Nat. Hey. Hey. Here we go. Here we go. [music] All right. Down. Here we go. We're live. >> Okay. >> Welcome to the 1:00 uh city council budget and special special projects committee meeting. Um item number one, call the meeting to order. I call this meeting to order. Item two, discussion regarding the hotel, a guest tax proposal, including a summary of information learned to date and a facilitated discussion regarding the proposal and public engagement event other than discussion. No action will be taken. >> Hello, Miss Davis. >> Hello. I'm going to um start us out and I be our tour guide on this discussion. So, um, in the room we do have several of our subject matter experts and stakeholders who who at any time we could just call on to answer questions. So, I'm sure they're very excited about that. Um, but in case this is so today in our discussion, um, we we've had several meetings on this, but this will really be the first time that you all can collectively talk about the proposal um, and how we want to move forward. So just in case this is anybody watching's first um day to engage with this topic, we'll recap very briefly um the work that we've done so far um talk about um what we have learned and then go over some town hall goals and logistics um with you all as well. Um so our process that we've engaged in is up on the board. If it has a solid dot over to the side, we have already done that. and then the star indicates where we are today um in our work session. So at this point in the process, we have um really kind of almost finished that proposal development process. Um next we'll move into our community engagement and information process and we'll go into that a little bit more. So, just a reminder on what we're talking about. The hotel guest tax is a tax um put on um the rooms and hotels and it goes to four major um purposes for maintaining our facilities, supporting our tourism and marketing efforts, some different economic development initiatives, and then there's a very small portion that goes back into the general fund um for some of the monitoring efforts for the tax. So, we started with a facilities tour. Um, we learned um that we've got these two um facilities that really are major economic generators in our community, the Harvest Convention Center and the BOK Center. Um, you'll see several of the statistics um including $143 million economic impact um generated from those two facilities. Um but the major thing we looked at on our tour was um especially the BOK center has had no major updates since it opened in 2008 and that was at this point quite a long time ago. Um next we've heard um from some of our partners on the impact of tourism. So, as we've learned, tourism is the third um largest employment category in Oklahoma. And specifically, we have um mostly our 2023 data on the impact of tourism. Um 16,000 jobs are supported by tourism activity. And then finally, we had our finance team um and our bond council come and we looked at the revenue bond feasibility for some of those improvements at the BOK center and the Argo Center. So, just for the public, um revenue bonds are something that is a council action and TPFA action to take. Um they're not the kind of bonds that we do a public vote on. Um but essentially um there's a $77 million um gap on the estimates of the improvements that are needed at those facilities. And we would be bonding the projected revenue um from the hotel tax um to help go ahead and frontload and take care of some of those improvements. Um so that's not a decision that has to be uh made today, but it is an option that you all discussed. Um, you did also discuss that some of the fund balance and and profits um that have been saved from these facilities um could go ahead and start some of the roof work that is needed. And so really moving into our next phase of this um on your calendars held is um the hotel guest tax town hall. It's Monday, March 30th at U Tulsa. Um we are going to talk a little bit more um today about what we want to present. And so this slide represents kind of the key decision points. And there are three decision points um that uh that you all have in in this process. And so the first is the actual election. That's a really highlevel decision point. And your major points of decision you need to make are what is the percent um that you want to ask the voters to approve for hotel guest tax. And then the ballot language really defines those [clears throat] very big buckets. So right now it's economic development and tourism. Um we talk a lot sometimes about this middle bucket. Um the the middle bucket is about how we implement the tax. So how we collect the tax, who where the exemptions are, the creation of those special funds. So like the facilities fund, that 2% that goes into the general fund, that's all governed by ordinance. Um ordinances can be changed um at any time. Um you have changed them as we've gone over. I think you've changed them at least twice in the last two years um as it relates to some clarity amendments. Um and then finally on the last part, this is an annual decision. Who carries out the services? Um what the vendors uh who the vendors are who perform these functions um or whether a city department is going to perform these functions or an authority that is an annual decision um based in contracts. So today, as we talk about um the hotel tax, uh we're really going to be focused on that first column on the election part. Um Marissa just handed out a handout to you um in some of your discussions and I know councelor Archie asked me for this and maybe some others of you of what would the percent breakout be um if you increase the hotel tax. And so I do kind of want to pause in the presentation here to go over um that part. Get it up on the screen. So as proposed back in November when you first started talking about this topic, the proposal was to go to 9.25%. Um that would result in an approximately 8 mill just over $8 million increase. um of revenue generated from this fund. Um when we go out to the town hall, uh it would be good to tell the public the percent that that we are looking at. Obviously, town halls are for public feedback, so things can change after after town halls, so you're not locked into this. Um but I didn't know if there was any comments or followup that anybody wanted to make about the 9.25 as proposed. I will say I think your stakeholders um would like you to not go below 9.25 as some of their estimates and projects are are based off of 925. [snorts] uh council and then >> I know um one consideration that I think we have to have within when we talk about the percentage amount um is the TID um and this has been something like some of that's been surfaced a bit before about we know that there are things booked through that through 2032 um but that's just one way to um fund and secure some of those contract you know like the PGA and things like that um but when that sun sets I think my curiosity either it's either when it sunsets or when it makes the most sense for it to sunset or there's all these factors there we should maybe go to either go to a higher amount and like increment this or start there I'm just naming some considerations here of like what happens when the TID goes away or the plan for the TID going away um and even if that happens sooner I had checked with um and you can let me know if I'm misspeaking Renee I had checked with um visit Tulsa where we could still if the TID sunseted sooner This is very hypothetical, but if it were to sunset sooner, if we raise this to a higher percentage, we would still be able to honor those agreements and bookings that we have out through 2032. So, I just wanted to mention some of the push and pull there or I have that curiosity about could we raise it x% and then when it hits a certain very precise window, then it increases to more maybe even like a 10%. just thinking about how we can be competitive um when it comes to tourism kind of regionally and not just kind of catch up to speed with our competitor cities but go past it. >> My questions are along those same lines. I think it would be helpful for us um to revisit those of you who made those decisions on TID. I had just gotten elected when you all had that long night with pizza and >> hours and hours of people speaking. Um, so it's been some time since we've even visited the policy, what it is, who can opt in and out of it, how it's functioning, and if we're going to do an offset because I my understanding is it's bringing in about $3 million a year. So that's just >> 3.3 >> 3.3. So, but that's um not exactly stable because people can opt in and out and you know it's it was crafted in a very specific way. So, I'm also interested in exploring maybe a replacement strategy to let that kind of think thank think thank think thank think thank think thank think thank think thank think thank think thank think thank think thank it for its service and move on to something that's more long-term um I think the last time we thank you for this breakout chart I think we talked a little bit around what other municipalities in Oklahoma are doing and then you had mentioned that looking beyond Oklahoma is a little not apples to apples >> just beyond Oklahoma when you look at the percent of the hotel tax. That really that really isn't apples to apples because they may have a state program that's also supporting tourism. >> And