Good evening and welcome to the board of commissioners budget workshop meeting number three. Today is Wednesday, May the 28th, 2025. It is 400 p.m. City clerk, would you call the role, please? Mayor Brooks, here. Vice Mayor Kerr
here. Commissioner Tagarini. Commissioner McGee here. Commissioner Gavayi here. Let the record show that Commissioner Tagarini is not present during roll
call. There is no public in attendance for public comment. So we will move right into discussion items. Fiscal year 2026 budget workshop 3 deliverable. Thank you, mayor. So, purpose of this workshop,
workshop number three, our last two have been focused more on just some more historical results, evaluating what our reserves may and could be as of the beginning of this next fiscal year to kind of prep you for what's to come, as well as also providing you with some
detail of our uh initial inputs on the multi-year capital improvement plan. So, we focused on the those those first two workshops, hitting on those items in March and April. I gave you in April a a little overview on 2025 personnel
information u based on our current roster year-to- date plus vacant positions that we had budgeted in FY25. I'm repeating that information in here uh for comparative purposes but the really the the core purpose of workshop today is to provide
you information on the personnel of the city of Madira Beach. So all our people the salaries cost the the headcount of FTEES by department and all the related benefits and the cost of those benefits um for each of the employees within the
city. I will as we open there have been there's been one change to a department uh through my interactions with uh Jenny Silver your community development director uh she uh noted some two positions that I were in there that
we've subsequently eliminated but that didn't get reflect in your packet. It will for next month's workshop. When we get to that page I'll show you what those changes are. Otherwise, uh what you see here are are those uh requests for positions for next year and not a
whole lot of changes uh from this year to next year. I think the two big ones are in fire EMS and in building services. And again, I mentioned building services. We are cutting back a couple positions. Uh and then fire will be the opening of the new fire station. So, anticipation of uh employing um
firefighter and EMS personnel uh for um for that opening. So, let's go through it and we'll just hit it kind of section by section, address any questions you have along the way. We've got department head representatives here to discuss if you have any questions on any particular
positions. Good plan. Otherwise, this should be a pretty quick one. And then the next months, possibly by next month, we'll have a complete depiction of the budget. We already have capital. We're going through um personnel now. So then
really all that's left is operating expenses and estimates of revenue. Um so we'll hit that for the uh for the June workshop, putting all that together. And then July, August will just be some clean up and kind of really putting together the entire budget
book. And you're done with me. How nice. You can always find me. That's right. I'm not going anywhere. I'm sitting here. All right. So, just on the what with the the agenda, we'll have the personnel listing cost by department for FY25. I'm going to repeat this information. I've already
presented to you in the previous workshop as I mentioned. Then, let's look at what it's going to what it's projected to look like in 26 on the personnel cost and the FTEES. then our uh our benefits for 2026.
Um and I give a listing of each of those benefits, what they are, how to calculate them, and then what the the cost implic uh on each department. And then the last piece will just be a proposed midyear budget amendment. And I know we're a little past midyear, but wanted to get
this in and then potentially for the next regular meeting, we can pass that via resolution, but wanted to use this time to propose a lot of its storm related items. We'll just go through what that proposed mid-year budget amendment is. Um, and if you recall,
throughout the year, departments can can perform what's called budget transfers. This is within their department. they have X dollars, you know, $950,000 to spend in their department between personnel operating capital. You approve that in the adoption of the
FY2025 budget. But then in some cases, they're overspending on office supplies, but maybe under spending on maintenance, so they can move money between line items within their department. But if they ever need to increase their budget for their department uh according to our our um code of ordinances that has that
is needs to be recognized in the form of an amendment that needs commission approval that's allowable through a resolution. So that's what's going to be coming to you um in um in the next regular meeting for approval in the form of resolution but wanted to get that out to you in this workshop so you can
review it and get comfortable with it in in in advance of that resolution. So just looking at number one first the uh personnel listing and cost by department. So first page here is just our FTE count for 2025. This is based on
actual positions and then and some are are um active vacant positions that we're trying to fill um but that that do remain vacant. But this is what the current roster looks like uh detailed. And again, I've already presented this
information to you all, and that's where we're at here in 2025. And then on just scrolling down, next is our projected salaries, taxes, and benefits. So, just looking at what those pay rates are, um, times hours,
there's your salaries and wages, and then all the different benefits, both social security, Medicare, and then our different, uh, uh, health insurance, medical, dental, um, long-term disability, life insurance, workers comp, and then our
retirement for the 401A, the ICMA plan, and FRS. So what all those costs look like uh on a department by department basis for the current fiscal year 2025 projecting through the end of the year. So we're at about 7.7 million um looking
like um of actual costs. Can I ask a question? Yes. So, in our last meeting, we talked about all of these and Robin and I talked about it this week that for I think it's difficult for the commission
to understand where all these people fit in. Could we get a list that breaks out who works in the city manager department? not not persons, but for example, I know that in the Archabald
fund, at least one maybe two of those people that are in the Archabald fund actually work in the recck department. So, I'd like to see how many people work in the recck department. How many are part-time? How many are full-time? How many people work in public works? Are
they full-time or part-time? How many people work in the permit and planning department? because they get all divided up and you have um like the public works director is listed under storm water at a third right you know what I'm saying
so that we can understand each department has this many employees so it takes you know eight people to run recreation and four people to run public works or those are not factual numbers but to give a a better
