[Music] work session including two budget notes and I will hand it over to Sadia uh Satar to speak to those. Yes. So uh good afternoon uh mayor and members of city council. I'm Sadia Satara with budget and management services. Um and uh welcome to your very first budget work session of June. Um as a reminder we do have a public budget hearing scheduled for tomorrow evening at 7 on June the 3rd. And then as is our practice, we continue to have budget work sessions every Monday during the month of month of June till the budget is adopted. And the first earliest uh date uh for adoption is the Monday after the public budget hearing, which would be June 9th. So with that, I'll get started. Um so mayor, we actually have not two but three uh budget notes uh that we will be presenting um as part of this budget work session um as well as some follow-ups that we received after our May 20th budget proposal. So, as a reminder to council and those watching at home, uh we did receive three budget notes from city council this year. The first included the creation of a city historian. The second related to funding opportunities for some intersections around the city of Raleigh with some safety concerns and the third being separation allowance for not just the fire department but other operating departments here in the city of Raleigh. And then as a two follow-ups from May 20th, Council Member Harrison, you had asked uh what that property tax rate would be and of course I totally blanked out in the moment. Should have known that off the top of my head, but I'm bringing it back to you this afternoon. And then of course, you also had questions regarding the demand versus the actual funding opportunities that we have for rehab um here in the city as well. So housing staff's worked on that and um happy to present that later um as well. So with that um in the interest of time I'll get us started in talking about our budget notes. Um so the first was as I mentioned um just a little while ago was related to a city historian. Um and this request was made in September of last year. In May of this year uh the city clerk provided a explanation um of this um in a city manager's update. Um and in it um I think our city clerk mentioned that there was a survey or benchmarking done with other municipalities here in the state and no jurisdiction has a position of this nature. Uh but they do have a locally provided let's say local museum program. So we do have the city museum here in the city of Raleigh. We have Moriki House. We have the Tucker House. We have lots of other opportunities here that fulfill that cultural role here for the city of Raleigh. So, it was not funded um in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2026. However, uh our park staff did some uh analyses and um told us that and the cost is uh written here for you as well that it would be about $118,000ish uh if we were to bring a um city historian on board for the upcoming budget. Again, just wanted to reiterate that it is not funded um currently in the proposal uh that we brought forward on May 20th. So, the second budget note that we received uh was a joint ask again by council members Harrison and Lambert Milton about these uh three intersections around the city um that had some safety concerns and I'm happy to report that they are budgeted through our vision u vision zero safety program as part of our capital budget um in the uh fiscal year 26 annual budget. So you will see that these three intersections and any you know con concerns as it relates to uh updates to the sidewalks you know wheelchair ramps and any um such uh uh you know improvements those are all funded for a cost of approximately $1.3 million. Um so that is included as I said. And then going on to our last uh budget note which relates to separation allowance not just for our firefighters but also for operational departments of solid waste services um emergency communications, transportation, water, parks. Um so on March the 10th when we had our second uh manager uh budget work session, we had Boomeran Consulting who did the actuarial study for us bring that information to all of you. So I'm kind of bringing it back. don't want to go a lot into detail about what a separation allowances. I've got it up here, but we've been talking about this a lot. We all know what it is, which is um it is a temporary benefit payable at retirement till the age of 62. And of course, it's calculated by looking at a individual's years of service and their final pay multiplied by 85%. So, if I was employed with the city of Raleigh for 20 years, let's say my final pay was $100,000, I'd get a temporary benefit about 17 grand a year to put it simply. So we went back and we did some work for you all because you really wanted to see us kind of show the benefit in for Rally Fire and then for the other operating departments. And this next slide shows that. So what um you will see here are two columns. The unfunded um as well as the actuarily determined. And I'm not an actuary and I'm not an accountant. So backing up to my finance folks if I've got this right. But the unfunded is the value needed to pay out all benefits that have already incurred. uh whereas the actuarily determined is the annual cost in year one necessary to reach full plan funding over a period of years and those period of years in the city is let's say 20 years right so you can see if you look at the column to your right what the cost would be for fire for ECC for solid waste services I'm not going to go down the line but you'll see there a big number here which is $9.726 million it is not included in the fiscical year 26 budget and just to reiterate this uh data was provided by our consultant looking at salary data from October of 2024. Since then we've been going through a class and comp study which we knock on wood will implement fully implement