so you look at that calculation a little differently. I think it was the first time the chamber came to present uh maybe in January. I think they had some of those comparables about amount per room. Um they we do have some information on um local like within Oklahoma cities. Um but some of it doesn't actually put some of your major ones you want to look at like Oklahoma City. I do know just off the top of my head Oklahoma cities 925 >> Midwest City went to 925. Um I don't know if the chamber folks know any more off the top of their head that are at that but those were in the last couple of years. Yeah, I think 925 is the the top right now in our state, but >> um and maybe it's a per room night that we look at or even a per capita investment in tourism, the the lens that we're using to to just try as best to make it an applesto apples comparison. I I do think it's important that we consider yes, we may be losing business to Oklahoma City, but we they're not the only competitor. And so if we're going to ask a question once every 40 to 45 years or 50 years, I want to make sure that we're not just solving today's known issues, but really thinking long longer term >> because I don't know that I mean maybe there'll be an appetite to come back and ask again, but so far it has not >> I'm sure people have chewed on this before. So, we we should be a little visionary and um and contemplating how best to use the resource if we could get to a place of consensus where we go ask the voters to say yes and also be able to say like we're not only losing business to Oklahoma City tourism business, but what is Witchah doing? What is Kansas City doing? What is Dallas doing? Right? So what you're talking is say I think we have those >> I emailed this but I think those are in that packet. Yeah. >> Okay. But is it a percentage or it's a per room? >> It wouldn't be a percent. It would be >> what's the total dollars >> investment as a comparison. So >> I think it would be helpful just to frame the conversation with our constituents like for 400,000 people it works out to be this much per person per year. And this is the result that comes back to us >> just for framing of like how they make a decision about checking a box or not. >> Yeah. >> And I would like for us to be visionary. I mean, we've heard, you know, ideas about a soccer stadium and um there's probably things we haven't even thought about that could come to our city that we don't >> um >> to be thoughtful about. So, >> we should start thinking about how we're going to start taking business away from Oklahoma City >> or Kansas City, >> right? >> Or Dallas >> or Bentonville or Witchah. [snorts] >> I mean, I think I always put my convention hat on. That's where the big dollars come through is when you can get an organization to come to town for 7 to 10 days. You have pre-unction, too, right? The advanced team comes in. That's where you see lots of heads and beds, lots of activation. It's nice to have a long weekend. I mean, I'm not saying it's an honor or to have an athletic event, but when you get these 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 people coming to your city for a convention, that's big money. And that ends up sometimes being money later because they're like, I had such a great time. I want to expand my business here. I want to open my restaurant here. You know, whatever reason they're in town. So, >> um I know that y'all are thinking in that way, but I think sometimes if you haven't experienced convention planning or even participating beyond just like your arrivals and departures, it's huge. And I know the athletic events do it too, like the competitions and things, but I'm thinking like >> international, national business conferences or association conferences, things like that. >> Yeah. where we could be very competitive because we wouldn't be as expensive as like the tier one cities which then become too expensive to pull off for the attendees. Especially in the hotel room nights when you're talking 350 a night to stay in just like a regular you know average hotel on a coastal city like here for 350 a night you could be staying >> the fivestar hotel. Yeah. [snorts] I'll pull this up in this background. >> So, for the town, I can keep going and go through the town hall format. Um, we probably do need to come back to this on a little bit more shy. Um, not saying it can't change or that you can't figure out changing circumstances for the for a TID and those strategies later on. Um, but we do kind of need to get a little bit of a head nod around what we would bring to a town hall on on this. But let me maybe it'll be helpful if I go over the town hall format a little bit >> and we'll keep going through there. >> Um, so some some goals of the town hall. um understanding that you know residents maybe haven't haven't followed along exactly with our weekly hotel discussions for the last couple of months. So really engaging and informing the community um regarding the proposal and just what a hotel tax is. Um provide an update on past uses um and potential future opportunities um related to these areas. Um so some of that information that that you all have received um as part of your discussions sharing that same information um with the community and then highlight how it's not um not really an impact on the residents day-to-day um purchases or things like that but how um when we do invest in econom and [snorts] uh our economy and our tourism efforts that it can support broader needs um of Tulsans. So those were some of our goals we've discussed. Um we've met with some of our stakeholders to go through a town hall format. Um so we thought we would have a host um introduction. Um I was hoping uh that host would be councelor Gilbert, but I hadn't actually asked her yet on since she is since she's the chair of this. or you may designate um but we will post it so that all counselors um attend can attend the town hall if you're available. Um and then we'll have um visit Tulsa do a brief tourism presentation. um our um OP group do a facilities presentation and then um we'll have comment cards so people can write questions down and then we'll have a panel um so visit Tulsa Oak View Group and then um representatives from the city of Tulsa um who represent our economic development and our facilities um who've helped us in this process. So, um, Aaron and Anna would also be available to be panelists, um, to help answer questions. Um, and then this is just a reminder um, for the public, we track the progress of this project on the city council's website. Um, the public also at any time can if you can't come to the town hall, can submit questions via the contact form um, and we can get answers back to them. And then of course the town hall on the 30th. And that is that is it with the the end of the formal presentation. Um if there's feedback on the town hall or town hall format um we'll be working on preparing those materials over the next couple weeks. But if you have feedback now, we can take that feedback now. If there's anything that in particular you want to make sure that we emphasize to the community, we can also go over that. or it's perfect how it is. >> So, I was able to look up that report that councelor Bush referenced and it looks like in the southwest region we are the lowest. >> We are one of the lowest >> by how much? >> Or no, we're not the lowest. >> That report >> it was your support materials. >> Yeah, >> Carol. So that I'm just amplifying that it's there. But I guess it's >> the breakout in here is all different manner. It looks like Anchorage, Alaska, maybe the one comparable city that is city dollars, not having state and all these other ones come in. I don't even know what our mix is. >> Well, and >> do we have a mix or is it just city? >> City intent, >> but it's two city policies that are funding it. date. >> Yeah. So, if you look at Anchorage, it's it's probably the closest when you just talk about >> comps, >> city. >> Mhm. All the other ones have some kind of like mix between >> state and >> state or Yeah. Some of them have tourism districts, which I guess is similar to us, but >> they are all over the board. >> Some have state. >> It's hard to get in. >> Yeah. The only one that pops out to me is Anchorage. >> It's not in the contiguous US. That seems really different. >> Well, I can get some notes in Anchorage. >> It just feels like that might be quite a bridge pretty far from >> Oh, it looks like New Haven, Connecticut also is 100% city. [clears throat] >> Is not that far. >> It's It's not. But when I think about people who are doing I don't know, booking events and making plans about things that are near other cities or touring, I don't know. It just seems really different. >> You could even see Russia. >> Yeah, you can see Russia from >> But to be competitive, if we only are seeing Oklahoma City as our competition, that is very different than also trying to compete regionally. >> Of course, >> we have to council. >> Absolutely. Well, I so I had uh Renee present to the Brookside Merchants this morning and it was kind of a test run, I would think, of what that town hall is going to look like because when she talked about it and when they realized we haven't raised it in 50 years, everybody went, "Oh, now these are a lot of business leaders as well. And I I travel as you know for my other job. I am telling you, we are