City Council - Regular Meeting

Music Playing

I still have it. Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, the room gets quiet.

All righty, we will, good afternoon, everybody. I will call this meeting to order at 4 p.m. Can I get a roll call, please? Council Member Fenn?

Here.

Council Member Lara?

Here.

Council Member Martinez?

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem White?

Here.

Mayor Boyd?

Here. All right. And to start us off today, we'll see if there's any public comment for this workshop.

I have no written request. Shannon, do we have any callers on the line?

We have no callers. All right. Then I will move us. Yeah, there's no Pledge of Allegiance. Let's do the Pledge of Allegiance to start us off with. Mayor Pro Tem White? Thank you, Council Member Martinez. All right. Well, then we'll jump on into our action items and go to item C1, our citywide budget and five-year capital improvement plan. And we will have a staff report by Lisa and the new city manager.

Thank you so much. I'm going to start off by first just saying how excited it is to be at my very first council meeting and a budget workshop. I was just commenting to Councilmember Fenn how this is actually one of my favorite times of the year. I'm kind of weird like that. So it's, I'm really proud of the work staff's done in the nine days I've been here. They've done a great job getting me up to speed and, you know, helping me, helping all my address all my questions with the budget. So the way we're going to format this tonight is Lisa is going to provide you with a brief recap of your last budget workshop that you held. After that, I'm going to provide you with some comments and perspective that I've observed in the budget and some thoughts for going forward. And then Lisa is going to go over the questions you had from your last budget workshop and the answer to those questions, followed by some adjustments we made at the end. So with that, I'll give it to Lisa to give you an overview.

All right. So this is our second workshop. And you can see this is a timeline of where we are at. And the staff's goal is to bring the final budget to council for adoption on June 16. In this workshop, we'll be providing a financial recap of the first budget workshop. We will go over council questions with responses, and finally, any adjustments. To start with the financial recap, the city's current available fund balance is 21 million, after meeting all reserve requirements. This balance keeps the city in a healthy, stable financial position moving forward. The fiscal year 2027 budget is proposing a surplus of 45,000, which includes enhancement requests and the addition of the ACO project manager, as presented at the April 28th budget workshop. This slide is a summary of the enhancement requests presented at the first budget workshop. This includes finance department's fee study request, IT cybersecurity grant match, community development code and building and safety software, police's Peregrine software, and facilities maintenance on-call services. A final recap from the first budget workshop shows a list of 13 new capital improvement items. The grace building has not been included in the proposed budget and will be brought back to council at a future date.

Okay, this is where I jump in. So first off tonight, I just wanna begin by recognizing the work that has gone into maintaining the city's financial position over the past several years. Overall, Beaumont remains in a very strong financial position. We currently have a total fund balance of 53.6 million. Of that, approximately 29 million Actually, about 30 is committed to reserves and other obligations, while approximately 21 million remains unassigned and available for future programming and strategic priorities. That is a significant accomplishment for and reflects years of fiscally prudent decision making by this council and prior councils. It also gives this organization stability, flexibility, and the ability to continue moving important projects forward. At the same time, I think it's important that we acknowledge some broader trends that are emerging in the budget. Over the last three fiscal years, the city has underspent its budget by more than $6 million annually. To me, that's an indicator and tells us something important. It suggests that as an organization, we may be budgeting for more projects and initiatives than we currently have the operational capacity to deliver. That does not necessarily mean the goals are wrong. In many cases, the goals are absolutely the right goals. But it does raise an important policy question moving forward, and that's do we need to better align our spending plans with realistic delivery capacity, or do we need to continue growing the organization to match the expectations and needs of what's been budgeted and the community? That is a conversation that I think we'll continue to have over the next several years. Another important reality is that while the city is financially stable today, our current revenue structure is not sufficient to address some important major long-term capital needs facing this community. When we talk about projects like a new police station, future fire facilities, major infrastructure investments, and the broader long-term needs of facilities, including animal services and other operational infrastructure, those are projects that exceed what our existing revenues can sustainably support today. That brings us to a discussion regarding a potential sales tax measure. As the council knows, staff has begun early discussions regarding the possibility of a local sales tax measure in 2026. We conducted an initial public opinion poll in June of 2025, and this year we have begun limited public education and outreach efforts. Typically, however, a process like this involves several major phases. First, the city identifies and prioritizes its long-term needs and develops a clear understanding of the projects and service levels the community expects. Second, there is usually a significant public outreach and education effort, not campaigning but community engagement, to help residents understand the city's financial realities, needs, and priorities. Third, agencies typically conduct statistically valid polling to test voter sentiment and evaluate whether the community understands and supports the proposed direction. Then, based on that feedback, the city refines its messaging, identifies priorities, and ultimately decides whether to proceed with placing a measure before the voters. At this point, we have begun limited public education efforts and are now approaching the polling stage. However, I do not yet believe we have fully developed a clear long-term message regarding our future needs or fully aligned on the specific priorities we want the community to invest in. I also believe there is still additional work to do in helping the public understand the scale and timing of some of our long-term infrastructure needs. For example, even if the city decided today to aggressively pursue a new police station, that project would still likely take two years before it becomes truly shovel-ready, potentially longer. There is still planning, environmental work, design, land considerations, and financing strategy that needs to occur. That does not mean that we should stop moving forward. In fact, I fully expect staff to continue bringing actions forward in the coming months to advance those discussions and position the city for success in the future. And if the Council's direction is to move forward aggressively towards a 2026 measure, staff will absolutely put everything we have into that effort. At the same time, one of the advantages of Beaumont's current financial position is that we are not operating from a place of crisis. We do have reserves, we have financial stability, and we do have the ability to be thoughtful and strategic about how we approach major long-term funding decisions. If the council would like, staff can continue evaluating the city's long-term operational and capital needs, project revenues, and potential funding strategies, and bring back recommendations for further discussions at a future meeting, likely in the fall or winter of next year. That would also provide additional time to refine priorities continue public engagement, and ensure the city is approaching these decisions strategically and with a long-term clear vision. Ultimately, this is a policy discussion for the City Council, but I believe it is important tonight to frame both the strengths of our current financial position and the realities of the long-term challenges in meeting some of these goals. I appreciate the Council's continued fiscal prudence and look forward to working together on these important conversations in the coming months ahead.

