Special Council Minutes and Exhibits 1-2

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING A Special Council Meeting was held on June 22 , 2023, at 5:15 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson (via WebEx and departed at 6:12 p.m.), Ms. Arndt, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil (departed at 6:27 p.m.), Dr. Pillsbury, and Mr. Sudler. Mr. Boggerty and Mr. Rocha were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Council staff members present were Mr. Dill, Ms. Duca, Mr. Hugg, Ms. Peddicord, and Ms. Bennett. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Proposed FY24 Budget Discussion (David S. Hugg III, City Manager) Mr. David S. Hugg III, City Manager, reviewed a presentation entitled “FY24 Budget Discussion” (Exhibit #1). Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager stated that the budget components of the Parks and Recreation department include the recreation programs and the grounds division for the maintenance of city properties. To defer any of those expenses the services would have to be reduced. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that their programs cover all age ranges. They recently started a senior softball league at the Pitt’s Center, there is a summer youth program, in which there are grants, sports activities, and after-school programs. The participation has come up after the wave of COVID-19 and they are filling up quickly. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that the after-school program grants are specific as to what they are for. Some grants come from Denmark, they go toward Capital programs, more specifically toward accessible playground equipment, and things of that nature. The operating expenses are usually difficult to find grants for. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that Robin Eaton and Carolyn Courtney work hard on their grant program and keep an eye out for anything that they can apply for. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that one of the first things the team did was sit down with each department head and examine where they were this fiscal year. The department heads were instructed to scrub their 2023 budget before discussing the budget for 2024. They have put off projects, vehicles, and hiring people. There are only one full-time and two part-time positions in the entire city out of 400 employees. One of those additional positions is from the recommendation of the council to bring back the Administrative Assistant in the fire company. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that one way would be like the electric rate study, to have a very qualified team look at the city’s programs, and enterprises, identify costs, fees, and what level are they covering the operating costs. However, the city is not allowed to earn a profit from the enterprise funds. Secondly, the city needs to bring in more businesses, and more investments. It was brought up in a conversation that there is minimal to no fee charged to

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 22, 2023 PAGE 2 merchants who set up for events like Comic-Con. The organizer is charged a fee, but the vendors that make money off of the city and the city’s residents are not charged a fee. The city’s business fees are abysmally low and need to be adjusted however, they take effect on July 31st which is out of sequence with the budget process. Mr. Hugg also stated that the Customer Service Department collects about ninety-nine percent of the debt owed to the city by aggressively going after people directly or through a third-party collection agency. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hugg stated that when they start changing the electric funds, revenues, and reserves, there is a risk of inflation in energy costs. Mayor Christiansen stated that he would caution council that the enterprise funds, particularly the bond covenants that cover the enterprise funds, restrict how much money can be taken from the different funds and that is stated within the bond covenants. Mayor Christiansen commended city staff for their efforts to present a budget that is reflective of a growing city. Mayor Christiansen stated that no one wants to pay higher electric rates or higher taxes. The city is a nonprofit organization that provides services at a minimal expense and taxes at a minimal expense. At the end of the day, everyone including the citizens sees what they are getting for their utility and tax dollars. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that if the city had continued to collect for the entire fiscal year, they would have over-collected because that PPA was driven towards the purchase cost, and that PPA allowed the city to fluctuate with the increases and decreases in costs of purchase power. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that there was money in the reserves and $10 Million of that was utilized, and additional funds from the citizens were collected based on that PPA. The audit will be completed in the next few months. There are funds within the reserves because, as the mayor referenced, there are policies, there are rating agencies, and they are there for a purpose and they try to utilize them for exactly that purpose. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that $8 Million was transferred this year because when the FY-23 budget was brought forward the purchasing power was double what it was in the prior year. The cost went from about $40 million to $80 million. They were hoping to not have the ratepayers take the full blow of the cost increase that was seen in the purchasing power. Ms. Peddicord stated that within the presentation done by Scott Burnham, the rate is 0.1209. There is a blended rate that was calculated because, in fiscal ’23, there was a PPA of 3 cents per kilowatt hour. The blended the current rate and the PPA, you get 0.1481 for fiscal year ’23. For fiscal year ’24, it is proposed at 0.1425. Mr. Paul Waddell, Electric Director stated that based on $728 million in KWH sales per year, a one-cent increase would be $7.28 million in additional revenue if applied flat, once cent across all classifications. Mr. Hare stated that if the rate is increased by one penny it would affect a hundred percent of the people in the city. If taxes are raised, it will only increase forty-five percent of the city. Ms. Peddicord stated there is a limit on how much the city can make because they are a non-

