[Joint Committee of Budget and Fiscal Affairs & Labor on April 2, 2024. ]
[00:00:05]
SALLY ALCORN, AND I'M HONORED TO CHAIR THE CITY OF HOUSTON'S BUDGET AND FISCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.I AM NOW CALLING TO ORDER THIS JOINT MEETING OF THE BUDGET AND FISCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THE NEWLY FORMED LABOR COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ABBY CAYMAN.
I WILL WELCOME THOSE WHO ARE PRESENT, FIRST OF ALL, COUNCIL MEMBER ABBY CAYMAN.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBER AMY PECK, DISTRICT A COUNCIL MEMBER FRED FLICKINGER, DISTRICT E COUNCIL MEMBER.
TIFFANY THOMAS, DISTRICT F COUNCIL MEMBER MARIO CASTILLO, DISTRICT H COUNCIL MEMBER JOAQUIN MARTINEZ, DISTRICT I, COUNCIL MEMBER ED POLLARD, DISTRICT J COUNCIL MEMBER JULIAN RAMIREZ AT LARGE POSITION ONE.
AND COUNCIL MEMBER TWILA CARTER AT LARGE POSITION THREE.
UH, I ALSO WANNA INDICATE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER JOAQUIN MARTINEZ IS VICE CHAIR OF THE LABOR COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL MEMBER MARIO CASTILLO IS CHAIR, VICE CHAIR OF THE BUDGET AND FISCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
SO WE HAVE A BIG MEETING AHEAD AND WE WILL GET STARTED WITH THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CONTROLLER IS LITERALLY IN THE ELEVATOR, SO I WILL INVITE HIM IN JUST AS SOON AS HE GETS HERE.
UH, WE DID SWITCH THE ORDER ON THE AGENDA.
UM, ITEM FOUR WILL BE ITEM THREE, AND ITEM THREE WILL BE ITEM FOUR.
WE WILL, UH, UM, HAVE BOTH PRESENTATIONS FIRST.
SOME OF THE, SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS MIGHT BE ANSWERED IN THE SECOND PRESENTATION, SO WE'RE GONNA DO BOTH PRESENTATIONS, UH, BEFORE WE, UH, GO TO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS.
SO WE WILL GIVE THE CONTROLLER JUST A COUPLE MINUTES AND THEN WE WILL BEGIN.
WE ALSO WELCOME COUNCIL MEMBER LETITIA PLUMMER, WHO IS ON VIRTUALLY AS WELL AS STAFF FROM OUR MAYOR PRO TAM'S OFFICE.
SORRY, DIDI, MISSED YOU EARLIER.
UM, AND STAFF FROM COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIE DAVIS'S OFFICE.
WE ARE GONNA GET STARTED MOMENTARILY AS SOON AS THE CONTROLLER ARRIVES.
PERHAPS THIS IS AN APRIL FOOL'S JOKE, A DAY LATE
I'VE BEEN TOLD HE IS ON HIS WAY.
ELEVATOR AIRS MUST BE REALLY SLOW TODAY.
WE DID HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER SIGN UP, UM, BUT WE ARE WELCOMING PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK AT, AT THE END OF THIS MEETING, SIGN UP.
THERE'S A SIGNUP SHEET THERE AT THE FRONT TABLE.
GO AHEAD AND COME ON TO THE FRONT.
WE WILL HAVE THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT.
WE'D ALSO LIKE TO WELCOME STAFF FROM THE OFFICE OF CAROLYN EVANS SHABAZZ, DISTRICT D.
UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE STAFF.
I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2024 IN THE GENERAL FUND.
THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE IS PROJECTING AN ENDING FUND BALANCE OF $433.8 MILLION PER FY 2024.
THIS IS 35.1 MILLION LOWER THAN THE PROJECTION OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
THE DIFFERENCE IS DUE TO A $35.1 MILLION LOWER REVENUE PROJECTION THAN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
BASED ON OUR CURRENT PROJECTIONS, THE FUND BALANCE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 24.76, PARDON ME, $247.6 MILLION
[00:05:01]
ABOVE THE CITY'S TARGET OF HOLDING 7.5% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES, EXCLUDING DEBT SERVICE AND PAY AS YOU GO AND RESERVE.OUR REVENUE PROJECTION INCREASED BY $2.3 MILLION FROM THE JANUARY, 2024 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT AS FOLLOWS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES DECREASED BY 3.7 MILLION DUE TO LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED TAX, INCREMENTAL REVENUE ZONE, MUNICIPAL SERVICE FEES AND DIRECT INTERFUND CHARGES DECREASED BY $1 MILLION DUE TO LESS POLICE SERVICES PROVIDED TO OR REQUESTED BY THE HOUSTON AIRPORT SYSTEM.
AND LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED CHARGEBACK FOR PLANNING SERVICES.
INTEREST INCOME INCREASED BY $6 MILLION DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED INTEREST EARNINGS ON DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS, SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS INCREASED BY $0.9 MILLION DUE TO PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF ASSETS AND VEHICLES.
OUR EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS DECREASED BY $13.3 MILLION FROM THE JANUARY, 2024 REPORT, PRIMARILY DUE TO THE FOLLOWING.
VACANCY SAVINGS IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS TOTALING 13.1 MILLION, A DECREASE OF 3.5 MILLION FOR ELECTRICITY, CHARGEBACKS FOR VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, A DECREASE OF $3 MILLION FOR HEALTH BENEFITS SAVINGS FOR VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, AN INCREASE OF 4.2 MILLION IN POLICE FOR THE MAYOR'S CRIME REDUCTION INITIATIVE, AN INCREASE IN $1.4 MILLION IN GENERAL GOVERNMENT FOR SHARED OPERATIONS COSTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE APPRAISAL DISTRICTS.
AND FINALLY, AN INCREASE OF $0.4 MILLION IN HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED TERMINATION PAYS.
MOVING ON TO OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS IN THE AVIATION OPERATING FUND, OPERATING REVENUES INCREASED BY $15.5 MILLION DUE TO A HIGHER NUMBER OF PASSENGERS AND INCREASED ACTIVITIES RESULTING IN ADDITIONAL REVENUES FROM THE AIRLINES CONCESSIONAIRES AND PARKING CHARGES.
NON-OPERATING REVENUES INCREASED BY $10.2 MILLION, PRIMARILY DUE TO HIGHER INTEREST EARNINGS ON DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS.
OPERATING EXPENSES INCREASED BY $3.2 MILLION, PRIMARILY DUE TO AN INCREASE OF 4.3 MILLION FOR PERSONNEL COSTS AND SERVICE COSTS OFFSET BY $0.9 MILLION DECREASE IN NON-CAPITAL OUTLAY.
TOTAL TRANSFERS INCREASED BY $22.5 MILLION DUE TO A $52.1 MILLION INCREASE IN THE TRANSFER FROM THE REVENUE FUND TO THE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT FUND OFFSET BY A DECREASE IN DEBT SERVICE TRANSFER OF 2020 9.6 MILLION IN THE CONVENTION AND ENTERTAINMENT FUND.
NON-OPERATING REVENUES INCREASE BY 6.2 MILLION.
THIS INCREASE IS PRIMARILY ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX COLLECTIONS IN THE COMBINED UTILITY SYSTEM.
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES DECREASED BY $23.5 MILLION, PRIMARILY DUE TO LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED WATER AND SEWER REVENUE.
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES DECREASED BY $22.5 MILLION, PRIMARILY DUE TO CONTRACT DELAYS.
DELAYS IN FILLING VACANT POSITIONS AND LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED SPENDING ON REPAIRS.
NON-OPERATING REVENUES INCREASED BY $0.9 MILLION DUE TO HIGHER INTEREST INCOME.
TOTAL TRANSFERS DECREASED BY $37.2 MILLION DUE TO DELAYS IN RECEIVING CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FOR 56.9 MILLION.
OFFSET BY A NET INCREASE OF 19.7 MILLION IN TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS IN THE STORM WATER FUND.
TOTAL REVENUES INCREASED BY $1.8 MILLION DUE TO HIGHER TRANSFERS FROM THE COMBINED UTILITY SYSTEM.
TOTAL EXPENDITURES INCREASED BY $4.3 MILLION, PRIMARILY DUE TO AN INCREASE OF 5.8 MILLION FOR PURCHASES OF CAPITAL ASSETS OFFSET BY A DECREASE OF 1.1 MILLION DUE TO DELAYS IN FILLING VACANT POSITIONS IN THE DEDICATED DRAINAGE AND STREET RENEWAL FUND.
TOTAL EXPENDITURES DECREASE BY $9.2 MILLION DUE TO A DELAY IN VEHICLE PURCHASES FOR THE DEDICATED DRAINAGE AND AND STREET RENEWAL FUNDS DRAINAGE CHARGE TOTAL REVENUES DECREASED BY $5.1 MILLION DUE TO LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED DRAINAGE CHARGE REVENUES FOR THE DEDICATED DRAINAGE AND STREET RENEWAL FUND.
TOTAL EXPENDITURES DECREASED BY $3.2 MILLION, PRIMARILY DUE TO DELAYS IN FILLING VACANT POSITIONS FOR THE CITY'S COMMERCIAL PAPER AND BONDS.
THE CITY'S PRACTICE HAS BEEN TO MAINTAIN NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT FOR EACH TYPE OF DEBT IN A VARIABLE RATE STRUCTURE.
UH, WE CONTINUE TO MEET THAT, UM, WITH, UH, EVERY SINGLE ONE BEING LOWER THAN 5%.
UH, CHAIR, IF YOU'D ALLOW ME TO TAKE A QUICK MOMENT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
LAST WEEK MY OFFICE HOSTED A PRESS CONFERENCE WHERE I SPOKE DIRECTLY TO HOUSTONIANS ABOUT THE PROPOSED FIREFIGHTER SETTLEMENT RECENTLY ANNOUNCED BY THE MAYOR.
AS I'VE SAID FROM DAY ONE, MY COMMITMENT TO HOUSTONIANS IS SERVING AS THEIR TAXPAYER WATCHDOG TO EXPAND THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF CITY GOVERNMENT TO INVEST MORE IN HOUSTONIANS, INVEST MORE IN THEIR FAMILIES, AND INVEST MORE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY AROUND
[00:10:01]
OUR CITY'S FINANCES AND TO INCREASE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF HOW TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT.AND WHILE WE RECOGNIZE, UH, THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT AS A MILESTONE TOWARDS ENDING THE LONGSTANDING DISPUTE WITH FIREFIGHTERS, WE NEED A HEALTHY DISCUSSION ON HOW THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PLAN TO ABSORB THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITHOUT SACRIFICING SERVICE DELIVERY ACROSS THE REST OF THE CITY IN WAYS THAT PUT RESIDENTS QUALITY OF LIFE AT RISK.
BEFORE THIS SETTLEMENT, THE ANTICIPATED BUDGET SHORTFALL FOR THE COMING YEAR, UH, WAS NEARLY TWO, $200 MILLION, AND THAT REPRESENTED A SIGNIFICANT STRAIN ON THE CITY'S FINANCIAL HEALTH.
AS I POINTED OUT LAST WEEK, THE DEBT SERVICE AGAINST A POTENTIAL $650 MILLION JUDGMENT BOND WOULD EXCEED $40 MILLION ANNUALLY OVER A 25 TO 30 MILLION, UH, A 25 TO 30 YEAR PERIOD.
AND THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIRST YEAR OF RAISES IN THE CONTRACT WOULD BE IN THE $36 MILLION RANGE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE $140 MILLION RANGE WITH BUDGET DELIBERATIONS FAST APPROACHING.
WE MUST PREPARE OURSELVES FOR A SERIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW ALL OF THIS WILL BE PAID FOR.
IT'S WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE AMOUNTS ABOVE DON'T INCLUDE NEGOTIATIONS WITH MUNICIPAL WORKERS, UH, AND POLICE THAT WE'RE PREPARING TO HAVE IN THE NEAR FUTURE AS HOUSTONIANS WORK TO BALANCE THEIR CHECKBOOKS AT HOME.
CITY GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE ANY DIFFERENT.
WORKING THROUGH A BUDGET OF MORE THAN $6 BILLION IS COMPLEX, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S A TWO TO $300 MILLION DOLLAR HOLE IN IT.
BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT IS SIMPLE.
TO WRITE THE SHIP, WE EITHER HAVE TO GENERATE NEW REVENUE OR WE HAVE TO DECREASE COST OR SOME COMBINATION OF THE TWO.
AS WE NAVIGATE THIS CHALLENGE, WE HAVE TO PRIORITIZE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND COLLABORATION IN THE PROCESS.
THAT INCLUDES EXPLAINING TO HOUSTONIANS HOW WE PLAN TO PAY FOR THE OBLIGATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIREFIGHTER SETTLEMENT SO THAT WE CAN SAFEGUARD THE FINANCIAL FUTURE OF OUR CITY AND REDUCE THE RISK TO ESSENTIAL SERVICES THAT RESIDENTS DEPEND ON, AND THAT IMPACT THE QUALITY OF OUR DAILY LIVES.
MY OFFICE IS COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL, INCLUDING YOUR COMMITTEE LABOR GROUPS, INCLUDING THE FIREFIGHTERS, BUSINESS LEADERS, AND COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS TO IDENTIFY PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS THAT CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF OUR CITY TODAY, TOMORROW, AND IN THE YEARS TO COME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CONTROLLER, DIRECTOR DEBAKEY.
THIS IS THE EIGHT PLUS FOUR FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 29TH, 2024.
THE FISCAL YEAR 24 PROJECTIONS ARE BASED ON EIGHT MONTHS OF ACTUAL RESULTS AND FOUR MONTHS OF PROJECTIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND.
OUR REVENUE PROJECTION IS $42 MILLION HIGHER THAN THE ADOPTED BUDGET AND $26 MILLION HIGHER THAN THE PRIOR MONTH.
THE VARIANCE FROM THE PRIOR MONTH'S PROJECTIONS IS PRIMARILY DUE TO A $15 MILLION INCREASE IN SALES TAX, WHICH IS DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED SALES TAX RECEIPTS WE'RE GOING UP BY $8.5 MILLION.
ON INTEREST TO REFLECT HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED EARNINGS ON POOLED INVESTMENTS, THERE'S A $2 MILLION INCREASE IN INDUSTRIAL ASSESSMENTS DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED TAXABLE VALUATION.
WE ALSO HAVE A $1.9 MILLION INCREASE IN CHARGES FOR SERVICES THAT IS PRIMARILY DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED AMBULANCE COLLECTIONS.
A $900,000 INCREASE IN MUNICIPAL COURTS, FINES AND FORFEITS DUE DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED MOVING VIOLATION FEES AND NON-TRAFFIC FINES.
AN $854,000 INCREASE IN SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS TO REFLECT HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED, UH, LAND AND VEHICLE SALES AND A $648,000 INCREASE IN LICENSES AND PERMITS PRIMARILY DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED LIQUOR LICENSES.
WE ALSO HAVE A $396,000 INCREASE IN MISCELLANEOUS OTHER PRIMARILY DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED, UH, FIREFIGHTER DEPLOYMENT REIMBURSEMENTS, $283,000 INCREASE IN OTHER FINES AND FORFEITS, WHICH IS PRIMARILY DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED, UM, COLLECTIONS.
AND AS THE CONTROLLER ALSO MENTIONED, A 300, UH, $3.7 MILLION DECREASE IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL, PRIMARILY DUE TO LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED TOURISM MUNICIPAL SERVICE FEE COLLECTIONS.
WE ALSO HAVE A $978,000 DECREASE IN DIRECT INTER FUND SERVICES, PRIMARILY DUE TO LOWER CHARGE BACK FOR POLICE AND AIRPORT SERVICES, AS THE CONTROLLER MENTIONED.
SO MOVING ON TO THE EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS, UM, OUR EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS FOR THIS MONTH IS $42 MILLION HIGHER THAN THE ADOPTED BUDGET.
UH, BUT IS $13 MILLION LOWER THAN THE PRIOR MONTH.
UH, THE VARIANCE FROM THE PRIOR MONTH IS DUE PRIMARILY TO THE $13 MILLION DECREASE, UM, IN VACANCY SAVINGS FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS.
UH, WE ALSO HAVE A $3.5 MILLION DECREASE, UH, DUE TO, UH, LOWER CHARGEBACK SAVINGS, PRIMARILY DUE TO ELECTRICITY.
WE'RE ALSO PROJECTING A $3 MILLION DECREASE, UH, TO REFLECT, REFLECT
[00:15:01]
HEALTH BENEFIT SAVINGS DUE TO LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED ENROLLMENT.UM, AND THIS IS, UH, THESE EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS ARE, UM, THE, THE NET NUMBER INCLUDES A $4 MILLION INCREASE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR, UH, INCREASED OVERTIME.
UH, AS A RESULT OF THE MAYOR'S CRIME REDUCTION INITIATIVE, WE'RE ALSO REFLECTING A $1.4 MILLION INCREASE TO GENERAL GOVERNMENT TO REFLECT HIGHER TAX APPRAISAL FEES AND, UH, $400,000 INCREASE IN, UH, TERMINATION PAY.
SO ALL THAT TOGETHER, UM, THE CURRENT PROJECTED ENDING FUND BALANCE IS $467.8 MILLION, WHICH IS $39.5 MILLION HIGHER THAN THE PRIOR MONTH, AND REPRESENTS 18.8% OF EXPENDITURES LESS DEBT SERVICE AND PAY AS YOU GO.
THAT LEAVES OUR FUND BALANCE AT $281.6 MILLION ABOVE THE TARGET OF 7.5%.
UH, AND THE CONTROLLER ALREADY WENT OVER, UH, THE CHANGES THAT OUR OFFICE SEES AND HE AGREES ON THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS, UH, FOR THE AVIATION, THE CONVENTION ENTERTAINMENT COMBINED UTILITY SYSTEM, THE D-D-S-R-F AND THE STORMWATER FUND.
SO I WILL MOVE PAST THOSE IN THE INTEREST OF TIME 'CAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
AND GO TO THE, UM, SPECIAL FUNDS.
UM, ON THE HEALTH BENEFITS FUND.
REVENUES DECREASED BY 16.8 MILLION DUE TO LOWER ENROLLMENT, UM, WHICH IS OFFSET, UH, BY EXPENDITURE, DECREASED BY 14.9 MILLION DUE TO LOWER CLAIMS FOR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY FUND.
UM, REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, UH, OFFSET.
THEY BOTH DECREASED BY 7.4 MILLION DUE TO LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED INSURANCE PREMIUMS. UH, WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND, AGAIN, REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES OFFSET.
THEY BOTH DECREASED BY 6.1 MILLION DUE TO LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED CLAIMS ON WORKERS' COMP.
UH, FOR ASSET FORFEITURE FUND REVENUES INCREASED BY 1.3 MILLION DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED CONFISCATIONS, WHILE EXPENDITURES DECREASED BY 900,000 DUE TO DELAYS IN, UH, COMPUTER EQUIPMENT PURCHASES FOR AUTO DEALER FUND REVENUES INCREASED BY 1.6 MILLION, PRIMARILY DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED SALE OF IMPOUNDED VEHICLES BUILDING INSPECTION FUND EXPENDITURES DECREASED BY 1.9 MILLION DUE TO DELAYS IN VEHICLE PURCHASES.
PERSONNEL SAVINGS AND CONTRACT IMPLEMENTATION DELAYS FOR THE CABLE TV FUND EXPENDITURES DECREASED BY 1.5 MILLION, PRIMARILY DUE TO DELAYS IN PURCHASES.
CONTAINER LEASE FUND EXPENDITURE INCREASE BY 500,000 TO REFLECT OTHER INNER FUND CHARGE.
BACK OVERAGE ESSENTIAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES FUND EXPENDITURES DECREASED BY SEVEN AND A HALF MILLION DUE TO SAVINGS IN PERSONNEL AND SERVICES.
THE HEALTH SPECIAL REVENUE FUND EXPENDITURES DECREASED BY 2 MILLION DUE TO SAVINGS IN PERSONNEL.
UH, THE HOUSTON OPIOID ABATEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES DECREASED BY 1.4 MILLION DUE TO SAVINGS IN PERSONNEL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES.
THE PARK HOUSTON SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, UH, REVENUES DECREASED BY 1.5 MILLION DUE TO LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED, UH, PARKING METER REVENUES AND PARKING VIOLATIONS.
UH, BUT THAT WAS PARTIALLY OFFSET BY EXPENDITURES, DECREASED BY 1.2 MILLION DUE TO SAVINGS IN PERSONNEL AND SERVICES FOR THE PARK GOLF SPECIAL REVENUE FUND REVENUES INCREASED BY 538,000 DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED CONCESSIONS AND GOLF FEE REVENUES FOR THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND REVENUES DECREASED BY 1.1 MILLION DUE TO LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED PLATING FEES, UM, THAT WAS PARTIALLY OFFSET BY EXPENDITURE DECREASE OF 2.5 MILLION DUE TO SAVINGS AND PERSONNEL AND SERVICES.
POLICE SPECIAL SERVICES FUNDS REVENUES INCREASED BY $2 MILLION DUE TO HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED POLICE SERVICES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS.
UM, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT EXPENDITURES INCREASE BY $1 MILLION TO REFLECT HIGHER, UM, PAYMENT TO HOUSTON ARTS ALLIANCE.
UM, I KNOW THAT'S A LOT OF CHANGES IN THIS MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT, BUT WE ARE GETTING READY, UM, IN THE COMING MONTHS TO GO THROUGH THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS WHERE WE TRUE UP THE BUDGET TO OUR EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET AS MANY OF THOSE CHANGES AND UPDATED REFLECTIONS INTO THE MOFA AS WE CAN.
SO I KNOW THAT WAS LONG, SO THANK YOU THAT THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.
THANK YOU, DIRECTOR AND CONTROLLER.
WE'LL GO STRAIGHT TO QUESTIONS.
UM, MR. CONTROLLER, CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR COMPARISON OF THE FUND BALANCE THAT YOU HAD IN COMPARISON TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT? I MISSED THAT NOTE.
BUT I BELIEVE IT'S $35.1 MILLION IN TERMS OF OUR DISTINCTION, UH, WHICH IS BASED ON A LOWER REVENUE PROJECTION, UH, THAN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
UH, WE'RE ALWAYS GONNA TAKE A CONSERVATIVE VIEW, SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAT, UM, WE RAISED
[00:20:01]
OUR PROJECTIONS LAST MONTH, SO THAT GAP HAD CLOSED TO 10 POINT 10 OR SO MILLION DOLLARS.UH, FINANCE HAS SINCE RAISED THIS PROJECTIONS, AND SO NOW IT'S $35.1 MILLION.
AND, AND I'VE BEEN ADDRESSING THE CHAIR.
I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING THE CHAIRS, UH, AT THIS JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING.
AND I SHOULD HAVE ALSO CONGRATULATED YOU ALL ON YOUR APPOINTMENTS TO THESE IMPORTANT COMMITTEES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.
AND, UH, GOOD MORNING TO EVERYONE.
UH, YOU BOTH, UH, GAVE, UM, VERY DETAILED PRESENTATIONS, UM, GOING OVER, UH, KIND OF WHERE WE STAND WITH OUR FINANCES, THE EXPENDITURES, THE REVENUE, UH, IN YOUR OWN ESTIMATIONS, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE CITY BROKE? OKAY, I'LL GO FIRST.
UM, I WOULD SAY THAT THE FISCAL YEAR 24, UM, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH FUND BALANCE WE HAVE.
IT'S A HISTORICALLY HIGH FUND BALANCE, CERTAINLY.
UM, BUT THE FUND BALANCE IS ONE TIME FUNDING SOURCE.
UM, AND SO I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANNA MINCE WORDS ABOUT THAT, RIGHT? WE HAVE A LOT OF FUND BALANCE RIGHT NOW, BUT WHEN WE LOOK DOWN THE ROAD AT OUR FUTURE PROJECTIONS, WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO RIGHT SIZE OUR EXPENDITURES AND OUR REVENUES.
BUT CURRENTLY, WOULD YOU SAY WE HAVE ONE OF THE HIGHEST FUND BALANCES IN THIS RECENT MEMORY? YES.
SO AGAIN, I TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, REGULARLY HOUSTONIANS HOUSTONIANS BALANCING THEIR CHECKBOOKS, UH, IN MY COMMENTS.
AND SO TO SAY THAT WE'RE BROKE, WHILE WE HAVE $400 MILLION PROJECTED, UH, IN SAVINGS, I WOULDN'T CALL THAT BROKE.
UM, BUT WE DO HAVE A REAL ISSUE ON OUR HANDS, WHICH IS THAT RIGHT NOW, EVEN BEFORE THE PROPOSED FIREFIGHTER SETTLE FIREFIGHTER SETTLEMENT, UH, WE WERE, WE HAVE A PROJECTED GAP NEXT YEAR OF 160 TO $200 MILLION.
STRUCTURALLY, YOU TACK ON, UH, THE SETTLEMENT AND THAT TURNS TO 230 TO $280 MILLION.
SO THAT RECORD SAVINGS ACCOUNT, RIGHT, THAT FUND BALANCE THAT WE'RE PROJECTED TO HAVE, UH, THAT WOULD GET US A YEAR, UH, BUT IT WOULDN'T GET US TWO YEARS.
AND SO YEAH, WE'RE NOT BROKE, BUT WE HAVE, UH, WHAT YOU MIGHT CHARACTERIZE AS A SPENDING PROBLEM, UM, OR A REVENUE PROBLEM.
RIGHT? AND THAT'S GONNA BE UP TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO DETERMINE HOW WE CLOSE THAT GAP WITH EITHER I IDENTIFYING NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE, UH, REDUCING OUR COSTS, OR SOME COMBINATION OF BOTH.
UH, CONTROLLER, YOU SAID, AND I, I MAY HAVE JUST MISSED SOME OF THE COMMENTS, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GOT THE RIGHT NOTES ON THIS CONTROLLER.
YOU SAID PRIOR TO, UM, THE FIREFIGHTER NEGOTIATIONS AND THE, THOSE PROTECTIONS, WE HAD ABOUT A $200 MILLION SHORTFALL, IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S, IT'S BALLPARK TO BE 160 TO $200 MILLION.
AND DO YOU HAVE, ONCE AGAIN, THE PROJECTION, IF THIS AGREEMENT AS IT STANDS AS YOU HAVE REVIEWED, IT STANDS WHAT THAT BUDGET SHORTFALL WOULD BE? YES.
AND WHERE THAT COMES FROM IS, IF YOU LOOK AT DEBT SERVICE ON THE PROPOSED $650 MILLION BOND, UH, OVER A 25 TO 30 YEAR PERIOD, WITH SOME ESTIMATION AROUND OUR INTEREST RATE, WHICH WE'RE TARGETING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 4.75% AND 5%, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A, A DEBT PAYMENT ANNUALLY IN THE LOW TO MID FORTIES.
RIGHT? SO THAT'S 40 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS JUST FOR THE SETTLEMENT.
NOW, WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEW PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH THE 10% RAISES IN YEAR ONE.
UH, THAT'S ESTIMATED TO BE $36 MILLION IN YEAR ONE.
AND SO AGAIN, COMBINING THOSE TWO NUMBERS, WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS SOMETHING IN THE 70 TO $80 MILLION RANGE LOOKING AT NEXT YEAR, TACKED ON TO THE 160 TO 200 MILLION, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GET TWO 30 TO TWO 80 AS THE, THE BALLPARK RANGE.
AND, UH, FINANCE DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, UH, SAME QUESTION TO YOU.
WHAT'S THE PROJECTED BUDGET SHORTFALL THAT YOU'RE SEEING AND THEN WITH THE, THIS AGREEMENT AS IT STANDS? SURE.
UH, SO WE SAW THE BASELINE GAP AS 160 MILLION, RIGHT? UM, AND THEN THE, UH, THE 10%, WHICH IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE GOING FORWARD BASED ON THE DRAFT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IS ABOUT 36 MILLION.
UM, AND THEN ON THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE, YOU'LL SEE IN MY NEXT PRESENTATION, THERE'S, UM, SEVERAL SCENARIOS, UH, ON THE DEBT SERVICE, THE WAY YOU COULD STRUCTURE IT, CERTAIN INTEREST RATE ASSUMPTIONS, BUT WE'RE KIND OF USING A, UH, WORST CASE ASSUMPTION IS THAT
[00:25:01]
$36 MILLION FOR THE FIRST PAYMENT.SO ALL THAT TOGETHER IN OUR ESTIMATION IS ABOUT 210 MILLION.
AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE TIME OF THE BUDGET, THERE ARE GONNA BE ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT.
WE CALL IT THE BASELINE GAP, RIGHT? WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT HOW IS SALES TAX PERFORMING, HOW IS, HOW IS, UM, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY TAX, WHERE ARE WE GONNA BUDGET WITH THE PROPERTY TAX, DEPENDING ON WHERE CPI AND POPULATION COME IN.
SO THAT $160 MILLION BASELINE GAP NUMBER IS GOING TO CHANGE AS YOU SEE WHEN WE PROPOSE THE BUDGET.
WE'LL REFINE THAT NUMBER ONCE WE GET TO THAT POINT.
AND LASTLY, 'CAUSE I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER POLLARD ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FINANCIAL STATE OF THE CITY AND THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT, UM, WITH THE FUND BALANCE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, WE'RE NOT THE ONLY CITY THAT, UH, I WAS JUST READING A FEW ARTICLES THAT CAME OUT RECENTLY, UH, FOR MAJOR CITIES, RIGHT? WE, UH, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT WE ARE AN OUTLIER WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THE FINANCIAL CHALLENGES OF A MAJOR CITY.
UM, AS IT RELATES TO THE FUND BALANCE CURRENTLY, UH, THAT WE ARE COMING INTO THIS YEAR WITH, DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER MAJOR CITY WITH A A FUND BALANCE THAT LARGE OR SMALL? I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE THOSE FIGURES OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
AND TOWARDS THAT END DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU DO THE TRUE UP AND, YOU KNOW, WE, THOSE OF US THAT HAVE BEEN SITTING AROUND THIS HORSESHOE EVERY YEAR, THERE IS A BIG BUDGET GAP EVERY YEAR.
AND MANY TIMES IT IS, IT IS MET THROUGH RESERVES THROUGH DIFFERENT WAY THROUGH BIGGER SALES TAX.
WE DID AN ANALYSIS MANY TIMES OVER A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, UH, MORE IN ENDING FUND BALANCE THAN WE START OFF SAYING.
AND WE WENT ALL THE WAY BACK TO, UH, FY 14, SOME YEARS IT'S CLOSER THAN OTHERS, BUT, UM, USUALLY THERE IS A BIG, AND, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THAT.
A LOT OF THAT'S NOT SPENDING, AND SOMETIMES IT'S JUST UNEXPECTED SALES TAX REVENUE AND, UM, LARGER THAN USUAL A VALOREM, UM, THE ARPA FUNDING, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COME UP.
BUT, BUT, WE'LL, WE'LL GET CLOSER TO THAT AS WE GET CLOSER TO BUDGET TIME.
COUNCIL MEMBER, FLICKINGER, THERE WAS BOTH, UH, FROM OR FROM BOTH OF YOU, THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE INTEREST ON OUR FORECAST.