Thank you for that. I can imagine on day nine showing up, trying to process through a lot of this, and I know that there was a lot of homework that went into that as well. You know, just to kind of recap in my mind some of the important things that I heard from you are kind of the three phases. I heard number one was a long-term plan. Number two was the outreach and education component of this potential sales tax measure and then polling and continuing to look at it in that perspective. I too agree with you that, you know, when I've been thinking about this sales tax measure over the last couple months and turning through it, you know, the police station continues to be a high priority for us, obviously. as public safety is really an important component. But as you mentioned, there are other infrastructure things and items that need to be added in that also bring along large ticket items. And I think ensuring that we are well thought out in this measure, from my perspective, is truly where we kind of need to head. It seems like we've kind of jumped to number two and three when I feel like maybe there's the importance of going back to number one with kind of a long-term plan. So I'll open it up to council. Those are just kind of some of my thoughts right now. Are there any other comments at this time that council would like to weigh in on? Council Member Lara.

Thank you, Mayor. So I agree with the Mayor as well as what you're stating as far as the long-term plan goes. Would that long-term plan, which you're envisioning, would that long-term plan include like a master facilities plan? Because we really kind of have to outline that as well, I think, because that's going to be very important for the need of office space, perhaps another fire station. This is in addition to the police station. I know that We also have a transportation yard, maintenance yard that we're trying to get scored away. So I think having a master facilities plan would be helpful as well.

Thank you, Council Member Lora. As the council is aware, Beaumont has been one of the fastest growing communities in the nation at times for quite some time. And the organization has grown at a pace that I would say has done its best to keep up with that amongst various challenges throughout the years. But absolutely, I believe that a holistic view of all of the facility needs is necessary, especially in the context of looking at things like a tax measure. So I've actually already spoken with our public works director. There's currently a line item already budgeted and included in the budget for a long-term plan for the 30-acre property where the police station resides, that there's sufficient funding already aside within that budget line to change that over to a citywide facilities master plan. So I've already instructed him to move forward with doing an RFP to do just that.

Thank you. That's all I have, Mayor.

Council Member Fenn.

Yes, thank you. Welcome, Chris. You made a comment about budgeting for things like CIP projects as to the time frame as to when we would expect them to be done. And I know sometimes that we need to put money towards a project, maybe it's environmental work, maybe it's design or whatever that needs to be happening through that approval process and budget process with it. Is there anything that stood out in your mind that's something that we may have put in the budget for the CIP portion that maybe does not need to be there this coming fiscal year because of maybe work that wouldn't be done in that timeframe or has staff gone through that and it's pretty dialed in?

No, I've gone through that and I feel everything is currently included in the budget is appropriate and should be included. There was some items I did move, which I'm getting a little ahead of the presentation. But, you know, for one example that was already mentioned is the Gray Street building. I'll be bringing back a separate agenda item for that. But in terms of the CIPs that are in the budget, I feel like they're all timely and appropriate.

Okay, thank you. I'm good for now.

Council Member White? I'm sorry, Mayor Pro Tem White.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Boyd. So if the plan is to get the fire station, I'm sorry, police station ready, shovel ready, And we need that time, and you're suggesting that that time can be used as opposed to running to a tax measure at this point. Do we have the budget that we need planned to get the police department shovel ready? In other words, design and everything else that we might need for that?

Yeah, there's already $5 million that have been set aside for that purpose, and that is sufficient to move forward with construction drawings. Whether or not it's sufficient in its entirety, I can't tell you that quite yet, but it's probably pretty close, if not fully sufficient.