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 22, 2023 PAGE 3 profit. There is a purpose for each reserve account, for example, the depreciation reserve must have a minimum of about $10 million, as does future capacity. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that there is $20 million in reserve and the electric fund, but for its purpose. The future capacity funds are used for future growth, the depreciation reserve is used for capital asset replacement, and contingency is for a storm or if something blows through the city and wipes out a building or services. Ms. Peddicord stated that there have been discussions before about increases in sanitation fees and segregating those operations into an enterprise fund, then it could be seen if that fund is self- sustaining or not, the base fees could then be increased based on the service provided. If those current revenues and current expenses are pulled out of the general fund because that is where they reside, put them in their own fund, then it would be easier to see the self-sustaining fund for sanitation and there would be no need to subsidize a service using a tax rate. Ms. Peddicord also stated that it has been talked about doing the same with stormwater. The stormwater utility should be self-sustaining. There have been a lot of projects, significant costs, and capital assets that must be had to provide the service of a stormwater utility. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that when looking at slide one of the presentation, it can be seen that the operating revenues and operating expenses do not come close to matching each other. There are $31 million in recurring receipts and $46 million in departmental expenses. Those numbers continue to grow further apart and by breaking out the stormwater utility and sanitation, because they should be self-sustaining, it would be easier to identify that enough revenue is being collected to cover the expenses to provide the service. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that there are some regulations involved however, most of it is best practices. Ms. Duca urged council to use caution in changing current policies without having a consultant on board to do any analysis and offer recommendations on how best to use the money. Ms. Duca stated that reviewing the financial policy would be a good step before changing the reserves. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that since she has been a department head, she is not aware of the financial policies being updated for the past ten years. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that because they are the current financial policies, the requirement is that the city abides by them. Ms. Peddicord found that the financial policies were amended on June 24, 2019, so research can be done to see exactly what was amended, and why, and determine what the path forward should be. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Peddicord stated that there are state statutes regarding establishing policies. The rating agencies are looking at the city on a regular basis because they know the state of the economy. Ms. Arndt stated that she would like to commend the budget team for the work they put into the budget. This was a very challenging year and the years ahead sound like they will be more challenging. Ms. Arndt also thanked all of the department heads for doing their best to scrub their budgets to keep the city running. Ms. Arndt stated that no one wants to pay additional taxes or fees, but it appears there is no other option but to move forward with making those tough decisions. Ms. Arndt agreed in terms of establishing the enterprise funds so that the rates can be adjusted to make the services self-sufficient. Ms. Arndt stated that she is leaning towards supporting the budget as proposed. She appreciates her fellow councilmembers and their efforts