perspective effective. That's my opinion. Maybe if the some other commissioners No. Um, you know, to to to speak to that. Um, I'd like a better understanding of the building department, but this is not
your Bailey Whitney. Basically, it would be more for Jenny or Robin or someone to be able to def define. Robin can't be here at this meeting, but he he understand he's going to be here at the next one. Um, and as as much
for moving forward into the reconstruction of our city, uh, to see where we might be able to outsource or need more people, but it all goes into the budget because whether we're outsourcing or
need more people for the for the new build that's coming up. I mean, I I feel like we're um it's a snowball and we're starting we're just starting at the top of this mountain to to gain momentum on elevating homes and
rebuilding homes and inspecting homes and as they're going through the construction process and how's that all going to impact the whole entire budget? Um but to the um what this mayor is requesting it it
sure would be nice to have a better understanding of how administration works. So I would support that. Um but I'm but right now I mean my urgency is more on the building and we're going to we have that in the next meeting and we'll probably go through that. So, I
don't know that I'm really asking you for an answer on it per se or Jenny, but before the end of the night, whether it's this meeting or the next, I'd like to have a better understanding of where we are, what our demands are, and you know, what what do we have now? You
know, historically, have we always had 8.75 in building or, you know, are we going to need 15 for the next three years? I don't know. I just want to want to are we going to outsource some of that. Um so I don't want to get off
track with budget but I would like a better understanding of of where they where they fit in review versus inspection versus you know that sort of thing administrative. We'll go through that more in the next meeting. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Now, for the next meeting, I
know that we have the um payroll study that's coming to us, and Robin's not here to speak to it. I had asked him about that this week because talking about a budgeted payroll currently seems like we're putting the cart before the horse when we have a
whole study that we've been waiting on for almost a year to see where we need to adjust payroll. And that's going to it could dramatically change some of our budgetary dollars if we have people who
are underpaid which or Right. Agreed. So that right I mean we've been waiting almost a year for that study. It's kind of crazy but that's not that's not your fault but um so I think it he's Andrew has broad
shoulders coming. Yeah I know. I know. I believe we are supposed to get that study. They are supposed to be here in June some at one of the um I would imagine the workshop they will be at but we'll have the budget workshop prior to their
presentation. So then come the next workshop that could all be that's all going to adjust again then presumably. So speaking strictly from a budgetary standpoint, yes, we have some initial results on the pay study, the intention
is that will be fully implemented by October 1st of the new fiscal year, which will include right sizing certain pay rates of various employees depending on um their their level, right? Where they come out on the pace in the in the
pay study. We're already presenting you with uh personnel budget results right now with numbers. So what I can also do in a future workshop when those pay rates are more accurately determined, I
can tell you what that the impact is of fully implementing the pay study. Um and here's the changes and here's what that total cost is to the city, right? Is it a couple hundred,000? Is it a lot more than that? So, I will be very forthcoming with that information once
we go through that once we once we implement it. Right. So, and that that's that's coming. I've already had some initial discussions with the city manager on that and what what changes pay rate changes we'll be enacting. That's not reflected here. Okay. Um but rest assured, yes, that is the full
intention is to be live post pay study with the new rates by that that 101 date. and you'll know, okay, yeah, here's the impact of the pay study on what the rates were currently and what we initially budgeted, which is great. That's why we have these dollars in here
now, so you can understand what that delta is um in relation to the the pay study. Go for you're saying the preview of the pay study does is not reflected in the proposed budget for 2026. Currently in this with the data
you have here in this workshop, the pay rates that we used for all of our act current and then desired future vacant positions are based on their current rates of pay. And we know those pay rates are going to change by several
things. One is going to be a cola increase, one will be a merit increase, and one will be the effects of a pay study which may or may not affect your pay rate depending on where you came out in relation to that study. Um but if it did then that would increase your your pay rate as well. So I will give you
what the the just that impact is of the movement of pay rates uh from the from the study. Thank you. And then mayor miss uh to address your request and I can put this in the next
workshop. Perhaps you're looking for more of a like a roster like give me employ like for recreation just tell me the position title the name of the employee or if it's vacant and then the percentage that they're allocated to
department would that be helpful for more detail helpful I don't necessarily need the name of the employee but what I think would be helpful would be to understand each department and how many employees they have and what is their title That would be I don't know that to
me the name doesn't matter of who the employee is. If the commission wants that that would be um but I I do think that it gives you some perspective of understanding like I said Archeald has has positions that really belong to
other departments. We don't have four employees that work over at Archeald. They just get paid out of that fund. So what are they doing and where are they doing it at? Does that make sense? I think we need to keep the names names out of it. Yeah. I
don't want I Their names don't matter. Just the um understanding the department. But if you have employee 10 whatever and they're allocated 30% here and 30% there and 40% over here, okay, we have so many
employees that are just kind of But the reason I'm asking for that is because that's not actually how it is. So they're divided up into 30 3030 30 but like Megan is divided up into 30 3030 30 but she's 100% our public works director but but she's funded by different it's
funded differently so I don't maybe this is a better way to say it I don't really care where the funds are coming from to pay the people I want to know how many people we have working in each department in the city and Archabald fund is not a department recreation is a department
fire is a department works is a department planning and zoning and permitting as a department. The only question I would have is how would that make us make different decisions? So, I have to figure that out in my head.