so much lower. When I go to check out, I'm looking at my bill going, "Oh, dear God, thank goodness we have this." And I'm going to conventions. I just had to book a hotel room in Oklahoma City. I mean, it's those of us that go to conventions a lot or have to book these. I think for us to be competitive, we've got to definitely get it up and figure out how we're going to sell that because the group this morning kind of went in going, "Oh my gosh, is this the sales tax talk?" And I'm like, "Nope, no sales tax. This is the guest tax, right? And this is what it does." And Renee did such a great job of explaining it. All of a sudden, if we'd called the vote today, you would have had, you know, 15 yeses right then and there. So the education component is super important because they also understand they travel a lot and when you have to book a lot of these rooms and put on conferences which >> it's a big we're losing out and it isn't just Oklahoma City like it's Bentonville it's Witchah every time a Witchita ad comes on in Tulsa like good god I've been to Witchah why would you go there but they're killing it they're bringing it in because they have that and they can use those funds so much differently. So, I think it's just going to be imperative that we really explain this to people. Um, and I think that the starting point is we haven't raised it in forever. We're losing out. I like to say we're losing m we're leaving money on the table as usual. We're leaving money on the table. Let's be proactive. And councelor Detoide, I love the fact let's be visionary. So, because it is hard to get voters to every time TAX is on anything, everybody goes. So, how do we be proactive for the future? Well, that's why I keep thinking going back to that TID piece about okay, >> what happens either when it sunsets or can we be prepared for real sunsetting potentially earlier and making sure we're offsetting that and then for your point dreaming a bit bigger, thinking further ahead, making sure we're really equipping ourselves if we're going to go put this on the table. >> So, I'm kind of curious of if setting I mean I'm not I've never planned a convention before. I don't want to pretend either that I have, but I'm just curious if people that do put conventions together do scope out places with a lower um hotel motel tax rather than higher ones. I mean, is that a breaking point of having those come? >> I for answers because I've done several. It's you're looking for entertainment, you're looking for food, you're looking for >> proximity that's gonna be passed on to your conventiones. >> Yeah. >> Right. But I know but I'm just wondering I know that that's been a question that's been floating around some too. So >> like would it be a deterrent? Is that what you're concerned? I don't I don't think so. But >> yeah, I would say absolutely not. >> Okay. What happens you don't want to be on the high end. >> Yeah. high end is going but the for us to be competitive right now those dollars they don't even think twice about it so they know that's being passed along to their attendees they're going to make sure that they get a good rate and they're going to make sure that it's a destination that people can get to but they won't look at [cough] >> they will look at room availability and if you can't get to your threshold then they're just passing us over which is what we know is happening >> right and we already have we need to raise our room rates. We're already low on that as well, but we are very competitive and that will just enhance more dollars for us. >> Okay. >> They usually want to keep their people in a walkable, safe, walkable distance to each other and like the convention hotel. And if for us, right, if we do this right, then they're also using the convention center, the arena. They could maybe even rent the teaack if they're willing to like, you know, go little >> people walking from the double tree over to the RV center. >> So, it's meeting space. It's it's how many rooms can you have in your convention hotel? What kind of amenities like restaurants? They do try to look for like not everyone's going to >> want to have a very expensive meal, right? So, you got to make sure there's affordability and then entertainment opportunities, but safety, too. And I think this would also help us invest in You know, we're being asked to make sure that the arts district, the arena district, downtown feels safe for visitors, and this could help underwrite some of that if we craft it the right way. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh, councelor Archie and then councelor Dutton. >> Uh, maybe a question for Renee or Sarah or or really anyone. Uh, so at 5% obviously we're losing out on um uh on revenue. What is sort of the break even point or like diminishing returns on looking at 9.7 or uh you say you don't want it to be too high so maybe don't go for 10 but if we're if we're not going to lose out on you know a bid from you know competition from Oklahoma City at a 9.25 25. What's >> Do we do 9? Do we do 9.5 or 9.75? At what point does the tax rate become so high it's like we might begin to lose out. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. I mean I would um defer also, but I I would say we want to keep it under 10 most likely, but we we would be fine. Yeah. I think 925 is what we did all of our models on. Uh just to make sure that we're consistent. >> Yeah. I mean, and Yeah, this goes up to 10. Um, but to everyone else's point, if you're only going to ask once in a generation, um, and every person that I've talked with, um, has said, "Yeah, we'll vote for it. It's no problem. It's not it's not our money." Um, then you you have the opportunity to maybe go to go higher. And you've seen across the board, other cities have looked at that also, you know, additional fees, whether it's a a tourism fee or whatever. So, you you can see everyone's been very creative in how they've gotten to what they needed to do for the city. >> Uh, and anything else before I >> Oh, no, just your question. >> Okay. Um, and this may be a question for Aaron or Renee as well. give me just a just this just as a new person a little bit more meat on the bones when it comes to that economic development fund like maybe give me one or two examples of how that money is deployed to uh you know benefit us >> you want to comment >> are you looking at that 4.5% bucket for them to come up but I do have just how we used these funds last year I have a handout on that too >> okay >> um if you want that so the the 4.5 so 4.5 5% of the collection. Um, part of it goes to support economic developments at efforts at Teao and the other part is going into Tulsa's future, but I can let Aaron talk more about any of those, but I'll hand these out. >> Yeah. And it's just kind of I don't say nebulous, but yes, it goes to Teo Tulso's future and those are the people who help us to do our work throughout the city. So from the to future side that's about the this retention part of the business that we do and TEAOS are basically economic development programs that we do. >> So perhaps not you couldn't recruit another IKEA with 2.5 but some of this money could be used to lure another retailer to our city or how is that kind of >> right now it kind of goes to our our contractors our support groups that work with economic development. So it's not going to actually funding programs per se. It's going toward supporting our partners who do the work on the city's behalf. >> You're talking about like retail specialties. >> Well, Tulsa's future is the chamber. >> Chamber. That's the chamber of commerce. >> They're looking for what are they calling? Principal jobs. >> Yes. >> Like when we get a manufacturer to come in or expand. >> It's not program funding. This is money that goes to our partners to support our city efforts. >> Okay. >> Not for incentives. >> It's not yet. >> Yeah. It's it's like operational support. >> Yes. Okay. So annually >> the number I mean they're relatively small. >> Sure. >> 250 and 150 >> or 169. >> Okay. Yeah. This is this is this breaks it down. >> Great. >> So none of it comes to your office. Yeah. >> Just to clarify. >> Yeah. Just to [laughter] clarify. None of it goes to me or to incentives. >> Well, that's why that's why I called you up because I thought maybe it did. >> Okay. Good. >> You done? I'm here. >> Uh, councelor. >> Yeah. So, I wanted to also amplify that this isn't only um tourism in regards to adults and conventions and whatnot. We also host the BMX convention that brings lots of families in and they need affordable places to stay. So, we're not just looking at the downtown hotels in that corridor, but also the hotel corridors. uh say Midtown >> 31st Memorial. >> Yeah. And so I think it's really important that we also consider that that's also revenue and that with families they are eating out >> and uh they are looking for childfriendly resources and things to do in the city of Tulsa. Um in 2027 we're going to be hosting the Masters Disc Golf World uh tournament in September 2027. That's huge because that also brings in families and so they also need places to stay as well as the wrestling tournament tournament coming up soon and the Route 66 Centennial. So, um I think that we also need to amplify that families are in this equation in a big way as well. >> Absolutely. >> I think we see that in the short-term rental space