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 22, 2023 PAGE 4 to try to lower the impact and burden to the constituents however, everyone is going to have to pitch in and pull their weight to continue to provide these services, and the city is not alone in this. All municipalities and Kent County are raising fees and rates, it is just the economy. Ms. Arndt stated that the city can remain competitive with the rates because they are good rates and can continue to have good rates in relation to the surrounding competitors. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Hugg stated that the city cannot operate as a for-profit electric utility. That includes the city covering the cost of operations, the reserves, depreciation, and anything that is business related. The city does not have the provisions as an electric utility where the balance sheet would say net profit at the bottom however, the city does have to put money aside for when things go bang in the night. Money must be put aside for upgrades like the Garrison substation, which allows the city to meet the industrial electric user demands. The city cannot make a profit. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that several factors come into play with how much that transfer can be, and part of that is reflected in the rate study. Part of that is based on salary increases, and future operating costs and capital. These are the reasons why it has been fluctuating. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that operations of the electric utility are one of the costs that are built into the rate structure, so there is a capital outlay, system investments, and anything included in the overall package of revenues. The single biggest cost is the power supply, in 2022 it was $47 million, in 2023 it was $85 million, and in 2024 it will likely be in the range of $75 million or so. Those funds go to operate the utility and pay the salaries to run the services. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Waddell stated that the money from the PPA was to offset the additional cost of the power purchase for the current fiscal year, not going into the next fiscal year. The budget going into fiscal year 24 is built around the projections for power purchase costs for next year. If the city over collects, or brings in too much money, the city is able to refund it to the customer under the PPA. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that on the separate handout, there is an area referenced as inter-fund transfers and that money is coming from the electric fund, the water fund, the wastewater fund, based on operating costs in the general fund (Exhibit #2). $8 million is transferred off the top from the electric fund and then there is the inter-fund transfer that is charging each one of the funds for the services that the general fund staff is providing to benefit those funds. Mayor Christiansen stated that the enterprise funds were established because the folks in the past realized that the percentage of taxable properties within the city was not sufficient enough to carry the expenses of a growing city. Mayor Christiansen stated that the council needs to face the budget, jump on board, and if it is needed, then start the budget process for the FY-25 in September or August. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Hugg stated that when the budget process is started it is a question of what is fair and how can the item be raised in a reasonable and comfortable manner. One of the considerations is that Dover is more than fifty percent non-taxable. The state has not addressed the payment in lieu of taxes, which would offset a lot of these issues.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 22, 2023 PAGE 5 Mr. Sudler stated that he concurs with Dr. Pillsbury and Council President Hare in the concept that everyone contributes to the cost rather than just the property owners getting hit heavily. Mr. Sudler stated that the amount and the duration are what needs to be worked out and he is not in support of a property tax increase. Ms. Arndt stated that she recalled from the rate study that the electric rate is going up 2.6 cents and previously it was raised 3 cents, so the recommendation is to add 2.6 cents so there is no raise in property taxes. Ms. Arndt stated that she has heard from constituents that they would rather be charged property tax increases because they can be written off rather than having to spend more on their electric bill. Ms. Arndt stated that she is concerned with adding an additional increase to the electric rate because there was so much pushback from the electric rate increases. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that the property tax is based on the assessed value and the assessed value is typically less than the market value on most housing. For example, a neighbor whose home was assessed at $300,000 would pay $120 a month and another neighbor could pay $100 a month. Mr. Hugg stated that it is not a fixed cost and fluctuates with the value of the property. Ms. Peddicord stated that the electric rates, as presented by Scott Burnham from Newgen, are what is suggested for ’24, ’25, ’26, ’27, and ’28. That is considering the expenses from the same five-year period and inflation and hopefully covering most of the increases in salaries. Nothing is set in stone but that was the purpose of the rate study, it was to establish the rates for the five-year period. Dr. Pillsbury stated that there were two things that impacted the electric bill last year. There was a credit that went away in addition to a rate increase. Dr. Pillsbury stated that she appreciates what Councilwoman Arndt said about people being unhappy but feels it will be easier to sell a small rate increase as they will not be impacted twice. Dr. Pillsbury stated with tax rates it may not be easier to sell because of the different values of homes. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that the reassessment process must be revenue neutral. When the reassessment is done some values have gone up and some have gone down, then there is an opportunity to impose a new tax rate to raise additional revenues. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that the reassessment will not be effective for tax purposes until 2025. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that across the funds the city owes about 6 million in general fund debt, 13 million in wastewater, and 15 million in electric. Ms. Peddicord stated that they would not give a bad rating, but the electric rates have been established to pay that debt off. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mayor Christiansen stated that the money was borrowed to do the major projects and the city continues to go to the bond market to fund major projects. The city is in business to do business, but not in business to make a profit. The city must show financial responsibility to the people who in good faith and in good credit pick up the bonds to allow the city to do what needs to be done. That was a concept that was set in place prior to anyone present tonight getting here. That is how the city does business, and that is why the enterprise funds were set up not to make a profit, but to meet all the financial and fiduciary responsibilities while maintaining good credit just in case of a giant emergency.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 22, 2023 PAGE 6 Mr. Hare stated that he agrees with Ms. Arndt and the Mayor, and the budget as presented needs to be taken care of. The conversation should continue for next year’s budget starting in August. If there is a way that council can change anything in the charter to allow for more money in the reserves, that is something council should look at. Mr. Sudler stated that he is not in support of raising taxes, he is in support of across the board where everyone is contributing. Mr. Sudler stated that the constituents that he has spoken to are also in support of across the board. Some of the constituents are business owners and they are getting hit more than a resident. Mr. Sudler stated that he does not support the budget based on the four percent increase in taxes. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that he recommends the budget that has been set forth because it spreads the burden equally. Mr. Hugg stated that the general fund is driven almost entirely by taxes. If there is going to be a police force that is essentially funded by the general fund, and other services funded by the general fund, then the city will have to say these things cost some level of money and that equates to x number of cents of property tax. If the council would rather put the burden on the electric rates and not have a tax increase or a small tax increase, then that can be worked on. Ms. Arndt stated that the rate study was needed to determine what the rate should be so that the rates are fair, and it was received. Now there is talk about making changes to that to balance the budget. Ms. Arndt stated that there is data-supported research that says what the rate should be, and the city would still remain competitive. Ms. Arndt stated that she feels council should listen to the experts and implement what has been provided in the rate study. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that the city is not going to over-collect. Mr. Burnham ran a test year and the revenue from that equated to about $92 million. With the rates of 0.1209 for residential the city only collected about 81 million, which is why they are suggesting the rates from the rate study. Mr. Sudler stated that he wants to support the budget, but his interest is that of his constituents and he must fight for them. Many of them are saying that they cannot continue to endure cost increases with the cost of living. Mr. Sudler stated that he would like to see figures for Dr. Pilsbury’s recommendation of taking the electric rates up for a period to at least halfway meet the amount of money that is trying to be covered. Mr. Sudler suggested that the team bring back an example of a year at x rate will provide what is needed to balance out or cover what is missing. Mayor Christiansen stated that he would like to remind everyone that Dr. Pillsbury brought up a good point when council over-collected, they gave the money back and reduced the rates. If the council were to over-collect again with the rates that have been proposed by City Manager Hugg, the money can be given back. The people who pay the expenses are the customers, if they are overbilled, the money will be given back. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that page 19 of the budget book contains the beginning balances. The total income for all funds is $167 million, and expenditures are $201 million. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mayor Christiansen stated that taxes have been reduced after the assessments. Kent, Sussex, and New Castle were required by a court challenge in the Court of Chancery to do a re-evaluation every five years. The city makes sure that every five years a proper