as part of this upcoming budget. So these numbers will actually will be a little smaller than what they could be. So I don't know that we'd have to probably go out again and get this work done to really figure out what that true cost would be. But if you're just kind of looking at the numbers of the 9.726 about 48% of that is for Raleigh Fire. So those were our budget notes. Yes, ma'am. Can you help me understand um with the total cost of implementation being at 9.7 million? Did you just say that 40% of that would be for the 48% of that? So 4.6 million is 48% of 9.7 is what 4.6 million is how much would actually be what is the other money for? There's it's for the other operating departments that you see in the chart. That's what I meant. Okay. Got it. Yes. Okay. So, those that wraps up your budget notes. Um, so let's go into some follow-up. So, the first being what would that property tax rate be, right? And again, feel really silly that I didn't know this off the top of my head, but the median home value, assessed value I would say for a home in the city of Raleigh is actually the same as what we used last year. Wake County hasn't updated these values yet. They update them in July when they send out property tax bills. So, we're just basing it what it was last year, which was 391,495. Our tax rate is the same as it was last year, which is 35.5 cents for a property tax rate uh at a median value assessed home of $1,390. Now, this is just the property tax. Remember that we also charge our residents fees, water, storm water, uh as well as solid waste services. So with those combined um as it is right now it's about $1,479 overall looking at taxes and fees altogether. And then the second followup that we had for city council after the May 20th and again council member Harrison you had this question uh regarding the demand for affordable rental development gap financing here in the city of Raleigh. So, thanks to our folks in housing and neighborhoods uh for providing this information, but we have about $17 million available um for rental development gap financing. We receive about $55.5 million in requests. So, of course, big gap there. So, what housing was able to provide was funding to six development projects, which led to funding 670 units, but unfortunately about 11 projects or about 1,335 units remain unfunded. So again, hence the word gap financing. And just to check that 55.5 million, that's what we got for fiscal year 25 requests or Yes. Yes. Thank you. Sorry, apologies for the typo there. Yes. And also, the only way to get close to covering that 55.5 is either through a property tax increase or a bond. Is that correct? That would that would be correct. I'm looking at my Okay. Housing and finance folks. Yes. So, I know that was a lot thrown all at all of you, but that kind of wraps up my presentation. And with that, I we've got our folks here in the assistance uh the city manager's office as well as finance to answer any questions you may have. Just one more question on that last slide. So, you have 11 projects that remain unfunded. Does that mean those will come back to us or that's just the full number that we couldn't fund? So, I'm gonna have Emily Sutton, housing and neighborhoods director, answer that question. Thank you. Thank you, Emily Sutton, housing and neighborhoods. So, that is the number. Um, right. So, it's they're scored. So, these are competitive application process. So, these are the 11 that did not score high enough to achieve the funding, the limited funding that we did have. Um, I would imagine they could come back. Sometimes they do come back. Um, we don't know that for sure. So 17 total projects were proposed, six funded, 11 not. Yes. Thank you. Other questions? Yeah, go ahead. I don't have a question, but I'd like to just start conversation because I think that's where we are right now. Um, I'd like to start with separation allowance and talking about our thoughts on that. So, I'd like to lay mine out just so everyone hears it. Um, first of all, I want to give city staff a really big applause and thank you for implementing or uh proposing to implement the full pay study. I think that was a lot of work and um without doing a pay or without doing a tax increase like your magicians and and I really really appreciate your work for that. So, really what this does is it puts it on us. It puts it on all right, how are we going to fund any of these? Um, starting with afford or not affordable rental development for the separation allowance. I am very interested in hearing the thoughts on a tax increase because staff has let this so that we are not taxing our residents. Right now, we've heard from hundreds of people through our emails. Uh, I've heard it through my uh public meetings at how crucial this benefit would be for our our firefighters, which then in the future could extend to to future things. I was thinking of uh starting a penny for public safety. I think that that can encompass more than just fire. I think the 4.6 million for fire. We've heard stuff from police about, you know, uh other requests in in increasing their salaries and and so I'm just wondering what are your guys' thoughts on potential tax increases because I would be in support of something as much as a penny for public safety. Anybody want to weigh in? I mean, what I'll say is if I'm looking at the tax part right now, we have 11 homes of individuals that need to be rehabbed that we don't have funding for. Um, you know, to me, trying to tackle that as we talk about housing because if those individuals homes come in disrepair, then they're out. And now they're dealing with the unhoused population. in this situation we're trying to address. Um, I do believe that we have to look at all of our employees and try to figure out, you know, what we can do to to help and incentivize and show them that we care. Um, I