UH, INTEREST RATES HAVE BEEN PRETTY STABLE.
IS THIS DUE TO ANTICIPATED LOWER INTEREST RATES THAT HAVEN'T MATERIALIZED? SO FROM, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, AND THE CONTROLLER CAN PROBABLY SPEAK MORE TO THIS, UM, BUT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE WAY THE CITY INVESTS THEIR FUNDS, UM, THERE ARE EXISTING INVESTMENTS THAT THE CITY BOUGHT, PURCHASED YEARS AGO THAT'S IN THE INVESTMENT POOL AS THOSE INVESTMENTS MATURE AND ROLL OFF OR ABLE TO INVEST AT, UH, INVESTMENTS THAT HAVE EARNED A HIGHER INTEREST RATE.
SO THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THE COMBINED RATE OF THE POOL, UH, GROWING.
I DON'T KNOW IF I'M, I DON'T CONTROL OR YOU WANNA NO, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S LARGELY ACCURATE.
UH, AS I MENTIONED IN THE WAY THAT WE ADJUSTED OUR PROJECTIONS ON, ON REVENUE LAST MONTH, WE HAVE MADE NO SUCH ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROJECTIONS ON, ON INTEREST.
AND BECAUSE OF THE HISTORICALLY HIGH, OR, YOU KNOW, IN THE RECENT YEARS, HISTORICALLY, HIGH INTEREST RATES, UH, THOSE, THAT INTEREST CONTINUES TO COME IN AT RATES THAT ARE ABOVE THE PROJECTIONS.
DO YOU ANTICIPATE MAKING FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE YEAR END FORECAST, OR IS THIS PRETTY MUCH ONE AND DONE? WE COULD
SO ON OURS, WE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, BUT WE, LIKE I MENTIONED, WE TRY TO GET, UM, AN ACCURATE BUT STILL SLIGHTLY CONSERVATIVE PICTURE ON OUR PROJECTIONS FOR THIS MONTH AS WE GET READY FOR THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE SALES TAX, I KNOW WE WENT UP A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, THIS MONTH AND THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, UH, HAD GONE UP THE PRIOR MONTH.
UM, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE CONTINUING TO MONITOR.
SO MONITOR, SO FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE SALES TAX IN ORDER TO HIT OUR PROJECTION OF THE 880 MILLION, UM, THE REMAINING MONTHS, UH, WOULD NEED TO COME IN.
I'M SORRY, I HAD THIS ONE MEMORIZED.
I THINK THE REMAINING MONTHS, UH, SO, SO FAR WE'RE AVERAGING YEAR TO DATE THAT OUR PROJECTIONS ARE ABOUT 0.43% ABOVE THE PRIOR YEAR.
SO WE STILL THINK THAT IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, CONSERVATIVE FROM WHERE WE'RE LOOKING, THE 880 MILLION.
SO WE COULD GO UP ON SALES TAX AGAIN IN THE COMING MONTHS.
WE WANNA CONTINUE TO MONITOR, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THE, IT'S NOT THE FINAL BET AT THE APPLE DIRECTOR ON THE JUDGMENT BOND.
WOULD THAT SHOW UP LIKE ON PAGE 17 OF THIS MOER WITH THE
[00:30:01]
DEBT PAID BY AVALOR, OR HOW, WHERE DOES IT SHOW, WHERE WOULD IT SHOW UP? THAT WOULD JUST BE LIKE WITH THE PENSION BONDS.THAT'S WHERE THAT SIX 50 WOULD SHOW UP.
UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATIONS, AND I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO MY CO-CHAIR.
COUNCIL MEMBER KAMAN, THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, AT THIS TIME, WE, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME CITY ATTORNEY MICHELLE, WHO'S GONNA BE PROVIDING THE FIRST PRESENTATION WE'RE HAVING TODAY, UM, ON THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PARAMETERS STANDARDS IN TERMS OF THE HOUSTON FIREFIGHTER AGREEMENT.
UM, AND THEN WE WILL IMMEDIATELY GO AS CHAIR ALCORN SAID, UM, TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR HER PRESENTATION.
THEN WE WILL TAKE QUESTIONS AT THE END OF BOTH PRESENTATIONS, UH, CONTROLLER, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO STAY AS LONG AS POSSIBLE, JUST IN THE BACK, I KNOW YOU'LL HAVE TO LEAVE AT A CERTAIN POINT, BUT SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY HAVE SOME FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR YOU UNTIL YOU HAVE TO GO AND I DON'T SAY THIS.
WOULD YOU PREFER THAT I SIT IN FRONT? I THINK YOUR CHAIR IS JUST FINE.
SORRY, MELISSA, BE YOU FROM, YOU'LL YOU'LL BE IN THE HOT
CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE PROCEED.
OKAY, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, THIS IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
UH, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO THIS IS, UH, WITH THE FIREFIGHTERS, WE HAVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
IT ADDRESSES NOT ONLY WAGES, BUT OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
UNDER CHAPTER 1 74 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THE HOUSTON PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS UNION, LOCAL 3 41 REPRESENTS THE CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THEY ARE THE BARGAINING AGENT, UH, VOTED UPON, UH, BY THE MEMBERSHIP.
THEY HAVE THE SOLE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY TO BARGAIN FOR, UH, ITS MEMBERS.
IN 2003, UH, THE HOUSTON VOTERS MANDATED REQUIRED THAT THE CITY USE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, UH, FOR ITS FIREFIGHTERS.
SO THAT WAS A VOTE ROUGHLY 20 YEARS AGO THAT RESULTED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS.
AND, UH, I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THIS.
I'LL LEAVE IT UP HERE FOR A LITTLE BIT FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK AT.
BUT I INCLUDED THIS SLIDE BECAUSE I WANTED, UH, COUNSEL AND THE PUBLIC TO BE COGNIZANT OF THE NUMBER OF, UH, PERSONNEL WE ARE DEALING WITH FOR PURPOSES OF A, UM, OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
THEN THE NEXT SLIDE GIVES THE LITIGATION HISTORY, UH, THAT, THAT THE CITY HAS EXPERIENCED.
UM, IN MIDDLE OF 2017, THE UNION FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY SEEKING JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT, UH, WHEN, UH, THERE WAS AN IMPASSE DECLARED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NEGOTIATIONS, JUDICIAL EN THE, WHAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STATUTE PROVIDES AT THE TIME IS THAT YOU COULD ARBITRATE IF BOTH PARTIES AGREE, IF NOT EITHER PARTY HAD THE RIGHT TO GO TO COURT UNDER WHAT'S CALLED THE JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT PROVISION.
UM, THE CITY ASSERTED THE DEFENSE THAT THAT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THE THEORY, UH, WAS A SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE, THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT PARAMETERS FOR THE COURTS TO DETERMINE HOW TO PROVIDE A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, UM, THROUGH LITIGATION, AND THEREFORE, IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT THE TIME.
THERE WERE ONLY TWO APPELLATE DECISIONS THAT HAD ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE AND HAD EACH HAD REACHED OPPOSITE RESULTS.
SO THAT WOVE ITS WAY, UH, THROUGH THE COURT.
UH, AT THAT TIME ALSO, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FROM 2011 THAT HAD ENDED IN 2015 AND HAD BEEN EXTENDED FOR TWO YEARS, EXPIRED THE FOLLOWING YEAR IN THE FALL, UH, IN 18, UH, THE UNION SOUGHT PAY PARITY.
UH, THE VOTERS APPROVED A CHARTER, UH, AMENDMENT, PROP E THAT WENT INTO EFFECT.
UM, HPOU CHALLENGED THAT, UH, THE CITY JOINED THAT CHALLENGE.
UM, EVENTUALLY THERE WAS A COURT RULING, UH, AT, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL THAT, UH, FOUND THAT TO BE, IM IMPROPER IT AGAIN, WOVE ITS WAY THROUGH THE COURTS.
THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, UH, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED THAT PROP
[00:35:01]
B WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THEREFORE THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT WAS INVALID.BUT IT FOUND THAT THE JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AND REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO THE COURT TO, UH, ADDRESS THE JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF WHAT WAS THEN THE, UH, FY 1718 YEAR.
UM, AND SO THAT HAPPENED ABOUT ROUGHLY A YEAR AGO IN THE SPRING, IN THE SUMMER, THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE PASSED AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1 74 THAT MADE, UH, ARBITRATION MANDATORY AT THE REQUEST OF A SINGLE PARTY, UM, THE UNION, A AMENDED ITS LAWSUIT TO SEEK THE INTER, THE SUBSEQUENT INTERVENING YEARS.
SO FY 19 THROUGH 24 TO THEIR LAWSUIT, AND ALSO SOUGHT TO APPLY THE MANDATORY ARBITRATION.
UH, THE COURT DETERMINED THAT FY 18 17 18, BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, UH, WAS NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ARBITRATION BECAUSE IT WOULD'VE BEEN A RETROACTIVE APPLICATION, BUT IT DID FIND THAT, UH, THE PARTIES ORDERED THE PARTIES TO, UH, BEGIN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR THE INTERVENING YEARS.
UM, AND SO THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE BEEN IN THE COURT FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS.
UH, IF YOU'D GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO, THE PARTIES BEGAN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS THROUGH THE CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION PROCESS THAT'S PERMITTED BY, UH, THE STATUTE.
UM, THE SETTLEMENT FOR 650,000 RESOLVES SEVEN YEARS OF PAY OWED THE FIREFIGHTERS.
UH, AND IT'S UNDER A VERY DIFFICULT TO PREDICT, UH, PRIVATE SECTOR STANDARD.
UM, I KNOW MY FELLOW CITY ATTORNEYS AND THE PRIVATE LAWYERS WHO DO THIS, IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHAT IT IS, AND I WILL READ DIRECTLY FROM THE STATUTE.
THE COMPENSATION AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ARE THOSE THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO COMPENSATION AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT THAT PREVAIL IN COMPARABLE EMPLOYMENT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND BASED ON PREVAILING PRIVATE SECTOR COMPENSATION AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE LABOR MARKET, IN OTHER JOBS THAT REQUIRE THE SAME OR SIMILAR SKILLS, ABILITY AND TRAINING, AND MAY BE PERFORMED UNDER THE SAME OR SIMILAR CONDITIONS.
UH, THIS BECOMES A BATTLE OF EXPERTS, UH, IN THE COURT WHERE YOU COULD END UP AT EACH END OF THE DUMBBELL OR SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO IT.
UM, WHAT THIS SETTLEMENT DID THOUGH, IS WE ADDRESSED IT UNDER PUBLIC SECTOR STANDARDS.
IT MADE IT MUCH EASIER TO BEGIN DISCUSSIONS, UH, AND IN FRANKLY, THESE WERE THE FIRST REALLY FRUITFUL DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE HAD.
YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION, THE PROP B LITIGATION PUT A CLOUD OVER NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS AND MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO MOVE FORWARD, UH, ON ANYTHING.
UM, THE SETTLEMENT STRUCTURE ADDRESSES ONLY OVERTIME, WHICH IS A SINGLE COMPONENT OF THEIR CLAIMS. UM, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, YOU CAN RESOLVE A LAWSUIT IN, IN ANY FASHION, THE PAR THE PARTIES WANT.
SO, SO FAR AS IT'S WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE LAW, BY SETTLING FOR OVERTIME, THERE IS NO PENSION OBLIGATION BY THE CITY, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL OR BY EACH FIREFIGHTER.
UH, AND THERE IS, UH, NO SEPARATE, UH, INTEREST COMPONENT IN THAT TOO.
THE PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST FOR SEVEN YEARS CAN BECOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT.
THE SETTLEMENT OF THE 650,000, IN ADDITION TO THE OVERTIME PAY IS FUNDING THE MEDICAL TRUST FUND, WHICH THE CITY USED TO FUND.
BUT WHEN THE CONTRACT EXPIRED, IT'S BEEN IN ARREARS, THAT'S, IT'S LIKE SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE FOR, FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS THAT THEY, THEY, THEY HAD BEFORE.
THIS SETTLEMENT IS PAYABLE THROUGH, UH, REFUNDING BONDS.
UM, I HAD PREVIOUSLY REFERRED TO THESE AS JUDGMENT BONDS.
UM, THIS IS THE SAME VEHICLE, UH, THAT I USED, UH, BACK IN 2005 SIX TO SETTLE A FIREFIGHTER OVERTIME CLAIM.
UM, THE MEDIA HAS REPORTED THAT DALLAS USES JUDGMENT BONDS, BUT TO BE PRECISE, IT'S UNDER THE PROVISION OF, UH, OF STATUTES THAT IS IDENTIFIED AS REFUNDING BONDS.
AND IT BECAME AN ISSUE WHEN PEOPLE LOOKED AT A SEPARATE SECTION, TITLE JUDGMENT BONDS, AND WERE CONFUSED AS TO THE PROCESS THAT SHOULD BE USED.
SO THIS IS UNDER 1207, UH, AND IT IS THE, UH, IT IS TITLED REFUNDING BONDS.
AND, UH, PROBABLY THE MOST ACCURATE WAY TO SAY IS THESE ARE REFUNDING BONDS TO SATISFY A JUDGMENT, UM, SEPARATE FROM THE 650,000, THERE ARE ATTORNEY'S FEES OF 6.5 MILLION.
UH, TO ADDRESS THE LITIGATION, THIS WILL BE PAID FROM OUR PROPERTY AND CASUAL FUND OVER TWO FISCAL YEARS.
THE CURRENT ONE AND THE FOLLOWING ONE.
AND THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY, UM, SIGNIFICANT ADDITION TO THE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY FUND.
[00:40:01]
FUNDED AT, AT OUR HISTORICAL LEVELS THAT WE TYPICALLY DO.UM, THE WAY THIS WAS CALCULATED IS THE, UH, THE LAW FIRM FOR THE UNION HAD AS TIME SHEETS.
UH, THIS IS OVER A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME.
IT'S EXPERIENCED COUNSEL WHERE THE COURT LIKELY WILL FIND IT IS ENTITLED TO A, A HIGH RATE.
AND THEN THERE IS ALSO THE LOAD STAR FACTOR THAT THAT COURTS USE, WHICH IS AN ENHANCEMENT TO THAT FOR CASES THAT ARE LENGTHY, THE OUTCOME PREDICT UNPREDICTABLE AND COMPLEX, AND THIS WOULD LIKELY FIT INTO THAT.
SO, UM, BOTH OUR OUTSIDE COUNCIL WHO REPRESENT SEVERAL LARGE CITIES AND SMALLER CITIES IN TEXAS, AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A FAIR SETTLEMENT O OF THE ATTORNEY'S FEES COMPONENT, AND I'M SORRY, CITY ATTORNEY, JUST 'CAUSE IT'S ON THIS SLIDE.
ATTORNEY'S FEES OF 6.5 MILLION.
'CAUSE YOU REFERENCED OPPOSING COUNSEL.
IS THAT 6.5 FOR OPPOSING COUNSEL? YES, OR FOR THANK FOR OPPOSING COUNSEL.
YEAH, SORRY ABOUT THAT CONFUSION.
UH, WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
THE REFUNDING BONDS, UH, WHICH I REFERENCED BEFORE, REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL.
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE, UH, VOTER APPROVAL.
AND, AND FRANKLY, IF WE REQUIRED VOTER APPROVAL, THAT COULD NOT OCCUR BEFORE NOVEMBER BECAUSE THERE ARE ONLY TWO UNIFORM ELECTION DATES IN TEXAS.
UH, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE WOULD, WE WOULD HAVE AN AGREEMENT TO, TO RESOLVE THIS.
UM, THE AT REFUNDING BONDS, WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS LOOKING AT PRIMARILY IS THAT YOU HAVE A FINAL UNAPPEALABLE JUDGMENT WHERE YOU KNOW THE FIXED AMOUNT, UH, OF WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO PAY, SO THAT THEY KNOW THAT, THAT THIS MONEY IS GONNA BE USED TO DISCHARGE THOSE COSTS.
WE'VE HAD PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THERE MAY BE A FEW THINGS THAT WE WILL NEED TO TWEAK, BUT, UH, WE'RE PROCEEDING DOWN THAT PATH.
COUNSEL MUST APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
THIS IS HOW IT WAS BARGAINED FOR BY THE UNION, INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE PAST, BUT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR THE FUTURE FIVE YEARS.
SO COUNSEL WILL HAVE TO APPROVE BOTH COMPONENTS OF THE PAST AND THE FUTURE.
UH, BEFORE WE CAN GO TO THE COURT AND OBTAIN A FINAL JUDGMENT.
COUNSEL ALSO MUST AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF THE REFUNDING BONDS, UH, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL APPROVE THOSE, ALTHOUGH THE, THE, THE, THE TYPICAL, UM, VEHICLE IS TO OBTAIN PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, SO YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO IT OR NOT.
UM, THE FINAL, UH, STEP WILL BE THE, THE COURT SIGNING THE JUDGMENT.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT OCCURS AT THE END IS THAT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO KNOW WE CAN SATISFY THE JUDGMENT.
OTHERWISE, IF WE CANNOT SATISFY A JUDGMENT, UM, EVEN A JUDGMENT OF A SMALLER AMOUNT, UH, IF IT'S LEFT OPEN FOR TOO LONG AND THE OTHER BOND COVENANTS THAT WE HAVE, THAT WOULD BE AN EVENT OF DEFAULT.
SO THE JUDGMENT, UH, BY THE COURT, UH, BY JUDGE REEDER WILL BE THE FINAL STEP, UH, IN THIS PROCESS BEFORE, BEFORE THE TRANSACTION BEGINS.
AND THE BONDS ARE FUNDED, THEY'RE DEPOSITED WITH THE CITY.
THE UNION IS MAKING THE DETERMINATION OF, UH, WHAT THE, THE OVERTIME THAT WILL GO TO THE INDIVIDUAL FIREFIGHTERS, YOU KNOW, BASED ON, UH, HOW THE FORMULA USED TO DETERMINE OVERTIME FOR THESE FIREFIGHTERS IN THESE YEARS.
UM, THIS IS THE, THE UNION'S DETERMINATION THEY REPRESENT, UM, THE FIREFIGHTERS.
OUR AGREEMENT IS WITH THE UNION, HOWEVER, THE CITY WILL BE DISPERSING THE FUNDS BECAUSE UNDER TAX LAW, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THE TAX DOCUMENTS TO THE INDIVIDUALS IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THE 10 99.
AND WE CAN GO ON TO THE, UM, TO THE FUTURE PROPOSED AGREEMENT.
THE NEXT PAGE, UM, AS I HAD MENTIONED BEFORE, WE HAVE, UH, WE, UH, BARGAIN, UH, FOR THIS ON USING PUBLIC SECTOR COMPARATORS, THE LARGEST CITIES, UH, NOT THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
SO WE WERE ABLE TO AVOID THE DIFFICULTY OF, OF, OF DUELING EXPERTS IN THAT IT'S FIVE YEARS.
UH, THE PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE IS JULY 1ST OF THIS YEAR.
UM, IT ALSO AVOIDS MANDATORY ARBITRATION, WHICH APPEARS WHERE THE COURT WAS HEADED ON, ON THESE FOR, UH, WELL CLEARLY FOR FUTURE YEARS.
UH, AND IN ARBITRATION, APART FROM THE STANDARD THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT, UH, THERE'S NO APPEAL.
YOU, AND SO ONCE YOU HAVE A, UH, A DETERMINATION BY THE ARBITRATION PANEL OF THREE, THEN THE CITY HAS TO PAY THE MONEY.
AND, UH, YOU HEARD ME WHEN I QUOTED FROM THE STATUTE BEFORE, IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY LANGUAGE IN THERE REFERENCING THE CITY'S FINANCES OR THE ABILITY TO PAY THE ARBITRATION AWARD.
[00:45:01]
THAT IS, UM, THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CONCERN TO MUNICIPALITIES WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY LOOK AT ARBITRATION IN TERMS OF, UH, UH, OF WHAT YOU DO.AND IN FACT, UM, UH, I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU COULD DO THAT ABSENT ANY LEGISLATIVE CHANGE.
BOTH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN PASSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS, UH, THAT CHANGED THE SCHEME, A PUBLIC SECTOR STANDARD, UH, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FINANCES OF THE CITY AND THE HISTORY OF PAYMENT TO IT.
HOWEVER, WITH THE SUPREME COURT DECISION, AND, AND PROP E THE CITY OF AUSTIN MADE THE DETERMINATION WITH WHICH MOST LAWYERS AGREE THAT YOU CAN'T GIVE EFFECT TO THAT BECAUSE IT VARIES FROM WHAT THE STATUTE HAD HAS.
SO YOU CAN'T DO IT IN A CONTESTED MATTER.
BUT HERE, BECAUSE WE DO IT BY AGREEMENT, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN A BETTER, I THINK, STANDARD FOR NEGOTIATING.
UM, I HAVE IN THERE THE, UM, WHAT THE BASE PAY INCREASES IS FOR THE, UM, THE FIVE YEARS.
I'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH ALL OF YOU BEFORE.
I THINK IT'S BEEN OUT THERE PUBLICLY.
AND IF THERE ARE SUFFICIENT REVENUES IN PLACE TO INCREASE IT TO SIX EACH OF THOSE YEARS, THE CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR THAT CONTINGENCY.
IT ALSO ADDRESSES INCREASES IN ASSIGNMENT, ASSIGNMENT, PAY TO HELP WITH RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION AND REDUCE STAFFING AND, AND OVERTIME, WE HAVE LOST A NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.
UM, RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION, OUR PRIORITIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT AND FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
UH, THERE'S ALSO AN EDUCATION INCENTIVE PAY STRUCTURE SIMILAR TO THE POLICE.
UM, AND THEN THERE ARE SEVERAL, IT'S A LENGTHY AGREEMENT.
THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER ASPECTS, UH, TO IT THAT DEAL WITH, UH, HOLIDAYS AND OTHER AND OTHER, UM, CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
BUT I'M TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT THE, UH, UH, THE LARGER, THE LARGER ASPECTS OF IT HERE.
AND THEN I THINK THAT'S MY FINAL SLIDE.
UM, NEXT WE'LL TURN TO FINANCE DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI.
OKAY, GOOD MORNING AGAIN, EVERYONE.
THERE ARE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE QUEUE.
JUST HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS TILL SHE'S DONE.
COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON HAS BEEN WITH US FOR SOME TIME FROM DISTRICT B.
WELCOME TO THE HORSESHOE AND STAFF FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ANNE HUFFMAN, DISTRICT G.
UH, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UH, SO FIRST I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT FUNDING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH IS THE $650 MILLION THAT, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY REFERENCED.
AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE GOING FORWARD AND HOW MUCH IT IT'S GONNA COST AND HOW TO PAY FOR IT.
OKAY, SO ON SLIDE THREE, UM, A LOT OF, YOU'RE USED TO SEEING THIS IS THE STANDARD PRESENTATION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BONDS.
UM, SO THE BOND PROCEEDS AMOUNT YOU SEE ON HERE, 655 MILLION, UH, A PORTION OF THE BOND PROCEEDS WOULD GO TO FUND STANDARD COST OF ISSUANCE THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE WITH OUR, UM, OUR BOND OBLIGATIONS AND OUR BOND PROJECTS.
WE WANNA INCLUDE THAT COST AS WELL.
UH, THE ESTIMATED WEIGHTED AVERAGE LIFE OF THE BONDS IS ABOUT 19.6 YEARS.
AND THE CURRENT ASSUMPTION ON OUR INTEREST RATE, AND THIS IS BASED ON CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS, UH, WE THINK THE ESTIMATED TRUE INTEREST COST IS 4.25%.
AND YOU'RE GONNA SEE IN THE FOLLOWING SLIDES A FEW DIFFERENT SCENARIOS DEPENDING ON, UH, VARIOUS INTEREST RATE ASSUMPTIONS.
SO YOU CAN KIND OF GET SOME IDEAS ABOUT BOOKENDS OF WHERE THE PAYMENTS COULD BE.
'CAUSE I KNOW IN THE PAST WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A FIVE AND A HALF PERCENT INTEREST RATE, SO I WANNA SHOW YOU WHAT THOSE NUMBERS LOOK LIKE AT THE DIFFERENT RATES.
BUT ON SLIDE FOUR, I'M CALLING THIS THE BASELINE SCENARIO.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT THE, BASED ON THE CITY'S, UM, CURRENT RATING, THE CURRENT MARKET, UH, WHAT THE INTEREST RATES WOULD LOOK LIKE.
AND OF COURSE, ALL THIS IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE, SUBJECT TO THE MARKET BY THE TIME WE GET TO THE PRICING.
UM, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT DYNAMICS THAT HAPPEN DURING A PRICING WHERE YOU CAN WORK TO NEGOTIATE DOWN YOUR INTEREST RATE, TRYING TO GET THE BEST DEAL THAT WE CAN.
UM, BUT THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION, UH, AS TO WHERE WE SEE THE INTEREST RATES RIGHT NOW.
UH, SO BASED ON THIS SCHEDULE, UH, YOU CAN SEE A PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE PAYMENTS IS WE ARE PROPOSING TO STRUCTURE THE PAYMENTS OF THESE REFUNDING BONDS, SIMILAR TO HOW WE STRUCTURED THE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS, WHERE THE, UM, THE PAYMENT COMPONENT INCREASES SLIGHTLY ABOUT 2.75% OF YEAR, UH, TO TRY TO
[00:50:01]
MATCH OUR REVENUES AS WE SEE LONG-TERM PROJECTIONS.SO NO BULLET PAYMENTS, NO BALLOON PAYMENTS.
UM, AND YOU SEE IN THE FIRST YEAR, FY 25, UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT A FIRST YEAR PAYMENT OF CLOSE TO $30 MILLION BASED ON THAT 4.25% INTEREST I MENTIONED.
SO IF YOU GO ONTO SLIDE FIVE, UM, THIS WILL SHOW YOU, UM, LAYERING ON TOP OF THAT, UM, THAT ASSUMPTION OF THE 4.25% INTEREST RATE IF THE COST OF FUNDS WERE 5.5%.
SO AGAIN, TRYING TO KIND OF GET A BOOKEND SCENARIO THAT THAT FIRST YEAR'S PAYMENT, UH, WOULD BE ABOUT $36 MILLION.
THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT IN THE PAST.
UH, SO THIS KIND OF GIVES YOU A RANGE OF WHERE WE COULD SEE THE, THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT, UH, BEING ANYWHERE BETWEEN 30 TO 36 MILLION IN THAT FIRST YEAR, AND HOW THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT COULD LOOK OVER TIME, OVER THE LIFE OF THE BONDS.
ON SLIDE SIX AGAINST SOME, SOME MORE SCENARIOS FOR YOU.
UM, THE FIRST BAR YOU SEE WHAT THE CURRENT MARKET RATES ARE, AGAIN, THAT'S THE 4.25%.
AND THEN, UH, IF INTEREST RATES INCREASE BY 50 BASIS POINTS OR A HUNDRED BASIS POINTS, THE INCREMENTAL, UH, DEBT, WHAT THE DEBT SERVICE COSTS WOULD BE OVER THE LIFE OF THE BONDS.
ON SLIDE SEVEN, UH, WE WANTED TO LAYER WHAT THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT WOULD BE BASED ON THE 2024 REFUNDING BONDS, UH, LAYER THAT ON TOP OF THE CITY'S, UH, EXISTING OUTSTANDING DEBT SERVICE.
UH, SO YOU SEE, UM, FROM 20 FISCAL YEAR 24 TO 2052, THE CITY'S CURRENT OUTSTANDING DEBT SERVICE BROKEN DOWN BY TAX SUPPORTED BONDS, UH, PENSION BONDS, WHICH, UM, THERE WERE OTHER SERIES OF PENSION BONDS PRIOR TO THE 2017, UH, REFORMS. WE HAD A SERIES FROM 2005, SIX, UH, EIGHT AND NINE, I BELIEVE.
UH, SO THAT'S THE, UM, THAT'S THE SECOND BAR YOU SEE ON THE PENSION BONDS.
THE CITY ISSUES A SMALL AMOUNT OF CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, WHICH YOU USED PRIMARILY FOR THE DANGEROUS BUILDINGS PROGRAM.
SO THOSE ARE LAYERED HERE AS WELL.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE, THE FINAL STACK IS THE SERIES 2024 REFUNDING BONDS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO LAYERING THAT ON TOP OF THE CITY'S EXISTING DEBT, UM, YOU SEE GENERALLY THERE'S A DECLINING, UM, PROJECTION OF THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT OVER TIME.
UM, THIS PICTURE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE ANY FUTURE BOND ISSUANCES, ASIDE FROM THE 2024 REFUNDING BONDS.
SO AS WE COMPLETE CIP PROJECTS, AS WE FINANCE OTHER NEEDS, THAT DEBT SERVICE WOULD BE LAYERED.
UH, AND SORT OF FILL IN, UH, WHAT YOU SEE HERE.
GOING ON TO SLIDE EIGHT, UM, ATTORNEY MICHELLE TALKED ABOUT, UM, THE PRIVATE SECTOR STANDARD AND THE, UM, YOU'VE HEARD THE NUMBER OF THE 1.2, $1.3 BILLION, UH, THAT THIS, UM, THAT THE COST COULD HAVE BEEN.
UM, SO WE RAN A DEBT SERVICE SCENARIO.
UM, THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE THE LINE.
UM, THE PURPLE LINE IS WHAT THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN, UM, HAD WE BEEN ISSUING $1.2 BILLION OF BONDS.
SO DEFINITELY A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE FROM THE, UH, WHAT THE COST OF THE 650 WOULD BE ON SLIDE NINE.
I KNOW MANY OF YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY'S FINANCIAL POLICIES.
UM, A SECTION OF THE FINANCIAL POLICY SPEAKS TO THE DEBT OF THE CITY AT SECTION J OF THE POLICIES.
UM, WE DO WANNA KEEP IN MIND THAT ISSUING, UM, $650 MILLION IN BONDS COULD, UH, IMPACT COMPLIANCE WITH SOME OF THE POLICIES.
SO WE WENT AHEAD AND TOOK A LOOK AT SOME OF THE POLICIES THAT WE WANNA KEEP A CLOSE EYE ON.
UM, POLICY J TWO TALKS ABOUT A DEBT SERVICE FUND BALANCE.
SO WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF, UM, WE HAVE THE GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE THAT I JUST GOT DONE TALKING ABOUT.
WE ALSO HAVE A DEBT SERVICE FUND BALANCE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MEET OUR OBLIGATIONS.
UH, SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO KEEP AN EYE ON TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE TRANSFERRING ENOUGH FROM THE GENERAL FUND INTO THE DEBT SERVICE FUND, UH, TO MEET OUR OBLIGATIONS.
UM, POLICY J FIVE TALKS ABOUT A DEBT SERVICE INDEX.
UM, IT SPEAKS TO, UH, EXCEEDING, UH, EACH YEAR OF DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT.
UM, THE BENCHMARK IS TO GROW THAT PAYMENT BY NO MORE THAN 4% A YEAR.
SO THAT SPEAKS TO THE THOUGHT PROCESS ON THE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE OF AMORTIZING THE DEBT SUCH THAT THE PAYMENT WILL GO UP BY 2.75% A YEAR.