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 22, 2023 PAGE 7 evaluation is done so that the tax rate can be adjusted up or down as needed to meet the needs of the city. Over forty years the city has been very consistent and up front by reducing taxes when they need to be reduced. Mr. Sudler stated that he has never heard of decreasing the tax rate however, he does like the concept of fluctuations in the electric rate because it is something that you can see immediately. People are looking for immediate relief and a timeline of when they can expect some time of relief. If council were to go with raising taxes, there needs to be a set period where it is reevaluated. Mr. Sudler suggested semi-annually or quarterly so that council can go back to the constituents and say there will only be another year and the taxes will be decreased. If council chooses to go the electric rate there should be a system where they can monitor it themselves. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that the $98 million goes back to the budget balance and the policies. The 98 million is the carryforward that is required by the city’s policies. This money keeps the rates low when money needs to be borrowed, it gives the city the option to finance capital. Ms. Peddicord stated that the theory is if you are going to pay with today’s money, the people that are going to benefit from the improvement that is made or the capital purchase that is purchased with the cash that is spent today, they are not paying anything afterward. That is when you pick up debt, it spreads it across the board to the future. Mr. Sudler moved to instruct the City Manager’s Financial team to bring back numbers in regard to the ½ a cent or a ¼ a cent options, and how long would we need to be at that rate to cover at least half of the amount of debt that is owed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment and hearing no objections the meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. ANDRIA BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Special Meeting of June 22, 2023, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /ar Exhibits Exhibit #1 – FY24 Budget Discussion Exhibit #2 – FY24 General Fund Handout