Okay, thank you.

All right. Council Member Lara?

Thank you, Mayor. One more thing. In addition to that, there is a road I think of the extension of Elm Elm Street extension that would be a part of that development I just wondered if we had money in the budget to maybe begin design on that because I I think that that's gonna be a critical part of circulation for our police officers.

Yeah, we'll definitely include the design of that circulation element in the plans. And then obviously when we go out for funding, for financing, we'll look at that and look at our various sources and determine what's the best path to address whatever circulation needs coincide with the development.

Thank you. All right, anything further? Do we feel strongly that this is something we can continue to work towards? Or I guess I'm kind of looking for a direction as we move forward as to whether or not the council has an appetite to push for this really tight timeline, or if we're comfortable with continuing on as we are with the education campaign, developing a long-term plan, but not pulling the discussion off of the table. Council Member Martinez?

Yeah, so I had some conflicting thoughts about whether going forward and trying something at 26 would be better than putting all our eggs in 28. And it was a significant thought because I was afraid that if we waited longer, and we didn't have the opportunity in 28, then you're looking at 30. And at that time, if you remember the chart that we looked at, we're already starting to hit there. So that was my significant thought about waiting. However, the more I think about it and the more that I criticize other agencies for not having a the best messaging when they go out for public support on these things. I think it would be hypocritical to myself if I didn't go back and look at our messages and say, yeah, we didn't probably have the best message out there ourselves. And I think that would be worth the time to sit and really package it well. do the outreach and we're not too early. I mean we're starting now and that time will be here before we know it. So by putting the effort into that campaign of getting public awareness and so forth, it also gives us time to start to look at this plan and what else could be needed because there are things that we know we need but I don't know if we've really put it into the thoughts of what a sales tax initiative increase would do. So it gives us time to look at that and do it right. And, you know, again, I weigh that. Do we put all our eggs in that and just hope it works? And I think it can with the right messaging, and I think the public will be very supportive when they see the needs and where that would be going. It's just a part of me that, you know, I don't like to gamble, so it's like I don't know, you know, what's going to happen in 2028, you know, and how that's going to look. And many factors can come up where people, you know, especially if there's other agencies that are going for, you know, bonds and that kind of stuff where you have the voters say, you know, something. There's just too many asks of us. We're just going to say no down the line. That's what I'm afraid of as well. So, you know, I had a difficult time trying to figure out should we at least try a good effort and do what we can. And if it passes, then great. That's what we want. And then we can go from there. Kind of a backwards type of thinking. But then on the other hand, when I know Council Member Mayor Pro Tem White had brought up the you know, well, maybe we should look at different increments. And then I thought to myself, well, if we're going to do this, we probably need to do it one time and not do something low and then come back and ask another few years for another, you know. So looking at it that way, I think it probably would be better. I would be more supportive in getting everything planned for 28, just knowing that we're taking a risk because of Climate, you know, whatever's going on around us. The fact that we might have several agencies going after something that year. And, you know, all we can do is hope that we have the right messaging and the right outreach in order to let the public know our needs.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Council Member Lara, anything further?

Yeah. I think waiting would give us a more concrete idea of the facilities and dollar amounts that are needed. I think if we went too soon, I know we have a general idea of the facilities that are needed, but I haven't seen any dollars attached to those ideas yet. So I think... Well, and let me ask you, in your experience, do you see or have you seen that maybe having a general idea versus a better, more concrete idea of actual facilities and dollar amounts associated with those facilities have a better chance of, I know you can't guarantee anything, obviously, but percentage-wise, do you think it's, voters have a tendency to, if they know what they're going to get for their, so bang for their buck, so to speak?

Yeah, so one thing that's well established in this realm is that the number one reason why cities and counties and different agencies fail at tax measures is not having a clear and concise enough education campaign and rushing it too fast, and also not having the tax measure associated with results that matter to the voters, that resonate with the voters. So by by taking some time to go and identify what those needs are, what needs are really important to the voters, and then to your point, putting dollar amounts to those needs and understanding the full cost, not only do I believe that'll help sell it to the public, but I think it'll also give a council a better understanding of where do we need to go with the tax increase. Is it a half cent or three quarters of a cent? So all that helps the staff, I think, better inform the council And I think it gives a much clearer picture and more trust, you know, when the voters actually go to make a decision.

Yeah, I would support waiting, Mayor.

Okay. Okay. So do we have any opposition to holding off? I mean, to not holding off. Let's correct that. Yeah, but not opposition.

Okay.

Okay, so it sounds like we will continue to develop and refine, get the facilities assessment completed so that we can make truly informed decisions when it comes to what we need from a more holistic period or point of view, excuse me. All right, we will hand it over back to Lisa.