Yeah, we don't I don't want to create work just to create work, but I I want to I don't think it would be difficult for that to be put pinned to paper for you to for us to be able to see. Um, I mean, like I'm using recreation as an example, but I know how many people are
in recreation and I know what each each role title is. And I know that because I asked Jay one day and he told me and I wrote down all the different positions that work for recreation and which ones are part-time, which ones are full-time. To me, what it allows us to do is look
at and understand the workload of what they have and whether or not they do need one of those part-time people to be full-time or whether or not they Right. That's I think it gives gives a better perspective of understanding what each
department has going on. That's all I ask is I'm trying to figure out what the endgame Yep. I think you and I will both get what we want. Okay. Thank you, AJ. Um in the in the budget packet that we have online, there's page 13, 14, and 15. I'm not sure if you guys have that pulled up.
It's similar to what you're asking for, but it is still broken up in Archabald and different um Yeah. If you keep going right there. Yeah. Yeah. You have a lot of it's broken down like that. But like Archabalt's the first one which you
gave example of and I understand I know what you're talking about. We went through that exercise years ago in the budget uh committee when we discussed it. But something similar to this is what we're So Robin and I talked about it today, but it is something and we looked at this. So it is something or yesterday I'm sorry not today. It is
something similar to that Jay but much more refined. Yeah. Right. I mean a first question I don't want to beat a dead horse but we do need to keep Ed here for two hours. So um um recreation leader three a full-time
position under Archabal. I can't imagine that there's anyone in rec W recck department as that needs to dedicate a full full-time position at Archbald or and correct me to give you an idea kind of where that funding came from. You I
don't remember what year it was, but the idea was that there was a resolution that any additional funding inside of the Archwald fund through of the parking funds could be dedicated for parks and recreation activities. Y so in an effort to not pull money from the general fund
positions my department and other department were taken put there as they were allowed to and it it lessened the impact in the general fund. So it was just it was creative budgeting essentially creative accounting that was the intent and there's been discussions well
I'm I'm sure of that. I'm just yeah just yeah you know I I again I'm trying to get to the endgame what decisions we're going to try to make and you know if we're if we're doing this for other reasons other budgeting reasons other
accounting reasons that um so we can comply with all the rules the accounting rules um so be it. I mean, um, I imagine our parking fund is going to get pretty nice
until we build a parking structure. Are we going to start allocating funds from from that division or have we already to to the wreck or to other departments because we have
the resources there, you know? I I only know that the other Yeah. I follow the logic. I think that with the list though, you could take the list and then look and you can see that how that all works.
So what I could do is an enhancement to that funded positions by department. I could have the title. I could let you know is it funded or vacant. I could let you know the number of hours we have allocated that. Is it 2080? Is it 1040? Um and then I can let you know what the
allocation percentage uh is for that position. So just a little more expanded knowledge and yeah if you have a recommendation say well I want recreation leader three out of Archabald and into recreation we can we can certainly do that. Um I think
we need the position. I think that's just a discussion of I don't think anyone's questioning whether we need the the the employee time. Yeah. Just how it's alloc allocated I guess. But yeah, if that would be helpful because then you'll see the public works director in
in three different you'll see the allocation percentage 30 30 30 so we can have a little more visibility around that for each of these positions and I can put that as a as uh together for the next workshop deliverable or just or at least just to note you know this is you
know why we're doing that why as Jay was saying you know years ago that recreation leader was put in there because of other reasons. I don't know because we had archival funds
available where we didn't really want to pull it out of the general fund to pay that position. I don't I don't know. I can't speak to it. That could be that that one preceded me. I think it's been that way for many years and um Sure. It's just been kind of
status quo. Okay. So getting back to now just looking scrolling up a bit on your person budgeted personnel cost and FDS for FY26 we've got first is just a pie chart of the personnel cost you know by
department um just it's just a a pie chart showing you know fire EMS you know who's where the the largest costs are coming from in that pie chart and then we show and the next one just a comparison
Um FY24 actual FY25 adopted budget 26 proposed budget and just so you can see the uh cost comparison among the um for each department. Can I can I stop
you again? Across fiscal years. Sure. Um on your pie chart you have a I I I just corrected myself. I was looking at the 3.4 4 million as a as a total being down at the bottom, but it's not. That's that's that that is the fire
and EMS because I was coming back to the 2025 at 7.7 million which correct roughly what 40% of our budget budget I believe. So, but and that again
I'm I don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but um as you do your explaining that section is the big increase this year and that has to do with the new fire station and part of that is funded
by other cities or other or we also have a revenue to put against the the expense for at least a portion of it. We will and the fire chief can elaborate. So the increase from FY25 to 26 is roughly
$592,000. Um we just got our EMS budget approved for the reading station at $749,000. So, it looks like it jumped up a lot, but we're actually getting that money back and then a little bit more. Awesome. Thank you, Chief. Yes, sir. And
for those new positions, we didn't budget them for the entire fiscal year. I believe it was just for a part of the fiscal year in 2026. I believe based on our analysis of when we would actually be operational with the new fire station. I don't think
there's the anticipation fire chief can uh elaborate but that it wouldn't be live and up and running with full-time employees by 101 but sometime in 2026. So I have a question about parking. So
why is parking jumping so much from 25 to 26? We didn't add any staff. Is that because of benefits? That could be because of of benefits. Yes, I can do I can do more
digging and get back with you specifically on the cost increases relating to parking. I mean, and so even Ian I mean even in recreation you're going from 686 to 900,000.
