►
From YouTube: Pam Hodge Presentation 09 16 2014
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning,
I
just
want
to
spend
a
few
minutes
going
through
in
a
little
more
detail.
The
potential
funding
for
this
project
we've
kind
of
breezed
over
it
at
the
last
meeting,
I
want
to
spend
some
time
on
that
subject,
the
cost
of
the
system
and
we've
kind
of
broken
it
out.
There
was
really
two
projects:
there's
the
software
upgrade
and
the
reappraisal
process
is
really
two
separate
projects.
The
estimate
is,
or
the
cost
for
the
upgrade
of
the
system
is
two
million
nine
hundred
and
fifty
six
thousand.
A
A
So
there
is
additional
cost
for
upgrades
to
the
system
going
forward,
but
it's
very
minimal
and
I
think
last
time.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
state
that
clearly,
at
this
meeting,
okay,
so
financing
the
option
of
the
upgrade
the
is
world
upgrade,
the
potential
funding
source
could
be
through
the
GMA
lease-purchase
program.
A
The
annual
payments
would
be
spread
over
five
years,
beginning
in
FY
16
between
550
and
600
thousand,
depending
on
when
the
lease
is
actually
closed,
the
interest
rate
would
be
set,
but
based
on
the
rates
that
we
received,
it
would
be
around
550
at
this
point,
but
it
could
be
up
to
600
and
the
funding
source
for
the
repayment
be
the
other
lost
infrastructure
technology
improvements
and
the
impact
to
the
future.
Oh
lost
infrastructure
allocations
is
represented
in
the
Far
column
and
FY
16
option
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure.
A
Council
is
aware
that
we
would
have
to
reallocate
the
other
lost
allocations
from
the
projects
that
are
currently
funded
through
Oh
lost
and
600,000
would
be
diverted
to
this
upgrade
lease
repayment
and
I,
provided
you
the
FY
14
budget,
as
well
as
the
FY
15
budget.
So
you
can
see
where
those
allocations
have
been
in
the
past
and
FY
15.
In
the
current
fiscal
year
there
was
a
reserve
created
to
assist
with
the
fund
balance
requirements
of
two
million
four
hundred
and
forty
eight
thousand.
A
That
particular
reserve
was
not
in
the
FY
14
budget,
so
I
wanted
to
provide
you
a
couple
years,
so
you
could
see
the
allocation
of
the
projects
and
what
I've
done
in
the
FY
16
option
is
spread
that
600,000
between
the
other
projects,
you
could
reduce
just
one.
For
example,
you
could
say
we're
not
gonna
have
any
storm
water
allocation
next
year,
we're
going
to
divert
all
of
that,
but
in
this
example,
I
kind
of
spread
it
amongst
the
IT
allocation,
roads
facilities
and
stormwater
and
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
about
that
reallocation.
A
B
Jeremy,
can
you
open
her
mic?
Please.
C
A
Let
me
just
walk
through
those,
the
the
IT
project
at
two
hundred
and
ten
thousand
one
hundred
and
twenty
five
of
that
is
a
payment.
That's
made
for
this
server
storage
requirement,
so
the
balance
is
for
replacement
of
PCs
throughout
the
government,
so
the
allocation
in
fy14
was
250
and
FY
16
would
be
two
hundred
and
ten,
so
they
would
have
less
funding
to
allocate
for
replacement
of
pcs
throughout
the
government.
Stormwater
at
seven
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
is
their
typical
allocation.
A
This
is
for
resurfacing,
so
the
allocation
at
2.6
million
and
16
would
be
2.2
million,
so
there
would
be
less
streets
resurfaced
going
forward
for
that
five
year
period
than
what
we've
seen
in
the
past,
and
then
facilities
is
for
improvements
if
there's
a
roof
that
needs
to
be
replaced,
or
you
know,
an
air
conditioner
that
goes
out,
that
they
need
funding
for
their
allocation
would
go
from
650
to
six
or
750
to
630,
so
it
just
lowers
their
allocation
for
those
types
of
projects.
Okay,.