Sorry. We're gonna pick up from the questions raised during the April 28th budget workshop which consisted of, number one, what is the percentage that planning is recovering from their fees? When and how much will the city receive after payment of the WRCOG settlement through Measure A funds? How much is the city council budget for sponsorships? What is the cost of additional health and benefit options for city council members? And then what does the long-term fiscal forecast look like for the 0.5%, 0.75%, and 1% sales tax scenarios? So planning is at 93% of costs and we'll bring back as a separate item to City Council and this will be separate from the budget as well. Measure A additional funds after payment of the WRCOG settlement is projected to be 1.6 million starting in fiscal year end 2030. These funds will be freed up for the restricted purpose of road improvements, allowing us to strengthen and expand the overall repayment program. The answers to questions 3, 4, and 5, I'm going to move to additional slides. So before you is the list of budgeted sponsorships from the city council department that includes one time and ongoing. So I thought I would pause here in case you have any questions on this list.

You know, Lisa, I did have one question on this list. I have written down in my notes previously that the chamber state of the city payment was actually $30,000. Do we recall? I forgot to ask for clarification on that, but.

Yeah, I believe it is 30. I think it was 30.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure to highlight that. I forgot to point that out.

That might have been a difference between what was budgeted and what actually was spent. I don't have the background, but I'm making an assumption.

Yeah, I think we broke even as far as I understand from the event. So I don't know. Okay. So I think it's just potentially a typo on there.

So may I jump in on that one? Yeah, please do. I'm not sure that it really matters how much it costs to us I think it matters how much they're losing if you look at it that way but I think we might be better off in the future if we had some MOU some kind of something written down between us in the chamber so they you know and maybe we do it on a Temporary three-year four-year five-year basis something like that so that we have a way to say, you know We need to change this for one reason or another So mayor Pro Tem am I hearing to maybe bring back an item related to that with a potential MOU between us and them What I'm saying makes sense

Yeah, I mean, I think there's merit in that. Staff is also reviewing the policy for donations and sponsorships. I'm actually going to be reviewing that next week. So that's something I can also evaluate in the context of looking at that overall policy.

So from a budgeting perspective, as we sit right here, if this was to move forward within the budget, are we acceptable with this?

If we change it to $30,000. We'll reflect that. Okay.

Anybody else want to discuss any of the other ones on here?

Yeah, I got a couple of things. Sure. So because one of my questions had to do with the policy, so thank you for that, looking into. So just to be clear, then, if we go forward with what's on this list, because let's just call it a grandfather thing that we've been doing. And then our policy comes back and redefines that perhaps we're overstretching the public need, whatever definition we talk about that during our discussion. People on here should know, the agency should know that there could be some revisions in the future. So it's not necessarily that everything on here is going to be the same every year, both in dollar amount and who they are. Because there are some concerns I have up here as far as organizations that I might question. Okay, I didn't realize that they were on there. And... Only because the precedent that we could be setting. So you put some organizations on here and a like organization comes up and says, how come not us? I don't want to be in that position. And that's why the policy is so important to have a definition of what the public funds, you know, what... What's our intention of supporting and we had a little discussion about this before just slightly so I'm okay with what's on the list going forward Because there would be no reason to pull something off the list without discussing policy and why? but moving forward with that disclaimer that this could be adjusted based on whatever that policy comes out to be and

And to be clear, this is just how much money you're reserving for a potential expenditure. It's not an authorization of the expenditure. So those are two different things. And certainly in the policy, you know, we'll all look at how those things are authorized as well as, you know, establishing a clear public benefit and that type of thing.

Yeah, and I make that because this is public record. So when people start seeing this, if those adjustments are made, I want to make sure that they understand that. So even though this is a number we're looking at and not necessarily those, it really is.

But I appreciate that. Council Member Martinez, and there was a talk before about there's a portion that was going to be set aside for the city manager to have the... Determination on that so as this policy gets developed based on your direction There will be a smaller area to be able to say this is how much a city manager can Account for if there are any others that come in for requests that are not on the list Okay, and that's a discussion in itself too because perhaps that could lead us into an issue as well.

So, okay.

Thank you councilmember Fenn

Yes, and question on the same topic then. So then anything that would fall within that, Gus, would then be part of the $228,000 that's budgeted, correct? That is correct. Okay, thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Yeah, I have two concerns. The Thrive Church backpacks. The original contribution that we made to that effort was a couple years ago, and it was primarily to support a program that was, I think, primarily banning school district. And I've had conversations with the pastor, I forget the gentleman's name right now, and suggested that if we continue to be a part of this, that we should expanded to be Beaumont as well, obviously. In case you aren't familiar with that, they give out backpacks and writing implements and stuff like that to kids at the start of the school year. I don't know that that's open to Beaumont students at this point. And my feeling from my discussions with the pastor was that they would have no problem expanding it to Beaumont, or we could find another like organization in Beaumont that we could also contribute to that feature.