There's some the jumps that are so large. I'd be curious as to know why. Yeah. If if we've added staff or we're going to add staff next year, then that would make sense to me. But if we're not adding any staff and we haven't given
any raises yet. Yep. So it could be and I think if that would be across the board all of them anything that's jumping at a at a big number um building services is going from 700,000 to a
million two and a half that's a huge that's a double. So, what are what are we planning or proposing that's going to happen in 2026 that's going to take our proposed budget so high given we haven't even done raises
yet? Right. That's a there's a lot of big jumps in there that I'm sure there's a reason for it. We have benefits. We have a coal increase, merit increase. We'll get we'll talk about that when we get to the
um to the benefits section. So I'm so the merit increase is already in the proposed budget in this for this. Yeah. So then after the costing information Yeah. is just a comparison of of funded positions over multiple fiscal
years. So that 93.27 27 is our number of FTEES. Um, which agrees to the the the total the grand total that's in the the following
uh funded positions by department um listing of all our FTEES. So that's where the 93.27 positions um that's just basically the detailed breakout of that by department.
So, this just gives you a multi-year comparison by department of those positions and then the detail of each position and number of FTEEs by position specifically for fiscal year 2026. Yeah, basically I think it's we're going
to need a reminder on this group health insurance. Is this a one-time hit? I know we were changing to changing plans. we approved to change the plan and that was a one-time hit. But looking at this bar graph here
on page 17, the group health insurance, these are all the increases. Is this the bar graph showing? No, that's just the that's just for fiscal year 26, just the total cost. So, we didn't do a multi-year comparison of cost. All right, I'm looking at it wrong. I'm sorry. by benefit. It's just okay,
here's our total benefits that we're budgeting for fiscal year 26. What is the um what's the total cost per benefit? But before getting into that, I did want to take you to that the funded positions by department. So looking specifically at building services,
that's 11.75 FTEES, but for next the next budget workshop, we'll be removing two FTEEs. Right now you see code compliance two. Um we're going to rem we're going to remove one and just have one FTE
position at code compliance 2. So that'll be down to one. And then we'll be eliminating the permit clerk position. So then that'll be instead of 11.75 that'll be 9.75. So, there's one personnel one
uh change to personnel that we know we're making. Um that'll be reflected in the next budgeting materials. So, I have a question for Jenny then. Why are we getting rid of two two um positions? Are are you are they changing
to a different name? Are they? Yes, we made a lot of different changes uh when our old building official retired. Um so, you know, I kind of took over the building fund at that point and so we did some
reconfiguration. Um we added two employees that were working from the recck department. uh we brought them under building and those positions kind of took the position of the permit technician and the code compliance. So that's where you see that permit and
code compliance specialist that's kind of morphed into those positions. Um we do have that we are asking to keep one of those code compliance positions open right now just to see how that part-time hybrid works out um with code
compliance. But we understand that um we may need some extra help there. So we're kind of keeping that vacant at the time. Uh we also made changes to a lot of position titles. Uh we did have that permit technician position. Um that
employee received um the certification. So then we moved her title. Um, so that's where you see that certified permit technician as well as the building compliance supervisor that position change titles. So we had a lot
of different internal changes and how in the flows and functions um and including two new employees. So I have a a quick question that probably I should wait till the next meeting but I think I might forget to ask it and I've been
very curious. Um there was a time when in the building department we had two code compliance persons. Yes. Who drove in the two cars twice a day. They drove the entire city. Yes. Um are we still doing that? And the
reason I ask is because I know we have a lot of issues and I see the cars parked here a lot. So I'm curious, is that something we're transitioning on? Are we going to do that differently for the community? Yes, we're we're looking at the best ways um
possible right now. We also have an inspector. So, that's that kind of takes our building was a building official building deputy building official. That's what it was. That's what the previous title was. We morphed that into an inspector. He's also
helping um he's out doing inspections as well as helping with code compliance. So, he's driving around. Um, we also have those two positions that are kind of hybrid positions. And then we have um what was that? The operations
coordinator now is the building compliance supervisor who is overseeing seeing code compliance who is also right now we're in the training phase. Um, so our two employees that are doing code compliance are working together at this
time. So that's why you don't see both of the Mustangs out. It sounds like um it streamlined into a better much better use of everyone's time. Yes. And we understand that things will still need to to change. Um we're open, we're
flexible. That's why we're also asking for that code compliance position, one of them to stay stay open just so we understand what the flow is and then if we need it, we can hire somebody for that position. And I appreciate that.