WE DON'T WANNA HAVE ANY BULLET PAYMENTS, ANY BALLOON PAYMENTS.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE WANNA TRY TO MATCH IT TO REVENUE GROWTH POLICY J SIX, THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.
UM, WE TARGET TO ENSURE THAT, UH, THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER THAT GOES TO PAY DEBT SERVICE, UH, DOES NOT EXCEED A CERTAIN THRESHOLD.
UH, SO WE STARTED THAT THRESHOLD AT 20% OF TOTAL REVENUES, UM, BACK IN FY 19 WITH THE GOAL OF, UM, DECREASING THAT BENCHMARK BY 0.5% A YEAR UNTIL WE GET DOWN TO 12%, UM, BY FISCAL 34.
UH, SO THAT'S ONE THAT WE WANNA KEEP AN EYE ON, UM, BASED ON THE, UM,
[00:55:01]
UM, BASED ON THE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE THAT WE'RE PROJECTING.AND AS WE, YOU KNOW, THIS SPEAKS TO THE NEED TO IDENTIFY NEW REVENUES, RIGHT? SO IF WE'RE BENCHMARKING HOW MUCH WE PAY FOR DEBT SERVICE TO REVENUES, THAT'S PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
AND WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT LATER IN A FEW SLIDES, IS BRINGING IN ADDITIONAL RECURRING REVENUES.
UH, SO KEEPING THIS POLICY IN MIND.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS WE WANNA KEEP DOWN THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE LIFE OF THE BONDS.
IT HAS TO BE, UH, AVERAGE OF 12 YEARS OR LESS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL PORTFOLIO.
UH, SO ONE THING THAT WE DON'T WANNA DO IS, UH, AMORTIZE DEBT FOR, OF COURSE, THERE'S IRS REGULATIONS.
YOU CAN'T AMORTIZE IT FOR LONGER THAN THE USEFUL LIFE OF THE ASSET.
UM, BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE, UH, AMORTIZING THINGS IN AN AFFORDABLE FASHION, BUT ALSO SUCH THAT WE'RE NOT SORT OF KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
UH, SO THAT'S WHAT THIS POLICY SPEAKS TO.
SO, UH, WE RAN THAT ANALYSIS, UM, INCLUDING THE 650 MILLION OF REFUNDING BONDS, UH, AND IT'S LOOKING LIKE THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE LIFE OF THE BONDS.
UM, RIGHT NOW IT'S AROUND, UM, 10 YEARS.
THIS WOULD BRING IT UP TO ABOUT 11 YEARS.
SO STILL WITHIN THAT, THAT THRESHOLD.
BUT AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO, UM, GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS, UH, GO THROUGH ALL THE DEBT SERVICE, UM, RELATED FINANCIAL POLICIES, UM, AND FULLY VET ALL OF THAT.
AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT AS PART OF THE, THE BUDGET PROCESS AS WELL, WHICH IS WHEN WE GENERALLY TALK ABOUT THE FINANCIAL POLICIES.
SO ON SLIDE 10, UM, AND COUNCIL MEMBER FLICKINGER, UM, REFERENCED THIS IN TERMS OF THE INTEREST RATES.
WE HAVE BEEN IN A, UM, YOU KNOW, A FAIRLY STABLE INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT.
NOW, THE FED HASN'T RAISED RATES IN A WHILE.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY DOING CUTS LATER IN THE YEAR.
UM, AND SO THIS IS THE SCHEDULE OF, OF WHEN THE MEETINGS ARE, WHEN THE CUTS COULD TAKE PLACE.
UH, YOU SEE A PROJECTION OF, UM, INTEREST RATES AND WHEN THEY COULD BE CUT ON THE BOTTOM.
UH, THE WAY THE BOND MARKET WORKS, UM, ON THE MUNICIPAL SIDE IS THAT THE MARKET IS AWARE, RIGHT? THE MARKET IS VERY AWARE OF THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT, THEY'RE AWARE OF THE FED MEETINGS, AND THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE INTEREST RATE THAT MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE AS A RESULT OF THE FED IS LARGELY PRICED INTO THE CURRENT INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT.
SO THE MARKET IS SORT OF ALREADY ANTICIPATING THAT HAPPENING, BUT DID WANNA SHARE THAT SCHEDULE WITH YOU.
SO THAT'S ON THE, THE 650 MILLION RELATED TO THE DEBT.
UM, THE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES GO OVER THE GOING FORWARD, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, UM, AND SOME OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
AND THEN AFTER THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE, HOW WE'RE GONNA PAY FOR IT.
SO ON SLIDE 12, UM, FOR FISCAL YEAR 24, WE LOOKED AT SOME PAY COMPARISONS WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS, PARTICULARLY IN TEXAS AS WE LOOKED TO BENCHMARK OURSELVES AGAINST THE PUBLIC SECTOR.
UM, SO HFD DID RECEIVE, UH, THE 18% PAY INCREASE OVER THE LAST THREE FISCAL YEARS.
UM, EVEN WITH THAT, UH, 18% PAY RAISE IN THE PAST THREE FISCAL YEARS, UM, LOOKING AT BOTH FROM A BIWEEKLY PAY AND FROM AN HOURLY PAY, UM, VIEW, UM, HOUSTON IS STILL BEHIND THAT.
UM, THAT PUBLIC SECTOR COMPARATOR THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, CERTAINLY THEY'RE FARTHER BEHIND ON A BIWEEKLY BASIS.
THEY ARE CLOSER ON AN HOURLY BASIS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
UM, UH, THE, THE TABLE THAT YOU SEE BELOW, UH, REPRESENTS ONLY STEP ONE OF EACH OF THE RANKS YOU SEE BELOW.
SO EACH OF OUR RANKS HAS A LOT OF STEPS IN IT, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY YEARS, UM, YOU HAVE.
UH, BUT JUST LOOKING, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE PROBATIONARY FIREFIGHTERS, UM, ON A BIWEEKLY BASIS, THEY'RE 37% BEHIND THE MARKET COMPARATOR ON A BI, ON A HOURLY BASIS.
SO EVEN WHEN YOU ADJUST FOR THOSE HOURS WORKED, THEY'RE STILL 15% BELOW THE, THE MARKET COMPARATOR AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
UM, THE FIREFIGHTER RANKED, IF THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR, UH, IS 33% BELOW THE MARKET ON A BIWEEKLY BASIS AND 11% BELOW ON A HOURLY BASIS.
SO GOING ON TO SLIDE 13, UM, THIS SLIDE, THESE NUMBERS, UM, IS AN ILLUSTRATION FOR HOW THE PAY COULD BE TARGETED TO CERTAIN RANKS.
SO THE COLLECTIVE, THE PROPOSED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT TALKS ABOUT INCREASING THE TOTAL BUDGETED BASE PAY BY 10% IN YEAR ONE.
UM, ONE THING THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH THE UNION ON IS TARGETING HOW THAT BUDGETED.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FROM A BUDGET STANDPOINT, THE 10% IMPACT, HOW DOES THAT GET TARGETED TO CERTAIN RANKS? AS YOU SAW IN THE SLIDE, PREVIOUS, CERTAIN RANKS ARE FARTHER BEHIND, UH, COMPARISON CITIES THAN OTHER RANKS.
[01:00:01]
THIS IS, LIKE I SAID, IT'S JUST AN ILLUSTRATION.THE BOTTOM LINE NUMBER FOR THE CUMULATIVE COST IS WHAT WE EXPECT AS AN IMPACT TO THE BUDGET.
WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE BASE PAY AND THEN THE PENSION AND THE FICA ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BASE PAY.
HOW IT ULTIMATELY GETS ALLOCATED TO THESE RANKS WILL BE PART OF THE, UM, PROPOSED CBA THAT COMES TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
THIS IS NOT THE FINAL, THIS IS JUST FOR AN ILLUSTRATION PURPOSE.
UM, SO IN THIS ILLUSTRATION, UM, YOU CAN SEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 25, INSTEAD OF DOING A 10% ACROSS THE BOARD, WE TOOK A LOOK AT WHAT IF WE TARGETED MORE OF THE RAISES TOWARDS THE, THE RANK AND FILE TOWARDS THE FIREFIGHTER, UM, RANK GIVING THEM 12% VERSUS SOME OF THE OTHER RANKS, YOU KNOW, NINE 8% FROM A BUDGETARY STANDPOINT, THIS WOULD GET US TO THAT THIRD, ABOUT $36 MILLION ANNUAL COST WE TALKED ABOUT FOR FISCAL YEAR 26.
AND AGAIN, THIS INCLUDES THE BASE PAY, THE PENSION, AND THE FICA ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BASE PAY.
UM, AND AGAIN, JUST LOOKING AT FROM A OVERALL BUDGETARY STANDPOINT, BY FISCAL YEAR 26, UM, YOU SEE THAT, UH, THE ANNUAL COST IS 59 MILLION, UM, BY FISCAL YEAR 27 80 4 MILLION, UH, 1 10, 1 38.
AND THEN THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE, OF THE FIVE YEARS FOR THE 10, AND AGAIN, THIS IS USING THE 10, 6 6, 6 6.
SO THIS IS KIND OF THE, THAT HIGH SCENARIO, RIGHT? IF WE ARE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THOSE ADDITIONAL REVENUES LIKE ARTURA, MICHEL MENTIONED, UM, USING THE 6% IN THE OUT YEARS, UH, THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE TEN SIX, SIX SIX WOULD BE $428 MILLION OVER THE FIVE YEARS.
SO USING THAT ILLUSTRATION ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, HOW WOULD THAT BRING THE PAY IN FY 25 COMPARED TO THE COMPARATOR THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, UM, FROM TWO SLIDES BEFORE? UH, SO BASED ON THAT, UM, ILLUSTRATION, UH, IT WOULD BRING US CLOSER TO THE COMPARATOR, RIGHT? UM, TWO SLIDES PREVIOUS, WHEN YOU SAW THE PROBATIONARY FIREFIGHTER WAS 37% BELOW THE MARKET, THAT WOULD BRING THEM TO 26% BELOW THE MARKET ADJUSTED FOR AN HOURLY BASIS WHERE THEY WERE 15% BELOW, THEY WOULD BE 5% BELOW.
SO THE GOAL OF THE GOING FORWARD CONTRACT IS TO BRING THE HOUSTON FIREFIGHTERS CLOSER TO THE TOP OF MARKET ON A BIWEEKLY BASIS, RECOGNIZING THAT THAT MAY BRING THEM ABOVE THE AMOUNT THAT'S ADJUSTED FOR HOURS WORKED.
SO IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.
WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN TEXAS ARE GOING TO HAVE FOR RAISES IN FUTURE YEARS.
UM, THE OTHER MARKETS THAT ARE OUT THERE, THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS END IN FISCAL 26 AND 27.
UM, SO WE CAN'T GIVE AN EXACT PICTURE OF WHERE EVERYTHING'S GONNA END UP BY FY 29.
BUT THAT'S, UM, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR THIS, HOW WE'RE GONNA END UP AFTER THIS FIRST YEAR BASED ON THIS ILLUSTRATION.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS STILL ALL UNDER NEGOTIATION AND THE HOW THE PAY IS TARGETED TO THE DIFFERENT RANKS AND STEPS IS GONNA BE PART OF THE DRAFT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AS AN EXHIBIT THAT COMES TO COUNSEL FOR APPROVAL.
SO THIS IS ALL, THESE ARE ALL STILL DETAILS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH.
DON'T TAKE THESE AS THE VERY FINAL NUMBERS.
SO ON SLIDE 15, UM, INCENTIVES AND SPECIAL PAYS, UM, ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY MICHELLE MENTIONED SOME OF THEM IN HIS, UH, PRESENTATION, PARTICULARLY AROUND THE EDUCATION PAY INCENTIVE PAYS.
UH, SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH, UM, WITH THE UNION, AND THERE'LL BE A COST IMPACT FOR EACH TYPE OF THOSE INCENTIVES AND SPECIAL PAYS THAT ARE GONNA BE PROVIDED ONCE THE CVA IS CLOSER TO THE FINAL DRAFT FORM, UM, BEFORE IT COMES TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
UH, SO MOVING ON TO HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF THIS? UM, SO I KNOW A LOT OF THE DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN AROUND, UM, POTENTIAL IDEAS FOR REVENUE, RIGHT? AND I THINK THE CONTROLLER TALKED ABOUT IT IN HIS REMARKS AS WELL.
UM, WE DO, OF COURSE HAVE THE, THE HISTORICAL FUND BALANCE, THE ONE TIME FUNDING THAT WE HAVE THAT WE CAN USE TO HELP US FOR THE FY 25 BUDGET.
BUT FUND BALANCE IS ONE TIME, AND THIS IS OBVIOUSLY, LIKE I MENTIONED, THIS IS A RECURRING EXPENDITURE, UM, NOT JUST FOR FIVE YEARS, BUT ON THE DEBT SERVICE, THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 25 PLUS YEAR HORIZON ON REPAYING THE DEBT SERVICE.
UM, SO THERE NEEDS TO BE A COMBINATION OF EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS.
I KNOW WE PUT OUT THE 5% REDUCTION TEMPLATES TO THE DEPARTMENTS, WHICH WE'RE EVALUATING, UH, THEIR PROPOSALS BACK TO US.
[01:05:01]
UM, LARGELY THOSE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO INCLUDE VACANCY REDUCTIONS FOR, UH, VACANCIES THAT ARE OLDER.UM, CERTAINLY WE'RE GONNA BE WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENTS ON MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE FILLING THE CRITICAL VACANCIES, ESPECIALLY ONES THAT IMPACT THE CITY SERVICES.
UM, I KNOW THAT WE ARE TRYING TO LOOK FOR CONSOLIDATIONS, UM, ON WHAT WE CALL, UM, CORPORATE FUNCTIONS.
I GUESS I'M GOING LITTLE OUT OF ORDER.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS FIRST.
UM, BUT THE CORPORATE FUNCTIONS AT THE CITY, SO THIS COULD INCLUDE IT, HR, FINANCE, PROCUREMENT, LEGAL, WHERE THERE ARE SIMILAR FUNCTIONS IN ALMOST EVERY DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY.
LOOKING AT WHERE CAN WE CONSOLIDATE SOME OF THOSE FUNCTIONS THAT WOULD NOT IMPACT CITY SERVICES, BUT WHERE WE COULD REALIZE EFFICIENCIES AND REALIZE BUDGETARY SAVINGS, UH, WHERE THERE COULD BE DUPLICATION IN SERVICES OR STREAMLINING.
UM, SO THAT IS A PROCESS THAT WE'RE UNDERGOING RIGHT NOW.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S WITH THE IT, HR, UM, PAYROLL, FINANCE, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, PROCUREMENT, THOSE TYPES OF, UM, FUNCTIONS THAT ARE, I MEAN, I CALL THEM BACK OFFICE, BUT THEY HELP FACILITATE ALL THE OPERATIONS OF THE CITY.
UM, AND THEN ANOTHER THING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE, UM, CALL CENTER CONSOLIDATIONS.
THERE ARE SEVERAL CALL CENTERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, SO AGAIN, LOOKING FOR WAYS TO, UM, CONSOLIDATE SAVING ON SPACE.
UM, WHAT VACANCIES, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE POSITIONS THAT ARE, HAVE BEEN VACANT AT THE CITY FOR OVER A YEAR, OVER TWO YEARS.
SOME ARE HARD TO FILL, SOME ARE HARD TO RECRUIT.
UM, BUT WHICH ONE OF THOSE CAN WE, UM, CONSOLIDATE MAYBE WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS SO WE CAN REALIZE MORE EFFICIENCIES? SO THAT'S PART OF THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH AS WE GET READY FOR THE FY 25 BUDGET.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE VACANCY REDUCTIONS IN THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT THAT WE JUST GAVE, WE TALKED ABOUT REALIZING $13 MILLION OF VACANCY SAVINGS IN THE GENERAL FUND.
SO THOSE ARE THINGS WHERE TYPICALLY IN THE PAST, WE'LL BUDGET FOR THOSE VACANCIES.
AS WE GO THROUGH THE YEAR, WE'LL REALIGN OUR BUDGET WITH THE EXPENDITURE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE SEE.
SO GETTING A HANDLE ON THAT, UM, OF COURSE WE'RE GONNA PROJECT THAT RIGHT IN OUR BUDGET.
BUT THAT KINDA GIVES YOU A IDEA OF HOW, HOW MUCH IN VACANCY SAVINGS THERE IS IN THE CITY, RIGHT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THINGS OVER $10 MILLION OF VALUE OR MORE.
UM, SO THAT'S ON EXPENDITURE DISCUSSIONS.
CERTAINLY THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF LOOKING FOR UNFILLED VACANCIES, CONSOLIDATION SO THAT WE CAN FIND MORE EFFICIENCIES.
IT'S NOT GONNA GENERATE $160 MILLION A YEAR TO CLOSE THE BUDGETARY GAP.
PUBLIC SAFETY IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET PERSONNEL IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, PARTICULARLY IN PUBLIC SAFETY.
UM, AND SO WE KNOW THAT IN ORDER TO FIND THE AMOUNT OF EITHER BETWEEN EXPENDITURE, SAVINGS AND REVENUE THAT WE NEED, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO LOOK FOR SOME BIG REVENUE SOURCES.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS THE GARBAGE FEE.
THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND BUDGET IS AROUND A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.
THAT'S JUST THEIR OPERATING BUDGET.
THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ON THE VEHICLES, THE TRUCKS THAT WE BUY, FACILITY MAINTENANCE, ET CETERA.
SO WE ARE BEGINNING THE, UM, THE PROCESS OF DOING A FEE STUDY ON THE GARBAGE FEE TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE, UM, WHAT THE COST COULD BE TO THE INDIVIDUALS.
IF WE BRING IN ENOUGH OF A GARBAGE FEE AND WE SET THE GARBAGE FEE AT A PLACE THAT COULD, UM, COMPLETELY PAY FOR JUST THE OPERATIONAL SIDE OF THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT, THAT WOULD FREE UP A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OF GENERAL FUND RESOURCES THAT COULD BE USED ON SOMETHING ELSE.
SO ONE THING WE'RE LOOKING AT IS A LOT OF THE FEES, UM, SOME OF THEM ARE, UH, BASED ON IN, UH, INFLATION.
UM, WE ALSO GO THROUGH A FEE STUDY, UM, TO LOOK AT OUR FEES ON OUR ROTATING SCHEDULE EVERY YEAR.
UH, SO WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT, UH, WHAT FEES NEED ADJUSTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE FULLY CAPTURING ALL THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ADMINISTERING THOSE SERVICES.
THE THIRD ITEM ON HERE, A COMBINED UTILITY SYSTEM RIGHT OF WAY, RENTAL FEE.
SO YOU SEE IN THE MONTHLY, UH, FINANCIAL REPORT, WE TALK ABOUT, UM, CHARGING FRANCHISE FEES FOR ELECTRICITY, CABLE, UM, NATURAL GAS, THE CITY OWNS THE WATER UTILITY.
THE CITY OWNED WATER UTILITY DOES NOT PAY A RIGHT OF WAY RENTAL FEE FOR PUTTING
[01:10:01]
THE PIPES UNDERNEATH THE CITY STREETS.SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING AS WELL.
UH, WE'VE ALSO TALKED ABOUT A, UH, PROPERTY TAX, UM, GOING BACK TO THE VOTERS TO ASK FOR ANOTHER PUBLIC SAFETY ADD-ON.
SO FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY ADD-ON, DEPENDING ON THE PROPERTY TAX RATE THAT IS SET, THIS COULD BRING IN ANYWHERE FROM ADDITIONAL 50, 60, 90 $200 MILLION A YEAR, DEPENDING ON THE TAX RATE THAT WE ADOPT, UH, FOR EVERY PENNY OF TAX RATE THAT WE HAVE.
SO OUR CURRENT TAX RATE IS ABOUT 52 CENTS FOR EVERY PENNY OF TAX RATE.
WE GENERATE ABOUT $26 MILLION OF REVENUE A YEAR.
SO YOU CAN KIND OF SCALE THAT UP DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL REVENUE DO WE NEED TO BRING IN, WHAT WOULD THE TAX RATE HAVE TO BE TO GENERATE THAT AMOUNT OF REVENUE.
SO ON THE PROPERTY TAX, PUBLIC SAFETY ADD ON, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE'RE WORKING WITH LEGAL, UH, THAT WOULD, I MENTIONED, HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS.
UM, AND WE COULD DO THAT AS EARLY AS THIS COMING NOVEMBER.
I THINK THAT COVERS ALL MY PREPARED REMARKS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UM, DIRECTOR.
UM, CHAIR, IF YOU'D LIKE TO START.
I, I KNOW OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS IN QI JUST WANTED THE RECORD, RECORD TO REFLECT CITY ATTORNEY AND DIRECTOR GRABOWSKI.
WE ARE TALKING A LOT ABOUT A CBA AGREEMENT AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT DURING COUNSEL, I BELIEVE ONE OR TWO WEEKS AGO, I HAD REQUESTED, UH, THAT THE ADMINISTRATION PROVIDE US WITH A COPY OF THE CBA.
WE ARE TALKING A LOT ABOUT AN AGREEMENT, AND I WOULD LIKE THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT AS OF TODAY, AT THE TIME OF THIS COMMITTEE HEARING, WE HAVE THIS MORNING RECEIVED POWERPOINT SLIDES RELATED TO THIS, BUT COUNCIL HAS NOT OFFICIALLY RECEIVED, UM, THE DRAFT PROPOSED CBA AGREEMENT.
I KNOW THAT THERE ARE DRAFTS CIRCULATING AROUND.
IT'S ONE OF THE WORST KEPT SECRETS, UM, WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.
BUT AS OF TODAY, AT THE TIME OF THIS COMMITTEE HEARING CITY ATTORNEY, HAS THE CBA DRAFT PROPOSAL BEEN SHARED WITH THIS COUNCIL SO THAT WE CAN BE ASKING DETAILED QUESTIONS? UH, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
I'LL SEE WHAT I CAN DO TO EXPEDITE THAT.
THE DRAFTS THAT ARE CIRCULATING AROUND ARE NOT ACCURATE.
THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED IN COURT, BUT LET ME SEE WHAT I CAN DO TO EXPEDITE, UH, UH, A DRAFT.
GO AHEAD AND, AND START WITH YOUR QUESTIONS.
I DEFER TO OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS FIRST.
UM, AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR PRESENTATIONS.
UM, I'M GONNA KIND OF GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN YOU ALL SINCE YOU ALL DID.
UM, DIRECTOR DKI, UH, YOU MENTIONED THAT, UM, WITH A FORWARD GOING PROPOSED AGREEMENT, IT MAY GET UP TO $438 MILLION TO PAY FOR THAT IN TOTAL 4 28.
AND THEN THERE'S A $650 MILLION PROPOSAL.
SO THAT GETS US TO A TOTAL COST OF AROUND 1.1 BILLION FOR THE SETTLEMENT, PLUS THE GOING FORWARD.
SO THAT'S THE TOTAL COST NUMBER IS 1.1 BILLION.
THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE, THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT, THE SIX 50 MILLION, THE 428 MILLION IS FOR THE BASE PAY ADJUSTMENTS, INCLUDING BASE PAY, PENSION AND FICA.
BUT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY, DOES IT INCLUDE INCENTIVES IN THAT OR NO.
AND DOES IT INCLUDE ANY OPERATION COSTS IN THAT, LIKE FOR APPARATUSES, INFRASTRUCTURES, TECHNOLOGY, SOFTWARE? NOTHING.
UM, MY QUESTION NOW FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, UM, HOW MUCH ARE WE PAYING IN LEGAL FEES FOR OPPOSING COUNSEL? UH, SIX AND A HALF MILLION.
AND THIS IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
SO IF IT'S A SETTLEMENT, EVERY SETTLEMENT THAT I'VE DONE AS A LAWYER, UH, WHEN THE PARTIES AGREE TO SETTLE EACH SIDE PAYS FOR THEIR OWN ATTORNEY'S FEES MM-HMM
WHY WOULD WE BE PAYING FOR OPPOSING COUNSEL'S ATTORNEY'S FEES IF IT'S A SETTLEMENT? WELL, GENERALLY, YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES IN MOST CAUSES OF ACTION.
YOU CAN IN SOME, DEPENDING ON CONTRACTS.
UM, THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE, BUT THERE'S A MAKE WHOLE PROVISION IN THE, UM, IN THE STATUTE THAT I THINK A COURT WOULD, UH, AWARD A ATTORNEY'S FEES.
SO, UM, IN ORDER TO GET THIS DONE, WE FELT THIS WAS A FAIR AMOUNT TO PAY.
WHAT ARE THE CITY'S, UH, ATTORNEY'S FEES THAT, THAT WE PUT OUT FOR OUR, FOR OUR LIVING? OURS ARE APPROXIMATELY 1.7 MILLION, BUT WE DO QUITE A BIT IN HOUSE.
UM, THE UNION DOESN'T HAVE A LEGAL DEPARTMENT, AND THE COURT WOULDN'T
[01:15:01]
EXPECT IT TO DO SO.SO I THINK IF YOU LOOK ON APPLES TO APPLES, IN ADDITION TO WHAT I DISCUSSED BEFORE, I THINK THIS IS A, A FAIR SETTLEMENT PAYMENT.
SO A A $5 MILLION GAP IS A, IS A FAIR BETWEEN 1.7 AND 6.5, YOU THINK, JUST BECAUSE OF IN-HOUSE AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL? THAT'S, THAT'S A REASONABLE AMOUNT, I THINK IF YOU LOOKED AT THE NUMBER OF HOURS, YES.
AND, UH, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, UM, UH, DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, THE, THE HOURLY RATE AND THE, UM, SALARY RATE FOR OTHER CITIES? YES.
COMPARED TO HOUSTON, UM, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S PRESENTATION, HE PRESENTED THAT OUR HOURLY RATE PER HOUR OR HOURS PER WEEK IS 46.7 HOURS FOR, UM, THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
BUT OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENTS AROUND THE STATE GO AS HIGH AS 56 HOURS, UH, PER WEEK FOR THEIR, FOR THEIR NORMAL, UH, REGULAR PAY.
HOW WAS THAT FACTORED IN, IN YOUR SLIDE PRESENTATION WHEN YOU'RE SHOWING, UM, WHERE WE FALL COMPARED TO OTHER CITIES? IS THAT FACTORED IN AS WELL WHEN YOU'RE SHOWING YOUR NUMBERS? YES, IT'S FACTORED IN.
UM, WHEN YOU LOOK ON SLIDE 12, UM, THE COMPARATOR THAT WE CHOSE, UH, THAT COMPARATOR HAS A 56 HOUR, UM, WORK WEEK, SO 112 HOURS BIWEEKLY.
UH, SO WHEN WE TOOK THEIR, UM, BIWEEKLY BASE PAY AND CALCULATED THE COMPARATORS HOURLY RATE, WE USED, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR THEIR, THEIR BIWEEKLY BASE PAY.
WE USED THE 112 BIWEEKLY HOURS WHEN WE CALCULATED THEIR HOURLY RATE, AND WE USED OUR 46.7 UH, HOURS PER WEEK, UM, WHICH IS ABOUT 93.4 HOURS FOR BIWEEKLY TO CALCULATE OUR BIWEEKLY RATES.
SO THAT IS FACTORED INTO THOSE NUMBERS.
YEAH, WE'LL PUT YOU BACK IN AND CHAIR.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO ASK IF CONTROLLER HOLLINS COULD ALSO COME UP IN CASE COUNCIL MEMBERS
AND ALSO I FAILED TO RECOGNIZE MARTY LANGTON IN THE, IN THE AUDIENCE WHO, UM, I THINK WILL BE COMMENTING LATER AND ALSO CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UM, I'LL START WITH THE ATTORNEY.
I WANT, I WANNA REFER TO YOUR SLIDE, SLIDE NUMBER FIVE, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, PARTICULARLY THE REFUNDING BONDS.
SO ONE WOULD ASSUME I'M NO ATTORNEY, BUT ONE WOULD ASSUME THAT WE WILL REFUND DOLLARS THAT WE'VE ALREADY ISSUED.
IF WE HAVE NOT ALREADY ISSUED 650 MILLION IN BACK PAY, HOW ARE WE ELIGIBLE TO PURSUE THIS BOND? AND DID A JUDGE INSTRUCT US TO PURSUE THIS METHOD OF RESETTLEMENT? UH, NO, THE COURT WOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN THE MECHANISM ON HOW, HOW WE SETTLE.
I, I THINK IN THE PUBLIC FINANCE WORLD, UM, MUCH IS DONE BY HOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS INTERPRETED IT.
AND IT'S DIFFICULT, I THINK, FOR EVEN A LAWYER WHO DOESN'T PRACTICE IN THIS AREA TO READ THE STATUTE AND ASSUME WHAT IT MEANS.
THE REFUNDING DOES NOT MEAN TECHNICALLY THAT WE ARE REFUNDING ANOTHER, UH, ANOTHER DEBT.
YOU LOOK AT THE ELEMENTS OF THE STATUTE THAT'S REQUIRED, AND THIS HAS BEEN THE VEHICLE THAT'S BEEN USED TO PAY JUDGMENTS IN TEXAS.
UM, IN FACT, OUR BOND COUNSEL, WHO INCLUDES, UM, THE FORMER HEAD OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PUBLIC FINANCE SECTION, AND ALSO SUPERVISED THAT SECTION.
AND IN SPEAKING WITH SUCCESSOR, THEY'RE UNAWARE OF ANY ENTITY USING, UM, ANOTHER, ANOTHER STATUTE TO PAY A JUDGMENT.
UM, SO ALSO ON PAGE SEVEN WITH THE CBA, I KNOW FORT WORTH WAS LISTED AS ONE OF THE COMPARATIVE CITIES, RIGHT? BUT FORT WORTH, THEY OUTSOURCED THEIR EMS, THAT'S A DOMINANT PORTION OF OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND SO I'M CURIOUS, AND MAYBE THIS IS FOR DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, WAS THE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PFM REPORT, UM, CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF LIKE THE FINANCIAL, UM, IMPLICATIONS OF THIS? BECAUSE YOU'RE MENTIONING PENSION, BUT DURING THE BRIEF IT WAS MENTIONED THAT OF THE RESETTLEMENT, THE SETTLEMENT PAYMENT WOULDN'T HIT PENSION OR UNLESS WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE FIVE YEAR MOVING FORWARD.
UM, SO I THINK WHEN WE'RE TALKING APPLES TO APPLES, IF WE ARE COMPARING TO FORT WORTH, THEY COULD PAY 77,000 STARTING BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT CARRYING THE LIABILITY OF AN EMS DEPARTMENT IN THOSE STAFF MEMBERS, WHICH WOULD BE APPLES TO APPLES IN, IN MY INTERPRETATION.
UM, SO WAS ANY OF THAT, UM, CONSIDERED IN THESE PROJECTIONS IN, IN TERMS OF, UM, DALLAS, SAN ANTONIO AND FORT WORTH AS A PRIVATE SECTOR? I THINK WE LOOKED AT THE, THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE WAS AN EXACT
[01:20:01]
COMPARISON IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT IT.UH, I KNOW FROM THE CITY'S BARGAINING PERSPECTIVE, THE BIGGEST THING WAS TO BE ABLE TO SHIFT FROM PRIVATE TO PUBLIC.