too. >> Absolutely. >> And this will apply. I think I just want to keep saying that we call it hotel motel but >> all lodging all guests. >> Oh with more than five rooms with more than five rooms. >> Yeah. Across the city is important too. >> Yes. Highlight >> council hall harbor. >> So this this p page that was just passed out. This is the current allocation. >> Yes. That's that's currently in last or this year how we have budgeted to use those funds. So that does not include any increase um if the voters choose to pass an increase. >> So if we're if we are successful in passing an increase, will it still be these categories or could categories be added? >> So if you pass So the categories really come from this middle um column on the screen and that's governed by ordinance. Um so categories can be um adjusted by ordinance. you would want to be um if your plan is to go forward and bond on um some of those BOK and Arvest Center improvements, you do want to make sure that you continue your revenue to support those bonds. Um and so but um you know even these categories so like um for example the 4.5% bucket that councelor Archie [snorts] brought up there will be more money um in that bucket just because the the tax goes up. So you um on an annual basis, even if that that bucket's pretty broad, it just says economic development on an annual basis, you know, you can adjust to the needs of the community um and put that for different programs um that increase. >> I have a question. >> Uh stick sure that [clears throat] Harbor is done. Are you >> um Yeah, I'm done. Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh, sticking on the economic development bucket, I'm looking at Tulsa Regional Chamber, and maybe we've talked about that. Uh, of course, Tulsa is a city. It's not necessarily just a region. Uh, or the Tulsa Regional Chamber works for the region. We give them more money. How do we assure that a portion of that money or that portion of the money >> that we're getting >> benefits? Yeah. How do how do how do we kind of think through that? We have a contract with the chamber and it's very specific about the work they do for us for the money that we pay them for that work. So yes, they do do regional work, but we have a contract says just the city of Tulsa's work that you do for us in that contract and we monitor that work throughout the year. >> And so maybe would you have to revisit that or is it just a percentage or maybe the language would have to change a little bit or >> each year we look at the contract, renegotiate what we need and what we want from year to year. Okay, cool. >> Subsidizing other cities, >> right? Broken Arrow or >> come up on Tulsa. >> Um, >> okay. So, we we have a sources page. We know what how much money could come in. We have a current uses page. or missing is a probable or or foreseeable uses page. And so that's something that we said that we would um provide to you in the future as we continue to get some guidance from maybe even a professional consultant on this who can say if the number is 9.25 25 or if the number is 9.75 and you allocate 60% toward convention and tourism facilities for a while and then flip it to 60% to visit Tulsa. After a while, here's how much you can save if we know that we have to renovate two of our key public facilities. So, in the the reason why that's important is because with with some level of pretty simple math, we think we can save millions of dollars by not having to borrow as much for as long of a period of time if we allocate more in one direction rather than in just this direction. I mean, this is like we don't have to stay with this. We can tweak this and it could be >> shifting with >> with an initial ordinance and then with followon ordinances after a while >> but I think if we if we spend a little [clears throat] bit of money and spend a little bit of time now then we can save millions of dollars for our city that can be applied to this broader category of economic development and tourism promotion. It's It's not difficult, but it's more difficult than most of us in this room can do >> and that we probably need some expert help on. >> Yeah, we cannot contract consultants. So, we just have to think through how >> No, I I think there are ways that that we can find somebody to either contract consultants if we do contract a consultant. Yeah, I think we it'll take a lot of time >> because we'd have to bid it out and get some bids and stuff like that. So, we're we're thinking through it and then, you know, worse comes to worse, we can just give it a a good attempt to do internally, but I really do think that we just need some professional advice and direction. So, those things are in play right now and we'll have some kind of information >> whenever that report is due, but >> we can probably do some things. We don't have the report back by March the 30th. We could probably demonstrate to the voters and to our stakeholders too that there may be ways to affect this that would save us potentially millions. And here's an illustration or here's an example. It's not a final thought for sure because it hasn't been verified by financial analyst and planners. >> But we have the wherewithal and we have the fiduciary responsibility to to manage this stuff properly. and and and then we can probably create a little bit of a spreadsheet where we can say to councelor Archie's point, you know, what's the what's the harm or what's the good of going to 9.75? >> You can you just like type in 9.75 or 9.25 and you can see how it flows through the whole model >> because you you do have to be careful about charging too much. And then I think to councelor Ellis's point earlier on, you know, if the and to Dr. Wrights, if the TID goes down and if the TID is producing this much, >> we have to >> how do you how do you backfill and how can it be backfilled right now rather than having to go back out in three years. So, >> so it's just it's a little bit of planning. It's not going to be and we'll apply as as good a math and as good a science as we possibly can to this analysis, but it's not going to be perfect. It will be wrong at some point, but it'll be better than us going in and just saying, "Yeah, we want to go from five to 9.25." >> That's that's a real basic exercise that one >> moving up by >> I just want to% be clear that [clears throat] Oklahoma City went to 9.25. like that started the conversation, but I don't think we're beholden to just match. They have a different dynamic. They have different amenities. They have We have things that they don't have >> that I think sometimes are very desirable. >> We don't just need to copy. To me, it is like just having a little bit more of those analytics. >> Yes. Exactly. >> And really making sure that we're not just going, hey, we can justify it from this one standpoint, but having a lot of backing to what we're saying we're going to do. >> Yeah. Well, did you Oh, so you looked insightful. So you [laughter] >> I always look inside. >> So I was like, well, I want to make sure if he does have something good that it gets out. >> So can I maybe make a recommendation for the So for the town hall, I I don't believe even though we are working on um what kind of consulting that would would look like, I don't believe you're going to have that report before the town hall. Um, just knowing that. And so for the town hall, if we really focus on what is a hotel tax um where what kinds of past successes have we had >> um with that tax and things we've been able to do here are opport or here's opportunities we know we have um to move forward. We may not know all the opportunities, but we have definite known ones um yes >> that we need to move forward with. Um, as far as a percent goes, um, that's really the question for the town hall. Do you want to put a percent um out there or you can say we're considering um going to something similar to our our other local communities. Um, that's on on the messaging that that we probably need to have a a decision on knowing knowing that you might change based on some other investigations and community feedback. Like that's the that's the whole point of a town hall is is to receive some of that feedback. >> Okay. What day is the town hall? >> It is Monday, March 30th. >> Okay. So, but we need to come up with a consensus on >> for the number. >> Well, just on on how you want to talk about the percentage. >> Is there any way that we can talk about the the the two going back and forth and what what we can do with this amount compared to what we can do with this amount. >> What are the two amounts? >> Yeah, what are the two amounts? We have like five options. >> 9.25 25 9.75 >> I think some of us uh wanted to get a little bit more data before we settle in on one. I don't know. >> But it wouldn't be ready. >> It's not going to be ready before the town hall. So then >> everything that councelor Lincoln just says goes out the window because of our town hall. >> Here's what I want to also say though. I don't want to get into like cuz you know there's some the behavioral economics of sometimes you're presented with a lowest range a highest one and then there's the comfortability of just arbitrarily just picking a middle one that's on a piece of paper. I don't want us to fall into that thought trap about what's meaningful or not cuz yeah if you just pick a middle one because the paper said two ranges that just seems