Yes. Forward. Thank you. If the budget's not there, how how do you hire someone for it? You're way I understand what Andrew just said, you're going from 11.75 to 9.75. You're you're getting rid of the permit clerk and one other line item. Is that correct? That permit clerk
position changed to the certified permit technician. So that it's the same person. So it's the same person. It was always 9.75. This is listing both. I don't have the number from last budget, but we're
that's the same same. you haven't eliminated any positions that just shifted around maybe what their title and their duties are. Yes. Uh we also shifted uh so you'll see the building services and then we have the community development. We all work together now under the community development
department. Um some of us are 50% I'm 20% from the building fund. Marcy is 50%. Mercy used to be 25% I believe my position used to be 10% from the building fund. So we're kind of changing
those numbers. So if you see a big shift it's the same same employees. Um Okay. So we're not going to spend a lot of time on it then. You're basically keeping this you're not you're not adding any additional positions in the budget right now between community
development and building or you are we just have that vacant code compliance. So we morph those two code compliance positions that we did have uh when our old code compliance officer
left into the permit and code compliance specialist. And then we were asking to keep to have one extra. Previous to Jenny taking over and all of the departments coming under her umbrella,
they worked very separately. Yes. They did not communicate together well. And I mean this is just my observation. Now they are they work as a team and they're able to crosswork with each other. They
It's It's day and night different than it was a year ago today, I can tell you. So, we made a lot of changes. A lot. Take your win. We made a lot of changes. So, we're still trying to figure out what works, what doesn't, what do we
need? Um who's whose day-to-day changes? What does that look like? How does it function as a department completely instead of having two separate? Yeah. And then also um in the community development department there is uh that
planning technician position. So that will also need to be removed. So building services goes down to 9.75. Community development goes down to 4.25. We made a lot of changes. So it was which one under community
development is going on? Sorry. The planning technician. Okay. That's right. So the planning technician um removing that. We do have a vacancy is that planner 2 slash3 depending on the skill level. That's where it would be planner two or
planner three. Um so that's what that is. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions on any of the headcount from the funded positions by department that you want to cover before
we delve into benefits? No. Okay. Looking then at benefits. So I provided you the name the names of all the benefits that are offered to city employees. Um two of
those benefits are direct pay increases. Um, so rather than adjusting the actual pay rate, we left the their current the pay rate as it is currently and that would be the proposed future pay rate 10125 beginning of fiscal year 26
knowing we will make changes to some of those figures based on the results of the the pay study and fully implementing that. In addition to that, in fiscal year 25, we had a a cost of living increase applicable to all active
employees. Uh that and that was last year. And then for fiscal year 25, budgeting purposes for 26. Uh we're looking at doing a cola merit combination. So, cola 3% is what
is uh initially proposed and then a merit increase could range from 1 to 4%. Depending on uh results of performance evaluation for this budget, we had uh
merit at just at 3% and said, well, what if we have it gave everybody a 3% merit increase and everybody a 3% coal increase? Later on in this presentation, I'll show you the the disparity in cost if we say increase the merit increase
from 3% to 4% or decreased it from 3% to 1% for all employees hypothetically. Just so you can see the the cost sensitivity to moving the the lever on those on those percentages. And then the other benefits again um a lot of workers
comp um because based on the type of the class of employee depends on your workers comp class and and resulting workers comp rate. Fortunately most employees fit in the workers comp clerical which clerical which is only
0.1%. But some others are higher depending um based on the level the the type of work that's being done. And then we have our medical, dental, and vision insurance. This is conservatively estimated. We don't have information back from our provider yet.
I believe um last year we proposed 18% that I think that would have been the absolute highest if you were on the the more more expensive PO plan, employee plus spouse plus family. So that was the kind of the max the the most we felt
that benefit could have been for an employee. So 18,000 is maybe and maybe that could have been a little higher, but in the law of averages it we we figured 18,000 was a good number to budget annually per employee.