hope the 11% this year is a step in that direction. Um, and I want to thank staff for giving us a budget that we're able to do that without raising taxes because we also have to think about those that just they're they're struggling right now based on their jobs, not knowing what the federal government's going to do, not knowing what the state government's going to do. How do we make sure that we give some certainty? And I think the budget that was presented addresses that at this moment. Yeah. from I'm sorry. The only other thing I was going to say too is that I think our counterparts at the county are about to um adopt your budget which will in include a tax increase for uh all citizens of Wake County uh which is not very popular at the moment. Um so that is something else that we have to give consideration to. It wouldn't just be um a tax increase for the city of Raleigh, but it would be on top of a tax increase that the Wake County um commissioners are about to adopt probably in the next hour and a half. When we started this budget process, I think there was a goal. We all agreed that there would be no tax increase. Uh so I'm believe in that goal and support that goal for all the reasons council member Branch stated uh and now even adding to that what Wake County commissioners uh may do. So I do believe we communicate at least you know that was my understanding that uh as we start these conversations uh based upon what happened last year the city manager stated that as we're moving forward there would be no tax increase. So, I would not support a tax increase. Just want to add a couple thoughts. I was actually speaking with another council member before this meeting. Um, and they also reminded me that the city manager's office requests that each department constrict their budgets to avoid a property tax increase. And so, if we were to implement one now, um, how does that affect these departments that we ask to go without certain things or to cut certain things? That said, um I was interested in seeing, you know, how this um the this compensation study, the funds that we allocated towards it, the 33 million or how it's being allocated to each department and what capacity we may have in existing budgets to be providing varying different types of benefits, whether that's pay or separation or something else. So, one of the things I had asked and it's in this document is for that data and I just got it when I sat down today and so I need to look through this. I also think it'd be really helpful for the public to have this information. Can this go in the manager's update this week or something or post it somewhere? I I don't know. But there's a ton of all the data that I was going to ask for today. Um it's on pages four, five. So I need time to d to digest this and have conversations and I think the public would benefit from seeing it too. So if it could go in the manager's update, I think that would be helpful. Sure. Okay. Yeah, councelor Harrison. Yeah, I do believe that I asked the same question that council member Melton asked and so this was to look at the uh salary increase for firefighters and it looks like the total um is 6 some million and change. So all of the increases is what will go to firefighters and the cost of this program the separation allowance um at least as is 4.7 million. It might be more with the salary increase. So if you took that 6 million and let's say we go out to five for separation pay, there would only be a million left for salary increase if we were trying to keep the property tax the same. So I just want to put that out there. I don't know what percentage increase that would mean. Um but that is the trade-off if we want to keep property taxes as is. Do you want to say? Yeah, I think so. I want to be clear. I called the budget note for this um benefit years ago. Uh I'm still in support of it. I continue to to like agree with the philosophy that different departments need different benefits based on the challenges that they face and this one's been a clear um benefit that that these workers have been advocating for. Um so I think my for me the the best option is to take this available funds from the uh compensation study the six million and change and cream off however much is needed to fund separation allowance and then the remainder be applied to to salary increases. I think that's the best path forward. Um, yeah, I am also sensitive to the idea that we asked all the other departments to really pinch their pennies together uh because we didn't want a tax increase. And so to say we're open to one now, it uh feels challenging. However, it does appear that in this document that to fund separation allowance through a tax increase would be uh like less less than a penny. So, if that were the only path forward, I could support that. Um, also in this document are is information about the other postretirement benefits like uh the 557, the 401k. And so, if there's no path forward for separation allowance, then I I would propose we look at opportunities for policy changes here that give people access to their own money earlier where appropriate. Mayor Prom. Well, in looking at this document too, um I think on page five, it indicates that the 11% salary increase would be about $700 a month before taxes for the average firefighter based on what we've got budgeted now. Um so I guess folks have to make a decision if they want to trade off on getting $700 now versus a reduced amount for separation allowance later in the future. Let me I'm just going to weigh in. I appreciate your question and I'm just going to roll back a little bit that I appreciate that we did a study on this because when we were campaigning I think a lot of folks said we had never really analyzed this. We hadn't done the actuarials. We hadn't done the study and we hadn't had an honest look at it. And um I