor and from some other ones that we've been visiting with that provide this type of service to cities and then talk to other cities who have recently gone through this experience. >> In your opinion, do you think there's a way that we could use our existing website and just make it a lot better just with not as much money or is there software that is obsolete now or something like that? >> The very first thing that we did when we talked about redoing the website was visit with our current vendor. And we asked them to give us a proposal to meet the needs that we've identified through our surveys with our users and with our departments . That initial proposal came back at, I want to say, that proposal that didn't meet that new functionality that had the same kind of design was over $100,000. And so we thought if we're going to invest that kind of money, we want to have something that really meets our needs and really provides the experience that we want for our customers. >> Okay. >> But that said, there's always options to go back and say , we want to add this specific functionality or we want to change this to maybe not just a complete rede velopment but make some more incremental changes. >> Cool, thanks. >> And what is the population of Arlington? >> I don't know that off the top of my head. >> Population of Arlington? >> My guess is it's around 380. >> Okay, so more than twice the size of downtown. >> I really like Greg Johnson's idea that we do the 75 and the 100 because it's a common sense approach to a big investment. And I come back to, I understand that you want to redo the website. I actually spent some time looking at other websites of other cities around the state of Texas. And I looked at cities that were more comparable to downtown in terms of size and scope. So Arlington is, like I said, big, big city, more than twice as big as we are. So not sure that what they have is what we need. But I do understand, because I did like some of the websites that I saw around North Texas. But I like what Greg says. So something for council to discuss right now and chew on. I think it really is kind of a common sense approach. And if we need to come back and revisit it, then we make that decision as a council. >> Councilmember Rhoads. >> You gave some stats on the number of visitors to our website last time. Can you remind us of that? >> Sure. From October 2014 to last week's meeting, we had almost 1.5 million visitors. In October 2014. So that's less than a year. How many people visit the front desk of any given city hall in a year? >> That I don't know. But I'll tell you, we didn't have a million in this building this past year. >> Yeah, and if we did, we'd probably be investing more than $120,000 in terms of staff and the look of that front desk and the functionality in order to process those folks. So again, I know it sounds like a lot of money, but this is a large city. Comprehensive, tons of website. It's more of a data management thing than it is just what something looks like. If I'm trying to figure out this, that, or the other as a citizen who knows nothing about the various departments or what I'm supposed to look under, we've got to do it right. And it's 2015, we want to push more and more people to our digital front door because it saves us time and money if they're able to get their answers to their questions. It's the same reason why so many large companies say, hey, hang up the phone and go on our website. because they want to save the money in having to deal with customer service representatives who someone could just as easily find that answer on the website. And the only way you can do that and do that with integrity is to have a website that's easily accessible and things are easily found. So my opinion and the opinion of a lot of folks who spend time on our website is that it's time for an upgrade. What I'd hate to do is kind of put you guys on a shoestring budget when we have the money to invest. And then you have to come back to us for a full council discussion to get another $20,000 to do what we really need to do. So I'm in favor of let's just invest and do it right. If we've got that many visitors here and arguably we can get more visitors on there so that they're not exasperated and given up and just decide to heck with the city of Denton. I think we just do what we need to do to invest in it and certainly look at costs as you go out to bid on this project. But these things cost money. >> Mayor Pro Tem. >> Thank you, Mayor. To build on what Councilmember Johnson said, I think it would be, I would be much more interested in us building a website that doesn't just pattern after other cities. I think that what we need to do is look at the very best website that we can possibly get and think about the fact as Mr. Roden said a week ago, that when people are looking at the way they interface with our website, they're comparing it with how it works with Google and those other things. And on several occasions, I've used our website for searches. And I found it extremely frustrating that our search capabilities, and I have some notion as to what kind of keywords I ought to be putting in. And I'm still not finding some of the things very easily. So folks that don't have the kind of experience that I have are going to have even more problems trying to find things. One of our goals is to make it easy for folks to understand city government. To find things, to get information, and to then access our services that we provide, our utility services. And we're not going to do that unless we have an excellent website. >> Yes. >> So question just as far as protocol. So let's say that we have something in the budget right now and there's $200,000 budgeted for it. And we go out for an RFP and the best price we can get for what we want is $220,000. So it's in the budget at 200, it's going to be 220,000. George, do you have the discretion to, if something is going to cost us $20,000 more than what we budgeted, but we have the money available in the excess cash flow to make that decision? Because I don't recall a time in the last year where you've come to us and said, hey, we had this budgeted for this. We're going to have to spend $5,000 more to repair this truck or whatever. I'm curious how that works. >> Well, and Chuck, obviously, cut up more and give some answers, but generally, I can approve contracts that are under $100,000. So if we had a budget of $200,000 for a contract to do something that came in at 220, it's going to come to council anyway with a recommendation from where the additional money is going to come from. Now, if it turns out it's under $100,000 on any contract, generally speaking, I can't approve that if it's budgeted in the budget and/or I can find funds from savings from some other source. >> Well, yeah, I asked the question to clarify my position. I don't want to try to do things on the cheap and go 90% of the way and not do it right the first time. And