So can I ask a question about that? Um, so I'd like for us to have a discussion on when you have an employee who does not take medical, dental, or vision
because they have a spouse who has those benefits and they don't need them. What do we do for them? Mhm. Um I know that I have had a lot of conversation with other not necessarily cities but companies and they give a
stipen stipen. Yep. Yep. Either monthly, quarterly, yearly, what have you in place of that. So I don't know where or when is the time I mean budget season budget time is the time to have the discussion. I'd be interested to know like currently
how many employees do we have that do do not take the benefit because they have it somewhere else? Is it one? Is it 10? Is it you know 20? Um because I think that when I think I've been an advocate
for I don't think I know I've been an advocate for employees to get benefits that benefits are one of the things that keep people um working in the city or in any place. So, if you have someone who does not get a benefit because, like I
said, they have it somewhere else, then what can we do to give them I'm not recommending that we would give them $18,000, but something maybe a FSA card or, you know, a health b or health card
with preloaded or a um I don't know if it would be a bonus. I don't know. But I'd like to have that conversation because I think that we do have employees who do not cost the city this money and we should be able to provide them with something because we
budget for everyone. It's my opinion. I can yeah discuss that with the city manager. I know it's been evaluated in the past offering a stipen. I'm not sure um where those discussions have have
moved and I'm not sure exactly the um the rate of adoption of employees and who uh who takes insurance from the city and who doesn't. Uh but we can certainly look at that and I'll have a discussion with the city manager on on potentially offering something. From a budgetary
standpoint, we're budgeting all employees at 18,000. So we'll have the budget to do it. It's just a matter of enacting it. I think that it would be um of interest for the commission to know how many employees currently we have. Not actually, you know, it probably doesn't even matter whether it's one or 20. Um I think having something
recommended for what to do for those individuals because if we hired somebody tomorrow or you know that would be part of their benefit package. If you can provide proof of coverage, which I would be a fan of, you you have to prove you
have coverage somewhere else. not elect to just take the money and not have the coverage, but if you have proof of coverage somewhere else, this is what you're going to get if you don't take the city's insurance. This would be your whatever. So, however, um you and the
city manager would recommend some recommendations I think would be beneficial. Perfect. Okay, we'll get back with you on that. Thank you. And then for the Florida retirement system, now we have drop regular class
special risk. Now that we used to just have special risk just for our our public safety employees and fire EMS. We more recently opened that up um to all employees. The the majority are uh on the FRS plan. Some are remaining on the
401A plan. Um and so that that's a 9% contribution. for the city manager is 12%. And right now we've budgeted 33% special arrest, 14% regular class. We'll know those new rates. They come out July 1, 2025. So those rates could be
including the drop. Those rates could be subject to uh an adjustment um once we see what the um the new rate structure looks like for the 2025 2026 fiscal year. So I'll know more on that in early July.
And then scrolling down, this just is the total cost per benefit. What's costing the city the most? Is it a pay increase? Is it workers comp? Is it the ICMA plan? F FRS group health. So you can just see what what's the most expensive benefit
um you know for for employees. And right now that's the your your group health insurance. And then this just shows what the cost by department is for all of the different plans individually. So we have F FRS. We've
got very few drop employees. I don't know if that's maybe one or a couple. Um and then a lot more uh reg F FRS regular class. And then special risk is all in fire EMS. And that's your total um cost
of F FRS plan is 1 18 almost 1.2 million. And then the ICMA plan again that that plan participation has shrunk since offering the uh Florida retirement system, but we still have employees uh
that are participating in it. And so these are the the figures for that. city manager plan is just offered to one individual. So that's obviously in the city manager department and then the cost for the other uh other employees in
various departments and that all totals about 120,000. And then here's health insurance. A nice rounded 18,000 a year fixed amount for each employee both um vacant and filled. So probably a little
overbudgeted there because not every employee is going to take the highest health insurance. Um so there is some uh that's a more conservative estimate. Um but really until open enrollment we don't know what those numbers are truly going to be. So we just budget for the
18,000 and that's uh 1.8 million um in total there broken up by department. And then here's your pay uh your pay increase. Ignore the title there. That should say the
um the total for um Whoops. Sorry. Health insurance. Looks like that that was doubled. So that I pulled from the wrong table. So apologies on that on the the pay increase. Um that
that table is an error. but wanted to show you really on the bottom the merit increase of a 1% 2% or 4%. So really what that uh what that cost would be if the merit increase
um so right now the pay increase is in total is looking about a little over 200,000 um increase in cost for the 3% cola the 3% merit and so then what the
merit increase would be if it was 4% instead of 3% % would be 140,000. If we dropped it down to 2% instead of 3% it would be at 70,000. And then if it was 1% it would be down to 35,000. So that
just gives you a little insight as to the the cost sensitivity on the on the merit side. Last year we did a cost of living across the board. Was it 6% or 7%. We did believe 6%. 6%. Yep. Across
the board. But that included the merit. It did. So I I am not a fan of giving 6% this year. I think my personal opinion is that we should give a 3% cost of living and then
the if our budget would allow it up to a 4% increase for merit because why should every I said this in a meeting why should everybody get a trophy? Why should you get 6% raise when the person
next to you is is putting in way more effort at their job? I think a meritbased increase is just that. It's a it is a raise based on your job performance. Otherwise, where's the incentive to perform? If every year
everybody gets a gets a raise and the raise is just based off of we're going to give everybody a raise, then there's no incentive for me to work harder this year than I did last year or to do more than the person in the chair next to me. I'm just going to do what's minimal because I'm going to get my raise
anyhow. Well, ba based on that though, I would suggest that we do it by department. That's yours. whether pick your percentage um and that the department heads would determine I I 100% could be couldn't be
more than what was budgeted for that department. Well, I think so if you were budgeting you would budget if if I'm I'm guessing wouldn't you budget if if you had a 3% cost of living and a 4% merit then you
would budget the full 7%. Well, up to be one up, right? It' be it'd be budgeted the full amount. But then if if the department head is doing all of their reviews and they've got five employees and one is exceptional and they give the
that by whatever metrics is put in place by the city manager, they they get the full 7%. But the person maybe the other person in the or one of the other people doesn't get a merit increase. They just get their cost of living. They just get
their 3%. We have to I think we need to workshop that. I I listen I brought it up in a budget. I just I think that giving everybody a trophy is not the right thing to do. I think that people should be rewarded for the work they do
and this is a way to reward individuals for the work that they do and the effort they put into the city. And some people are worth more than others. Well, it all it all makes sense. But then, you know, and just as always play devil's devil's advocate.