think we have done that. Um, one of the most important things for me was understanding the mortality tables. Um, you know, in the statistical analysis that we got back, um, I know there's a lot of, um, workplace challenges for all different departments. I mean, there was no difference in the mortality tables for public safety than there were general public employees. And that was something I was looking at because I wanted to see was there statistically valid right differential in I mean not to be morbid but the death rate right and there wasn't. So to me it is hard to justify this. The other thing is we're talking about a budget a one-year budget tax rates all that is incredibly important. But the other thing that's important is the liability. This is an other postemployment liability. Um, as y'all know, I spent almost a decade of my life trying to manage these liabilities at the state level and small decisions at these councils back in the 80s. Somebody said free healthc care for all employees and we had a $30 billion unfunded liability. The city has a almost $300 million liability. Um, it is extremely I mean this is fundamentally different than a one-year salary. This is debt that's on your books. It is an obligation that taxpayers will pay. I mean it. So it is pretty different and nothing to take lightly. I just you know to me we've already got whatever uh 200 $360 million of unfunded liabilities on our books. That has not affected our bond rating to date. I'm not suggesting that a $32 million additional liability would necessarily affect the bond rating. But it is to me if there's not a difference in the mortality tables, I just can't justify a $32 million liability for five, you know, 500 600 employees when there's no evidence of much earlier deceased rate. So, I mean, for me, I'm not willing to do the sort of herculean efforts um based on those statistics. I just want to add two thoughts. Um, last year we did a very high uh tax increase in addition to Wake County doing a tax increase. And I don't and maybe my my memory is wrong, but I don't remember us having these same conversations of the concern and how we shouldn't because Wake County was doing it as well and we knew they were doing the reassessment at the same time. So, while I understand and I hear the point, I I also wish we had taken this into consideration last year because we wouldn't have gotten as much kick kickback as we did from the community as justifiably so. So, um I'm not saying anything is fundamentally wrong in that, but I just wish that our conversations had been this deep last time. Um, and then to the second point in in talking about using it as part of their their salary increase that they've received for me to I think there there's a level of here's option A, option B, option C. And if that is the level that we want to go, I would need to see some sort of survey of staff uh in fire in the fire department who would be okay because I know that we've we've received some information that said that they were at 57% were in favor of separation allowance, but that was when it was going to be baked into the budget after we've already shown that we're going to do an 11% increase in their pay. If we're now going to backtrack that to say, "Oh, we're going to do separation allowance." So, we do it and lower your pay. I would want another study or not study, but another survey going out to see that that would be representative of the majority of staff before I would support that aspect of it. So, those are my thoughts. I feel the same way what Council Member Jones just stated. Uh, this is new information, so thank you, Council Member Lambert Melton, for bringing it up. You know, looking at this one, I'm assuming it's all or nothing. you can start to parse it out. So that there were those I think you said 57% but now knowing that and this is foregoing the salary increase for I don't know what the period of time is but you know that is a very difficult trade-off for some. I don't know of all the personnel how many feel that way to fund the separation allowance. So I know the timing. This is a budget note. We have to move forward. But this is new information and I don't know how we get to that answer. But that is a very very tough question to poll all personnel to find out what is their preference. Not only that they could be out of on average about $700 a month uh before taxes, which I'm sure also affects long-term their their pension. Yep. I don't know if it's possible to get this by the next budget work session next week, which I will not be at, but um like I said, I just got this when I sat down and so I'm trying to read through it, but what council Harrison was pointing out is that if if the total allocation to fire in these adjustments is 6 million and it's a pin that separation allowance would cost 4.7, what if If if from the six million the 4.7 was deducted that difference what percent increase is that to their salary instead? So like if there's six million minus 4.7 is like 1.3 million what percent salary increase is that? I guess I mean I can't do math so I'm just putting that out there. If we could get that for the next because I do think it's important for folks to understand what the trade-offs are and to have all the data. It's just hard because I just got this but um so that would be helpful to have. And then I have a question about the unfunded liability uh part of it. So that is considered an unfunded liability until it is until the 20-year um period of paying in is fully accumulated. So even if each year there's money set aside towards the total liability, it's not considered funded until the account has sort of built up to the to the full. Is that is that how that is? I'm I'm assuming that's how it works. Yes. Okay. Let Ryan um Ryan speak to that. Yeah. So, so that is how it works in that every year just like a pension