EXHIBIT # 1 Special Council Meeting of 06/22/2023 FY24 Budget Discussion Special City Council Meeting June 22, 2023

FY24 Budget Overview – General Fund Revenues Expenses Description Amount Description Amount Recurring Receipts $31,009,400 Dept Expenses $46,096,700 One-Time Receipts $4,022,500 Other Expenses $5,230,700 Internal Transfers $15,236,400 Transfers $5,940,900 TOTAL $50,268,300 TOTAL $57,268,300 Expenses exceed Revenues by $7M. The budget will only balance by utilizing the budget balance from FY23. This source will not be available / adequate for FY25. FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 2

FY24 Budget Overview – Wastewater Fund Revenues Expenses Description Amount Description Amount Base Revenue $10,601,200 Dept Expenses $1,649,200 TOTAL $10,601,200 Other Expenses $6,417,100 Transfers $2,800,900 TOTAL $10,867,200 Expenses exceed Revenues by $266k. The budget will only balance by utilizing some of the budget balance from FY23. FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 3

FY24 Budget Overview – Water Fund Revenues Expenses Description Amount Description Amount Base Revenue $7,285,700 Dept Expenses $4,146,300 TOTAL $7,285,700 Other Expenses $2,091,900 Transfers $2,066,700 TOTAL $8,304,900 Expenses exceed Revenues by $1M. The budget will only balance by utilizing some of the budget balance from FY23. This source may not be adequate for FY25. FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 4

FY24 Budget Overview – Electric Fund Revenues Expenses Description Amount Description Amount Base Revenue $95,042,400 Power Supply/Gen $82,458,600 TOTAL $95,042,400 Dept Expenses $9,208,700 Other Expenses $9,683,500 Transfers $8,128,500 TOTAL $109,479,300 Expenses exceed Revenues by $14.4M. The budget will only balance by utilizing some of the budget balance from FY23. This source may not be adequate for FY25. FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 5

Key Budgetary Requirement - BALANCE OPERATING REVENUES = OPERATING EXPENSES FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 6

REQUEST #1 – Defer Electric Rate Increase to 8/1 ▪ Direct Effect: Reduces Electric Revenue by $900k ▪ Action Required: Reduce Electric Expenses by $900k ▪ Proposed: Reduce Transfer to General Fund by $1M ($7M total) ▪ Result: Electric Fund Balanced FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 7

REQUEST #1 – Defer Electric Rate Increase to 8/1 ▪ Side Effect: Reduces General Fund Revenue by $1M ▪ Action Required: Reduce General Fund Expenses by $1M or Increase Revenue by $1M ▪ Proposed: Apply Remaining $1M from Garrison Land Sales to General Fund Revenue ($3M total) ▪ Result: General Fund Balanced (Revenue Reserve Policy Waiver Required) FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 8

REQUEST #2 – Reduce Property Tax Increase ▪ Direct Effect: Reducing Property Tax Increase from $0.04 to $0.03 Decreases General Fund Revenue by $350k ▪ Action Required: Reduce General Fund Expenses by $350k or Increase Revenue by $350k FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 9

REQUEST #2 – Reduce Property Tax Increase ▪ Proposed OPTION #1: Reduce General Fund Expenditures by $89k as 6 police officers cannot be fully hired for 3 months plus Increase General Fund Revenues by Increasing Sanitation Fees an Additional $2.00 per month ($4.00 total ($29.00/month)) Resulting in $283k Additional Revenue ▪ Result: General Fund Balanced (Revenue Reserve Policy Waiver Required) FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 10