C
And
the
questions
I'm
asking
it's
not
that
I'm
against
any
upgrades
or
anything
I
have
to
answer
to
people
later
and
I
want
to
be
able
to
answer
them,
because
we're
saying
that,
as
we
do
this
upgrade
to
provide
on
the
technology
and
to
move
us
forward
and
be
able
to
collect
more
funding,
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
reallocate
some
funds
where
some
requests
that
have
been
done
by
the
taxpayers
won't
be
completed
in
that
time
period.
And
that's
what
I
want
to
you
know
get
a
better
understanding.
C
Not
once
we
let's
say
we
went
and
we
upgraded
all
this
and
it's
supposed
to
bring
funding
back
to
the
you
know
back
to
the
general
budget.
Is
that
funding
going
to
be
reallocated
back
to
these
areas
that
we
took
the
funds
from
or
it's
just
gonna
go
just
into
the
general
fund,
because
I
know
if
I'm,
a
constituent,
just
a
constituent
and
I,
don't
know
a
lot
about
technology.
C
I,
don't
know
a
lot
about
the
necessary
of
upgrades
to
collect
funds
and
I,
hear
you're
going
to
take
money
from
researching
my
Street
to
give
someone
a
computer
or
a
tablet.
I
will
raise
concerns,
but
I
think
that
if
we
were
to
say
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
take
this
funding
to
make
this
possible
to
generate
more
funds
and
as
the
funds
come
in,
we're
placing
it
back
and
I'm
just
using
the
roads
as
an
example
into
that
area.
C
I
think
the
phone
calls
that
we
will
get
will
get
will
become
less
because
I,
like
all
the
great
ideas
and
upgrading,
but
we
got
to
be
able
to
answer
to
our
taxpayers
and
say
a
good
example
is
like
forest
wrote
and
waited
what
15
20
years
Evelyn
30
years.
You
know
that
that's
what
I
want
to
know
I
mean
I.
Don't
have
a
problem
like
that.
C
A
When
the
system
is
implemented
and
if
the
digester
grows,
that
additional
revenue
is
split
between
those
funds
that
there's
millage
rate
applied,
which
includes
the
general
fund
and
includes
the
stormwater
fun
paving
and
economic
development.
So
as
the
tax
base
grows
and
if
the
potential
of
the
system
allows
for
the
digester
grow,
then
the
revenue
collected
in
those
particular
funds
would
grow.
A
It
will
not
impact
the
other
lost
fund,
so
there
wouldn't
be
a
real
additional
funds
put
back
in
the
other
loss,
it's
kind
of
a
separate
funding
source,
but
you
would
have
additional
revenue
generated
in
stormwater
and
paving
which
in
essence
would
go
back
into
stormwater
projects
and
paving
and
resurfacing
projects
and
kind
of
a
different
funding
source.
So
it
might
not
be
a
one-for-one
exchange
directly
out
of
this
particular
fund
going
back
into
this
particular
fund.
But
there
does.
There
is
an
offset
to
that
and.
C
B
C
D
D
A
E
A
E
B
A
E
Well,
I
know
I'm
mixing
two
different
subjects
now,
but
I
would
like
for
us
to
think
about
vehicle
replacement
and
the
general
fund
well
I
think
that's
necessary,
and
it
should
be
a
proactive
issue
that
we
that
we
you
that
we
take
simply
because
the
fact
that
that
it's
gonna
cost
more,
if
we
don't
set
up
the
fun
to
do
that
through
the
sales
tax.
So
that
was
a
my
only
concern
here
was
to
make
sure
that
those
budgetary
items
were
not
affected.
That's.
B
F
F
A
A
G
Pamela
already
addressed
it,
but
on
the
roads,
there's
a
third
funding
source
on
roads,
and
that,
of
course,
is
the
t-splines
discretionary
that
we
have
come
to
council
and
there
would
be
an
allocation
within
those
funds
each
year
for
resurfacing
in
addition
to
the
paving
fund
and
the
other
lost.
So
we
would
have
a
third
source
of
funding
on
roads
and
if
we
needed
to
apply
additional
funds
for
road
resurfacing
or
road
projects,
we
could
look
at
reallocating
some
of
the
t-splines
discretionary
each
year.
D
Councillor
Thomas
mr.