system you'll have a funded status. So, if we were trying to fund this actuarially, we we're doing two things. We're paying the normal cost which is every new year that an employee acrews because that adds to the eventual benefit, but we're also trying to pay down that liability which is when you turn it on all of the years of service that have already been acred. So you take that um that 32 million and there's a plan to pay it back over 20 years. Yeah, I understand that. So if everything goes correctly and the the rate of return on investments is exactly what you expected, salary increases, inflation are exactly what you expected, city contributes each year, you would get to 100% funded on that. But every year that that's going on, you are taking additional risk um like the mayor was talking about of investment returns not materializing or salary increases for employees much bigger than expected and those would add to the liability which is why you have all these pension systems throughout the country including North Carolina's that have been around for many many many years and there's uh a a vast percentage of them are not 100% funded. No, I I understand that. I'm trying to see if maybe if I asked a different way, but so it's considered unfunded because we don't have all the money sitting there right now. So even if the budget is allocating the portion to be paid each year plus the portion to be adding paying down the liability, it is still considered unfunded until it is fully accumulated. Correct. All of all of the service that has occurred up to now is what's essentially unfunded. But getting back to council member Jones's point and also the point Ryan just made, one of the challenges we have is that there's so much market uncertainty. Um, so we don't necessarily know between now and the end of the year what's going to happen, let alone what's going to happen over an extended period of time. So to have something in place that's going to be based on investments and all other types of things that we really cannot control is going to be could possibly be a challenge in of itself as well. Councelor Jones and councelor Harrison. With all that, what about the uh the possibility of doing the payo? Would that change anything? How tell me how that would work and the interest in that like we've done for police until 2023. Go ahead. I'm gonna take that one. Good afternoon, Jennifer Stevens in finance. Um so PGO is always an option. However, the city currently funds all of our long-term liabilities through the actuarial method by just what Ryan said. We set aside the money for the liability plus the money that's going to be paid out every year. So, it's highly recommended that we would fund any new benefit using a actuarial funding status and not a pay as you go method. And just to confirm the until 2023, we were funding our separation allowance for police through pay. We have always been funding that actuarily. Now, what we did do was set up a trust and officially put money into a trust. Prior to that, we were setting it aside into a city bank account, but we were still using an actuarial funded report every year to to fund those liabilities. Understood. Yeah. I just want to say my at least back of the napkin numbers. Um, if we were to use the salary increase for firefighters for this benefit, then that would take us from $700 a month for the average firefighter to about just over $100 a month is what they would get. So, I could be wrong, but that's what I came up with. Um, and so to me, it's kind of a recruitment versus a retention conversation, which I think is what has been brought up here. I know different folks at different times in their careers are going to have those needs or feel like this is what I want or don't want. So that is something I really need to understand better from employees directly before being able to make a decision on this. So I'm not prepared to make one today. Um I also just wanted to add that you know I am somewhat concerned about adding the liability over time because I do know pretty much everything we do costs are going up. So transportation projects they're costing more and more. um housing. I mean, if you look at our affordable housing numbers, the number of projects that we're projected to be able to support in from years to come is nothing like we've been able to do in just the last 5 years because of the cost. So, when I know that there's 11 projects that weren't funded, which is 1335, 1,335 homes that we could not build, I just think about again trade-offs. When I'm think about the budget, it's it's bigger than one particular department. Yeah. Um, councelor Lambert Melton and then um, well, just to add more fuzzy math, I think I did it and I think it's a 2.5% salary increase if we use the remainder, but could you just math or fact check that before the next budget works? That's kind of where we Okay, we'd be happy to get that for you, council member. And then I had something else I was going to add. No, I forgot. Um, it may come to me. Yeah, I was just going to say, so it sounds like in order to give everyone the information they feel like they need to make this decision, what what we would need to understand is the the percent increase salary increase that would be accomplished for fire if we used their if we used their bucket, creamed off the separation allowance, and used the remainder for a salary increase, what would that percent be? And then what would that translate to in the sort of average um monthly salary? And then as a second item, we it sounds like a a flash poll of fire firefighters uh offered by the city to kind of assess do what matters to you most immediate wages in the near term or uh future planning benefits in the farther out term. Sounds like those are the two kind of pieces people need to be able to inform their decision. So I think and it