or feels moderate but that's not >> necessarily there's other cities that are charging 15% or 13. That's where I want to be really mindful about what's an actual >> truly meaningful number or even two numbers to consider. Um, and you know, we have I think 9.25% in some ways is a good home base of hey, we know another city in our community that's comparable to us in many ways is doing that. But then the real so I I don't I think that makes sense as one of the real numbers to consider for that reason. That's at least just logic to me. But when it comes to looking at an upper bound or other numbers, it is a little hard to tease out what's a genuinely feasible upper. >> Why do we have to have the proposed number? I think our community doesn't even probably know what we have just learned about lodging tax from a very 30,000 mile view. >> I have to agree with that. Sarah, do we need to present a >> I mean, I think you can go on a town hall just about what the hotel tax is and what it supports. Um, obviously the more information you can give people >> uh to potentially make decisions is is the better. Um, but you know there there is an education component that probably most people you know don't don't know what the hotel tax supports or what it has done for the community or or what the needs are that we need it to support in the future. Um, that's a good bit of of presentation information and and good groundwork that you can do. Um, >> I mean, we know we're going to at least go to 9.25, but I wouldn't want us to give an upper limit until we have this >> councelor. When do you think that this report is going to be available for us to really >> uh we have a conversation on Friday um with the entity just to see if they can even do what we're asking or >> if they may say way below us just say go ask check GPT and [laughter] >> who are you referring to >> outside like a group that does analytics >> just an outside consultant that does this kind of work >> analysis >> economic development analis And they're doing that for us. >> So the city >> we're we're talking to them about whether or not they can do what I just described. >> Yeah. >> So they're not hired to we haven't hired any >> just to even see if they can do it. But we have this date that that we're holding for a town hall. >> Staff thinks the more information we can do in the town hall the better, which you know is usually a conventional wisdom. But >> I wouldn't want us to roll out something in a town hall at 9.25 25 and then >> through thorough discussion we're like it actually >> whatever it is >> because then it seems like a bait and switch >> it does. >> So I would rather just say we're exploring our options. We know that 5 >> uh whatever 5% now we're very we're leaving money on the table. >> We know that in our own state other communities that are pulling in tourists are at least at eight or nine. We know that in our region there are some higher than 10. So we're looking to see what would be the most beneficial to our community. I think >> share this. >> We could, but it sounds like >> to let them know >> there's a request for us to land on an actual number, but I don't know what >> we have enough information. No, I'm just I'm just asking when we we as staff prepare your town hall documents and so I don't want to put something on your town hall documents that you're not wanting to put out there. >> Should we put that? >> We need to see opt They need to see >> um yeah, we can we can work through what different scenarios would generate. >> I just don't want us to get locked into an amount. That's what I just >> I will say just on just on past experience with with voter things, I have been to many town halls where we have gone with a certain number. You hear feedback, you get more information, that's part of the process. You come back to the table um and you have have changed that amount. So like one very good example is IOT3. We went out to a town hall. We heard additional information um through your process. You extended that package out six more months and that that number went up. >> But that was based on feedback, additional information as things were scored. So I don't want to characterize to the public that >> that that's not a an unusual process um that you change after you have a after you have a town hall. You just need to make sure you're appropriately communicating that change and the reason why you did it um publicly. >> Correct. >> So, we're communicating with them that there will be an increase >> proposed. Yeah. >> Proposed, right? >> Yeah. Yes. I definitely need to know if it's a decrease [laughter] >> probably all the nine and 10%. >> Yeah. I think that's Well, are we saying 10% the upper? I'm curious. Renee, what >> Renee said don't make it more than 10%. not more than 10. >> Well, [clears throat] we have we have looked at all the modeling and we've also looked at, you know, the TID sun setting and taken all those into account uh just to make sure we want it to pass and making sure that we're putting a number out there that feels like it's a good number. Um but I would say really for our perspective you know looking at the whole big picture is important >> but in taking into account the sun the sun setting of the tid this is a number that we're comfortable with. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So that makes sense then to do that. >> Okay. >> Then we'll just propose it as an increase at the town hall. I mean, maybe at the town hall, if to Sarah's point, if citizens kind of saw the options, right, they might say, well, if we go a little bit more, >> right, >> there's more that we can get done. >> I think we'd have to be careful to make it clear though about for those like the breakouts >> are also flexible. >> Are also flex. Yeah, if we presented that looks like these are the options. >> I I likely would like change this form and talk through uh just like >> it could generate anywhere between $18.6 $6 million million on an annual >> and this would benefit the following things and for each dollar spent here this many would be >> I think showing how it benefits citizens in general >> well what councelor Leaken was talking about if we have a little more dry powder then we don't have to bond it out which is a huge cost savings on the end I mean I don't think we should damp it >> we still have to bond it but we just may have a shorter term time frame >> yeah I think >> lower costs >> I mean cost Yeah, I think most citizens would understand if we explain it to them that way. Gives us a little more. >> Is it worth having not all of these? It's too much. >> No, but pull out at least the Southwest. >> Yeah. Or at least within our five state region some of these because I think if people saw how much lower we were [cough] Bentonville or whatever, maybe >> even Albuquerque. >> Yeah. >> I think also what's interesting in that is seeing the ones that are more diversified. >> Yeah. We don't have that luxury. So, >> just kidding. >> We got to work with what we have. >> That's a whole another conversation, >> right? But I think a lot of um [clears throat] citizens don't fully even understand all that, right? I don't know. I mean, how many times do they say my property taxes mean I should have more police patrolling my neighborhood and it's like you have to explain. >> So, some of it's just the education of all the revenue sources. >> Like the revenue bombing piece of it. >> Yeah. Right. Exactly. >> All right. So did you get enough from us of >> I did but I want to say I want to save enough time for your charter discussion. >> Okay. >> Can I ask one more question? Just a >> ending question. So in the in the presentation do we have did you say yes? >> I said what are the magic words? [laughter] >> Yes. Yes you must. >> Okay. >> Oh my goodness. Um, did you say that we're going to incorporate some of what we saw from the presentation from Oakview Group? Yes. >> During the very >> that data where people are coming from and how much >> Yes. >> we get from all of that activity, >> right? >> And then the condition. >> Yeah. So, we'll be spending the next couple weeks getting [clears throat] that presentation formatted. Um, we'll make sure to send it out to everybody um before the town hall and so that you all have another opportunity to look at it. Um, but all right, we've got our planning committee back. Yes, >> back here. We're all here. >> Okay, perfect. >> Okay, >> it's like the 18. Let's go. I'd just like to say thank you to Renee, to Erin, to our staff to to keep this coming back, going back, answering our questions, coming back with I mean, this is your third or fourth time sitting with us. Same thing for you. I know you're busy, but we're being very methodical and intentional, asking the right questions, getting clarity because not all of us have the same information or the same depth of understanding. And I just I do want to say I know it's a lot of extra work, but I think it's important and I feel a lot more comfortable getting to a place where we're ready to ask voters to consider this question because we've considered it so from so many facets. So thank you. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Thank [clears throat] you. Thank you sir for the presentation. >> You're welcome. >> All right. U moving on to item number three. City Council discussion regarding possible selection of charter amendments. >> Sarah, do you have this one, too? >> Well, Jack and I do. >> Perfect. >> Um, so, uh, last time we had a charter amendment discussion. We talked about longevity pay. >> Yes. >> Um, in the charter, and I know, um, council, councelor Gilbert, councelor director, and councelor Bush, um, brought this forward. Um we did not there were several options discussed um but Jack has prepared um a document that shows um a couple of those options the options that you seem to kind of narrow in towards and so we have that um today it's a front and back sheet. Oh and then >> but that's okay. It'll it'll come back because I'm gonna now let Jack talk because I hate the last hour to talk. [snorts] >> So So yeah, there's been one proposed charter amendment so far discussed in committee and that's this discussion of service pay or otherwise known as longevity pay. that's currently um established and defined in the charter at uh article 12 section 12.1 through 12.3. So there were a couple of ways you were kind of talking about this last time. It it sounded as as if one you you'll recall that the the charter provision the amount the $7.50 50 cents per month is completely out of steps with what's been negotiated in the collective bargaining agreements. Um so you wanted to address that and then you also wanted to address this cap this term of 20 years of service. Um and it sounded as if on the first point uh you just wanted the amount because they're different for police and fire to be as negotiated in collective bargaining agreements. So that's that's reflected on on both options one and two. Option one is that everything is subject to those negotiations. Option two is the amount is subject to negotiation but the cap and the the basic formula is still as defined and the cap changed from 20 years to 30 years. So those are two approaches based on uh last week's or not last week's but the last discussion you had in committee >> council director. >> Thank you. Um I remember councelor Bush and I asserting pretty strongly that we think there should be a floor and neither of these offer that as you just described. Um, I think it could be a percentage so we're not stuck at, you know, just a random dollar amount for ever and never, but >> it can't go below >> that it can't go below. But as I understand it in the contracts, there's already language that says subject to budget >> that is available or economic conditions that would afford these things. I mean, I think there's already an escape hatch in the actual contract language. So for charter purposes though, I think taking a floor out is a step back. Not that opens it up to negotiation all the time regardless if revenues support increases or not. As I understand it, contract language right now is if the revenues are not there, like we've had recessions or furls or my first two years here, we were down $10 million each budget for two years and then of course pandemic. So there is some language in contracts that say if the dollars aren't there obviously we're not doing increases or those are subject to negotiation pending revenue but if we're projecting as I understand it and obviously I'm >> not in the middle of these things but as I understand it >> if we as a body in our budget process know that the revenue projections are flat or you know an increase then that sends a signal to the collective bargaining units that there's dollars there to negotiate on and then they get to go through the negotiation process. What this sounds like to me is even if there were dollars, they don't have to. And I don't I don't think that's what we're trying to do here. I think we're trying to stabilize. >> I don't understand the floor concept. >> So right here >> $7.50, >> but in practice, we're not even doing that, right? Because the cost of living and >> Yeah. because it's so much higher than that. >> Yeah. But last week when there was a discussion about let's just take it out and let leave it all subject to negotiation, councelor Bush and I said maybe there should be a floor, but maybe not a dollar amount, maybe a percentage amount or something. >> But don't they I don't know anything about those negotiations. Don't they start from where they were last year anyway? So it it already there already is >> I'm asking this >> I don't know how we are >> there already a war >> practically >> something's already in the contract that the union claims that is prevailing right that has to be negotiated away >> um it can't be arbitrarily >> so it's already a matter >> of management it's already embedded in there so if if if last year's agreement had had been negotiated to be $17.19 then they start at 19. >> Am I going to drop it down? >> They can they can negotiate it down through the negotiation process. >> The the two the two parties, >> right? But we should have a floor, >> but >> so they don't lose ground on longevity. >> Well, unless there's some more practical element. They could say, "Well, we're going to negotiate that element down in in place of this other solution that both parties have agreed to. It's still I mean they're advocating you you know how strong those those groups are. >> Um I I don't know I just put a lot of faith in the the parties at the table in negotiating those various elements. I see what you're I totally see what you're saying. >> I'm thinking of it more from a recruitment and retention than a yearly basis. So you're asking me at 25 years old to sign up for a 25 30 year career. 30 years now right because we're aligning it. Yeah. And there's if the if the revenues are strong and you're doing satisfactory work and you don't ever have to promote, but because you've stayed in, you're going to get an increase subject to negotiation. But at least this has a floor. I I hear what you're saying like we have a set point but maybe the subject to negotiation language has to have some kind of like but can't fall back more than 10% some number so that you're not losing ground because in one year >> your negotiator didn't do a good job or you know on on the terms or they were too focused in on something else because then you're >> I >> the people that you're trying to retain the longest get screwed. >> You've taken two steps forward. You certainly don't want to three steps back. >> Yeah, but I understand why >> you don't want to put this number in putting putting this pool recruits either. Like if we didn't change it and then if another group doesn't come around to change it for 20 years, then you're saying, "Oh, it's $7.50." >> It's been about I mean, maybe it should be tied to a percentage of base pay or you know, whatever you come in at. I don't know. >> That feels slippery, too, because those numbers are I'm trying to think of something concrete we can actually >> attach it to. That's external >> just for a floor. >> So that $7.50 was already in the charter. >> But what was it based on? What was the the >> I mean when this was written in 1989, it was probably >> together the police department. [snorts] >> I'm just kidding. >> Oh, no. I'm thinking it was like a percentage of base pay or something and they pulled the number. >> Yeah. I'll see if Roger Randall remembers to CBI or whatever or AMI. I just think we should have a Yes, it's subject to negotiation, but I don't think >> there's no protection to go backwards on this, >> which makes me a little nervous. >> That's what we're trying to say. We just don't want to go backwards >> or leave it open to go backwards. >> Why would your union try and go backwards >> cuz maybe they're focused in on something else they're trying to get. We don't know. I don't know what the only person that's ever negotiated is >> we can't foresee what the future unions are going to be discussing or wanting. So, >> you're negotiating with them to represent, >> but we've had in recent past uh counselor where some folks have said they really went for um upper management to get increases and the guys closer to right outside of that three-year window, didn't get much. Right. So, then you get this friction. There's only so many dollars to negotiate over. It's just where the focus is. >> Yeah. >> I mean, they're trying to get the best deal possible, but they have competing priorities sometimes. The only one that's ever negotiated a contract is Jack, I think. So, I mean, maybe we just need to understand better what what is subject to full negotiation, what has kind of that like understood we're not going to go below this because the year before we already got that. I don't know. >> Everything, >> it's all on the table. No, the unions will always claim that everything that's currently in a collective bargaining agreement is are prevailing rights that that can't just be arbitrarily taken away >> that have to be negotiated. Um, yeah, I don't know what more to say. >> So, right now with the $7.50, does that have any perview over the negotiation? It cannot drop below 750. >> Right. >> Right. It's likely going to come up when it is right. >> What is it today? >> They said it's different for each union. But I don't >> higher than 750. >> Oh yes. >> Oh yeah. >> Doesn't matter. So this is immaterial. Yeah. >> The the current language is immaterial, >> right? It guarantees a minimum. But when you negotiate you it's not just let's go in and and mark it up. it's um both parties have to give notice of the provisions that they want to open for negotiation um and then if they don't open that