One option, if the council would like to consider it, is instead of having these expenditures individually lined up in the way that you see it, just create one single line item for sponsorships and donations. And that way you're reserving the money, but you're not projecting an approval of any specific event or dollar amount secured to that. And then we'll bring a policy back to you, and then that will define how those things are authorized going forward.

Okay. And then my other concern was under the major events and city-supported initiatives. Earlier this year, we were considering with the LPGA event going from $10,000 a year to $100,000 a year. And the discussion at that time was it was too close to budget time, and we couldn't really make that kind of commitment going forward. So we all agreed to do the $40,000 event. And I think that that was very helpful in bringing more people to the destination, what we're calling our destination event. But I think if we were to become more equal slash full partners with Morongo, and their commitment is 100,000, that the package that we talked about when we were considering 100 versus 40, I think would bring a lot more awareness to the event. This year we had one team of high school golfers who came out and played. My understanding is that one of the girls got closest to the pin, actually. But I could envision something Mike and I talked about when just brainstorming last year was the idea of working with the school district to sponsor some kind of tournament where the winners of that tournament qualify to be in our event. But I think anything that we can do to raise awareness, we did a lot more advertising this year. And the turnout, I mean, the weather was okay, but the turnout was still a little bit lower than what it could possibly be. So, you know, I would like to have a further discussion on whether that 40,000 is the right way to go. You know, my thought is if we went from 10,000 to 40,000 and we picked up a little bit of awareness but not a whole lot, then my thought would be go with 10,000 or go 100,000. In other words, if the 40,000 didn't bring us that much more of what we were looking for, we did get more participation from an additional city this year. We could also do it in a way that I think there's, what is it, 1,500 for the, No, where is it? The Canyon Lakes thing? Canyon Lakes Battle of the City, that's what they're doing. They have a golf tournament, and that's what that $1,000 is for, is so that we can send a team to that.

My thought on the LGBA $40,000 is that either we look at going to $100,000 or incrementing up to $100,000 over the years,

or that we just decide to stick back with the 10,000. That's my thoughts on that item.

Well, and similarly, just giving you options to what I just mentioned a moment ago, if you're not sure about that and we want to put more thought into that discussion, we could increase the council's budget line to just, you know, $278,000, and that would add the extra $60,000. And then, again, you can make these decisions throughout the year. And if there's unspent monies, it would just be rebudgeted into the fund next fiscal year.

Thoughts on that? I'm okay with that. My thoughts were actually make the budget line item like 300 and then bring it back to whatever. But that's just because I like round even numbers.

That would work. Sorry.

Council Member Martinez? Can you hear them growling?

Yes, I can hear them. So I would be okay with increasing the whole total to have more discussion. This way we don't have to worry about adding. We can always subtract and reallocate. I'd be there. I'm not sold on the $100,000 yet. I kind of like an incremental thing maybe. I just, when it comes to discussing the sale tax increase, it's hard for me to spend big numbers like that because I don't know, I don't believe it's fair to the public. But we can discuss. We can see what we're going to get for that. And if I can feel comfortable knowing that the public would support that, then I would entertain that. But I do like the idea of doing a number that's increased. We work around that. And then we can do what we want but rather than add so I don't like surprises. I don't want to add stuff later.

So Councilmember Lara Yeah, the only I agree that definitely would need to discuss that further and whether we do incrementally or whether we just go back to the 10,000 I really would like to kind of see The value in that After that tournament or even before the tournament you went onto the websites. I didn't see anything with the city of Beaumont logo on the websites and So that was a little disappointing. But so that if we do, if we add the 50,000, like you're saying, then we don't have any more money to spend because we only have 45. So we're already over our limit, which.

We can look at, I'll bring you back a balanced budget. So what I would recommend if you're interested in this is adjust it to 300,000 and then we'll adjust the budget as needed to make sure it's balanced. That's close enough that I'm confident we can do that.

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

I believe in him, by the way. Council Member Finn?

I appreciate the comments that were made, but I'd prefer to keep it at the 228, what's budgeted here.

Okay. Mayor Pro Tem?

Yeah, I'm thinking whether I should say anything or not. Okay.

Okay. So now we have a discussion about leaving it the same or growing it. I heard a 50 over here. I feel like I'm an auctioneer today. So I hear a 50 over here. I hear leaving it the same. I personally am OK with taking it up to the 300 and presenting with a balanced budget so that we can continue to give back to the community. But that's just me at this point. Councilmember Martinez?

Now that I think about it more, and it dawned on me when Councilmember Lara brought it up and then Councilmember Finn, I'd be more comfortable with putting the difference just on the 38 that we have extra. so that we don't have to pull it out of anywhere else because obviously something is going to be sacrificed for it. So I would change my support instead of putting up to three and just adding the, was it 38 that we have right now?

Forty-five. Forty-something. Forty-five, I think.

I wouldn't mind. I can put that to that, and this way we know that nothing has to be changed. And we still have the option of reducing that or moving that around. So that's not a set thing, but at least it's a placer and everything. That's my position.