Mary, you've mentioned some software that we have today that was very expensive and probably doesn't meet the real needs that we have or we're not using it the right way. And that could be because the training didn't happen or whatever happened. So I'm not in favor of doing things halfway. But I am in favor of figuring out a way to make people compete harder. Because I don't think, my gut is people don't compete really hard for just hearing folks who we buy things from in my business, but also do business with governments. So what I was trying to get out here wasn't let's go redesign our website on the cheap. But was we know that there's excess cash flow right now and there's not really anything indicating that that's going to change. So I'm agreeing with your idea of let's squeeze these budget numbers. So that people have to compete harder, knowing that we would have the discretion if staff came back and said it's going to cost me a little bit more than what we had budgeted to do this. So I'm trying to find that, how do we accomplish that, but I don't want to do it on the cheap either. So that's kind of where I stand on. >> I think one, because I think what the city manager said was, let's take both of these, the compensation consultant and the website. That doesn't, we're just trying to come up with a number in a budget. We still have to approve those contracts. If those contracts are over $100,000. >> That's correct. >> We have to take affirmative action to approve those, whether or not we have the money budgeted or not. So there's nothing to say that we can have $200,000 budget ed. But we don't have to accept a $200,000 contract. Just because you have it budgeted for that amount doesn't mean that you're obligated to spend that amount. So that may be helpful that we will see all of these, which that's really the thing that is helpful for me on this. Which part of what I hope we're getting from this message is in the next budget cycle that we really try to squeeze. So we don't spend 45, 30, an hour talking about $70,000. But I think what, because we have that ability to approve or disapprove a contract that's over 100,000, which both of these obviously will fall into. Unless they come in under, which is what we're hoping for anyway. We may have an opportunity to do it at that time. Is the only solution that I can think of outside of trying to change the numbers and affect the RFP in a way that squeezes those bids, as you said. >> And I agree with that, Mayor. What I'd hate to see happen, I certainly don't want us to draft an RFP that is at a lower standard than what we think we need. Trying to target a low ball number in a sense. So whatever that we can, the best price we can get to achieve the RFP and the scope of work that we're asking for is what would come back to the council for consideration. >> Okay. >> Regardless of the amount of money you budgeted for. >> And if I can just really address quickly the budget question. You were really talking if revenues come in higher than expected. Our limitations are the budget that the council has passed. So if we have additional revenues, the only way we can spend more than in the budget is we have come back to the city council and amend the budget. It's not based on our revenues, it's really a hard cap on the budget. So and we've done that in the past, but it takes a council action on that. George doesn't have the authority to go over the approved budget by the city council. >> But the total budget. >> Well, within the fund. >> Within the fund, not line item. >> Not line item. >> That's what I was getting at. >> Yes. >> If a department has in their budget an estimation of $ 200,000 for a job to get done and they get it done for less than the $ 200,000. They get it done for 150. Does that $50,000 stay in that department for that year in a way that they can use for other functions? I don't know if I want to use the word function because I think that's a pretty specific budgetary term. But what I'm getting at is, do the folks in those departments have any incentive for, as we've been talking about, getting the best deal on that contract? Because that gives them the difference to use for other areas that they need to be using it for in their department. >> Yeah, I mean those funds stay within the budget of the department. >> Okay. >> There is authority to transfer across budgets, but it has to go through the budget office and be approved. So there is that incentive for departments to be as conservative as they can with all their expenditures, with office supplies, with all those type of things, so they'll have funds available. If they have special problems that come up or unforeseen issues that come up, they have funds available to handle that. >> And I know as a principal that I was very motivated to get the best deals and the best prices when I was buying supplies. Because if I was able to get the best deal, that meant I might be able to go and buy some additional supplies that we need, but we just didn 't have the funds for. So we were always bargain hunting in order to get the best deal so that we could stretch our purchasing power as far as we could. So that same thing happens in the city departments. >> Very much so. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, any more discussion on those two items? I mean, I would just assume instead of trying to adjust those by 50,000, is just let the contract procedure, when it comes to council, if the contract doesn't meet our expectations, we'll let the council have the opportunity to make a decision on that based upon the RFQ that's sent out. >> May I add, if when we're collecting those RFPs, if there could ever be a note possibly that accompanied that you recommended this in the budget this last time or something to help us remember kind of some things like that , that would be helpful for me. I'm saying that in the right way. >> I think in the fiscal note, say this was budgeted at such and such a dollars and here's the final amount. >> Well, I think what you're saying is so you don't forget what the discussion was on what maybe the potential target or- >> Well, sometimes on specific things like this, it can get lost. There's just so much, so. >> Okay. >> I mean, not more homework or anything, but you know what I'm saying. >> No, more homework. >> More homework, George, sorry. >> Okay, moving on to number five, which is, make sure I'm in the right one, funding for additional veterinary tech contract services, which was 62, I think. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> And I was going to say that some of that additional information on that was given in question 16. >> Okay, council member, go ahead. >> If I could ask our police chief to come forward and comment on this. Thank you. >> Good morning. As everybody knows, the Linda McNatt shelter was in process of being designed and built for a number of years. So it opened up at the beginning of this year. Going back to the previous year, we had added two positions on full time staff in anticipation of the shelter being open and the shelter being larger. And we contracted with the veterinary services for a certain level of service that we thought would be adequate to start with. We fully anticipated the need for additional services and very quickly, after the shelter opened, within a month or so, we had twice as many animals as we had on Woodrow Lane in the shelter. And within about two months, we had about three times as many animals in the new shelter as we had had before. Much larger operation and grew rather rapidly. So we identified the need for additional personnel and we submitted the two for two positions in full time positions, staff positions. We also knew that we were going to need additional vet services. But we had already submitted the budget for this year prior to working that out with RSVP. So we do believe that an additional vet tech at five days a week would be very beneficial, would allow us to bring a higher level of care to the animals that we have there in the shelter and some needed addition. >> I think it's really important that we add this position out at our animal shelter. And would implore the council to approve this expense. >> Is this amount based upon any numbers that we received from our contractor on providing that additional personnel? Is that what this is? >> Yes, it's estimated it's 62,816 roughly. >> Okay, all right. >> Mayor. >> Yes. >> In I guess it was an informal staff report, we saw three options. >> Yes. >> And which option is recommended by staff? >> We had recommended to add an additional day with the vet also. >> You had recommended, when you say that, you mean the vet tech? >> No, the actual veterinarian. The veterinarian's on contract to provide three full days of service per week. And we had recommended that we add an additional day to the veterinarian's services. >> So the staff's recommendation is for an additional day for the vet. And this recommendation is for a full time vet tech. >> That's correct. And again, we had three, there was also an additional aspect into the recommendations, and that was for an administrative veterinary tech. But we feel like we could get the best service out of the vet tech, number one, full time vet tech, number one. Number two would be the full time vet tech and additional day of the veterinary services. And the third option in sequence of choice would be all three or some other combination. But the other position came in as an option provided by RSV P, the veterinary services provider, when we asked them for the information on all the services. >> Okay, thank you. >> And this is not in the budget, is that correct? The vet tech is not in the budget. >> That's correct. >> Okay, so this is unlike what I said in the beginning where these are in the budget. This is not in the budget. >> That's correct. >> So to include this in the budget, there's going to need to be some majority consensus on that . And I'm okay with sort of setting it aside to see where we line up at the end, to see if we have any savings somewhere else. And then come back and revisit it, and then if we need to do it, let's do it. But it's hard for me to commit right now until I know how this whole spreadsheet falls out in the end. Any other, yes? >> Chief, who hires this position? >> Who actually hires it is through the RSVP, the service provider. >> Okay, thank you. >> Anything else? Okay. I'm sorry, yeah. >> Is this the time where we say if it's something that we- >> Absolutely, yes. Okay. And I'm assuming, Councilmember Wasney, you're as well. Yes. >> Yes. >> So, I mean, we have the animal shelter, and I'm going to yield to the chief and he's going to show us what's necessary and what's necessary to care for the animals we have there. But I find it interesting that we have a knockout, beautiful facility to take care of homeless animals. And the amount of money we spend on homeless animals, yet we don't have a place to take care of homeless people. And we're not spending nearly this kind of money to take care of homeless people. So as we work through this and we talk about what our priorities are and where we're going to put our money as it relates to things like taking care of the homeless. I'm shocked, fascinated, and disappointed, and overall, it 's an interesting phenomenon. The amount of time, energy, and effort that we, as Americans, tend to spend on homeless animals. But then we don't seem to spend that same energy on homeless people. So we have it, and if we need that position or that additional expense, I'm going to trust the chief. If he believes we need it, then we need it. But we also need to, I think, think about some of the facilities that we own, that we might be able to utilize to help the homeless effort and not continue to offload the bulk of that responsibility on the private sector. >> Any other comments? Yes. >> I agree. >> Okay, all right. Well, I think that's what we're trying to do. And I will say that primarily the shelter functions, the adoption center functions fall upon municipalities. But we also have just a tremendous number of nonprofits in our community who do take care of the homeless. And if it's a policy decision on this council to become more involved in that, I get that. In fact, I have initiated a lot of that conversation at the city level. But I believe that in the community, we have a tremendous amount of organizations that have made substantial commitments. And the city does make substantial commitments through some of its CDBG funds and home funds. So that discussion is out there. Absolutely, I understand that. Next one, professional, and I'm okay with that. I just want to make sure we got the money to do it. Professional services for planning, maybe we'll just take it out of professional services for planning. $250,000. I guess I would just sort of take a license here. I would probably approach this the same way I would that we 've decided on the other contracts. And that is, I struggle with that number mightily. But my understanding is it's for development code review or rewrite, and then maybe I have 35 development plan. And my understanding is if those contracts are over $100, 000, they come back to the city council. And we can decide what we want to do with that, yes. >> Well, that's another one of those items that maybe I don 't fully understand. So if there's a breakdown, if it's a ton of time or something like that. >> It is a ton of time. >> So I'm just, how much is that an hour? >> Yeah. >> And something like that next time. >> Just would be helpful, so more homework. But just some of those things that us as elected officials maybe don't comprehend all the way. A breakdown of where that number comes from would be. >> Sure, we can do that. >> A big help. >> Maybe we could address it now or we can be offline about it or provide it at the next meeting. I mean, what I hear, Mayor, you