BUT, UH, I, I DON'T, UH, UH, MS. DEBOWSKI MAY, MAY HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE, THAT WE REALLY DRILL DOWN ON THAT DISTINCTION.
SO, SO LET ME JUST SAY THAT IN 2052, I'LL BE 70 YEARS OLD, OKAY? I'LL BE SEVEN YEARS OLD.
SO I, I HOPE I'M ON THIS SIDE OF THE EARTH, UM, TO CELEBRATE THE PAYMENT OF THIS.
UM, BUT I AM, UM, CURIOUS BECAUSE THE INCENTIVES HAVE NOT YET BEEN CALCULATED WHEN, UM, THE REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENTS TO MAKE A 5% DECREASE, WHAT WAS THE ANTICIPATED COST SAVINGS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS ANTICIPATING BY A MINIMUM 5%? LIKE IS THERE A THRESHOLD Y'ALL ARE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF, UH, 5% AND THEN ALSO WITH THE FEE, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT, UH, PROMOTING A FEE TO PAY OFF A DEBT, BUT WE'RE PROMOTING A FEE TO INFUSE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACTUALLY PROVIDE QUALITY SERVICE.
SO, UM, SO LET ME ADDRESS THE 5%.
SO ON THE 5%, UM, LOOKING AT THE, ACROSS THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, RIGHT, WE KNOW THAT WE CANNOT, UH, DECREASE OUR POLICE BUDGET YEAR OVER YEAR BY MORE THAN THE OVERALL BUDGET DECREASES THAT'S IN STATE LAW.
UH, SO, BUT WE STILL ARE LOOKING AT THE DEPARTMENTS TO SEE IF THERE ARE, UM, EFFICIENCIES, UM, ACROSS ALL THE DEPARTMENTS.
UM, THE 5%, WHEN YOU LOOK AT, UM, THE NON-PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS, I THINK THE 5% WOULD GENERATE ABOUT $20 MILLION IN SAVINGS, ROUGHLY.
UM, IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT WILL END UP IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, UM, THE ADMINISTRATION IS GONNA GO THROUGH AS ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE IN THE PAST WHEN YOU GET THE BUDGET REDUCTIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS GOING THROUGH THOSE IDEAS FOR REDUCTION, UH, TO SELECT AND DETERMINE WHICH OF THOSE, UH, HAVE THE LEAST IMPACT ON SERVICES.
SO THAT'S WHERE I MENTIONED THE, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, VACANCIES PRIMARILY, ESPECIALLY OLD AGE VACANCIES.
UM, ON YOUR QUESTION ON THE PENSION, THE GOING FORWARD, UH, SO ON THE 650 MILLION, UH, IN, UH, IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS, UH, IF THAT'S ALL, UH, TAGGED TO OVERTIME, OVERTIME IS NOT PENSIONABLE, BUT YOU'RE CORRECT ON THE GOING FORWARD, THE 428 MILLION, A PORTION OF THAT IS PENSION.
I'LL PUT ME BACK IN THE QUEUE.
COUNCIL MEMBER P VICE MAYOR PRO TEM PECK.
UM, MY FIRST QUESTION IS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, I'VE HEARD FROM CONSTITUENTS, UM, AND THE GENERAL CONSENSUS SEEMS TO BE, I'M GLAD THIS IS DONE.
I'M GLAD THE FIREFIGHTERS ARE GETTING PAID, BUT THIS IS A LOT OF MONEY, AND WHY CAN'T HOUSTONIANS VOTE ON ISSUING THIS BOND? I KNOW YOU BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT CAN YOU JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE TIMELINE HERE WHEN COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS VERSUS IT GOING TO THE VOTERS IN A GENERAL ELECTION? AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T APPROVE IT? WELL, UH, TO FUND THIS, WE WOULD NEED TO ISSUE DEBT.
UH, IF YOU ISSUE DEBT THROUGH A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, UH, THERE ARE ONLY TWO UNIFORM ELECTION DATES IN THE YEAR IN MAY, AND IN NOVEMBER IT WOULD BE PUSHED TO NOVEMBER.
THIS WAS BARGAINED TO PUT IN PLACE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD HAVE A DEAL, YOU KNOW, IF WE DID THAT.
UM, IF YOU GO TO THE VOTERS ON THIS, THEN YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE APPROVAL AND THEN THE ISSUANCE AFTERWARDS.
SO I THINK THE, UH, I MEAN, THE ANSWER IS WE MAY NOT HAVE A DEAL TO, TO START WITH, AND IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T APPROVE THE JUDGMENT BONDS, THEN UH, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT ANOTHER DEBT VEHICLE.
UM, AND THEN YOU, YOU'D GET INTO THE TIMING ISSUE ONCE MORE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, AND THEN DIRECTOR, UM, YOU TALKED ABOUT, UM, THE PUBLIC SAFETY ADD-ON FOR THE PROPERTY TAXES.
INSTEAD OF DOING ANOTHER ADD-ON, IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO LOOK AT, UM, PROP H WHAT WAS IT IN 2006? MM-HMM
I THINK THAT THE VOTERS WERE, YOU KNOW, VOTING ON IT BEING $90 MILLION EVERY YEAR, NOT CUMULATIVE, $90 MILLION.
SO IS, ARE THERE ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO LOOK AT THAT AGAIN, RATHER THAN ADDING ANOTHER PROPERTY TAX ADD-ON? SO THE 90 MILLION, UM, WE DO COLLECT THE ADDITIONAL $90 MILLION ANNUALLY.
UM, I THINK THAT WHEN WE, IN THE ADOPTED BUDGET AND IN THE PROJECTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY TAX FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, THAT DOES INCLUDE THE 90 ALREADY.
I DON'T KNOW IF I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
NO, BECAUSE I THINK IN, IN PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS, IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT
[01:25:01]
IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S BASED ON A FORMULA AND NOT $90 MILLION EVERY FISCAL YEAR FROM 2006.AND SO, UM, MAYBE WE NEED TO TALK MORE ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECOUP SOME OF THAT MONEY GOING FORWARD RATHER THAN A NEW PROPERTY TAX.
WE CAN, LET'S TALK MORE OFFLINE.
YES, MAYOR PROAM, CASTEX TATUM.
UH, MY FIRST QUESTION IS FOR ATTORNEY MICHELLE.
UM, I, I WANNA BE CLEAR, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC SECTOR STANDARDS BEFORE, BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, THE, YOU ARE LIKE OUR CONSTANT IN THIS ENTIRE NEGOTIATION, WE, WE DIDN'T GET TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LAST ADMINISTRATION AND WE DIDN'T GET TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION.
YOU HAVE BEEN THE CONSTANT IN ALL OF THESE MEETINGS.
SO WHEN YOU SAID THAT PUBLIC SECTOR STANDARDS WERE BEING CONSIDERED NOW, BUT NOT BEING CONSIDERED BEFORE, WHY IS, WHY WAS, WHY IS THERE NOW A DIFFERENCE TO BE CONSIDERING THE PUBLIC STANDARDS, THE PUBLIC SECTOR STANDARDS? I, I'M, I'M CONFUSED WITH THAT.
UH, WELL, LET ME, LET ME TRY TO CLARIFY IT.
UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, I MEAN, PART OF THE, MY ANSWER IS SUBJECTIVE.
YOU KNOW, IT INVOLVES MY VIEWS, BUT I THINK THAT A, THE PARTIES WERE READY TO, TO REACH A SETTLEMENT.
THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON LONG ENOUGH.
UM, BECAUSE THE STANDARD IS PRIVATE, BOTH PARTIES HAVE TO AGREE TO MOVE TOWARD PUBLIC, WHICH IS WHAT THE UNION WAS WILLING TO DO.
AND AS I STATED BEFORE, I THINK THE, THE, THE PROP B LITIGATION PUT A BIG, A BIG CLOUD ON THE ABILITY OF THE PARTIES TO NEGOTIATE.
AND THAT WAS NOT RESOLVED UNTIL LAST SPRING.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE BEGAN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND BY THE TIME WE REACHED AN IMPASSE, WE WERE IN DECEMBER.
SO THAT BRINGS US TO NOW, ESSENTIALLY IT LOOKS LIKE, I HAVEN'T SATISFIED YOUR, YOUR QUESTION.
NO, WE, OKAY, LET ME, LET ME APPROACH IT THIS WAY.
I THINK THE, THIS IS IN A, A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO PARTIES THAT, IN MY EXPERIENCE USUALLY BENEFITS THE MUNICIPALITIES MORE IF YOU USE A PUBLIC SECTOR STANDARD.
THE UNION WAS NOT WILLING TO DO THAT UNTIL NOW, AND IT COULD BE BECAUSE THE, THE, ALL THE LITIGATION HAD BEEN RESOLVED.
UH, THERE WAS MANDATORY ARBITRATION NOW, AND I THINK THEY WERE WILLING TO DO A DEAL, AS WAS THE CITY AT THE, AT THIS POINT.
SO HAD BOTH PARTIES AGREED TO MOVE TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR STANDARDS BEFORE WE COULD HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
SO THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO DO IT PREVIOUSLY, BUT THEY WERE WILLING TO DO IT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
AND, AND I THINK BOTH ON THE CITIES AND THE UNIONS POSITION, WE BOTH HAD LITIGATION GOING, RIGHT, THAT WOULD'VE AFFECTED THE OUTCOME.
IT WASN'T UNTIL THAT WAS CONCLUDED THAT I THINK THE PARTIES WERE TRULY KNEW WHAT THE PLAYING FIELD WAS, AND WERE WILLING TO ENGAGE IN MORE, UM, UH, DEEPER MORE ACTIVE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.
THAT, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW, AND I APPRECIATE YOU, YOU TELLING US THAT.
AND THEN I WANNA MOVE TO COUNCIL MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES.
IF, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS, UM, CBA ON WHAT WE AGREED ON PRIOR TO US VOTING ON THE BUDGET? OR WILL WE ONLY BE VOTING ON THIS AGREEMENT WHEN WE PASS THE BUDGET TO, UM, THE, THE TIMING OF THIS? THERE ARE, THERE ARE A COUPLE WRENCHES THAT HAVE BEEN THROWN IN THE, IN THE COURT PROCESS BY A COUPLE INTERVENERS, UH, THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET RESOLVED THAT MAY AFFECT WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD.
BUT I THINK THE, THE IDEA, UH, IS TO SEE IF WE CAN COME TO COUNCIL WITH THE NECESSARY, UM, VOTES AND APPROVALS BY END OF MAY, JUNE IN ORDER TO DO IT, WHICH IS ROUGHLY THE TIME THAT THAT COUNCIL CONSIDERS THE BUDGET.
I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO CON THE BUDGET WILL BE DONE BY JUNE 30TH.
SO IT, IT, IT'S IN THAT BALLPARK NOW.
UM, AS IF ONE, WHICH ONE GOES BEFORE THE OTHER, I THINK THAT'S REALLY UP TO THE ADMINISTRATION LISTENING TO COUNCIL.
SO THERE'S A POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS AS A SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM AND THEN VOTE FOR IT AGAIN IN THE PASSING OF THE BUDGET.
CAN YOU PUT ME BACK IN THE QUEUE, BECAUSE I DO WANT TO TOUCH BACK ON THE EMS, UM, CONCERN THAT COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS RAISED.
UM, VERY QUICKLY BEFORE I GET INTO MY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, COUNCIL, VICE MAYOR PRO TEM PECK HAD ASKED A QUESTION RELATED TO THIS GOING TO THE VOTERS, AND YOU HAD SAID THAT, UM, IT MAY NOT BE AGREEABLE THAT IT GOES TO THE VOTERS.
[01:30:01]
OPPOSE HAVING THIS COME BEFORE THE VOTERS? UH, I DON'T THINK THAT THE, THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS REALLY LOOKED AT, WHETHER YOU GO TO THE VOTERS OR NOT, IT WAS LET'S GET A DEAL DONE IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT IT IN TIME FOR THE, THE FISCAL YEAR THAT IT'S ADDRESSING.AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO ISSUE A REFUNDING BOND.
UM, I'M GOING TO BE ASKING QUESTIONS, CITY ATTORNEY AND, UH, DIRECTOR AND CONTROLLER, BASED ON, UH, THE DRAFTS THAT HAVE BEEN CIRCULATING OF THE CBA.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MAY NOT BE ACCURATE, SO I'LL TRY TO ASK THESE AND YOU CAN CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT IT IS ACCURATE OR NOT.
UM, FIRST, UH, I BELIEVE IT REFERENCES THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS GOING TO BE IN EFFECT FOR FIVE YEARS.
IS THERE A CLAUSE THOUGH, THAT IT SAYS THAT THIS AGREEMENT WILL CONTINUE BEYOND FIVE YEARS UNTIL IT IS REPLACED BY A SUCCESSOR AGREEMENT? LET ME CHECK.
I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S A, UH, A CLAUSE OF THAT NATURE, BUT I KNOW IN THE PAST, EVEN IF THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE, THE PARTIES COULD AGREE TO CONTINUE IT.
AND TYPICALLY THAT HAPPENS FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME, LIKE IT DID FOR THE TWO YEARS FROM 15 TO 17.
BUT I WILL CHECK AND GET BACK TO YOU.
SO I REFERENCE, AGAIN, THIS COULD BE IN ACCURATE ARTICLE ONE, SECTION FIVE.
UM, MY QUESTION BEING THAT IT SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL THERE'S A NEW CONTRACT, NOT THAT THE PARTIES WOULD AGREE AT THAT TIME TO CONTINUE THE CONTRACT.
UH, MY SECOND QUESTION, UH, IS THERE AN A CLAUSE THAT WOULD PRECLUDE BOTH PARTIES, SO THE CITY OR THE ASSOCIATION HAVE AGREED TO NOT FILE OR SUPPORT ANY LEGISLATIVE EFFORT THAT WOULD AFFECT THE AGREEMENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN MUTUALLY AGREED UPON? UH, I BELIEVE THERE IS SUCH A CLAUSE LIKE THAT, YEAH.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE 180 DAY RULE? YES.
DO YOU MIND, FOR PUBLIC'S, FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT, EXPLAINING WHAT THE 180 DAY RULE IS BASED ON STATE LAW? UH, IT'S A TIME PERIOD IN WHICH FROM THE DISCOVERY OF A, UH, OF A DISCIPLINARY ISSUE IN ORDER TO, UH, FOR THE MUNICIPALITY TO, UH, INSTITUTE THE DISCIPLINE.
AND I BELIEVE THE 180 DAYS UNDER STATE LAW STARTS AT THE TIME THE OFFENSE OCCURRED, NOT THE TIME THAT THE DEPARTMENT KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.
SO LET'S SAY IN THE INSTANCE OF, UM, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, A DISCIPLINARY ACTION COULD NOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST THAT INDIVIDUAL IF IT WAS BEYOND THE 180 DAYS FROM WHEN THE INCIDENT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OCCURRENCE AND DISCOVERY.
SO BASED ON THIS AGREEMENT, ONE I'LL ASK IS THE 180 DAY RULE MODIFICATION THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN OTHER UNION CONTRACTS TO ALLOW THE CITY TO TAKE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST, LET'S SAY A BAD APPLE, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE ANY DEPARTMENT WOULD WANT, I DON'T EVEN THINK THE ASSOCIATION WOULD WANT.
UM, DOES IT INCLUDE A MODIFICATION TO THE 180 DAY RULE TO ALLOW ENFORCEMENT OF DISCIPLINE WHEN IT IS DISCOVERED? IT DOES NOT.
SO WOULD IT, THIS AGREEMENT PRECLUDE THE CITY IF THE UNION DID NOT AGREE FROM GOING TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE THAT RULE, IT, IT, UNDER THE CURRENT DRAFT, WE COULD NOT GO TO THE LEGISLATURE UNLESS WE DID IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE UNION.
UH, NEXT, IS THERE A CLAUSE THAT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, THE, A FIRE CHIEF TO BE SELECTED FROM WITHIN H THE DEPARTMENT? AND ARE THERE YEARS ATTACHED TO THAT REQUIREMENT? YES.
SO THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THE DISCRETION OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON FROM DOING A SEARCH IN THE WAY THAT THE MAYOR FELT NECESSARY FOR A FIRE CHIEF FROM OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT? YES.
UH, PLEASE PUT ME BACK IN THE QUEUE.
UM, MY FIRST QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI.
ON SLIDE EIGHT OF YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU TALK ABOUT COST AVOIDED AND, UH, A 1.2 BILLION SERIES 2024 BOND VERSUS THE 650 MILLION.
UM, WHERE DOES THE 1.2 NUMBER COME FROM THE 1.2 BILLION? SURE.
AND I THINK, UM, UH, ATTORNEY MICHELLE CAN JUMP IN AS WELL.
UH, THE 1.2 BILLION, UH, SOMETIMES YOU HEAR 1.2 BILLION, 1.3 BILLION, UH, THAT COMES FROM THE, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT A CALCULATION OF WHAT THE, UM, PRIVATE SECTOR COMPARATOR COULD HAVE BEEN.
SO WE TALK ABOUT MOVING AWAY FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR COMPARATOR TO LOOK AT THE PUBLIC SECTOR COMPARATOR.
I DON'T KNOW, ATTORNEY MICHELLE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD ON THAT? NO, I, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
AS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IT'S A, IT BECOMES A BATTLE OF
[01:35:01]
EXPERTS.THE PARTIES ARE, ARE, ARE, UH, FAIRLY FAR APART, AND THEN THE UNCERTAINTY IS WHERE IS THE ARBITRATION PANEL OR THE COURT GOING TO END UP.
SO THIS IS SORT OF, UH, A HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER.
IT'S NOT A HARD NUMBER, BUT THIS, THIS IS YOUR PROJECTION OF SAVINGS, IF THAT SCENARIO WERE TRUE AVOIDANCE? YES.
UM, ON THE PROPERTY TAX, PUBLIC SAFETY ADD-ON, IS THAT A ONE TIME, UM, IN INTAKE OF RE REVENUE OR IS THAT REOCCURRING? IT WOULD BE REOCCURRING, YES.
AND THEN FOR ATTORNEY, MICHELLE, FROM YOUR PRESENTATION, UM, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE MEDICAL TRUST FUND AND FUNDING THAT AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
WHAT, UH, IS THAT COST ANNUALLY? UM, CORRECT.
I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT 1 MILLION A YEAR, IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH, A LITTLE OVER 1 MILLION A YEAR, 1.2 OR SO.
AND THEN ON THE CONTRACT, MOVING FORWARD WITH THE NEW REVENUE, UH, THAT WOULD TRIGGER GUARANTEED INCREASES, CAN YOU SHARE THE THRESHOLDS, UH, FOR NEW REVENUE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE BROUGHT IN TO TRIGGER THOSE ADDITIONAL 3% INCREASES AND 2% INCREASES? UH, WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIND LANGUAGE TO CLARIFY, TO BRING MORE CERTAINTY AS TO WHEN, UM, THE INCREASE WOULD OCCUR, THE INCREASES WOULD OCCUR.
AND WILL WE BE PROVIDED WITH THE DETAILS OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT INFORMATION AS WELL AS, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW THAT 650 MILLION CAME TO BE AND WHAT COMPRISES THAT? UH, YES.
THERE, UH, COUNCIL WILL HAVE IT IN ORDER TO STUDY IT AND, AND MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION THROUGH ITS VOTE.
DO YOU KNOW A, A TIMELINE? UM, NOT YET.
I MEAN, JUST WORKING BACKWARDS.
IF WE TRYING TO GET TO COUNCIL, SAY BY THE BEGINNING OF JUNE, THEN WE PROBABLY WANT TO GET EVERYTHING, UH, WRAPPED UP IN INCLUDING ANY MODIFICATIONS BY THE COURT OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY SAY MID-MAY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.
I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, UH, FOR ATTORNEY.
FIRST, WITH REGARD TO THE REFUNDING BONDS OR THE JUDGMENT BONDS AS THEY'RE SOMETIMES REFERRED TO, YOU MENTIONED THAT COUNSEL MUST APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
CAN, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWERS TO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, BUT CAN YOU, CAN I WANT TO HEAR 'EM FROM YOU? CAN YOU TELL US WHY COUNSEL HAS TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? WELL, IT, IT HAS TWO COMPONENTS.
A, UM, UH, GOING BACKWARDS AND GOING FORWARD, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF MONEY, BOTH OF WHICH ARE CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE AND BY CHARTER, UH, COUNCIL APPROVES, UM, UH, EXPENDITURES, CONTRACTUAL EXPENDITURES OVER CURRENTLY 50,000.
IT'S, IT'S TIED TO A STATE, STATE STATUTE.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IF COUNSEL DOESN'T APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? UH, WE, WE DON'T HAVE A DEAL.
WE GO TO, UM, WE WILL BEGIN THE, THE LITIGATION FOR FY 18 WILL CONTINUE, THE PARTIES WILL BE REQUIRED TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN, WHICH IS A 60 DAY PROCESS.
AND THEN EITHER WE REACH AN AGREEMENT FOR THOSE YEARS IN BARGAINING OR AN IMPASSE IS DECLARED.
AND THEN, UM, THE COURT HASN'T FINALLY DECIDED.
BUT EITHER WE GO BACK TO COURT FOR THOSE YEARS OR WE, UH, GO BEFORE, UH, THREE MEMBER ARBITRATION PANEL.
AND THE WAY YOU'VE LAID OUT THE, UH, THE BULLET POINTS ON THE REFUNDING BONDS, UH, PAGE IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU HAVE, FIRST THE COUNSEL MUST APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THEN THE COURT MUST ENTER THE FINAL JUDGMENT, AND THEN COUNSEL MUST APPROVE THE REFUNDING BONDS.
AND THE REASON COUNSEL MUST APPROVE THE REFUNDING BONDS IS BECAUSE OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT INVOLVED.
IS THAT RIGHT? SORRY? UH, YES.
IT WASN'T INTENDED IN THIS LIGHT TO PUT NECESSARILY THE ORDER.
UH, WHAT I HAD SAID BEFORE IS, I THINK THE FINAL STEP HAS TO BE THE, THE, THE COURT, UH, SIGNING AND ENTRY, THE JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT, UH, BRINGS THE, THE ABILITY TO, TO, TO FINALLY MAKE A FUNDING.
AND WE HAVE THE OTHER STEPS IN PLACE.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UH, APPRO, THE PRE-APPROVAL I IS, UM, I IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR, BUT IT'S NOT THE, THE FINAL, THE FINAL APPROVAL, BUT WE WILL KNOW WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL DO.
SO THE COUNSEL ACTION WILL HAPPEN BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE OCCURS.
UH, COUNSEL IS THE ARBITER OF BOTH THE SETTLEMENT AND THE CBA MOVING
[01:40:01]
FORWARD.AND SO IF COUNSEL APPROVED THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, FINAL JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, BUT COUNSEL DID NOT APPROVE THE REFUNDING BONDS, WHAT, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN? UH, WE WOULD HAVE THE INABILITY TO PAY AND WE WOULD, AND YOU MIGHT HAVE AN EVENT OF DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE A JUDGMENT OUT THERE.
THAT'S WHY I THINK ALL OF THE COUNCIL ACTIONS NEED TO OCCUR BEFORE THE JUDGMENT OCCURS.
ONCE THE COURT ENTERS THE FINAL JUDGMENT.
IS THERE A TIME PERIOD IN WHICH THE CITY MUST BEGIN TO, UH, START TO MAKE PAYMENTS ON THAT JUDGMENT? UH, THERE WE WILL REACH AN AGREEMENT ON THAT.
UH, IT'S GONNA BE TIED TO THE ANTICIPATED TIME OF THE, THE FUNDING AND IT WOULD BE, UH, WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHIN THREE MONTHS.
OTHERWISE, UM, YOU WOULD, YOU MIGHT HAVE AN EVENT OF DEFAULT, BUT, BUT FRANKLY WHAT THE, THE GOAL IS TO START, UM, FUNDING IT SO THAT THE PAYMENTS CAN HAPPEN WHEN THE NEW, UM, CBA COMES INTO EFFECT, EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENTS ARE GONNA BE FOR THE PAST.
AND, AND NOT SAYING THIS WOULD HAPPEN, BUT IF JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, THE CITY HAD A FINANCIAL OBLIGATION AND WE DIDN'T PAY START TO PAY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD ALLOTTED, UH, WE WOULD ACCRUE ADDITIONAL INTEREST.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THERE WOULD BE POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST.
WHAT'S THE JUDGMENT INTEREST UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES? UH, I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY.
I'M, I'M GONNA PUT IT AROUND 6% RIGHT NOW.
MAY I CONTINUE OR BACK IN THE QUEUE? AND I, AND I WILL SAY FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT AREN'T ABLE TO BE ANSWERED, OUR STAFFS ARE TAKING NOTE OF THAT AND WE WILL SUBMIT ALL OF THOSE TO THE DEPARTMENTS.
UM, I DID COUNCIL MEMBERS AS A COURTESY WANT TO ASK THAT AS WE CONTINUE QUESTIONS.
I KNOW THAT DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI HAS A HARD STOP, UM, PRETTY SOON.
SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HER, I WOULD GET THROUGH THOSE FIRST SO THAT SHE CAN STEP OUT AND ATTEND TO WHAT SHE NEEDS TO ATTEND TO.
AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE, UH, WITH OUR OTHER QUESTIONS.
SO CONTROLLER, DON'T WORRY, WE'LL GET TO YOU TOO.
COUNCIL MEMBER FLICKINGER, ON THE FINANCE PIECE, SEVERAL OF THE DEPARTMENTS THAT WE'RE COMPARED TO WORK 56 HOURS.
AND YOU SAID WE, COMPARED TO THE HOURLY RATE, DID WE SIMPLY TAKE THEIR BIWEEKLY PAY DIVIDE BY 112 AND THEN TAKE HOUSTONS AND DIVIDE BY, WHAT IS IT, 92, 93 0.4.
DID YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF EQUALIZING THE NUMBER OF HOURS WHERE ADDING THE HOURS TO GET UP TO THE 112 TO THE HOUSTON EMPLOYEE WITH OVERTIME PAY AND THEN DIVIDING THAT OUT AND COMPARING THE TWO? WE DIDN'T PERFORM THE CALCULATIONS THAT WAY.
UM, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO, JUST ONE SECOND, ARTURO? UH, I'M SORRY.
WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT? YEAH, WELL, THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT, UM, THE WAY, WOULDN'T THAT HAVE GIVEN US A BETTER APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON? IT, IT, IT, IT PROBABLY WOULD'VE, BUT THE, THE, THE DISTINCTION IN THE HOURS IS A STATUTORY, IT, IT'S BEEN IN PLACE, UM, FOR HOUSTON FOR, FOR QUITE A WHILE.
AND, UH, CAN WE, CAN WE LOOK AT IT NONETHELESS? WE COULD LOOK AT CHANGING IT.
I THINK WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT OF THE UNION, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT, BUT NO, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT LOOKING AT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING AN ANALYSIS ON PAY MM-HMM
SHOULDN'T WE BE MAKING THE MOST ACCURATE COMPARISON? WE CAN'T, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THEIR SCHEDULE.
I MEAN, WE, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT.
UM, TOP OF THE MARKET, IS THAT THE HIGHEST PAID OF THE MARKETS FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES? THIS THE COM UH, THIS IS TO A SPECIFIC COMPARATOR.
I'M SORRY? FORT WORTH IS THE COMPARITY.
IS FOR WORTH THE HIGHEST PAID? UH, YES.
I THINK THERE'S ONE RANK WHERE THEY'RE NOT THE HIGHEST PAID, BUT PREDOMINANTLY, YES.
SO WE DIDN'T COMPARE IT TO THE AVERAGE IN THIS SLIDE OR PRESENTATION? NOT ON THIS SLIDE.
UM, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INCREASES BESIDES THE POSSIBLE INCREASE FROM INCREASED REVENUE? DO THEY GET A COST OF LIVING EVERY YEAR? NO, THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE 10.
UM, THE VOTE ON THE BOND IS THE ONLY THING THAT PRECLUDES THAT IS TO WHETHER OR NOT BOTH PARTIES WOULD AGREE TO LET THE VOTERS VOTE ON THE BOND.
[01:45:02]
I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST.AND MOST, UH, IS THERE ANY STATUTORY LIMITATION THAT WOULD PREVENT NO, THERE IS NOT.
HOW MANY HOURS WERE WORKED? I, I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT.
I DON'T HAVE THAT, UH, RIGHT NOW.
ARE WE PAYING INTEREST ON THOSE LEGAL FEES AS WELL? IF SOMETHING IS PART OF A JUDGMENT AND IT GOES THROUGH THE, THROUGH A FINAL JUDGMENT, IT WOULD BE, BUT THIS WAS AN, UH, AN AGREEMENT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE LOOKED AT A NUMBER, WE LOOKED AT THE REASONABLENESS OF IT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE A INTEREST COMPONENT PER SE.
UM, JULIAN HAD MENTIONED IF WE DIDN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT ARBITRATION IN COURT, I THINK HE RESPONDED.
WHAT DETERMINES WHETHER WE'D GO TO ARBITRATION OR GO BACK TO LITIGATION? UH, WE KNOW WE WILL GO TO LITIGATION IN FY 18.
UH, THAT SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT THAT'S THERE.
THE ISSUE IS THE SUBSEQUENT SIX INTERVENING YEARS FROM FY 19 THROUGH 24, UH, THE, UM, THE UNION MOVED TO ADD THOSE TO THE LAWSUIT.
THEY WERE ADDED BY JUDGE REEDER.
UH, JUDGE REER ORDERED THAT WE COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN THOSE YEARS, WHICH HAD NOT HAPPENED.
AND SO SHE WILL MAKE THE DETERMINATION ON THOSE YEARS, AND OF COURSE IT COULD, IT'S SUBJECT TO THE APPELLATE PROCESS, WHETHER WE WILL, UM, HANDLE THOSE IN COURT OR BEFORE AN ARBITRATION PANEL.
UM, AND I WANT TO KIND, I WANNA ECHO A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT, UH, VICE P PRO TIM, UH, PEG MENTIONED, RIGHT? UH, WHEN WE'RE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY, FOLKS ARE EXCITED ABOUT FINALLY GET, GETTING TO A POINT WHERE FIREFIGHTERS CAN SEE AN AGREEMENT.
UM, BUT THEN THE QUESTION, ONCE WE, WE SHARE WHAT THAT NUMBER IS, THEN THEIR EYES KIND OF, UH, WIDEN UP AND THEY'RE LIKE, OKAY, SO HOW IS THIS GONNA GET PAID FOR? AND I'VE BEEN TRYING TO HAVE SOME REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS WITH, WITH COMMUNITY.
SO WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, RIGHT, FOR YOU? WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT TRASH PICKUP, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WATER LEAKS THAT CONTINUE TO, UH, HAPPEN.
UM, YOU TALK TO DEVELOPERS THAT DON'T, DON'T WANNA COME INTO THE CITY 'CAUSE OF PERMITTING OFFICES.
AND SO ISSUES OR CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE.
AND SO, UM, ALL ALL THAT TO SAY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING ASKED, I THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT TO, YOU KNOW, AS, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY AND DIRECTOR TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION.
AND SO AS CHAIRWOMAN, UH, CAME AND MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED THE, THE AGREEMENT, UH, WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT.
UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN FLOATING AROUND AS WELL IS THE EXECUTIVE TEAM POSSIBLY NOT BEING PART OF THIS AGREEMENT.
AND TO ME IT'S A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, TO DISTURBING, UM, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THOSE ARE FIREFIGHTERS THAT ARE ALSO WITHIN THE, THE, UH, THE UNION AS WELL.
SO I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM, BECAUSE Y'ALL DO HAVE IT IN THE DOCUMENT THAT THEY ARE PART OF THE AGREEMENT, BUT I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT THEY WILL BE PART OF THIS AGREEMENT AS WELL.
SO THAT EXECUTIVE TEAM, THE FIRE MARSHAL AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, THE COMMAND STAFF IS EXCLUDED, UH, FROM THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS, UH, FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME THEY WERE ON THE COMMAND STAFF, IF THEY WERE NOT ON THE COMMAND STAFF FOR PART OF THOSE SEVEN YEARS, THEY WOULD PARTICIPATE IN A PRO RATA BASIS THE SAME WAY ANY OTHER FIREFIGHTER WHO WAS NOT THERE THE ENTIRE SEVEN YEARS WOULD PARTICIPATE, HAVE COMMAND STAFF DURING THOSE, LIKE LET'S SAY THEY WERE THERE FOR ABOUT A YEAR, WERE THEY PAID OVERTIME DURING ANY, ANY, UH, PART OF THAT YEAR? IF THERE WAS A NATURAL DISASTER, UM, IS THERE A WAY WHERE THAT COMMAND STAFF WAS GETTING PAID OVERTIME? THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN UNDER FEDERAL LAW.
UM, THE OTHER QUESTION, AND, AND YOU KNOW, I KNOW Y'ALL ARE, YOU KNOW, WORKING THROUGH, THROUGH THOSE DETAILS STILL, WHERE THAT, UM, SUFFICIENT REVENUE, WHERE THAT KICKS IN THAT ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGE.
UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, BACK TO THE DETAILS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF, OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
UM, OF COURSE, 3% FOR 3%, 4 0 4 IS WAY DIFFERENT FROM A 6% ACROSS THE BOARD.
UM, ESPECIALLY WHEN I, I, I REALLY CAN'T SEE ADDITIONAL OR SUFFICIENT REVENUE COMING IN.
UM, WITH ALL THE CONVERSATIONS WE'RE HAVING, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ASKING FOR EVERYBODY ELSE TO HAVE A 5% REDUCTION.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID BY THE ADMINISTRATION, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, ALMOST RIGHT? TO ASK FOR SOLID WASTE TO DO A 5% REDUCTION, UH, FOR DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS TO DO A 5% REDUCTION, UH, FOR EVEN LIBRARIANS, RIGHT.
PUBLIC LIBRARY TO DO A 5% REDUCTION.
UH, THOSE ARE ALL CRITICAL PUBLIC SAFETY, UH, SERVICES THAT WE ALSO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, PARKS DEPARTMENT.
UM, THE LAST ONE I HAVE IS WHEN IT COMES TO THE DISBURSEMENT OF THE, UH, THE AMOUNT FOR EACH FIREFIGHTER, UM, HOW DID THAT COME TO BE, YOU KNOW, BE A REALITY? AND THEN IS THERE, IS THERE A WAY WHERE WE'LL BE ABLE TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT INDIVIDUAL, IS THERE A CHECKS AND BALANCE ESSENTIALLY FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL DISBURSEMENT TO EACH, EACH FIREFIGHTER? OR IS THERE LIKE A THIRD PARTY, UH, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUAL
[01:50:01]
OR, OR GROUP THAT'S, THAT'S OVERSEEING THAT? IT IT WILL BE PRECISE.I THINK IT'S STILL BEING CALCULATED, BUT IT, UH, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE UNION.
THE UNION WILL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION BASED ON THE, THE FORMULA FOR, UM, FOR HOW ITS FIREFIGHTERS, DEPENDING ON THEIR CLASSIFICATION IN YEARS RECEIVE OVERTIME.
AND, BUT THE CITY WILL KNOW THAT BECAUSE THE CITY IS GOING TO BE ISSUING THE 10 90 NINES.
SO THERE'S GONNA BE A PRECISE CALCULATION.
IT'S STILL A, IT'S, IT'S AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE UNION.
BUT CAN THE CITY HAVE A SAY? UM, I GUESS MY FINAL QUESTION IS, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF WHAT, UM, THOSE BENEFITS ARE FOR THE UNION.
I WANNA KNOW WHAT THOSE BENEFITS ARE FOR THE CITY.
UH, THAT'S GONNA DEPEND, YOU KNOW, ON, ON HOW COUNCIL MEMBERS VIEW IT.
IF I WERE SITTING IN YOUR SEAT, THE BENEFIT OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS, UM, WE BUY PEACE WITH THE FIREFIGHTERS, WE BRING CERTAINTY AND WE AVOID, UM, A HIGHER BILL AT THE END.
THAT COULD HAPPEN WITH A QUARTER, AN ARBITRATION PANEL.
I THINK THE BENEFIT THAT I THINK EVERYONE AROUND HERE IS ALSO THE ENTIRE SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE TO THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS.
BEFORE WE START A SECOND ROUND, ONE QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR DEBOSKY, WE ARE IN THIS PERIOD AND CONTROLLER YOU CAN WEIGH INTO, WE ARE IN THIS PERIOD WITH, WITH A HIGH, UM, ABOVE, WAY ABOVE 18% OF EXPENDITURES, LESS DEBT IN OUR FUND BALANCE, 281 MILLION, MORE OR LESS.
HA HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT TO, UM, USING, I KNOW, BELIEVE ME, I KNOW THERE'S, THERE'S LOTS OF ASKS ON THAT, BUT HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT TO BRINGING THAT SIX 50 DOWN? UM, YOU KNOW, BY USING SOME OF THAT FUND BALANCE AND BRINGING THE LONG TERM, UM, DEBT DOWN, THE PRINCIPLE AMOUNT DOWN, I THINK WE HAVE TO WEIGH USE OF THE FUND BALANCE FOR, UH, BRINGING DOWN SOME OF THE, THE PRINCIPLE OF THE GOING BACKWARDS PAY WITH USING IT, UH, TO HELP US PROPOSE AND ADOPT THE FY 25 BUDGET WHILE WE GET THESE NEW RECURRING REVENUE SOURCES IN.
UM, SO WHILE WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT EXACTLY, THAT'S, I MEAN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT, BUT IF IT'S, IF WE USE SOME OF IT TO BUY DOWN THE 650 MILLION, THAT LEAVES US WITH LESS TO HELP WITH THE FY 25 BUDGET FOR THE GOING FORWARD PAY, NOT JUST ON THE FIREFIGHTERS, BUT ON, UM, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL OPERATIONS OF THE CITY, THE $160 MILLION BASELINE BUDGETARY GAP THAT WE TALK ABOUT.
UM, SO IT'S, IT'S STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN ALL OF THAT.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER POLLARD.
AND BEFORE WE START AGAIN, OUT OF RESPECT FOR DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, IF YOU'RE OKAY, I'M GOOD.
UM, I'M GONNA BRING THE CONTROLLER IN ON THE DISCUSSION.
UM, CONTROLLER, YOU ALWAYS, OR AT LEAST RECENTLY IN THIS, UH, TODAY'S PRESENTATION YOU BROUGHT UP LIKE THE FAMILY BUDGET SCENARIO.
UM, IN YOUR OPINION, LOOKING AT IT FROM A FAMILY SCENARIO, HOW WOULD YOU ADVISE OR WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON THE CITY TAKING ON THIS MUCH DEBT? UH, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU ALSO SAID THAT IN THE OUT YEARS, WE'RE GONNA BE, UM, UM, IN A DE DEFICIT? SURE.
I MEAN, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER.
AND, AND SO IN, IN TAKING ON A POTENTIAL EXPENSE ITEM LIKE THIS, OF COURSE, AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS IS THE DECISION OF THIS COUNCIL, YOU ALL SITTING HERE BEFORE ME AND THE MAYOR, UH, TO APPROVE THIS AGREEMENT.
AND SO THAT'S QUESTION NUMBER ONE.
QUESTION NUMBER TWO IS IF YOU ARE GOING TO APPROVE IT, HOW DO YOU PAY FOR IT? AGAIN, THERE'S TWO WAYS TO DO THAT, COST REDUCTION, UH, AND REVENUE INCREASE.
AND, UH, AND THOSE I IMAGINE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, YOUR INTENTIONS WOULD BE LAID OUT IN THE FY 2025 BUDGET AND THE BUDGET'S GOING FORWARD.
SO THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE ALL TOUGH DECISIONS AND, AND THEY'RE YOURS TO MAKE.
UM, FOR THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, UM, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR, YOUR FIGURES FROM? ARE YOU GETTING THOSE FROM HR, OTHER DEPARTMENTS, UH, OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENTS? SO THE, THE FIGURES THAT WE USED IN SLIDE, UH, 12 FOR THOSE ILLUSTRATIONS, UH, THOSE ARE TAKEN FROM THE FORT WORTH, UM, THEIR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THEIR FIREFIGHTERS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, WE ARE, WE ARE LABELING THE, UH, THE BACK PAY
[01:55:01]
AS OVERTIME.HOWEVER, WHEN THE, UM, UNION SUED THE CITY BACK IN 2017 AND WE GOT TO AN IMPASSE, IT WAS BASED ON NOT HAVING A CONTRACT.
THE MONEY THAT WE ARE PAYING, UH, AS BACK PAY, DOES THAT SUGGEST THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING OVER TIME OVER THESE PAST SEVERAL YEARS? IT SUGGESTS, UM, IT, IT REALLY, YOU KNOW, THE UNION IS FREE TO CHARACTERIZE ITS CLAIMS AS IT SEES FIT.
YOU KNOW, PARTIES OFTEN DROP A TORT CLAIM TO MAINTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS. UH, YOU KNOW, THE CITY, THIS, THIS IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BUT WITH THE, WITH THE, WITH THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, NOT WHAT, NOT HOW THE, NOT HOW THE ASSOCIATION, THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE IS THAT WE MET ALL OF OUR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.
THE, THE UNION HAS A DIFFERENT THEORY AND A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO OVER TIME, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE COMPROMISING ON.
BUT WE HAVE TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, WE HAVE BEEN PAYING OVERTIME TO THE, UH, UH, FIRE DEPARTMENT IN EACH OF THESE YEARS THAT, THAT ARE IN CONTROVERSY.
HAVE WE, ARE WE $650 MILLION BEHIND IN OUR OVERTIME PAY? UH, I, UH, NOT ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S CALCULATIONS, BUT THIS IS A CONTESTED POINT IN THE LITIGATION.
UH, THERE ARE STATE STATUTES, UH, THAT DETERMINE, UM, THE REPAYMENT OF BONDS.
ONE IS 1507, WHICH THERE IS VOTER APPROVAL.
THE OTHER IS 1207 WHEN THERE IS NOT VOTER APPROVAL.
DID THE CITY, UH, MAKE ANY, UM, ARGUMENTS THAT WE SHOULD GO UNDER 1507, WHICH WOULD GIVE THE VOTERS, UH, A VOICE IN THE DECISION? UH, THE CITY DID NOT FOR THE REASON THAT, UH, THE, THE TIMING ISSUE, IT PUTS US INTO NOVEMBER, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S 1507 OR A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, AND WE MIGHT NOT HAVE A DEAL THEN.
IS THERE A PROVISION IN THE CBA THAT, IS THERE A PROVISION IN THE CBA THAT SPEAKS TO, UH, THE NO LONGER BEING A REQUIREMENT FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE RANDOM PERIODIC DRUG TESTING? YEAH, THERE IS SUCH A PROVISION.
AND WHY IS THAT? UH, THEY ASKED FOR IT.
OUR POSITION WAS, AND THE WAY WE HAVE THE DRAFT IS IT HAS TO COMPORT WITH, WITH THE STATE LAW.
AND SO WE FEEL THAT, UH, IF WE'RE COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW, UH, WE, WE CAN AGREE TO THAT.
AND ARE THEY THE, THE, ARE THEY THE ONLY DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THAT? UM, THEY, THEY MAY, THEY MAY BE.
NOW, THERE'RE STILL SUBJECT TO DRUG TESTING BASED ON, UH, SUSPICION AND CAUSE THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS, PLEASE PUT ME BACK IN THE QUEUE.
UM, I'M INTERESTED IN MORE OF THE, UM, REV CAP RAISING THAT POINT DIRECTOR.
AND I KNOW THERE'S MUCH CONVERSATION ABOUT, WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE VOTERS AND WE'RE GONNA ASK THAT WE'RE GONNA ASK THEM TO INCREASE OUR REV CAP.
CAN YOU CLARIFY, IS THIS A TWO STEP PROCESS? WE'LL GO TO THE VOTERS POSSIBLY IN NOVEMBER.
IS THAT THE OPTION? AND THEN, OR DO WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE IN 25, UM, AS WELL? AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE DELTA OF THE RAISE FROM THAT INCREASE, IS THAT RESTRICTED TO PUBLIC SAFETY OR WILL THAT GO BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND? UM, WHICH I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION? SURE.
UH, SO ON THE QUESTION OF IF WE GO TO THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER, DO WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE? THE TAX CODE? UH, THE STATE TAX CODE MAKES A PROVISION THAT YOU CAN GO TO THE VOTERS TO EXCEED THE STATE CAP.
SO IT COULD BE THAT THE NOVEMBER ITEM CAN, WE CAN DO A PUBLIC SAFETY ADD-ON TO EXCEED OUR LOCAL REVENUE CAP, AND THE VOTERS WOULD APPROVE US TO EXCEED THE STATE CAP THROUGH THE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE OF COURSE FOLLOW ALL THE PROCEDURES AND THE WORDING AND THE TAX CODE.
SO WE CAN GO TO THE VOTERS TO ASK FOR AN INCREASE IN THE PROPERTY TAX, BUT WE CANNOT GO TO THE VOTERS FOR A BACK, BACK PAYMENT FOR A SETTLEMENT BOND IN NOVEMBER, SAME YEAR, 2024.
UM, AND WE'RE NOT ASKING TO MEET THE STATE CAP.
WE'RE ASKING TO EXCEED THE STATE MINIMUM.
SHE SAID THE STATE CODE ALLOWS TO EXCEED, YOU CAN, YOU CAN ASK THE VOTERS TO EXCEED THE STATE CAP.
SO WE'RE ASKING TO EXCEED, NOT TO MEET BECAUSE WE HAVE THE MOST STRINGENT TAX CAP IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
IS THAT WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS PROPOSING? I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO STILL WORK THROUGH ALL OF THOSE, THE TRAPS AND BRING IT TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
FOR US TO TAKE THAT TO THE VOTERS' COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THAT.
[02:00:01]
TATUM.MY QUESTION IS FOR ATTORNEY MICHELLE, YOU, YOU ANSWERED ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMMAND STAFF BEING EXCLUDED, BUT JUST TO REITERATE, IF THEY WERE NOT A PART OF THE COMMAND STAFF, THEY WOULD RECEIVE THEIR PRO RATA SHARE OF THE AGREEMENT? UM, YES.
IF THEY WERE, UH, SAY THEY WERE COMMAND STAFF ONLY TWO OF THE SEVEN YEARS, THEY WOULD RECEIVE FIVE SEVENTHS OF THE PAY.
AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS, I KNOW THAT, UM, PREVIOUSLY PART OF OUR NEGOTIATION CONCERNS WERE, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE CURB ABSENTEEISM AND, YOU KNOW, ARE WE CHANGING OUR STAFFING MODEL AT ALL? CONSIDERING THAT 88% OF OUR CALLS ARE EMS, UM, WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION IN THE NEGOTIATIONS ABOUT HOW THE CITY COULD, UM, ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES THAT HAVE KIND OF BEEN LONGSTANDING IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? I MEAN, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, SORRY.
NO, WE WERE, UH, THOSE WERE PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS.
I THINK ULTIMATELY WHERE WE ARE NOW, IT'S THE INCENTIVE PAY TO TRY TO, UM, HAVE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF THE TYPE OF PERSONNEL THAT WE NEED, UH, AND BUILD UP THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE WE'VE LOST SEVERAL IN THE RANKS IN THE PAST FEW YEARS.
SO THE, THE ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE THE INCENTIVE PAY WOULD BE THE WAY THAT WE WOULD CURB THAT? YEAH, THAT'S A MECHANISM IN THE CBA.
UM, CITY ATTORNEY ON YOUR SLIDE SEVEN, YOU SAID THAT THERE IS, UM, FI EDUCATION, I BELIEVE, LET ME FIND THE PAGE.
UH, EDUCATION INCENTIVE PAY SIMILAR TO POLICE.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE ARE PAYING FOR, UM, EDUCATION COMPONENTS FOR FIREFIGHTERS IN THIS AGREEMENT? YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE WE'RE PAYING, WE'RE PAYING FOR DEGREES, YES.
UM, HOWEVER, MY QUE YOU SAID SIMILAR TO POLICE.
SO I'M GONNA ASK, ARE THERE EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO VARIOUS PROMOTIONAL POSITIONS WITHIN THIS AGREEMENT FOR FIRE? UH, NO.
AND THE POLICE UNION CONTRACT, ARE THERE EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE PROMOTIONS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO IT? YEAH.
THE PROMOTION SYSTEM FOR THE, FOR THE, THE POLICE HA HAS EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO MOVE UP THE RANKS.
SO FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, A LIEUTENANT IN THE POLICE, THERE'S A CERTAIN DEGREE THAT'S REQUIRED SO THAT THE CITY PAYS FOR THAT.
BUT THERE'S NO SIMILAR REQUIREMENT FOR PROMOTION WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? CORRECT.
HOWEVER, DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, WE ARE AGREEING IN THIS TO PAY FOR EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
NO REQUIREMENTS, JUST EDUCATION.
SO IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO GO AND GET A BACHELOR'S DEGREE, WE WOULD BE SUPPLEMENTING THAT COST, REIMBURSING THAT COST.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT EDUCATION? EDUCATION PAY? YES.
INCENTIVIZING THEM FOR ALREADY HAVING HAD A DEGREE.
HAVE WE CALCULATED FOR THAT COST YET? WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THOSE CALCULATIONS, AND THAT IS, THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE PLAN TO BRING TO YOU ALL, UH, IN ADVANCE OF VOTING ON THE, ON THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
AND CONTROLLER? UM, HAVE YOU, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THIS AT THE BEGINNING.
HAVE YOU SEEN THE DRAFT PROPOSED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT? I HAVE NOT.
SO YOUR CALCULATIONS OF WHAT YOU PRESENTED DURING THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS ARE SOLELY BASED ON THE, UM, PROPOSED BACK PAY AGREEMENT, NOT THE COSTS MOVING FORWARD, UM, NECESSARILY OF ALL OF THE COSTS MOVING FORWARD IN THIS CBA, THEY'RE BASED ON A HIGH LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE FIGURES.
SO WE RECEIVED A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON THE $650 MILLION FIGURE ON THE 10% RAISE WITH, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL 6% RAISES GOING OUT TO FY 2029.
AND SO BASED ON THE CURRENT FIGURES THAT WE HAVE, WE'RE TAKING, I WON'T CALL THEM ROUGH ESTIMATES, BUT WE'RE USING THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE RIGHT.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE DETAILS NECESSARILY AS THE CITY'S QUOTE UNQUOTE WATCHDOG.
YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH THIS DRAFT TO DO WHAT, TO CALCULATE ALL OF THE POTENTIAL COSTS OF THIS? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, UM, IN THE DRAFTS THAT I HAVE SEEN AGAIN, THAT ARE CIRCULATING, UH, FROM THE UNION, I READ A CLAUSE THAT SAID THAT THE CITY WILL PAY FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNION'S TIME, DAYS OFF PAY, ET CETERA, AND EDUCATION
[02:05:01]
PAY.DO OTHER UNIONS HAVE THAT BENEFIT, SUCH AS HOPE, WHERE WE'RE PAYING THE PRESIDENT OF HOPE FOR THOSE HOURS THAT THEY WORK FOR THE UNION AND ARE STILL BEING PAID THE CITY? NO.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, I READ THAT AND THERE FOR A DIRECTOR OF THE UNION, AN ADDITIONAL MEMBER WHO CAN UTILIZE, IT'S CALLED BUSINESS LEAVE.
UM, SO THERE'S NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT'S TIME THAT WE'RE SUPPLEMENTING, BUT ALSO A DIRECTOR OF THE UNION, IS THAT CORRECT? THE, FOR THE DIRECTOR YES.
BUSINESS LEAVE IS, IS PROVIDED.
SO THAT SAME PAY FOR A PRESIDENT AND A DIRECTOR OF THE UNION, DOES HOPE HAVE THAT BENEFIT? HOPE DOES NOT.
DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, DO WE KNOW WHAT IT WOULD COST THE CITY TO PROVIDE THOSE SAME ACCOMMODATIONS TO HOPE? NO, WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT CALCULATION.
AND THEN, UM, THERE ALSO APPEARS TO BE AT LEAST ANOTHER ADDITIONAL POSITION FOR THE UNION FOR AN HONOR GUARD, IS THAT CORRECT? FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PAY? UH, I, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND, AND LOOK AT THAT PROVISION TO SEE IF IT'S BEEN CHANGED.
SO, BUT HYPOTHETICALLY, THERE'S AT LEAST THREE POSITIONS THAT THE CITY WOULD BE PAYING FOR THAT ARE FIREFIGHTERS THAT ARE THEN USING TIME, UH, TO WORK FOR THE UNION.
SO THEY'RE NOT PERFORMING THOSE FIREFIGHTER DUTIES NECESSARILY.
AND I, I, I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT.
DO WE ALSO THEN HAVE TO PAY SUPPLEMENTAL TIME NOW FOR PEOPLE TO FILL THOSE POSITIONS WHILE SOMEBODY IS PERFORMING THEIR UNION DUTIES? YOU WOULD IF, IF, IF, IF THERE'S A NEED TO FILL THAT VACANCY.
SO THAT BECOMES HYPOTHETICALLY SIX PERSONNEL WE ARE PAYING FOR IN THAT SCENARIO, POTENTIALLY, YEAH.
UM, PLEASE PUT ME BACK IN QUEUE.
MICHELLE, JUST A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.
SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT COMPARATIVES AND USING SOME OF THE LARGER, UH, FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
IF, IF WE WERE NOT IN THIS POSTURE LAWSUIT, SEVERAL YEARS OF STALEMATE, AND WE WERE JUST NEGOTIATING A NEW COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WOULD WE BE TALKING MORE ABOUT WHAT, UH, FIREFIGHTERS MAKE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND LESS ABOUT WHAT, UH, SOME OF THE FIREFIGHTERS MAKE IN OTHER CITIES? OR HOW, HOW WOULD THAT BE WORKING? YEAH, IF, IF WE WEREN'T IN LITIGATION OR, OR ARBITRATION OR ANY SORT OF CONTESTED MATTER, YOU WOULD BE, UH, ADDRESSING THE PRIVATE SECTOR STANDARD.
THAT'S WHAT THE LAW PROVIDES FOR.
AND DO FIREFIGHTERS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR MAKE MORE THAN THEY DO IN THE, IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, OR DO YOU KNOW? WELL, IT'S, THAT'S THE BATTLE OF EXPERTS.
IT'S A DIFFICULT, UH, IN MY OPINION, AND IN MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT MUNICIPALITIES, UH, IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON OF WHAT'S DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR COMPARED TO A LARGE MUNICIPAL, UH, FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT PROVIDES PARAMEDIC AND FIRE SUPPRESSION AND ARSON SERVICES.
UH, QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT THE PROVISION THAT CALLS FOR PAYING THE LEGAL FEES OF THE FIREFIGHTERS.
UM, WAS THAT JUST PART OF THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS WHERE BOTH PARTIES GIVE AND TAKE IN IN TERMS OF WHO DOES WHAT OR HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THAT? YEAH, IT'S A PROCESS THAT INCLUDES, UH, SORT OF THE, UH, THE UNION STARTING AT A HIGHER DOLLAR FIGURE, NEGOTIATING DOWN, UH, LOOKING AT, UM, UH, TIME ENTRIES, LOOKING AT THE RATE, YOU KNOW, COMPARING IT, YOU KNOW, UNDER CASE LAW IN TERMS OF WHAT COMPARABLE ATTORNEYS HAVE HAVE ACHIEVED.
LOOKING AT THE LOADSTAR CALCULATIONS FOR COMPLEXITY, UNCERTAINTY, LENGTH, AND, AND COMING UP WITH SOMETHING THAT SEEMED REASONABLE.
I I, IS IT SORT OF LIKE A, UH, UH, HOME TRANSACTION WHERE BUYER AND SELLER CAN NEGOTIATE ANY NUMBER OF THINGS IN COMING TO AN AGREEMENT? YES.
THERE'S NO LAW THAT SAYS THE CITY CAN'T PAY, UH, THE LEGAL FEES FOR THE FIRE FIREFIGHTERS IS THERE? UH, THERE'S NO LAW THAT SAYS THAT.
IN FACT, THERE'S, UH, THE MAKE WHOLE PROVISION.
UM, IT'S, WE BELIEVE LIKELY THAT, UH, COURTS WOULD GRANT IT.
WITH REGARD TO THE PAY INCREASES, 10% THE FIRST YEAR AND THEN THEREAFTER 3, 3, 4, AND FOUR ARE, ARE THOSE SET IN STONE THE LAST FOUR YEARS, OR COULD THERE BE SOME VARIATION GOING FORWARD? WELL, THOSE ARE, THAT'S THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT.
UH, THEN THE, THE CONTINGENCY ARE, IS THE, UH, IF WITH SUFFICIENT REVENUES THAT IN YEARS TWO AND THREE, THE 3% COULD GO, UH, AS, AS HIGH UP AS SIX IN EACH OF THOSE.
AND THEN IN THE LAST TWO YEARS WHERE IT'S 4%, IT COULD GO UP AS HIGH AS 2%
[02:10:01]
FOR EACH OF THOSE YEARS.WHY MIGHT IT VARY? UH, I'M SORRY, I DID, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.
WHY, WHY, WHY COULD THERE BE VARIATION IN EACH OF THE LAST FOUR YEARS? UH, IT'S, WELL, THE VERY, I MEAN, THE WAY IT'S ARRANGED RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, THE VARIATION WOULD DEPEND ON NEW REVENUES.
THE CITY DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT IT COULD FUND IT, UM, WITH, WITH ENOUGH CERTAINTY IF THERE WEREN'T ADDITIONAL REVENUE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE HAD THE CONTINGENT PORTIONS.
NOW, YOU'VE, YOU'VE BEEN A PART OF THIS LAWSUIT FOR A LONG TIME.
CAN YOU SUMMARIZE FOR US WELL, AND LET ME, LET ME FIRST SAY, IN ANY NEGOTIATION INVOLVING SOPHISTICATED PARTIES, NO ONE GETS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT AND EVERYBODY, BOTH PARTIES HAVE TO GIVE SOMETHING UP.
AS PEOPLE OFTEN SAY, WHEN BOTH SIDES WALK AWAY UNHAPPY, THEN YOU HAVE A GOOD SETTLEMENT.
W HOW WOULD YOU SUMMARIZE, UH, THE THINGS THAT THE FIREFIGHTERS HAVE GIVEN UP IN COMING TO THIS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY? WELL, I THINK WHAT THEY HAVE GIVEN UP IS, YOU KNOW, F FIRST OF ALL, IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO MAKE UP FOR PAST YEARS.
I, I I, IF YOU'RE UNDERPAID, THAT'S BEEN WHAT'S BEEN INDICATED.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WITH, WITH ANY CERTAINTY, BUT WE HAVE OUR EXPERTS, THEY HAVE THEIRS, UH, THEY HAVE GIVEN UP THE, THE POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING FAR, FAR MORE THAN WE HAVE IN THAT AMOUNT.
AND ALSO THEY COULD HAVE OBTAINED OTHER ASPECTS, INCLUDING SOME OF THE ONES THAT THEY, THEY HAD BARGAINED FOR IN TERMS OF THE, THAT AREN'T DIRECTLY FINANCIAL, BUT INVOLVE OPERATIONAL ISSUES.
COUNCIL MEMBER FLICKINGER, THE SETTLEMENT WAS 650 MILLION.
UH, THE CBA IS 428, IS THAT CORRECT? THE 428 INCLUDES THE BASE PAY PLUS PENSION AND FICA, NOT INCLUDING INCENTIVES AND SPECIAL PAY.
AND THEN INTEREST, WE'RE LOOKING SOMEWHERE AROUND 400 ON THE SIX 50, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1.5 BILLION, GIVE OR TAKE ROUGHLY.
COULD THE BONDS AND VOTER APPROVAL TO INCREASE THE CAP ALL BE IN THE SAME ITEM FOR ON A BALLOT IN NOVEMBER? ESSENTIALLY, WHERE WE WOULD TELL THE VOTERS, YOU'RE AGREEING TO PROVE $650 MILLION IN BOND, YOUR TAX INCREASE INCREASES.
THIS, I, I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
YOU CANNOT, UH, PUT DIFFERENT SUBJECTS ON A SINGLE BALLOT MEASURE.
UH, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO SPLIT IT AND MAKE ONE CONTINGENT ON THE OTHER, BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PAYING SOMETHING AND HOW TO PAY FOR IT, ISN'T THAT THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER? IT IT, IT MAY NOT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW THE COURTS LOOK AT WHAT'S ON IT, I THINK THAT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT VERY CAREFULLY.
THAT'S OFTEN A HOTLY LITIGATED ISSUE.
BUT, BUT IT, WE WILL LOOK INTO IT.
YOU TALKED ABOUT EARLIER NOT HAVING THE DETAILS AROUND WHAT WOULD TRIGGER THE ADDITIONAL PAY INCREASE FOR THE CBA.
DO WE HAVE A GENERAL BROAD OUTLINE? WELL, I THINK PART OF IT IS GONNA BE FACTORED INTO HOW WE ULTIMATELY END UP PAYING, UH, FOR THIS AND THE INCREASED SOURCE OF REVENUES.
SO WE KNOW WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO.
SO I THINK UNFORTUNATELY, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL TODAY.
UM, MUCH OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, AND THIS IS A A QUESTION FOR, FOR BOTH OF YOU ALL.
UM, THERE ARE UNKNOWN, THERE'S UNKNOWN INFORMATION.
WHY WOULD, WHY WOULD WE HIGHLIGHT THAT WE HAVE AN APO, AN AGREEMENT, A PROPOSED AGREEMENT? WHEN WHEN WE HAVE ALL THIS UNKNOWN INFORMATION, HOW ARE WE GONNA PAY FOR IT? WHAT'S THE TOTAL COST DURATION, DIFFERENT PROVISIONS, UNCERTAINTY OF WHO INTERVENERS MAY BE? WHY ANNOUNCE THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE AN AGREEMENT IF WE HAVE SO MANY UNKNOWN VARIABLES? UH, WELL, AND HOW CAN WE AGREE IF THERE'S SO MANY UNKNOWN VARIABLES? WELL, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE INTERVENERS WHEN WE, WHEN WE HAD, UH, THE, THE, THE INITIAL SIGNED AGREEMENT.