Council Member Finn, would you be all right with that?

So we're not going to 300 with your recommendation? No. It's the 40 for the LPG. No, the surplus funds.

So the surplus funds. We haven't got to it yet, I don't think, on the...

Which was the comment earlier when he said it was about 47. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

We good with that?

No.

I am ready to speak now. Well, it's my turn. But you were asking me, right? I did, absolutely. So I didn't know if I should relate this to you guys, but I might as well. I had a meeting about a week or two ago with Chairman Martin and one of the council members. And I discussed this with them, and they told me that I suggested that we could make it a bigger, better event. And that elicited from them a response that, yeah, we're excited about it. One of the problems our golf course has, if you played it, our sand traps are not really sand traps. They're cement traps. But it's extremely expensive to replace a sand trap. And they said they're going to start making those. They already have one plan. They're going to start working through that. I'm OK with your suggestion of going 40,000. in my mind and well and this is why i didn't really want to say it's night we'll discuss it in the future in my mind i think we would get more bang for our buck if we did a hundred thousand to the gulf and forty thousand to cherry festival I mean, if our goal with the Cherry Festival is to get it to the point where they are self-funded, which I don't know that that will ever happen, but if that's our goal, then I think we'd get a better response by doing the... doing the golf. But again, I know that's for future discussion. So that's why I really didn't want to bring it up. But just to give you a concept, I'm okay with adding the 40,000 to the bottom line. Um, and then we'll have that future discussion consensus.

Any opposition to the 40 is still a no.

So, I'm sorry, for clarification, are we doing the 40 or the 45?

45.

45, okay.

I just want to make sure. Now, may I? Sorry.

It's a discussion. Please go for it.

So, we haven't heard the rest of the presentation yet, so I'm not sure if there's something coming up yet from staff's input. So, I would like to maybe bring this back until the end of that discussion, and then we can make that decision.

Are we okay with that? Okay. All right. Moving on.

OK, so presented before you is an enhancement request for health benefits for city council. And I'm actually going to, if you have questions on this slide, I would pass this off to Kerry.

Just a quick comment. I'm sorry, Mayor.

No. We are in a workshop discussion, please. I'm OK with that.

Thank you. This was a request of the process. And I was not requesting a budget enhancement at this point. I did want people to, I wanted to review this and discuss this. I just didn't want anyone to think that we're like, yeah, we want more money. But yeah, we want more money.

Well, yeah, your specific request, and thank you for bringing that up, was to see what other cities were doing. So that's the poll you saw, and then we just included an average based on that polling on the bottom of what it would look like to give the council average benefits if every council member were to take the max. So, for example, if there was a council member who didn't take health for whatever reason, it would reduce the cost by approximately a fifth.

So to follow up on that, this 128 is the max. The maximum number of council members and the maximum number of benefits. Is there a scale of benefits? In other words, if all we wanted was maybe health insurance just for a council member or for a council member and their dependents, or when you bring up the word max for the benefits, I just want to know if there's a range.

Yeah, for that, I'll ask Kerry to come up and elaborate.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Yes, there is a range. Currently, the way the platform sits within the city is there's about four to five different choices based on an employee selection. They can spend up to that max. It's about $25,000 a year for a full family. So it could be anywhere from $1,000 per person up to about $2,000 for a family, if that makes sense.

It does.

And like the chart showed, I gave you like a worst-case, high-end scenario if everybody were to take everything, because as you can see by the chart, there's long-term disability, there's short-term disability, life insurance, there's even CalPERS, cities that offer CalPERS benefits. So that was just kind of a good average to show you what it would add to the budget if everybody were to take the max.

And you may not know the answer to this question, but... So you have two retirement options. Correct. Actuals here, FICA Social Security and CalPERS. Are they about the same, the amount? Or is CalPERS a longer term?

Assuming, yeah, CalPERS is what they consider a defined benefit, right? So it's... in perpetuity. So after you're vested, after you've spent five years, it's a, it's a lifetime benefit. It becomes a lifetime benefit or your FICA or your social security is longterm. But what you guys currently participate in is what we call a FICA, which is a 401 contribution. So it's not a defined country contribution. It won't, when the money runs out, the money runs out, basically it won't continue. So there's a difference. And then assuming most of you would be pepper members. If you did, if we did change the plan and enroll, then the percent is about the same as to what you're paying right now into your FICA and your Social Security.

For what I was asking about, FICA, Social Security makes more sense, as opposed to long-term commitment.

Councilmember Fenn?

Yes, thank you. Carrie, so is there a dollar credit given to the employee, or is it a percentage based on the employer, the city pays for, let's say, 50%, and the employee pays the other half, or how does that work to the individual?

Individuals are given a max. They can spend up to $21.44 a month, and they can spend up to that max on a monthly basis.