saying is the program or the concept of doing the program is you're comfortable with that. Because the contracts for any specific expenditures over $ 100,000 would come back to the council. >> Right, yeah. Do you want Amy to- >> No, just- >> Offline or something? >> Yeah, yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right, you bet. Any other questions on that? Parks maintenance supplemental package, 84759. >> And there's additional information on that one in number 13 on our questions. And Emerson's here to add to or supplement that information . >> Well, if we're looking for money for that spot at the animal shelter, and we've built the animal shelter, we've committed to this community that we're going to run an animal shelter that has high standards and great care. Then I would also ask that consider eliminating this new hire, which is specifically for the downtown square in Hickory Street. And just ask the parks department to absorb that, which they're doing presently, and just ask that to continue. But the 84 for one would certainly pay for the 62 for the other. >> Yes, yes, Councilmember. I mean Mayor Pro Tem. >> What answer? >> 13. >> 13. Could we get a public explanation? >> Sure, let me let Emerson come up. I think we've addressed this at one of our sessions, and I 'll ask Mr. Vorle to do that again. >> While he's coming up, just I guess make the point, and this is clearly a discretionary decision on the council. But the programs that we're trying to address here are in fact programs and properties that have been added to them over a period of time that we haven't been able to accommodate. And there's a point at which we need to address it. But Emerson, if you would. >> Well, I think the first important point is there are no consultant fees that we've asked for in this package whatsoever. >> Mr. Campbell's point is a good one. And I want to reiterate that what you see, the number that you see is actually just a little bit more than half of what our staff request actually was for this package. One item that I want to try to educate council on a little bit is that there's a perception that this is almost exclusively for the square and for Hickory Street. That is a portion of this package. That is a portion of what this maintenance would go for. The irony's not lost on me that another portion of this is to do the grounds maintenance at the Knockout Beautiful McN att Animal Shelter. We've not received any funding to maintain the grounds at that facility. That's part of this package as well. And please don't think of it as one person who's going to spend 40 hours a week walking up and down Hickory Street and walking around the square. What we run into and the problem that we run into in the Parks Department is that we add little pieces of property to our inventory. I just talked about the McNatt facility. Included in this list is the piece of county property across the street that was purchased. There's a significant amount of litter that needs to get picked up on that property and trust me, we hear about it when it's not being picked up. There's a little bit of turf over there that needs to be m owed as well. So while we ask for one FTE, what we're really doing is asking for pieces of time for a number of individuals actually that will be spread all over the city. Council challenged us to use some of the tree mitigation fund and plant more trees. We've accepted that challenge, we've gone out. We've already planted 37 trees at North Point Park. We've planted 43 trees at Carl Young. We've planted 50 trees here in Quaker Town Park as part of a rotary project, a youth rotary project. We've got 50 more trees that we're taking RFP right now to plant in South Lakes Park. All of those plants need maintenance, all of those plants need water. Which is, the water is part of this package. The chemicals that would be used on those trees, the irrigation parts that would be used to repair the irrigation on those trees. The staff time to go out and repair that irrigation or to inspect it and maintain it. It's all part of this package. Just as for instance, another piece of property that you're probably not aware of, that the city has acquired and Parks is now responsible for the maintenance. There's a small piece of property at the intersection of R oodell and Singo across the street from the TWU golf course. It was acquired so that the city can realign Roodell when the time comes. In the meantime, my staff's responsible for mowing that piece of property and keeping the litter picked up on it. So there are all of these little pieces, dibs and dabs of property. Township two is going to be the next one that's going to come up here. That we just acquire over the course of any 12 month period , this is our opportunity to get the resources that we need to maintain those properties . And when we talk about the square, we talk about Hickory Street. I want to be real clear that it's not just a matter of going out and watering. Because the truth is, our irrigation is on a pretty sophisticated irrigation system that's controlled by a computer at the service center. But it's also litter that happens down there, litter control that should happen five to seven days a week. There are trash cans down there on the square. There are pots, flower pots, planting pots that believe it or not get picked off at the rate of vehicles by probably two or three a year. The staff has to go down and clean up and replace. There are bike racks, there are big belly trash cans that need to be emptied. >> Sold, sold, thank you. >> Thank you, sir. I only have 14 more pages. Yes, ma'am. >> Go ahead, Kim. >> Over my term on council, Emerson, I've been involved in the middle, I guess, of several citizen to you guys, conversations that essentially took the shape of the park should just go do this. Or the park should compass this park for this event. And really more than any other department, because you're involved in events, you're involved in beautification all over the city, that there's just this expectation that you guys go and do this for us. And so I've grown weary of this concept of unfunded mandate or just absorb this and we've just added all this new beautiful landscaping at the town center. But just figure out how to get that cleaned up. I mean, that's just not how things work. So my question for you on this backup, it says the Parks and Rec Department is responsible for the maintenance of an additional eight acres of Class A and B property. So is the concept with this position, is that that additional eight acres, which includes the downtown area and then all these other ones that you've mentioned. That's the scope of this particular new FTE. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> And again, it's not just that FTE is not going to be that one person won't be responsible for those eight acres. But that represents what we would need to add to our staffing and our supply levels to go out and take care of that eight acres. >> And also, just to clarify, it looks like that you guys, in analyzing what your needs are over the next year, actually asked for more than what the city manager approved in his budget. >> That is correct. >> So already you're kind of, with this approval of this, it's kind of skimping a bit on what you kind of feel you need. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. >> Yes, go ahead. >> And how many full time employees do you have currently? >> On the park maintenance staff? >> Yes. >> 40. >> 40, thank you. >> Well, I just want to make sure that we're sending a consistent message to you. If we're going to plant a bunch of trees and then expect you to take care of them but not give you additional funds to do that, I don't think that that's a consistent message. I wrote down keeping our city beautiful and mowed, getting Quaker Town Park ready for these festivals. I mean, I'm not pointing any fingers or anything, but who absorbed the cost of that, repairing that? >> So far, the park maintenance budget did. >> Okay, and just taking care of Hickory now, I mean, we invested a lot of money down there. And I don't think it's, I mean, I'm there all the time. I don't see a dozen people picking up trash every day, but it's on, like you were saying, it's additional property that you have to maintain now. So if we're not going to take the position that we're going to give you additional funds to take care of our city when we buy additional property or plant trees, we need to think about that when we are about to make those decisions. So I'm for this. >> Thank you. >> I'm okay with this, but I think we need to find a percentage that we fund out of the TIF for this. Because this is money, again, and I sound like a broken record, and I apologize for that. But we are spending a lot of general fund money into the T IF boundary on projects that are specifically enumerated in the TIF project plan. Because we don't have a big project yet. We just spent $3 million on Hickory Street. We've got $200,000 in economic development budget that was approved last year for the Innovation District, which is an economic development incentive. But it's still to help with the building down there to help that project go. And I think that if we can figure out a percentage, if you think it's 50%, then I think we need to meet with the TIF board and say, hey, we need to make sure. because if we're going to spend, I mean, the downtown area's assessed values went up more than the city in general. And so all of that additional value and additional revenue stays within the confines of the TIF, and that's what its purpose was. And I think it just is reasonable to say if we're going to, that's going to be the pride of downtown. And we spent $3 million on Hickory, we planted trees, we're going to try to get the litter picked up to continue to enhance that. I think that that fund should help assist in that. So I would certainly like to see that direction. Council Member Johnson. >> Well, thank you, Mayor. Well, to build on it, I was actually going to recommend, because I'm glad you brought up the trees. So I look at this, and I'm glad you gave us the clarification. Because it doesn't sound to me like this is really money for a person. This is money to take care of all these new things. Part of which is newly planted trees, and part of which is the downtown area, specifically the Hickory Street Grand Project. So to me, I would look at this 85 grand, right? And ask you, Emerson, to look at what percentage of that 85 ,000 is for maintenance of newly planted trees and the ones that we're going to be planting during this fiscal year. What percent of that person is for the downtown Hickory Street Grand maintenance and the overall downtown maintenance. And we've got several items in here that are split between general fund and other funds. And so I would recommend we look at pulling from the tree mitigation fund for maintenance of the trees and allocate some of that money over and then from the TIF as well. Because I believe we can use money from the tree mitigation fund for maintenance of the trees planted from the fund. But it doesn't have to be a recurring amount every year. We can revisit it the following year and have the right to change it if we want to and so on. That would be my recommendation. >> We okay with that direction? All right, fantastic. The next one is the city wide study supplemental package and I'm going to start this one out. That's okay. Y'all had any kind of, let me get my prop. Okay, this is the 2002 facility space study. All right, which was, and I did go over this and read through this this weekend. I would like to give you an impression that I read every single word of every 600 pages of this. But a lot of it's survey, a lot of it's really good data on our situation back in 2002 when this was, I think, was completed. And this was projected to go through 2011. My understanding was that this cost $385,000, all right? And I'm glad I asked for this because I just didn't want to say, hey, I'm not necessarily really, I'm really struggling with this. I'm looking at you. And I really struggled with this, but I didn't have any basis for it other than just, it just seemed like a lot. But I read through this and first of all, I wouldn't be in favor of spending any more money on this type of study until we've gone through this document. And looked at the data that's here because actually in 2011 , they projected Denton would have 1,900 employees. They're projecting 183,000 people by 2020. So, but I think as far as some of the recommendations about different types of buildings, different types of functions. So I would be much more comfortable instead of budgeting 150,000. Spend some time to look through this document. And when we talk about the recession, obviously, if we're going to use that same principle, this was sort of right in the middle of that. The recession was right in the middle. Because I think there's, having read that there's a lot of good information in here about our facilities, what we have . Some of the recommendations for City Hall, for across the street, for the City Hall East, City Hall West. And I just don't want to reinvent the wheel. I'd like to see how much of the wheel we can get from this document. So I really would have a strong reservation of keeping that entire amount in the current budget based upon the information here. I just don't think it's needed. Yes, Mayor. >> I'm fine with that. >> Nope. >> Yes. >> Can we all get a copy of that so we can read it over the weekend? >> Sure. >> I think, and unfortunately, this was in Mark Nelson's, and I didn't realize that this might have been the only copy. So I did mark a little bit and put a few choice words here, and I didn't do that. >> I do not want a copy of that. I'm just. >> It's actually, it's a good read. >> But I do think that it would be beneficial to have George read it. And then we have a work