provision then it's not subject to negotiation in their agreed upon timelines. So >> so right now if they want to negotiate on longevity they can't drop below $7.50 50, >> right? >> Even though in practice we're probably at $25 or whatever it is. >> If that language goes away, what protections do we have if they open it up? >> Jack say that was current is prevailing. >> I need the floor. >> Unless they open it and put it on. >> I just don't see a scenario that they [laughter] >> it's already it's already in their pocket like >> Yeah, I know what you're saying. There's no guarantees, >> but but to your point about >> um helping those at the early or the beginning side, >> I do if you put a floor in and we're in one of those tight budgetary scenarios, >> then I think it it ties the hands of those who are trying to maybe push a little bit more down to the the rookies versus trying to keep it all at the front end because then it says you must do this and then they may not have enough to do what they may want may have wanted to have done for the rookies to keep them employed. You like we have to go back through that scenario where fire decided to keep everybody on payroll and police made a difference. >> Yeah. They took their steps out and ever since that happened they're subject to laid off. >> Yeah. See you to the all the new all the new ones the ones with the >> seniority last in first out. >> Yeah. any anytime you you put limits in place on the top side or the bottom side just cause the the number of decisions shrinks the number of available decisions >> shrinks options is better >> makes sense >> so you raised an important point which is the necessity it's a constitutional provision that the council can't encourage death >> without a vote of the people so anything you do always has to be subject to appropriation of funds for that purpose. >> And the collective bargaining agreements do say that. I think if you get very specific about amounts in the charter, uh I would suggest we probably need to reflect that language in the charter as well. Um in terms of and and what that has a tendency to do is it probably wouldn't matter with amounts these amounts. I think these are relatively small in the context of if you're talking about something more larger then it it has the effect of displacing something else. So you know if if you provide that this is a a charter mandate that this must be provided then then you the balloon has to to give away somewhere else. So something else either um compensation or numbers of personnel. So >> it always has to fit within the funds that are appropriated. So, I think that's just something to keep in mind is if you're if you're too prescriptive about one element of a of a much larger contract, then then that fixes that in place and could have >> Yeah, it's less flexible. >> Okay. So, yeah, councelor Le. >> Okay. So, um does anybody like what's proposed? I I haven't I mean, I haven't looked at this, but if Is there is there a winner on either side of this irrespective of the more elements >> good that the cap is being raised? >> It's not. It's being eliminated. >> Eliminated >> on both options. The years of service is changing years of service. >> Well, that it's interesting to think about if we just don't make it specific. So there's more space or if we're capping years of service is kind of >> just a correction. The second option raises the >> years of service >> 20 to 30 years, >> right? >> Yeah. But with out of curiosity with the other one though, then it just makes it irregardless of years. Is that the like you continue to >> that would be negotiated >> everything be negotiated? I always negotiated. >> Yeah. >> I'd rather leave the year option. >> So, if you'll remember, the state adjusted to a 30-year retirement, right, which is what caused us to think to the 30ear. >> Yes. >> But and 32, I guess, is more to do with maybe the, you know, people are staying in careers longer if that hits is a benefit. >> For sure. >> We're keeping them longer so we're able to retain them rather than losing them, right? People don't want to give up their health insurance, >> but are we able to retain them if we take the floor out? It's pretty much like you have this thing, but it's all subject I mean, it's basically we're just saying it's all subject to negotiation. >> So, what is the >> definitely goes from 20 to 30 and option two? There's >> or option one. There's you're negotiating that part too negotiating. >> Yeah, but at least you get that 10year standard if that's what was important to those of you who brought this up. Well, I think it was non-negotiable >> by the commissioner, wasn't it? >> During a budget discussion, the third to go from 20 to 30. >> So, in the mayor council retreat, >> yes. A year ago, >> um >> we talked about >> pay or um >> she has receipts >> holding [laughter] um retaining and retention of officers um was an objective. And then um the departments went back and provided suggested action steps and one of those was to look at the longevity pay um that could be included. And so um they they did look at that. They did find that there was a charter barrier and that is how we um ended up here. Um some of those state provisions have been at 30 um for a long time. I don't I don't know the reason why this is um 20 in the charter. Um when I went back and looked um and I think uh Commissioner Roberts did this too. I think we both were doing at the same time it the state had been at 30 since the '9s. Um I went back on all the digital um or the online stuff. Um I did not go back into the books. So, um, >> so moving to 30 would align >> moving it to 30 aligns to the state where the state has been. Um, and then >> can we leave it open-ended or evergreen and just say align it to the state or we have to put a year. I think we have to have specific >> well I think the a couple options that were given is either negot you know negotiate it the longevity or you could put a specific year on the years this the side I'm talking about >> I like those specific and not negotiate >> I do too but is there a third option that would be like subject to when what if the state changes it to 35 and we have to come back and do this >> I don't think they're going to change it to >> I didn't question. >> I mean, our chief is coming up on 50 years. >> Kind of implied that >> and we just gave a 45 year. I think there's the twofold of do we have data or I'm curious with the 32 number over the 30 like do we have that like hey this >> 35 I actuarial >> yeah like what's the actual that said again I think because of economic hardship people are staying longer or like you know people are also having kids there's a lot of reasons people are staying in careers longer and that trend could continue >> part of why our officers stay longer is they need to provide healthcare to their >> yeah that's why yeah I mentioned ago well and so I that's why I wonder What's the average like you know whatever retirement number today >> but then >> because I think we asked that question like how many would fall into that. >> Yeah. There was more on police than there are too. >> Chief Baker and Chief Brooks gave us that I can't hear >> last week. [laughter] What is wrong with you? >> I definit I really cannot hear what councelor Bellis is saying and I really can't. I was saying like I was curious cuz you know there's the 30th state we have 32 as an option here. I was curious this combination of one is there this average of what we see today retirement wise which I know data was pulled but two knowing when people when there's more economic hardship one that people stay in careers longer they want to keep their health insurance longer but also people are having children later in life statistically that then pushes out your career timeline as well because you're like going to hang on pay get them through college all that stuff. So, police and police and fire would be the ones to have that data when we like kind of talked about it off the top of their heads. It didn't seem like there was a huge number in the current workforce now in 20 years. I don't know what that will be, but the current workforce that were really over that 30 year marks >> um that it would have that impact. Um, and just remember this is just >> the longevity pay. So, right, when you look at their contracts, uh, police or fire, >> there are multiple special pay provisions throughout that that can be based on certifications, it can be based on education. Um, and so we're just we're just kind of talking about one component of their overall [clears throat] salary and benefits package. So, I don't want to make it seem like you don't get a raise after some sort of time. It's this is the longevity pay [snorts] just one component and and they could come up with a new component uh next year in the negotiations that that has a we just don't know what those components will be in the future and maybe five years from now somebody comes up with a really favorable [clears throat] component >> and Chris to answer your question I think the answer was there was only like three or four officers 35 So, it wasn't relevant to it to 35. >> It's an easy sale to say we're just aligning it with the state >> because keep in mind we're going to at Charter Amen. We're going to have to educate the public >> again. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, we always do. We always do. And but Jack >> what's the downfall of keeping that seven 50 amount there just >> but increasing the 20 to 30 >> nothing say it's just kind of irrelevant at this point but >> it's been irrelevant for a while though right >> that's why I'm saying take the dollar amount and come up with a formula like we have so it's evergreen I also think going to the public and having a red line through that is going to be difficult to explain why we're taking a floor out. >> When do we have to remind me again when we have to have this finalized? >> April 1st. >> April 1. At least conceptually. Yeah. >> Yeah. So are can we bring a final to uh the meeting after spring break? >> Sure. I'm hearing different ideas though. So if there's a consensus on a floor and what that looks like um we we can reflect that however you'd like to to >> I would say to include the floor the keep the 750 and adding the 30 as a dra I mean just to to bring for further discussion. I agree to question. What is the 750 number? Do we have any idea? >> Did you get an answer from >> this was I found a little bit of information. So this was presented >> by initiative petition in 1962. >> Um >> and put into the charter at that time. It was carried over into the 1989 charter almost. So if you think of 1962 >> was pre-statehood. >> Even if you just think of what minimum wage was in 1962, this was a significantly higher. Yeah. >> So 750 came from 1962. >> Yes. That was a lot back then. >> Oh lord. >> But it must have been based on like an entry wage, I'm guessing. >> Well, it says at this point that this is a very irrelevant number. That's >> a stupid number. So why have it in there? But the no numbers >> to make sure that we don't go backwards >> and I don't think there's a good way to have like a proxy meaningful number. So >> I was gonna say if we go back to 1962 I think we all ought to run for the hills with our kids. >> We're think the $7.50 out. the fact that they thought to have a floor. >> There's a you know I know I don't think we should I just want to make sure we're not passing something that says you can have longevity pay up to 30 years in service but if for negotiation purposes it never increases because there was never required to. >> So give us the three of us the opportunity to sit down with police and fire to find out that >> I mean how do otheries handle this? >> Right. I'm guessing it's a percentage of starting pay or >> and then we can refers back to the last agreement or something. >> I I think it's would be very rare for this to be in the charter. Um but in the collective bargaining agreements, it's it's handled differently. For example, it's $450 in the fire department's collective bargaining agreement. So >> just so I just want to tell you that in 1962, minimum wage was $1.15. So when you just comparably consider the floor that they put in >> again I just think >> what I don't know in 62 is like what were the other incentives that >> you know was longevity pay the the only incentive what that's what I don't >> and there was a much bigger social safety net too for when you're like actually retired I just feel like it's just so incomparable and that there's no special proxy number we can something meaningful to which does make me kind having client number like >> it already is what what is is already in their agreements. >> They already know what that number is. >> Yeah. That's why but like it is the whole what do we actually codify. >> If you go from 20 to 30 then that is a material change. >> Yeah. >> Now no longer has to be negotiated. >> So I just got a little piece of information. Oklahoma City and other city use a percentage >> or something related to the bottom step of the pay charts times the years of service. So they actually have that plot >> charter or in their bargaining agreement. >> Yeah, that's it's two different documents. >> Okay, >> that sounds bargaining. >> They haven't I haven't been able to locate something in their charter [snorts] when when I look it's been a it's been a few weeks, but I definitely think that sounds like something that could be in their bargaining agreement. Okay. So now is there the consensus to take out the 750, take out a floor, but just keep the 30 years? We I mean we can bring back whatever options people want us to bring back. We would just need So I know there's one the to delete to do the negotiate amount and do 30. I've heard another one that says keep 750 and change to 30. And then there's another idea that's um maybe some sort of percent um related to to some number. We would just need to know what that is and then change sounds like 30 is the same in all of them. I think we've got there. >> So um part part two of that stays the same. Um, and then it it's really on that last option, a decision of [clears throat] is that something that's appropriate for the collective bargaining agreement or is that something that's appropriate for the charter? >> I don't know how I turned I don't know how I changed two options into three, but >> I think we need more information on the problem that we're trying to solve here. >> Yeah, I agree. You too. >> Okay. >> It's outside of the year is it that is >> so my god >> council bellis >> I know this meeting but no I'm just like what's the next piece of information we need to go get my thought is from like a little census of people who will be impacted >> like I just think we need to go ask some like officers directly some [clears throat] people might know some of those around here just to go hey what does that look like for you just to really understand the implications and then you know go from there and also maybe even check with like one or two newer recruits like it's like hey if this and this would that have made a difference for you recently you know joining the force I'm just like I feel like you might as well just be like this affects you what what's like >> and I wasn't rolling my eyes at you I was rolling the fact that we can't seem to come up with anything >> I just wanted you to know I think I've rolled my eyes [laughter] April 1 deadline are we voting on April 1st of the things that we're sending officially to you draft >> yes so it to draft. It doesn't have to be the final lang. >> Wait, wait, wait. >> The final does come very quickly after that. >> That's why let's get that feedback from >> Yeah. >> I think that'll give us a lot of clarity about what actually is meaningful to the people impacted by the policy change. >> Right. >> Instead of speculating wildly. >> April 15th vote on the final language. So, very quick turn. >> Good text. >> Okay. Wonderful. So, we can we have time to meet with others to do some more drafting. >> Okay. >> I think the consensus I heard there was 30ens more information >> would like a floor >> and then more information on the flooritudinal officers. >> Yep. Yep. Yep. >> Okay. Okay. [clears throat] Because I think there's confusion on collective bargaining. >> Yeah. Any other >> Jack? Any other Yeah. Well, just a reminder of the of that schedule and um that there there are some discussions occurring outside of committee and I think the faster we can get those discussions in here and start having these kinds of discussions around those better. >> Yeah, be prepared for that April 1st date. >> Are we doing another one of these next week? >> Uh we can >> like when do we bring the other things we've talked about outside of committee? >> Whenever you all >> Is that during the same agenda? Can it just Yeah, just another charter amendment agenda item. >> This is just a general item, so they're not they're not >> people could bring the other ones, too. >> Okay, maybe we can. >> How many of us are working on other charter amendments outside of this? >> Okay, >> thinking about one, but I haven't done anything. >> And Vanessa, >> well, time's up. >> The the window's closing. like control. >> So for those who are working on other amendments, charter amendments, please um start bringing those to Jack and Sarah to start working on >> and so that we well no that so that we can start bringing them to the table for discussion. >> That's where I'm trying to get to like so we have engaged process. How >> are we on track to then bring them to this table? >> I send you all an email about one. Yeah, I got it. >> That's what I'm asking. >> So, these are your provisions and your proposals. It's kind of your proposal to make to to your colleagues around this table. We're help here to help support and to help draft as you go along in the process, but it's really kind of your your proposal to make I think is negative. >> Okay. >> Could there be multiple discussions? Could there be multiple discussions on >> Yeah, because it's just an open charter amendment item. So, >> the next time we bring him here, we will put on the table what we're talking about. [clears throat] I don't feel like we have enough information to make a pitch, do you? And that's why I'm asking, are we on track? [cough] Get that information. >> All right. So, we have another meeting in three minutes, four minutes. So, everyone has >> We can It just takes us 10 minutes kind of to reset our our system. >> Okay. So, everyone come back at 2:40. Is that enough? [cough] Time to reset. >> Okay. Before we adjourn, I just want to thank everyone who's been following us today, especially those who are watching in Anchorage. [laughter] We're >> with the time difference.