So if this was approved for the council, if the council decided to go for max, that same $2100 would apply, correct?

in theory, but we could structure it however the council saw fit. To Mayor Pro Tem's point, if he just wants it to be the council member, that's a policy discussion, policy decision. We would craft the resolution defining benefits, because if you recall, we talked about it last time, prior there was nothing in writing showing what council was eligible for.

Yeah, it'd have to come back, I'd assume, as a resolution or ordinance or something along those lines. Correct.

Thank you, yes, I wanted to add that. So if this is something the council's interested in, there's basically two choices. We can either budget money now for it so it's available, and then we'd still need to bring you future actions back so you can actually talk about how it's gonna look and ultimately approve a resolution. Or you can appropriate money at the time you actually approve something once we quantify it. Either way, it will take additional future council actions and discussion.

And then just to confirm, then this is all five council members at that $2,100 max?

Correct.

Thank you.

Yeah. Council Member Martinez.

I know that the legal's not here, so I'm not sure. Does this fall into the same thing as like a pay raise where you have to wait until your term's over before you can take advantage of it? No. No. All right.

Any other thoughts on this, Council Member O'Lara?

Yeah. I thought when we were at Procter & White, when you were discussing this, it would be something that we would pay into. You just wanted to see if it would be offered? Or did I hear that correctly?

Well, that was my, at the minimum, is give us an option to be able to buy insurance for our family members and ourselves. Right. Thanks, Mike. I lost my train of thought. Sorry. I had a good question, too. I think what Council Member Finn brought up was the fact that with the pay, or maybe it was Martinez, maybe it wouldn't take effect until the next election. I think that that is the way the pay raise works. And in the past, and one reason I think Mike and I wanted to end this was in the past what happened is if you had insurance through your employer then you would get that $2,100 a month put into your retirement account. And that, we felt, and I still feel, it does not make sense. It's not the right thing. If you choose your own employer, you shouldn't benefit financially from that. And then you have council members leaving with $80,000 in the bank that I think was unnecessary. So I wanted to bring that up.

No, and I agree with you. Mayor Pro Tem White. So this will come back for a discussion and we don't have to decide anything tonight?

No, we can bring it back as a future item and you can appropriate at the time if and when you approve a policy.

Are we good with that? Okay. We'll do that. Thank you, by the way, to staff for bringing us what is out there as well. I appreciate the research done.

Okay, so this visual model helps the council evaluate the tradeoffs between different tax rate levels. The bars reflect the 10-year projected general fund expenses. The green line, which you can kind of barely see under the orange line, that's our baseline revenues for fiscal year 27 budget. The orange shows revenues with the Regency project starting in fiscal year 28. We also highlighted with a red dot when the PD station debt service payment increases the overall general fund expenses. And then the dark green represents a sales tax rate at 0.5%. The blue is at 0.75%. And the purple is 1%. So while all three options generate new revenue, the 1% rate provides the greatest fiscal capacity. The 0.75 rate offers a mid-range option and it will affect fund balance by fiscal year 36. And then the 0.5 rate provides modest increase with the least impact on consumers and will affect fund balance by fiscal year 32. So the chart allows us just to compare these outcomes at a glance.

Anybody have any questions on this? Yeah, Council Member Martinez.

Thank you. As we said in our last workshop, that is taking into consideration debt service for a police station.

Yeah, that's the big operative here. As you see on the red where the blue line spikes, and that's where you really see expenses exceeding revenue, that is the point in time we start making that debt service payment. So that is the driver, that's the main driver of that delta.

And that doesn't include anything that we find from our analysis study of facilities that we might need that that obviously could will go in effect okay and that was important to me because as we speak more about needs and whatever that may be um that seems reasonable but we don't know how that's going to look with that consideration okay thank you mayor pro tem

SORT OF THE SAME QUESTION, BUT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY DEBT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORRECT, RIGHT, AT THIS POINT? SO THAT'S JUST PROJECTED DEBT SERVICE. CORRECT. GOT IT. OKAY.

COUNCILMEMBER PENN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE PROJECTIONS FOR THE REVENUES ON THE POTENTIAL SALES TAX INCREASE, WE CAN SEE OBVIOUSLY IT'S GROWING OVER TIME. IS THAT JUST BASED OFF ESTIMATES OF POPULATION GROWTH, OR IS THAT ALSO ACCOUNTING FOR THE future or potential other income generating or revenue generating businesses, you know, and so forth as we continue to develop out the city that we'd get more sales tax generating businesses and so forth. Does that account for both or just the one?

It kind of starts with your baseline. So it doesn't include anything that might come into the future.

Okay. So if we had no more, I'll call economic growth, then we would expect that. If we got more, we can expect higher revenues from it. Okay.

Just one point of clarification. The orange line here does take into account the Regency Center and what is protected.

I'm thinking beyond that.

But just so there is one built in there, but otherwise the baseline. Okay.