sounds like we'll need them by the next budget work session. And and madame mayor I think is also we have to decide if we're saying we're not we're going to forgo the salary piece for this year to fund this year. We need to figure out okay what about year two, three and four. We're going to have to make that those decisions of the outgoing years. We would need to make those decisions as well. give staff the finance department the proper direction on any funding mechanism. I'm a little confused about that. Can I add? So I think what the if if I'm correct, if we were if you guys were to vote to implement this allowance right now and forego the um salary increase. In essence, where we're going to be next year is out of market. So is the next conversation then going to be generated for FY27? Is they're so far behind the market? are we going to have to do something to address fire pay to get them in market because we're now part of a fully funded market um pay administration program. So it's not a eitheror. It's a both end for us on the payroll and the finance side because if we're truly buying in and supporting the comprehensive market system, then to do this one action this year means next year if they only get two and a half% they're behind the rest of the market. and conceivably staff will also move next year. So that just exacerbates how far in and of itself will be behind the market. So then we're going to be at the table again trying to make a decision about fire pay. Also, I think the other piece of this so we can get some direction about um followup for the ninth. You've only talked about fire. Mayor Pro Tim Fort asked about these other departments and that was part of the um actuarial study as well. So what do you want us to do about that? Do you want us to do the same thing for those departments or just um we just need some direction? Can I just can I add something because I've been sort of part of these conversations. Um as far as I'm concerned, I think the other departments are moving forward with their with their salary adjustments. So whether that's 9% 11% whatever. Um we haven't heard anybody from the other departments come down here and say we want separation allowance too. So they're getting their increases. The conversation we're having is if there's not appetite for a property tax increase, is there another way to accomplish this from the existing fire budget, which would then be just shrink. They're going to get the same pool of money in this budget, but instead of it going to raises like everybody else, it would the discussion we're having is can it go here? And so my opinion is is every other department continues with their raises as as planned. Um I remember what my other thought was this flash pole idea. I don't know if that's feasible, but when we had the chief talk to us, he did say, you know, some of my younger guys, they want the money now. Some of the the veterans, they would prefer the more retirement planning type benefit. And so, I don't know how you quantify that. I don't think it's going to be a perfect quantification, but it could be helpful to understand how much of what. But, as far as I'm concerned, the other two budget notes, um, I think one I asked for the the, um, historian, I'm fine leaving that out this year. Um, and then as far as in my opinion, the allowance for the other departments, we're proceeding with just their regular rate with their raises. I would like to say some of the departments I know I've heard from and and Mayor Promp has heard from. The only reason why they haven't been contacting everyone else, they wanted to see what was going to happen with this. So, I trust me, if you want to hear from them, we can change that probably in the next 20 minutes. I guess I just I just want to reiterate I think again that this one-year tradeoff I get how we're doing the math right we were going to give this big pay increase let's swap it but next year we'll have a 4.7 million obligation for fire and the next year if we add any fire it's probably going to be over five and the next year it's going to be five to six million right all those years you're going to have this commitment this is for in this is in perpetuity so we're probably not given an 11% % increase next year and then as the city manager is saying we're not going to pay a market so we're going to have trouble recruiting everybody there is going to leave but I mean it's just it creates a lot of uh challenges because this is not just this year we're talking about it's in perpetuity and also if we're going to do the survey or the poll I would recommend that HR does it so that it's completely impartial that it's not you put out there by an employee group that is done by HR. Okay. I just want to add that I think that's why we're having the discussion and so a lot of this information, you know, we've waited for the budget, we got it. A lot of this in this packet and needs to be digested, but having these conversations about what happens next year, what happens with the um the unfunded liability um that's we need to be able to make a informed decision. So, we've got a little bit of time, but I think that hopefully this gives enough direction. Um, and I personally have a better understanding about kind of where everybody's thoughts are on this. Yes. And I'll say just to make clear, yes, they my request, and I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear, would be for staff to do it just because the last one we got was from the union and and that's fantastic, but I want to do the other side. So, we have So, I totally agree that it should, if possible, um, I'd really like it to be staffed directed. Um, so it hits all of all of the the fire department. Um, I had another thought, but I just lost it. So, I'm gonna come back. And we didn't kind of get just not to hear y'all up, but for us, for the