REQUEST #2 – Reduce Property Tax Increase ▪ Proposed OPTION #2: Increase General Fund Revenues by Increasing Sanitation Fees an Additional $2.50 per month ($4.50 total ($29.50/month)) Resulting in $350k Additional Revenue ▪ Result: General Fund Balanced (Revenue Reserve Policy Waiver Required) FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 11

REQUEST #2 – Reduce Property Tax Increase ▪ Proposed OPTION #3: Defer $350k in Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements to Increase the Transfer to the General Fund Resulting in $350k Additional Revenue ▪ Result: General Fund Balanced (Revenue Reserve Policy Waiver Required) FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 12

Looking FY25 Forward OPERATING REVENUES = OPERATING EXPENSES FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 13

FY25 General Fund Concerns ▪ The FY24 Budget contains $3M in one-time land sale revenues. – Replacing this source of funds would equal a $0.085 property tax increase alone. ▪ The budget balance from FY23 is being used to balance the FY24 budget ($7M). These funds will not be available in FY25. – Replacing this source of funds would equal a $0.20 property tax increase alone. ▪ Creation of Stormwater Utility is imperative. ▪ Creation of Sanitation Enterprise Fund is imperative. ▪ Property Tax increase of some form will still be required. FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 14

FY25 All Fund Concerns ▪ FY24 Wage Study Increase ($4.2M) and FY24 FOP Increase ($2.2M) will continue into the future. ▪ Conservative estimate of an additional 3% increase anticipated for all groups going into FY25 and FY26. – FY25 personnel expenses projected to be $1.4M over FY24. – FY26 personnel expenses projected to be $1.5M over FY25. ▪ Expenditure increase will require rate, fee and/or tax increases. FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 15

Recommendation - Approval of the FY24 budget as presented, to be effective July 1, 2023 is recommended. FY24 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 6/22/2023 16