Um that could create dissension in the ranks where you know if everybody's getting that same 3% increase, three plus three or 3 plus two or whatever it happens to be, then
it is what it is. you don't have um one employee disgruntled because my supervisor didn't think so much of me or I would think that it would be I mean I would think that it
would be somewhat handin I don't know how they do employee evaluation that's why I say we have to yeah so I think it would be great to have this as a topic for us to really get down and gritty and discuss it um yeah I am not a fan of everybody getting last year I is because I thought that and and I'm not saying
that I don't think everybody in the city wouldn't end up get getting the full percentage, but we have yet to hear what the report's going to give us. We have um you we need to have that we I'm just saying um
during the budget talks I think it should be a topic table and put it into a I think it should be a workshop to discuss it for sure. So regarding budget, currently there's performance
evaluations being conducted for all employees across all departments. The budget right now, we said budgeted 3% COLA, 3% merit. And I apologize for the misinformation on the table. The COLA total impact of the COLA
increase is 125,000. The total impact of the merit increase is $125,000. So $250,000 total for all departments if every employee got a 3% coal and every employee got 3% merit. My
intention will be before the adoption of the budget before our meetings in September to approve the uh the budget and the millillage. uh we'll know what those merit increases are by employee and we I can adjust those merit uh
percentage amounts by employee so we'll know exactly what the increase will be so that it'll be more accurate for budget purposes. So that think that 125,000 number if all
employees instead get a 4% instead of 3% it moves up from 125,000 to 140,000. If everyone gets a 2% increase instead of three it's 70,000 and if everyone gets a 1% it's 35,000. So that's that's the um the variation we'd
be looking at from a one to a four. But that's the that's the plan at least. The evaluation process is already ongoing as I mentioned. If we can get things finalized and know what those um final uh percentages will be for
merit then that'll be accurately depicted in their pay rates for next year. So just gave you the 3% now just for illustrative purposes uh for all employees just so you could see what it is. Then the last table is just the
workers comp. That's about 180,000 just so you know what the the impact is on those uh employees and their respective workers comp rates. And that then the next slide goes into our proposed budget amendment that
we'll put forth in May or excuse me uh in June for the regular meeting. And before we start on that, any final questions, thoughts, reflections on the budget information presented to you all for
personnel. I've got three major takeaways, well, not potentially four. Uh have a in the next workshop deliverable on personnel, expand that employee roster to include number of hours and percentage allocation by
positions. you know, a little bit more on each position um rather than lumping them all and and if they're vacant or funded currently. Um and I'll have that information for the next workshop. Then the evaluation
of the 2025 budget amount to 2026 budget amount. Let's use parking management as an illustration, seeing what that total cost difference was. is that just really the the benefits that's comprising that. I'll do a little research and report
back to you all on that. And then um the health insurance stipend, I'll discuss that with the city manager, come back with with you all with some ideas around that. And then if there's any um discussion coming that you want to have this in a workshop or on on what
those um on the the merit increase um whether in general or um anything in specific that you want to cover on on merit. I I just have one more question. It has to do with the health insurance FRS versus uh the ICMA plan.
So last year, I guess it was last year, we purchased the option for the employees to go back over to the F FRS. Is that correct? But you didn't have to. Was that a one one off or can eventually
we see the IKMA plan actually go away? So those those were one-time costs for those employees that were converting um you know buy back their years of service to uh for retroactive
application. Those costs won't recur. This is just the true cost of the FR of of the F FRS contributions that we need to make to each employee. No, I I I get that. But I'm just saying and the employees that did not that decided not
to change not to go back to the F FRS plan, do they still have that option to do that in the future? Do you know? So your question is, do those employees have the option or was that a a one-time
election? I think that was a one-time election for existing employees. Just curious more, you know, or we we'll continue to have two plans. We'll continue to have two plans and new employees offered the ICMA or just the
um I think new employees upon hire are offered the option and I don't think I think once you make that election then it's it's fixed for the term of your employment. Gotcha. But that's my gut telling me that that's
not an absolute factual statement matter a whole lot for budget reasons. I was it was more of a curiosity thing for the employees. But yeah, I think once you make the election then then you're set. IMA and FRS. Oh, may I could be wrong. So please correct me.