Aaron
I,
just
I'm,
well
I
personally
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
understood
that
by,
for
example,
under
the
roads
decreasing
by
four
hundred
thousand
dollars,
did
not
mean
we
were
going
to
to
not
do
everything
that
these
other
funds
provide.
We
still
have
money
in
these
other
funds
to
do
this,
we're
not
going
to
stop
paving
roads
in
order
to
do
this
exactly.
G
D
B
B
It
is
our
understanding
that
this
is
all-inclusive,
that
there
will
be
some
support
required
of
RIT,
but
I
think
it
was
cleared
up
yesterday
that
this
price
tag
includes
the
vendor
largely
taking
on
the
burden
of
this
conversion
process,
and
that's
in
the
past.
You
know:
we've
had
the
whoops
big
surprise,
our
price
actually
included
you
all
doing
all
that,
and-
and
we
don't
want
any
surprises-
yes,.
H
B
I,
don't
think
that's
necessary
just
so
long,
as
is
we
make
sure
that's
negotiated
and
into
that,
and
also
the
support
that
would
in
training.
Thank
you,
the
training
and
support
that
would
be
necessary
as
we
go
forward.
I
mean
these
are
critical
databases,
obviously,
and
if
there's
a
snafu
along
the
way,
we're
going
to
need
expert
support,
we're
going
to
expect
partners
in
that
process.
Absolutely!
B
B
Let's
see
how
long
has
Tyler
been
doing
this
type
of
work
that
would
be
I,
guess
a
tax,
assessor
tax
records,
support,
1938,
okay,
all
right
so
you've
been
so
you've
been
around
the
block
once
or
twice:
okay,
all
right,
great,
well,
good,
and-
and
we
heard
some
information
last
time
about
how
cities
have
added
to
their
revenue
by
going
Rhea,
Rhea
sesang
and
having
a
more
efficient
system.
So
we
appreciate
you
all
being
here
and
that
was
good
information.
Anything
else
from
Council
all
right.
Well,
we'll
put
it
back
on
this
Oh
Oh.
A
The
second
part
of
this
particular
project
is
the
reappraisal
and
the
funding
source
for
the
reappraisal.
This
would
not
qualify
for
infrastructure,
other
loss
would
be.
The
general
fund
in
fy15
is
four
hundred
and
ninety
thousand
the
cash
payment
for
that
is
delayed
to
FY
16.
So
in
FY
16
the
requirement
is
six
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
plus
the
four
hundred
and
ninety
thousand
that's
been
deferred
from
FY
15
FY
17
is
five
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
for
the
total
of
1.7
million
for
the
reappraisal
project.
A
That
is
an
estimated
four
days
of
fund
balance
over
a
three-year
period.
There
is
potential
and
possible
increase
in
the
digest
to
offset
the
cost
of
the
reappraisal,
but
that's
no
guarantee
we've
seen.
Examples
and
they've
talked
about
examples
from
other
communities,
but
that
is
the
cost
associated
with
the
reappraisal
process,
and
you
know
I
feel
that
I
need
to
remind
counsel
that
there
are
other
competing
needs
for
the
general
fund.
We
just
went
through
the
FY
15
budget.
A
There
were
a
lot
of
reductions
from
Department,
so
there's
some
competing
needs
for
the
general
fund,
economic
development
and
there's
other
projects
out
there.
That
are
competing
for
the
general
fund
and
I
just
make
sure
that
council
is
aware
of
that.
This
does
have
potential
revenue
offset
to
that.
But
at
this
point
there's
not
a
guarantee.
So
council
needs
to
understand
that
this
does
impact
the
general
fund
and
will
impact
fund
balance
over
this
three-year
period.
For
this
reappraisal
project.
F
F
A
F
B
F
G
I
One
of
the
things
I
just
want
to
say
is
I
hope
the
public
understands.
This
is
not
something
that
we
want
to
do
to
make
everything
a
little
prudent,
but
this
is
a
necessity.
That's
the
long
overdue.
We
have
an
antiquated
system,
there's
their
appraisals
that
haven't
been
done
because
we
haven't
been
even
get
to
them
and
I
really
have
a
feeling
that
there's
stuff
out
in
it.
We
don't
know
we
had
out
there.
B
Thank
you.