session where George can highlight, seriously, I think that is a very good retreat kind of item where we don't have anything else to talk about. We get in and we really, we dig in and find things in there that are usable, applicable, and maybe save us 150,000. >> Yes. >> And I agree with that. We're struggling with finding money for the animal shelter in the parks. I say let's take that money and spend it in those two areas . This has freed up the money for both of those items. >> Well, and I don't have an issue with that, but on the parks issue, I'm with, I think council consensus was find ways to fund alternatively a portion of that parks through some different funds. But it was a, it's a good read. It's got a lot of good information in it. Yes, Council Member Rhoads. >> Thanks for taking the time to read that over the weekend . And what I'd be curious to, and maybe we'll get a chance to get that, but with any plan that you spend money on, the follow up question ought to be, well, what decisions were made as a result? We haven't built any new significant buildings. We still have kind of the problems we have since then. So to me, that's the key question. >> Yes. >> Which is why that sort of investment is still worth taking advantage of. And so I think from a policy point of view, I think what, I just want to continue to make sure that we're heading in the right direction. Because my sense over the last few years is the management has put this study in front of us and hey, can we do this? We need to solve this problem. It was almost like this precursor to us finally figuring out what we need to do in terms of city hall consolidation. And I think we're doing some things to take those steps with City Hall West decisions that we've made as of late. So as long as we're continuing this conversation throughout this fiscal year, to me the study was a good impetus to continue that conversation and to figure out where we need to go in the next three to ten years. So I'm fine with that recommendation. As long as this discussion continues. >> Well, I mean, and I think that was part of my observation was, I mean, I've been on council since 2007. And this may have been referenced somewhere, but one of the main recommendations from this study was to create an independent justice center that was separate from any other buildings. In other words, where we have it now over in City Hall East with the police department, the new police training facility and so forth. The recommendation here was to have it separate and then the rest of that could be filled. They talk about co-location of different departments for efficiencies. Everything that they've said, but what's interesting is they forecasted the 5% or 6% growth in staff each year. And a 5% or 6% growth in population each year, which was a little, I think it's been a little off. But it's got a lot, I agree with you. That's one reason why this would be a great conversation starter. It would be a great foundation to begin with, okay, well, what have we done? What haven't we done? Why haven't we done it? What are the recommendations? Are they still valid? The data is still here. So it's just a matter of updating some of that. It'd just be a good place to start. And this was $400,000 and $2,002. So, yes. Go ahead. >> I'm fine with that recommendation as long as we're all agreeing we're either going to have a retreat or we're going to dive into that thing. And we need to do it soon. I mean, we have next Tuesday off. Let's do it after that. >> Hold an auction. We'll fundraise right here. >> The other thing I would say is that we have to do it soon and we're going to have to update that study soon. Because it sounds like we're committing to rent of $360,000 a year. >> $360,000 a year compared to what we're talking about for the study. The study's half of that. And if delaying the study and if delaying action adds a year or two to that rent for the move of staff from City Hall West, then we have been penny wise and pound foolish. So we really can't put it off too long. >> I think to get that done first, and I think it will inform us all as to what we need to do. And the limitations with studies. Any study has certain limitations. >> Right, well, and I agree with you. I guess the reason I asked for this was because I think we pay a lot of money for studies. And I'm not so sure how, I mean, the city manager obviously wasn't here when this happened. In fact, none of us were here on this council. There were some people who were here on staff when this occurred. But I'm not sure we've consulted this in some of the decisions that we've made. And whether or not, I mean, the move to find some potential lease space for City Hall West was a pretty quick decision. And I think that's what I'm also trying to ensure that we have a plan. Let's work it. If not, let's don't spend the money to do it. Let's just figure it out. Yes. >> Just a comment. And I think what we need to do is initiate this discussion as soon as possible. Because, and I'll be the first to tell you, I haven't read the report verbatim either. But I have been looking at the highlights of it. And part of that discussion needs to be what were the recommendations of that study. And which parts of that have we accomplished? And there are several pieces and recommendations that we have pursued and have completed. There are other parts of it that circumstances have changed . The Justice Center being an example where we made a very conscious decision to put the police fire training center in that building and we're headed towards that direction when council made the decision not to build the center out on Vintage Parkway. So a lot of it has been accomplished. There are other parts of it that circumstances have changed . And the discussion is really critical that we proceed with it as soon as we can. And we'll plan for that. >> Yes. >> Council Member Lockhart. >> I just want to say congratulations, Mr. Mayor. Good catch. And that will provide the benchmark as we start this discussion. And I'll agree that it's a discussion that we need to have soon. >> Yes. >> But good catch and thank you. >> And it's great reading. You're on the elliptical. I'm just kidding. All right, any other, yes. >> So I would just like to say that we may actually as a result of discovering this, actually not delay the process rather move it faster. So if we commission a new study and we sit around for six or eight months waiting for the study or 12 months or whatever it is to come back, there may in fact be our study that we need and we may not need to update. We may find through a work process, it's not that hard. I mean, we tend to want to over complicate what we're talking about. We need a building to house departments in room to grow over time. Private companies do this every day and they try to estimate how big am I going to be in 15 or 20 years and they go build a building that's expand able. So I think having this study right