highest and best use of our time, Lambert Milton said, "Not the other operating departments." Mayor Prom Fort who made the separation allowance budget note request for the operating department says different. Council member Branch says different like we need guidance because we don't want to come back because then ultimately on the 9th when it comes back if those departments who we hear from on a regular basis are not represented and are at least not discussed then we've got to deal with the fallout from that from an HR and a payroll perspective. Trust and believe. So if if either we're going to do all or nothing or whatever y'all if if not just give us some clear direction so that we'll know we got direction at the table so it's not that we we looked at one group and not everybody else cuz those operating departments are watching. They may not be in the chamber but they're watching right now as well. I concur. That was what I was going to say. Thank you for saving my voice. It's hard not to do one and not all. I mean, some may be pausing because they're hearing that if they wanted to participate in separation allowance, that may mean they have to forego a majority of their increase. So, they may say, "I'm out." But then if you don't ask, they say, "Why didn't you ask?" So, I think we're in a hot hard spot that you just may have to however you can do a survey to poll everyone. I think it would it's better to air on the side of caution and just reach out. I don't know how quickly and nimble HR can do that, but I think it'd give you the best response. If you don't do it, they'll say you didn't and then it'll be more difficult next year when there is no huge salary adjustment and it'd be a non-starter. So, I think it's either now or never. I mean, that's just my feeling, but I know it's a heavy lift within a week to get HR to put up a survey instrument unless it's just a very quick two or three questions. Uh, so that's kind of my take. We'll try our very best. And I think just to respond to some of the questions about the timing, um we got these questions on Thursday and Friday of last week. So staff really worked all weekend long pulling the data, pulling the numbers, running the numbers, and so we were on calls yesterday, um trying to get this information to you guys today. So it wasn't that we sat on it for a week. We just got many of these questions on Thursday and Friday of last week. No, I I think that's helpful. I wasn't insinuating that you held it. I'm just trying to say for the public, I'm I don't think anyone's prepared to be making any decisions. We need to process like we we just got it. You all just got the questions. You got it to us as quickly as you could. Yeah. Okay. Are there other Do you all have Oh, go ahead. Um, I was just going to say for my part, we apprec we love and appreciate the work and service of all our city employees also and also understand that different jobs have different hazards and different needs and so things like line of duty deaths are different in these various departments. Uh, risks of cancer are different in these different departments. So for my part, I think the flash poll is appropriate for fire. the discussion is appropriate to continue around separation allowance for fire and for these other departments to proceed with the the raises as as previously posited. Just one question that when the mortality tables don't show those distinctions, I mean the public employee mortality tables that we received as part of the study do not bear that out. So, I mean, I'm just curious to hear from y'all because I that was my biggest if there is a statistically proven earlier deceased and these folks are not even making it to retirement, I would think that's a really compelling reason to do this. But the statistics did not show that. And then it just becomes why would why are we differentiating between departments? I agree. I think when we were given the follow-up questions, what I read in the followup from the actuary was that they said they didn't use mortality tables because this benefit ends at 62 at that. So maybe there's a it was in the April 6 schedule B where you can see the deceased rates and they took all of public safety and they took all of general employment. it might be worth just if if you think that's you know a relevant fact I would just you know we talked about Megan I was trying to get back to those tables um I didn't see I mean there was no distinction I can reference that just to give a little more context so these are are of course not the city of Raleigh's tables uh Boomershine what they provided with us is what they use which are mortality tables from the society of actuaries and the retirement plans experience committee. So these are public pension plans throughout the country and they're giving us the actual experience. Um so what was provided in April, it's essentially each age that a male and a female in public safety or general um uh basically their probability of mortality in that specific year. Um and as the mayor mentioned, it did show um very little difference between the two um especially in the males. Uh it should be noted this is not measuring the profession of the employee. This is just mortality in general. Is there other anything else other motions on the other? We haven't talked about the historian. Yeah, my name was on historian. No action needed. No motion that no motion needs to be taken because there's no action to take. Okay. All right. Was there a third one? What was the third one? The separation allowance is the third. The second one was transportation then. Yeah. No. And I think I joined on the historian one. I'm fine with no action on that. Okay. Okay. I think we have our marching orders. All right. Thank you. Okay. Well, if there's no other business, we are adjourned. Thank you. [Music] [Music] Hello. Hey. Hey. [Music] Hey,