It
looks
Pam
like
that's
anything
else
from
Council
all
right.
Well,
timeline.
We
will
bring
it
back
for
the
city
and
the
city
manager's
agenda
next
week.
So
if
there's
any
questions
for
an
approval,
is
that
that's
correct?
Doesn't
it's
gonna
be
brought
back
next
week
for
approval
for
purchase?
Is
there
something
more
let.
D
B
D
The
two
funding
sources
is
is
somewhat
of
a
concern
to
me.
I
think
that
that
using
the
Oh
lost
money
for
that
piece,
is
it
the
money's
there?
It's
an
acceptable
use,
that's
what
we
ought
to
do.
I'm
somewhat
concerned
with
the
with
the
reappraisal
piece
of
this.
Just
because
it's
it's
much
more
fluid,
I,
guess
and
so
I
don't
know.
If
we
wanted,
we
can.
We
do
the
hardware
software
without
doing
the
reappraisal,
and
if
we
do
that,
what
impact
would
that
have
I,
just
I,
don't
want
to
do
that.
D
D
D
You
know,
go
forth
and
do
on
the
on
the
O
loss
on
the
the
hardware
software
I
feel
like
we
pretty
much,
have
a
go
forth
and
do
statement,
but
I'm
a
little
nervous
about
the
other
piece
of
it
and
I.
Don't
want
us
to
you
know
it's
it's
all
well
and
good
to
have
the
good
software
but,
as
you
say,
we're
putting
trash
in
we
get
trash
out.
B
B
H
D
And
I
do
want
to
underscore
what
the
mayor
pro-tem
said.
I
heard
some
folks
say
the
other
day,
so
you're
going
to
give
tablets
to
all
these
people
in
the
tax
assessor's
office
uh-huh,
we
sure,
are
because
that's
the
equipment
that
they
need
to
go
out
into
the
field
to
reassess
this,
but
to
assess
property.
It's
not
for
them
to
check
their
Facebook
page,
and
they
know
that.
H
B
That
and
certainly
not
to
speak
for
Pam.
She
can
speak
for
herself,
but
I
will
say
from
conversations
we've
had
it's
not
that
she's
not
excited
about
the
possibilities.
I
think
it's
more
feeling
it's
just
such
a
political
decision
and
in
the
in
the
proper
sense
of
the
word
political
meaning,
those
people
who
are
elected
to
make
the
decisions
as
to
how
money
will
be
expended
and
what
it
will
be
expended
for
it's
just
right
into
the
legislative,
bailiwick.
C
How
we're
gonna
deviate
some
other
areas
in
order
to
make
this
possible,
we
had
a
beautiful
presentation
for
mid
time
in
Midtown
and
possibly
City
Village,
but
yet
there's
still
old
concerns
that
we
have
an
address
and
and
I
like
this,
because
it
bring
more
money
in
that
we
can
kind
of
address
those
but
I'm
a
little
bit
on
I.
Don't
know
what
the
word
to
use
I'm
just
like.
Is
it
all
gonna
work
out,
but
are
we
going
to
have
sufficient
fun?
C
Are
we
gonna
ask
morale
of
our
employees
for
less
because
we're
doing
a
year,
be,
you
know,
is
this
gonna?
Okay,
we're
gonna,
take
what
you
said
four
four
days
out
of
the
fund
balance.
How
many
more
days
are
we
gonna
take
out
of
it
in
16,
four
bTW,
then?
How
much
is
it
gonna
leave
us
for
our
ranking,
because
that's
how
I
understand
it,
but
it's
all
about
the
ranking
so
that
we
can
get
other
bonds
or
refinancing
or
other
things.
C
B
B
You
know
who
knows
where
we
would
be
if
we
had
done
this
eight
years
ago
or
10
years
ago,
maybe
we
would
have
more
room
to
breathe
a
little
bit,
and
it's
just
getting
to
the
point.
This
is
my
personal
I
guess
political
opinion,
as
I
said
in
the
good
sense
of
the
word,
and
that
is
that
we
have
to
do
something
to
invest
in
the
revenue
side
of
the
balance
sheet
and
if
we
don't
we'll,
just
be
cutting
and
cutting
and
cutting
soon
it'll
be
jobs
and
services.