here and having the commitment that this council sounds like we're committing to tackle this issue and go get after it while certainly we will spend some money on rent, whatever that ends up being for City Hall West staff, we may in fact net-net spend a lot less money than we would have otherwise by going through that process. So I look forward to hearing the mayor's -- >> I think he thought we're fine right there. >> I look forward to hearing the mayor's complete report after he finishes reading. >> Okay. Great. All right, Mark, thank you for getting this to me. When he walked in an office I was in and he had that in his hand and he just sort of handed it to me, I thought what in the world is this? So anyway, thank you very much for that. All right. We'll go on to the McKinney Street mid-block crossing. >> And there's information on this one on question 6 and there's also some somewhat related information on 24 where we talk about the traffic safety fund. >> Yeah, and I read that and I certainly would be in favor of taking that money from the traffic safety fund because that's exactly what it's used for and there's a million dollars in there and it's built up that much because of our potential contractual obligations. If we as a city, either through referendum or council decision, discontinue red light cameras but if the state, it's my understanding, takes an initiative to outlaw red light cameras then we're not obligated to that. So I think that, I mean there's what, a million dollars in that fund? So I think that'd be a great use of those funds to help sort of create that connection between the parking on the south side of McKinney Street to the north side. Any other questions or comments on that? Yes, Council Member Rodin. >> I agree with that as well and I appreciate staff pointing that additional funding source out to us so that we could give you that direction. Beyond the parking question, which is I think it's great to immediately respond to a lot of the community conversation about parking issues with something in this budget cycle that helps us move that forward. What I love about this particular project is it fills, fits more goals than just that. If you think about, if you ever watch during Arts and Jazz Fest or any other downtown festival, the folks playing Frogger across McKinney Street, I mean it 's just terrifying. We're lucky people aren't getting hit more often or more than what it seems like they are. So I'm in favor of that. The question I had, because the very next item to me is just as related to downtown parking issues. The more you give folks alternatives to be able to walk or bike or do something else, the more you take the stress off our parking situation. Is something like bike racks qualify under that same fund? It specifically mentioned pedestrian accommodations. Everybody's looking around like we get finger pointing, somebody's pointing over here. Oh, there he is. Okay. He was trying to hide. Mr. Fletcher drew the short straw here. Thank you, Scott. That's probably one that it has to be, I guess, debated. The chapter 707 of the transportation code specifies public safety programs, and in particular pedestrian safety programs, public safety intersection improvements, and traffic enforcement. I guess we'd have to get some guidance as to whether or not bike racks fit into that. I can see we can make an argument for it, but there's probably plenty of people who'd suggest that it wouldn't fit. We've limited our funding to more strapping, signal lights, flashers, signage, that kind of thing so far. I would maybe put forth that if we're moving the $90,000 over to the traffic safety, I think we could probably find $11,000 or $12,000 for the bikes. As you said, that would send a big message on a lot of fronts, and so I don't have an issue with that. What's the rest of the council's thoughts on that? Okay, all right. Is that helpful? Great. So I have one question as it relates to that fund as well. So is lighting, part of our issue, we have this perception that we have a lack of parking downtown, and then when you really talk to people, I think that's what we heard from the leadership dent and study too is they're not aware, people aren't aware of much of the parking that's actually available. Some of the feedback was like on the lot on the north side of McKinney Street. It's not well lit, it's not well striped, you know, safety wise, and it's the same thing across the street here as far as lighting. And so my question is, is safety lighting of parking, public parking facilities, something that that fund would, we'd be allowed to use that fund for you think? Again, I think if it's designed around the idea of pedestrian safety, you know, their ability to walk through, be seen in the parking lot, safety getting across, you know, driveways and that kind of thing, I could certainly see it fitting there. In terms of general lighting, just to make it brighter and more visible, I think would be kind of a stretch for what 707 sets out for us, but a lot of it is kind of how we how we word it. Certainly if we knew we had a history of, you know, we had someone hit or we'd had, you know, safety real specific things you could point to, I think it'd be easy to fit it in there. Okay, well, I mean, as Councilmember Rodin said, McKinney Street right here, you know, getting across to Qu aker Town Park, but I think a lot of people don't use the lot on McKinney Street on the north side of the fire station for the exact same reason. It's very dark. There's no real connectivity. And so not only is the parking lot itself kind of dark, but, you know, the getting to it is a little bit dark. And I don't know if we've ever done the analysis, see how many spots there really are there on that lot because it's really not well striped or anything. But I would just like to say, hey, we ought to think about if that fund is available for such things, even if we can't use it for the lighting in the parking lot itself, but for a connection and to light up the crosswalk and that sort of thing, then we ought to consider that because that certainly, we have a lot more parking than people know is available. And I think a lot of that is because of signage. A lot of it's because of lighting. And then some, I think, is because of connectivity. Well, and I just had an idea too, possibly these spots that aren't well known. I wonder if there's a way that we can market that to more of our local Denton people, kind of like the secret parking spots of Denton, so when tourism comes in, so they can always find a spot. Or dig Little D. Yeah, we could do that too. There are no bad ideas today. All right. So do we have consensus on the additional funds for the bike racks? And then we're going to look at some research on what it would cost or the infrastructure that would be needed for the north parking lots to help with that. But that's outside of the scope of the budget, this current budget, sounds like. One