FY24 BUDGET DISCUSSION - SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING EXHIBIT # 2 Special Council Meeting of 6/22/2023 FY24 GENERAL FUND BEGINNING BALANCE 8,666,900.00 DEPARTMENT EXPENSES We are projecting $31M in Receipts this year. CITY CLERK 414,200.00 This is the total Personnel and Operating expense for RECEIPTS COUNCIL 260,000.00 the General Fund. FINES AND POLICE REVENUE 521,600.00 This includes $3M in one-time land sales, that are TAX ASSESSOR - by no means guaranteed. This is basically offset by the $31M in Receipts, the LIBRARY REVENUES 122,200.00 PLANNING 822,500.00 $6M in Interfund Transfers (from KENT COUNTY BOOK REIMBURSEMENT - Property Tax amount includes $1.4M increase, CITY MANAGER 1,300,100.00 Elec/Water/Wastewater) and $11.9M Transfers-in BUSINESS LICENSES 1,400,000.00 based on a .04 cent increase (per $100/value). HUMAN RESOURCES 501,300.00 (again, mostly Elec./Water/Wastewater). PERMITS AND OTHER FEES 1,702,000.00 MAYOR 245,200.00 Also keep in mind the, one-time, $3M land sale is part Kent County Book reimbursement usually $100k - MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 3,139,000.00 FIRE 851,600.00 of the proposed revenue total. $250k, is blank this year based on a newly POLICE EXTRA DUTY 240,000.00 proposed County Library Tax (this ranges from 0 LIFE SAFETY 690,600.00 PROPERTY TAXES 17,477,700.00 to (maybe) $150k) -- still up in the air at this CODE ENFORCEMENT 1,173,600.00 Add all of this up and you have basically $3M to cover point. everything else: Retirees, Capital Projects, Debt RECREATION REVENUE 126,500.00 INSPECTIONS 800,800.00 Service, etc. FRANCHISE FEE 610,000.00 POLICE 21,550,900.00 This overall total is slightly larger than what we SANITATION FEES 3,842,400.00 usually propose -- again, one-time land sale is POLICE EXTRA DUTY 405,000.00 This is why although the budget seems balanced we RENT REVENUE - GARRISON FARM 117,000.00 boosting totals -- this money will not be included PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 646,900.00 are using much of our built up 'capital' in the in FY25. Beginnning Budget balance...this can't continue COURT OF CHANCERY FEES 1,750,000.00 STREETS 768,600.00 beyond this year. INVESTMENT INCOME 200,000.00 SANITATION 3,060,100.00 RECEIPTS SUBTOTAL 31,248,400.00 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 1,741,100.00 STORMWATER 906,400.00 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 822,100.00 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS GENERAL GOV 1,538,600.00 This $6M is a direct transfer from Water, PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 279,300.00 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS PUBLIC WORKS 697,100.00 Wastewater, and Electric…over and above the LIBRARY 2,040,700.00 $8M (electric) and $1M (water/wastewater). INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS CENT SRVCS 989,800.00 This covers all of our Administrative expenses. RECREATION 1,549,600.00 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS FIN ADMIN 3,010,900.00 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY 868,100.00 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS SUBTOTAL 6,236,400.00 FLEET MAINTENANCE 1,078,600.00 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 879,600.00 GRANTS: FINANCE 1,022,300.00 POLICE EXTRA DUTY 165,000.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 1,417,500.00 POLICE GRANTS FUND - These amounts are offset (pass through) with DEPARTMENT SUBTOTALS 46,096,700.00 POLICE PENSION GRANT 620,000.00 equal expense amounts or offset O/T payroll costs GREEN ENERGY GRANT 98,500.00 for the Police Department. OTHER EXPENSES MISC FED GRANT REVENUE - DEBT SERVICE 630,700.00 These are expenses that fund retirees pensions, debt MISC STATE GRANT REVENUE - CONTRIBUTION TO DDP 200,000.00 service, insurance, street light expense, etc. GRANTS SUBTOTAL 883,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANT RELATED EXP - INSURANCE 970,000.00 TRANSFERS FROM: RETIREES PENSION 2,548,000.00 TRANSFER TAX 2,000,000.00 Besides receipts this is the other large revenue OTHER EMPLOYMENT EXPENSES - MUNICIPAL STREET AID 750,000.00 producer, again $9M of this comes directly from BANK & CREDIT CARD FEES 32,000.00 Electric and Water/Wastewater. CIVIL TRAFFIC PENALTIES 150,000.00 UNCOLLECTIBLES - TRASH AND OTHER - WATER/WASTEWATER 1,000,000.00 STREET LIGHTS 850,000.00 ELECTRIC 8,000,000.00 EMERGENCY STORM EXPENSE - OTHER RESERVES - OTHER EXPENSE SUBTOTAL 5,230,700.00 TRANSFERS FROM SUBTOTAL 11,900,000.00 TRANSFERS TOTAL REVENUES, LESS BUDGET BALANCE 50,268,300.00 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUND - PROJECTS 2,920,100.00 Nearly $3M to fund capital projects and vehicles -- APPROP. TO THE POLICE PENSION FUND 350,800.00 this can only be cut back so far, before you have infrastructure problems, vehicle failures, etc. APPROP. POLICE PENSION - STATE GRANT 620,000.00 APPROP. TO TE GENERAL PENSION FUND 1,000,000.00 Currently, we have $5.6M proposed for FY24 -- this is TRANSFER TO ELECTRIC I & E FUND - $2.9M from the General Fund, $1.7 from a Line of TRANSFER TO ECONOMIC DEV. RESERVE 1,000,000.00 Credit (large vehicles), $588k in State Grants and $450k from the Lodging Tax. TRANSFER TO ELECTRIC FUND (ERP) 25,000.00 This is the true inequity in the fund. Basically the $7M difference is coming out of the budget balance, and that won't be there next year. TRANSFER TO INVENTORY RESERVE 25,000.00 TRANSFERS SUBTOTAL 5,940,900.00 This is projected to be all that's left at the start of FY25, unless we find new revenue streams or sharply TOTAL EXPENDITURES 57,268,300.00 curtail expenses... CURRENT YEAR BUDGET BALANCE 1,666,900.00 June 22, 2023