Sorry, I was just listening in the other room. Um so new employees only get the F FRS. Okay. Um, and existing employees had the one-time option to choose FRS or Mission Square. Perfect. Okay. So, it's half right at least on that. Okay. So, then the last piece is just
our um proposed uh budget amendments. And so, I'll just kind of run through them just, you know, it's in the comment. This is what initially was input in the system for what we're proposing the budget amendment to be the the GL
account what we're increasing. So, we created an account 011400 um 55001 disaster related expenses. Just kind of a catchall for expenses that were not
necessarily department specific that we're catching them in department 1400 which is non-EP departmental. Um, so we've been accumulating a significant amount of um, hurricane Helen and Milton, mostly Helen costs. Um, I and that's also where we're
pushing our our our debris removal. So that's the the biggest culprit. So we have 15 million requested to increase that budget um, offset by FEMA ideally FEMA grant
revenues to be reimbursed over time. And the next one over time, didn't we already get some of that grant money? We did. So there's that's not that was just category A on the storm on the debris removal, but we'll have other costs as well. So that
15 million isn't just all the storm removal. Those are other other costs incurred from other categories um relating to the the hurricane that we anticipate um reimbursement. Then this next one is
the fire station. So it's fully funded by Penllis County, but we're as pro as managing the project uh procuring the vendors, paying those vendors, and then submitting for reimbursement to the county. So, we'll have the revenue um
from the um local local intergovernmental revenue from coming from Panelis County, but we need to budget for the expense. And then note that that's not a capital expense. We're putting that in other current charges um since it's not
going to be Madira Beach's fire station. Um, we're just managing the project, incurring the expense, but ultimately be Penelis County's asset if I'm not mistaken. A little bit. Correct me, please. But the agreement we
have with Penllis County, they we do not have to front any money. We when I get an invoice, I send it to Penllis County, they pay it. They have the 30 or 45 days through state statute, so we don't have to front any money. Very good. Thank you.
So yes, while while we're incurring the expense of 7.4 million, it's fully funded by Penelis County. So there's no out of pocket to the city. Then the next is this the
compensation classification study from Garing Group. So this was budgeted in a previous year did not carry over from the 25 budget 20 or excuse me the 24 budget. the 25 budget. So, we're just adding in here for those costs incurred in fiscal year 25 uh for the pay study.
That was less than 50 though, wasn't it? I thought it was 38 or something. 35. It was I think that was the biggest item. I think there's some other small dollar items in there that um that increased it to 50. But the the
the compensation classification study from the Gearing Group, I thought that might have been the low 40s. Um, and so that was the the largest contributor to the requested budget increase in human resources. But again, it's just it's a it's a budget. It's not
a line item in your accounting. It's just putting the assets availing the assets to be available to pay the bill. Approving those the funding to be available, right? to that specific account, right? 01 which is general fund less than 1030 which is human resources
department 5310 is professional services expenses right just for giggles what's that 2.87 million so that's just our fund balance net position that's the carryover so that's what we have available in fund balance
that will be that's reserves that we have available we have a lot more than 2.8 20 million in reserves available. But that's just what we budgeted initially um where expenses and other outflows exceeded revenues and other inflows. So
we balance the budget with existing reserves which were more than enough. Um and so this just increases the reserves since we're increasing the the budgetary expense to human resources. That doesn't mean we're in
we're incurring a 2.87 2.87 87 million loss necessarily because actual results could be significantly less than budget. That was just that budgetary figure of reserves to balance the budget. Then the next one
uh this was just something that we budgeted at 1.58 million. The actual cost per contract was about 1.68 million. So, we just needed to increase the budget uh for the law enforcement um the contract with Penllis
County and that's so we that department couldn't really absorb it because that's really the main cost for that department. So again, if we have to over overspend in a department, we've got to uh take that to commission for approval. And that's the 90% of what that budget
is in department um for 40 410 law enforcement. Um, then we just had some IT managed services that was budget at 15,000, but we've got a the virtual
um chief information security officer position. Um, that's outsourced. That was for 60,000. That was not budgeted. So, we want to increase that IT services budget by 60,000. that just that just
got missed in the budgeting process for fiscal year 25. Is that our contract or is that an addition to our contract or IT contract? I believe that was just a part of the contract and just did not get budgeted for and I can pull the contract and
verify but I believe that that was uh a part of that the contractual services with integrity. I thought our contract was roughly that amount. Um, I can I can pull that. I think that contract is hitting [Music]
some some different uh accounts, some IT services, some other other items. But I I my understanding was that that that uh budgeted service was was was
unbudgeted essentially. Okay. And I recall seeing that in the contract and I think about it um it just didn't get budgeted. So who so how did it not get budgeted? Because I think it was just oversight on missing that within and our
IT budget is pretty slim. So Megan, so the state of Florida made us um do some security changes. I don't exactly know those off the top of my head, but I believe that's what that is, but I could be wrong. So I can I'm going to write a note and get that to you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. I'm glad you're
following along. And then the last couple are just specific fund department related that were impacted by the hurricane that impacted their department and their departmental supplies and maintenance budgets uh all related to the um the
hurricane. And so that's just increasing in the sanitation fund and then the Archabalt Park fund and then John's Pass Village within the general fund. So we can get you some more information on
the on the IT services, but that's ultimately what we'll put forth to you all uh for resolution for um the June meeting and that will conclude my presentation. Thank you for your participation. Thank you very much. Any
questions? No good. Any question? Thank you, Andrew. Thank you very much. It is 508. We are adjourned.