I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS IS YOU NEED TO STOP THE, THE CLOCK ON THE LITIGATION BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TELL THE COURT THAT WE THINK WE CAN, WE, WE HAVE AGREED TO SOMETHING AND THEY'RE WORKING FORWARD BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, UH, AND IF WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD, THIS ENTIRE PROCESS FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS IN THE UPCOMING YEAR, AND TYPICALLY AN ARBITRATION PANEL WILL DO A THREE YEAR DEAL.
SO YOU'RE TALKING 10 YEARS, THIS COULD ALL BE DECIDED THIS
[02:15:01]
CALENDAR YEAR BECAUSE IF WE GO INTO COLLECT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS A 60 DAY PROCESS.AND THEN IF IT GOES INTO ARBITRATION, THAT'S A VERY SIMILAR SHORT AMOUNT OF PROCESS.
ALL OF THIS COULD BE D DETERMINED BY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OR THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM.
IN THIS CALENDAR YEARS, YOU FELT NEED TO PUT A STOP IF YOU WENT TO ARBITRATION.
IS THERE, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THE ARBITRATOR WOULD COME BACK AT A LOWER FIGURE THAN 650 MILLION? YES, OF COURSE.
I, I THINK THOUGH, UH, I SHOULD ADD THAT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS IS STRUCTURED, WHERE IT IS, THERE'S NO PENSION COMPONENT.
UM, AN ARBITRATION AWARD OR A JUDICIAL AWARD, UM, OF, I THINK LIKE $474 MILLION BE IS THE EQUIVALENT OF 650 MILLION WITH NO PENSION OBLIGATION FOR THE CITY.
SO REALLY THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING AROUND 474 MILLION THAT YOU'D HAVE TO BE BELOW IN ORDER TO GET THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE PAST.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD BE BELOW THAT? YES.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE AVOIDANCE, THAT'S JUST ON THE WORST CASE SCENARIO.
BUT WE DON'T, WE HAVE NOT PROJECTED ANYTHING TO SHOW IF IT WAS TO COME BACK AT 200 MILLION OR 300 MILLION, WHY NOT? CERTAINLY YOU CAN RUN A HOST OF DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE SCENARIOS.
UM, I THINK THAT ARTURO HAS BEEN IN, SORRY, CITY ATTORNEY MICHELLE HAS BEEN IN A LOT MORE NEGOTIATIONS THAN I HAVE.
AND I THINK THAT, UH, THIS DEAL IS THE, IS THE BEST DEAL THAT WE FEEL WE COULD HAVE WORKED FOR THE CITY.
SO RIGHT NOW, THE DEAL THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING IS A $1.5 BILLION DEAL, NOT INCLUDING ANY OPERATIONS OR INCENTIVES, NOT INCLUDING THOSE.
CAN I BRING UP THE, UH, FIRE CHIEF FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE? UH, CONTROLLER, IF YOU CAN, UM, WE CAN ASK THE, OH, RIGHT HERE.
UH, CHIEF PENA, CAN YOU COME FORWARD? CHIEF, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
UM, WHAT PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS WERE YOU A PART OF IN THIS PROCESS, AND WHEN DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT THIS PROPOSED AGREEMENT? COUNCIL MEMBER? UM, I WAS PART OF THE PREVIOUS NEGOTIATIONS, THE ONES THAT STARTED LAST IN 2023.
UH, I HAVE, I WAS NOT IN THE ROOM ON THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR DRAFT AGREEMENT.
UM, LEGAL DID REACH OUT TO ME, UH, AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MONTH TO REVIEW A DRAFT.
UM, BUT AGAIN, I, I, I WASN'T PART OF THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION, SO I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE ABOUT THE INTENT OF SOME OF THESE, UH, ARTICLES AS IT PERTAINS TO OPERATIONS.
I KNOW ONE OF THE BIG THINGS WE TALK ABOUT IS RESPONSE TIMES AND TRYING TO ENSURE THAT WE PROVIDE THESE SERVICES, UH, FASTER AND MORE EFFECTIVELY.
DOES ANYTHING IN THE AGREEMENT THAT YOU KNOW OF SPEAK TO OPERATIONS OR RESPONSE TIMES? UH, IT, IT DOES, IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY SPEAK TO THAT.
AND, UH, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
OUR RESPONSE TIMES ARE, UM, THEY'RE NOT WHERE THERE SHOULD BE.
THEY'RE GETTING WORSE EVERY, UH, EVERY YEAR.
THE CALL VOLUME KEEPS GOING UP.
UM, I HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL AMBULANCES, WHICH IS WHAT WE NEED IN THE SYSTEM EVERY YEAR.
AND, UM, BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONTRACT RIGHT NOW THAT SPEAKS TO THOSE TO ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL SERVICE.
SO DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, AGAIN, SO THIS WOULD BE A $1.5 BILLION DEAL, BUT IT WOULD HAVE NO, UM, BENEFITS TO OPERATIONS.
I DIDN'T SAY IT WOULD HAVE NO BENEFITS TO OPERATIONS.
THAT COST DOESN'T INCLUDE OTHER OPERATIONAL ITEMS THAT COULD BE IN THE DRAFT.
PLEASE PUT ME BACK IN THE QUEUE.
UH, ON THE SAME VEIN AS THE EXPOSURE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER POLLARD WAS TALKING ABOUT ON THE, IN AN ARBITRATION PANEL, YOU, YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT HAVING THE PENSION.
I MEAN, IF YOU, YOU WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE BASED ON, ON WAGES, NOT OVERTIME.
SO YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE THE PENSION COMPONENT.
WOULD YOU ALSO HAVE TO RECALCULATE OVERTIME THAT WAS WORKED IN THOSE INTERVENING YEARS BASED ON THE NEW WAGE RATE? POSSIBLY.
I MEAN, IS THAT ANOTHER, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ALL THE EXPOSURE HERE.
WOULD YOU HAVE TO GO BACK, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT ONLY DOING BACK PAY, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO DO BACK OVERTIME.
WOULD YOU HAVE TO ADJUST FOR THE DELTA AND THE OVERTIME WITH THE NEW, UH, WAGE RATE? UM, YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE TO, I MEAN, THE, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS COMPREHENSIVE.
[02:20:01]
OF COMPENSATION.SO SHE WOULD LOOK AT EVERYTHING AND THERE WOULD ALSO BE, UH, INTEREST INTEREST ON THAT INTEREST.
COUNCIL MEMBER CARTER, BEEN WAITING A WHILE.
UM, UM, CITY ATTORNEY, JUST, UH, BACK TO SORT OF THE MARCH PROPOSED TRIAL DATE, WHATEVER, IF WE WENT TO TRIAL MARCH 25TH, WOULD THERE BE A JUDGMENT AND, UM, INSTEAD OF SETTLING, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WELL, I I, I, I DON'T THINK THE TRIAL WOULD HAPPEN THAT QUICKLY.
I THINK BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN IN A, A, A HOLDING PATTERN, THE COURT WOULD MOVE IT BACK A COUPLE MONTHS OR WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE.
BUT FOR FY 18, WE'RE, WE'RE IN JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT.
UH, YOU'D HAVE A TRIAL, THERE'D BE A JUDGMENT.
OF COURSE, THE COURT CAN DO A NUMBER OF THINGS.
YOU KNOW, IT COULD, IT COULD REDO THE TRIAL.
BUT THEN THERE'S AN APPELLATE PROCESS.
THE BIGGER UNCERTAINTY HAS TO DO WITH THE SUBSEQUENT SIX INTERVENING YEARS BEFORE THE CURRENT ONE THAT WE'RE NEGOTIATING.
BECAUSE THAT MAY, THE JUDGE MAY RULE THAT THAT IS SUBJECT TO A MANDATORY, UM, UH, ARBITRATION.
YOU KNOW, THE COURT, THE, THE COURT RULED THAT BECAUSE WE WERE IN JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT FOR FY 18, THAT WOULD BE AN IMPERMISSIBLE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE.
BUT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED FOR THOSE SIX YEARS, I KNOW THE UNION'S POSITION WILL BE THAT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY HAVE AN IMPASSE, UM, IT DOES NOT, ARBITRATION IS NOT RIPE YET.
AND AT THIS POINT, IT WOULD, IT WOULD NOT BE A RETROACTIVE APPLICATION BECAUSE THE STATUTE WAS PASSED LAST SUMMER.
SO WE COULD WELL ARBITRATE, UM, SIX OF THOSE SEVEN YEARS AND HAVE THAT FINALITY THIS FALL.
AND, AND SO GIVEN, IF THERE, IF THERE WAS A JUDGMENT, UM, HOW WOULD THE CITY PAY FOR BACK PAY? OR WOULD THAT BE ADDRESSED? IF THERE IS, I MEAN, IN, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SETTLEMENT, THE CITY WOULD EITHER FIND THAT IT HAS SUFFICIENT MONEY IN ITS FUND BALANCE, OR IT WOULD HAVE TO ISSUE SOME SORT OF DEBT.
AND TYPICALLY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A JUDGMENT, AND GIVEN OUR BOND COVENANTS, IT WOULD ALMOST, IT REQUIRE A JUDGMENT BOND IN ORDER NOT TO PUT OUR OTHER COVENANTS, UH, OUR OTHER BOND ISSUANCES AT RISK.
AND SO WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE, UM, WOULD, WOULD THAT AWARD HAVE TO BE REALLOCATED TO COVER ANY PENSION OR OVERTIME? HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT THOSE NUMBERS? OR WHAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO COVER THAT? A, A REFUNDING BOND AND, UH, OR A JUDGMENT BOND, I BELIEVE, UH, CANNOT BE USED TO COVER FUTURE, UH, YOU KNOW, FUTURE PENSION COSTS.
SO IT, WE MAY HAVE TO, IF WE, IF THERE'S INSUFFICIENT IN FUND BALANCE FOR WHATEVER THAT AMOUNT IS THERE, THERE MAY HAVE TO BE A PENSION BOND THAT GOES TO THE VOTERS.
UM, I'D JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT BUSINESS LEAVE THAT MAY, THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO WORK FOR, UH, FOR UNION DESIGNATED INDIVIDUALS TO WORK FOR THE UNION WHILE BEING PAID AT THE CITY.
UM, AGAIN, THAT THERE'S JUST A COST TO THAT, RIGHT? FOR BETTER OR WORSE, THERE'S A HYPOTHETICAL COST.
SO AGAIN, UM, AS I'M GONNA GET INTO A FEW MORE EXAMPLES OF WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WOULD BE THE COST AND IMPLICATIONS OF THIS AND, UH, CHIEF PENAN, NOT JUST AS IT RELATES TO THE COST, BUT THE STAFFING CHALLENGES RELATED TO THAT.
UM, THERE, IS THERE, I BELIEVE IN THE CBA, THERE ARE MINIMUM STAFFING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE LAID OUT IN THE AGREEMENT CITY ATTORNEY.
AND IS ONE OF THOSE MINIMUM STAFFING REQUIREMENTS THAT ALL DISTRICT CHIEFS WOULD HAVE A DRIVER? YES.
CITY, UH, EXCUSE ME, DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, WHAT WOULD THE COST OF THAT BE? I THINK THE COST WOULD DEPEND ON THE, UH, RANK OF THE DRIVER AND THE COST TO, UM, TO YOUR POINT ON THE, UM, ON THE UNION, UH, REPRESENTATIVES, UH, THE COST TO BACKFILL WHATEVER, UH, SLOT THAT, UH, RANKED FIREFIGHTER OR UNDERSTOOD ENGINE OPERATOR WOULD HAVE DONE ON THEIR NORMAL SHIFT.
AND POTENTIALLY OVERTIME COST AS WELL AND OVERTIME COST ON TOP OF THAT.
IT ALSO APPEARS THAT DR, THE DRIVERS THAT WOULD BE STAFFING THE DISTRICT CHIEFS, THOSE QUALIFICATIONS, THE STANDARD OF IT THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED WAS ALSO INCREASED ON PAPER CITY ATTORNEY.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE QUALIFICATION STANDARDS FOR THOSE DRIVERS WAS INCREASED? YEAH, THERE ARE, I MEAN, THE DRIVER'S NOT SIMPLY JUST A DRIVER.
THEY'RE ALSO THE INCIDENT COMMANDER.
THERE'S A ROLE FOR THAT DRIVER TO PLAY, CORRECT.
BUT THOSE STANDARDS UNDER WHICH THE CITY IS CURRENTLY OPERATING WERE INCREASED.
SO THAT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL COSTS.
I DID NOT MEAN TO DETRACT FROM THE QUESTION, BUT YES.
UM, COULD THAT THEN FORCE OVERTIME
[02:25:01]
IF WE'RE REQUIRING A PARTICULAR CLASS OF DRIVERS? YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT.UH, CITY ATTORNEY, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW, AS WE'RE ASSESS ANALYZING THIS, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW WHAT OTHER MINIMUM STAFFING REQUIREMENTS GO ABOVE STATE REQUIREMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, AS IT RELATES TO EMS, UH, SERVICES.
UH, AND I, YOU KNOW, TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, HE EMPHASIZED THE NEED TO BE ADDING SERVICES TO ADDRESS RESPONSE TIMES.
CHIEF PAYNE, YOU MENTIONED WE NEED MORE AMBULANCES.
I'VE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR CAD, WHICH WILL HELP WITH EFFICIENCIES AND RESPONSES, BUT IT, ARE, WE, HAVE WE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND AS IT RELATES TO EMS RESPONSE? THE STATE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, UH, THE, THE CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE DOES GO IN, IN, IN CERTAIN AREAS ABOVE WHAT THE STATE MINIMUM? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND IDEALLY, WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD AS A CITY, BUT MY CONCERN BEING THAT WE ARE CONSTRAINING, WE'RE PUTTING THE CITY INTO A BOX ONE THAT COSTS US MORE.
AND AS WE HAVE STAFFING CHALLENGES, UH, PREVENTS US FROM HAVING THAT ADDED FLEXIBILITY.
SO AGAIN, MY ASK IS THAT WE HAVE A BREAKDOWN OF UNDER WHAT REQUIREMENTS WE ARE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND STATE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND THE COSTS OF THAT, UH, DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, UH, ARE, IS THERE ANY CHANGE TO REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO OVERTIME THAT WOULD SAVE THE CITY MONEY IN THIS AGREEMENT? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
UH, THE ONLY ONES ARE THE ONES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE, WHICH IS THE, UH, THE VARIOUS INCENTIVE PAYS OR EDUCATIONAL PAYS SO THAT THERE WILL BE, UH, PEOPLE MOTIVATED TO, TO REMAIN IN THE DEPARTMENT, TO RELY MORE ON THE DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME AND HAVE LESS ABSENTEEISM.
AND, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, I'LL FINISH THIS QUESTION THEN GO BACK IN QUEUE.
UM, THIS MAY NOT BE PRECISE, I'M JUST USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE.
THERE'S CERTAIN, UM, CLASSES WHERE IF YOU GO INTO ONE HOUR OF OVERTIME, YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY PAID FOR FOUR HOURS OF OVERTIME.
IS THAT CORRECT? WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT? SO WHERE THERE'S ADDITIONAL OVERTIME PAY, EVEN FOR WORKING JUST A LOWER NUMBER OF HOURS THAN THAT PAY, I I THINK THERE ARE SOME SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S A MINIMUM, UH, AMOUNT OF TIME FOR WHICH YOU GET PAID OVERTIME.
COULD I, UM, PLEASE CIRCLE BACK ON SOMETHING YOU SAID? UM, I THINK A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION AROUND GETTING THE, THE PAY MORE COMPETITIVE WITH OUR COMPETITORS.
THE, THE GOAL OF THE CITY IS TO BE ABLE TO RECRUIT MORE CADETS, UH, SO THAT WE CAN GROW THEM THROUGH THE RANKS.
I THINK AS WE INCREASE OUR HEADCOUNT, THAT COULD DRIVE DOWN THE OVERTIME COST, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC LINE ITEM RIGHT.
IN, IN THE CBA, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
YOU'RE SAYING, HEY, IF WE'RE ABLE TO RECRUIT MORE, WE MAY NOT HAVE AS MANY OVERTIME COSTS.
AND I'M, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT THE PARAMETERS OF OVERTIME COSTS AS THEY STAND TODAY ARE.
SO GIVEN THIS, THE CARDS WE ARE CURRENTLY DEALT MM-HMM
AND THIS IS AN AGREEMENT THAT WILL IMPROVE RETENTION, CORRECT? HYPOTHETICALLY, THAT'S WHAT WE HOPE.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT RECRUITMENT NECESSARILY.
UM, THERE ARE PARAMETERS IN THIS CBA THAT DO NOT SHIFT.
FOR EXAMPLE, I USED WHAT I SAID PREVIOUSLY, IF YOU WORK ONE HOUR OF OVERTIME, YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY GUARANTEED FOUR HOURS OF OVERTIME FOR CERTAIN CLASSES.
SO THAT HAS NOT CHANGED, THAT HAS NOT BEEN REDUCED.
THAT HAS NOT, THAT HAS NOT A CITY MONEY SAVER AT THE MOMENT.
YEAH, THERE'S A MINIMUM IF, IF, UH, IF YOU'RE CALLED IN, WHICH IS, WAS THE CASE UNDER THE PRIOR CONTRACT, BUT YOU'RE CORRECT.
UM, MY QUESTION IS TO CHIEF PENA.
UM, YOU NOTED THAT YOU WERE A PART OF THE 2023 NEGOTIATIONS.
WHAT ARE ITEMS THAT WERE BEING DISCUSSED THAT, UM, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE 2024? UM, CBA PARTICULARLY AROUND, UM, OPERATIONAL, UH, JUST STANDARD THINGS, BECAUSE IN MY POSITION, READING, YOU KNOW, DOCUMENTS, IT'S VERY COLD 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE CONTEXT TO, UM, PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS AND OR, UH, WHAT THE CITY WAS REQUESTING.
IT'S A LOT OF WHAT, UH, THE UNION HAS OFFERED, UH, WHAT THE UNION, UM, HAS DETERMINED AS, UM, CLASSIFICATION IN TERMS OF, OF PAY.
UM, SO IN TERMS OF REPRESENTING AN ADMINISTRATION IN THESE TYPES OF AGREEMENTS, WHAT TYPICALLY IS OFFERED OR NEGOTIATED ON THE TABLE RATHER? UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, LET ME, LEMME PREFACE MY, MY ANSWER BY SAYING THIS, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY MENTIONED THAT THE DRAFT, UH, APPARENTLY IS NOT, THERE ARE SOME INACCURACIES AND THEY'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THE CURRENT DRAFT TO SPEAK TO THE ITEMS THAT WE WERE SEEKING IN THE PREVIOUS,
[02:30:01]
UH, NEGOTIATIONS.WE WERE TRYING TO GET, UH, A A BETTER HANDLE ON, ON MANAGEMENT'S RIGHTS WE CAN MAKE THE MOST IMPACT ON, ON STAFFING, DEPLOYING OUR RESOURCES TO MEET THE DEMAND IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MANAGE OUR RESOURCES BETTER, RIGHT? UM, AND THAT'S, THAT WAS ONE OF THE GOALS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE AT IN THE PREVIOUS, UH, NEGOTIATION CYCLE.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS WAS MENTIONED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND, AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, UH, WE WERE ALSO LOOKING TO INCENTIVIZE THE THINGS THAT WE NEEDED MORE OF.
UM, SO WE WERE LOOKING AT, THAT WAS THE SECOND, UH, FOCUS.
AND THEN HEALTH AND SAFETY WAS, WAS THE THIRD FOCUS.
AND THEN FINALLY, UM, A WAY TO ENSURE THAT WE HAD THE CAPACITY TO, TO ADD THE SERVICE THAT WE NEED, RIGHT? WHETHER IT WAS AN ADJUSTMENT IN, IN, UH, IN THE WORK SCHEDULE, UM, THOSE THINGS WERE, WERE DEBATED, UH, AS WELL.
AND, UM, BUT AS, AS WAS MENTIONED, WE REACHED IMPASSE AND, AND THEN WE WENT TO THIS NEW, UH, BARGAINING CYCLE.
SO THOSE ITEMS REALLY STRATEGICALLY WAS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
UH, IN THE END, WHAT WE WANNA DO IS ENSURE THAT WE'RE DELIVERING A BETTER SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY.
AND, UH, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S HURTING US RIGHT NOW IS JUST THE LACK OF CAPACITY.
THE, UH, THE DEMAND FOR, FOR OUR SERVICE IS AN EMS. AND WE ARE NOT MEETING THAT, THAT DEMAND, OUR, OUR RESPONSE TIMES ARE, ARE GETTING HIGHER.
WE'RE TRYING TO PLUG THE, THE HOLE IN THE MOST INEFFICIENT WAY, UH, OR WE'RE PLUGGING THE HOLE AND ATTEMPT, BUT WE'RE DOING IT IN THE MOST INEFFICIENT WAY, WHICH IS DEPLOYING THE HEAVY APPARATUS, UH, AND USING IT MORE OFTEN THAN WE WHAT WE REALLY SHOULD.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER RAMIREZ, HOPEFULLY LAST, UH, ROUND HERE.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND, UH, ATTORNEY MICHELLE.
SO QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT THE $650 MILLION IN CHARACTERIZING IT AS OVER TIME.
UM, AND I THINK YOU SAID THE CITY'S BEEN PAYING OVER TIME AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL THAT WE OWE $650 MILLION IN OVERTIME.
IS THAT RIGHT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
DOES CALLING IT OVERTIME $650 MILLION HAVE A SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE CITY? YES.
WHAT WHAT IS THAT? IT'S, IT, IN MY CALCULATION, GIVEN THAT I THINK THE, THE 27%, UH, PENSION OBLIGATION BY THE CITY, IT, UH, IT, IT WOULD MAKE THE 650 MILLION SETTLEMENT EQUIVALENT TO ABOUT FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FOUR, FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY 5 MILLION.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON BACK PAY FOR FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FOUR SEVENTY 5 MILLION, UM, AND YOU ADD SEPARATELY THE PENSION COMPONENT, IT WOULD REACH 650 MILLION.
SO THERE'D BE A SEPARATE PENSION OBLIGATION IF WE CALLED IT SOMETHING OTHER THAN OVERTIME, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
NOW, DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI, I HAVE, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.
UM, SO YOU, UH, HAVE OUTLINED SOME POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES, GARBAGE FEE, FEE ADJUSTMENTS, UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY, RENTAL, UH, PUBLIC SAFETY ADD-ON, ET CETERA.
HAVE, HAVE YOUR DISCUSSIONS CENTERED AT ALL ON HOW MUCH PER YEAR ADDITIONAL REVENUE THE CITY WILL NEED GOING FORWARD? YES.
SO, UM, JUST IN TERMS OF THE FY 25, YOU KNOW, WE, WHERE WE, UH, TALK ABOUT THE $160 MILLION BASELINE BUDGETARY GAP, AND THAT'S THE BUDGETARY GAP THAT EXISTS ABSENT THIS FIREFIGHTER SETTLEMENT, ABSENT THE GOING FORWARD.
UM, THAT ALSO DOESN'T INCLUDE, UH, ANYTHING ADDITIONAL FOR HOPE.
UH, THAT'S JUST KIND OF EXISTING, UH, OBLIGATIONS, UH, THAT STRUCTURAL BUDGET GAP.
UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UM, CHAIR ALCORN MENTIONED, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR AT LEAST THE 10 YEARS I'VE BEEN AT THE CITY AND PROBABLY BEFORE THEN.
UM, AND SINCE THEN, WE'VE HAD ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES LIKE HITTING THE REVENUE CAP.
SO CERTAINLY WHEN LOOKING AT THESE REVENUE, UM, ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS AND VOTE ON IN THE FUTURE, UH, IT LOOKS NOT JUST AT, UM, THESE ARE, THESE WOULD BE RECURRING REVENUE SOURCES.
SO TAKING, DEFINITELY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE, WHAT THE OUT YEARS LOOK LIKE AND PART OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET.
UM, WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, WE DO SOMETHING CALLED A FIVE-YEAR FORECAST.
UH, SO THAT EVERY YEAR, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PAST PRESENTATIONS, YOU CAN SEE, UM, THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ALWAYS PROJECTED A BUDGETARY GAP IN THAT FIVE YEAR WINDOW AND OF COURSE GOING OUT.
[02:35:01]
UH, SO THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WILL BE, UM, YOU KNOW, GIVING PROJECTIONS ON THESE ITEMS, NOT JUST FOR ONE YEAR, BUT FOR THE FUTURE YEARS AS WELL.AND SO I UNDERSTAND YOU CAN SORT OF MIX AND MATCH THESE, THESE POTENTIAL, UH, REVENUE SOURCES, BUT HAS THERE BEEN DISCUSSION ON HOW MUCH, UH, ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS WOULD'VE TO PAY IN A GARBAGE FEE? UM, SO I THINK IF YOU, UH, JUST DID A BACK OF THE ENVELOPE CALCULATION, UM, THE GARBAGE FEE NEEDED TO FUND THE, UH, OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE, THE O AND M SIDE OF THE BUDGET FOR THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT IS ABOUT A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
IT EQUATES TO ROUGHLY $20 A MONTH, VERY ROUGHLY.
AND REGARDING THE PROPERTY TAX, PUBLIC SAFETY ADD-ON, HOW MANY PENNIES WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED TO THE TAX RATE? UH, IT DEPENDS ON IF YOU WANT.
UH, IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL REVENUE YOU WANNA BRING IN.
SO FOR EVERY PENNY IT BRINGS IN $26 MILLION.
AND FINALLY, I THINK, UM, YOU'D MENTIONED THERE IS A LIST OF VACANCIES.
COULD YOU SEND US, UH, THE LIST OF VACANCIES IN THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE VACANCIES? YES.
UM, SO CURRENTLY WE'RE, WE'RE DISCUSSING, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE PAY FOR THIS PARTICULAR, UM, PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS, BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE POLICE COMING UP NEXT, AND THEN THE MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES.
HOW WOULD WE PAY FOR ALL THREE EMPLOYEE GROUPS IF WE'RE STRUGGLING TO EVEN UNDERSTAND OR KNOW WHAT REVENUE WE'RE GONNA NEED TO PAY FOR THIS ASSOCIATION? WE DEFINITELY NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WE MOVE TO THE FY 25 BUDGET.
AND AS WE IDENTIFY WHICH OF THESE, WHICH OF THESE REVENUES WE WANNA TALK ABOUT, OF COURSE, IF IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY ADD-ON FOR PROPERTY TAX, WE CAN'T USE THAT TO PAY HOPE.
UM, SIMILAR TO, UH, WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, THOMAS, YOU HAD A QUESTION THAT I, I THINK WE RAN OUTTA TIME ON, ON THE FEE ADJUSTMENTS.
UM, WE CERTAINLY CANNOT, UH, USE A FEE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FIRE AND USE THAT REVENUE ON FIRE.
RIGHT? SO WE NEED TO, WHEN WE DO OUR FEE ADJUSTMENTS, WE LOOK AT WHAT IS THE COST OF PERFORMING THAT SERVICE, UH, FOR THE APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS AND TASKS THAT ARE DONE FOR THAT.
BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD GENERATE ADDITIONAL GENERAL FRONT REVENUE THAT MAY FREE UP SALES TAX OR, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER SOURCE OF REVENUE THAT WE CAN USE ON THOSE CONTRACTS.
SO AFTER, THANK YOU FOR THAT CITY ATTORNEY, MICHELLE.
UM, AFTER THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON, UM, PROP B, THE CITY HAD ALREADY GIVEN OUT $17 MILLION TO THE FIREFIGHTERS.
DID WE GET ANY, UH, DID WE FACTOR THAT IN IN ANY WAY IN OUR NEGOTIATIONS SINCE WE PAID 17 MILLION THAT THE COURT SAID WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY MAY NEED TO PAY? HOW WAS THAT FACTORED IN IT? IT WAS FACTORED IN, IN THE SENSE THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO HAVE THE FIREFIGHTERS AT OR NEAR THE TOP OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR MARKET.
SO WE TOOK WHAT THEY HAD BEEN COMPENSATED FOR INTO ACCOUNT IN BUILDING THAT MODEL.
DID THE FIREFIGHTERS PAY FOR OUR ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THAT SINCE WE WON? UH, WE DID NOT HAVE A, UH, THERE WAS NO VEHICLE TO OBTAIN ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THAT, IN THE CURRENT CBA THERE, THERE'S A PROVISION THAT, UM, SPEAKS TO THE FIRE CHIEF HAVING TO BE HIRED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF YEARS.
OUR CURRENT FIRE CHIEF COMES FROM OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT.
SO HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT HIM GOING FORWARD? OR, AND WHY WAS THAT PROVISION PUT IN THERE? UH, THAT WAS A NEGOTIATED PROVISION.
UM, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF HOUSTON FIREFIGHTERS, UH, UNLIKE POLICE, THE CHIEFS ARE OFTEN COME WITHIN THE RANKS, BUT IT WAS PUT IN AS PART OF A NEGOTIATED ITEM.
WHAT, WHAT CONCESSIONS DID WE MAKE? UH, DID THE, DID THE FIRE ASSOCIATION MAKE? I MEAN, IT SEEMS THAT LIKE EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, UH, THE BASIS IS THE, THE FIRE UNION, UM, PUT, PUT IT FORTH.
WHAT DID WE PUT FORTH THAT, THAT WAS CONCEDED THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY BE CONSIDERED A COLLECTIVE BARGAIN, DO? WELL, THERE WERE A REDUCTION IN SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT, THAT ARE COST MEASURES THAT, UH, YOU WILL SEE WHEN WE GET THE, UH, WHEN WE GET THE, UH, THE DOCUMENT BEFORE YOU.
BUT GENERALLY, WHAT THE CITY WAS LOOKING TO OBTAIN WAS TO PUT
[02:40:01]
AN END TO THIS, TO HAVE IT WITH CERTAINTY AND TO HAVE A MANAGEABLE COST.THOSE WERE THE BIG PICTURE ITEMS THAT WE BELIEVE THE CITY OBTAINED.
AND DIRECTOR, YOU SAID ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE EMPHASIS IN TRYING TO GET THIS TO GET THIS DONE IS SO THAT WE CAN RECRUIT MORE, BUT IF WE CAN'T PAY HARDLY PAY FOR THE PEOPLE WE HAVE NOW, WHY WOULD WE HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO TRY TO RECRUIT MORE? WOULDN'T THAT BE MORE COST TO THE CITY? AND HOW WOULD WE PAY FOR THAT? I THINK WHAT I, WHAT I MENTIONED BEFORE IS AS YOU RECRUIT AND FILL, SO WE ALREADY DO BUDGET, UH, CADET CLASSES EVERY YEAR.
UM, THE GOAL IS TO GET THOSE CADET CLASSES FULLY FILLED AND RETAIN THOSE, UH, FIREFIGHTERS AS THEY GO THROUGH THE ACADEMY, BECOME, UM, CLASSIFIED FIREFIGHTERS.
IF WE ARE GROWING OUR FIREFIGHTERS INTO THE, UM, SOME OF THE RANKS THAT ARE MORE SORELY NEEDED, AND I'M, I'M NOT AN EXPERT OF OPERATIONS, BUT THAT COULD HELP US REDUCE OVER TIME IN OTHER AREAS.