C
And
I
don't
I
understand
that
I
don't
have
a
problem
like
that.
I
just
have
to
be
able
to
look
at
myself
in
the
mirror,
sure
and
look
at
my
constituents
and
answered
their
questions
and
we'll
feel
comfortable
about
it.
I
had
no
problem
once
you
explained
to
me
how
it
works.
I
have
no
problems
with
the
gentleman
I
agree
with
him
even
before
he
spoke
that
we
shouldn't
piecemeal
it,
but
when
councillor
Baker
reminded
us
about
bTW,
that's
where
I
got
a
little
bit
concerned,
because
it's
your
last
portion
of
it.
C
C
And
that's
where
I
need
and
I
don't
know.
If
this
is
the
you
know
the
right
setting,
maybe
we
just
need
to
talk
later,
but
that's
my
concern,
because
I
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
taxpayer
is
listening,
understand
very
clearly,
and
our
employees
understand
very
clearly
because
lots
of
times
when
we
have
to
cut
things,
it's
really
not
so
much
services
is
mainly
our
employees
that
it
affects.
C
I
want
to
be
able
to
look
at
any
employee
in
the
face
and
feel
confident
in
explaining
what
we're
about
to
do
and
what's
going
to
happen
and,
like
I,
said
previously
and
I'm
repeating
myself,
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
this.
I
just
have
a
concern
now
that
we
say
in
in
16.
You
know
the
Beatty
project
is
also
going
to
affect
this.
That's
my
that's!
Where
I'm
uncomfortable
right
now
and
I,
don't
know
if
I'm
comfortable
is
the
correct
word.
I
just
need
more
understanding
and
more
clarification.
C
A
C
I
understand
this,
and
let
me
tell
you
why
I
understand
this,
because
Commissioner
Huff,
I
sat
with
me
before
and
explained
to
me
how
there
are
properties
out
there
in
cases
out
there
that
were
not
aware
of.
You
know
that
we
need
to
to
go
after
where
they
have
lot
bigger
attorneys
than
we
do.
C
That
and
I
know
there's
four
five:
that
if
a
person's
home,
we
call
the
fire
department
or
something
they
reappraise
that
house
and
that
property
can
be
almost
falling
apart
and
they're,
paying
two
and
three
times
more
than
that
property
is
worth
because
of
that
phone
call
and,
and
that
I'd
like
to
discuss
later,
because
if
this
is
supposed
to
help,
you
know
fine,
you
know
the
properties
that
were
not
addressed
saying.
We
also
need
to
be
careful
with
the
properties
we
are
addressing
and
that's
something
that
hardly.
H
Agree
with
you
and
I
would
encourage
you
to
call
me
and
explain
to
me
what
you're
talking
about
well
in
terms
of
properties
being
assessed
based
on
a
fire
department.
Call
I,
don't
understand
that
and
I
would
would
love
to
investigate
that.
But
yes,
I
mean
it's
going
to
address
both
the
good
and
the
bad
if
there
are
properties
that
are
being
over
assessed
unless
there's
the
homestead
freeze.
That
applies
to
it
that
this
will
correct
it.
H
F
F
Council,
we'll
just
have
to
work
through
there
gonna
be
some
things
that
have
to
get
shifted
around
it's
going
to
upset
some
people.
It's
the
general
fund
is
not
gonna,
be
an
easy
issue.
We're
just
gonna
have
to
fight
through
it,
so,
but
that,
but
that's
why
we're
here
we'll
just
have
to
do
that,
but
but
it
probably
and
my
objective
is
never
to
tell
you
to
do
or
not
do
it's
just
understand
the
issues
and
understand
what
you're
doing?
That's
all.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
J
One
I
wanted
to
say:
I
have
worked
with
the
board
of
Assessors
and
the
Tax
Commissioner
since
the
1980s
and,
of
course,
some
of
that
1980s
software
is
still
in
use
and
I
want
to
publicly
thank
Randy.
Lomax
has
worked
with
them,
not
quite
as
long
as
me
for
taking
the
lead
on
this
to
bring
this
to
everybody's
attention.
This
is
a
critical
infrastructure
need
and
we
appreciate
y'all's
leadership.