This is a very long-term outlook. A lot of cities really operate off, you know, more very commonly even six-year outlooks because so much changes over time with revenues and expenses. So, you know, to your point, and even the next two years, we'll have an opportunity to really look at other factors as well.

Okay. And if we had a recession in between, then those, we could see a dip in a recovery period and so forth.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Anything further up here? Okay. Okay.

And then following up on the wastewater recap, the fiscal year 2027 proposed balanced budget includes the collections position as the department is dealing with an increased workload. The workload comes from the addition of the 23-mile brine line and two lift stations that are scheduled to be contributed to the city. The collection members have on-call responsibility of 365 days a year. Future plans include three additional lift stations for the collections team to maintain. And then this last slide of the 1.3 million in personnel requests. Most items are scheduled for mid-year review to ensure they align with updated revenues and operation needs. However, the ACO project manager position has been included in the budget due to its critical role in establishing operational readiness for the animal control shelter. and any future personnel requests will be reviewed during the mid-year budget process.

Okay, great. Thank you for that and for the thought into Both of those. My feelings as we were moving forward through the last budget was that we hold off until the mid-year budget process. So I appreciate kind of confirmation on some of that. And I do think that the manager position, that ball has essentially already started rolling. So I think for continuity and continue that project, it is necessary at this point, at least from my perspective. Mayor Pro Tem.

One last comment. If you want to get some laughs, go back to the 2015 budget discussion. We were given a single page to evaluate our budget, so.

I might take you up on that and watch it.

So thank you for your presentation, Lisa, and to all of the staff that has put in a lot of work for this. I do think that we need to bring back the sponsorship discussion after hearing the rest of it. But before we do that, are there any other questions or anything else from this budget workshop with regards to what's been presented? Okay, so now the question lingers. Do we want to add in the 45? Do we want to leave it at the 228? And at least what's line item now and wait for the policy to come back at which time we can make further decisions? And I saw Council Member Finn.

Thank you. Since I was a no on this, I want to... Excuse me, explain why. So one, to get the policy back, and then two, I want to feel a little bit more comfortable on the tangible benefits that are coming back from these sponsorships. I know sometimes that we do that. It's a good warm fuzzy to say, hey, we helped out. I understand, and I see the impact with the golf tournaments and so forth, but I want to see a little bit more to feel comfortable in putting a bigger dollar amount towards that.

Okay. Mayor Pro Tem White?

I just wanted to sort of add to that. Yeah, I'm in favor of adding, obviously, the surplus onto this item, and then we can budget later. And again, I think we don't need to jump to $100,000. I think if we just showed, if we go incrementally and then we look at if it makes a difference. And I think anything that we can show both Morongo as well as the tournament that we are interested in continuing to increase our support. So again, future item discussion, I know.

Council Member Martinez.

Yeah, thank you. So I haven't heard anything from staff about the 45. So that's good. So that tells me that that's still there. And I think from the staff point of view, they would like to probably get this packaged for us so they can bring it back. So by putting the 45 in there, we've stuck that in there. They can now package their budget. So when we come back, we don't have any more changes. And then we can always, as time goes, move it. But it's better than having to add it. So I think from, and I don't know if you want to comment on that, but from your point of view from the staff, would you want to try to have it wrapped up now so that you can manipulate it later but not have something that we have to add? Does that make sense? Is that better or does it really matter?

Yeah, if we can finalize numbers tonight, it allows the staff time to button everything up and be able to calculate the GAN limit and everything that comes forth with the final adoption process. And obviously, we can adjust mid-year when we kind of know six months into next budget cycle what we're looking like.

Okay, and it doesn't hold, commit us to anything if we put the 45 in?

My suggestion, I think, would still be just to have a budget line for, if you had the 45, it would be $273,300, and just call it donations and sponsorships and not, we won't include any of the detail on where that's earmarked, and that way there's flexibility with the council once you approve the policy.

Okay, I agree. Then I'll support that.

Council Member Lahr?

Yeah, I would support adding the $45,000 to that as well. And as Council Member Finn touched on, being able to discuss the benefits of any one. So just put it in one line item and we can talk about the benefits at a future meeting. So I would support that.

Okay. I'm seeing a bunch of head nods in the right direction of yes.

Yes, Mayor, especially with our city manager's comments. I'm okay with that.

Okay, very good. So as far as I can see for staff direction, we are good with what has been presented here. We'll change for that line item to be at the 200 and I think you said 73. And then we're going to bring back the sponsorship policy and the council benefits discussion. Anything else from the dais and anything else from the city manager and the finance team?

Just I appreciate, again, staff's hard work on this and all council's input and thoughtfulness, and we look forward to bringing back an item on the 16th that represents the finished budget.

Oh, and I forgot to mention one other thing, that there is a expected refresh as to the sales tax measure sometime later on in a year or so. Yes. Okay, great. Well, with that, I will adjourn the meeting at 4.58. Nice. Look at that.