other one is fire training, Captain. And this one was brought up at the last meeting. And the council member was, and he brought it up. And we weren't really sure. You'd said next budget year, and we weren't really sure if that meant this upcoming budget year, 1516 or 1617. So that's why we included it for discussion. And our fire chief is here today. So I would like to call upon him to come up and talk about this position and what it means for the ISO rating that council has given him direction to pursue for 2019. And if we delay this in the budget one year, what kind of impact does it have? And the floor is yours. Thank you. This position was a part of the fire department's budget and eliminated in budget reductions in fiscal year 2010 and has been proposed a number of budget cycles. We repositioned and talked about what we wanted to do with the position this year because of my audit of the organization over the last year and identifying a number of our deficiencies. We're actually mandated by the state and by federal regulations to do a significant amount of training that must be documented. And we do that in our organization with a single training position now department wide. But we also are required in addition to delivering that training to document that training and also document all the sustainability requirements of our organization. We are certified as a Texas State Fire Department by state regulatory agencies and our medical program is also certified and regulated by state regulatory agencies. And we are audited and we receive random inspections for a number of our programs that involve our pumps, our ladders, our air packs, our training requirements. All those things have sustainability requirements that have to be documented. For the ISO process that will take place and we've got that slated for 2019, we have to have three years of documentation of this sustainability process. So we must begin now because it has identified significant deficiencies in those areas. We've also added during this same period other programs that have requirements based on our growth and changing industries at our airport. We've had to add our training to our staff and the training requirements and maintaining that program there. So that's what we're talking about here. Now what we've done and we have no intention of failing to follow through and failing to honor the commitments we've made to council and to our citizens. So we are redeploying these responsibilities. Having identified these deficiencies, they are being distributed to other staff. Now it's primarily in these operational areas, Assistant Chief Hedges and a number of these that I will be assuming myself. Managing our repositioning and preparation for ISO is something that we must begin in this next fiscal year to be prepared with that three years of documentation. So I'll be owning that as a personal responsibility. There is a lot of absolute necessity that we meet these requirements for our random inspections. So I'm very, very comfortable with the fact that it was an important recommendation to make to you in the budget process. Understand that we have competing needs citywide and that's why it wasn't a part of the manager's ultimate recommendation. But it is something that you can expect to see from us in subsequent years because it's a fundamental basic need of how we're going to need to manage this organization and meet our absolute operational requirements and regulatory agency requirements. So to the city manager, where can we find this money? It's an important position. We cut it when the economy was tight. They've asked for it every year since then. As we now have a growing city and regulatory needs, I think it's something important that the council really needs to take a look at. I met with some members of the association and we talked about this. And I think part of it was the full request was the three inspectors. I believe the three additional fire inspectors is what we 're adding three additional I believe commercial fire inspectors. Is that correct? Yes. And the fire chief and I mean they understood that they may not get it all. I guess my question is what you're thinking that this I mean that I struggle with adding this without finding some other funding to take care of it simply because we've added three fire inspectors where we've got the medical unit seven that's coming online. We're adding three. So my question to you as chief is if somehow this doesn't happen this year as far as the duties that will need to be performed in order to maintain this ISO sort of march is that able to be done with a staffing level that is not necessarily a quote unquote a fire training captain but some other kind of I mean if there is there some other type of is it at primarily administrative is it is it truly a duty that a I'm not sure how your license are certified but a certified firefighter fire chief has to attest to these things on documentation. I mean how will we meet the need that this is the primary request for if it's not there. The some of the fundamental responsibilities of of testing and repairs of equipment in the field with the loss and elimination of this position were deleg ated out to the field but but in in the field resources with the logistical separation of stations and with the three different shifts what we have identified that we've lost over that time is this is the sustainability of the record keeping the ability to document it and that is an administrative function. So during the interim period it is it is something that having identified the the deficiency and not being able to adequately meet our requirements it's something that the chief hedges and myself are are working to manage. But I guess my question is are you able to hire someone that's more of an administrative position or does it have to be I mean does it have to have this title I guess for the administrative portion because I don't know I'm just trying to understand. Yes yeah this is a this is it this you do it this way or you guys do it basically. Yes. Okay all right okay any other questions? That it okay all right thank you chief appreciate it. All right I think that ends I think that ends. Mayor if I could just for clarification that position is not in the current budget recommendation so that. That's correct and so is the consensus of the council something different than that? I mean obviously I guess what I heard was and I will just clarify my position is that it sounds like that at least the the ISO administrative functions unfortunately will rest upon you chief and and I believe chief hedges is who you are hedges and I think that that's certainly something that is a for me would be a priority in the next budget and if there's a way that we can find some other things that to help with that then I'm certainly open to that but it doesn't it doesn't seem like that we've we've been able to do that yet. Maybe once we get to that point.