COUNCIL MEMBER FLICKINGER, DO WE PAY FICA ON THE FIREFIGHTERS? DO WE PAY IT? YES.
SO, SO THEY'RE PART OF SOCIAL SECURITY AS WELL? NO, THEY'RE NOT PART OF SOCIAL SECURITY.
I BELIEVE THAT, UH, THAT YOU ARE CORRECT.
UH, DIRECTOR, COUNCIL MEMBER CAYMAN.
WE HAD DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE, A LOT ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE CBA.
UM, IS THERE SOMETHING CALLED SUPERVISORY INTERVENTION? UH, I BELIEVE THERE IS.
AND, UM, WHAT IS THAT? I, I'M NOT SURE.
I, I, I RECALL HOW THAT, THAT'S DRAFTED NOW.
I CAN, I CAN I CHECK WITH SOME OF MY TEAM.
MAY I ASK THE FIRE CHIEF, DO YOU KNOW WHAT SUPERVISORY INTERVENTION IS? UH, NO, MA'AM.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INTENT OF THAT, IF WE COULD GET AN ANSWER ON THAT.
THERE'S, I BELIEVE IT'S, UM, IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, IT STATES THAT SUPERVISORY INTERVENTIONS SHALL NOT BE PUNITIVE AND IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED DISCIPLINE IN ANY FORM OR FASHION.
SO I'M, I'M WONDERING WHAT IS PUNITIVE DISCIPLINE? IS THAT A DEMOTION? IS THAT SUSPENSION? YEAH, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WHAT I'M NOT SURE IS HOW THE LANGUAGE, UH, ULTIMATELY READS.
BEFORE I CAN SPEAK DEFINITIVELY.
SO MY QUESTION IS, WOULD THAT NOW BE PRECLUDED? UM, IT ALSO INDICATES THAT WITH SUPERVISORY INTERVENTION, UM, IF THERE IS SOMETHING RELATED TO SUPERVISORY INTERVENTION, THAT THAT RECORD CANNOT BE USED IN OTHER EVALUATION PERIODS SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN THE DEPARTMENT FILE OR THE FIREFIGHTER'S OFFICIAL HR FILE.
SO DOES THAT MEAN THERE'S NO FILE OR RECORD OF CERTAIN ACTS? UH, IT, IT WOULD MEAN THAT, IT WOULD MEAN THERE IS A, A, A MOVEMENT, I THINK, BY ALL OF THE UNIONS TO TRY TO, RATHER THAN IMPOSE DISCIPLINE, TO TRY TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF AL ALTERING BEHAVIOR.
SO I THINK WE'LL SEE MORE OF THIS TYPE OF THING.
AND I, AGAIN, I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE, UH, CHIEF, A QUESTION FOR YOU.
HAVE THERE, HAS THERE BEEN A RECORD, FOR EXAMPLE, OF METH USE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT WITH CERTAIN FIREFIGHTERS? UH, COUNCIL MEMBER? I'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO SEE THE, UH, THE DISCIPLINE RECORDS, BUT, UH, WE HAVE HAD INSTANCES OF CONTROL, SUBSTANCE USE, AND DISCIPLINE, UH, IN THE, UH, IN THE TIME PERIOD THAT I, SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.
AND AGAIN, TO THE ATTORNEY, WOULD THAT INCLUDE TITLE VII VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT? TITLE VII IS A FEDERAL STATUTE THAT PROHIBITS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX AND RELIGION.
UH, WE HAVE HAD INSTANCES OF MULTIPLE SEXUAL HARASSMENTS VIOLATIONS THAT THE DOJ HAS INTERVENED AND SETTLED ON WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.
SO WOULD THAT PRECLUDE THOSE FILES AND THAT BEING INCLUDED, BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW WOULD, WOULD PREEMPT WHATEVER IS DONE LOCALLY? SO THERE, I MEAN, IT, IT, IT WOULD NOT PROHIBIT ACCESS TO THAT.
WHAT IT ADDRESSES IS REALLY IS THE, UH, INTERNAL DISCIPLINE BY THE CITY.
BUT WITH, SO AGAIN, I HAVE QUESTIONS ON INTERNAL DISCIPLINE.
THERE'S A CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, UH, CURRENTLY HOW MANY SERVE ON THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION? I BELIEVE IT'S JOINT POLICE AND FIRE CURRENTLY? YES.
AND HOW MANY SERVE ON THAT? I'M NOT SURE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
AND WHO APPOINTS THEM CURRENTLY?
[02:45:02]
UH, THE, WELL, THE, THE CITY APPOINTS THEM.AND THAT'S FOR POLICE AND FIRE.
AGAIN, WE HAVE A POLICE UNION CONTRACT THAT HAS, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IS REPRESENTING JOINTLY BOTH POLICE AND FIRE.
ALL OF THOSE ARE APPOINTED, I BELIEVE, BY THE MAYOR AND THE CURRENT CBA, IT SPECIFIES THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE SELECTED BY THE FIREFIGHTER ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
SO MY QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE, UM, ARE WE SEPARATING OUT TWO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONS NOW? ARE WE GOING, IS THERE GOING TO BE A POLICE AND A FIRE, OR IS POLICE NOW NOT GOING TO HAVE REPRESENTATION HYPOTHETICALLY ON THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION? UNLESS THE CITY USES THEIR ALLOTMENT OF APPOINTEES? THAT'S ONE OF THE PROVISIONS THAT'S BEING REVIEWED.
UM, IT ALSO REQUIRES A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FOR ANY TERMINATION OR DEMOTION OF A FIREFIGHTER, IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO, YES.
SO OF ALL OF THESE, IT WOULD REQUIRE TO TAKE, UH, DEMOTIONS OR TERMINATION, A UNANIMOUS VOTE, INCLUDING REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSOCIATION TO DEMOTE EVEN IF THERE WAS AN ACTUAL VIOLATION THAT OCCURRED? YES, IT'S UNDER REVIEW, BUT YES, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S THE CURRENT DRAFT.
UH, THIS QUESTION IS FOR THE CITY CONTROLLER.
UH, WE'RE TALKING BACK OF THE NAPKIN TYPE OF MATH, BUT HAVE, HAS YOUR OFFICE DONE ANY BACK OF THE NAPKIN TYPE OF MATH ON WHAT, UH, YOU ALL BELIEVE WOULD BE, UM, A FAIR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? AND, UM, IS YOUR OFFICE GOING TO BE PUTTING OUT ANY SUBSTANTIVE NUMBERS? AND IF SO, DO YOU HAVE A TIMELINE ON WHEN WE CAN EXPECT THAT? SURE.
SO, UH, ALL OF MY PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON THIS, UH, I'VE TRIED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT, THAT I WAS NOT FOCUSING ON THE CONCEPT OF FAIRNESS.
ULTIMATELY, A SETTLEMENT THAT IS REACHED BETWEEN THE CITY, UH, WHICH OF COURSE YOU ALL WOULD APPROVE, AND THE UNION, UH, MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT BOTH PARTIES AGREED, UH, THAT IT WAS FAIR.
HOWEVER, BASED ON, UH, THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME ACROSS MY DESK ON THAT TOPIC, UM, WHAT WE'VE SOUGHT TO DO, AND FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY, IS TO PRODUCE FIGURES THAT WOULD PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, SOME CLARITY OR A GRASP OF, YOU KNOW, HOW LARGE OR SMALL SOME OF THESE NUMBERS WERE.
UH, WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF THAT ANALYSIS RIGHT NOW, UH, YOU KNOW, TO, TO GIVE SOME SCENARIOS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WOULD SAY, WHAT IF THERE HAD BEEN NO, UM, DISAGREEMENT.
AND OVER THE COURSE OF A NUMBER OF YEARS, UH, FIREFIGHTERS HAD RECEIVED RAISES THAT PUT THEM UP TO, UH, THEIR, THEIR PEERS IN OTHER MAJOR CITIES IN TEXAS, RIGHT? UM, WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS GET CLEAR ON WHAT SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS ARE.
AND SO WE HAVE REQUESTS INTO THE ADMINISTRATION AS WELL AS REQUEST IN TO OTHER CITIES TO GET SOME OF THESE FIGURES AND THEN TO PROVIDE SOME OF THIS ANALYSIS, UH, TO THE PUBLIC.
UM, I WON'T PUT A TIMELINE ON THAT, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE ARE, UH, WORKING WITH HASTE, UH, BUT ALSO WITH OBVIOUSLY THE RIGHT LEVEL OF DILIGENCE TO PUT THESE NUMBERS FORWARD IN, IN COMING DAYS AND WEEKS.
WHEN I SAY FAIRNESS, YOU KNOW, MY, WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE IN YOUR OFFICE, WHAT WE CAN'T AFFORD AND SOME ADVISEMENT FROM YOUR OFFICE TO THE COUNCIL ON WHAT YOU ALL BELIEVE WE CAN'T AFFORD, AND WHAT A REASONABLE NUMBER YOU THINK WOULD BE, UM, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE PROVIDED.
AND THEN FROM THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, UM, WHAT TIMELINE SHOULD THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE EXPECT TO GET THE NUMBERS THAT THEY NEED TO, UH, MAKE AN, MAKE AN ASSESSMENT THAT THEY REQUESTED? I KNOW THAT I'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE ABOUT THE, UM, TALKING ABOUT THE, THE SPECIAL PAYS AND THE INCENTIVES.
AND I THINK THAT AS WE WORK THROUGH COSTING THOSE AND UNDERSTANDING THOSE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SHARE WITH THEM IN THE COMING, I WOULD SAY WEEKS.
UM, IF THERE'S OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU GUYS HAVE REQUESTED, I, I WASN'T AWARE, SO MAYBE WE COULD TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE OFFLINE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE ON THAT ONE.
AND SO IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE, WE HAVE THE 1.5 BILLION AS A, AS A NUMBER AT THE MOMENT, BUT HAS THE ADMINISTRATION LOOKED AT WHAT THE INCENTIVES WILL ADD UP TO IN ANY BALLPARK NUMBER? THAT
[02:50:01]
WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE 1.5 BILLION? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE STILL WORKING ON.AND AFTER COUNCIL MEMBER CAYMAN, WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS, THE FIRST OF WHICH WILL BE, UH, THE UNION PRESIDENT, UM, MARTY LANGTON.
SO PLEASE STAY IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS DIRECTLY FOR MARTY.
UM, SO CITY ATTORNEY, WE JUST DISCUSSED THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND QUESTIONS AROUND THAT.
I'M GONNA GO TO THE JOINT LABOR COMMITTEE THAT IS ALSO LAID OUT.
UM, WHO MAKES UP THE JOINT LABOR COMMITTEE? UM, IT, IT'S A, UH, JOINT APPOINTMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE, AND THE UNION.
UM, THE, THE SECTION THAT I'M REFERRING TO, UH, SAYS IT'S TO HAVE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO AMEND AND IMPLEMENT REVISIONS TO THAT SECTION OF THE CONTRACT.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE JOINT LABOR COMMITTEE COULD MODIFY THE CBA AGREEMENT THAT COMES BEFORE COUNCIL IN, IN CERTAIN MANAGEMENT OPERATION RESPECTS? YES.
SO THIS JOINT LABOR COMMITTEE, ON ITS OWN, COULD AMEND A PORTION OF THE CBA AGREEMENT THAT IS AUTHORIZED BY COUNSEL? YES.
UM, IT GO THEN, IN A DIFFERENT PART, IT SAYS THAT THE JLC WILL HAVE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO SELECT AND MAINTAIN 12 QUALIFIED INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINERS.
SO THE JLC, ARE THEY SELECTING THEIR OWN JUDGES THAT ARE REVIEWING THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS? YES.
THEN THE JLC CAN ALSO CREATE A SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW AND RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THE RULES THAT THESE JUDGES THAT THEY'RE SELECTING CAN FOLLOW.
IT SAYS THE SUBCOMMITTEE AS I READ IT.
AGAIN, THIS MAY NOT BE WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE CURRENT FORM WOULD BE COMPRISED OF THREE FIREFIGHTERS TO REPRESENT THE CITY AND THREE FIREFIGHTERS TO REPRESENT THE LABOR ASSOCIATION.
SO ARE THERE NO OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS RULES COMMITTEE THAT DIRECTS CHANGES TO THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINERS, THE JUDGES OTHER THAN FIREFIGHTERS? YES.
THAT'S UNDER REVIEW, BUT THAT'S A DRAFT.
IS THE JLC AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR DOES IT HAVE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY? IT, IT HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE CERTAIN, CERTAIN RULES, UM, BUT ALSO ADVISORY IN CERTAIN CERTAIN RESPECTS.
UM, DIRECTOR DUKOWSKI, UH, I BELIEVE THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ASKED, BUT I JUST WANNA BE VERY CLEAR IN ONE TWO OF MY REQUESTS, WHAT IS THE COST OF THE ENTIRE CONTRACT PACKAGE FOR THE FIVE YEARS, INCLUDING BASE PAY, INCENTIVE PAY, ASSIGNMENT PAY, AND OTHER SERVICE COSTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL? SO AGAIN, I KNOW WE'RE GETTING INFORMATION IN PART, BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE THAT WE HAVE THE FULL PICTURE YET OF WHAT THESE COSTS ARE.
UM, SO I'M REQUESTING THAT RESPECTFULLY.
AND, UM, ARE THERE CURRENTLY IN THIS FORM, UH, CBA, ARE THERE NEW ASSIGNMENT INCENTIVE AND HOLIDAY PAY THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL THAT DIDN'T EXIST IN THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT? YES.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW, UM, WHAT THOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY AND WHAT THE COST OF THAT IS.
I WILL, I WILL GET WITH, UH, MS. DEBOWSKI AND PROVIDE THAT TO.
UM, CHIEF, I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU.
UM, BUT I DID WANNA SAY BEFORE THAT I DO WANNA THANK, UM, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
THIS HAS BEEN, AS MANY HAVE SAID, A LONG TIME COMING AND YOU ALL HAVE BEEN IN THE THICK OF IT FOR SO LONG.
I THINK WE ARE ALL LOOKING FORWARD TO IF WE CAN REACH, UM, AN AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY CAN ACTUALLY TAKE ON RESPONSIBLY GETTING THIS BEHIND US.
BUT I KNOW THE HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS OF WORK AND TIME THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN, UM, FOR THIS AND CHIEF TO YOU AND YOUR STAFF AS WELL.
UM, NOT NECESSARILY, 'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THIS AGREEMENT AND NEGOTIATION, BUT PREVIOUS YEARS AS WELL.
SO I JUST WANNA COMMEND EVERYONE ON THEIR WORK.
CHIEF YOU SPOKE TO, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS, ASKING ABOUT EFFICIENCIES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
ARE THERE THINGS, AS YOU HAVE READ IT, THAT SHOULD, THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND OR INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT RELATED TO EFFICIENCIES, WHETHER IT'S APPARATUS OR OTHERWISE, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE NOT ONLY SAVING THE CITY MONEY, BUT PROVIDING A BETTER SERVICE FOR HOUSTONIANS, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER? LET ME, THAT'S A VERY OPEN-ENDED QUESTION.
UM, SO I'M GONNA TRY TO ANSWER WHAT I UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF YOUR QUESTION, BUT KNOWING THAT THE DRAFT MAY CHANGE OR STILL UNDER REVIEW, UM, AGAIN, I WANNA REITERATE THAT I, IN THE DRAFT THAT
[02:55:01]
I READ, I DIDN'T SEE, UH, ANYTHING THAT WOULD ADD SERVICE, UH, OR IMPROVE THE, UM, THE RESPONSE TO OUR RESPONSE TIMES TO OUR, TO WHAT, UH, WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW.UM, I DO LIKE THE FACT THAT WE'RE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO GET A CONTRACT.
UH, THEY DESERVE ONE AND, UH, TO USE THE MAYOR'S WORDS, ONE THAT'S RESPECTFUL OF THE TAXPAYER AND THE FIREFIGHTERS FOR THE HARD WORK THAT THEY DO.
SO I'M ENCOURAGED BY THAT THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.
SO I TOO LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE FINAL DRAFT TO SEE WHAT EFFICIENCIES WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET IN THERE.
BUT, UH, IN THE DRAFT THAT I READ, THERE WAS NO ADJUSTMENT IN, IN, IN THE OPERATION, UH, OF THE DEPARTMENT AS FAR AS THE, THE SERVICE DELIVERY.
THERE WERE, THERE ARE THINGS IN THERE THAT WILL ASSIST IN RECRUITMENT.
UM, HIGHER PAY IS ALWAYS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT WE PUT IN THE CALCULATION, BUT THERE ARE ALSO OTHER, UH, HYGIENE ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED THAT, UH, UNTIL WE SEE THE FINAL DRAFT, WE'LL SEE WHAT THOSE, THOSE ARE.
CAN YOU GIVE A SPECIFIC OR TWO AS TO WHAT THOSE EFFICIENCIES WOULD LOOK LIKE? WE'D LIKE TO MAKE BETTER USE, UH, OR THE DISCRETION FOR MANAGEMENT TO HAVE, UH, BETTER USE OF, OF THE EXISTING RESOURCES DEPLOYMENT, UH, AND MOVING PEOPLE AROUND TO MEET THE DEMAND OF THE, UH, THE COMMUNITY.
AND SO IT'S IN THOSE AREAS, THE MANAGEMENT RIGHTS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
I WOULD ULTIMATELY LIKE TO SEE WHAT, UH, WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO.
BUT THAT WAS ONE OF THE FOCUS THAT WAS ONE OF THE STRATEGIES IN THE PREVIOUS NEGOTIATION CYCLE.
AND I, I WAS REALLY WANTED TO TOUCH ON WHAT CHAIRWOMAN CAME AND WAS, UH, SPEAKING TO WHEN IT COMES TO SERVICES AND WHAT IS IT THAT WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GET, UM, AS YOU READ THROUGH THAT.
UM, IF YOU CAN SHARE ANY OF THOSE WITH THE, WITH ALL OF OUR OFFICES, UM, DEFINITELY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WILL MAKE, UH, SERVICES BETTER FOR, FOR OUR CONSTITUENCY.
UM, AND THEN, UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, DO YOU ANTICIPATE PARTICIPATING A BIT MORE NOW? I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT ONE.
UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, I WILL PARTICIPATE, UH, AND I WILL PROVIDE MY INPUT IF, IF ASKED TO DO SO.
UM, LEGAL AND THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT HAVE ASKED IN THE, IN SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH WHEN THEY SENT THE DRAFT ABOUT MY OPINION.
UM, BUT, UH, CERTAINLY THE, UM, THE FINAL DRAFT, THE DETAILS ARE GONNA BE IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE SERVICE DELIVERY THAT WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO, TO PROVIDE IN THE END.
I JUST NEED MORE AMBULANCE AND TRANSPORT UNITS AND, AND, AND TO THAT, RIGHT? I I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT END RESULT OF THIS CONTRACT, WE SEE THOSE BENEFITS TO THE CONSTITUENCY IF EMS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS AND THAT SHOULD BE THERE.
UM, AND JUST, UH, I ASKED THIS EARLIER, BUT, UM, YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT EXECUTIVE TEAM OR COMMAND STAFF NOT BEING A PART OF THIS.
WHAT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS TO THAT? AND DO THEY EVER, HAVE THEY EVER GOTTEN OVERTIME? UM, SO FIRST, LET ME SAY THAT I, I DON'T HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THIS BECAUSE I DON'T, I WON'T BENEFIT FROM THIS.
IT'S JUST THE FIREFIGHTERS, UH, THE COMMAND STAFF, LET ME SAY THAT.
UH, IT DOES IMPACT, THE ONLY INTEREST THAT I HAVE IS THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS, UH, CERTAINLY ON THEM, BUT ON THE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO RECRUIT IN THE FUTURE, UH, FOR COMMAND STAFF, THERE ARE, THERE'RE A VITAL COMPONENT OF BEING ABLE TO MANAGE THE THIRD LARGEST MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT IN THE COUNTRY.
THEY DON'T GET ADDITIONAL, UM, BENEFIT TO THEIR PENSION.
UM, THEY TAKE ALL THE ARROWS, RIGHT? MM-HMM
UM, FOR THE, UM, FOR THE OPERATION OF, OF THE DEPARTMENT.
THEY'RE WORKING 40, 50, 60 HOURS A WEEK, UH, CONTINUOUSLY.
AND SO I DO WANT THAT ADDRESSED, UH, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, IN THE COURTS, WHETHER IT'S OUTSIDE BEFORE IT GOES TO THE, UH, TO THE COURT.
I THINK THERE'S, UM, THERE'S A BENEFIT AND CERTAINLY A, UH, A NEED FOR THAT TO BE ADDRESSED FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE ORGANIZATION.
I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
SO, SO I, I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THIS COMING TO AN AGREEMENT FINALLY.
RIGHT? I THINK FIREFIGHTERS DESERVE THIS.
UM, IT'S BEEN EIGHT YEARS WITHOUT ANY KIND OF PAY RAISE.
I, I'VE SAT DOWN WITH SEVERAL OF 'EM.
UM, THERE'S LOW MORALE, SO WE WANNA ADDRESS THAT MM-HMM
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO SIT, SIT WITH YOU IN THE FUTURE.
I KNOW WE HAVE A MEETING SET UP AND FOR ME IT'S OPERATIONS SERVICES, RIGHT? WHAT IS IT THAT WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GIVE BACK TO THOSE CONSTITUENTS? SO, YES, SIR.
UM, AND, AND I I FAILED TO ANSWER ONE MORE OF YOUR QUESTIONS, WHETHER THEY HAVE GOTTEN OVERTIME IN THE PAST.
AND THAT'S, UH, I WANNA SAY THAT THEY HAVE DURING, UM, THE, UM, HARVEY, HURRICANE HARVEY, THEY SUBMITTED FOR OVERTIME 'CAUSE
[03:00:01]
THEY'RE WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK.UM, THEY WERE REIMBURSED IN PART, UH, SOME OF 'EM WERE THOSE THAT SUBMITTED.
UM, AND WE EVEN, I THINK WE REQUESTED OVERTIME REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON THAT AS WELL.
SO JUST TO, TO THE, UH, STATE ATTORNEY.
'CAUSE HE, HE SAID THAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GIVE COMMAND STAFF OVERTIME.
HOW WAS THAT ABLE TO BE DONE IF THAT WAS THE CASE? UH, LIKELY ERROR MISTAKE.
ON THAT NOTE, UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S QUESTIONS.
I WILL, UM, THANK THE, UH, CONTROLLER AND CITY ATTORNEY AND DIRECTOR DEBOWSKI VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TAKING ALL OF THE QUESTIONS, UM, WITH GREAT GRACE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP OUR FIRST SPEAKER, UM, THE PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 3 41, MARTY LANGTON THREE.
IS THAT ON? UH, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
BOTH CHAIRS ACTUALLY, UH, WANTED TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE.
WE HAVE, UH, DISCUSSED WITH A NUMBER OF YOU ON THE HORSESHOE, TRIED TO BE AS, UH, TRANSPARENT AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.
WANTED TO JUST REITERATE A FEW THINGS AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL SENTIMENT, UH, NEGOTIATION.
AND AS MUCH AS THOSE THAT HAVE SEEN ME OVER THE PAST FOUR OR EIGHT YEARS, UM, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH TALKING ABOUT NUMBERS OR DATA, BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE TRUTH AND THE ACTUAL NUMBERS AND THE DATA.
AND SO ONE OF THE POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE TO, TO MAKE VERY CLEAR, THE CITY'S LIABILITY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS IS RELATED TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
YOU CANNOT WORK UNDER FEDERAL LAW, A PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEE OVER 40 HOURS WITHOUT PAYING THEM OVERTIME.
THEY TOOK US ALL THE WAY TO SUPREME COURT.
THE CITY SUED ITS OWN FIREFIGHTERS TO TAKE AWAY THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS.
THE FAMILIES OF THE FIREFIGHTERS HAVE HAD TO STRUGGLE TO GO THROUGH THIS IN ORDER TO WORK IN COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY.
WE CAME IMMEDIATELY TO THE TABLE WITH MAYOR WHITMEYER, WHO UNDERSTOOD THAT THE POSITION THE LAST ADMINISTRATION PUT US IN WAS NOT GONNA BE GOOD FOR THE TAXPAYERS, WASN'T GONNA BE GOOD FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS.
AND NO AMOUNT OF POLITICAL TALKING POINTS ARE GOING TO FIX THAT OR CHANGE THE REALITY OF WHAT THE CITY'S POSITION WAS IN RELATION TO THE FIREFIGHTERS.
WE HAVE AND ALWAYS BEEN COMMITTED TO ENSURING WE'RE GONNA BE HERE FOR THE CITY, UH, TO BE INVESTED.
WE WANT TO DELIVER EXCELLENT SERVICE.
WE'RE GOOD STEWARDS OF CITY RESOURCES, AND WE WANNA GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY.
AND SO I WANNA BE ABLE TO SAY, UH, SITTING HERE TODAY THAT THE FIREFIGHTERS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN EIGHT YEARS FEEL AS THOUGH, UH, THAT THE CITY, UH, HAS VALUED AND RESPECTED THEM.
AND THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A FAIR SETTLEMENT FOR THE TAXPAYERS, FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS.
AND LET ME SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE FIREFIGHTERS.
WE ABSOLUTELY GAVE UP A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT IN ORDER TO GET THIS DONE.
RECOGNIZING THE CITY'S FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS, WE DID THIS IN A WAY THAT ALLOWED THE CITY TO NOT CARRY FORWARD THE COST THAT IT WOULD OWE UNDER ANY JUDGMENT, WHETHER BY ARBITRATION OR WHETHER BY COURT, PERIOD STICK, UH, AN EXCLAMATION POINT IN IT.
IF YOU HAVE A JUDGMENT, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND YOU HAVE TO RECALCULATE EVERYTHING.
THAT'S OVERTIME THAT EVERYBODY WORKED THROUGHOUT COVI.
THAT IS, UH, PENSION, THAT IS ALL OF THE NUMBERS.
UH, AND WHAT WE HAVE PUT ON RECORD SINCE 2017 IS OUR POSITION ABOUT WHAT THE FIREFIGHTERS ARE OWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRIVATE SECTOR.
WE DIDN'T ASK, NOR DID WE WANT A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT THAT WAS A GIVE ON OUR PART.
WE GAVE UP THE POTENTIAL OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT THE FIREFIGHTERS AND THEIR AND THEIR FAMILIES HAVE EARNED AND THEY'RE OWED.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MAYBE SHOULD HAVE, COULD HAVE, WOULD'VE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FEDERAL AND STATE WAGE LABOR LAWS.
YOU CAN'T JUST NOT PAY EMPLOYEES.
DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SOMEBODY ONCE SAID ABOUT, UM, WHAT THE CITY'S ABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY LEGALLY IS OR WAS.
THE SUPREME COURT ANSWERED THAT THE CITY OF HOUSTON, THE VOTERS HAVE ANSWERED THAT.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS ANSWERED THAT.
AND WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS BE GOOD STEWARDS AND TO SAY, LET'S COME TOGETHER SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR COSTS ARE.
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THE COSTS ARE FIXED IN, IN BEHIND, AND DON'T CARRY OVER MOVING FORWARD.
SO AS AN ANECDOTE, WHAT I WOULD SIMPLY SAY IS, EVEN AT A FRACTION OF A PERCENTAGE PAY RAISE GOING BACK TO 2017, IF THERE WAS A JUDGMENT, YOU WOULD CARRY FORWARD THAT LIABILITY IMMEDIATELY ON JULY 1ST.
WE STRUCTURED THIS TO WHERE THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO THAT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE THAT HOPE OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS THAT WE HAVE STOOD UP FOR AND BEEN HELPING FOR YEARS TO GET THE RIGHTS THEY DESERVE, THAT THE LAST ADMINISTRATION
[03:05:01]
DID NOT GIVE THEM TO ENSURE THEY HAVE THE RIGHTS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS INCLUDED WITHIN THIS CONTRACT.
NUMBER ONE, THAT THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN HERE WERE NOT TAKEN AWAY DURING AN IMPASSE, A LEGALLY DECLARED IMPASSE THAT WAS NOT ONLY IMPROPER, BUT ILLEGAL FOR THE CITY TO DO AND TAKE ADVERSE ACTION.
AND LET'S NOT FORGET THE CITY TRIED TO FIRE THE UNION PRESIDENT.
SO THAT'S BEEN LITIGATED AND TAKEN TO ARBITRATION.
BUT I WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT THE NARRATIVE FROM SOME IS NOT THE REALITY OF THE HARD WORK OF NOT ONLY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MAYOR WHITT MEYER'S LEADERSHIP, BUT EVERYBODY IN FINANCE, EVERYBODY ON THE LOCAL AND THE UNION SIDE, AND WE HAVE WORKED TIRELESSLY TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN FINALLY GET THIS RESOLVED.
BUT THERE IS NO POINT WHERE WE ARE NOT COMMITTED TO BE HERE TO WORK THROUGH ANY ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE.
WE HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, AND WE WANT TO BE HERE TO WORK WITH YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY, UM, I REALIZE I STILL HAVE GUM IN MY MOUTH, SO I APOLOGIZE.
UM, UH, ONE FINAL THING I WANTED TO MAKE A POINT OF IS WE'VE ALL LIVED IN HOUSTON AND UNDERSTANDING THE, THE POLITICAL MAKEUP IN, IN THE SCENERY.
BUT WHAT I WANT TO, UH, ASK, UH, FROM A VERY HEARTFELT PERSPECTIVE IS THAT WE UNDERSTAND THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT HAVE GONE WITHOUT FOR SO LONG AND POLITICIZING AN ISSUE INSTEAD OF WORKING TOWARDS SOMETHING, IN MY OPINION, DOESN'T HELP US MOVE FORWARD AS A CITY BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE WILLING TO HELP THE CITY WITH ITS CHALLENGES.
I'M SITTING HERE TODAY, AND THAT HAS BEEN MY COMMITMENT OVER THE YEARS, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE ISSUES ARE.
LAST POINT IS, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THAT THE REASON THAT WE'RE LOOKING AND WILLING TO BE PARTNERS FOR LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE CITY IS, UH, BECAUSE WE WANT TO HELP.
IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THIS FIREFIGHTER SETTLEMENT THAT HAS BEEN, UH, UH, INSINUATED BY SOME.
THE CITY HAS ALWAYS HAD A STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF THE FIREFIGHTERS.
AND I WILL LEAVE IT ON THIS POINT.
IF THE CITY OF HOUSTON, UH, THE REASON THE CITY OF HOUSTON HAS NOT GONE BANKRUPT IS BECAUSE IT CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY ITS FIREFIGHTERS, THEN I THINK WE HAVE ADDITIONAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON.
BUT WE WANT TO BE HERE TO WORK WITH YOU IN YOUR OFFICE.
WE'RE OPEN, UH, AND THIS IS A PRODUCT OF YEARS OF WORK, AND IT IS NOT EASY TO GET TO A RESOLUTION.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR THE TIME.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANYTHING YOU HAVE.
THANK YOU MR. LANGTON, AND THANKS FOR YOUR WORK ON, ON ALL OF THIS AS WELL.
COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
YOU KNOW, IT'S MY POSITION THAT IF YOU WANT, UM, UH, TO RUN A SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN, HAVE THE FIREFIGHTERS ON YOUR SIDE BECAUSE CITY OF HOUSTON LOVES FIREFIGHTERS, RIGHT? SO ARE YOU CITIZENS? YES.
SO, UM, BUT ARE YOU RESISTANT TO THIS GOING TO THE VOTERS? UH, LISTEN, I DON'T THINK FIREFIGHTERS HAVE BEEN ON RECORD, EVER BEEN RESISTANT TO GO TO THE VOTERS.
I THINK IT'S THE CITY THAT'S BEEN RESISTANT IN THE PAST TO LISTEN TO THE VOTERS.
BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE OF THIS MAGNITUDE, UM, I'M GONNA DEFER YOU TO NOT ONLY WHAT HAS DONE IN PAST PRACTICE, BUT ALSO I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, EVEN THOUGH I'VE HAD TO BE IN COURT.
NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT, SO GOOD.
SO THEN SECONDLY, AND THEN AND SECONDLY, AND THEN LASTLY, WOULD LOVE THE INVITATION, UM, UM, FOR YOU TO MEET WITH MY OFFICE.
UM, INSTEAD OF INSTRUCTING MEMBERS, UM, OF THE FIREFIGHTERS TO SEND EMAILS, UH, UM, OF SHARING, UH, UH, INACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT MY POSITION, UM, ASKING QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF THOSE TAXPAYERS THAT LOVE THE FIREFIGHTER.
SO, UM, AND VERY VALID QUESTIONS OF HOW DO WE PAY FOR THIS? BECAUSE HOUSTON BELONGS TO ALL OF US.
AND IF WE'RE, IF I'M GONNA BE 70 YEARS OLD PAYING FOR THIS, I THINK OTHER PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT ARE, ARE AS WELL.
I HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN INVITATION TO MEET WITH YOU.
I'M SAYING IN OPEN COURT HERE.
I'LL MEET WITH YOU ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COULD BE 70 AT THE END OF THIS.
BUT GUESS WHAT? YOU KEEP ME UNDER THIS MUCH STRESS, MARTY.
AND MARTY, THANK YOU, UH, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION.
I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN THE LONG HAUL.
UH, AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I THINK WE ARE ALL HOPEFUL TO GET PAST THIS AND BEHIND US.
UM, YOU, YOU REFERENCED ONE THING THAT I JUST WANNA ADDRESS BECAUSE I'VE SEEN CERTAIN COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE, I BELIEVE, BEEN ASKING VERY VALID QUESTIONS.
AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO IT, BUT THE POLITICALIZATION OF THIS ISSUE, I'M ASSUMING YOU ARE NOT REFERENCING THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING ASKED AROUND THIS HORSESHOE BY THIS COUNCIL CURRENTLY AS IT RELATES TO DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE.
AND THAT AS COUNSEL, YOU ARE SUPPORTIVE OF ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ARE ASKING.
WE ARE ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTIVE OF ANY QUESTIONS IN COLLABORATION, AND WE'VE MADE OURSELVES AND CONTINUE TO MAKE OURSELVES AVAILABLE.
WE ASK THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO, UH, UTILIZE THE FACT THAT, UH, THERE'S
[03:10:01]
A LABOR ORGANIZATION THAT'S VERY ON RECORD, VERY, YOU KNOW, USED TO INTERACTING, THAT IF THERE IS A QUESTION, WE'RE ALSO A RESOURCE, UH, THAT WORKS BOTH WAYS.UH, BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT, UH, I, THIS IS GONNA BE ODD FOR EVERYBODY UP HERE, BUT I'M GONNA TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, UM, I, I'M SITTING HERE TODAY AS A PRODUCT OF HOW YOU CAN WORK TOGETHER.
THE CITY ATTORNEY, ARTURO MICHELLE HAD TO STAND UP AND OPEN COURT LAST WEEK AND ASK THE JUDGE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SHARE INFORMATION AS IT'S CONFIDENTIAL.
UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY, AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT CANNOT BE DISCUSSED ARE BASED UPON BASIC, UM, YOU KNOW, CONTRACT SETTLEMENT, MUCH LIKE WHY THERE'S SOME DRAFTS OUT THERE THAT PEOPLE, UH, NUMBER ONE, UH, ARE INACCURATE.
BUT IT PUTS BAD INFORMATION OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE'S A PROCESS TO THIS.
WE'VE BEEN VERY DILIGENT IN HOW WE'VE OPERATED, BUT I PROMISE THIS COUNCIL THAT WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE ISSUES AFFECTING THE CITY, AND THAT WE WANT TO BE GOOD PARTNERS, AND THAT WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS, THAT WE HAVE HELPED EVERY STEP ALONG THE WAY, UH, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.
AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, MARTY, AND I THINK THE WORK OF ALL OF OUR UNIONS IS IMPORTANT.
I, AND I'VE BEEN ON RECORD TIME AND TIME AGAIN SAYING THAT, UM, YOU SAID ABOUT OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY, THE FACT THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS HAD TO FOLLOW THE PRESCRIBED REQUIREMENTS, UH, BY THE COURT.
UH, THE ASSOCIATION THOUGH, HOWEVER, WAS ABLE TO DISTRIBUTE, UM, A COPY OF THE PROPOSED CBA BECAUSE THE ASSOCIATION NEEDED TO VOTE ON IT.
WE HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE CITY.
SO I'M NOT GONNA QUITE GET INTO THE LEGAL, UH, IMPLICATIONS FOR THE, THE UNION.
UH, BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WE ARE GUIDED BY COUNSEL AS TO WHAT, UH, WE BELIEVE IS MOST APPROPRIATE, MOST TRANSPARENT.
I JUST, AGAIN, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OPENNESS AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, RIGHT? WE HAVE THE UNION MEMBERS, WHICH THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE THAT, BUT WE'RE ALSO SITTING HERE AT A COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING.
WE'RE, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE VETTING THIS AND ASKING QUESTIONS, AND WE HAVE YET TO SEE IT.
UM, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU PERSONALLY HAVE OFFERED TO LET ME LOOK AT IT, UH, WHEN WE MEET.
AND I, AGAIN, WITH THAT TRANSPARENCY, I APPRECIATE THAT THIS ISN'T DIRECTED AT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT AS A COUNCIL, WE STILL HAVE NOT SEEN THE DETAILS.
WE STILL DO NOT HAVE THE FULL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS, BUT WE'RE HAVING A TWO, ALMOST THREE HOUR COMMITTEE MEETING, UM, RELATED TO THIS BECAUSE IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE FINANCIAL FUTURE OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
WELL, AND I, I MIGHT AGREE BECAUSE DOING NOTHING WOULD'VE PUT US IN COURT, AND THAT WOULD'VE BEEN FAR WORSE.
AND I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THERE WAS AN ABSOLUTE, I'M SURE THAT IF I CAN'T SAY THIS, ARTURO, PLEASE TELL ME.
BUT, UH, THIS HAS BEEN VERY PUBLIC THAT THE ISSUES ADDRESSING THE FRAMEWORK AND THE, AND THE INTRICACIES THAT CAN POSSIBLY CHANGE UPON AGREEMENT, UH, MOST I THINK UP HERE, OR SOME OF YOU ALL ARE ATTORNEYS AWARE, YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE OF A SETTLEMENT.
AND THEN IF POINTS NEED TO CHANGE AS AN AGREEMENT POINT, AS LONG AS THE SUBSTANTIVES NOT CHANGING, BUT THAT'S NOW INTERJECTING.
THE VERY THING THAT WE WERE OPERATING UNDER BASED ON THE LAST ADMINISTRATION WAS COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD NOT BE INVOLVED, UH, IN NEGOTIATING THIS DEAL.
AND SO, I UNDERSTAND, AND YOU ADVOCATED COUNCIL LAST TIME, I UNDERSTAND, AND YOU, YOU ADVOCATED FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY.
AND I, I THINK YOU'VE HEARD SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SURE.
SO MY HOPE IS THAT WHEN YOU ARE CONTINUING TO NEGOTIATE, YOU TAKE THOSE INTO CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU, MARTY, FOR BEING HERE.
MY QUESTION IS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, UM, MR. LANGLAND LANGTON SAID THAT IT WOULD BE FAR WORSE IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH ANY TYPE OF LITIGATION.
EARLIER YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH LITIGATION, IT COULD BE MUCH LOWER THAN THE AGREED SETTLEMENT PRICE.
IS THAT CORRECT? I'M NOT SURE I SAID MUCH, BUT IT COULD, IT COULD EASILY, IT COULD, IT'S A POSSIBILITY.
IT COULD BE LOWER, IT COULD EASILY BE LOWER.
I THINK THIS, IF I CAN JUST REITERATE, THE CITY'S INTEREST IS THAT WE HAVE, WE BRING CERTAINTY, UH, BRING CLOSURE TO THIS, AND WE AVOID, UH, PAYING A HIGHER AMOUNT.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD BE LOWER? YES.
UM, FROM, FROM A PROVISION STANDPOINT, UH, MR. LANGTON, UM, WHY WAS THERE A CHANGE TO THE DRUG TESTING POLICY IN THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL? AND THERE, OH, I APOLOGIZE.
REGARDING NO RANDOM PERIODIC DRUG TESTING.
SO THE CITY OF AUSTIN WENT TO, UH, ARBITRATION PANEL.
IT DIDN'T WORK OUT VERY WELL FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
LEMME JUST TELL YOU THAT THEIR HOURS GOT REDUCED.
THEIR, UH, THEIR PAY GOT RETROACTIVE TO THE VERY THING WE, UH, STOPPED FROM DOING, WHICH WAS GOING BACK AND READDRESSING, UH, THE WAGE, THE PENSION, THE OVERTIME, UH, BUT ALSO WITHIN IT, THERE'S A COMPASSIONATE LAW FOR PTSD VETERANS THAT WE HAVE A OVER 60%, UH, ROUGHLY, AND I, AND I GET THE NUMBERS, IT WAS AT ONE POINT, UH, THAT WE HAVE, UH, EX-MILITARY MEMBERS, AND THAT THE ASSOCIATION ON ITS OWN DIME, UM, ENSURES THAT
[03:15:01]
PTSD AND RATES OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND OTHER THINGS AS IT RELATES TO THE JOB, UH, THE IMPACT IT HAS THAT WE'VE PROVIDED, UH, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT OVER A MILLION IN RESOURCES DIRECTLY TO THE FIREFIGHTERS AND UNDER CERTAIN TEXAS LAWS, IT'S WRITTEN TO SAY IT HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS LAW.THERE IS A COMPASSIONATE USE PROGRAM THAT ACTUALLY HELPS VETERANS DEALING WITH PTSD, UH, WHO CAN TAKE CERTAIN MEDICATIONS THAT ARE PRESCRIBED BY A PHYSICIAN THAT IS REGISTERED WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS.
BUT COULDN'T THERE BE A PROVISION THAT SPEAKS TO THAT, BUT ALSO SPEAKS TO ANY OTHER DRUGS THAT COULD BE FOUND THROUGH RANDOM DRUG TESTING? YEAH, I, I THINK THERE'S TWO PROVISIONS, SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK INTO DIFFERENT ARTICLES, BUT I, I'M HAPPY TO GET WITH YOU IN YOUR OFFICE.
UM, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING.
OUR AGREEMENT WITH THEM, UH, WAS THAT, LISTEN, UH, WE, THEY, THEY TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT AUSTIN, UH, THEIR ARBITRATION DONE FOR THE VERY REASON I'M TELLING YOU, IT'S DIRECTED TOWARDS, UH, VETERANS, UH, OR FIREFIGHTERS THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THE HIGHER RATE OF PTSD IN THE HOUSTON FIRE DEPARTMENT IS ASTRONOMICAL, IS TO ADDRESS 'EM.
WE DON'T LEAVE THEM BEHIND WHEN THEY SEE THE STRUGGLES OF GOING THROUGH, UH, AND DEALING WITH THE CITIZENS ON THEIR WORST DAY.
SO I'M HAPPY TO HAVE AN OPEN DIALOGUE ABOUT THAT AND SEE WHERE WE CAN, UH, HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS REGARDING EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENTS.
THERE'S NO EDUCATION REQUIREMENT FOR PROMOTION WITH THE HOUSTON FIRE DEPARTMENT AS THERE IS WITH THE, UM, THE HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WHY IS THERE A, WHY, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE A REIMBURSEMENT WHEN EDUCATION IS NOT TIED TO PROMOTION? WELL, A COUPLE REASONS.
WE WANT, UM, WE WANT THE MOST WELL-ROUNDED AND THE BEST FIREFIGHTERS WORKING FOR THE HOUSTON FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE THIRD LARGEST MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT.
I WOULD ALSO TELL YOU THAT THERE'S A PROVISION THAT YOU, UH, MAY NOT HAVE SEEN OR READ THAT IT SAYS THAT IT'S, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT PDS IS BECAUSE IT'S RELATED TO TEXAS PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO GET WITH YOUR OFFICE AND EXPLAIN WHAT THAT SPECIFICALLY MEANS AND WHY THE DELINEATION, UH, IS, IS MUCH DIFFERENT.
BUT WE HAVE TO SEND A MESSAGE.
COUNCIL MEMBER, THE LAST CONTRACT WAS 2011, AND IN 2011, THE CITY'S ASK OF US AFTER THE RECESSION WAS, IF WE DON'T FIRE 500 FIREFIGHTERS, UH, YOU TOOK A 1% PAY RAISE, WE'RE GONNA TAKE ALL THESE THINGS AWAY.
WE'RE GONNA GIVE THEM BACK, UH, THE NEXT TIME AROUND.
I KNOW THIS IS GONNA BE A SHOCK, BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
THE POINT I'M MAKING IS NO PAYS TO, TO ADDRESS THE RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OF HOUSTON FIREFIGHTERS HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON SINCE 2011.
NOW, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD, UM, THIS FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WE'VE LOST NEARLY 500 THAT WERE DOWN AND GOES TO RESPONSE TIMES.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE UNITS THAT ARE RUNNING, YOU DON'T HAVE UNITS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO THE CITIZENS.
THAT'S WHERE THAT IMPACT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
SINCE OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS, UM, AVERAGE PAY AT 46.7 HOURS PER WEEK, SOME OF THE OTHER MAJOR CITIES ARE AT 56 HOURS PER WEEK FOR BASE PAY.
IF WE WERE TO HAVE THE 46.7 AND ADD IN THE OVERTIME AND DO AN AVERAGE COST ON WHAT THAT WOULD BE PER FIREFIGHTER DIVIDED OVER 12 MONTHS, DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER ON HOW FAR AWAY WE WOULD BE FROM TO BE COMPETITIVE? NOT AT THE TOP, BUT JUST TO BE COMPETITIVE? YEAH, ACTUALLY, I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE CITY'S, I THINK THE FIRE CHIEF WAS HERE.
UH, HE TESTIFIED IN PROP B WHEN HE WAS CAMPAIGNING AGAINST PROP B, AND HE ACTUALLY CAME TO COUNCIL AND TESTIFIED AND SAID THAT IF YOU PAID OVER 46.7 PAID OVERTIME, IT WOULD COST THE CITY ANNUALIZED COST OF 25 MILLION ADDITIONAL DOLLARS.
AND I'VE GOT THAT, THAT REPORT, THAT SLIDESHOW IN THAT PRESENTATION STILL, THAT I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOUR OFFICE.
THE POINT I'M GETTING AT IS, UH, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT ARE GOING ON, UH, THAT ALL COME WITH THE NEGOTIATION.
WHAT THE FIREFIGHTERS DECIDED TO DO AND AGREED TO WAS INSTEAD OF COMPARING OURSELVES TO 40 HOURS, WHICH WOULD PUT THE CITY IN A FAR WORSE POSITION ON A COST PER HOUR BASIS, WE'LL LOOK AT THE BASE SALARIES AND THAT WE'LL AGREE MOVING FORWARD THAT WE WILL COMPARE OURSELVES JUST LIKE HPD DOES TO FORT WORTH, DALLAS, SAN ANTONIO, AND AUSTIN.
AND, UH, AS IT RELATES TO, I THINK WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER CAME AND SAID ABOUT IT, THERE BEING A CONTRACT IN PERPETUITY, WHY WOULDN'T YOU DO THAT AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE NEGOTIATION? WELL, I, I THINK WE DID.
NO, AND LIKE 2017, IT WAS NEVER ASKED OF US COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT YOU COULD HAVE OFFERED IT.
THAT'S WHAT WE COMPARE OURSELVES TO.
WE, WE GAVE YOU ALL, WE HAD THE DATE OF THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED TO YOUR OFFICES.
IT'S BEEN PUBLIC FOR, SINCE WE'VE UPDATED THE WAGE COMPARISONS BASED ON THE PUBLIC FIRE DEPARTMENTS SINCE 2017 AND EVERY YEAR SINCE THEN.
AND WE PROVIDED IT, AND I CAME TO TESTIFY AT COUNSEL MANY TIMES ABOUT THAT.
UH, MARTY, UH, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU'VE BEEN DOING.
IT'S, THIS IS A LONG TIME COMING FOR SURE.
UH, BUT WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THIS CONTRACT IN PARTICULAR, UM,
[03:20:01]
DO WE HAVE ANY RAIL GUARDS THAT WILL, WILL STOP US FROM HAVING A MASS EXODUS OF RETIREMENT? YEAH.YOU'RE YOU'RE HAVING A MASS EXODUS RIGHT NOW? NO.
UH, AFTER THIS CONTRACT IS DONE, IS THERE ANY RAIL GUARDS THAT WOULD PREVENT US FROM HAVING A MAX EXODUS OF FIREFIGHTERS? WHAT'S, WHAT'S OUR AVERAGE RETIREMENT OR FOLKS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, COMING OFF AND YOU ANTICIPATE IT BEING LARGER AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO THE SAFETY OF HOUSTONIANS? YEAH.
NO, LISTEN, FIRST OF ALL, I, I, WE WILL GET YOU THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS.
SO WE HAVE 'EM YEAR OVER YEAR.
THEY USED TO BE AN ATTRITION RATE OF LIKE 140 OR SO.
UH, THAT'S FLUCTUATED THE 500.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLES THAT WEREN'T PENSION ELIGIBLE THAT WERE LEAVING TO GO TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING RESPECTED AND PAID.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO GET YOU SPECIFIC NUMBERS AS WE HAVE THOSE.
AND WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CHICKEN OF THE EGG.
YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMEBODY DO MORE.
AT THIS POINT, FIREFIGHTERS IN HOUSTON HAVE NOTHING LEFT TO GIVE.
I JUST, I SHARE THOSE BECAUSE SURE.
FOR ME, THE CORE OF MY CONVERSATION IS ALWAYS GONNA BE OPERATION SERVICES.
UH, FIREFIGHTERS, UM, LIKE OTHER MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, H-P-O-U-I, I, YOU KNOW, I ANTICIPATE THAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF, WELL, I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE TAKING CARE OF THOSE CITY EMPLOYEES, RIGHT? BUT AT THE END RESULT, AS, AS PUBLIC SERVANTS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THAT OUTPUT THAT WE GIVE TO COMMUNITY? AND THAT'S GONNA BE WHAT I FOCUS ON, RIGHT? AND SO I REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS CONTRACT HITS AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN WE SEE DOUBLE OR TRIPLE EXODUS, RIGHT? YEAH.
WELL, YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT THAT, NUMBER ONE, THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE ALREADY LEAVING, WE'RE TRYING TO STOP THIS AND WE ACTUALLY CHANGE SOMETHING IN THE CONTRACT THAT ALLOWS THE CITY TO CHANGE THE, UH, HIRING REQUIREMENTS SO THAT WE CAN GET PEOPLE ON THE STREETS FASTER.
SO THAT WAS A HUGE, UH, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSION BETWEEN US AND THE CITY AND AN EFFORT TO WORK WITH THEM AND EVERYTHING WITHIN THE ARTICLES OF THE MINI, UH, OR DIFFERENT ARTICLES, UH, IT EVEN PUTS IN THERE, SAYS, LISTEN, WE'RE GONNA WORK TOWARDS THINGS.
I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER MENTIONED, UH, THE, THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION THAT WAS UNDER LAW, BY THE WAY, UH, THAT'S CARRIED OVER FROM THE LAST CONTRACT, INCLUDING THE PENSION CHAIR AND THE OTHER ISSUES, UH, THAT, THOSE POSITIONS, UH, THE HONOR GUARD IS NOT A UNION POSITION.
IT'S THE CITY OF HOUSTON POSITION THAT WE WERE GONNA PAY FOR, UM, THROUGH BUSINESS LEAVE HOURS.
AND SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE IN ORDER TO TRY TO HELP THE CITY.
UM, AND WE WANT TO WORK TOWARDS BUILDING BACK UP THE RANKS BECAUSE WE CAN'T KEEP OPERATING AT THIS LEVEL.
YOU HAVE, IF YOU ADDED FIVE MORE FIRE TRUCKS AND 20 MORE AMBULANCES, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE PEOPLE TO STAFF 'EM.
SO THAT'S WHAT OUR CONCERN IS WITHOUT QUESTION, RESPONDING TO THE CITIZENS, GIVING THEM THE BEST VALUE AND ENSURING WE'RE RESPONDING TO THEM IN THE QUICKEST AMOUNT OF TIME.
THAT HAS BEEN OUR PUBLIC OUTCRY FOR YEARS.
SORRY, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER CAME IN THEN.
WE DO HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC SPEAKER.
UM, CITY ATTORNEY, THERE'S A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT PREVIOUS NEGOTIATIONS, WHAT THE POSITION OF THE UNION WAS, WHAT THE POSITION OF THE CITY WAS.
UM, AS THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, ARE YOU LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO SHARE WHAT THE CITY'S PREVIOUS POSITIONS HAD BEEN, WHAT THE UNION MAY HAVE OFFERED VERSUS WHAT THE CITY MAY HAVE OFFERED? OR ARE THOSE CONFIDENTIAL PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS THAT YOU CANNOT OPINE ON? UH, I, I THINK PREVIOUSLY, UH, THERE WERE SOME MEDIATIONS THAT WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL.
SOME WOULD BE IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THAT COULD BE SHARED.
I THINK THERE IS AN OVERALL CONCERN WITH INFORMATION GETTING OUT.
YOU KNOW, WE WANT THIS DEAL TO GO THROUGH, BUT IF IT DOESN'T, WHAT BECOMES OUT OF THE PUBLIC FORUM COULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CITY.
UH, BUT I CAN TRY TO FIND GENERALLY WHAT HAPPENED IN, IN THE PAST BEFORE.
IT'S JUST 'CAUSE WE HAVE, AGAIN, MARTY, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, JUST AS A LAWYER, RIGHT? WHEN WE'RE SAYING, WELL, WE OFFERED THIS, OR THEY OFFERED THAT, AND WE'RE HEARING THAT FROM ONE SIDE, BUT THEN OUT OF RESPECT FOR CITY LEGAL, THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO OPINE ON FROM THEIR POSITION WHAT WAS OFFERED OR NOT OFFERED.
AND AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA THAT YEAH.
AND I'M NOT EITHER DURING CONFIDENTIAL, I CAN'T DISCUSS IT EITHER ON ONLY THE END PRODUCT.
I JUST WANNA BE VERY SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT WHEN WE START GETTING INTO, WELL, WE OFFERED THAT, OR THEY DIDN'T OFFER THAT, WE'RE GETTING INTO A TERRITORY WHERE THE CITY CAN'T NECESSARILY COMMENT.
SO I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA GO THERE.
UM, WE SHARE THE SAME POSITION.
ANYTHING THAT WE DISCUSSED IN CONFIDENTIAL SENTIMENT UNDERSTOOD.
WE, THE END PRODUCT WE CAN, I, I UNDERSTAND.
I JUST, AGAIN, FOR THE SAKE OF SURE, OUTTA RESPECT FOR THE LEGAL PROCESS, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT GOING BEYOND THE LINE THAT WE, WE CAN GO THROUGH.
AND I THINK YOU'VE MADE YOURSELF AVAILABLE, EVERYONE.
UM, ONCE WE DO GET THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT, UM, WE WILL HAVE MANY QUESTIONS.
UM, WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE ASK YOU AS WELL.
SO THANK YOU FOR MAKING YOURSELF AVAILABLE.
SORRY IF IT FELT KIND OF RUSHED AT THE END, BUT NO, BUT YOU'VE GOT, YOU'VE GOT, EVERYONE HAS AN OPEN INVITATION, UM, TO, UM, TALK TO THE, UH, THE PRESIDENT OF 3 41.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
AND WE DO HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC SPEAKER
[03:25:01]
WHO'S JASON OLIVER, WHO WE, SOME OF US KNOW.WELL, THANK YOU, JASON, FOR HANGING ON WITH US ONLINE.
UM, PUSH STAR SIX AND, AND WE'LL GIVE YOU YOUR, YOUR FOUR MINUTES.
UM, CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NEW CHAIRS OF THE BUDGET BUDGETING FISCAL AFFAIRS.
AND I KNEW WE CREATED LABOR COMMITTEE.
I'M, I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT'S DISCUSSED.
UH, AND I, I APPRECIATE THIS CONVERSATION TODAY.
I ALL THE QUESTIONS LIKE, I'M GONNA HAVE TO REWATCH THIS ALL OVER AGAIN BECAUSE IT, IT, IT'S REALLY A LOT TO KEEP UP WITH AND, AND I WISH THAT THERE WAS MORE TRANSPARENCY AND LIKE THIS IS HANDLED THE NORMAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS.
UH, BUT I, I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE, I'M ALSO GRATEFUL FOR THE RETURN OF THE VIRTUAL OPTION FOR SPEAKERS.
AND I'M ALSO GLAD WE'RE TREATING LABOR AGREEMENTS AS A SIGNIFICANT BUDGET ISSUE.
UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE LIKE ME,
JASON, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO HEAR YOU.
THERE'S SOME BACKGROUND NOISE.
IF YOU CAN TRY TO ELIMINATE BACKGROUND NOISE, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT FOR US TO HEAR YOU.
I'LL, IS IT BETTER NOW? I'LL JUST TRY AND DO, DO WHAT I CAN.
I'M SITTING ON THE BUS
BUT, UM, IT, THIS, UH, WHAT AM I SAYING? OH, YEAH, I, I HOPE THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OTHER LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR POLICE.
I MEAN, THIS EMPLOYEES ARE ALSO PUBLICLY DISCUSSING COMMITTEE WELL BEFORE APPROVAL.
UM, THIS CAN AND SHOULD MARK A TURNING POINT REGARDING CITY OPERATIONS, WHERE WE LOOK AT THE CITY HOLISTICALLY AND BEGIN TO PUT FORWARD SUBSTANTIVE SOLUTIONS TO OUR CHALLENGES IF SAFETY IS A PRIORITY, RIGHT? WE'RE TAKING A HARD LOOK AT CODE ENFORCEMENT AND 9 1 1 INFRASTRUCTURE, LOOKING AT TERMS AND PERMITTING HOUSING, RIGHT? LIKE EQUIPPING THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT TO BETTER SERVE RENTERS.
I KNOW WE HAVE FINANCIAL CHALLENGES, BUT YOU KNOW, AS, UH, CHILD PORN SAID THIS ISN'T NEW, RIGHT? WE HAVE A BUDGET GAP EVERY YEAR AND WORRIED THAT WE'RE NOT TAKING THIS ISSUE SERIOUSLY ENOUGH.
FOR EXAMPLE, BASED ON PAST BFA MEETINGS AND, AND BUDGET WORKSHOPS, RIGHT? POLICE AND FIRE ATTENDING IS OUR BIGGEST OPERATING BUDGET LIMITATION.
UM, SO WITH THE FIRE SETTLEMENT, UH, A PRUDENT FORCE OF ACTION, IT'S A CLOSELY EXAMINED POLICE SPENDING UNLESS WE WANT TO LEAD OUR OTHER DEPARTMENTS DRIVE, RIGHT? SO WE'LL NEED TRANSPARENT POLICE UNION CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS TO CATCH US UP WITH OTHER LARGE TYPES OF CITIES, BUT TOO MANY DEPARTMENTS TO COME BEFORE COUNSELING, EXPLAINING THE RISK OF THE BARE ROOM STAFFING FOR US TO LIMIT OUR SCOPE TO FIRE AND BELIEF.
SO I REALLY WANT INFORMED CONVERSATIONS TO BE BROUGHT OUTSIDE OF CITY HALL.
SO HOUSTONIANS UNDERSTAND THE TRADE OFFS WE'RE MAKING, AND THAT RESIDENTS HAVE A HAND IN SHAPING THESE DECISIONS.
THIS CAN LOOK LIKE MULTILINGUAL INFORMATION, RESOURCES, AND TOWN HALLS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
AGAIN, THIS CAN AND SHOULD BE A TURNING POINT.
UH, LET'S WORK TOWARD BUILDING THE PEOPLE'S BUDGET THAT ESTONIANS DESERVE.
AND THEN ALSO, UM, DURING THIS MEETING, WE, WE HEARD QUITE A BIT ABOUT PAY COMPARISONS.
I'M, I RECALL WITHIN THE PAST FEW YEARS HEARING ABOUT A STUDY IN THE WORKS FROM FINANCE, I BELIEVE LOOKING AT HOW CPAY COMPARES TO OTHER EMPLOYERS.
I'M WONDERING IF ANYBODY HAS THAT STUDY AVAILABLE, IF IT WAS COMPLETED, AND IF ANYBODY HAS THAT AVAILABLE.
IT WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO HEAR, BUT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU PLAY THIS BACK COLLEAGUES, YOU CAN HEAR BETTER ON THE HTV VERSION.
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT, AND I THINK YOU'LL BE HAPPY TO NOTE THAT I AM PROPOSING SOME BUDGET TOWN HALLS AROUND TOWN, SO THERE WILL BE MORE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE, IN THE BUDGET PROCESS.
ALSO, ON APRIL 15TH, I'LL BE PUTTING OUT MY YEAR 2 CENTS, UH, BUDGET, UH, PUBLIC BUDGETING SURVEY.
AND JUST WANT MY COLLEAGUES TO NOTE, UM, FOR YOUR CALENDARS, MAY 15TH THROUGH 23RD WILL BE THE BUDGET WORKSHOPS AND SOME, AND THEN WE'RE, WE'RE PROPOSING SOME TOWN HALLS WITHIN THE MAY 15TH THROUGH MAY 30TH TIMEFRAME.
SO, UM, WITH THAT, I AM GOING TO, UH, THE NEXT, UH, BUDGET, REGULAR BUDGET AND FISCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY, APRIL 30TH AT 10:00 AM I'M, UM, QUITE SURE THERE WILL BE A LOT MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FIREFIGHTER DEAL IN BOTH THE LABOR COMMITTEE AND THE BUDGET AND FISCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
I THINK THIS WAS A GREAT START AND REALLY THANK EVERYBODY FOR YOUR, UH, DILIGENCE AND YOUR, UH, ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
AND WITH THAT, A MEETING, UH, WITH ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBER CAYMAN, NO CHAIR.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THE PARTNERSHIP.
UM, AND AS WELL AS FOR COUNCIL FOR STICKING IN THERE WITH US THROUGH A COMMITTEE MEETING, UH, THIS LONG, BUT VERY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION.
AND WITH THAT, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.